HomeMy WebLinkAbout19 - Marina Park ProjectCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 19
May 11, 2010
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Planning Department
Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner
949 - 644 -3208, rung(inewportbeachca.gov
SUBJECT: Marina Park Project
• Environmental Impact Report - ER2008 -001 (PA2008 -040)
• Statement of Overriding Considerations
• Site Plans (Phase 1 through 3)
• Exemption from Zoning & Development Regulations
ISSUE:
Should the City Council certify the Marina Park Project's Final Environmental Impact
Report; adopt a statement of overriding considerations; approve the Site Plans for
Phases 1, 2, and 3 of the Project; and exempt the Project from Title 20, Planning and
Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code?
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Hold the Public Hearing on the Marina Park Project's Final Environmental Impact
Report (FEIR); and
2. Adopt Resolution 2010 -_ certifying the Marina Park Project's FEIR (SCH. No.
2008051096), making certain Findings of Fact and Determinations thereto, and
adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP); and
3. Adopt Resolution 2010 - adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations,
and approving the Site Plans for Phases 1, 2, and 3 of the Marina Park Project;
and
4. Motion, second, and affirmative vote to exempt the Marina Park Project from Title
20, Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
Marina Park Project
Final EIR Certification and Site Plan Approval
May 11, 2010
Page 2
DISCUSSION:
Background:
In early 2005, the City Council formed the City Council /Citizens Ad Hoc Committee for
the planning and redevelopment of the Marina Park site.
On October 10, 2006, the City Council chose the Park + Marina Concept Plan, which
combined two of eight different use scenarios advocated by various groups and
individuals.
In November 2006, the City Council formed the City Council /Citizens Committee on
Marina Park Design to refine the design concepts presented by the City's design
consultant, Rabben /Herman Design Office (R /HDO) and its sub - consultant team.
On November 13, 2007 the City Council. approved the Marina Park Concept Plan and
Final Master Plan Report and authorized the City Manager to bring forward a contract
for the schematic design phase of the Marina Park Project, and directed staff to proceed
with preparation of appropriate documentation pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA).
ANALYSIS:
Marina Park Proiect:
The schematic design approved for Marina Park includes a new, 23 -slip marina with a
visitor side tie dock and floating docks to support youth and adult sailing programs. An
11,000 square -foot Sailing Program Building is proposed to support the needs of
various sailing programs within the community, and a 10,560 square -foot Multi- Purpose
Building is proposed to support community programming needs. The remainder of the
site will be developed as a community park with tennis courts, half -court basketball
courts, tot lot, and children's water play area. The Project also includes an area for the
Girl Scout House and a new restroom building at 1gth Street. The Project could be
implemented in three phases, as illustrated in Exhibits 3 -4, 3 -5 and 3 -6 of the Draft
Recirculated EIR. The following is a brief summary of the three phases:
Phase I will include removal of the existing Marina Park Mobile Home
structures. The area occupied by the mobile homes will be transformed
into a park after construction of concrete sidewalks and a temporary
restroom facility. The existing sidewalk and trees adjacent to the beach
will remain. The existing alley will be restriped for parking and the existing
gates at the mobile home park will be removed to provide access between
15th and 18th Streets.
Phase II will include addition of new turf, picnic tables, and benches to the
improvements in Phase I.
W
Marina Park Project
Final EIR Certification and Site Plan Approval
May 11, 2010
Page 3
Phase III is full build -out of the Marina Park Project including Sailing
Program Building, Multi- Purpose Building, marina, and community park.
Environmental Review:
1st Draft EIR
The City contracted with Michael Brandman Associates to prepare an Initial Study and
Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Marina Park Project. Potential
impacts were identified and mitigation measures were included in the DEIR to reduce
potentially significant adverse impacts, where feasible, to a less than significant level.
The first DEIR was circulated for a 45 -day public review and comment period from
February 26, 2009, to April 13, 2009. The City received comment letters from regulatory
agencies, home -owner associations, nearby residents, and the Newport Beach
Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee (EQAC).
In response to comments, the need for additional technical studies and analyses was
indicated. This included studies required to definitively determine the presence or
absence of wetlands on the existing beach, and analysis of remediation efforts needed
to remove contamination at the Southern California Edison site proposed for purchase
by the City. The additional studies and analyses, including the changes to project
description (project phasing), were deemed to be significant new information requiring
preparation of a second DEIR, and recirculation for public review and comment.
2nd Draft (Recirculated) EIR
The second Draft (Recirculated) EIR ( DREIR) was prepared by Sirius Environmental
Consultants. The project description was revised to include description of phased
development of Marina Park. The second DEIR includes the substantive analysis of
potential impacts identified in the 1st DEIR supplemented with technical studies and
analyses deemed necessary in response to comments received on the first DEIR.
The second DREIR was circulated for a 45 -day public comment period from January 25,
2010, to March 10, 2010. A total of 11 comment letters and a -mails were received from
the following interested parties: California Department of Transportation, California
Department of Substance Control, Orange County Transportation Authority, the City's
Environmental Quality Affairs Committee, Pier to Pier - Central Newport Beach
Community Association, California Cultural Resources Preservation Alliance, California
State Lands Commission, Southern California Gas Company, and two private
individuals
19
Marina Park Project
Final EIR Certification and Site Plan Approval
May 11, 2010
Page 4
Potentially Significant Impacts
The 2nd DREIR incorporates the Initial Study (IS) prepared for the 1St DEIR. Based on
the IS, the project was determined to have no potential impacts in the topical areas of
Agricultural Resources, Mineral Resources, Population/Housing, and Recreation, and
no further analysis is included. The IS identified the potential for impacts in the topical
areas of Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources,
Geology /Soils, Hazards & Hazardous Materials, Hydrology/Water Quality, Land
Use /Planning, Noise, Public Services, Transportation/Traffic, and Utilities/Service
Systems. Analysis of potential impacts within each of these topical areas from the 1St
DEIR is incorporated in the 2nd DEIR where appropriate.
The additional technical studies and analysis deemed necessary after receipt of
comments on the 1St DEIR were included in the 2nd DEIR. This information together
with analysis included from the 1St DEIR indicates that all potentially significant adverse
impacts associated with the proposed project, with the exception of construction noise,
can be reduced to a less than significant level through the implementation of mitigation
measures.
Unavoidable Adverse Impact
Construction noise impacts expected during Phase 3 construction were found to be
potentially significant because of noise generated by construction, excavation, and pile
driving activities and dredging for the marina. With implementation of mitigation
measures, noise levels associated with Phase 3 construction will remain significant and
are unavoidable.
Project Alternatives
Section 6.0 of the 2nd DREIR discusses project alternatives as required pursuant to the
CEQA Guidelines. These alternatives include:
A. No Project/No Development (assumes existing conditions would remain as is); or
B. Reduce d Marina Alternative (assumes the visiting vessel marina will be
developed to have a total of 12 slips, approximately one -half the size of the
proposed 23 -slip marina); or
C. No Marina Alternative (assumes the visiting vessel marina would not be built).
Although Alternative B (Reduced Marina) and Alternative C (No Marina) are considered
to have reduced impacts and considered to be environmentally superior to the proposed
project, they would not achieve the objectives of the Project. The Project objectives are:
1. Redevelop the site with land uses that are consistent with, and permitted by, the
legal restrictions on the use of tidelands.
4-
Marina Park Project
Final EIR Certification and Site Plan Approval
May 11, 2010
Page 5
2. Enhance public access and community facilities on the site.
3. Complement efforts to revitalize Balboa Village and enhance other commercial
areas on the Peninsula.
4. Provide community facilities to meet the goals of the General Plan for recreation
and harbors and beaches.
5. Provide for additional marine - related facilities that can be used by coastal visitors
for sailing and boating.
Certification of Final Environmental Impact Report
Prior to taking action on the Site Plans for the Project, the City Council must first review,
consider, and certify the FEIR for the Marina Park Project.
The FEIR is comprised of five separate documents as follows:
1. 2nd Draft Recirculated Environmental Impact Report ( DREIR)
2. Volume I which includes Appendices A through F [Notice of Preparation
(NOP), Initial Study, Comments Received on the NOP, Visual Simulations,
Air Quality Information, Terrestrial and Marine Biological Resources
Assessments, Cultural Resources and Geotechnical Investigation Report]
3. Volume II which includes Appendix G (Hazardous Materials Information)
4. Volume III — Includes Appendices H through N (Drainage and Water
Quality, Noise, Public Services, Traffic, and Utilities Information,
Comments Letters received on February Draft EIR, Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Plan)
5. Final EIR (Responses to Comments & Errata)
These documents are not attached to this report due to the extensive volume, but are
available at the Planning Department and online at "The Environmental Document
Download Page — Marina Park" at:
hftp://www.newportbeachca.gov/index.aspx?paae=1347
Errata Section
The Errata Section includes the following revisions to the second DREIR included after
recirculation:
1. Revisions to Table 2 -1, Executive Summary Matrix for consistency with the
impact analysis sections;
2. Revisions to cumulative analysis with respect to Hazardous Materials, Section
5.6 -A;
Marina Park Project
Final EIR Certification and Site Plan Approval
May 11, 2010
Page 6
3. Revisions to impact analysis with respect to Water Quality, Section 5.7 -F;
4. Addition of discussion on no impacts to Airport/Airstrip Noise;
5. Revisions to cumulative impact with respect to Schools, Section 5.10 -C; and
6. Clarifications on short-tern construction impact on the Alternative to Proposed
Project, Section 6.
These changes /revisions do not alter any impact significance conclusion disclosed in
the DREIR and, therefore, do not warrant recirculation for public review.
CEQA Findings of Fact
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, Findings of Fact has been prepared and
attached as "Exhibit A" of Attachment No. CC1, for the City Council adoption.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15097, a Mitigation Monitoring and Report
Program has been prepared and attached as "Exhibit B" of Attachment No. CC1, for
City Council adoption.
Statement of Overriding Considerations
If the City Council determines that the benefits of the project outweigh the short-term,
unavoidable impact attendant to Project Phase 3 construction noise, a Statement of
Overriding Considerations must be adopted prior to project approval. A Statement of
Overriding Considerations has been prepared and attached as Exhibit A of Attachment
No. CC2, for City Council adoption that identifies economic, social and public benefits of
the Project that would serve the needs of the community through the development of a
new public park. These benefits include:
1. The proposed facilities within the Marina Park Project would be consistent with
the land use designation and would meet the recreation and open space needs
of the community.
2. The proposed facilities would enhance public access and provide community
facilities to meet the goals of the General Plan for recreation and harbors and
beaches.
3. The proposed facilities would complement efforts to revitalize Balboa Village and
enhance other commercial areas on the Peninsula.
4. The proposed facilities would provide for additional marine - related facilities.
Location and Custodian of the Record of Proceedings
The Planning Department is hereby designated as the custodian of the documents and
other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council's
I
Marina Park Project
Final EIR Certification and Site Plan Approval
May 11, 2010
Page 7
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.).
Exemption from Title 20. Planning and Zoning:
A city or county may exempt itself from the provisions of its own zoning regulations, or it
may amend its Zoning Code (Title 20 of the Municipal Code) to include a provision that
the regulations shall not apply to capital improvement projects. While the Zoning Code
does not currently include a provision to exempt capital improvement projects such as
the Marina Park Project, the proposed Zoning Code Update does include such a
provision for capital improvement projects undertaken in compliance with the City
Charter.
The Marina Park property is located in the 26/35 Foot Height Limitation Zone and the
35 -Foot Shoreline Height Limitation Zone. The Multi- Purpose and Sailing Program
Buildings (Balboa Center complex of the Marina Park Project) are designed to be at 35
feet in height, exceeding the 26 -foot base height limit. Section 20.65.055 of the
Municipal Code allows structures to exceed the base height limit with the adoption of a
PC District or approval of a Use Permit. A 38- foot -high, lighthouse -like structure will be
situated atop the Sailing Program Building resulting in a total structure height of 73 feet.
Section 20.65.070 of the Municipal Code allows architectural features such as the
lighthouse structure to exceed the permitted height limits with the approval of a
modification permit.
The Marina Park Project is a one -of -a -kind capital improvement project. It is a unique
civic facility, and in some cases, there are no specific development regulations or
standards in the Municipal Code that apply to this type of facility. Furthermore, The
Project has been presented in a public forum on numerous occasions; including the
citizen group Protect Our Parks, the Harbor Commission and the Council /Citizens
Marina Park Design Ad Hoc Committee. The design of the proposed project is
consistent with the directive of the City Council, and the Council /Citizens Marina Park
Design Ad Hoc Committee.
Rather than direct staff to prepare an amendment in advance of the Zoning Code
Update, or prepare a use permit and modification permit to regulate this civic facility,
staff is requesting the City Council find that this Project is exempt from the zoning and
development regulations of the Municipal Code.
Fiscal Impact
Staff responsible for the operation and maintenance of Marina Park (Recreation and
Senior Services, Harbor Resources, General Services and Fire) has estimated the
expenses and revenues for ongoing annual operations of the facilities and park. The
estimates of $1.6 million in expenditures and $1 million in revenue (for a net annual cost
of $600,000) are inclusive of the total operation of the park, sailing and community
center, programs, cafe and marina. These estimates will need to be reevaluated at the
7
Marina Park Project
Final EIR Certification and Site Plan Approval
May 11, 2010
Page 8
onset of the project to ensure inflation of costs and fees are taken into consideration.
The estimates reflect staffs assumption that an outside operator will be selected for the
management of the cafe and provision of a sailing program to generate revenue and
minimize overhead costs to the City.
Public Notice:
The notice required for the EIR was a Notice of Availability (NOA) notifying the public
that the DEIR was available for public review. In addition to this legally required notice,
notice of the public hearing associated with the certification of the Final EIR and
approval of the Site Plans was provided pursuant to the Ralph M. Brown Act and printed
in the Daily Pilot on May 1, 2010.
Prepared by:
i
R alinh Ung
A ociate Planner
Attachments
Submitted by:
Sharon Wood
Assistant City Manager
CC 1 Draft Resolution 2010 - FEIR Certification, with Exhibits A (Findings of Fact)
and B (Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program)
CC 2 Draft Resolution 2010 -_ Statement of Overriding Considerations and Approval
of Conceptual Site Plans, with Exhibit A (Statement of Overriding Considerations)
W
Attachment No. CC 1
Draft Resolution — FEIR
Certification
k
RESOLUTION NO. 2010-
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 likely
to 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 /concerns 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 for each 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
{I
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 Reportinq Program. 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 Proceedinqs. 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 of Determination. The Planning Director shall cause the
filing of a notice of determination with the 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.
OKI
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 11th day of May 2010.
LVA
Keith D. Curry
ATTEST:
Leilani Brown, City Clerk
!4
Exhibit A
MARINA PARK PROJECT FINDINGS OF FACT
I. 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 by
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 Fact
Page 1 _
l�
• 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
to the children's play area and a water feature.
Primary vehicular access to the project would be via West Balboa Boulevard at 16th
Street and secondary access would be via an exit/entrance 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 Fact
Page 2
16
• 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 City's 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 prepared a Final EIR, including the Responses to Comments and Errata to the
Draft REIR, and these Findings of Fact. The Final EIR/Response to Comments
contains 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
a
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).
IL 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 Fact
Page 4
W
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 adverse change in an historical resource as defined in
Section15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. There are no historic resources located in the
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
W
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 65962.5 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
provided via the onsite circulation system. The onsite circulation system has been
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
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or
Marina Park Project
Findings of Fact
Page 6
M.
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 the 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 to the 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
of the proposed project, including park use and maintenance, marina operations,
Marina Park Project
Findings of Fact
Page 7
a
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 as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. 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 as a result 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, specific 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
Marina 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 - significant impacts 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 Project
Findings of Fact
Page 9
)3
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 16th 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, it would not create a demand for recreational
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
rest rooms and major walkways. The proposed project would utilize fully shielded
luminaires in accordance with City of Newport Beach standards and regulations.
Utilization 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
D5
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 project 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 (USAGE 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.
Impact: Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Schools. The proposed 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
M
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 be conducted in accordance with the City of Newport
Beach Municipal Code. While noise from pile driving could be disturbing to residents in
the area and is therefore identified as 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 groundborne 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 Fact
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 expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Treatment Plant No.
2 and the existing 21 -inch OCSD Balboa trunk sewer line have adequate capacity to
serve the wastewater generation from the proposed project 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
undercurrent 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 Facilties. 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 on 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
31
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 FEIR 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 record, that changes or alterations have been required or
incorporated into the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant
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 Fact
Page 18
a
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 project could 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
33
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.
Finding: The mitigation measures are feasible and would reduce potentially significant
impacts related to sensitive species 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: 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
3 «
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 discussion 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 Fact
Page 21
6
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
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 Fact
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- Specific
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 lessen the 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
W1
Mitigation Measure:
Project- Specific
MM 5.4 -B.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
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.
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 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: 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 -C.1. During Phase 3 construction, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained to
observe grading activities and conduct salvage excavation of paleontological resources
as necessary. The paleontologist shall be present at the pre - grading conference, shall
Marina Park Project
Findings of Fact
Page 24
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.
Geology
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 - related ground shaking and seismic - related liquefaction, and would not expose
people or structures to such potential adverse effects with respect to:
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 Fact
Page 25
W
i
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 Fact
Page 26
LID
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:
Project Specific
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
1-t 1
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.
Hydrolo-gy and Water Qualit
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 activities (demolition of existing site features,
grading, excavation and hauling, removal and transport of contaminated soils and
construction debris, dredging and dredged material 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
(i.e., suspended solids), fuels and lubricating oils, debris, and dissolved chemicals.
Mitigation Measure:
Project- Specific
MM 5.7 -A.1. 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 Fact
Page 28
1H
• 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 tire
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.
• 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 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
43
• 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
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
a
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 Specific
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 specified for
construction activities in the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, Section 10.28.040.
MM 5.9 -D.3. During all phases of construction, the City Of Newport Beach department
shall ensure that all stationary noise sources (e.g., generators, compressors, staging
areas) are located as far from residential and recreational receptors as is feasible.
MM 5.9 -13.4. 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 pile drivers, increases in temporary ambient noises due to
Marina Park Project
Findings of Fact
Page 31
Ll 5
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
alternatives considered are provided below.
No Project Alternative
of findings with respect to each of the
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
M
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 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.
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
Ll I
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. 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 to provide additional 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 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 Fact
Page 34
a
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).
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
91
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
1. 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.
Marina Park Project
Findings of Fact
Page 36
W
Exhibit B
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
91
Method
of
Timing
Responsible'
Verification
Part
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
per 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.
construction.
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 Beach 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., 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
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.
Cordaro, 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.
91
Marina Park Final EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Method of
Timing j
Responsible""
Verification
Part
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 5.3 -E.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 -13.1. 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 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 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
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
Marina Park Final E!R Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Sirius Environmental MM -3
33
Methiodsof
Timing
Responsible';
Verification
Part
,
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 5.5 -A.1. 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.
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.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
MM 5.6 -A.1. 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 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.
Hydrology
MM 5.7 -A.1. 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 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).
• 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
Sirius Environmental MM -3
33
Marina Park Final EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
orris cnveronmenrer MM-4
Fil
Methodi -of
Verification
Timing
Responsible
Part
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
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
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.
• 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
orris cnveronmenrer MM-4
Fil
...............
Marina Park Final EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Method
of
Timing ;
Responsible
Verifipation
Part
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 -D.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 b the manufacturer.
5.9 -D.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 10.28.040.
5.9 -10.3. 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 -13.4. During all phases of construction, material
Field
During all
Public Works
delivery, soil haul trucks, equipment 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.
Attachment No. CC 2
Draft Resolution — State of
Overriding Consideration and
Site Plan Approval
M
m
RESOLUTION NO. 2010-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND APPROVING THE SITE
PLANS FOR THE THREE PHASES OF THE MARINA PARK
PROJECT
WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
( "CEQA ") (Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq) and its implementing State
regulations (CEQA Guidelines) (14 Cal. Code of Regulations, Sections 15000 et seq.)
the City of Newport Beach prepared an Environmental Impact Report (State
Clearinghouse No. 2008051096) for the Marina Park Project ( "Project "). The purpose of
the EIR is to analyze the potential impacts of the proposed Project. The City Council
considered and certified the Final Environmental Impact Report ( "FEIR ") on May 11,
2010, by adopting certain CEQA Findings of Facts contained in Resolution No. 2010 -_,
which are hereby incorporated by reference; and
WHEREAS, the FEIR identifies potential significant impacts to the environment
and certain mitigation measures designed to reduce or avoid these impacts to a less -
than- significant level. The City Council, adopting Resolution No. 2010 -_, has made
the findings mandated by CEQA (14 Cal. Code of Regulations, Sections 15000 and
15091). In particular, the City Council has found that changes or alterations have been
made to the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
impacts of the Project to the extent feasible; and
WHEREAS, the FEIR identifies one potentially significant impact (construction
noise) to the environment that cannot be reduced to a less- than - significant level with the
adoption of feasible alternatives or mitigation measures. In other words, there are no
feasible Project alternatives or mitigation measures that would fully mitigate this impact.
Despite the occurrence of these effects, however, the City Council may approve the
Project if it adopts a Statement of Overriding Considerations that explain, in the City
Council's view; the economic, social, and other benefits that the Project will produce
and will render the significant effects acceptable.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Statement of Overriding Considerations Pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15093, the City Council has reviewed and hereby adopts the
Statement of Overriding Considerations, attached as "Exhibit A" entitled "Statement of
Overriding Considerations," which exhibit is incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 2. Approval of Site Plans. The City Council hereby approves the Site
Plans for the three phases of the Project, identified as Exhibits 3 -4, 3 -5 and 3 -6 in the
Draft REIR (which comprises the first part of the Final EIR), incorporated herein by
reference. Further refinement of the Site Plans are anticipated provided they are
.... ...._._......_._ ............... _
deemed in substantial conformance with the Site Plans and subject to the City Council's
review and approval with the final plans and bid specifications.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 11 th day of May 2010.
MAYOR
Keith D. Curry
ATTEST:
Leilani Brown, City Clerk
N
"Exhibit A"
CEQA STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR THE
MARINA PARK
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2008051096
A. INTRODUCTION
The City of Newport Beach is the Lead Agency under CEQA for preparation, review and
certification of the Final EIR for the Marina Park Project. As the Lead Agency, the City
of Newport Beach is also responsible for determining the potential environmental
impacts of the proposed action and which of those impacts are significant, and which
can be mitigated through imposition of mitigation measures to avoid or minimize those
impacts to a level of less than significant. CEQA then requires the Lead Agency to
balance the benefits of a proposed action against any remaining significant unavoidable
adverse environmental impacts in determining whether or not to approve the proposed
Project. In making this determination the City is guided by CEQA Guidelines Section
15093, which provides as follows:
(a) CEQA requires the decision - making agency to balance, as applicable, the
economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a Project against
its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve
the Project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
benefits of a proposed Project outweigh the unavoidable adverse
environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered
"acceptable ".
(b) When the lead agency approves a Project which will result in the occurrence
of significant effects which are identified in the Final EIR but are not avoided
or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific
reasons to support its action based on the Final EIR and /or other information
in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported
by substantial evidence in the record.
(c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement
should be included in the record of the Project approval and should be
mentioned in the notice of determination. This statement does not substitute
for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091.
In addition, Public Resources Code Section 21081 (b) requires that where a public
agency finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations,
make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in an EIR and thereby
leave significant unavoidable effects, the public agency must also find that overriding
Marina Park
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 1
economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the Project outweigh the
significant effects of the Project.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 (b) and the State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15093, the City of Newport Beach has balanced the benefits of the proposed
Project against the following unavoidable adverse impact (construction noise)
associated with the proposed Project, and has adopted all feasible mitigation measures
with respect to this impact. The City of Newport Beach also has examined alternatives
to the proposed Project, none of which meets the Project objectives and is
environmentally preferable to the proposed Project for the reasons discussed in the
Findings of Fact (attached as "Exhibit A" of Resolution No. 2010 -_).
The Newport Beach City Council, acting as Lead Agency, and having reviewed the Final
EIR for the Marina Park Project, and reviewed all written materials within the City's
public record and heard all oral testimony presented at public hearings, adopts this
Statement of Overriding Considerations, which has balanced the benefits of the Project
against its significant unavoidable environmental impacts in reaching its decision to
approve the Project.
B. SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS
Although most potential significant Project impacts have been substantially avoided or
mitigated, as described in the Findings of Fact, there remains one Project impact for
which complete mitigation is not feasible. For the construction noise impact, mitigation
measures were identified and adopted by the Lead Agency; however, even with
implementation of the measures, the City finds that the impacts cannot be reduced to a
level of less than significant. The construction noise impact is described below and is
also addressed in the Findings of Fact.
Impact: Temporary or Periodic Increases in Ambient Noise Levels
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 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.
Marina Park
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 2
Construction noise impacts were found to be potentially significant because of the up to
17 weeks of piledriving. This impact was found to be potentially significant (and
therefore is addressed as a significant impact) because of the proximity of sensitive
receptors and the potential to annoy residents for up to 17 weeks. At up to 17 weeks
the construction impact would be temporary and would cease on completion of
construction activities.
C. PUBLIC BENEFITS
The City of Newport Beach in balancing the specific economic, social, technological and
other benefits of the proposed Marina Park Project, has determined that the
unavoidable impact identified above, which would result in short-term construction -
related noise impacts, and which impacts would cease upon completion of construction,
are considered acceptable due to the following specific considerations that outweigh the
unavoidable, adverse environmental impacts of the proposed Project.
1. Redevelop Site with Land Uses Consistent with Land Use Designation and
Tidelands
The General Plan and City's Local Coastal Land Use Plan Map designated the project
site as Parks and Recreation (PR) and Public Facilities (PF). The PR category applies
to land used or proposed for active public or private recreational use. Permitted uses
include parks (both active and passive), golf courses, marina support facilities, aquatic
facilities, tennis clubs and courts, private recreation, and similar facilities. The existing
mobile homes are not consistent with this land use designation. The proposed facilities
within the Marina Park project would be consistent with the land use designation and
would meet the recreation and open space needs of the community.
The current use of the site (mobile homes) is also not consistent with tidelands. The
proposed project would be consistent with the land use designation of the site and with
tidelands. The proposed project would enhance public access to and along the beach
by removing existing barriers such as the mobile home park and associated fences.
2. Enhance Public Access and Provide Community Facilities to Meet the Goals of
the General Plan for Recreation and Harbors and Beaches
General Plan goals call for the preservation and enhancement of water related public
recreation and education areas and facilities (Harbors and Bay Element, Goal 1.1); the
provision of youth programs (Recreation Element, Goal 4.3); the expansion of coastal
and beach recreational opportunities, including the provision of recreational facilities
(Recreation Element, Goals 6.1 and 7.1); the provision of marine recreational facilities
(Recreational Element, Goals 8.2 and 8.5); and the enhancement of marine - oriented
programs such as sailing programs (Recreation Element, Goal 8.7).
City policy calls for five acres of park per 1,000 residents. By that standard, according
to recent City data, the City has an overall deficit of some 68 acres of parkland, not
including beaches. The Balboa Peninsula in particular currently has only 6.5 acres of
Marina Park
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 3
(0-3
park, since most of its recreational area is in beaches. The area needs an additional
21.5 acres of park to meet the City's standard. The General Plan calls for additional
pedestrian access and the renovation and expansion of community facilities such as the
Balboa Center and facilities for sailing and boating programs. The General Plan also
identifies a need for community facilities that include large meeting and multipurpose
rooms, because most existing City -owned indoor spaces are small classrooms.
The proposed project would address established City policy as expressed in the
General Plan Harbor and Bay Element (e.g., policies HB -2.1.1 Public Access and HB-
2.1.7 Visiting Vessels) and in the Local Coastal Program (e.g., Section 3.3). Both
documents encourage expansion and improvement of waterfront access and facilities
for visiting vessels. In addition, Section 30224 of the California Coastal Act encourages
the provision of berthing space, harbors of refuge, and new protected waters dredged
from dry land.
3. Complement efforts to revitalize Balboa Village and Enhance Other Commercial
Areas on the Peninsula
The project would complement efforts to revitalize Balboa Village by placing a
recreational facility in close proximity to Balboa Village and other commercial activity.
The uses would be complementary as visitors would be able to shop and enjoy beach
and marina facilities in close proximity to each other.
4. Provide for Additional Marine - Related Facilities
Recent estimates by the City of Newport Beach Harbor Resources Division have
identified a market demand for approximately 17,000 berth -days of public berth
occupancy per year. Visiting boaters must use moorings, which restricts their access to
shore facilities and to boaters with the experience, ability, and vessel characteristics that
allow them to use moorings (for example, many aging, physically handicapped, or
inexperienced boaters, boaters with children, and boaters whose vessels lack electrical
and sanitation systems cannot readily use moorings for a stay of several days). As a
result, potential visitors tend to favor other harbors (e.g., Dana Point, Long Beach, and
Huntington) that can provide slips or side -tie space.
D. CONCLUSION
The City hereby finds that all feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR
(comprised of the Draft Recirculated EIR, Response to Comments to the Draft
Recirculated EIR, and Errata to the Draft Recirculated EIR) have been and will be
implemented with the Project, and that any significant unavoidable effects remaining are
acceptable due to the above stated specific economic, social, and other considerations,
based upon the facts set forth above, in the Final EIR, and in the public record of the
consideration of this Project.
Marina Park
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 4
Ceml Newport Leach gsmam nv Association
PI BUM KNOW In* U 92iiMU
May 10, 2010
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Subject: Marina Park Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
Dear Mr. Mayor and Council Members:
i� t
Our Board of Directors is delighted that progress continues to be made on the Marina Park
project. However, while we do not wish to impede progress and encourage the council to certify
the EIR as soon as possible, we do not believe an acceptable response was provided to our
comments regarding the disposition of two existing alley gates during Phase 1 of the project.
Project descriptions in the EIR call for the removal of two existing alley gates in Phase I that if
removed, would effectively result in a Balboa Blvd. westbound traffic bypass from 15'h Street to
19'h Street. In our comments on the DREIR we requested that the document be modified to
stipulate these gates would remain until Phase 3 construction.
An acceptable alternative to stipulating the gates would remain is to simply have staff delete
the several references to demolishing the gates in the EIR and project description, and if
appropriate, let the CounclItCitizens Advisory Committee consider the gate disposition
alternatives at a later time.
The removal of these gates could have an enormous impact on the neighborhood next to the
Marina Park site if either of the Phase 1 or 2 interim parks remains in use for an extended period
of time.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of our concerns. Central Newport Beach Community
Association represents more than 350 member households on the peninsula.
Very truly yours,
Louise Fundenberg, President
Central Newport Beach Community Association
0
-
i
m^
-
�i�o
�s
�
T
m
o
C)
Our Board of Directors is delighted that progress continues to be made on the Marina Park
project. However, while we do not wish to impede progress and encourage the council to certify
the EIR as soon as possible, we do not believe an acceptable response was provided to our
comments regarding the disposition of two existing alley gates during Phase 1 of the project.
Project descriptions in the EIR call for the removal of two existing alley gates in Phase I that if
removed, would effectively result in a Balboa Blvd. westbound traffic bypass from 15'h Street to
19'h Street. In our comments on the DREIR we requested that the document be modified to
stipulate these gates would remain until Phase 3 construction.
An acceptable alternative to stipulating the gates would remain is to simply have staff delete
the several references to demolishing the gates in the EIR and project description, and if
appropriate, let the CounclItCitizens Advisory Committee consider the gate disposition
alternatives at a later time.
The removal of these gates could have an enormous impact on the neighborhood next to the
Marina Park site if either of the Phase 1 or 2 interim parks remains in use for an extended period
of time.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of our concerns. Central Newport Beach Community
Association represents more than 350 member households on the peninsula.
Very truly yours,
Louise Fundenberg, President
Central Newport Beach Community Association
0
L • ..
lipbir,MIff!fR
0
y
'�JJ.r� �JJ3JJJr�"
Marina Park Phase 3 Plan
0 60 in J.0 360
mmmmmmmi 0
i
r— ar r.m gi
�r �i�'��T✓1�= � *�f��tlPifrL
,. ►� 1
n::_ yam! I- . -+J-.
p�l OlY fRWrr M'
f Yy a _ zsl
11
�F
Lower Newport Bay
F,nt•�y Rear,
Mob 'e Romea and Pa n,g Rema d
Fnrieg
. 44Tmes w r . L , TemDO'ky • S 1.
• • Rema i • .� • • • Neitroam•,$ &s
• Metered PyMc Paddng
FyWng
1 Fnsnng GH in F.btingTennis Courts
mmmunq H1
ctn
Amencan leg,on
Post 291
F Balboa Boulevard
Marina Park Phase 1 Plan
0 00 120 240 100 Aug. 18, 2009
CJ
r
` 1 ` __ —.,r— _ — .L S • - -..�.� .�� -- ILnc i"-i Legion
S S S S ♦ S Post 291
MtlpRrO T•t i
—I E sung
4. 1 �Llrtei to ti 'Yr � i $ r' /� i1S'f?id77'�.
S•mam
�» �'p° N •_„ Met•nd WOK PMFne _ !•�.•..,_ • . .•
T
EdWn4 Y
.1
m bmf.mg 6M SmA E*j"T*,WCO" "ti r
y �._ CC +.m�rvq 110111• .r i[i•, py�i d..i •y. JA T s
.r f
t Balboa Boulevard "'� �^•�
cs
Marina Park Phase 2 Plan
o 60 120 240 160 Aug. 18. 2009
C
IN
all
a
Marina Park Phase 3 Plan
0 60 170 140 360
0
��1� .f
,14
r ����
�. ..i � Y �
� � �.,
1
_ `� �.���
• :a
� �� ..--
1✓..'
e
r M
y
y, F`�,s i
(! \
ear
■EMIIb7FS rr w��.�e...��.�
H-
1
9QVm
Aw
__ �
,�
�� _
'��, o.
--
/�.
�JL 1
��
j
J
U
j.
46
�tl
J
�j
•�T. e_1
J
Em
Authorized to Publish Advertisements of all kinds imiudin
rkttee of the Superior Court or ()range County. California
September 29, 1961, and A 24831 Junc 11, 1963
PROOF OF PUBLICATK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
) SS
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
I am a Citizen of the United Statt
resident of the County aforesa
over the age of eighteen years,
party to or interested in the belov
matter. I am a principal clerM
NEWPORT BEACH - COSTF
DAILY PILOT, a newspaper of
circulation, printed and publishE
City of Costa Mesa, County of
State of California, and that
Notice is a true and complete
was printed and published
following dates:
May 1, 2010
2�
� a
v
Marina Park Project
Certification of Final Environmental
Impact Report and Consideration of
Site Plan
On May 11, 2010, the City Council will review and consider the certi-
fication of the Final Environmental Impact Report and review the Site
Plans prepared for Phase 1, 2 and 3 of the Marina Park. The project is
located on north side of Balboa Blvd, between 15th and 19th Streets.
The meeting will be held at 7:00 p.m. in the City of Newport Beach
Council Chambers at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA
92663. Anyone interested in this item is invited to attend the meeting.
The Final Environmental Impact Report (Responses to Comments and
Errata) is available for review on the City's Website at
http://www.newportbeachca.gov/index.aspx?page=1347
The City Council staff report on the project will be available for review
on the City's Website on May 5, 2010,
c:uNy a_�
on the
I declare, under penalty of perjury, that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on May 5, 2010 at
Costa Mesh, California.
n
J
me
CD
;TI
O