HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-75 - General Plan EIR CertificationRESOLUTION NO. 2006 -75
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT
BEACH CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH.
NO. 2006011119) FOR THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN
2006 UPDATE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT AND STATE AND LOCAL GUIDELINES, MAKING CERTAIN
FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS THERETO AND ADOPTING A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, did on the 25th day
of July, 2006, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider: (1) the certification of the Final
Environmental Impact Report (EIR), (2) the adoption of certain findings and determinations and
adopt statement of overriding considerations; and
WHEREAS, the Planning? Commission of the City of Newport Beach, California, did on the
6th, and 20th days of April, the 4t and 18th days of May and the 1St, 15th and 22 "d of June, did hold
duly noticed public hearings and carefully reviewed and considered the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach did, on the 13th and
20th day of July, 2006, hold duly noticed public hearings on the Final EIR, the comments thereon,
and the responses to those comments. On July 20th, the Planning Commission considered the
draft Findings of Fact and the draft Statement of Overriding Considerations; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 20th day of July, 2006, adopt a
resolution recommending that the City Council certify the EIR prepared for the City of Newport
Beach General Plan 2006 Update, including the Findings of Fact and the Statement of
Overriding Considerations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and duly considered the recommendation of the
Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the EIR has been prepared and circulated for public review in accordance
with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.
( "CEQA "); and
WHEREAS, it was determined pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal.
Code of Regs. sections 15000 et seq.) that the General Plan 2006 Update could have a
significant effect on the environment, and thus warranted the preparation of an Environmental
Impact Report ( "EIR "); and
WHEREAS, on January 20, 2006, the City of Newport Beach, as lead agency under
CEQA, prepared a Notice of Preparation ( "NOP ") of the EIR; mailed that NOP to public agencies,
organizations, and persons likely to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed project;
and thereafter held a public scoping meeting to gather public and agency comments concerning
the preparation of the EIR; and
WHEREAS, the City thereafter caused to be prepared a Draft Environmental Impact
Report (T EIR"), which, taking into account the comments it received on the NOP, described the
proposed project ( "EIR Project) and discussed the environmental impacts resulting there from,
and on April 21, 2006, circulated the DEIR for public and agency comments; and
WHEREAS, the public comment period closed on June 5, 2006, and was subsequently
extended until June 13, 2006; and
WHEREAS, staff of the City of Newport Beach has reviewed the comments received on
the draft EIR, has prepared full and complete responses thereto, and on July 11, 2006 distributed
the responses in accordance with Public Resources Code section 21092.5; and
WHEREAS, a combined Final Environmental Impact Report (collectively, "FEIR ") for the
EIR Project was presented to the City Council, as the decision making body of 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, a as result of the numerous public hearings and the extensive public input
and involvement, and in light of the information in the EIR, the City Council directed that changes
be made to the EIR Project in order to reduce land use intensity, and make certain other changes
regarding type of use and policy revisions which would reduce the impacts of the General Plan
Update, as is further described in Section 8.3 of the FEIR;
WHEREAS, the reduced General Plan Update described in Section 8.3 of the FEIR is
hereinafter described as the "Reduced Project;
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information and the
comments pertaining to the DEIR and FEIR at a duly noticed meeting held on the 25t" day, of July,
2006; 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 considers all potentially significant environmental impacts of the EIR Project and the
Reduced Project, and is complete and adequate, and fully complies with all requirements of
CEQA and of the State and local CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, prior to action on the Reduced 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 Reduced Project have been lessened or avoided to the extent feasible;
and
WHEREAS, CEQA and the 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 makes written findings for each of the
significant effects, accompanied by a statement of facts supporting each finding; and
WHEREAS, CEQA and the 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 Reduced Project is necessary to
serve the existing and future needs of the City of Newport Beach.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
SECTION 1. Certification. Based on its review and consideration of the FEIR, all written
communications and oral testimony regarding the EIR Project and the Reduced Project which
have been submitted to and received by the City Council, the City Council certifies that the FEIR
has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the State and local CEQA Guidelines. The
City Council, having final approval authority over the Reduced Project, adopts and certifies as
complete and adequate the FEIR, which reflects the City Council's independent judgment and
analysis. The City Council further 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 Reduced Project. This certification is made for the Reduced Project and its implementation
only. Neither this certification nor the underlying FEIR shall be used by the City or third parties as
the CEQA documentation for any project which is more intense than, or inconsistent with, the
Reduced Project.
SECTION 2. CEQA Finding and Statement of Facts. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
section 15091, the City Council has reviewed and hereby adopts the CEQA Finding and
Statement of Facts as shown on the attached Exhibit "A" entitled "CEQA Finding and Statement
of Facts," which exhibit is incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 3. Statement of Overriding Considerations. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
section 15093, the City Council has reviewed and hereby makes the Statement of Overriding
Considerations to adverse environmental impacts, attached also as Exhibit "A" entitled
"Statement of Overriding Considerations," which exhibit is incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 4. Location and Custodian of Record of Proceedings. The City Clerk of the
City of Newport Beach, located at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92263, 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 Community Development 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.
The City Clerk shall post the resolution in three conspicuous places in the City of Newport Beach.
ADOPTED this 25t' day of July 2006. 0-4
MAYOR
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN 2006 UPDATE
Findings of Fact/
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Prepared for
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915
Prepared by
EIP Associates
12301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430
Los Angeles, California 90025
July 2006
CHAPTER1 Introduction ............................................................................ ............................... 1 -1
CHAPTER CEQA Findings .......................................................................... ............................2 -1
2.1 Introduction ......................................................................................... ............................2 -1
CHAPTER 3 Findings Regarding Project Alternatives ................................... ............................3 -1
3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................... ............................3 -1
3.2 Project Objectives .............................................................................. ...........................3 -11
3.3 Selection of Alternatives ..................................................................... ............................3 -3
3.4 Project Alternative Findings ............................................................. ...........................3 -23
CHAPTER 4 Statement of Overriding Considerations ................................... ............................4 -1
4.1 Introduction ......................................................................................... ............................4 -1
4.2 Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts ....................................... ............................4 -1
4.3 Findings ................................................................................................. ............................4 -3
4.4 Overriding Considerat ions ................................................................. ............................4 -3
Table
Table2 -1 CEQA Findings ............................................................................................ ............................2 -2
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Findings of Fact /Statement of Overriding Considerations III
This document presents the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations that must be
adopted by the City of Newport Beach (City) pursuant to the requirements of Sections 15091 and 15093,
respectively, of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines) prior to the
approval of the City of ?Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update (proposed project).
This document is organized as follows:
Chapter 1 Introduction to the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations.
Chapter 2 Presents the CEQA Findings of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR),
including the identified significant impacts.
Chapter 3 Presents the alternatives to the proposed project and evaluates them in relation to
the findings contained in Section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. The City
must consider and make findings regarding alternatives when a project would
involve environmental impacts that cannot be reduced to a less - than - significant
level, or cannot be substantially reduced, by proposed mitigation measures.
Chapter 4 Presents a Statement of Overriding Considerations that is required in accordance
with Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines for significant impacts of the
proposed project that cannot be mitigated to a less - than - significant level.
As noted in Chapter 8 of the Final EIR, since publication of the Draft EIR, the City Council and
Planning Commission have conducted eighteen public hearings each to discuss the proposed General
Plan update. As a result of this public's input during this process and to lessen the environmental
impacts identified in the EIR, the City Council has directed City staff to make changes to the proposed
General Plan Update that would reduce the Project's land use intensities and add circulation system
improvements to reduce traffic impacts. In addition, the Council has made policy additions and other
revisions to reduce environmental impacts. These changes are discussed in Chapters 8 and 9 of the Final
EIR, with land use density and intensity reductions and resulting reductions in average daily trip
generation shown on Table 8 -1, and policy additions and revisions in response to DEIR comments
shown in Chapter 9, Text Changes. In addition, two circulation system improvements have been added
to the Circulation Element: a second left turn lane at Riverside Drive and Coast Highway, and an
additional right turn lane and through lane at Campus Drive and Bristol Street. These improvements
decrease the number of intersections that would operate at a level of service worse than "D," and allow
the Circulation Element policy to establish LOS D as the City's standard for two additional intersections.
These Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations reflect the reductions and changes
to the project that the Planning Commission and City Council have indicated should be incorporated
into the proposed General Plan prior to its adoption. All recommended reductions, revisions and policy
modifications to the proposed General Plan Update that occurred after the issuance of the Draft EIR are
within the scope of impacts analyzed in the EIR and would eliminate or reduce the severity of
environmental impacts, rather than result in an increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Draft
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Findings of Fact /Statement of Overriding Considerations 1 -1
EIR. As such, recirculation of the EIR is not required, in accordance with Section 15088.5 of the CEQA
Guidelines.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Findings of Fact /Statement of Overriding Considerations 1 -2
2.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents the potential impacts that were identified in the EIR and the findings that are
required in accordance with Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines. The possible findings for each
significant and /or potentially significant adverse impact are as follows:
(a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid,
substantially lessen, or reduce the magnitude of the significant environmental effect as identified in
the EIR ("Finding 1 ").
(b) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency
and not the agency making the findings. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or
can and should be adopted by such other agency. ("Finding 2 ")
(c) Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or
project alternatives in the EIR ("Finding 3 ").
Table 2 -1 (CEQA Findings) summarizes the significant unavoidable impacts of the General Plan Update,
as currently proposed for adoption.
Additional facts that support the findings are set forth in the Draft EIR, the Final EIR, the staff report to
the City Council, and the record of proceedings.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Findings of Fact /Statement of Overriding Considerations 2 -1
OF
OF
a
m
L
d
a.
m E y "y a
aci Eo 0 m
n U fn U a
c m �
m
` ca U O N
o d C 3 0
c
y a �
c o L a
c o E m 5
U
— c °
m
ya a a
y d
3 c y u
ZvL a`�
M O C N
v m � E a
M o y
lO � "C
na c > on
E m m a n
Q
p o w
m o w o& g U m rn
> a:2 &a
o
n.N-i Li nda n "� n`�C7a
H° o£ Q 3 m C7 WC
c d L m
o £
m
m
a a— rn
e
n ry U T
E � � 00
C4
H
a h M o a m
O
U
S w 1O
N N
N d ° M L 3
m�z 3
N
c nno c.- ono
vi E'��
_ cF no
EQ
a�
OO
M
o .°
Z
�.E m a a
o `o m
a"ci
h
..0 0
V
m> ...
c
m�
°
�O a aci n vNi aai
d °� o o
75
N i a Ir M
° a>>o - a�
pj o aii m
° m a°i Z• z
cg
a
c
fn m m° v 'n
v L d ai
rn
C7 a`� a 5 3 a m
N
=
- c
°o
U
N N O U =,2
o E
T U L N 2
N n
o
U Q
C° Ma
°' v °
m
a�oi
v
sn n n a°
n
y
c c n T o
y w y m .�
y
c m c .'3
E m o o E m o— w 3
a --
O
m >:
m— o c E 3= y
m w 'n m
O
y C'J .- °" o a� o
o°
M n�
m
c
m m °>
'O o !c i o
> a
°�
rn
°
a
.� o o -- .n E E
c 3 Cd
2
v
o L a c 5 aci E n E aNi a
s
0) n3 = °°
.m °� 3 `m
ii
H a m co 3 3 m n n E m
H Q
m E y "y a
aci Eo 0 m
n U fn U a
c m �
m
` ca U O N
o d C 3 0
c
y a �
c o L a
c o E m 5
U
— c °
m
ya a a
y d
3 c y u
ZvL a`�
M O C N
v m � E a
M o y
lO � "C
na c > on
E m m a n
Q
p o w
m o w o& g U m rn
> a:2 &a
o
n.N-i Li nda n "� n`�C7a
H° o£ Q 3 m C7 WC
c d L m
o £
m
m
a a— rn
e
n ry U T
E � � 00
C4
H
' T N Ol N N to C
m U a L C N N 7 t m U m L N� C� (O a •� j a
m'o E m m c m c =
cam °a �b cnz �a mS�yom aJ,
E m o m aNi c .� E m vopi m ani m 'o d
o c n m
E a a p p o o
° fn m p o c o fn a a
m
fn a� LD °c d _T o ai fn a '° y n a 'O m a v ° m
3 .E m
Z-
-o 75
>._.
t c H m m e `m vpi c n v d
ao u �' °c c °a m m
o
E "v E O c m m a aEi c
E5 cmi
dTFn m n >ca o�`w�ot=U B c
E
E2 L m e a a
c >+ o ° o m c o Fco E c p a o a x c
m� a m- � vi o o ma m o
d m E
L_ O E
m a o O
a c Z n a c= m °c a c 0 C7 > 'vi
N m- E E
E w m "m _p .m a` c 'E . m a m m E
v E U 2 d y o f
a m p m a V y e ai
E cL a o
• m d m cE
a .m api 0 °a d api a�i a .m api
c c o w E Uo
m E m d n m m a"i m n E m n t> Z a a .�N-' E m fn vi >
m U _ c L c p fn m U ,� c E o m m mo
E m o� m m - c E vpi c C7 ai m
m U c a`� m n- m p 0 c c o
na>> y £ -aoi -2 E Fn
M
y a>> m
3 aNi m
iL Z m cn °� E m E ii Z 0 n m aEi a 2 .N
m N N m 3 N U a L U
U U
x� '" m
s a a`� E
g n C7 m o c 3 E E t> ° p vi
i m. f= o o E '-' ° 'C c
• N N X m m
O N C U
• LO�Tm 7a EL'p
-- W E E n 'O o m m-p
> p � c
E y
Ti aci a '° a vi 0 < c y£ y° E
E� m Ma a= U m o c m c m
E o L c (O N !C n y 'U N (O
E c
° y o a ° >' t w y 0i c c m
c m m
L m 5 n m � a a � c a a Q
Oa 3 d o a-Oi
Q m U C Q C n N U C C C
U in m m U ° x
N m 0�£ a: co c4 `nm£ OD °�C7 C7 in
M
N
m
c' m .T.
p m m- .-
c m N
c
y
N
c
c 5
a
E c N o
c v c
fn m
U
C
N C
E
E
a y y
m
E
E
T
-
a
E
N
y
3 N y
n
M y= U
C G 7
N
On
cp
N O 3 T.r
N E O'
V
m m
�i
6--W
U
2 a
m o
n m m m
U
c
.� c
a
a
=°
v °�
o o
.x
a E
as
U U
m
v
3 m m
c°
M
N
d
V
d
O
Oi
U
ui.Ln u)
y O N ? E
a
of
U U N O
>i N y y E N in U O a U
N> N O c y N
o�oa m 3 a
a c L N to C N D N c lO
fn m m" M V m -co
a
m m
a ono a� nQJ c a- o a c
N p Ol
US 0
O 25 a, L IO � � > > = a a
Z fn c N N N
c C V N C N L
lO U N y
c N
c d vi
� N
O
O O y p
> � O
N y
N �
n c
U n O V
tO lO O
d O d
a
C4
�
L
`
a c
n o
�
o
>
c �
N
N
d
d a._
�
O U
ali
o
C7
m 0
�
O
c �
-
O
ME
y
N �
U N
0
� 3
L
c N
c d vi
� N
O
O O y p
> � O
N y
N �
n c
U n O V
tO lO O
d O d
a
C4
N
N
3
O
9
N
N
2
9
A
N
m
Z
N
'O
U
�
p
'crn
N
mm�y
wJaa'
�L�
s
aU°�a
°�nu�
�°
a-ca o m m y
Q .`
m.
a
m p n Q
mu
m
-
'm a
75
api = c°i �n
m
O
Q-
N
w
N
n
a� °
0 a
v
N y Y $ .o °'
L E
O m
N O
�F5
°U C� C
O O
m-
mn�=
_m
p a c
L n N O (O M
o
fn > a p
V
.J -°
N
"3
= m mu o
3 M o y m
cr) w
d mv.o
m _ y
�° = 5 n
�U
m o. fn o y o a_Ni
a m
n w m a y y
o a
of
U
E p p J c
N
o
E m
Lu
m
4p
�E
m m, m
'o c m 5°
ii C7 co
LL 3v
N
U
�
p
'crn
mm�y
wJaa'
�L�
s
aU°�a
°�nu�
�°
a-ca o m m y
Q .`
If
m p n Q
m
-
75
Q-
N
N
a N o
O m
N O
�F5
°U C� C
O O
_m
L n N O (O M
r O O
.J -°
y a n
p m
"3
= m mu o
mu
ofa°i ._.
°�
of
E ° m
E p p J c
p
o
E m
Lu
�E
N
s
E u`3
`o
If
m p n Q
m
-
75
N
0
2
c m
c a m m
c o m a fn
c
rn.o
� "o
c a d
n aci aci a
c n b c rn a,�tOi
-
Fn
C
c pp c
L O C O N C C
m a a
m m a c 0
3
min c
m ..N wn
L y m
m°
O y 113.M
c m
aC7
J m
°
E xn M.?
m d
a`�
y
�Q��
n o fn
°
N X
m C
N a) c L-
3
J
y
ww
aaZ cot
oa o
aaa aii c Ta—' V
en'ocE
°
n m
c fn
c
; n m o 2 a
n m a
cd'>
Cl) W fn y v
c>
(D W "in a m a d
O
L O
C C
o
0 o E
a�—> no
ai =� '=' E n
E
M c L °�vi
15
H m o .�
c o N c
��'> ° ax
'n o o
m
v E ° .F
E
c
E m S b3
>
ri
a
a
ai
o a =` 3 rn W'= `n
z� E 5 v
z a y y m
aci
z 'm E a> :° o
rn c
�'oNC�
rn c o o
coi a�'i
c� my
c
'c 8 n
c annw
.9 �'' �'' E
0 .v d,a`�a
-
ac
a o n y
ii z U) !? E
o c
ii z 'y
ii z E E
m J
a�
0 U) a s m
0 c o T
w e
> m .- o
a c v
ai V
y' a '" L z rn
M 3 w U c" U
J m u, rn
n 3 m m
a fn o 3 m Q m
m n m
a— ° "v E ac of
v '�
°
°3 m m
42 o
T
o m °
m
OM
o c a.
m `o o c 'n
m E c E
d — " "c
=� U 3
m
aNi v vi a� v
aNi
U` c
m
c
o° E
vi m
O
0 c C
O _T a) C O n toil
O O
m U U a ._. T O
` n m ` C E C w
" a W-0— T
> `
Nm
in ,5L in °� °
a`3 a a
.o
0°
T a�Oi m x m m
2
zaLS min rn c o
U E U 2 �
� m o
c m
c a m m
c o m a fn
c
>
-
- o a
`o
°—� m o
a
m a a
m m a c 0
c
min c
C7
aC7
E xn M.?
J N
�o3
°`oval
v°i
vnO —or
en'ocE
°
n m
c fn
c
; n m o 2 a
n m a
a
m n
'2 m
a a� n$
E
E w
E5�
na'�i
in
��'> ° ax
d
H
aai 5 a`"i c
c y° a c aai m
Eo £ m
C6
y
vNi
m£
o
O N S
-
b o cap'
o
3
E
m m m
m
c V m ._. .o
�' v
Z
Cl)
Cl)
v ur
C7 °
.p
-C6
c
pa
a°i m m °'m
n C
U C 0
a.Naa
y
Q
°°
y
axi
U
0 3 E2 Q
G
e Q
fl d N O N
Id
2.. >cr)
d
d p C T
a p¢p x y— m o
a
.E v U o 5 m api U
E m°
If
E
m
oE m 4 fn
p m Z
2 p a
c°i a�
fn o o � fn
m p m U= U
)
v o �, o oar 3 ." o C7
V api a M IR
-''• m
° �° m `m O1 d S
E a o am a a E E> d m
m U c
a`
E E
5
2 0 N
O
o
o x o
aEi m
05.0= �L
ca aNO1i .N ami ,a E m
_
u,
m E -
m
E
E C7 a°�i ° o 0 M a— o
°�
� 3 m
E
o a o �° �
0 5 T•� � E 3 v
CO
N U O N O O m
m
E a O O E c m
N E
E N ._ 'tn d
m _
ur fn � .E
mu � �
m ° E
o
o m
m m ow
y
"a� �O M
O c
00 O1 o a
m ,°= o a aa�
'E
,- fn °
•-
aai c CO a o
Cis
`a�
C5 m m
o ° u, c U V c `"
o m 3 o °' m' m a o m
Z o°
Z a m m U) a ° m
Z 5 E° °°
_T
Lm
K
ii 5 'y
ii Z U o m u, `O E°
ii w W=3 U E O d F= U m m "y
aai 5 a`"i c
c y° a c aai m
Eo £ m
o
O N S
-
b o cap'
o
3
E
m m m
m
3
Co d
C7
Z
°- CO
cr)
C7 °
.p
ce
E m
c
ycaco'�
a°i m m °'m
mm�N���cc
Eao��c
a.Naa
y
0 3 E2 Q
G
e Q
fl d N O N
Id
2.. >cr)
d
d p C T
a p¢p x y— m o
a
.E v U o 5 m api U
E m°
If
ox
m
3
p m Z
2 p a
m
m p m U= U
)
v o �, o oar 3 ." o C7
m U c
E E
5
2 0 N
O
o
o x o
a o
C N C N
C T
C m
o
O N S
-
b o cap'
o
3
E
m m m
m
Co d
C7
Z
°- CO
d CO u, m
c E axi
E 'x
.p
ce
E m
c
p
E
o
E
a U m
y
0 3 E2 Q
G
e Q
fl d N O N
Id
V d a) L N
d
d p C T
a
N
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The EIR prepared for the Newport Beach General Plan 2006 update considered four alternatives to the
proposed project. Pursuant to Section 15126.6(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, the primary intent of an
alternatives evaluation is to "describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location
of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or
substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of
the alternatives."
This chapter describes the project objectives and design criteria used to develop and evaluate project
alternatives presented in the Draft EIR. A description of the alternatives compared to the proposed
project and the findings regarding the feasibility of adopting the described alternatives is presented for
use by the City in the decision - making process.
3.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The project seeks to achieve the following objectives, many of which were identified by the community
during the extensive public outreach and participation process, as expressed in the Visioning Statement
developed by the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) and approved by the Planning Commission
and the City Council: Preserve and enhance Newport Beach's character as a beautiful, unique residential
community.
• Reflect a conservative growth strategy that:
> Balances needs for housing, jobs and services
> Limits land use changes to a very small amount of the City's land area
> Directs land use changes to areas where residents have expressed a willingness to consider
change and where sustainable development can occur
> Protects natural resources, open space, and recreational opportunities
• Protect and enhance water quality.
• Protect and enhance recreational opportunities and public access to open space and natural
resources.
• Modify land uses, densities, and intensities so that traffic generation is controlled.
• Improve traffic flow without changing the character of the City.
• Preserve and enhance parks, art, cultural and educational facilities and programs that contribute to
residents' quality of life.
• Ensure the City has adequate municipal revenue to provide first rate municipal services, such as
police, fire, lifeguard, library, recreation, refuse collection and recycling, and infrastructure
maintenance.
• Attract visitors to Newport Beach's hatbox, beaches, hotels, restaurants, and shops with as little
impact as possible on residents and natural resources.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Findings of Fact /Statement of Overriding Considerations 3 -1
■ Encourage revitalization of older and economically challenged commercial areas so that the areas
continue to be community resources and have a positive impact on the value of nearby property
and the local economy.
■ Maintain Newport Harbor as one of the premier small boat recreational boating harbors in the
world, while causing little or no impact on the environment.
■ Control and contain noise and traffic impacts from operations at John Wayne Airport to protect
the residents' quality of life and property values.
■ Modify the Land Use Element and other elements to reflect changes in the law and planning
practices that have occurred in the 17 years since the last comprehensive amendments were
approved.
■ Provide effective means to ensure compliance with Section 423 of the City Charter.
3.3 SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES
The range of feasible alternatives was selected and discussed in a manner to foster meaningful public
participation and informed decision - making. Among the factors that were taken into account when
considering the feasibility of alternatives (as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[f][1]) were
environmental impacts, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, regulatory limitations,
jurisdictional boundaries, and attainment of project objectives. As stated in Section 15126.6(a) of the
CEQA Guidelines, an EIR need not consider an alternative whose effects could not be reasonably
identified, whose implementation is remote or speculative, or one that would not achieve the basic
project objectives. The analysis includes sufficient information about each alternative to provide
meaningful evaluation, analysis and comparison with the proposed project.
3.4 PROJECT ALTERNATIVE FINDINGS
The following is a description of the alternatives evaluated in comparison to the proposed project, as well
as a description of the specific economic, social, or other considerations that make them infeasible for
avoiding or lessening the impacts. The City finds that the adoption of any of the alternatives to the
project is infeasible. The reasons for each finding are provided following the description of the
alternative, and are further described in the Draft EIR.
As shown below and in Chapter 5 (Alternatives) of the Draft EIR, four alternatives, including the No
Project /No Development alternative, were evaluated in comparison to the proposed project. The
environmental advantages and disadvantages of each of these alternatives are described. The alternatives
that were selected for analysis include:
■ Alternative 1: No Project /No Development —With this alternative, development under the
proposed General Plan Update would not occur. The Planning Area would remain developed with
existing land uses and intensities.
■ Alternative 2: No Project /No Action (Existing General Plan) —With this alternative,
development under the proposed General Plan Update would not occur. Development would be
guided by the existing General Plan.
■ Alternative 3: GPAC Recommendations —With this alternative, development would be guided
by a General Plan consisting of the land use recommendations formulated by the General Plan
Advisory Committee (GPAC), which would generally result in less development.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Findings of Fact /Statement of Overriding Considerations 3.2
Chapter 3 Findings Regarding Project Alternatives
■ Alternative 4: Subarea Only Minimum —With this alternative, development would be guided by
a General Plan consisting of land uses resulting in the lowest density of all the alternatives (except
the existing General Plan) studied during the preparation of the General Plan Update. This
alternative would result in the least amount of new development, when considered against the
other action alternatives.
0 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Evaluation
As stated previously, Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines sets forth the requirement to consider
and discuss a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project. The alternatives to be discussed
must be both reasonable and feasible. During the public review period of the Draft EIR, an additional
alternative, irrespective of those analyzed in the Draft EIR, was suggested. Specifically, a number of
potential improvements that were intended to reduce congestion along East Coast Highway in Corona
del Mar were proposed. These suggestions were responded to in the Final EIR, Response to Comments
in responses R1-3. Additionally these have all previously been suggested to the City Council and
discussed at previous City Council meetings. During these deliberations, the City Council received
analysis and testimony by both the Director of Public Works and the City Traffic Engineer outlining the
costs, difficulties in design and construction, lack of available right -of -way and the implications to the
residential and commercial interests in Corona del Mar. Testimony was also received from the Corona
del Mar Business Improvement District and the Corona del Mar Residents Association in opposition to
these suggestion. Based on all this information and public comment, the City Council concluded that the
suggestions were either physically infeasible to implement, or would result in serious economic and social
implications which were unacceptable to the City, including adverse impacts to the businesses along
Coast Highway and the community's and City goal to support and enhance the pedestrian orientation of
the area. For these reasons, these suggestions were not added to alternatives under consideration in the
Environmental Impact Report.
0 Alternative 1: No Project /No Development Alternative
The No Project /No Development Alternative would prohibit all new development, restricting urban
growth to its current extent. This alternative assumes that no additional development and growth within
the Planning Area would occur. The population would remain at existing levels of approximately 83,120
residents, and no construction of additional dwelling units or non - residential building area would occur.
No alterations to the City would occur (with the exception of previously- approved development) and all
existing facilities including residential development and commercial and industrial uses would generally
remain in their current condition. Some minor population growth could occur within the City, to the
extent that existing residential units or units that have already been approved could accommodate
additional residents. None of the impacts of the proposed General Plan Update would result. Future
conditions within the City, except for the impacts of regional growth, would generally be the same as
existing conditions, which were described in the environmental setting section for each environmental
topic.
It should be noted that implementation of this alternative would not result in the construction of
transportation improvements identified in the proposed project. Regional traffic growth would still
occur, resulting in the potential for traffic impacts that would otherwise be mitigated by the proposed
project. Notwithstanding this effect, this alternative would result in less severe impacts than under the
proposed project.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Findings of Fact /Statement of Overriding Considerations 3 -3
Chapter 3 Findings Regarding Project Alternatives
Findings
The City hereby fords that the No Project /No Development Alternative is infeasible for the following
environmental, economic, social, and other considerations:
• Adequate housing would not be provided to meet the City's obligations to provide its fair share of
regional population and housing growth per SCAG and the RHNA. The Housing Element could
not be implemented, or would have to be amended in a manner that probably would not be
certified by the State Department of Housing and Community Development.
• Jobs /housing balance, which helps to locate residents closer to their jobs, would not improve.
• Street intersection improvements, which would mitigate increases in traffic congestion resulting
from regional and local growth, would have to be funded from sources other than developer
contributions, and might not be implemented.
• Acreage of the City's parklands, in the western portion of the City and on Banning Ranch, would
not increase.
• Economic vitality or physical quality of Balboa Village, Mariners' Mile, Lido Village, West Newport
Highway, Cannery Village, or Vic Fadden Square would not improve.
• Due to the absence of policy, protection of the City's water quality, biological resources, visual
resources, and other important natural resources would not be assured.
• Municipal revenue increases related to land use would be limited to allowable annual increases in
property tax, transfer of real property, and any sales increases that could be accommodated within
existing commercial space.
• Opportunities for participation by the City's residents in arts and cultural activities would not
increase.
■ The City could not legally implement this alternative since it would require the City to stop all
future development. This is beyond the City's legal ability.
E Alternative 2: No Project /No Action Alternative (Existing General
Plan)
Implementation of the No Project /No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) would result in development
within the Planning Area that would not meet all of the project objectives established for the proposed
General Plan update for the City of Newport Beach. The No Project /No Action Alternative represents
the continuation of the City's existing General Plan to guide future growth and development within the
City. For this alternative, impacts would be analyzed under a maximum buildout scenario within the City
with the allowed land uses and approved transportation improvements that are designated in the City's
existing General Plan. Compared with the proposed project, the overall development potential in the
City under this alternative would generally be reduced for some land use types, but would be increased
for other types. The existing General Plan allows more square feet of office space, commercial and
industrial land uses than the proposed General Plan Update, while the proposed General Plan Update
would allow more residential, visitor- serving commercial (hotel /motel), institutional and park land uses
than the existing General Plan.
Th s alternative is considered environmentally superior in certain issue areas (per the CEQA Guidelines)
but would also result in potentially greater environmental impacts than the proposed project in other
areas. For example, and as shown in Chapter 5 of the Draft EIR, Alternative 2 would result in potentially
greater environmental impacts than the proposed project with respect to:
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Findings of Fact /Statement of Overriding Considerations 3 -4
• Aesthetics —Due to a lack of community character and neighborhood protection policies, as well
as the potential for more intense development of Banning Ranch, without an open space option,
impacts would be potentially greater.
• Biological Resources —Due to the potential for more intense development of Banning Ranch,
without an open space option, impacts would be potentially greater.
• Recreation and Open Space —The overall amount of land designated for parks and active open
space under this alternative would be less than the proposed project, thereby increasing the
potential use and subsequent degradation of those facilities /opportunities both within and
surrounding the City.
• Transportation —This alternative does not include the same degree of intersection improvements
as the proposed General Plan update, and would result in more intersections operating at LOS E
or F.
Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in lesser environmental impacts than the proposed project
with respect to Land Use and Planning, Noise, Population and Housing, and Public Services due to the
lesser level of development and /or changes to existing land uses that would occur within the City.
Impacts with respect to Au Quality, Cultural Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology
and Water Quality, and Utilities and Service Systems would result in impacts similar to the proposed
project under this alternative.
Findings
The City hereby finds that the No Project /No Action Alternative (Existing General Plan) is infeasible for
the following environmental, economic, social, and other considerations:
• While it provides adequate housing supply to meet the City's obligations to provide its fair share of
regional population and housing growth per SCAG and the RHNA to 2008, it is unlikely that there
would be sufficient capacity for the 20 year time frame of the updated General Plan.
• Jobs /housing balance, which helps to locate residents closer to their jobs, would not improve.
• Development that is reflective of the intended scale of the City's neighborhoods and districts (due
to the absence of policy) would not be assured.
• No differentiation would occur between the scale and character of the City's commercial districts,
including those that would be pedestrian- oriented (due to the absence of policy).
• Street intersection improvements, which would mitigate increases in traffic congestion resulting
from regional and local growth, would have to be funded from sources other than developer
contributions, and might not be implemented.
• Acreage of the City's parklands, in the western portion of the City and on Banning Ranch, would
not increase.
• Economic vitality or physical quality of Balboa Village, Mariners' Mile, Lido Village, West Newport
Highway, Cannery Village, or Mc Fadden Square would be less likely to improve without the
potential for residential use.
• Due to the absence of policy, protection of the City's water quality, biological resources, visual
resources, and other important natural resources would not be assured.
• Opportunities for participation by the City's residents in arts and cultural activities would not
increase.
■ The City's General Plan would remain out of date and out of compliance with changes in State
law.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Findings of Fact /Statement of Overriding Considerations 3 -5
Chapter 3 Findings Regarding Project Alternatives
■ The City would continue to be considered a "non- conforming agency" by the Airport Land Use
Commission.
■ This Alternative would not be consistent with the recently certified Coastal Land Use Plan
■ Alternative 3: GPAC Recommendations
This alternative would result in less commercial and industrial development than the proposed General
Plan Update. In addition, mixed use along Old Newport Boulevard and Balboa Peninsula would be less
than under the proposed General Plan Update, and there would also be a somewhat different mix of uses
in Balboa Village. Outside the subareas, potential residential density would be reduced in Lido Isle,
Balboa Island and West Newport. This alternative would still increase development citywide, when
compared to existing conditions. Policies within the proposed General Plan Update would still be
adopted, except those related to residential development in the Airport Area. Implementation of the
GPAC Recommendations Alternative (Alternative 3) would result in development within the Planning
Area that would generally meet the project objectives established for the proposed General Plan Update
for the City of Newport Beach.
Under this alternative, the potential environmental impacts due to implementation of GPAC
recommendations would increase measurably with respect to Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The
alternative would result in greater industrial and fewer commercial uses compared to the proposed
project. As such, impacts related to the routine transport, use, or disposal, as well as those related to
reasonably foreseeable upset conditions, would be greater than the proposed project as a result of more
frequent use of hazardous materials. Impacts with respect to Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural
Resources, Geology /bfineral Resources, Hydrology and Water Quality, Public Services, Recreation and
Open Space, Transportation, and Utilities and Service Systems would be less than the proposed project,
while impacts related to Aesthetics, Land Use and Planning, Noise, and Population and Housing would
be similar in nature and scale to the proposed General Plan Update.
Findings
The City hereby finds that the GPAC Recommendations Alternative is infeasible for the following
environmental, economic, social, and other considerations:
• This alternative would generate at least 30,431 more average daily trips than the reduced project
being considered by the City Council for approval.
• This alternative would allow residential development in the 65 dBA CNEL contour for John
Wayne Airport, resulting in significant unavoidable impacts from the exposure of sensitive land
uses to hazards and noise.
■ Alternative 4: Subarea Only Minimum
Under the Subarea Only Minimum Alternative (Alternative 4), new development would be less than the
proposed General Plan Update. In addition, the amount of new development would be reduced when
compared to development allowed under the existing General Plan and under Alternative 3, the GPAC
Recommendations. Specifically, under this alternative, residential land uses would be less than the
proposed project in the Airport Area, Balboa Peninsula, West Newport Mesa, Balboa Village, and Old
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Findings of Fact /Statement of Overriding Considerations 3 -6
Chapter 3 Findings Regarding Project Alternatives
Newport Boulevard. No residential development would occur in Banning Ranch. Office uses would be
less in West Newport Mesa, Newport Center /Fashion Island, and Old Newport Boulevard (where no
office uses are proposed). Commercial uses would be less in Newport Center /Fashion Island, Airport
Area, Balboa Peninsula, West Newport Highway, Old Newport Boulevard, and Banning Ranch (where
no commercial uses are proposed). Industrial uses are proposed in West Newport Mesa, but at a level
significantly below the proposed project, while industrial uses in the Airport Area would be greater than
under the proposed project. Finally, institutional uses would be the same or less under this alternative for
all areas where such uses are proposed under the proposed project. Policies within the proposed General
Plan Update would still be adopted.
No potential environmental impacts resulting from the implementation of this alternative would be
greater, in terms of level of significance, than the proposed project. The Subarea Only Minimum
Alternative (Alternative 4) is considered to be the environmentally superior alternative.
Findings
The City hereby fords that the Subarea Only Minimum Alternative is infeasible for the following
environmental, economic, social, and other considerations:
• Economic vitality or physical quality of Balboa Village, Mariners' Mile, Lido Village, West Newport
Highway, Cannery Village, or Mc Fadden Square would be less likely to improve without the
potential for residential development.
• Generation of municipal revenue to provide municipal senrices would be less than under the
proposed project.
• Jobs /housing balance would not be improved as much as under the proposed project.
■ Reduced Project
As noted in Chapter 1 of this document and in Chapter 8 of the Final EIR, since publication of the Draft
EIR, the City Council and Planning Commission have conducted eighteen public hearings to discuss the
proposed General Plan update. As a result of this public involvement process and the information
provided in the EIR, the City Council has directed changes to the proposed General Plan Update that
would reduce the Project's land use intensities and add circulation system improvements to reduce traffic
impacts. In addition, the Council has made policy additions and revisions to reduce environmental
impacts.
For the most part, these changes are discussed in Chapters 8 and 9 of the Final EIR, with land use
density and intensity reductions and resulting reductions in average daily trip generation shown on Table
8 -1, and policy additions and revisions in response to DEIR comments shown in Chapter 9, Text
Changes. Land use density and intensity changes include reduction of residential development in the
Airport Area of 2,100 units (and restriction of residential development to areas outside the John Wayne
Airport 65 dBA CNEL contour); reduction of residential density in Lido Village, Mariners' Mile and
West Newport Mesa; reduction of floor area ratios in Balboa Village, Cannery Village, Corona del Mar,
Lido Village, Mariners' Mile, McFadden Square, Old Newport Boulevard, West Newport Mesa, and
Westcliff Drive; and the following reductions in Newport Center: 150 residential units, 40,000 square feet
of office development, 50,000 square feet of retail development, and 60 hotel rooms.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Findings of Fact /Statement of Overriding Considerations 3 -7
Chapter 3 Findings Regarding Project Alternatives
In addition, two circulation system improvements have been added to the Circulation Element: a second
left turn lane at Riverside Avenue and Coast Highway, and an additional right turn lane and through lane
at Campus Drive and Bristol Street. These improvements decrease the number of intersections that
would operate at a level of service worse than "D," (from 10 to 8) and allow the Circulation Element
policy to establish LOS D as the City's standard for two additional intersections.
These reductions and changes in the project avoid or reduce the magnitude of the following significant
environmental impacts, as discussed in greater detail in Chapter 2, CEQA Findings:
• Aesthetics and Visual Quality Impact 4.1 -3 will be lessened by the addition of requirements for
exterior lighting guidelines for Banning Ranch
• Air Quality Impact 4.2 -1 will be reduced to a less than significant level because the projected
population at buildout of the reduced project General Plan will be less than the SCAG projection.
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact 4.6 -7 will be reduced to a less than significant level
because residential development will not be permitted within the JWA 65 dBA CNEL contour.
• Land Use and Planning Impact 4.8 -1 will be reduced to a less than significant level because
residential development will not be permitted within the JWA 65 dBA CNEL contour.
• Noise Impact 4.9 -5 will be reduced to a less than significant level because residential development
will not be permitted within the JWA 65 dBA CNEL contour.
• Population and Housing Impact 4.10 -1 will be lessened because the projected population at
buildout of the reduced project General Plan will be less than the SCAG projection.
Findings
The City finds that it is the intent of the City Council to approve the Reduced Project described above,
including all reductions and revisions to the General Plan to reduce environmental impacts, as described
above.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Findings of Fact /Statement of Overriding Considerations 3 -8
4.1 INTRODUCTION
Section 15093 of the CEQA guidelines states:
(a) CEQA requires the decision - making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social,
technological, or other benefits of a proposed 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 reason to support its actions 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.
The City of Newport Beach (City) proposes to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations
regarding the potential unavoidable significant impacts of the proposed project. This section describes
the anticipated economic, social, and other benefits or other considerations of the proposed project to
support the decision to proceed with the project even though all of the identified impacts are not
mitigated to a less - than - significant level.
4.2 UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS
The City is proposing to approve the proposed project, with reductions and revisions to reduce
environmental impacts, and has prepared an EIR required by CEQA. Even with reductions and revisions
in the project, the following impacts are unavoidable because it has been determined that no feasible
mitigation is available. Refer to Chapter 2 (CEQA Findings) for further clarification regarding the
impacts listed below.
Aesthetics
Impact 4.1 -3 If development ultimately occurs in Banning Ranch, the proposed project would
result in increased light effects caused by new development.
Cumulative development, in conjunction with the proposed project, would result in significant
unavoidable impacts related to new sources of nighttime lighting within the Banning Ranch Area.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Findings of Fact /Statement of Overriding Considerations 4 -1
Air Quality
Impact 4.2 -2 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would result in
construction emissions that would contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation.
Impact 4.2 -3 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would result in a
cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the region
is in nonattainment under an applicable national or State ambient air quality
standard.
Cumulatively, the proposed project would also have significant and unavoidable impacts with regards to
the above - mentioned impacts.
Cultural
Impact 4.4 -1 Development under the proposed General Plan Update would result in the
demolition of historic structures.
Cumulatively, the proposed project would also have a significant and unavoidable impact with regards to
the above - mentioned impact.
Noise
Impact 4.9 -1 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would generate or expose
persons to ambient noise levels in excess of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.
Impact 4.9 -2 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would expose persons to
vibration levels generated during construction activities that would exceed
72 VdB.
Impact 4.9 -3 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would result in substantial
permanent increases in traffic- related ambient noise levels.
Population and Housing
Impact 4.10 -1 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would induce substantial
growth in an area, either directly or indirectly.
Transportation
Impact 4.13 -2 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would contribute to a
substantial increase in deficient freeway segments and ramps.
Cumulatively, the proposed project would also have a significant and unavoidable impact with regards to
the above - mentioned impact.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Findings of Fact /Statement of Overriding Considerations 4.2
Chapter 4 Statement of Overriding Considerations
■ Short -Term Impacts
Of the thirteen significant unavoidable impacts directly attributable to the proposed project and
associated cumulative impacts, as identified above, none would be classified as short -term. Because this
document is programmatic in nature and would be used to guide future development and subsequent
environmental analysis within the City, potential short -term impacts will be analyzed during specific
projects CEQA review.
® Long -Term Impacts
Of the thirteen significant unavoidable impacts directly attributable to the proposed project and
associated cumulative impacts, as identified above, all of the aforementioned impacts are considered
long -term.
4.3 FINDINGS
The City has evaluated all feasible mitigation measures and project revisions with respect to these impacts
(see Chapter 2, CEQA Findings). The City has also examined a reasonable range of alternatives to the
proposed project (see Chapter 3, Findings Regarding Project Alternatives). Based on this examination,
the City has determined that the Subarea Only Minimum Alternative (Alternative 4) is considered to be
the environmentally superior alternative. While the Subarea Only Minimum Alternative would potentially
result in less significant environmental impacts than the proposed project, the City fords this alternative
infeasible and less desirable than the proposed project and has rejected this alternative from further
consideration because it would not achieve the environmental, economic, social, and other
considerations outlined in Chapter 3 (Findings Regarding Project Alternatives).
4.4 OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Specific economic, social, or other considerations outweigh the impacts stated above. The reasons for
proceeding with the proposed project, even though all of the identified impacts are not fully mitigated to
a less - than - significant level, are described below.
E Proposed Project Benefits
1. The updated General Plan substantially increases- opportunities for employees- to live in proximity to
their jobs, reducing the number and length of vehicle commutes. The existing General Plan Housing
Element, adopted in August 2003, specified a capacity of 582 housing units, which would increase to
727 units- if all parcels- exercised their density bonus for affordable units. The updated Plan provides -
for the conversion of retail, office, and industrial properties for residential purposes, increasing the
City's total housing capacity to approximately 7,000 units. Of these, the majority of units are
integrated into the Airport Area, West Newport Mesa, and in Newport Center, directly supporting
and within a one - quarter mile walking distance of the City's principal jobs centers.
2. The updated Plan emphasizes the development of mixed -use structures that integrate housing with
ground level retail and office uses. In addition to providing opportunities for residents to live closer
to their jobs (live /work and other facilities), residents would be located closer to retail, commercial
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Findings of Fact /Statement of Overriding Considerations 4 -3
Chapter 4 Statement of Overriding Considerations
services, and entertainment. The Institute of Transportation and Traffic Engineering ndicates that mixed use
development can reduce trips by at least 10 percent from single use developments. Additionally,
locating residents in proximity to commercial uses increases the customer base and economic activity
of businesses, provides an "eyes -on" mixed use community that improves public safety, and increases
pedestrian activity within the area.
3. The updated General Plan provides for the development of a mix of commercial and residential uses
that will facilitate the economic improvement and revitalization of deteriorated districts including
Balboa Village, Mariners' Mile, West Newport Highway, Lido Village, Cannery Village, and
McFadden Square. The City's Retail Market Analysis, prepared by Applied Development Economics,
documents the lack of economic performance of businesses in these areas and promotes their
revitalization through consolidation of retail uses, replacement and infill of obsolete businesses, and
introduction of housing in mixed -use projects. All of these are provided for in the updated General
Plan and are seen as key strategies to maintain the City's municipal revenue, as well as to improve the
quality of development in these areas.
4. The updated General Plan provides development and design guidelines that will maintain and
enhance the character of the City's residential neighborhoods, commercial districts, and business
parks. It provides for the management of the design and scale of new and replacement housing in the
City's neighborhoods to preserve their character and quality. It distinguishes pedestrian from
automobile- oriented commercial districts, by regulating the location and design of sidewalk fronting
building elevations, location of parking, and implementation of streetscape amenities in the latter.
5. The updated General Plan recognizes the importance of Newport Harbor to the City and region by
establishing policies regarding the development of appropriate uses along its periphery, maximizing
opportunities for water recreational and marine commercial uses, assuring public access to the
waterfront, controlling off -site drainage into the Harbor and improving water quality, enhancing its
visual character, and coordinating ongoing Harbor operations and activities.
6. The updated General Plan assures compatibility of land uses located in the environs of John Wayne
Airport through requirements that new development be constructed in compliance with the height
restrictions set forth by the Federal Aviation Administration and residential development outside of
the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour specified in the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP).
7. The updated General Plan specifies improvements at intersections throughout the City that will
reduce congestion and improve traffic flows from conditions that would result from the existing
General Plan. Generally, these improvements involve the re- striping and /or widening of
intersections adding turn lanes and pockets that can largely be accomplished within existing right -of-
ways or with little acquisition of land.
8. The updated General Plan establishes standards for traffic level of service (LOS) at intersections.
9. The updated General Plan will improve the opportunities for parks and recreation facilities to serve
the City's residents and visitors. It provides for the development of a new park at Banning Ranch,
whether acquired as open space or partially developed, that will provide playfields and passive
recreational opportunities for the underserved western portion of the City. Additionally, the Plan, for
the first time in Policy R 1.9, prioritizes park and recreational facility improvements.
10. The updated General Plan, for the first time, provides new strategies for the protection of the City's
historic buildings and districts in accordance with state and federal statutes.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Findings of Fact /Statement of Overriding Considerations 4 -4
Chapter 4 Statement of Overriding Considerations
11. Similarly, for the first time, the updated General Plan enhances opportunities for the public's
participation in the rich diversity of arts and cultural facilities and events in the City. These address
the programming of events, development of facilities, and funding of both.
12. For the first time, the updated General Plan defines comprehensive policies to protect Newport
Beach's important natural environmental resources. These establish regulations for land use and
capital improvements that will improve the quality of terrestrial waterways, Newport Harbor, and
Tapper Newport Bay; reduce au emissions and degradation of the airshed; limit development
intrusion into natural habitats; and protect coastal dunes, archaeological and paleontological
resources, mineral resources, and visual resources. Among the extensive policies that will improve the
area's water quality are the control of runoff and discharge into the storm drainage system, control of
chemical uses, use of Best Management Practices in development, integration of natural wetlands in
development, and minimization of impervious surfaces. Biological resources are protected through
requirements for environmental study areas: site - specific surveys to identify the presence of listed
animal and plant species, limitation on the taking of any species and mitigation of impacts,
establishment of buffers for developments abutting such resources, compliance with the Orange
County Natural Communities Conservation Plan, support of giant kelp reforestation and eelgrass
protection programs, and management of resources in Upper Newport Bay.
13. The updated General Plan improves public safety for Newport Beach's residents through an
integrated program of standards for the location and design of development, hazard abatement and
risk mitigation, and emergency preparedness and response. These address risks from coastal hazards
(tsunamis and rogue waves, storm surges, and coastal erosion), geologic hazards, seismic hazards,
flooding, urban and wildland fires, hazardous materials, and aviation hazards.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Findings of Fact /Statement of Overriding Considerations 4 -5
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
COUNTY OF ORANGE } ss.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH }
I, LaVonne M. Harkless, City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, California, do
hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council is seven; that the foregoing
resolution, being Resolution No. 2006 -75 was duly and regularly introduced before and adopted by
the City Council of said City at a regular meeting of said Council, duly and regularly held on the
25th day of July 2006, and that the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit:
Ayes: Curry, Selich, Rosansky, Ridgeway, Daigle, Mayor Webb
Noes: Nichols
Absent: None
Abstain: None
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affied the
official seal of said City this 26th day of July 2006.
(Seal)
City Clerk
Newport Beach, California