Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-46 - Marina Park ProjectRESOLUTION NO. 2010-46 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2008051096) FOR THE MARINA PARK PROJECT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND STATE AND LOCAL GUIDELINES, MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS THERETO, AND APPROVAL OF A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach City Council has determined that the Marina Park Project ( "Project ") is necessary to serve the needs of the community; and WHEREAS, it was determined pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq ( "CEQA ") and the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code of Regulations, Sections 15000 et seq.) that the Project could have a significant effect on the environment, and thus warranted the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR "); and WHEREAS, on May 22, 2008, the City of Newport Beach, as lead agency under CEQA, prepared and mailed a Notice of Preparation ( "NOP ") of the EIR, together with a Notice of Public Scoping Meeting to public agencies, organizations and persons likelyio be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed Project; and WHEREAS, on June 12, 2008, the City of Newport Beach conducted a public scoping meeting to provide all interested parties an opportunity to comment on the environmental issues that were proposed to addressed within the EIR for the Project; and WHEREAS, the City caused to be prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report ( "DEIR'), which, taking into account the comments received on the NOP and during the scoping meeting, described the Project and discussed the environmental impacts resulting there from, and circulated the DEIR for a 45-day public review and comment period on February 27, 2009, which ended on April 13, 2009; and WHEREAS, the DEIR was recirculated for a 45- public review and comment period from January 25, 2010 to March 10, 2010, to provide further clarification and additional technical analysis, including policy determinations to address comments /concems received from the regulatory agencies, home -owner associations, and nearby residents; and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach has reviewed the comments received on the Draft Recirculated EIR (Draft REIR), and has prepared full and complete responses thereto, and on April 28, 2010 distributed the responses to comments in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21092.5; and WHEREAS, on April 28, 2010, the City of Newport Beach completed a Final Environmental Impact Report ( "FEIR ") for the project consisting of the Draft REIR, comments received on the Draft REIR, responses to comments on the Draft REIR, and an Errata to the Draft REIR (Errata) containing minor changes and clarification to the document; and WHEREAS, the minor changes and clarification to the Draft REIR do not alter any impact significance conclusion disclosed in the Draft REIR, and therefore, does not warrant recirculation of the Draft REIR for public review; and WHEREAS, on May 11, 2010, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, held a duly noticed public hearing to consider: (1) the certification of the FEIR, (2) the adoption of certain findings and determinations, (3) approval of a Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program, and (4) approval of the Conceptual Site Plans for the Project; and WHEREAS, the FEIR for the Project was presented to the City Council, the decision making body for the lead agency, for certification as having been completed in compliance with the provisions of CEQA and State and local guidelines implementing CEQA; and WHEREAS, the City Council has read and considered all environmental documentation comprising the FEIR, including the comments and the responses to comments, and has found that the'FEIR addresses all potentially significant environmental impacts of the proposed project, and is complete and adequate, and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA and the State and local CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, prior to taking action on this Project, the City Council has considered all significant impacts and Project alternatives identified in the FEIR and has found that all potentially significant impacts of the Project have been lessened or avoided to the extent feasible, except for the construction noise impact which is addressed in the Statement of Overriding Consideration document; and = WHEREAS; CEQA and CEQA Guidelines provide that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed and which identifies one or more significant effects of the project unless the public agency made written findings foreach of the significant effects, accompanied by a statement of facts supporting each finding; and WHEREAS, CEQA and CEQA Guidelines require, where the decision of the City Council allows the occurrence of significant environmental effects which are identified in the EIR, but are not mitigated, the City Council must state in writing the reasons to support its action based on the FEIR and /or other information in the record; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the Project is consistent with the General Plan.of the City of Newport Beach; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: SECTION 1. Based on its review and consideration of the FEIR, all written communications and oral testimony regarding the Project which have been submitted to and received by the City Council, the City Council hereby certifies that the FEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the State and local CEQA Guidelines. The City Council certifies that the FEIR was presented to the City Council and that the City Council reviewed and considered the information contained in it prior to approving the Project. The City Council, having final approval authority over the Project, adopts and certifies as complete and adequate the FEIR, which reflects the City Council's independent judgment and analysis. SECTION 2. CEQA Findings of Fact. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, the City Council has reviewed and hereby adopts the CEQA Findings of Fact as shown on the attached "Exhibit A" entitled "Marina Park Project Findings of Fact" which exhibit is incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 3. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Proaram. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15097, the City Council has reviewed and hereby adopts the "Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program" which is included as "Exhibit B," which exhibit is incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 4. Location and Custodian of the Record of Proceedings. The Planning Department of the City of Newport Beach, located at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92663, is hereby designated as the custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council's decision is based, which documents and materials shall be available for public inspection and copying in accordance with the provisions of the California Public Records Act (California Government Code Section 6250 et seq.). SECTION 5. Notice ofQetermination. The Planning Director shall causethe filing of a notice of determination with fhe County Clerk of the County of Orange and with the State Office of Planning and Research within five working days of this approval. SECTION 6. Certification, Posting and Filing. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, and the City Clerk shall certify to the vote adopting this resolution and shall cause a certified copy of this resolution to be filed in the records of the City Clerk. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 11th day of May 2010. ATT�ErS,T ::�� City Clerk Exhibit A MARINA PARK PROJECT FINDINGS OF FACT 1. BACKGROUND California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provides that "public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]" (Public Resources Code Section 21002) The same statute provides that the procedures required by CEQA "are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects." Section 21002 goes on to provide that "in the event [that] specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof." Thus, CEQA requires decision makers to balance the benefits of the proposed project against any unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects, those effects may be considered "acceptable" (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093[a]). These Findings of Fact are prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1) and (3) that requires for each potential significant adverse impact that can be avoided a finding that, "[c]hanges 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." These findings are supported byt substantial evidence in the record and�are summarized herein. After mitigation, the proposed Marina Park project would have one (temporary) unavoidable significant adverse impact: construction noise. The Draft SEIR identified the noise associated with up to 17 weeks of pile driving as annoying to residents and therefore at least potentially significant. When an impact is potentially significant it must be treated as significant. A. PROJECT SUMMARY The Marina Park project site is located in the City of Newport Beach, Orange County, California. Specifically, the project site is located on the Balboa Peninsula, along Balboa Boulevard, south of a public beach and the Newport Bay, west of 15th Street, and east of 18th Street. The project has been divided into three phases that could be individually implemented: Marina Park Project Findings of Fad Page 1 Phase 1 — Removal of mobile homes (coaches) and rough grading to create an open space area (consisting of materials that underlie the site) in place of the mobile home park; a new temporary restroom and parking lot would be installed. All other structures on the site would remain. Phase 2 — Replacement of the open space area created in Phase I with new turf and irrigation, additional pedestrian paths, and picnic facilities to enhance the public park, but no other changes from Phase 1 would occur. Phase 3 — Construction of the Balboa Center, which includes the Multi- Purpose Building and Sailing Program Building; and construction of the Girl Scout House, parking areas, park, beach, tennis courts and a 23 -slip marina basin. The project would provide a "window on the Bay" from Balboa Boulevard and surrounding areas. The public park would provide for passive and active areas. The passive areas would include an open lawn area and a water feature. The active areas would include a children's play area and basketball half courts. A public short -term visiting vessel marina is proposed to accommodate visiting vessels for up to 30 days. Utility hook -ups are proposed to be available for the marina. The Multi- purpose Building and the Sailing Program Building would include rooms for educational classes as well as community events. A small cafe would be located on the second story of the Sailing Program Building. Bathrooms and laundry areas also would be provided within the Sailing Program Building. Two tennis courts are proposed on the eastern portion of the site adjacent to 15th Street. In addition, an existing bathroom located on the public beach adjacent to 19th Street is proposed to be reconstructed. A new restroom facility (designed to look like a lighthouse) would be constructed adjacent Jo the children's play area and a water feature. f :Primary vehicular access to the project would bl via West Balboa Boulevard at 16th Street and secondary access would be via an eXittentrance off of 15th Street. Public access to the beach would be provided by walkways within the proposed parks as well as an access provided along the western side of the proposed marina. Furthermore, 18th and 19th streets would still provide access to the public beach. OBJECTIVES To achieve that purpose, the City of Newport Beach has established five basic objectives. • Redevelop the site with land uses that are consistent with, and permitted by, the legal restrictions on the use of tidelands. • Enhance public access and community facilities on the site. • Complement efforts to revitalize Balboa Village and enhance other commercial areas on the. peninsula. Marina Park Project Findings of Fad Page 2 • Provide community facilities to meet the goals of the General Plan for recreation and harbors and beaches. • Provide for additional marine - related facilities that can be used by coastal visitors for sailing and boating. B. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS In conformance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Newport Beach CEQA Guidelines, the City conducted an extensive environmental review of the proposed project. The City determined that an EIR would be required for the proposed project and issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study on May 22, 2008. On February 27, 2009, a Draft EIR was circulated for a 45 -day public review. Based upon the Initial Study and Environmental Checklist Form and comments received on the Draft EIR circulated in February 2009, the City staff determined that a Draft Recirculated EIR (Draft REIR) should be prepared for the proposed project. The scope of the Draft REIR was determined based on the Citys Initial Study, comments received in response to the NOP, comments received at the scoping meeting conducted by the City, and comments received on the Draft EIR. Section 1.2 of the Draft REIR describes the issues identified for analysis in the Draft REIR. The City prepared a Draft REIR, which was made available for a 45-day public review period, beginning January 25, 2010, and ending March 10, 2010. The City then prippared a Final EIR, including the Responses to Comments and Errata to the Draft fjEIR, and these Findings of Fact. The Final Ell2JResponse to Comments contai comments on the Draft REIR and responses to those comments (including revisions to the Draft REIR as appropriate). The City held public a hearing on the proposed project May 11, 2009. C. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS For purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the Record of Proceedings for the proposed project consists of the following documents and other evidence, at a minimum: The NOP (Notice of Preparation) and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the proposed project; The Draft EIR; The Draft REIR; The Final EIR; All written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public review comment period on the Draft EIR and Draft REIR; Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 3 • All responses to written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public review comment period on the Draft EIR and Draft REIR; • All written and verbal public testimony presented during a noticed public hearing for the proposed project; • The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP); • The reports and technical memoranda included or referenced in the documents; • All documents, studies, EIRs, or other materials incorporated by reference in the Draft REIR and Final EIR; • The Resolutions adopted by the City in connection with the proposed project, and all documents incorporated by reference therein, including comments received after the close of the comment period and responses thereto; • Matters of common knowledge to the City, including but not limited to federal, state, and local laws and regulations; Any documents expressly cited in these Findings; and Any other relevant materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code Section 21167.6(e). D. CUSTODIAN AND LOCATION OF RECORDS The documents and other materials that constitute the administrative record for the City's actions related to the project are at the City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658. The City Planning Department is the custodian of the administrative record for the project. Copies of these documents, which constitute the record of proceedings, are and at all relevant times have been and will be available upon request at the offices of the Planning Department. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(2) and Guidelines Section 15091(e). II. FINDINGS OF FACT ?� A. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH WERE DETERMINED NOT TO BE POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT As a result of the Initial Study that was circulated with the NOP by the City on May 22, 2008 (see Draft REIR Appendix A), and analysis in the Draft REIR the City determined, based upon threshold criteria for significance, that the project would not result in significant potential environmental impacts in several areas; therefore, the City determined that these potential environmental effects would not be addressed in the Draft EIR nor the Draft REIR. Based upon the environmental analysis presented in the Final EIR, and the comments received by the public on the Draft EIR and Draft REIR, the project would not have the potential to significantly impact the following environmental areas: Aesthetics, Scenic Vistas. The project would not have a significant adverse project - specific or cumulative effect on a scenic vista. The scenic vista from Lido Isle/Lido Peninsula would change from a view of mobile homes to a view of a .park (with minor Marina Park Project Findings of Fad Page.4 vertical architectural features), and sail boats that enhance the views of the Bay for pedestrians and motorists traveling along Balboa Boulevard. Aesthetics, Scenic Resources. The project would not, either individually or cumulatively, significantly damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic building within a state scenic highway. There are no designated scenic highways in the vicinity of the site. Agricultural Resources. The project site is located within an urbanized area of Newport Beach. The project site contains no land that is considered to be suitable farmland. No agricultural activities occur on or adjacent to the site. Therefore, no impacts to agricultural resources would occur from project development. Biological Resources, Migratory Species, Halibut Nurseries. The project would not have a cumulative significant impact on the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or on established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of California halibut nursery sites. The proposed project would not cumulatively contribute to potential cumulative impacts to the California halibut nursery sites. Biological Resources, Conservation Plans. The project would not, either individually or cumulatively, conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Neither the project site nor the sand disposal areas are located in habitat conservation planning areas. Cultural Resources, Historic Resources. The project would not, either individually or cumulatively, cause a significant _ verse change in an historical resource as definEb in Section15064.5 of the CEQA Guielines. There are no historic resources located irethe vicinity of the site. Geology and Soils, Earthquakes. Soils and geologic influences are site- specific, and there is little, if any, cumulative relationship between the development of the proposed project and development within the greater cumulative project area. The project would not result in cumulative impacts as a result of potential rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, nor seismic ground failure (see discussion of project - specific mitigation required below that would mitigate project - specific impacts). The project would not result in project or cumulative impacts as a result of landslides. Geology and Soils, Soil Erosion or Topsoil Loss. Soils and geologic influences are site - specific, and there is little, if any, cumulative relationship between the development of the proposed project and development within the greater cumulative project area. The project would not result in a cumulative loss of topsoil (see discussion of project - specific less.than significant impact below). Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 5 Geology and Soils, Unstable Geologic Location. Soil and geologic influences are site specific, and there is little, if any, cumulative relationship between the development of the project site and build -out of related projects in the area. The project would not result in a cumulative impact as a result of unstable soil or geologic conditions (see discussion of project- specific mitigation required below that would mitigate project - specific impacts). Geology and Soils, Expansive Soil and Wastewater Disposal Systems. The project would not result in a project - specific or cumulative impact as a result of expansive soil. No septic tanks are proposed on the site and therefore the project would not have a project specific nor cumulative impact on wastewater systems where sewers are not available. Hazards, and Hazardous Materials, Hazardous Materials Site Listing. The project is not located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 85962.5 and, as a result, would not create a significant project specific nor cumulative hazard to the public or the environment. Hazards, Airports Private Air Strips. The project is not located within an airport land - use plan, within two miles of a public airport or public -use airport; or within the vicinity of a private air strip; the project would not result in a project - specific nor cumulative safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. Hazards, Emergency Response Plans. The proposed project would not alter emergency access to surrounding uses, and onsite emergency access would be It provided via the onsite circulation system.` The onsite circulation system has been t designed to accommodate emergency Vehicles (e.g., turning radii, etc), and implementation of the proposed project would improve emergency access to the site - itself. Therefore, no impacts to the adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan would occur. The project would not impair (project specific or cumulatively) the implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Hazards, Wildland Fires. The project site is not located in the vicinity of wildland areas. The project would not, either individually or cumulatively, expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. Hydrology and Water Quality, Depletion of Groundwater Supplies. The project would not significantly deplete groundwater supplies or interfere significantly with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater. table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 6 nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted. Construction activities in Phases 1 and 2 would not affect groundwater because the construction activities would be confined to the upper few feet of the site currently occupied by the mobile home park. Phase 3 construction would include drilling or excavating building foundations and driving piles, excavating a portion of the project site to create the marina basin, and driving sheet and column piles for the marina. The creation of the basin and some of the building foundation activities would extend to the groundwater; however, these activities would not deplete groundwater supplies because the project area is not used for domestic water supply (groundwater in the area is saltwater because of the adjacency to the ocean and is therefore not suitable for domestic supply). Therefore, the construction of the proposed project would result in no impact on groundwater supplies. Hydrology and Water Quality, Site Drainage, Area Drainage Pattern Including Causing Erosion or Siltation. The project would not, either individually or cumulatively, significantly alter the existing drainage pattern of area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in significant erosion or siltation on- or off -site. The project was found to beneficially impact the existing drainage pattern of the site. The proposed project would not alter a stream or river, adversely change drainage patterns, or significantly alter shoreline dynamics, the project would not have a cumulatively considerable impact on drainage patterns or erosion or siltation. Hydrology and Water Quality, Runoff in Excess of Drainage Capacity, Polluted Runoff. The project would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide significant additional sources of polluted runoff. Based on thd physical environment of the proposed project location and the length of the proposed groin, it is expected that the proposed groin would have minimum, if any, impact tolthe neighboring shoreline. Both upland storm water dynamics and shoreline beach dynamics would not be significantly altered by the proposed project. Accordingly, the proposed project would have less than significant impacts on erosion and siltation. The proposed project would not result in additional sources of polluted runoff in any phase. In addition to the change in land uses from residential to open space, the proposed project would include structural features and best management practices (BMPs), none of which are in place on the existing site, that would require stormwater containment and would reduce the pollutant load in site runoff. Hydrology and Water Quality, Otherwise Substantially Degrade Water Quality. Potential sources of water quality degradation are discussed in the Draft REIR in connection with water quality standards, groundwater supplies, drainage patterns, erosion, and flooding (see above and below), Those discussions are each presented separately herein and address the potential water quality impacts of demolition and construction in all phases, including grading, excavation, dredging, dredged material transport, and the placement of dredged material on area beaches, and of the operation Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 7 of the proposed project, including park use and maintenance, marina operations, maintenance dredging, and water circulation. Accordingly, the proposed project would otherwise not significantly degrade water quality and there would be no impact. Hydrology and Water Quality, Housing in a 100 -year Flood Hazard Area, Structures that Impede or Redirect Flood Flows in a 100 -Year Flood Hazard Area. The project would not, either individually or cumulatively, place housing within a 100 - year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map. As delineated by the flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the project site is not located within a 100 -year floodplain, nor is it located within a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). No impacts associated with flood and water related hazards would result with project implementation. In addition, the project site would have fewer structures that could impede the flow of water than under existing conditions, especially during Phase 1 and 2. Therefore, the structures proposed on the project site would result in no impacts on flood flows. Hydrology and Water Quality, Flooding, Floodplains, Levees and Dams. The proposed project is not located in an area of flooding or in the vicinity of a levee or dam. The proposed project floor elevation of the proposed structures is at +10 feet above MLLW that would reduce potential significant effects from storm surges and flooding. In addition, the project site would have fewer structures that could impede the flow of water than under existing conditions. The project would not, either individually or cumulatively, place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows. The project would not, either individually or cumulatively, expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding s a result of the failure of a levee or dam. Thy project would not, either individuallt or cumulatively, expose people or structures tw--a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a reseit of the failure of a levee or dam. Land Use, Divide Established Community, Conflict with Applicable Plans, Policies or Regulations. The proposed project would not physically divide an established community nor result in any barriers that would preclude travel throughout the project area. The proposed project would actually enhance public access to and along the beach by removing existing barriers such as the mobile home park and associated fences. The project would not, individually or cumulatively, physically divide an established community. The proposed project is consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the City s General Plan. The proposed project is consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) and therefore with the California Coastal Act (on which the CLUP is based). The project would not, neither individually nor cumulatively, conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, speck plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Neither the project site nor the sand disposal areas are located in habitat conservation planning areas. The Madna Park Project Findings of Fact Page 8 project would not, individually nor cumulatively, conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities conservation plan. Mineral Resources. The project site is developed with urban uses and is not utilized for the extraction of mineral resources. According to the California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, the site is not located within a significant mineral resource zone. Therefore, no impacts to mineral resources would result from project development. Noise from Airports /Airstrips. The project would not, either individually or cumulatively, expose people to excessive noise levels from airports or airstrips because no such facilities are in the project vicinity or part of the proposed project. Population and Housing. The proposed project would generate employment associated with the public facilities; however, that increase would be nominal compared to the approximate 48,000 - person labor force within the City of Newport Beach. Given the relatively small number of jobs generated by the proposed project, it is not anticipated that such employment would directly or indirectly induce significant population growth in the project area that would require new housing or extension of roads or other infrastructure. The proposed project would also result in the removal of 57 mobile homes, 15 of which are occupied full -time and the remainder part-time. These units are a non - conforming use because the site of the mobile homes is designated for Park and Recreation. Furthermore, the Housing Element does not identify the project site as a potential candidate to provide housing. Accordingly, the mobile home units are not considered part of the City's future housing stock in the City's Housing Element and their removal would not result in a significant effect on the City's existing or future housing supply. A Relocation Impact Study has been prepared in compliance with the State's Mobile Home Residency law. Implementation of the proposed project would result in less- than- significanimpacts on population and housing. Public Services, Provision of New of Physically Altered Government Facilities, the .construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for schools. The proposed project would not result in additional residences to the city and therefore would not create the need for new school facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would have no (direct or cumulative) impact on school services. Public Services, Parks. The project would not, either individually or cumulatively, result in significant adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for parks. Implementation of the proposed project would result in approximately ten acres of park, increasing the amount of parkland on the project site by nearly eight acres. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a beneficial impact on. parkland within the City as well as on Balboa Peninsula. Marina Park Projed Findings of Fad Page g Transportation, Change in Air Traffic. The project would not, either individually or cumulatively, result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in significant safety risks. The nearest airport to the project site is John Wayne International Airport, located approximately 4.7 miles to the northeast. Due to this distance and the low - profile nature of the proposed structures, the project would not change air traffic patterns. Traffic, Emergency Access. The proposed project includes three entrances /exits: one at 18th Street, one at 18th Street, and one along the east side of the project site on 15th Street via alleyway. These entrances /exits provide adequate emergency access for the project site in accordance with City of Newport Beach emergency access requirements. Implementation of the proposed project would not impact public safety due to emergency access. The project would not, either individually or cumulatively, result in inadequate emergency access. Transportation and Conflict with Alternative Transportation. The project would not, either individually or cumulatively, conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks). The City of Newport Beach Bikeway Master Plan does not identify any bike lanes within the project vicinity. Therefore, the proposed project would result in no short-term or long -term operational impacts on policies related to bikeways. There is an existing OCTA bus stop on westbound West Balboa Boulevard and 16th Street that would not be impacted by the project. Therefore, there would be no change, and the proposed project would not conflict with any policies supporting alternative transportation. Recreation. The proposed project would not result in an increase in the residential population in the project area; thus, if would not create a demand for recreational V- services or facilities. The proposed project would replace and enhance existing recreation facilities now found within the *existing site, as well as provide a new marina and boating programs facilities, and would thus have a beneficial effect in meeting the .City's identified need for additional recreational facilities. Therefore, no adverse impacts on recreational resources would occur from project development. Utilities and Service Systems, Wastewater Treatment. The project would have neither a project specific nor cumulative impact on wastewater treatment capacity of the Orange County Sanitation District. The existing sewer facilities have adequate capacity to meet project demand and the project would not exceed the wastewater treatment requirements of OCSD. Accordingly, no impacts to wastewater treatment requirements would occur due to project implementation. B. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH WERE DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT Impact: Visual Character. The project would not, either individually or cumulatively) significantly degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 10 surroundings. Construction of the proposed project would temporarily alter the visual characteristics of the project site during all three phases of construction, largely due to the presence of construction equipment and stockpiles of soil, which would be noticeable on the flat site. Fence screening would be provided onsite to minimize views of construction. Because these impacts would be temporary and minimized by screening, construction would have less- than - significant visual impacts. The proposed project would permanently change views of the existing mobile home site to views of a recreational park; in Phase 3 the view would include public tennis courts, the Balboa Center complex, the Girl Scout House, and the marina. Approximately 930 linear feet of waterfront area would be opened up to view from Balboa Boulevard under all three phases. In Phase 3, palm trees and ornamental landscaping would line pedestrian walkways and gathering points. Except for two architectural features, the lighthouse and the sail -roof feature on the Balboa Center, the buildings proposed on the project site (exclusive of architectural features) for Phase 3 would be within the 35 -foot height limit. Impact: Light and Glare. The project would not create a new source of significant light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area. Phases 1 and 2 would result in removal of existing lighting associated with the existing mobile homes. Some low -level security lighting may be introduced although it is not specifically called out on the plans. Lighting associated with the Phase 3 development would introduce minor new sources of light and glare, although to some extent the new lighting would simply replace the existing lighting. New sources of light would include additional safety lighting for the parking lots, lighting associated with the marina (security lighting along the perimeter, safety lighting on the docks), security lighting, low -level accent lighting and interior lights (visible through un- shaded windows) for the Balboa Center, and safety and security lighting as well as accent lighting for park features, including the 14st rooms and major walkways. The proposed 1project would utilize fully shielded i1minaires in accordance with City of Newport *Beach standards and regulations. tilization of these luminaires, coupled with the removal of residences on the project site, would ensure that the proposed project would create a less than significant glare impact on the surrounding residential land uses. Impact: Air Quality, Regional Emissions. The project would not, either individually or cumulatively, exceed the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds during operation. Phases 1 and 2 of the project would result in fewer trips (as well as less on -site consumption of electricity and natural gas as a result of elimination of the mobile homes) and therefore would result in fewer air emissions than existing uses. Phase 3 project emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD's regional thresholds and are considered less than significant. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. Impact: Air Quality, CO Hotspots. The project would not cause or contribute to a carbon monoxide violation from project - related and cumulative traffic during operation. Project traffic under Phases 1 and 2 is anticipated to be less than existing, therefore Phases 1 and 2 would not result in an increase in CO emissions at local intersections as compared to today. In Phase 3, no CO hotspots are anticipated as a result of traffic- Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 11 generated emissions by the proposed project or in combination with other anticipated development in the area. Therefore, the mobile emissions of CO from Phase 3 are not anticipated to contribute significantly to an existing or projected air quality violation of CO. Impact: Air Quality, Odors. The project would not create objectionable odors affecting a significant number of people. Land uses typically considered to be associated with odors include wastewater treatment facilities, waste - disposal facilities, or agricultural operations. The project does not contain land uses typically associated with emitting objectionable odors. During all Phases of the project, diesel exhaust will be emitted during construction (from the heavy duty equipment) and operation (from the boat diesel engines). VOCs will also be emitted during construction of the project from painting and asphalt paving. These odors are objectionable to some; however, the odors would be short term and would disperse rapidly from the project site and therefore should not be at a level to induce a negative response. Impact: Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The project would not result in an increase in greenhouse gas emissions that would significantly hinder or delay the State's ability to meet the reduction targets contained in AB 32. The City of Newport Beach currently considers projects emitting 1,600 metric tons of CO2e per year or less to be less than significant with no further analysis required. Emissions of nitrous oxide and methane are anticipated to be negligible. Onsite emissions would total 567 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MTCO2e) from all phases of construction which is substantially less than the City's threshold of significance of 1,600 MTCO2e. Since Phases 1 and 2 would result in fewer trips and less consumption of electricity and natural gas, greenhouse gas emissions under Phases 1 and 2 of the project would be less than existing. The operational emissions from full buildout of the protect under Phase 3 would be a post - project increase of 667 MTCO2e per year. _. Impact: Biological Resources, Migratory Species, Halibut Nurseries. The project would not interfere significantly with the movement of any native resident or migratory ,fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of California halibut nursery sites. The LA -3 ocean disposal site may experience migrations by a number of fish and mammal species, including gray whales. The site designation EIS, however, concluded that the impacts of disposal operations on wildlife migration movements would be less than significant (USACE and EPA 2004). The site is likely to serve as nursery for the California halibut, considered by the regional wildlife agencies as a sensitive fish species. The site is not known to support a large population of California halibut, although some may be present. The project would have less than significant impacts on halibut and their habitat (mitigation to lessen noise impacts and water quality impacts would also reduce impacts on halibut). Impact: Cultural Resources, Human Remains. The project would not disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. No human remains are known to be present on site, and because the project site has been previously graded it is very unlikely that any would be encountered. There is always the Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 12 unlikely event that ground- disturbing activities during construction may uncover previously unknown buried human remains. Should this occur, Federal laws and standards apply, including the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) and its regulations found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 43 CFR 10. In addition, California State Health and Safety Code § 7050.5 dictates that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to. origin and disposition. Impact: Strong Seismic Groundshaking. The project would not result in a significant impact as a result of strong seismic groundshaking. The project is a park with low - density use and few buildings (all built to current earthquake standards) that would be at risk during an earthquake. Impact: Geology and Soils, Soil Erosion or Topsoil Loss. The project would not result in significant direct soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. The project site is located on relatively flat terrain and consists primarily of sandy soil. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would result in the mass grading of the entire site (during all three phases), which would leave the soil exposed. Construction activities would utilize best management practices in accordance with City requirements to reduce the potential for soil erosion by wind or water to a less-than-significant impact. Impact: Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Routine Use. Cumulative impacts from the transport or use of hazardous materials would be less than significant (see discussion of project specific mitigation below). Project specific construction activities could result in a significant hazardous materials impact related to the discovery, removal, and disposal of hazardous demolition debris. Since hazardous materials impacts are localized, a. cumulative impact is not anticipated. Therefore, Impacts related to construction activities=would be cumulatively less than significant. e Impact: Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Schools. The propoed project is located approximately one - quarter mile from Newport Elementary School. However, implementation of the proposed project would not result in emission of hazardous materials or wastes that would pose a serious health risk to students or school employees. There are no significant or extraordinary conditions associated with the project that would result in the release of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. Compliance with applicable state and federal regulations with regard to the use of hazardous materials would ensure that any remote impact potential would be less than significant. Impact: Hydrology, Seiche, Tsunami or Mudflow. The project could be subject to .inundation by tsunami but to an extent that would constitute a less than significant impact. As the site lies on the coast, the risks that are associated with tsunamis are moderate to high; there are no hillsides close enough to the project site to pose a risk of mudslides. Studies performed by Legg, Borrero, and Synolakis (2004) suggest that this area of the coastline may be affected by both earthquake - generated and submarine landslide - generated tsunamis with wave heights of two meters (seven feet) or more and Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 13 wave run -ups of four meters (13 feet) or more. Accordingly, the site could be affected by tsunamis under certain conditions, although the probability of such an event is considered low. Legg, Borrero, and Synolakis (2004) estimate a return interval of at least several hundred years for a seismic event large enough to generate a catastrophic tsunami in southern California. Seiches are waves that surge back and forth in an enclosed basin, and are usually seismically induced. The larger the basin the larger the wave can be, and it is generally necessary for the basin to have nearly vertical walls, as would be the case with the proposed marina, for a seiche to develop. The project would reduce the risk to people of a tsunami by removing residential uses. The City of Newport Beach has a tsunami contingency plan and evacuation routes in place, which would reduce the likelihood of injury and death. The potential for a damaging seiche to occur in the marina is very small, given the small size of the marina. Accordingly, the potential impact of tsunamis and seiches would be less than significant. Impact, Noise, Noise Level in Excess of Standards. The project would not result in exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Construction noise (pile driving) could result in a significant adverse short- term increase in ambient noise levels (see discussion below). Noise impacts from construction activities associated with the proposed project would be due to the amount of noise generated by construction equipment, the location of the equipment, the sensitivity of nearby land uses, and the timing and duration of the construction activities. While construction noise would result in significant adverse impacts, construction activities would comply with Section 10.28.040 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code that exempts construction activity from noise standards provided it is conducted between 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday and between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Although there are no standards for construction noise, all construction activity is required to tree conducted in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. While nois§ from pile driving could be disturbing to residentsin the area and is therefore identified bs a potentially significant impact it would not violate City regulations. Future operational traffic noise levels would result in an increase.in noise levels in the project vicinity of 0.1 dBA. This would be less than the 1 dBA threshold and therefore would result in a less than significant impact. Impact: Noise, Excessive Groundborne Vibration and Noise. Phase 1 and 2 would only involve demolition activities (Phase 1) and rough grading (Phases 1 and 2); use of construction equipment would be of short duration (approximately 4 weeks for Phase 1) and 8 weeks for Phase 2, and would not include pile driving activities. During Phase 3, the major source of vibration would be the impact pile driver, which would be expected to produce groundbome vibration on the order of 0.644 PPV at 25 feet. While the majority of pile driving would occur relatively far from sensitive receptors (in the marina), some pile driving may be undertaken to construct the proposed buildings. The proposed marina and Balboa Center are about 200 feet from the closest sensitive receptor. While vibration during Phase 3 pile driving could result in annoyance to residents closest to the site it would not exceed identified significance thresholds. Marina Park Project Findings of Fad Page 14 Impact: Noise, Permanent increase In Ambient Noise Levels. The project would not result in a significant permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Compliance with the Zoning Code would ensure that HVAC equipment does not result in a significant impact on noise in the area. Noise from recreational activities would not expose future receptors at the project site to significant increases in noise levels (i.e., an increase of 3 dBA or more); therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Future modeled noise from project - related traffic, show that future noise levels with the project for 2011 would not produce a perceptible change in noise levels compared to future conditions without the project (the greatest impact was calculated at 0.1 dBA). A 1dBA to 2 dBA threshold would be applicable to the project site; implementation of the project would result in a less than significant permanent noise increase impact. Impact: Noise, Temporary or Periodic Increase in Ambient Noise Levels. The project would not result in a cumulatively significant increase in noise levels in the area (see discussion of project specific mitigation required below). Construction noise would result in temporary increases in ambient noise levels. There are no proposed large construction projects that could result in overlapping construction noise with construction noise from the project; therefore, there would not be a cumulative impact to which the project would contribute. Impact: Public Services, Fire Protection. The project would not result in significant adverse physical impacts (direct or cumulative) associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for fire protection. According to the NBFD, the current facilities, equipment, and personnel are adequate to serve the project site (all three phases), including on the peak Fourth of July holiday. As required by the Uniform Fire Code and the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Title 9, the proposed project would include specific design features such as appropriate emergency access, approved building materials, etc. Conformance with these codes reduces the risks associated with fire hazards. In addition, the proposed project would reduce building and population density on the site. Impact: Public Services, Police Protection. The project would not result in significant adverse physical impacts (direct or cumulative) associated with the provision of new or .physically altered governmental facilities or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for police protection. According to the NBPD, the current level of personnel and facilities is sufficient to provide police services to the project site (all three phases), including on the peak Fourth of July holiday. Development of the proposed project would allow for more access to the site than the previous use of mobile homes, and would thus improve response time to the site. Accordingly, the proposed project would.have a less than significant impact on police services. Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 15 Impact: Transportation and Traffic, Traffic Increase /Levels of Service. The project would not cause an increase in traffic that is significant in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system and that exceeds, either individually or cumulatively, a level -of- service standard for intersections established by the City. Impact: Transportation and Traffic, Hazards. The project would not, either individually or cumulatively, significantly increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). Primary access to the project site would be via West Balboa Boulevard at 16th street. Controlled secondary access would be provided via 15th Street. 18th Street adjacent to the site would be widened to provide parking on both sides. The project would not result in the alteration of the existing offsite circulation system. Therefore, it will not create dangerous intersections or sharp curves that may increase hazards. In addition, all driveway and internal parking access aisles will be designed in conformance with city sight distance, queuing, and other applicable traffic safety requirements. Therefore, impacts with respect to hazards would be less than significant. Impact: Transportation and Traffic, Parking Capacity. The project would not, either individually or cumulatively, result in inadequate parking capacity. Based on the 159 parking spaces that would be provided on the project site and a requirement for 145 spaces, the proposed project would provide adequate parking, even accounting for a net loss of 9 on- street spaces. Impact: Utilities and Service Systems, Water and Wastewater Facilities. The project would not, individually or cumulatively, require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expan 'on of existing facilities, the construdtion of which could cause significant environmen effects. Treatment Plant No. 2 and toe existing 21 -inch OCSD Balboa trunk sewer Ii have adequate capacity to serve the wastewater generation from the proposed proje at full build out. The OCSD expressed concern that the fully -built project would hinder access to the 15th Street Pumping Station, but the city has agreed with OCSD to provide access from the proposed parking lot to provide access to the Pumping Station. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts on existing wastewater facilities. On the basis of building square footage, development of the Phase 3 project is estimated to result in an increase in domestic water consumption from 7,213 gpd under current conditions to an estimated 50,104 gpd. According to the City's Utilities Department, adequate domestic water supplies. currently exist to serve the increased demand. Phases 1 would not include any turf or irrigation and would be a decrease in required water supply compared to the existing condition. Phase 2 encompasses 3.83 acres of which 90% would be landscaping and would consume (3.83 acres x 0.9 x 0.32 gpd /sf) 48,000 gpd, an increase in domestic water consumption when compared to the existing condition of 7,213 gpd. According to the City's Utilities Department, adequate domestic water supplies currently exist to serve the increased demand. Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 16 Impact: Utilities and Service Systems, Stormwater Drainage Facllties. The project would not, either individually or cumulatively, require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Implementation of the proposed project would utilize existing storm drainage facilities as well as incorporate other drainage features on the project site. The construction of bioswales and biocells (Phase 3) on the project site would allow for quick percolation of storm water into the soil while filtering urban runoff contaminants. The proposed project would not require construction or expansion of storm water drainage facilities and, therefore, will result in less than significant impacts. Impact: Utilities and Service Systems, Water Supplies. The project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and other cumulative projects from existing entitlements and resources; new or expanded entitlements are not needed. The Phase 3 project buildout water demand is estimated at 50,104 gpd. According to the City's Utilities Department, the project's estimated water demand will be adequately served by the existing water supply. Given that the proposed project's water demand is consistent with the City's projections for water demand within their service area, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts on the City's water supply. Impact: Utilities and Service Systems, Wastewater Treatment Capacity. The project would not, either individually or cumulatively, result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments. At full build out (Phase 3) the proposed project is projected to reduce the generation of wastewater by approximately 133 gpd. The existing facilities have adequate capacity! Accordingly, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact o8 the existing treatment plant capacity. Impact: Utilities and Service Systems, Landfill capacity. The project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's (and cumulative projects') solid waste disposal needs. The solid waste generated by the proposed project is not expected to increase the amount of refuse deposited at the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill compared to the existing site. Therefore, the proposed project would not increase the existing impact on the remaining capacity of the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact on the existing landfill capacity. Impact: Utilities and Service Systems, Compliance with Solid Waste Regulations and Statutes. The project (and cumulative projects) would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Solid waste generated on the project site will comply with a host of comprehensive and applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste, and therefore, the project will result in less than significant impacts insofar as all regulations related to solid waste would be adhered to. Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 17 Impact: Utilities and Service Systems, Natural Gas and Electricity. The project would not, either individually or cumulatively, have a significant impact on the provision of natural gas and electrical services. Implementation of Phase 3 of the proposed project would result in the demand for natural gas and electrical services (Phases 1 and 2 would result in minimal to no demand for natural gas). On completion of Phase 3 the proposed project would result in the demand for approximately 0.65 million cubic feet of natural gas per year (mcf /yr). This would result in a decrease in the use of natural gas of over 2,919 million cubic feet of natural gas compared to the existing uses on the project site. The proposed project would continue the demand for natural gas, but the project's impact on existing services would be less than significant. On completion of Phase 3, the proposed project would result in the demand for approximately 1.6 million kilowatt hours per year (KWH /yr). This would result in an increase in the use of electricity of 910 thousand KWH /yr compared to the existing uses on the project site (Phases 1 and 2 would result in minimal to no demand for electricity). Although the proposed project would result in an increased demand for electricity, the demand is expected to be adequately served by the existing electrical facilities on the project site. As part of the project (Phase 3), the aboveground electrical facility would be placed below ground. The proposed project would result in a less than significant impact on existing electrical services and facilities. C. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH WERE DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION The FOR identified certain potentially significant effects that could result from the proposed project. However, the Newport Beach City Council finds for each of the significant or potentially significant impacts identified in this section, based upon substantial evidence in the rez ord, that changes or alterations have been regrfired or incorporated into the propose4 project that avoid or substantially lessen the sitificant effects as identified in the FEIR. As a result, adoption of the mitigation measures set forth below will reduce the identified significant effects to a less than significant level. Air Quality Impact: Exceed SCAQMD Thresholds During Construction, Obstruct Implementation of AQMP, Violate Standards, Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollution Concentrations. The project could exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds during the construction phase of the project resulting in potentially project specific and cumulative impacts. The project (individually and in combination with other projects) could conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. The project (individually and in combination with other projects) could violate an air quality standard or contribute significantly to an existing or projected air quality violation. The project could result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which. exceed quantitative thresholds for .ozone precursors). The .project, individually Marina Park Project Findings of Fad Page 18 and in combination with other projects, could expose sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations. Mitigation Measures: Project - Specific MM 5.2 -A.1. During all phases of project construction, the City of Newport Beach shall limit grading and earth moving to no more than five acres per day. MM 5.2 -A.2. During all phases of project construction, the City of Newport Beach shall ensure that the following methods to reduce fugitive dust emissions are undertaken: Exposed soil and sand surfaces shall be watered periodically to reduce dust. Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 miles per hour. MM 5.2 -A.3. During Phase 3 project construction, the City of Newport Beach shall require tugboat(s) used in sand export activities to have a propulsion engine built after the year 2000 or meeting Year 2000 emission standards. Finding: The mitigation measures are feasible and would avoid potentially significant impacts related to construction emissions to a less than significant level for the reasons set forth in the Final EIR. The City Council hereby directs that these measures be adopted. Implementation of these measures, which have been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, would substantially lessen the severity of a significant effect to a less- than - significant level. Biological Resources Impact: Sensitive Species. The projectPould have a significant adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications; on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special - status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Specifically, beach nourishment could affect grunion spawning if it occurred during the spawning season (April through June), pile - driving for marina construction could produce noise levels deleterious to sea lions and harbor seals, and construction vessels could collide with sea lions and seals. Mitigation Measures: Project- Specific MM 5.3 -A.1. During Phase 3 construction, the City of Newport Beach shall ensure that placement of dredge material on or adjacent to ocean beaches does not occur between March 31 and June 30. Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 19 MM 5.3 -A.2. During Phase 3 construction, the City of Newport Beach shall require that sound abatement techniques be used to reduce noise and vibrations from pile- driving activities. At the initiation of each pile- driving event and after breaks of more than 15 minutes, the pile driving shall also employ a "soft -start" in which the hammer is operated at less than full capacity (i.e., approximately 40 to 60 percent energy levels) with no less than a 1- minute interval between each strike for a 5- minute period. A biological monitor shall be on -site to monitor effects on marine mammals, including flushing responses and symptoms of stress or damage. The biological monitor shall also note (surface scan only) whether marine mammals are present within 100 meters (333 ft) of the pile driving and, if any are observed, temporarily halt pile driving until the observed mammals move beyond this distance. MM 5.3 -A.3. During Phase 3 construction, in the event of a construction vessel collision with a marine mammal, the City of Newport Beach shall immediately contact Mr. Joe Cordero, National Marine Fisheries Service Southwest Regional Office's Stranding Coordinator 562 980 -4017) and will submit a report to the NMFS Southwest Regional Office. cumulative Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 5.7 -A.1, MM 5.7 -A.2 (measures presented in full below under the discussion of water quality standards and waste discharge requirements), MM 5.3 -A.1, and MM 5.3 -A.2 (measures presented in full above directly under the discussion of sensitive species) would lessen impacts. Firkting: The mitigation measures are feasible and Would reduce potentially significant im _ cts related to sensitive species to a less- than - significant level for the reasons set fb4 in the Final EIR. The City Council hereby directif that these measures be adopted. Implementation of these measures, which have been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, would substantially lessen the severity of a significant effect to a less- than - significant level. Impact: Sensitive Natural Communities. The project could have a significant adverse effect on a sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Species in the Pacific Groundfish and Coastal Pelagics (specifically, northern anchovy) fisheries adjacent to the project site could potentially be affected by project construction and operation both directly and by adverse effects on their habitat. Construction activities in all three phases could potentially cause erosion/runoff of exposed soils by water and wind that could enter the waters of Newport Bay. Other pollutants generated during demolition and marina construction could include heavy metals, toxic chemicals, wastes and debris, fuel, lubricants, and other toxins related to construction equipment and its maintenance. These pollutants could degrade water quality and have adverse impacts on marine life, including reduced viability, tissue contamination, and chronic and acute toxicity. Soil runoff could result in turbidity and Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 20 siltation in the bay, which could adversely affect the planktonic and benthic organisms in the bay that provide food for managed fish species, as well as eelgrass that constitutes EFH. Releases of other pollutants could degrade water quality and cause toxicity to managed fish species and their prey. Dredging during Phase 3 in the intertidal and subtidal sediments would destroy benthic invertebrates and bottom - dwelling fish such as gobies that serve as prey for managed species, and could create turbidity that would adversely affect managed species and EFH. Pile driving in Phase 3 construction would create noise and turbidity, but the effects would be localized and of relatively short duration. Most of the pile driving, i.e., that involving the sheet piling, would be done before the basin was open to the Bay; only the 60 guide piles would be installed when the basin was full of water, which would take no more than one month. Mitigation Measures: Project - specific Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 5.7 -A.1, MM 5.7 -A.2 (measures presented in full below under the discussion of water quality standards and waste discharge requirements), MM 5.3 -A.1 and MM 5.3 -A.2 (measures presented in full above directly under the discussion of sensitive species) would lessen impacts. Cumulative Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 5.7 -A.1, MM 5.7 -A.2 (measures presented in full below under the discussion of water quality standards and waste discharge requirements),' MM 5.3 -A.1 and MM 5.3 -A.2 (measures presented in full above directly under the discbssion of sensitive species) would lessen impacts Finding: The mitigation measures are feasible and would avoid potentially significant impacts related to sensitive natural communities to a less- than - significant level for the reasons set forth in the Final EIR. The City Council hereby directs that these measures be adopted. Implementation of these measures, which have been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, would substantially lessen the severity of a significant effect to a less -than- significant level. Impact: Intertidal and Shallow Water Habitat. The project could have a significant adverse effect on sandy intertidal habitat through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. No jurisdictional wetlands, as defined by the USACE or CCC guidance are present on the site. Accordingly, the proposed project would have no impact on protected wetlands. However, there are 1.81 acres of sandy intertidal habitat present on the site. The construction of the proposed marina in Phase 3 would remove 0.66 acre of intertidal habitat. The loss of 0.66 acres of intertidal habitat and associated benthic food resources for foraging fish and shorebirds would constitute a Marina Park Project Findings of Fad Page 21 potentially significant, but mitigable, impact. That loss would be mitigated as determined by the City of Newport Beach during the project permitting phase (mitigation measure MM 5.3 -C.1). Deepening of the existing subtidal area would affect 0.1 ac of on -site shallow water and 0.72 acre of offsite shallow water. That area would remain shallow -water habitat, therefore, no loss of shallow -water habitat would occur, and the impact on marine habitat would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure: Project - Specific MM 5.3 -C.1. The City of Newport Beach shall mitigate the loss of 0.66 acres of sandy intertidal habitat at an acceptable location within Newport Bay, or at another southern California embayment, or by means of an in -lieu fee agreement. Mitigation shall be based upon a ratio determined by the City of Newport Beach. An in -lieu fee agreement option for contributing to a permitted or nearly- permitted mitigation project option will also be simultaneously pursued. A conceptual and final intertidal habitat mitigation plan shall be developed that further refines habitat losses, identifies mitigation goals, mitigation success criteria, costs, location, mitigation requirements, mitigation methods, monitoring, and mitigation success criteria. The mitigation plan will be included in the USACE and the California Coastal Commission (CCC) permit conditions. In accordance with Public Resources Code 21081.6, a mitigation monitoring plan must be developed to monitor the success of the habitat replacement. Cumulative ¢ t f Implementation of mitigation measure MM 5.3 -C.1 (above) is required. ° Finding: The mitigation measure is feasible and would avoid potentially significant impacts related to sandy intertidal habitat to a less-than-significant level for the reasons set forth in the Final EIR. The City Council hereby directs that this measure be adopted. Implementation of this measure, which has been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, would substantially lessen the severity of a significant effect to a less- than - significant level. Impact: Local Policies or Ordinances Protecting Biological Resources. The project could conflict with policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree - preservation policy or ordinance. Some common bird species have the potential to nest on the project site, although a site survey suggested that no suitable nesting habitat exists on the site. Any nests that did occur would be protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Project construction activities in Phase 1 have the potential to affect those nests adversely because all of the trees on the site would be removed entirely or relocated elsewhere on.site. The number of nests affected, if any, .would be Marina Park Project Findings of Fad Page 22 small and the species affected are abundant and nest throughout the area. Nevertheless, the destruction of active nests would be a significant impact because it would violate an established regulation aimed at preserving biological resources. Mitigation Measure: Project- Specrt<c MM 5.3 -E.1. During all phases of construction, the City of Newport Beach shall ensure that removal of vegetation or other potential migratory nesting -bird habitat will be conducted outside of the avian nesting season (February through August). If removal of vegetation occurs during the avian nesting season, a preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be conducted no more than 7 days prior to this activity. If migratory birds are found to be nesting within or near the impact area, a buffer where no construction activities would occur would need to be established by a qualified biologist. This biologist would also determine when the nest is no longer active, at which time construction could resume. Cumulative Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 5.3 -E.1 (above) is required. Finding: The mitigation measure is feasible and would avoid potentially significant impacts related to policies protection biological resources to a less than significant level for the reasons set forth in the Final EIR. The City Council hereby directs that this measure be adopted. Implementation of this measure, which has been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, would substantially lesser6he severity of a significant effect to a less -than= significant level. Cultural Resources Impact: Archaeological and Cultural Resources. The project is not anticipated to cause a significant adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section15064.5. However, in the event of discovering unexpected resources this impact is considered potentially significant and mitigation is included. The records search found four previously recorded archaeological resources in the general area ( "camp sites," discovered in 1912) but the field survey found no archaeological resources on or adjacent to the site. In general the California coast is culturally sensitive, however the Balboa Peninsula is a relatively new feature and the project area has been substantially disturbed by previous activities. Therefore the site is not considered particularly sensitive; project construction activities are not anticipated to result in cultural resource impacts to Native American groups; mitigation measure MM 5.4 -13.1 would ensure that impacts remain less than. significant. Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 23 Mitigation Measure: Project - Specific MM 5.4 -8.1. During Phase 3, a qualified archaeological monitor shall be available to supervise excavation activities in previously undisturbed soils. If archeological, historic or prehistoric, artifacts are encountered during construction, the City of Newport Beach shall contact a Native American representative (as appropriate) and take measures to avoid the site, or shall record the site then cap or cover the site with a layer of soil before building over it. Alternatively, the City shall excavate the site under the supervision of a .qualified archeologist in order to recover the scientifically consequential information relevant to the resource. In accordance with the Public Resources Code Section 5097.94, if human remains are found, the Orange County Coroner shall be noted within 24 hours of the discovery. If the Coroner determines that the remains are not recent, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission in Sacramento to determine the most likely descendent for the area. The designated Native American representative shall then determine, in consultation with the City, the disposition of the human remains. Cumulative Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 5.4 -13.1 (above) is required. Finding: The mitigation measure is feasible and would avoid potentially significant impacts related to archaeological artifacts to a less than significant level for the reasons set forth in the Final EIR. The City Council hereby directs that this measure be adopted. Implementation of this measure, which has t7)en required or incorporated into the Project, and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, would substantially lessen the severity of a significant effect to a less- than - significant level. Impact: Paleontological Resources or Geological Feature. The project could directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. The project area is situated upon geological deposits with low fossil - bearing potential, but these sediments may overlie more sensitive deposits that lie at an unknown depth. Based on the potential for finds within the older deposits, construction of the proposed project has a moderate potential to encounter paleontological resources in the subsurface of the project site. Therefore, potentially significant impacts to paleontological resources could result from construction activities. Mitigation Measure: Project- Specific MM 5.4 -10.1. During Phase 3 construction, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained to observe grading activities and conduct salvage excavation of paleontological resources Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 24 as necessary. The paleontologist shall be present at the pre - grading conference, shall establish procedures for paleontological resources surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the City, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification and evaluation of the fossils as appropriate. If additional or unexpected paleontological features are discovered, the paleontologist shall report such findings to the City Planning Department. If the paleontological resources are found to be significant, the paleontological observer shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the City, for exploration and/or salvage. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Director. Cumulative Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 5.4 -C.1 (above) is required. Finding: The mitigation measure is feasible and would avoid potentially significant impacts related to paleontological artifacts to a less than significant level for the reasons set forth in the Final EIR. The City Council hereby directs that this measure be adopted. Implementation of this measure, which has been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, would substantially lessen the severity of a significant effect to a less- than - significant level. Geoloav Impact: Earthquakes. The project (directly) could expose people or structures to potential significant adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-rplated ground shaking and seismic-related liquefaction, and would not expose people oEstructures to such potential adverse effects with respect to: i i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.) ii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction. The project site is not located within a Fault- Rupture Hazard Zone, although the project is near the Newport- Inglewood/Rose Canyon Fault, located 1.86 miles east of the project site. California State law requires structures to incorporate earthquake - resistant design standards in accordance with the latest CBC and appropriate seismic design criteria; the adherence to this regulatory requirement would reduce potential impacts to less than significant. The near - surface soils beneath the project site, which consist of loose to medium -dense hydraulic fills and bay deposits, would be subject to liquefaction during seismic events. Ground settlement due to seismic activity results from a densification of soils due to ground vibration, as well as from reconsolidation of liquefied soils. Marina Park Project Findings of Fad Page 25 Mitigation Measure: Project Specific MM 5.5 -A.1. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for Phase 3, the City of Newport Beach shall prepare a building foundation design to reduce the impacts of potential liquefaction and settlement. The foundation design shall conform to the recommendation of the geotechnical report prepared for the project, which include: Site Preparation — excavation of minimum of 12 inches and recompaction to provide recommended subgrade density; all activities to be observed by a geotechnical engineer. Foundation - mat foundation for restroom facilities and small buildings and either a deep foundation system such as driven piles or stone columns with mat foundations for the Balboa Center. The specific foundation design for each proposed structure would require approval by the City of Newport Beach Building Department. Marina — design specifications and construction techniques are recommended in the geotechnical report and shall be adhered to. Finding: The mitigation measure is feasible and would avoid potentially significant impacts related to ground rupture and faults to a less than significant level for the reasons set forth in the Final EIR. The City Council hereby directs that this measure be adopted. Implementation of this measure, which has been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting. Program, would substantially lessen the severity of a significant effect to a less- than - significant level. Impact: Unstable (geologic Location. The project (directly) would be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that would become unstable as a result of the .project and potentially result in an onsite or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. The proposed facilities on the project site may be exposed to unstable soils. Lateral spreading is slope instability that can occur in response to liquefaction. Lateral spreading typically develops on ground underlain by liquefiable soils or where free -face conditions can develop in a liquefiable soil, such as along Newport Bay or its drainage tributaries. The beach area of the project site along Newport Bay is likely to be vulnerable to lateral spreading, which could result in a significant impact on the proposed buildings. Mitigation Measure: Project Specific Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 5.5 -A.1 (above) is required. Marina Park Project Findings of Fad Page 26 Finding: The mitigation measure is feasible and would avoid potentially significant impacts related to unstable soils to a less than significant level for the reasons set forth in the Final EIR. The City Council hereby directs that this measure be adopted. Implementation of this measure, which has been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, would substantially lessen the severity of a significant effect to a less- than - significant level. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact: Routine Use. The project could (directly) create a hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Based on the Dredged Material Evaluation, some of the sediments that would be dredged for the marina basin contain detectable concentrations of mercury, but the concentrations are below the USFDA and EPA regulation limits. Nevertheless, approximately 3,000 cubic yards of dredged material with elevated mercury levels would be disposed of at an approved facility rather than being disposed of on beaches or on the project site. The material would be transported by truck, but as it would not constitute acutely or extremely hazardous waste, as those terms are defined by the California Department of Toxics Substances Control, its transport and disposal would not result in significant hazardous materials impacts. Approximately 300 cubic yards of PCB - contaminated soil at the SCE substation site would be excavated and shipped (by SCE) to a facility approved for such material. The soil would be transported in covered haul trucks by a licensed contractor. [Accordingly, the transport and disposal of PCB - contaminated soil from the SCE site would result in less than significant hazardous materials impacts.) Mitigation Measure: t Project Speck z 4 MM 5.6 -A.1. Prior to demolition activities in Phase 1, the City of Newport Beach shall determine, through sampling and testing by a licensed laboratory, whether asbestos or lead -based paint materials, or PCBs are present within the existing onsite structures. If these materials are present, the City of Newport Beach shall require that these materials be handled in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations, and shall dispose of these materials in a landfill that accepts asbestos, PCB - containing materials, and lead -based paint. Finding: The mitigation measure is feasible and would avoid potentially significant impacts related to transport or use of hazardous materials to a less than significant level for the reasons set forth in the Final EIR. The City Council hereby directs that this measure be adopted. Implementation of this measure, which has been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, would substantially lessen the severity of a significant effect to a less -than- significant level. . Marina Park Project findings of Fact Page 27 Impact: Risk of Upset. Demolition activities could create a hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving a release of the hazardous materials into the environment. Construction equipment would include diesel- and gasoline- powered engines. There would be a small risk of gasoline or diesel tank rupture in the event of an accident, but the risk of spills would be negligible because the contractors would not be permitted to fuel or service vehicles on site. Furthermore, the limited duration of construction (less than one year) would reduce the risk of spills and upsets. Compliance with construction site safety regulations and use of best management practices would limit the risk of upset to less - than- significant levels. Mitigation Measure: Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 5.6 -A -1 is required. Finding: The mitigation measure is feasible and would avoid potentially significant impacts related to risk of upset to a less than significant level for the reasons set forth in the Final EIR. The City Council hereby directs that this measure be adopted. Implementation of this measure, which has been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, would substantially lessen the severity of a significant effect to a less- than - significant level. Hydrology and Water Quailty Impact: Water Quality Standards and Waste Discharge Requirements. The project could violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Construction of the proposed project would involve acgvities (demolition of existing site features, grading, excavation and hauling, removal and transport of contaminated soils and = construction debris, dredging and dredged friaterial transport, pile driving, welding, and concrete pouring) that could discharge pollutants to the waters of Newport Bay. Construction activities could generate pollutants such as silt and other particulate matter (Le., suspended solids), fuels and lubricating oils, debris, and dissolved chemicals. Mitigation Measure: Project - Speck MM 5.7-Al. Prior to construction of each phase, the City of Newport Beach shall prepare a stormwater pollution prevention plan ( SWPPP) for construction activities that describes best management practices (BMPs) to reduce the release of potential pollutants into surface water. The plan shall also identify how the BMPs will be implemented. The SWPPP shall include, but not be limited to, the following BMPs: Dust Control. Water will be sprayed periodically in newly graded areas to prevent dust from grading activities being blown on to adjacent areas (in conformance with Newport Beach Ordinance limiting water use). Marina Park Project Findings of Fad Page 28 • Construction Staging: Specific areas will be delineated for storage of material and equipment, and for equipment maintenance, to contain potential spills. • Sediment Control. Sand bags or silt fences will be located along the perimeter of the site. Existing inlets and proposed area drains will be protected against intrusion of sediment. • Tracking: Tracking of sand and mud on the local street will be avoided by fire washing and /or road stabilization. Street cleaning (using a sweeper, no wash down activities are permitted) will be done if tracking occurs. • Waste Disposal. Specific area and/or methods will be selected for waste disposal. Typical construction waste includes concrete, concrete washout, mortar, plaster, asphalt, paint, metal, isolation material, plants, wood products and other construction material. Solid waste will be disposed of in approved trash receptacles at specific locations. Washing of concrete trucks will be done in a contained area allowing proper cleanup. (Wash water would be discharged into sanitary sewer [as permitted], Baker Tank or settling basin.) Other liquid waste will not be allowed to percolate into the ground. • Construction dewatering: Construction dewatering, if required, will necessitate approval of permits by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board and the City. • Maintenance: Maintenance of BMPs will take place before and after rainfall events to insure proper operation. • Training. The SWPPP will include directions for staff training and checklists for scheduled inspections. • Construction Vehicles: Construction vehicles will be inspected daily to ensure there are no leaking fluids. If there are leaking fluids, the construction vehicles will be serviced outside of the project site area. • T rbidity: Activities shall not cause turbidity increases in bay waters that exceed: a) 2D percent if background turbidity is between 0 and 5 Nephelometdc Turbity Units (BTUs); b) 10 percent if background is between 5(f and 100 NTUs; c) 10 percent if background turbidity is greater than 100 NTUs. Monitoring of turbidity in bay water adjacent to boat slip construction will be conducted daily during construction activities that may cause turbidity. If activities exceed the above criteria, construction activities associated with causing turbidity will be discontinued until the above criteria are met. • Grease: Construction activities will not cause visible oil, grease, or foam in the work area or in the bay. Silt curtains: Silt curtains will be placed within the bay so that all effluent from dredging activities will be contained within the construction zone. Hauling Trucks: The project construction contractors will ensure that trucks hauling soil material to and from the project site will be covered and will maintain a 2 -inch differential between the maximum height of any hauled material and the top of the haul trailer. Haul truck drivers will water the load prior to leaving the site in order to prevent soil loss during transport. • Heavy Equipment: Limit heavy equipment use on the beach, as feasible, to areas away from the high -tide line during construction. Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 29 Hydrogen Sulfide: Provisions shall be made, as necessary, for the treatment of hydrogen sulfide to comply with water quality standards and to control odors from the dewatering process. Dredged Material: The scow doors used to release dredged material remain closed until the scows are towed to the disposal site. MM 5.7-A.2. As part of marina construction in Phase 3, the City of Newport Beach shall include mechanical devices within the marina basin design to enhance the movement and mixing of water within the basin. The use of mechanical devices shall meet the EPA guidelines for adequate tidal flushing (at least 70 percent exchange every 24 hours). One option could be the use of oloids (propeller -type devices) that have been modeled, but the selection of the system to be installed shall be coordinated with and approved by US EPA, the Santa Ana RWQCB, and NOAA Fisheries. Cumulative Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 5.7 -A.1 and MM 5.7 -A.2 {see above) is required. Finding: These mitigation measures are feasible and would avoid potentially significant impacts related to water quality to a less than significant level for the reasons set forth in the Final EIR. The City Council hereby directs that these measures be adopted. Implementation of these measures, which has been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, would substantially lessen the severity of a significant effect to a less- than - significant level. D. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE MITIGATED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL r Noise Impact: Temporary or Periodic Increases in Ambient Noise Levels. The project could result in a significant (direct) temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Construction noise represents a short-term increase in ambient noise levels. Noise impacts from construction activities associated with the proposed project would be a function of the noise generated by construction equipment, equipment location, the sensitivity of nearby land uses, and the timing and duration of the construction activities. Construction noise would occur primarily from the noise - generated onsite during demolition, excavation and grading, dredging, and construction activities. Construction noise associated with Phases 1 and 2 would be relatively limited. Phase 1 would include demolition and very rough grading (4 weeks); Phase 2 would include additional grading and placement of sod and associated irrigation equipment. During Phase 3, excavation and pile driving for the buildings would take approximately two months (including up to 3 weeks of pile driving). Excavation and dredging for the marina would take approximately two months to complete, and construction of the sea wall and sheet Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 30 piling would take approximately six months (including up to 14 weeks of pile driving). Excavation and construction of the buildings on the upland portion of the site could happen simultaneously with excavation and pile driving of the marina. The sheet piling and sea wall would be constructed using jetting and vibrating for the majority of construction and driving for the last two feet of depth. With noise abatement technology the intermittent, sudden nature of pile driving sounds would still be annoying to sensitive receptors, and the impact would still be considered potentially significant. Because of the proximity of sensitive receptors to construction noise and the duration of construction activities (including up to 14 weeks of pile driving for the marina and up to 3 weeks of pile driving for buildings), especially pile drivers, increases in temporary ambient noises due to construction are considered potentially significant. Mitigation Measures Project Speck MM 5.9 -D.1. During all phases of construction, the City of Newport Beach shall ensure that all construction equipment on -site is properly maintained and tuned to minimize noise emissions and that construction equipment is fit with properly operating mufflers, air intake silencers, and engine shrouds no less effective than as originally equipped by the manufacturer. MM 5.9 -D.2. During Phase 3 construction, the City of Newport Beach shall ensure that noise abatement technology is used (e.g., shrouds and barriers) to minimize the sound from pile drivers; no pile driving shall take place outside the hours specked for construction activities in the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, Section 10.28.040. �IiI1M 5.9 -D.3. During all phases of construction, tht City Of Newport Beach department Shall ensure that all stationary noise sources (e, generators, compressors, staging iireas) are located as far from residential and recrebtional receptors as is feasible. MM 5.9 -D.4. During all phases of construction, material delivery, soil haul trucks, equipment servicing, and construction activities shall be restricted to the hours set forth in the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, Section 10.28.040. Finding: These mitigation measures are feasible and would reduce substantially reduce significant impacts related to construction noise but not to a less than significant level for the reasons set forth in the Final EIR. The City Council hereby directs that these measures be adopted. Implementation of these measures, which has been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, would substantially lessen the severity of a significant effect but construction noise impacts would remain significant. Because of the proximity of sensitive receptors to construction noise and the duration of construction activities (including up to 14 weeks of pile driving for the marina and up to 3 weeks of pile driving for buildings), especially piledrivers, increases in temporary, ambient noises due to Marina Park Project Findings of Fad Page 31 construction are considered to remain unavoidably potentially significant even with mitigation. III. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT CEQA requires that an EIR describe a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project or to its location that could feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects, and that it evaluate the comparative merits of each of the alternatives. Section 15126.6(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that the " discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly." One unavoidable significant adverse impact to the Marina Park project was identified: Temporary or Periodic Increases in Ambient Noise Levels During construction. Three alternatives were analyzed in the Final EIR. The following section discusses the project alternatives that were considered and analyzed in the Draft REIR and summarizes the consistency of these alternatives with the objectives of the proposed project. The Draft REIR identified three alternatives as follows: 1. No Project 2. Reduced Marina 3. No Marina The City's findings And facts in support of findings with respect 1b each of the alternatives considered are provided below. s = E No Project Alternative Description: This alternative, which is required by CEQA, assumes that the project site would remain in the same condition as they were at the time the NOP was published (May 2008). The setting of the site at the time the NOP was published is described throughout Section 5.0 of the Draft REIR with respect to individual environmental issues and forms the baseline of the impact assessment of the proposed project. This alternative represents the environmental conditions that would exist if no change were to occur on the project site. The existing mobile home park is a non - conforming land use located within Parks and Recreation (PR)- designated area. The use conflicts with the Local Coastal Land Use Plan as well as the California Coastal Act since it is not a coastal dependent use. The project would terminate the existing lease to the mobile home park that is not a permitted activity in tidelands leasing policy. Under this alternative the non - permitted activity (mobile homes) would remain. Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 32 Environmental Effects: The No Project Alternative would avoid all of the construction impacts associated with the proposed project including the potentially significant construction noise impacts as well as other less than significant impacts including air quality, biological resources (noise impacts on marine mammals, interference with grunion spawning and migratory bird nesting; loss of sandy intertidal habitat), and water quality (construction runoff and dredging turbidity).. It would also avoid all of the operational -phase impacts, including air quality (cumulative ozone and health impacts), geology (seismic risks), and water quality (poor circulation in the marina). Ability to Achieve Project Objectives: The No Project Alternative would not achieve the provisions of the Coastal Act that encourage the maintenance and expansion of marine boating facilities and enhanced coastal access and coastal recreational opportunities. The No Project Alternative would not provide the benefits that have been identified for the proposed project, including increased public park space; realization of a number of General Plan goals related to marine- related educational programs and recreational facilities, improved public coastal access, and improved emergency services access. Coastal access would still be hampered by the presence of the mobile home park, the awkward vehicular and pedestrian facilities, and the lack of community facilities. In addition, the No Project Alternative would not achieve any of the goals of the Marina Park Project. Findings: The City Council finds, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1), that changes have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that substantially lessen but not eliminate the potentially significant construction noise effects on the environment. Facts In Support of the Finding: The No Project Alternative would not provide the benefits that have been identified for the pibposed project, including increased public park space; realization of a number of General Plan goals related to marine - related educational programs and recreational facilities, improved public coastal access, and improved emergency services access. Coastal access would still be hampered by the presence of the mobile home park, the awkward vehicular and pedestrian facilities, and the lack of community facilities. In addition, the No Project Alternative would not achieve any of the goals of the Marina Park Project. Reduced Marina Alternative Description: This alternative includes the development of the Marina Park Project with a visiting vessel marina approximately one -half the size of the proposed project marina. The proposed marina under this alternative would include approximately 12 slips and encompass approximately 0.5 acre of surface water area, compared to the 23 slips and approximately one acre of surface water area under the proposed project. The marina would include floating and landside storage for small boats and sailing dinghies, to support at least some of the educational sailing programs envisioned in the proposed project. This alternative would include all of the other features of the proposed project (the Balboa Center. Complex, Girl Scout.. Building, beach area, children's play area, Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 33 public park facilities, and parking), as well as an additional 0.5 acres of park in the area not converted to marina. Environmental Effects: Construction of this alternative would be the same as for the proposed project except that there would be approximately half as much dredging and excavation, and fewer pilings and floating docks would be installed. Construction would require the same equipment and activities as in the proposed project, but the marina construction component would not take as long and would not involve as much pile driving, excavation and dredging, and truck and barge trips. Operation of this alternative would result in approximately 40 fewer vehicle trips per day and half as many vessel trips, but would otherwise be similar to the proposed project. The Reduced Marina Alternative would reduce the magnitude of all of the construction and operational impacts identified for the proposed project. Nonetheless construction noise impacts of this alternative would remain potentially significant. (Geological impacts related to seismic risks would not be reduced as those would be applicable primarily to the landside components of the project, and the impacts to sandy intertidal habitat, as those would occur in the part of the marina that would be built under either alternative.) In particular, this alternative would reduce potential water quality impacts during operation because the marina basin would be smaller and there would be fewer boats, and it would reduce traffic because there would be fewer trips generated by visiting mariners. Although the impacts would be reduced, they would not be avoided: the Reduced Marina Alternative would have all of the impacts of the proposed project (including potentially significant construction noise), but of a lesser duration /magnitude. Ability to Achieve Project Objectives: The Reduced Marina Alternative would provide most of benefits that have been identified for the proposed project, including increased public park space, realization of a number of General Plan goals related to community and recreational facilities, improved public coastal access, and improved emergency services access. A would not provide the benefit of meeting General Plan goals related to marine educational programs since it would not provide the facilities needed to support the City's sailing programs, and would only partially achieve the goal of the Marina Park Project to provide additional facilities to meet the idenfffied demand for visiting boat slips. Findings: The City Council finds, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1), that changes have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that substantially lessen the potentially significant construction noise effects on the environment. Facts in Support of the Finding: The Reduced Marina Alternative would provide most of benefits that have been identified for the proposed project, including increased public park space, realization of a number of General Plan goals related to community and recreational facilities, improved public coastal access, and improved emergency services access. It would not provide the benefit of meeting General Plan goals related to marine educational programs since it would not provide the facilities needed to support the City's sailing programs, and .would only partially achieve the goal of the Marina Park Project findings of Fad Page 34 Marina Park Project to provide additional facilities to meet the identified demand for visiting boat slips. This alternative would reduce the potentially significant construction noise impacts of the project but not below a level of significance. No Marina Alternative Description: In this alternative the visiting vessels marina would not be built, but all other features of the proposed project (Section 3.3 of the Draft REIR) would be built. The area that would have been occupied by the marina would, instead, remain beach (the northern portion) or be converted to park (the southern portion). Construction of this alternative would be the same as for the proposed project except that there would be no dredging, excavation, or pile driving associated with marina development. Up to approximately 1,500 round -trip truck trips would be required to deliver the 15,000 cubic yards of fill that could be needed for the upland construction portion of this alternative. Operation of this alternative would result in approximately 80 fewer vehicle trips per day and no vessel trips, but would otherwise be similar to the proposed project. Environmental Effects: This alternative would eliminate the potentially significant construction noise impacts of the project driving (although there would still be piles driven for the buildings, the duration of pile driving would be much less and the activity would be farther from sensitive receptors). This alternative would avoid the degraded water quality that could occur in the marina. It would also reduce other (less than significant) impacts associated with marina construction, including water quality impacts from dredging and dredged material disposal; air quality impacts from construction equipment (although construction of the remainder of the project would still generate emissions, particularly in view of the need to import fill); and impacts on biological resources (noise impacts on marine mammals, interference with grunion spawning, loss of sandy intertidal habitat). z Ability to Achieve Project Objectives: The No Marina Alternative would provide most of the benefits identified for the proposed project, including increased public park space; improved public coastal access; and improved emergency services access. It would not achieve General Plan goals related to marine - related educational programs and recreational facilities, since it would not provide the facilities needed to support the City's sailing programs, nor would it achieve the project objective of providing facilities to meet the identified demand for visiting boat slips. Findings: The City Council ,finds, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1), that changes have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that substantially lessen the potentially significant construction noise effects on the environment. Facts in Support of the Finding: The No Marina Alternative would provide most of the benefits identified for the proposed project, including increased public park space; improved public coastal access; and improved emergency services access. It would not achieve General Plan .goals related to marine- related educational programs and Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 35 recreational facilities, since it would not provide the facilities needed to support the City's sailing programs, nor would it achieve the project objective of providing facilities to meet the identified demand for visiting boat slips. IV. GENERAL FINDINGS The plans for the project have been prepared and analyzed so as to provide for public involvement in the planning and CEQA processes. 2. To the degree that any impacts described in the Final EIR are perceived to have a less than significant effect on the environment or that such impacts appear ambiguous as to their effect on the environment as discussed in the Draft REIR, the City has responded to key environmental issues and has incorporated mitigation measures to reduce or minimize potential environmental effects of the proposed project to the maximum extent feasible. 3. Comments regarding the Draft REIR received during the public review period have been adequately responded to in written Responses to Comments included in the Final EIR. Any significant effects described in such comments were avoided by the standard conditions and mitigation measures described in the Final EIR. 4. The analysis contained in the.Draft REIR and Final EIR of the environmental effects and mitigation measures represents the independent judgment and analysis of the City. t Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 36 Exhibit B MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN Method of Timing Responsible Verification Party Air Quality MM 5.2 -A.1. During all phases of project construction, the Field During all Public Works City of Newport Beach shall limit grading and earth moving inspections. construction. Dept., Director to no more than five acres per day. or designee. MM 5.2 -A.2. During all phases of project construction , the Field During all Public Works City of Newport Beach shall ensure that the following Inspections. construction. Dept, Director methods to reduce fugitive dust emissions are undertaken: or designee. • Exposed soil and sand surfaces shall be watered periodically to reduce dust. • Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 miles r hour. Biological Resources MM 5.2 -A.3. During Phase 3 project construction, the City Field During Phase 3 Public Works of Newport Beach shall require tugboat(s) used In sand inspections. constriction. Dept., Director export activities to have a propulsion engine built after the or designee. year 2000 or meeting Year 2000 emission standards. MM 5.3 -A.1. During Phase 3 construction, the City of Field During Phase 3 Public Works Newport Beads shall ensure that placement of dredge inspections. construction. Dept., Director material on or adjacent to ocean beaches does not occur or designee. between March 31 and June 30. MM 5.3 -A.2. During Phase 3 construction, the City of Field During Phase 3 Public Works Newport Beach shall require that sound abatement inspections. construction. Dept, Director techniques be used to reduce noise and vibrations from or designee. pile - driving activities. At the initiation of each pile- driving event and after breaks of more than 15 minutes, the pile driving shall also employ a "soft-start" in which the hammer is operated at less than full capacity (i.e., appBoximately 40 t to 60 percent energy levels) with no less tharrp 1- minute interval between each strike for a 5- minute period. A biological monitor shall be on -site to monitor effects on marine mammals, including flushing responses and symptoms of stress or damage. The biological monitor shall also note (surface scan only) whether marine mammals are present within 100 meters (333 ft) of the pile driving and, if any are observed, temporarily haft pile driving until the observed mammals move beyond this distance. MM 5.3 -A.3. During Phase 3 construction, In the event of a Field During Phase 3 Public Works construction vessel collision with a marine mammal, the inspections. construction. Dept., Director City of Newport Beach shall immediately contact Mr. Joe or designee. Cordero, National Marine Fisheries Service Southwest Regional Office's Stranding Coordinator 562 980.4017) and will submit a report to the NMFS Southwest Regional Office. MM 5.3 -C.1. The City of Newport Beach shall mitigate the Plan check. Prior to Phase 3 Public Works loss of 0.66 acres of sandy intertidal habitat at an construction. Dept, Director acceptable location within Newport Bay, or at another or designee, southern California embayment, or by means of an in -lieu and/or Planning fee agreement. Mitigation will be based upon a ratio Department, determined by the City of Newport Beach. An in -lieu fee Director or agreement option for contributing to a permitted or nearly- designee. Marina Park Fnal OR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Sirius Environmental - .. - .. MM-2 Method of Timing Responsible Verification Party permitted mitigation project option shall also be simultaneously pursued. A conceptual and final intertidal habitat mitigation plan shall be developed that further refines habitat losses, identifies mitigation goals, mitigation success criteria, costs, location, mitigation requirements, mitigation methods, monitoring, and mitigation success criteria. The mitigation plan will be included in the USACE and the California Coastal Commission (CCC) permit conditions. In accordance with Public Resources Code 21081.6, a mitigation monitoring plan must be developed to monitor the success of the habitat replacement. MM 5.34E.1. During all phases of construction, the City of Field During all Public Works Newport Beach shall ensure that removal of vegetation or inspections. construction. Dept., Director other potential migratory nesting -bird habitat will be or designee. conducted outside of the avian nesting season (February through August). If removal of vegetation occurs during the avian nesting season, a preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be conducted no more than 7 days prior to this activity. If migratory birds are found to be nesting within or near the impact area, a buffer where no construction activities would occur would need to be established by a qualified biologist. This biologist would also determine when the nest is no longer active, at which time construction could resume. Cultural Resources MM 5.4 -8.1. During Phase 3, a qualified archaeological Field During all Public Works monitor shall be available to supervise excavation activities inspections construction. Dept. and in previously undisturbed soils. If archeological, historic or Planning Dept. Prehistoric artifacts are encountered during construction, Director or the City of Newport Beach shall contact a Native American designee. representative (as appropriate) and take measures to avoid the site, Or shall record the site then cap or cover the site with a lagge�er of soil before building over it. Alternatively, the City sha$excavate the site under the supervision of a qualified-archeologist in order to recover the scientifically consequential information relevant to the resource. In aocordance with the Public Resources Code Section 5097.94, if human remains are found, the Orange County Coroner shall be notified within 24 hours of the discovery. If the Coroner determines that the remains are not recent, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission in Sacramento to determine the most likely descendent for the area. The designated Native American representative shall then determine, in consultation with the City, the disposition of the human remains. MM 5.4 -C.1. During Phase 3 construction, a qualified Field During Phase 3 Public Works paleontologist shall be retained to observe grading inspections construction. Dept., Director activities and conduct salvage excavation of or designee. paleontological resources as necessary. The paleontologist shall be present at the pre-grading conference, shall establish procedures for paleontological renounces surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the City, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification and evaluation of the fossils as appropriate. If additional or unexpected paleontological features are discovered, the paleontologist shall report such findings to the City Sirius Environmental - .. - .. MM-2 Marina Park Final EIR M ftgation Monitoring and Reporting Program Sirius Environmental - - AM-3 Method of: Timing Res onsible p . Verification' Party Planning Department If the paleontological resources are found to be significant, the paleontological observer shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the City, for exploration and /or salvage. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Director. Geology and Soils MM 5.540. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for Plan check Prior to issuance Public Works Phase 3, the City of Newport beach shall prepare a for Phase 3. of grading permits. Dept. and building foundation design to reduce the impacts of Building Dept., potential liquefaction and settlement. The foundation Director or design shall conform to the recommendation of the designee. geotechnicel report prepared for the project, which include: Site Preparation — excavation of minimum of 12 inches and recompaction to provide recommended subgrade density; all activities to be observed by a geotechnical engineer. Foundation — mat foundation for restroom facilities and small buildings and either a deep foundation system such as driven piles or stone columns with mat foundations for the Balboa Center. The specific foundation design for each proposed structure would require approval by the City of Newport Beach Building Department. Marina — design specifications and construction techniques are recommended in the geotechnical report and shall be adhered to. Hazards and Hazardous Materials MM 5.64LI. Prior to demolition activities in Phase 1, the Field Prior to demolition Public Works City of Newport Beach shall determine, through sampling inspections activities in each Dept., Director and testing by a licensed laboratory, whether asbestos or and testing. Phase. or designee. lead -based paint materials, or PCBs are present within the existing onsite structures. If these materials are present, the City of Newport Beach shall require that these materials be handled in accordance wV all applicable laws and regulations, and shall dispose of tftse materials in a landfill that accepts asbestos, PCB - containing materials, and lead -based paint Hydrology MM 5.7 -A.7. Prior to construction of each phase, the City Field Prior to Public Works of Newport Beach shall prepare a stormwater pollution inspections. construction Dept., Director prevention plan (SWPPP) for construction activities that activities in each or designee. describes best management practices (BMPs) to reduce Phase. the release of potential pollutants into surface water. The plan shall also identify how the BMPs will be implemented. The SW PPP shall include, but not be limited to, the following BMPs: • Dust Control: Water will be sprayed periodically in newly graded areas to prevent dust from grading activities being blown on to adjacent areas (in conformance with Newport Beach Ordinance limiting water use). • Construction Staging: Specific areas will be delineated for storage of material and equipment, and for equipment maintenance, to contain potential spills. • Sediment Control. • Sand bags or sift fences will be located along the perimeter of the site. Existing inlets and proposed area drains will be protected against Intrusion of sediment. • Tracidog., Tracking of sand and mud on the local street Sirius Environmental - - AM-3 Marina Park Rna/ E1R Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program sinus EmlromneMal - MM-4 Method of Verification Timing . cResponsible ,. Party will be avoided by fire washing and/or road stabilization. Straet cleaning (using a sweeper, no wash down activities are permitted) will be done if tracking occurs. • Waste Disposal: Speck area and/or methods will be selected for waste disposal. Typical construction waste include concrete, concrete washout, mortar, plaster, asphalt, paint, metal, isolation material, plants, wood products and other construction material. Solid waste will be disposed of in approved trash receptacles at specific locations. Washing of concrete trucks will be done in a contained area allowing proper cleanup. (Wash water would be discharged Into sanitary sewer [as permitted], Baker Tank or settling basin.) Other liquid waste will not be allowed to percolate into the ground. • Construction dewatering., Construction dewatering, if required, will necessitate approval of permits by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board and the City. • Maintenance: Maintenance of BMPs will take place before and after rainfall events to insure proper operation. • Training: The SWPPP will include directions for staff training and checklists for scheduled inspections. • Construction Vehicles: Construction vehicles will be inspected daily to ensure there are no leaking fluids. If there are leaking fluids, the construction vehicles will be serviced outside of the project site area. • Turbidity., Activities shall not cause turbidity increases in bay waters that exceed: a) 20 percent if background turbidity is between 0 and 5 Nephelometric Turbity Units (NTUs); b) 10 percent if background is between 50 and 100 NTUs; c) 10 percent If background turbidity is tAreater than 100 NTUs. Monitoring of turbidity in bay t adjacent to boat slip construction will be Eter ducted daily during construction activities that may a se turbidity. If activities exceed the above criteria, construction activities associated with causing turbidity will be discontinued until the above criteria are met. • Grease. Construction activities will not cause visible oil, grease, or foam in the work area or in the bay. • Silt curtains., Silt curtains will be placed within the bay so that all effluent from dredging activities will be contained within the construction zone. • Hauling Trucks. The project construction contractors will ensure that trucks hauling soil material to and from the project site will be covered and will maintain a 2 -inch differential between the maximum height of any hauled material and the top of the haul trailer. Haul truck drivers will water the load prior to leaving the site in order to prevent soil loss during transport • Heavy Equipment: Limit heavy equipment use on the beach, as feasible, to areas away from the high -tide line during construction. • Hydrogen Sulfide: Provisions shall be made, as necessary, for the treatment of hydrogen sulfide to comply with water quality standards and to control odors from the dewatering process. • Dredged Material. The scow doors used to release sinus EmlromneMal - MM-4 Marina Park Final E/R Miggagon Monitoring and Reporting Program sides Env / nnmental - .. .. .. .. MM{ Method of Timing' Responsible VeHfiicatiori Patty dredged material remain closed until the scows are towed to the disposal site. 5.7 -A.2. As part of marina construction in Phase 3, the City Plan check Prior to issuance Public Works of Newport Beach shall include mechanical devices within for Phase 3. of permits for Dept., Director the marina basin design to enhance the movement and Phase 3 marina. or designee. mixing of water within the basin. The use of mechanical devices shall meet the EPA guidelines for adequate tidal flushing (at least 70 percent exchange every 24 hours). One option could be the use of oloids (propeller -type devices) that have been modeled, but the selection of the system to be installed shall be coordinated with and approved by US EPA, the Santa Ana RWQCB, and NOAA Fisheries. Noise 5.9 -13.1. During all phases of construction, the City of Field During all Public Works Newport Beach shall ensure that all construction inspections construction. Dept., Director equipment on-site is properly maintained and tuned to or designee. minimize noise emissions and that construction equipment is fit with properly operating mufflers, air intake silencers, and engine shrouds no less effective than as originally equipped by the manufacturer. 5.9 -0.2. During Phase 3 construction, the City of Newport Field During Phase 3 Public Works Beach shall ensure that noise abatement technology is inspections pile driving. Dept., Director used (e.g., shrouds and barriers) to minimize the sound or designee. from pile drivers; no pile driving shall take place outside the hours specified for construction activities in the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, Section 1028.040. 5.9 -DA During all phases of construction, the City of Field During all Public Works Newport Beach shall ensure that all stationary noise inspections. construction. Dept., Director sources (e.g., generators, compressors, staging areas) are or designee. located as far from residential and recreational receptors as is feasible. 5.9 -DA During all phases of cinstruction, material Field During all =- Public Works delivery, soil haul trucks, equip�ent servicing, and Inspections. construction. Dept., Director construction activities shall be restricted to the hours set or designee. forth In the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, Section 10.28.040. sides Env / nnmental - .. .. .. .. MM{ STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } ss. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH } I, Leilani I. Brown, City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council is seven; that the foregoing resolution, being Resolution No. 2010 -46 was duly and regularly introduced before and adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting of said Council., duly and regularly held on the 11th day of May, 2010, and that the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit: Ayes: Selich, Rosansky, Webb, Gardner, Daigle, Mayor Curry Noes: None Absent: Henn Abstain: None IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the official seal of said City this 12th day of May, 2010. r "- .Pk� Pity Clerk Newport Beach, California (Seal) 3 s