Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout86-55 - General Plan Amendment 85-1BRESOLUTION NO. 86 -55 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE, AND CIRCULATION ELEMENTS OF THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN, AND IN APPROVING SAID AMENDMENTS MAKE FINDINGS AND STATEMENTS IN REGARDS • TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION [GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 85 -1(B)) WHEREAS, Section 707 of the Charter of the City of Newport Beach pro- vides that the City Council, upon recommendation by the Planning Commission, may amend the General Plan, or any part or Element thereof; and WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the City's General Plan, the Land Use, Recreation and Open Space, and Circulation Elements have been prepared; and WHEREAS, said elements of the General Plan set forth objectives and supporting policies which serve as guides for the future development of the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 707 of the Charter of the City of Newport Beach, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider certain amendments to the above referenced elements of the Newport Beach General Plan; and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach has, in the General Plan Housing Element, established policies to increase the production of housing in the community and to provide affordable housing opportunities in the City; and WHEREAS, the City recognizes its responsibility to designate sufficient vacant land for residential use with appropriate standards to produce housing at the lowest possible cost consistent with Section 65913 of the Government Code; and WHEREAS, it is the goal of the City to provide a balanced community, with a variety of housing types and designs and housing opportunities for all • economic segments of the Community; and WHEREAS, it is the goal of the City to preserve and increase affordable housing for low- and moderate - income households; and - 2 - WHEREAS, it is the policy of the City to eliminate constraints to housing production and increase allowed density, wherever possible; and WHEREAS, it is the policy of the City to provide incentives to the • building industry to facilitate the provision of housing for low- and moderate - income households; and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach recognizes the unique opportunity to provide affordable housing in conjunction with development in Newport Center; and WHEREAS, the increased residential use will result in a mixed use development that achieves a balance between residential and appropriate commercial activities; and WHEREAS, the increased residential use in Newport Center and on the peripheral sites will achieve an appropriate balance between employment and housing; and WHEREAS, the increased residential use in Newport Center and on the peripheral sites will promote and assist in the development of housing for low- and moderate - income households; and WHEREAS, the increased residential use in Newport Center and on the peripheral sites will promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, or color; and WHEREAS, the increased residential use in Newport Center and on the peripheral sites will provide for the development of a variety of housing types and products for all income levels of the community; and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach recognizes the opportunity to require provision of affordable housing either on or off site in conjunction with residential development in the City; and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach also recognizes the opportunity to gain public park and open space amenities in conjunction with the project; and • WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach recognizes the opportunity to allow development in conjunction with significant local and regional circulation system improvement, most notably Pelican Hill Road, the extension of San Joaquin Hills Road, and improvements to MacArthur Boulevard; and - 3 - WHEREAS, the project will result in a significant revenue benefit to the City; and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach has prepared a final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act • (CEQA) and the State EIR Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the certified Final EIR in making its decision on the proposed amendment to the Newport Beach General Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt certain amendments to the Land Use, Recreation and Open Space, and Circulation Elements and Maps of the Newport Beach General Plan, as set forth below; and WHEREAS, the City Council by this Resolution adopts the Statement of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations as required by Sections 15088 and 15089 of the State EIR Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt certain amendments to the Land Use, Recreation and Open Space, and Circulation Elements and Maps of the Newport Beach General Plan, as set forth below; and WHEREAS, Section 21081 of CEQA and Section 15090 of the Guidelines require that the City Council make one or more of the following Findings prior to approval of a project for which an EIR has been completed, identifying one or more significant effects of the project, along with Statements of Acts supporting each Finding: FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorpora- ted into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environ- mental effects thereof as identified in the EIR. FINDING 2 - Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the Finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and the EIR; and WHEREAS, Section 15093(a) of the Guidelines requires the City Council to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project; and should be adopted by such other agency. • FINDING 3 - Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR; and WHEREAS, Section 15093(a) of the Guidelines requires the City Council to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project; and - 4 - WHEREAS, Section 15093(b) requires, where the decision of the City Council allows the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the EIR but are not mitigated, the City must state in writing the reasons to support its action based on the EIR or other information in the record. • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach that: 1. The City Council makes the Findings contained in the Statement of Facts with respect to significant impacts identified in the Final EIR, together with the Finding that each fact in support of the Findings is true and is based upon substantial evidence in the record, including the Final EIR. The Statement of Facts is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth. 2. The City Council finds that the Facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations are true and are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including the Final EIR. The Statement of Overriding Considerations is attached hereto as Exhibit 2 and incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth. 3. The City Council finds that the Final EIR has identified all significant environmental effects of the project and that there are no known potential environmental impacts not addressed in the Final EIR. 4. The City Council finds that all significant effects of the project are set forth in the Statement of Facts. 5. The City Council finds that although the Final EIR identifies certain significant environmental effects that will result if the project is approved, all significant effects that can feasibly be avoided or mitigated have been avoided or mitigated by the imposition of Conditions on the approved project and the imposition of mitigation measures as set forth in the Statement of Facts and the Final EIR. 6. The City Council finds that potential mitigation measures and project alternatives not incorporated into the project were rejected as infeasible, based upon specific economic, social and other considerations as set forth in the Statement of Facts and the Final EIR. 7. The City Council finds that the unavoidable significant impacts of the project, as identified in the Statement of Facts, that have not been - 5 - reduced to a level of insignificance have been substantially reduced in their impacts by the imposition of Conditions on the approved project and the imposition of mitigation measures. In making its decision on the project, the • City Council has given greater weight to the adverse environmental impacts. The City Council finds that the remaining unavoidable significant impacts are clearly outweighed by the economic, social and other benefits of the project, as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. 8. The City Council finds that: the Final EIR has described all reasonable alternatives to the project that could feasibly obtain the basic objectives of the project, even when those alternatives might impede the attainment of project objectives and might be more costly. Further, the City Council finds that a good faith effort was made to incorporate alternatives in the preparation of the Draft EIR and all reasonable alternatives were considered in the review process of the Final EIR and ultimate decisions on the project. 9. The City Council finds that the project should be approved and that any alternative to this action should not be approved for the project based on the information contained in the Final EIR, the data contained in the Statement of Facts and for the reasons stated in the public record and those contained in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. 10. The City Council finds that a good faith effort has been made to seek out and incorporate all points of view in the preparation of the Draft and Final EIR as indicated in the public record on the project, including the Final EIR. 11. The City Council finds that during the public hearing process on the Newport Center and peripheral sites project, the environmental documents evaluated a range of alternatives and the project, as approved by this Resolu- tion, is included within that range of alternatives. The City Council has considered the recommendation of the Planning Commission in its decision on the 0 project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach that the Land Use, Recreation and Open Space, and Circulation Elements and Maps are hereby amended, establishing the following land uses, policies and constraints on future development: LAND USE ELEMENT: Adopt and include in the Land Use Element the development limitations for each block in Newport Center as specified on the "Newport Center Development Limits" chart, attached hereon as Exhibit 3. Amend the Land Use Element and Map to provide for the following increases in development in • Newport Center. LAND USE ELEMENT: 1. Fashion Island: Add 188,000 sq.ft. for general and retail commer- cial uses and 2,500 theater seats. Total allowed development in Fashion Island is 1,429,250 sq.ft:. and 2,500 theater seats. 2. Block 600: Add 300,000 sq.ft:. for general office development. Total allowed development in Block 600 is 1,100 000 sq.ft. and 325 hotel rooms. 3. Civic Plaza Expansion: Add 65,000 sq.ft. for institutional use. Institutional uses include Art Museum, Natural History Museum and Library uses. Total development is 234,706 sq.ft. of office and 113,000 sq.ft. of institutional uses. 4. Block 800: Change the land use designation from "Multi - Family Residential" to "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commer- cial." Add 440,000 sq.ft. for office development in Block 800, or a total of 693,100 sq.ft. in Block 800. 5. PCH /Jamboree: Change the land use designation from "Recreational and Marine Commercial" to "Multi- Family Residential." Add 130 dwelling units. Also, change the land use designation for Villa Point (PCH Frontage) from "Low Density Residential" to "Multi - Family Residential," not to exceed 154 dwelling units. The combined sites are not to exceed 284 dwelling units. 6. Corporate Plaza West: Change the land use designation from "Retail and Service Commercial with Alternate Land Use" to "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial." Add 100,000 sq.ft. for office development for a total of 123,400 sq.ft. 7. Newport Village: Change the land use designation from "Retail and Service Commercial" to "Multi - Family Residential," not to exceed 560 dwelling units. Add 80,000 sq.ft. to Corporate Plaza, for a total of 445,200 sq.ft. 80,000 sq.ft. can be constructed only if for an athletic /health club. 8. Avocado /MacArthur: Change the :Land use designation from a mixture of "Low Density Residential" and "Retail and Service Commercial" to "Administrative, Professional and. Financial Commercial" and "Govern- mental, Educational and Institutional Facilities." 44,000 sq.ft, of office uses are permitted with a transit facility and 15,000 sq.ft. for a day care facility. 9. Big Canyon /MacArthur: Change the land use designation from "Recre- ational and Environmental Open Space" to "Multi - Family Residential," allowing a maximum of 80 dwelling units. 10. Bayview Landing: Change the land use designation on the lower portion of the site from "Recreational and Environmental Open Space with an alternate use of Low Density Residential" to "Retail and Service Commercial." Change the land use designation of the upper portion of the site from "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" to a mixture of "Recreational and Environmental Open Space and Retail and Service Commercial." Allow 32,000 sq.ft. for restaurant or visitor - serving commercial use; four restaurant facilities may be constructed with the intent that one will be used as a Teen Center. All access for commercial use shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning and Public Works Departments. Existing - 7 - public views from and across the site shall be preserved and maxi- mized through grading of the site during construction of the commercial uses. The upper portion of the site shall be used for public park and view area; and may be used for restaurant uses and related parking so long as any building on the upper level is set down as low as possible and .Located close to Jamboree Road to • maximize views. The public park and view area shall be developed at the cost of The Irvine Company at the time of site development in a manner acceptable to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission and the City Council. 11. Newporter North: Change the land use designation from "Low Density Residential" to "Multi- Family Residential" with a maximum of 490 dwelling units. Significant cultural resources which exist on the site shall be preserved in a manner acceptable to the City, with development clustered in other areas of the site. A Natural History Museum may be accommodated on the site. 12. Westbay: Change the land use designation from "Low Density Resi- dential" to "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" in partial consideration for increased development in Newport Center and on the peripheral sites. 13. San Diego Creek North: Add a 2.5 acre Fire Station Reservation to the site. The reservation shall be in effect for a period of five years. The land reserved shall be dedicated to the City of Newport Beach if the reservation is exercised within a period of five years. RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT: 1. Newporter North: Maintain existing "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" designation, but add an unmapped environmentally - sensi- tive area for preservation of significant on -site cultural resources. 2. Westbay: Designate the site for regional park facilities with unmapped environmentally - sensitive areas and public access where appropriate. A natural history facility may be allowed on the site subject to approval of the City. ELEMENT 1. Delete Avocado Avenue /MacArthur Boulevard Primary Couplet designa- tion; designate MacArthur Boulevard as a Major Arterial (six lanes, divided)l designate Avocado Avenue as a Secondary Arterial (four lanes) between Coast Highway and San Miguel Drive. This Circulation Element revision is subject to approval of the County of Orange. AFFORDABLE HOUSING: 1. Thirty percent (308) of the total dwelling units constructed on all sites shall be affordable to low -and moderate - income families. 2. The affordability mix for any project which uses the Mortgage Revenue ® Bond Program and the Big Canyon /MacArthur project shall be as follows: 66.78 County Low Income* 33.38 City Very Low Income* (with rents not to exceed HUD Section S "Fair Market Rents ") * per Housing Element The affordability mix for any project, with the exception of the Big Canyon /MacArthur project, which is unable to use the Mortgage Revenue Bond program shall be as follows: 33.38 County Median Income* 33.38 County Low Income* • 33.38 City Very Low Income* (with rents not to exceed HUD Section 8 "Fair Market. Rents ") * per Housing Element The affordable units may be provided on sites owned by The Irvine Company other than those in Newport Center and the peripheral sites, specifically Baywood, Bayport, Mariners Square, Promontory Point and Newport North, subject to the review and approval of the Planning Commission and City Council. 3. Preference shall be given to Section 8 Certificate holders for the "City Very Low Income" units. 4. The term of affordability shall be twenty (20) years from the date of initial occupancy. This provision may be reevaluated by the City Council at the time refinancing is required. This affordability term shall be a minimum of ten years and shall continue so long as reason- able financing for the original loan amount to support the rents required by this General Plan Amendment is available. Any change in the term of affordability shall be approved by the City Council. 5. The affordable units may be located on any residential site within Newport Center and on the peripheral sites or on others within the City of Newport Beach owned by The Irvine Company ( Baywood, Bayport, Mariners Square, Promontory Point and Newport North) ; however, they shall be phased on all sites proportional to the market rate resi- dential units. 6. The 29 remaining "pool" affordable units in the Baywood Expansion may be used to satisfy a portion of the affordable housing requirement for this General Plan Amendment. These units shall be committed for a period of twenty years as defined in Item No. 4 above. The on -site affordability mix may reflect the previous prerental commitment of 808 at County median and 208 at County Low Income standards, but the overall provision of affordable housing shall reflect the afforda- bility ratios set forth in Section 2 of the affordable housing requirements. 7. Prior to issuance of building permits for any development permitted by GPA 85 -1(B), the applicant shall enter into an affordable housing agreement with the City guaranteeing the provision of the affordable units. This agreement may be included within the development agree- ment. LAND USE PHASING: 1. No residential development shall be required to be under construction prior to the issuance of building permits for the following sites: • A. B. C. D. E. F. Fashion Island Civic Plaza Expansion Block 600 Bayview Landing Avocado /MacArthur (including Day Care Center) Corporate Plaza 2. 400 residential units must have building permits issued and show sub- stantial progress in construction (foundations plus framing) before: A. The issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for: 1) Block 600 B. The issuance of building permits for: 2) Block 800 3) Corporate Plaza West 3. 400 units must have Certificates of Occupancy issued and 400 additional units must have building permits issued and show • substantial progress in construction before the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy for: A. Block 800 B. Corporate Plaza West CIRCULATION PHASING: 1. Prior to the issuance of any building or grading permits for any component of GPA 85 -1(B), all dedications from The Irvine Company necessary for the completion of the Coast Highway Improvement Program from MacArthur Boulevard to the Coast Highway Bridge shall have been made. 2. The following projects may proceed after Coast Highway dedications and Jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard and Avocado Avenue dedications and completion bonding and before installation of Pelican Hill Road. In the case of MacArthur Boulevard, reservations shall be to the full Master Plan width as amended, and dedications and completion bonding for six lane, major arterial standards: A. Fashion Island B. Civic Plaza Expansion C. Newporter North D. PCH /Jamboree E. Day Care Center - Avocado /MflCAIthuI (Grading for entire site) F. Bayview Landing 3. Building or grading permits for the following projects may be issued upon commencement of construction of Pelican Hill Road from Coast Highway to MacArthur Boulevard, and MacArthur Boulevard improvements from San Miguel Road to Bonita Canyon Road: A. Block 600 B. Corporate Plaza C. Big Canyon /MacArthur D. Newport Village E. Avocado /MacArthur - Office The completion of MacArthur Boulevard improvements between Coast Highway and San Miguel Drive shall be done as adjacent improvements for the Newport Village site. Grading permits for the Newport Village development may be issued upon commencement of construction of adjacent MacArthur Boulevard improvements and construction shall be completed prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy for Newport Village. The number of lanes constructed in this segment of MacArthur Boulevard shall be subject to criteria established in other requirements applicable to the approval of General Plan Amendment 85 -1(B). 4. Certificate of Occupancy may not be issued for the following project is until the completion of construction of four lanes of Pelican Hill Road and the completion to Major Arterial Standards of MacArthur Boulevard improvements between San Miguel Drive to Ford Road: - Block 600 5. Building or grading permits for the following projects may be issued upon the completion to Major Arterial Standards MacArthur Boulevard improvements between Ford Road and Bonita Canyon Road: - 10 - A. Block 800 B. Corporate Plaza West 6. This General Plan Amendment establishes planning limits on the intensity and density of land uses for sites in and around Newport Center. Actual development of the sites can occur only after numer- ous additional approvals or permits are granted by the Planning • Commission and City Council. These subsequent approvals include a traffic study, rezoning, a development agreement, site plan review, subdivision maps and use permits. In these subsequent approvals, the phasing of that development with roadway improvements, may be reconsidered and modified by the City Council if there is a significant change in the traffic assumptions made and circumstances considered in any prior approvals for the development, including those traffic assumptions made and circum- stances considered for this General Plan Amendment. OTHER REQUIREMENTS: 1. A landscape program for MacArthur Boulevard shall be reviewed and approved by the City Council prior to the issuance of any building or grading permits for any component of GPA 85 -1(B). The landscaping shall be installed concurrent with MacArthur Boulevard improvements. Between San Joaquin Hills Road and Ford Road, The Irvine Company shall dedicate, and the City shall maintain, additional right -of -way required to create a landscaped. parkway. The landscaping shall compliment other landscaping in the area. In areas where large land dedications will occur, an open parkway with low- maintenance land- scaping shall be implemented, consistent with the concept proposed by The Irvine Company in exhibits prepared by SWA. 2. MacArthur Boulevard between Coast Highway and San Miguel Drive shall be subject to the following in conjunction with the Circulation Phasing requirements: A. MacArthur Boulevard between Coast Highway and San Miguel Drive shall be improved to lower the grade and move the road westerly, as described in the Environmental Impact Report prepared for General Plan Amendment 85 -1(B). B. Two outside through lanes in each direction on MacArthur Boule- vard shall be constructed so that additional lanes constructed, when required by the City, will occur towards the centerline of the roadway, between Harbor View Drive and the prolongation of the centerline of Crown Drive. C. That prior to the construction of through lanes in excess of four for MacArthur Boulevard between Harbor View Drive and a prolongation of the centerline of Crown Drive, the following criteria, as a minimum, shall be met: i) Completion of Pelican Hill Road to Primary Arterial con- figuration (4 lanes, divided), from Coast Highway to the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard. ii) Completion of San Joaquin Hills Road to Primary Arterial • configuration (4 lanes, divided) easterly of Spyglass Hill Road, and connection to Pelican Hill Road. iii) An average weekday volume -to - capacity ratio of 1.05 on MacArthur Boulevard in the vicinity of Harbor View Drive. In adopting this criteria relative to the widening of MacArthur Boulevard, it is the position of the City Council that a primary purpose in considering this General • 3. - 11 - Plan Amendment is the reduction of diversion traffic through residential streets in Corona del Mar. It is anticipated that if the average weekday volume -to- capacity ratio on MacArthur Boulevard reached 1.05, diversions to local Corona del Mar streets such as Marguerite Avenue, Poppy Street and Fifth Avenue would occur. iv) A decision has been made regarding the construction of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor or July 1, 1995, whichever occurs first. A public hearing shall be conducted by the Planning Commission and the City Council to verify satisfaction of the criteria and the desirability of the roadway widening. All mitigation measures outlined in the Final EIR, as modified by the straw votes, shall be required. 4. The Irvine Company shall aggressively pursue all necessary approvals and construction of San Joaquin Hills Road from Spyglass Hill Road to Pelican Hill Road. The extension of San Joaquin Hills Road shall be connected to Pelican Hill Road upon completion of four lanes of Pelican Hill Road. 5. A Development Agreement and overall Planned Community Development Plan for Newport Center shall be prepared and approved concurrent with or prior to any further discretionary actions, and in any case, prior to issuance of building permits for the development allowed by the General Plan Amendment. 6. The initial construction of Pelican Hill Road from Coast Highway to MacArthur Boulevard shall be a minimum of four lanes. 7. As part of the MacArthur Boulevard improvements, The Irvine Company shall submit plans and a feasibility study for the construction of a grade- separated pedestrian and bicycle bridge over MacArthur Boule- vard between San Miguel Drive and Coast Highway. The City Council will determine the feasibility of this facility and may require its construction as part of the MacArthur Boulevard improvement program. All of the above information has been and will be on file with the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California ADOPTED THIS 0 ATTEST: I PLT /kk 7/15/86 CC17 92658 -8915, (714) 644 -3225. 14th A— _F .7.9v lnoG Exhibit 1 1 CEOA STATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND FACTS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 85 -10) NEWPORT CENTER AND PERIPHERAL SITES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED, FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO SAID EFFECTS AND STATEMENT OF FACTS IN SUPPORT THEREOF, ALL WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED CERTIFICATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AMENDMENT, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AND AN APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT FOR THE NEWPORT CENTER AND PERIPHERAL SITES PROJECT, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA. BACKGROUND The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Guidelines) promulgated pursuant thereto provide: "No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. 3. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Section 15091 of the Guidelines)." The City of Newport Beach is considering approval of development of Newport Center and Peripheral Sites 85 -1(B). The project includes the certification of an EIR, a general plan amendment, a local coastal plan amendment, a development agreement, and an approval of amendment. Because the proposed actions constitute a project under the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach has prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). This EIR has identified certain significant effects which may occur as a result of the project, or on a cumulative basis in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. Further, the City desires to approve this project and, after determining that the EIR is complete and has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and the Guidelines, the findings set forth are herein made: Ultimate development of the project will result in certain significant unavoidable adverse impacts to the environment, as indicated below and in the Final EIR. With respect to those impacts, the City Council of Newport Beach makes findings as stated on the following pages. E 2 FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS FOR SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE INSIGNIFICANT Based on the data in the CFEIR, the following are effects determined to be • insignificant. Changes were made prior to plan review to insure the insignificance of these effects. LAND USE • The proposed project will not have a significant impact on regional housing production, location, or distribution. • The proposed addition of commercial development does not represent a significant subregional increase in office space construction. • Recreational and open spaces planned for Newport Center will not occur. • The proposed project will change the zoning district for all C -O -H pro- perties in the Center to P-C. The proposed project will add 128,000 square feet to the existing re- gional shopping center. Required parking structure(s) for the proposed development have the potential for impacts. The P -C text will establish new development standards for Fashion Island. The addition of uses is not a significant impact. The adoption of the P -C text, as proposed, will allow for considerable latitude in the allocation of development within the site. Block 600 is currently zoned C-0-H. The zoning will be changed to P -C. The P -C Text will establish new development standards and uses for Block 600. ° The proposed project will add 50,000 square feet of office and /or institutional uses to the Civic Plaza Expansion Site. ° Land use changes in the Civic Plaza are consistent with the existing land uses or are an extension of existing land uses. The P -C Text for Civic Plaza will be changed for consistency. Minor corrections to the P -C Text for consistency will be made for Block 800. ° The P -C Text will establish new development standards and uses for Block 800. Elimination of the last service station of the northerly side of Coast Highway between MacArthur Boulevard and the westerly City boundary will be an inconvenience. The project will change the designation of the PCH /Jamboree site on the LCP. ° The P -C Text for Villa Point will be changed to delete Area 2 (office) • and incorporate minor changes in the District Regulations. The proposed project would add 100,000 square feet of office development to the existing allowed development in Corporate Plaza West. Changes are proposed to the existing General Plan land use designation for the Corporate Plaza West site. The onsite open space area in Corporate Plaza West will not be impacted by the implementation of the proposed project. 3 The proposed P -C Text for Corporate Plaza West will establish new development standards and uses for the site. ° A postal facility may be located in the Newport Village site. Changes to the existing General Plan land use designation for Newport • ° Village are proposed. Revisions to the P -C Text will be made for the Newport Village site. Additional uses would be allowed on the Newport Village site. The project will change the existing General Plan land use designation for the Avocado /MacArthur site. The project will establish development standards and uses for the Avocado /MacArthur site. Implementation of the proposed project will change the designation of the Big Canyon /MacArthur site from Recreation and Open Space to Multi - Family Residential. The Big Canyon /MacArthur project will make minor changes to the existing P -C Text and provide standards for the development of the site. ° The proposed project would add 60,000 square feet of commercial uses to the Bayview Landing site. ° The project would change the existing designation for the Bayview Landing site. Proposed residential project density on the Newporter North site is considered compatible with adjacent residential uses. Biological and cultural resources on the Newporter North site may require the development of the site in clusters of units. The project will require changes to the existing General Plan land use designation for the Newporter North site. AESTHETICS Highrise office buildings may be visible from portions of Orange, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. This is considered a change in the visual nature of Newport Canter. Implementation of the project will change the appearance of the undeveloped project sites. Development of multi -story office uses on the sites will increase the view opportunities for observers at those: locations. ° Highrise development on Blocks 600 and 800 will significantly augment view opportunities of the area. Although construction in Block 600 will add a major new element to Newport Center, since there are existing towers in the immediate • vicinity of the proposed highrise this is not considered a significant impact on existing views. The introduction of additional lights in Block 600 is not considered a significant impact due to the location within the block and existing office structures. The PCH /Jamboree project will eliminate the service station, lights, signs, structure, etc. Implementation of the view plane across the site precludes significant impacts on the Corporate Plaza West site. CA The proposed OCTD facility will change the public's perception of the site. ° The introduction of lighting into the office portion of the Avocado/ MacArthur site. ° Lighting for the OCTD facility is unknown. No significant impacts are • anticipated. • Due to the location of the Big Canyon /MacArthur site the loss of the site as open space is not considered a significant impact. • The potential for adverse impacts on views from adjacent Big Canyon. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Vehicular ° Project traffic is estimated to be a range of 1 to 6 percent of the total traffic along the roadway segments with the exception of those roadway segments immediately adjacent to Newport Center. The proposed GPA would add an estimated 1,400 vehicles to the SJHTC west of Jamboree Road and approximately 3,000 vehicles per day to the SJHTC west of Bison Avenue. This represents a 1 to 3 percent increase in traffic along the Corridor, and would not significantly impact traffic flow conditions along the SJHTC. ° Traffic volume forecasts along San Joaquin Hills Road west of MacArthur Boulevard would increase significantly with the development of the proposed GPA projects. This is because GPA 85 -1(B) access is provided at several locations along San Joaquin Hills Road. Forecast volumes would not exceed roadway capacity. OCTD has developed satisfactory designs such that the facility could be placed on the site with either the One -Way Couplet or the two -way configuration. Bicycle ° No adverse impacts are anticipated to the local bicycle transportation system due to the implementation of the proposed project. ° The proposed expansion of Fashion Island will not adversely impact secondary bikeways proposed for Newport Center Drive. Proposed development within Block 600 will not impact existing or proposed bikeways adjacent to the project site. The project will not impact existing and proposed bikeways adjacent to the Civic Plaza Expansion and to Civic Plaza. Proposed development on Block 800 will not adversely impact designated bikeways adjacent to the site. The project proponent has requested the deletion of Back Bay 'Drive. Deletion of this roadway extension will not substantially impact the City's ability to implement the Master Plan of Bikeways. • ° Development of the Corporate Plaza West: site will not effect any existing or proposed bikeways. Changes to Avocado Avenue and MacArthur. Boulevard will not impact the City's ability to implement the Master Plan of Bikeways. Implementation of the Big Canyon /MacArthur project will not adversely impact the City's ability to implement its Master Plan of Bikeways. Implementation of development on the! Bayview Landing site will not adversely impact proposed and existing bikeways adjacent to the site. 5 Proposed development of the Newporter North site will not adversely impact the implementation of the City's.Master Plan of Bikeways. Deletion of the Couplet will effect the implementation of bikeways proposed adjacent to the Couplet, but will not adversely affect the implementation of the Master Plan of Bikeways. • Pedestrian The proposed expansion project on :Fashion Island site will not adversely impact existing pedestrian sidewalk patterns. Development on Block 600 will not adversely impact existing sidewalks adjacent to the site. Expansion of development in Civic :Plaza will not adversely impact sidewalks adjacent to the project site. ° Development of Block 800 will not adversely impact pedestrian sidewalks adjacent to the site. ° Elimination of the Back Bay Drive extension pedestrian access is not an adverse impact. ° Development of the Corporate Plaza West site will not adversely impact existing adjacent sidewalks. ° Development of the Newport Village will not adversely impact sidewalks adjacent to the site. ° Existing sidewalks adjacent to the Avocado /MacArthur site will not be adversely impacted by development of the site. ° No significant pedestrian impacts are anticipated with the development of the Big Canyon /MacArthur site. No significant impacts from the development of the Bayview Landing site are anticipated related to existing sidewalks. Existing trails along Back Bay Drive will not be impacted by the proposed development. NOISE Short -term impact on ambient noise levels from construction noise. Increase in CNEL generated by the project for all roadways other than San Joaquin Hills Road and MacArthur Boulevard. ° Impact of operations at John Wayne Airport on the proposed project. Impact of roadway noise on proposed uses in Fashion Island, Block 600, Civic Plaza Expansion, and Block 800. The impact of a grade separation at the East Coast Highway /Jamboree Road intersection. The impact of Back Bay Drive extension on adjacent residential uses. • BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Development of the Fashion Island, Block 600, Block 800, PCH /Jamboree, Corporate Plaza West, Avocado /MacArthur, Big Canyon /MacArthur, Newport Village, and Bayview Landing sites will remove existing vegetation. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES Southern California Edison Company indicates that system demands are expected to increase annually, but no adverse impacts are anticipated. R Hospitals contacted indicated that the project will not adversely impact the present level of medical service. ° Deletion of the Couplet will not adversely impact OCTD's ability to construct the transit facility or affect its present transit routes. • No adverse impacts are anticipated on schools and solid waste. EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE MITIGABLE TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE Significant Effect The proposed project represents an overall increase in density and intensity. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the :Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. The maximum allowable building height shall be 20 stories. 2. The development of each site shall be subject to the requirements of the General Plan and all applicable specific plans and zoning. The following discretionary approvals: 1. Coastal Permits for sites in the Coastal Zone. 2. Site Plan Review and /or Use Permits 3. Subdivision Map Act 4. Grading Permits 3. "Prior to approval of a development agreement by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the development agreement shall be reviewed in light of the GPA 85 -1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the agreement:." 4. "Prior to approval of a Planned Community text by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the P -C text shall be reviewed in light of the GPA 85 -1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the text." • Significant Effect The project requires an amendment to the Land Use, Circulation, and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Sunvort of Findin The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: • 1. The development of each site shall be subject to the requirements of the General Plan and all applicable specific plans and zoning. The following discretionary approvals: 1. Coastal Permits for sites in the Coastal Zone. 2. Site Plan Review and /or Use Permits 3. Subdivision Map Act 4. Grading Permits 2. The residential developments shall conform to the City's park requirements. 3. "Prior to approval of a development agreement by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the development agreement shall be reviewed in light of the GPA 85 -1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the agreement." 4. "Prior to approval of a Planned Community text by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the P -C text shall be reviewed in light of the GPA 85 -1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the text." Sienificant Effect The proposed amendment is inconsistent with the existing General Plan growth limitations and land use designations. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. The development of each site shall be subject to the requirements of the General Plan and all applicable specific plans and zoning. The following discretionary approvals: • 1. Coastal Permits for sites in the Coastal Zone. 2. Site Plan Review and /or Use Permits 3. Subdivision Map Act 4. Grading Permits 2. The residential developments shall conform to the City's park requirements. 3. "Prior to approval of a development agreement by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the development agreement shall be reviewed in light of the GPA 85 -1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the • u [1 associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the agreement." 4. "Prior to approval of a Planned Community text by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the P -C text shall be reviewed in light of the GPA 85 -1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the text." Significant Effect ° Additional development could be utilized under the proposed general plan amendment and P -C text to develop free standing commercial structures within Fashion Island. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findin The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. The development of each site shall be subject to the requirements of the General Plan and all applicable specific plans and zoning. The following discretionary approvals: 1. Coastal Permits for sites in the Coastal Zone. 2. Site Plan Review and /or Use Permits 3. Subdivision Map Act 4. Grading Permits 2. "Prior to approval of a development agreement by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the development agreement shall be reviewed in light of the GPA 85 -1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the agreement." 3. "Prior to approval of a Planned Community text by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the P -C text shall be reviewed in light of the GPA 85 -1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the text." Significant Effect ° The proposed project would add 300,000 square feet of office development to Block 600. The existing and proposed height regulations for Block 600 would allow for the construction of a 375 foot structure. It would become a significant landmark in the community. The additional allowable development will create significant shade /shadow impacts, potential traffic and circulation impacts, and major visual and aesthetic impacts. Z Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. • Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. The maximum allowable building height shall be 20 stories. 2. The new parking structures) in Block 600 shall provide for the 212 parking spaces presently required for the Wells Fargo Building. These spaces shall be located in the closest proximity to the Wells Fargo Building in a manner approved by the City Public Works and Planning Departments. 3. The proposed parking structure(s) shall be provided in such a manner so as to restrict the access to the parking spaces in Block 600 allocate to the Four Seasons Hotel. This shall be accomplished in a manner approved by the Public Works and Planning Departments. 4. The proposed parking structure(s) shall be an expansion of the Four Seasons Hotel parking structure (currently under construction) and /or may be located adjacent to San Joaquin Hills Road and shall be consistent with ingress /egress, site design, and public safety concerns. 5. The development of each site shall be subject to the requirements of the General Plan and all applicable specific plans and zoning. The following discretionary approvals: 1. Coastal Permits for sites in the Coastal Zone. 2. Site Plan Review and /or Use Permits 3. Subdivision Map Act 4. Grading Permits 6. "Prior to approval of a development agreement by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the development agreement shall be reviewed in light of the CPA 85 -1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the agreement." 7. "Prior to approval of a Planned Community text by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the P -C text shall be reviewed in light of the GPA 85 -1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the text. • Significant Effect ° The joint use of a parking structure for hotel and office uses in Block 600 can create significant impacts. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 10 Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: • 1. The new parking structure(s) in Block 600 shall provide for the 212 parking spaces presently required for the Wells Fargo Building. These spaces shall be located in the closest proximity to the Wells Fargo Building in a manner approved by the City Public Works and Planning Departments. 2. The proposed parking structure(s) shall be provided in such a manner so as to restrict the access to the parking spaces in Block 600 allocate to the Four Seasons Hotel. This shall be accomplished in a manner approved by the Public Works and Planning Departments. 3. The proposed parking structure(s) shall be an expansion of the Four Seasons Hotel parking structure (currently under construction) and /or may be located adjacent to San Joaquin Hills Road and shall be consistent with ingress /egress, site design, and public safety concerns. 4. The development of each site shall be subject to the requirements of the General Plan and all applicable specific plans and zoning. The following discretionary approvals: 1. Coastal Permits for sites in the Coastal Zone. 2. Site Plan Review and /or Use Permits 3. Subdivision Map Act 4. Grading Permits 5. "Prior to approval of a development agreement by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the development agreement shall be reviewed in light of the CPA 85 -1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the agreement." 6. "Prior to approval of a Planned Community text by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the P -C text shall be reviewed in light of the GPA 85 -1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the text." Significant Effect Locating parking in an area that could reduce the viability of the Four Seasons Hotel and /or existing office buildings in Block 600. Finding • Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 11 1. The new parking structure(s) in Block 600 shall provide for the 212 parking spaces presently required for the Wells Fargo Building. These spaces shall be located in the closest proximity to the Wells Fargo Building in a manner approved by the City Public Works and Planning Departments. 2. The proposed parking structure(s) shall be provided in such a manner so as to restrict the access to the parking spaces in Block 600 allocate to the Four Seasons Hotel. This shall be accomplished in a manner approved by the Public Works and Planning Departments. 3. The proposed parking structure(s) shall be an expansion of the Four Seasons Hotel parking structure (currently under construction) and /or may be located adjacent to San Joaquin Hills Road and shall be consistent with ingress /egress, site design, and public safety concerns. 1 4. The development of each site shall be subject to the requirements of the General Plan and all applicable specific plans and zoning. The following discretionary approvals: 1. Coastal Permits for sites in the Coastal Zone. 2. Site Plan Review and /or Use Permits 3. Subdivision Map Act 4. Grading Permits 5. "Prior to approval of a development agreement by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the development agreement shall be reviewed in light of the CPA 85 -1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the agreement." 6. "Prior to approval of a Planned Community text by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the P -C text shall be reviewed in light of the CPA 85 -1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the text." Significant Effect ° Required parking structures in Block 600 have the potential for impacts to public safety and aesthetics. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of • insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. The maximum allowable bulding height shall be 20 stories. 2. The new parking structure(s) in Block: 600 shall provide for the 212 parking spaces presently required for the Wells Fargo Building. These spaces shall be located in the closest proximity to the Wells Fargo Building in a manner approved by the City Public Works and Planning Departments. 12 3. The proposed parking structure(s) shall be provided in such a manner so as to restrict the access to the parking spaces in Block 600 allocate to the Four Seasons Hotel. This shall be accomplished in a manner approved by the Public Works and Planning Departments. 4. The proposed parking structure shall be an expansion of the Four • Seasons Hotel parking structure (currently under construction) and /or may be located adjacent to San Joaquin Hills Road and shall be consistent with ingress /egress, site design, and public safety concerns. 5. The development of each site shall be subject to the requirements of the General Plan and all applicable specific plans and zoning. The following discretionary approvals: 1. Coastal Permits for sites in the Coastal Zone. 2. Site Plan Review and /or Use Permits 3. Subdivision Map Act 4. Grading Permits 7. "Prior to approval of a development agreement by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the development agreement shall be reviewed in light of the GPA 85 -1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the agreement." 8. "Prior to approval of a Planned Community text by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the P -C text shall be reviewed in light of the GPA 85 -1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is. required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the text." Significant Effect The proposed project would preclude the development of residential development on Block 600. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substanti''ally lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findin The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. "Prior to approval of a development agreement by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the • development agreement shall be reviewed in light of the GPA 85 -1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the agreement:." 2. "Prior to approval of a Planned Community text by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the P -C text shall be reviewed in light of the GPA 85 -1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that 13 additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the text." Significant Effect • The location of uses could be a significant impact on the privacy of adjacent residential areas depending on the location of the office buildings on the site and the location of uses in the structures. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. The maximum allowable building height shall be 20 stories. 2. The proposed parking structure shall be an expansion of the Four Seasons Hotel parking structure (currently under construction) and /or may be located adjacent to San Joaquin Hills Road and shall be consistent with ingress /egress, site design, and public safety concerns. 3. The development of each site shall be subject to the requirements of the General Plan and all applicable specific plans and zoning. The following discretionary approvals: 1. Coastal Permits for sites in the Coastal Zone. 2. Site Plan Review and /or Use Permits 3. Subdivision Map Act 4. Grading Permits 4. "Prior to approval of a development agreement by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the development agreement shall be reviewed in light of the CPA 85 -1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the agreement.." 5. "Prior to approval of a Planned Community text by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the P -C text shall be reviewed in light of the GPA 85 -1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed,. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the text." • Significant Effect ° The height limit of 375 feet would allow for the provision of uses with a significant impact potential. Mitigation measures would eliminate the potential for this impact if incorporated into the project approval. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 0V Facts in SuD9ort of Findin The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: • 1. The maximum allowable building height shall be 20 stories. 2. The development of each site shall be subject to the requirements of the General Plan and all applicable specific plans and zoning. The following discretionary approvals: 1. Coastal Permits for sites in the Coastal Zone. 2. Site Plan Review and /or Use Permits 3. Subdivision Map Act 4. Grading Permits 3. "Prior to approval of a development agreement by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the development agreement shall be reviewed in light of the GPA 85 -1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the agreement." 4. "Prior to approval of a Planned Community text by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the P -C text shall be reviewed in light of the GPA 85 -1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the text." Sienificant Effect The expansion project in Civic Plaza would preclude the development of residential development onsite. Findine Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in SUDVort of Findin The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. The development of each site shall be subject to the requirements of the General Plan and all applicable specific plans and zoning. The following discretionary approvals: • 1. Coastal Permits for sites in the Coastal Zone. 2. Site Plan Review and /or Use Permits 3. Subdivision Map Act 4. Grading Permits 2. "Prior to approval of a development agreement by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the development agreement shall be reviewed in light of the GPA 85 -1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the agreement." 15 3'. "Prior to approval of a Planned Community text by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the P -C text shall be reviewed in light of the GPA 85 -1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the • development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the text." Significant Effect ° The proposed project would add 440,000 square feet of office development to Block 800. The proposed height regulations for the block would allow for the construction of a 375 foot structure. This would create a significant landmark in the community. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. The development of each site shall be subject to the requirements of the General Plan and all applicable specific plans and zoning. The following discretionary approvals: 1. Coastal Permits for sites in the Coastal Zone. 2. Site Plan Review and /or Use Permits 3. Subdivision Map Act 4. Grading Permits 2. The maximum allowable building height shall be 12 stories. 3. "Prior to approval of a development agreement by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the development agreement shall be reviewed in light of the GPA 85 -1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the agreement." 4. "Prior to approval of a Planned Community text by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the P -C text shall be reviewed in light of the GPA 85 -1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the text." Significant Effect Additional allowable development in Block 800 will create significant shade /shadow impacts, potential traffic and circulation impacts, and major visual and aesthetic impacts. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 16 Facts in Suuoort of Findi The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. The development of each site shall be subject to the requirements of the General Plan and all applicable specific plans and zoning. The following discretionary approvals: 1. Coastal Permits for sites in the Coastal Zone. 2. Site Plan Review and /or Use Permits 3. Subdivision Map Act 4. Grading Permits 2. The maximum allowable building height shall be 12 stories. 3. "Prior to approval of a development agreement by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the development agreement shall be reviewed in light of the GPA 85 -1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the agreement." 4. "Prior to approval of a Planned Community text by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the P -C text shall be reviewed in light of the GPA 85 -1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the text." Significant_ Effect ° Parking structures in Block 800 have the potential for impact to public safety and aesthetics. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. The development of each site shall be subject to the requirements of the General Plan and all applicable specific plans and zoning. The following discretionary approvals: • 1. Coastal Permits for sites in the Coastal Zone. 2. Site Plan Review and /or Use Permits 3. Subdivision Map Act 4. Grading Permits 2. The maximum allowable building height shall be 12 stories. 3. "Prior to approval of a development agreement by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the development agreement shall be reviewed in light of the GPA 85 -1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required 17 for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the agreement." 4. "Prior to approval of a Planned Community text by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the P -C text shall be reviewed in light of the GPA 85 -1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the text." Significant Effect The change in the General Plan land use designation would preclude the development of residential uses in Block 800. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. The development of each site shall be subject to the requirements of the General Plan and all applicable specific plans and zoning. The following discretionary approvals: 1. Coastal Permits for sites in the Coastal Zone. 2. Site Plan Review and /or Use Permits 3. Subdivision Map Act 4. Grading Permits 2. "Prior to approval of a development agreement by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the development agreement shall be reviewed in light of the GPA 85 -1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the agreement.." 3. "Prior to approval of a Planned Community text by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the P -C text shall be reviewed in light of the GPA 85 -1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the text." Significant Effect • The location of the uses in Block 800 could be a significant impact on the privacy of adjacent residential areas depending on the location of the office buildings on the site and the location of the uses in the structures. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 18 Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final. EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: • 1. The development of each site shall be subject to the requirements of the General Plan and all applicable specific plans and zoning. The following discretionary approvals: 1. Coastal Permits for sites in the Coastal Zone. 2. Site Plan Review and /or Use Permits 3. Subdivision Map Act 4. Grading Permits 2. The maximum allowable building height shall be 12 stories. 3. "Prior to approval of a development agreement by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the development agreement shall be reviewed in light of the GPA 85 -1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the agreement." 4. "Prior to approval of a Planned Community text by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the P -C text shall be reviewed in light of the GPA 85 -1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the text." Significant Effect ° The 375 feet height limit in Block 800 would allow for the provision of uses with significant potential impacts. Findins Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findine The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. The development of each site shall be subject to the requirements of the General Plan and all applicable specific plans and zoning. The following discretionary approvals: • 1. Coastal Permits for sites in the Coastal Zone. 2. Site Plan Review and /or Use Permits 3. Subdivision Map Act 4. Grading Permits 2. The maximum allowable building height shall be 12 stories. 3. "Prior to approval of a development agreement by the City of Newport 'Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the development agreement shall be reviewed in light of the GPA 85 -1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is 19 determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the agreement." 4. "Prior to approval of a Planned Community text by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the P -C text shall be reviewed in light of the CPA 85 -1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the text." Significant Effect The general plan amendment would change the existing designation of the PCH /Jamboree site to Multiple Family Residential. The project would preclude the development of floating residential development on the site. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. The development of each site shall be subject to the requirements of the General Plan and all applicable specific plans and zoning. The following discretionary approvals: 1. Coastal Permits for sites in the Coastal Zone. 2. Site Plan Review and /or Use Permits 3. Subdivision Map Act 4. Grading Permits 2. "Prior to approval of a development agreement by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the development agreement shall be reviewed in light of the GPA 85 -1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the agreement." 3. "Prior to approval of a Planned Community text by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the P -C text shall be reviewed in light of the GPA 85 -1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior • to the approval of the text." Significant Effect ° The proposed project would add 345,000 square feet of office uses and 59,250 square feet of commercial uses to the Newport Village site. Onsite uses will include restaurants and commercial uses near the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and East Coast Highway. The location of this use at this location could be a significant impact on the adjacent residential areas to the east. Impacts will result from nighttime activities. 20 Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. • Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. The development of each site shall be subject to the requirements of the General Plan and all applicable specific plans and zoning. The following discretionary approvals: 1. Coastal Permits for sites in the Coastal Zone. 2. Site Plan Review and /or Use Permits 3. Subdivision Map Act 4. Grading Permits 2. The residential developments shall conform to the City's park requirements. 3. "Prior to approval of a development agreement by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the development agreement shall be reviewed in light of the GPA 85 -1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the agreement." 4. "Prior to approval of a Planned Community text by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the P -C text shall be reviewed in light of the GPA 85 -1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the text." Significant Effect The project would preclude the development of floating residential development on all sites. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. The development of each site shall be subject to the requirements of the General Plan and all applicable specific plans and zoning. The following discretionary approvals: 1. Coastal Permits for sites in the Coastal Zone. 2. Site Plan Review and /or Use Permits 3. Subdivision Map Act 4. Grading Permits 21 2. "Prior to approval of a development agreement by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the development agreement shall be reviewed in light of the GPA 85 -1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required • for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the agreement." 3. "Prior to approval of a Planned Community text by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the P -C text shall be reviewed in light of the GPA 85 -1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the text." Significant Effect ° Implementation of the proposed project, would delete a designated recreational area from the Newport Village site. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. The development of each site shall be subject to the requirements of the General Plan and all applicable specific plans and zoning. The following discretionary approvals: 1. Coastal Permits for sites in the Coastal Zone. 2. Site Plan Review and /or Use Permits 3. Subdivision Map Act 4. Grading Permits 2. The residential developments shall conform to the City's park requirements. 3. "Prior to approval of a development agreement by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the development agreement shall be reviewed in light of the GPA 85 -1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the agreement." 4. "Prior to approval of a Planned Community text by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the P -C text shall be reviewed in light of the GPA 85 -1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the text." Significant Effect ° The proposed project would add 44,000 square feet of office uses and an Orange County Transit District facility in the Avocado/MacArthur site. 22 Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. • Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. The development of each site shall be subject to the requirements of the General Plan and all applicable specific plans and zoning. The following discretionary approvals: 1. Coastal Permits for sites in the Coastal Zone. 2. Site Plan Review and /or Use Permits 3. Subdivision Map Act 4. Grading Permits 2. "Prior to approval of a development agreement by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the development agreement shall be reviewed in light of the CPA 85 -1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the agreement." 3. "Prior to approval of a Planned Community text by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the P -C text shall be reviewed in light of the GPA 85 -1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the text." Significant Effect ° The project would preclude the development of floating residential development in the Avocado/MacArthur site. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. The development of each site shall be subject to the requirements of the General Plan and all applicable specific plans and zoning. The following discretionary approvals: 1. Coastal Permits for sites in the Coastal Zone. 2. Site Plan Review and /or Use Permits 3. Subdivision Map Act 4. Grading Permits 2. The maximum allowable building height shall be 20 stories. 3. "Prior to approval of a development agreement by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the 23 development agreement shall be reviewed in light of the GPA 85 -1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the agreement." • 4. "Prior to approval of a Planned .Community text by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the P -C text shall be reviewed in light of the GPA 85 -1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed.. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the text." Significant Effec The loss of the view park and bicycle staging area on the upper portion of the Bayview Landing site is considered. a significant land use impact of the project. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findin The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. The development of each site shall be subject to the requirements of the General Plan and all applicable specific plans and zoning. The following discretionary approvals: 1. Coastal Permits for sites in the Coastal Zone. 2. Site Plan Review and /or Use Permits 3. Subdivision Map Act 4. Grading Permits 3. "Prior to approval of a development agreement by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the development agreement shall be reviewed in light of the GPA 85 -1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the agreement." 4. "Prior to approval of a Planned Community text by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the P -C text shall be reviewed in light of the GPA 85 -1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated . impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the text." Significant Effect The ultimate dispensation of John Wayne Gulch is unknown. Leaving the area as open space assumes ownership of the area by the adjacent homeowners association or dedication to a public agency. Fay Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Supvort of Finding • The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. The development of each site shall be subject to the requirements of the General Plan and all applicable specific plans and zoning. The following discretionary approvals: 1. Coastal Permits for sites in the Coastal Zone. 2. Site Plan Review and /or Use Permits 3. Subdivision Map Act 4. Grading Permits 2. "Prior to approval of a development agreement by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the development agreement shall be reviewed in light of the CPA 85 -1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the agreement:." 3. "Prior to approval of a Planned Community text by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the P -C text shall be reviewed in light of the GPA 85 -1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the text." Sianificant Effect ° Existing Newporter North site cultural resources may delay development of the project. This would preclude phasing for the project as indicated by the project proponent. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Supvort of Findin The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. The development of each site shall be subject to the requirements of the General Plan and all applicable specific plans and zoning. The following discretionary approvals: 1. Coastal Permits for sites in the Coastal Zone. 2. Site Plan Review and /or Use Permits 3. Subdivision Map Act 4. Grading Permits 2. "Prior to approval of a development agreement by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the development agreement shall be reviewed in light of the GPA 85 -1(B) PW Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the agreement." • 3. "Prior to approval of a Planned Community text by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the P -C text shall be reviewed in light of the CPA 85 -1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the text." Significant Effect ° Non - residential uses of the Newporter North site will create significant impacts on the residential community. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. The development of each site shall be :subject to the requirements of the General Plan and all applicable specific plans and zoning. The following discretionary approvals: 1. Coastal Permits for sites in the Coastal Zone. 2. Site Plan Review and /or Use Permits 3. Subdivision Map Act 4. Grading Permits 2. "Prior to approval of a development agreement by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the development agreement shall be reviewed in light of the GPA 85 -1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the agreement." 3. "Prior to approval of a Planned Community text by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the P -C text shall be reviewed in light of the GPA 85 -1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior • to the approval of the text." Significant Effect ° Development of the Newporter North site with a maximum building height of 50 feet would be an unavoidable adverse impact. Findina Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 26 Facts in SuUDort of Findin The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These mitigation measures include the following: • 1. The development of each site shall be subject to the requirements of the General Plan and all applicable specific plans and zoning. The following discretionary approvals: 1. Coastal Permits for sites in the Coastal Zone 2. Site Plan Review and /or Use Permits 3. Subdivision Map Act 4. Grading Permits 2. The maximum allowable building height shall be 35 feet with up to 40 feet in height with a pitched roof. 3. "Prior to approval of a development agreement by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the development agreement shall be reviewed in light of the GPA 85 -1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the agreement." 4. "Prior to approval of a Planned Community text by the City of Newport Beach for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites area, the P -C text shall be reviewed in light of the GPA 85 -1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the text." AESTHETICS Significant Effect ° The use of illuminated signage high on the sides of highrise building in visually prominent locations is considered a significant project impact. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: • 1. Further visual analysis shall be conducted at the time of subdivi- sion review for the residential areas and use permit or site plan review for the remaining uses. 2. No exterior signs shall be permitted above the second floor eleva- tion of any structure (except in Fashion Island). 3. Signage and exterior lighting shall be approved by the Planning Department and the Public Works Department. 27 4. No illuminated signs shall be roof mounted. 5. No illuminated building signs oriented toward MacArthur Boulevard shall be permitted. Significant Effect ° Parking structures in Fashion Island can create adverse aesthetic impacts. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. All mechanical equipment, vents, and other service equipment shall be shielded or screened from view by architectural features. All screening shall conform to the height limit in each area. 2. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, elevations, and sections. Significant Effect ° The expansion of the shopping center and introduction of new uses will introduce more lighting into the existing land uses causing a potential adverse impact. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. Signage and exterior lighting shall be approved by the Planning Department and the Public Works Department. 2. No illuminated signs shall be roof mounted. 3. An overall sign program for Newport Center shall be approved in conjunction with the Planned Community District Regulations. 4. The project shall be designed to eliminate light and glare spillage • onto adjacent properties. 5. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, elevations, and sections. Significant Effect The height in Block 600 of proposed development is considered a signi- ficant aesthetic impact. 28 Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. Further visual analysis shall be conducted at the time of subdivi- sion review for the residential areas and use permit or site plan review for the remaining uses. 2. The maximum height of all new structures shall not exceed 20 stories. 3. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, elevations, and sections. Significant Effect ° The visibility of roof top and wall mounted illuminated signs would be considered a significant adverse impact of the Block 600 specific project. Findin& Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findin The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. Further visual analysis shall be conducted at the time of subdivi- sion review for the residential areas and use permit or site plan review for the remaining uses. 2. No exterior signs shall be permitted above the second floor eleva- tion of any structure (except Fashion Island). 3. Signage and exterior lighting shall be approved by the Planning Department and the Public Works Department. 4. No illuminated signs shall be roof mounted. 5. An overall sign program for Newport Center shall be approved in conjunction with the Planned Community District Regulations. 6. The maximum height of all new structures shall not exceed 20 • stories. 7. The project shall be designed to eliminate light and glare spillage onto adjacent properties. 8. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, elevations, and sections. Significant Effect Potential significant height and sign impacts in Block 600 would be increased by nighttime lighting. 29 indin Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. Further visual analysis shall be conducted at the time of subdivi- sion review for the residential areas and use permit or site plan review for the remaining uses. 2. No exterior signs shall be permitted. above the second floor eleva- tion of any structure (except Fashion Island). 3. Signage and exterior lighting shall be approved by the Planning Department and the Public Works Department. 4. No illuminated signs shall be roof mounted. 5. An overall sign program for Newport Center shall be approved in conjunction with the Planned Community District Regulations. 6. The project shall be designed to eliminate light and glare spillage onto adjacent properties. 7. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, elevations, and sections. Significant Effect The proposed Civic Plaza Expansion project may impact existing views from the Newport Center branch public library. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, elevations, and sections. Significant Effect • On the PCH /Jamboree site, if the combination of the building pad height and the building height is less than 140 feet above sea level, the project would be within acceptable limits. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 30 Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. Earth berms and graded slopes, as required, shall be contoured and landscaped to the approval of the Building and Planning Department. 2. A landscaped edge treatment shall be provided on Jamboree Road and East Coast Highway adjacent to the site and shall be approved by the City in conjunction with subdivision or site plan review. 3. Height limitations for structures and landscaping shall be those as noted in the Newport Center Planned Community District Regulations text for the PCH /Jamboree site in order to minimize view impacts across the site. 4. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, elevations, and sections. Significant Effect ° On the PCH /Jamboree site building types, materials, and landscaping are unknown. Potential aesthetic impacts cannot be fully determined at this time. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findin The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. Earth berms and graded slopes, as required, shall be contoured and landscaped to the approval of the Building and Planning Department. 2. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. The plan shall be subject to approval by the Planning Department, the Department of Parks, Beaches, and Recreation, and the Public: Works Department. 3. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, elevations, and sections. Significant Effect ° The location of night lit structures and signs along East Coast Highway will tie the Corporate Plaza West site to Corporate Plaza East site and the Corona del Mar commercial area. This may be viewed as a significant impact by some members of the general public. • Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 31 1. No exterior signs shall be permitted above the second floor eleva- tion of any structure (except Fashion Island). 2. Signage and exterior lighting shall be approved by the Planning Department and the Public Works Department. 3. No illuminated signs shall roof mounted. 4. An overall sign program for Newport Center shall be approved in con- junction with the Planned Community District Regulations. 5. Height limitations for structures and landscaping shall be those as noted in the Newport Center Planned Community and District Regulations text for the Corporate Plaza West site in order to minimize view impacts across the site. 6. The project shall be designed to eliminate light and glare spillage onto adjacent properties. 7. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, elevations, and sections. Significant Effect ° No significant impacts are anticipated from the proposed landscaping so long as it meets proposed height restrictions in the Newport Village site. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Supvort of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. Height limitations for structures and landscaping shall be those as noted in the Newport Center Planned Community and District Regulations text for the Newport Village site in order to minimize view impacts across the site. 2. Landscaped entry statements shall be provided at the intersections of Avocado Avenue and San Miguel Drive, San Miguel Drive, and MacArthur Boulevard, and Avocado Avenue and East Coast Highway and shall be approved by the City in conjunction with Site Plan Review. 3. Overhead utilities shall be removed between San Miguel Drive and East Coast Highway on MacArthur Boulevard. Significant Effect ° The potential for night lit signs facing MacArthur Boulevard in the Newport Village site is a significant impact on several residents in • Harbor View Hills. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements 32 and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. No exterior signs shall be permitted above the second floor eleva- tion of any structure (except Fashion Island). 2. Signage and exterior lighting shall be approved by the Planning Department and the Public Works Department. 3. No illuminated signs shall be roof mounted. 4. An overall sign program for Newport Center shall be approved in conjunction with the Planned Community District Regulations. 5. No illuminated building signs shall be permitted oriented toward MacArthur Boulevard. 6. The project shall be designed to eliminate light and glare spillage onto adjacent properties. Significant Effect ° Lighting for commercial operations in the Newport Village site is a potential significant impact at this location. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. No exterior signs shall be permitted above the second floor eleva- tion of any structure (except Fashion :Island). 2. Signage and exterior lighting shall be approved by the Planning Department and the Public Works Department. 3. No illuminated signs shall be roof mounted. 4. An overall sign program for Newport Center shall be approved in con- junction with the Planned Community District Regulations. 5. No illuminated building signs shall be permitted oriented toward MacArthur Boulevard. 6. The project shall be designed to eliminate light and glare spillage onto adjacent properties. 7. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, elevations, and sections. • Significant Effect Development on the Bayview Landing site will have a significant impact on the aesthetic environment. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 33 Facts in SuDDort of Findin The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. Landscaping plans shall indicate that only native vegetation compa- tible with coastal bluff scrub be allowed on the bluff face. 2. In conjunction with site plan review or use permit approval, the project proponent shall prepare a detailed grading and landscaping plan for the blufftop setback. The plan shall be reviewed by the Parks Department, the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department, the Public Works Department, Building Department, and the Planning Department. 3. Height limitations shall be those as noted in the Newport Center Planned Community and District Regulations Text for the Bayview Landing site. 4. Landscaped edge treatment shall be provided along Jamboree Road and East Coast Highway adjacent to the site and shall be approved by the City in conjunction with subdivision or site plan review. Significant Effect ° The potential exists for significant adverse impacts from onsite signs on the Bayview Landing site. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. No exterior signs shall be permitted above the second floor eleva- tion of any structure (except Fashion :Island). 2. Signage and exterior lighting shall be approved by the Planning Department and the Public Works Department. 3. No illuminated signs shall be roof mounted. 4. An overall sign program for Newport Center shall be approved in con- junction with the Planned Community District Regulations. 5. The project shall be designed to eliminate light and glare spillage onto adjacent properties. Significant Effect • The loss of the public view park on the Bayview Landing site is consi- dered a significant adverse aesthetic impact of the project. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 34 Facts in SUDDort of Findin The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. In conjunction with site plan review or use permit approval, the project proponent shall prepare a detailed grading and landscaping plan for the blufftop setback. The plan shall be reviewed by the Parks Department, the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department, the Public Works Department, Building Department, and the Planning Department. 2. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. The plan shall be subject to approval by the Planning Department, the Department of Parks, Beaches, and Recreation, and the Public Works Department. 3. The landscape plan shall include a maintenance program which con- trols the use of fertilizers and pesticides. 4. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, elevations, and sections. Significant Effect ° The prominence of future public views from the Bayview Landing site of Upper Newport Bay could be lost depending on site design. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. In conjunction with site plan review or use permit approval, the project proponent shall prepare a detailed grading and landscaping plan for the blufftop setback. The plan shall be reviewed by the Parks Department, the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department, the Public Works Department, Building Department, and the Planning Department. 2. Height limitations shall be those as noted in the Newport Center Planned Community and District Regulations Text for the Bayview Landing site. 3. A landscaped edge treatment shall be provided along Jamboree Road and East Coast Highway adjacent to the site and shall be approved by the City in conjunction with the subdivision or site plan review. • 4. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, elevations, and sections. Significant Effect Development of the Bayview Landing site with lighted signs and struc- tures will substantially impact the visual appearance of the site during the evening hours. This will be perceived as a significant impact by some users. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated 35 into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. No exterior signs shall be permitted above the second floor eleva- tion of any structure (except Fashion Island). 2. Signage and exterior lighting shall be approved by the Planning Department and the Public Works Department. 3. No illuminated signs shall be roof mounted. 4. All mechanical equipment, vents, and other service equipment shall be shielded or screened from view by architectural features. All screening shall conform to the height limit in each area. 5. An overall sign program for Newport Center shall be approved in con- junction with the Planned Community District Regulations. Significant Effect ° Given the lack of details regarding the proposed lowering of MacArthur Boulevard, the impact should be considered significant. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. Earth berms and graded slopes, as required, shall be contoured and landscaped to the approval of the Building and Planning Department. 2. A landscape edge treatment shall be provided along East Coast Highway, MacArthur Boulevard, Avocado Avenue, and San Miguel Drive. Landscaped entry statements shall be provided at the intersections of San Miguel Drive at Avocado Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard to be approved by the City in conjunction with site plan review. 3. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. The plan shall be subject to approval by the Planning Department, the Department of Parks, Beaches, and Recreation, and the Public Works Department. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION •Vehicular Significant Effect The proposed project will add traffic to the following intersections: Coast Highway at: Orange Street Prospect Street Bayside Drive Jamboree Road Goldenrod Avenue L� • Jamboree Road at: MacArthur Boulevard at: Campus Drive at: Birch Street at: Finding Marguerite Avenue Poppy Avenue MacArthur Boulevard Bristol Street Bison Avenue Ford Road Bristol Street North Bristol Street Bristol Street North Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. Prior to the occupancy of any CPA 85 -1(B) permitted structure the project proponent shall implement an overall Transportation Management System (TMS) for Newport Center and the Peripheral Sites. The TMS shall be approved by the City of Newport Beach. 2. Prior to the occupancy of any individual structure permitted by CPA 85 -1(B), a site specific ISM component shall be prepared and approved by the City Public Works and Planning Departments. 3. Prior to the occupancy of Phase I, the intersection improvements listed on Table 1 -GGG shall have been constructed. 4. The project proponent shall pay "Fair Share" fees as required by the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 5. The project proponent shall pay San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Fees as required by the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Significant Effect ° The inclusion of the proposed CPA traffic would increase the ICU values at several additional intersections to greater than 0.90 in 1989. These intersections are: Jamboree Road at: Newport Boulevard at: Finding Bison Avenue San Joaquin Hills Road Santa Barbara Drive Hospital Road Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. Prior to the occupancy of any GPA 85 -1(B) permitted structure the project proponent shall implement an overall Transportation Management System (TMS) for Newport Center and the Peripheral Sites. The TMS shall be approved by the City of Newport Beach. • 37 2. Prior to the occupancy of any individual structure permitted by GPA 85 -1(B), a site specific TSM component shall be prepared and approved by the City Public Works and Planning Departments. 3. Prior to the occupancy of Phase II, the intersection improvements listed on Table 1 -III shall have been constructed with the exception that the project proponent shall monitor traffic volumes and re- evaluate the need for improvements at the Jamboree Road intersection of Ford Road, Bison Avenue, and East Bluff Drive (N) in a manner acceptable to the city. Improvements shall be made to these intersections prior to the occupancy of Phase II if it is deemed appropriate by the City. 4. The project proponent shall pay "Fair Share" fees as required by the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 5. The project proponent shall pay San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Fees as required by the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Significant Effect ° In 1993 with the superimposition of Phase 2 of the proposed GPA, the following additional intersections would be congested: Jamboree Road at: MacArthur Boulevard at: Coast Highway at: Jamboree Road at: MacArthur Boulevard at Finding Ford Road /Eastbluff Drive San Miguel Drive Balboa Blvd. /Superior Avenue Riverside .Avenue Tustin Avenue Dover Drive /Bayshore Drive Bayside Drive Jamboree Road Goldenrod Avenue Campus Drive Eastbluff Drive North San Joaquin Hills Road Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. Prior to the occupancy of any GPA 85 -1(B) permitted structure the project proponent shall implement an overall Transportation Management System (TMS) for Newport Center and the Peripheral Sites. The TMS shall be approved by the City of Newport Beach. 2. Prior to the occupancy of any individual structure permitted by GPA 85 -1(B), a site specific TSM component shall be prepared and approved by the City Public Works and Planning Departments. 3. Prior to the occupancy of Phase II, the intersection improvements listed on Table 1 -III shall have been constructed with the exception that the project proponent shall monitor traffic volumes and re- evaluate the need for improvements at the Jamboree Road a manner acceptable to the city. 'Improvements shall be made to these intersections prior to the occupancy of Phase II if it is deemed appropriate by the City. 4. The project proponent shall pay "Fair Share" fees as required by the Newport Beach Municipal Code. W 5. The project proponent shall pay San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Fees as required by the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Bicycle Significant Effect ° Deletion of the Couplet will change the proposed configuration for bikeways along Avocado Avenue. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. The project proponent shall install all bicycle paths adjacent to each project site and provide all local connections. 2. The project proponent shall prepare a phasing plan for all bicycle paths to be approved by the City. 3. The project applicant shall install and maintain bicycle racks to encourage the use of alternative transportation modes. 4. The project proponent shall design and implement an alternative bicycle route to the Avocado Avenue /MacArthur Boulevard One -Way Couplet bikeway. The route.shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Public Works Departments and approved by the City Council. 5. The City shall insure implementation of a bikeway system to encourage cycling as an alternative mode of transportation consistent with the Master Plan of Bikeways. 6. The Master Plan of Bikeways shall be implemented concurrent with highway and street improvements, consistent with the City's financial ability to do so, and the availability of alternative funding sources. 7. Appropriate bikeway improvements may be required as a condition of development approvals. 8. The City will work with surrounding agencies for development of connecting bikeways. Significant Effect Elimination of the designated trail staging area on the Bayview Landing site will adversely impact bicycle staging uses designated for the site. • Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 39 1. The project proponent shall install all bicycle paths adjacent to each project site and provide all local connections. 2. The project proponent shall prepare a phasing plan for all bicycle paths to be approved by the City. 3. The project proponent shall install and maintain bicycle racks on the Bayview Landing and Newporter North project sites to encourage the use of alternative routes for the project sites. 4. The City shall endeavor to provide a full range of year -round recreational facilities and instructional programs to adequately meet the current and future needs of each resident. The varied programs and facilities shall include water sports and activities, beach and harbor facilities, active park facilities, passive open areas and view parks, senior citizen facilities, and bicycle trails, pedestrian trails, and scenic highways. 5. The City shall insure implementation of a bikeway system to encourage cycling as an alternative mode of transportation consistent with the Master Plan of Bikeways. 6. The Master Plan of Bikeways shall be implemented concurrent with highway and street improvements, consistent with the City's financial ability to do so, and the availability of alternative funding sources. 7. Appropriate bikeway improvements may be required as a condition of development approvals. 8. The City will work with surrounding agencies for development of connecting bikeways. 9. The City shall maintain a comprehensive signing program of City coastal resources including accessways, bicycle routes, public beaches, and vista points. Significant Effect Elimination of the trail staging area is considered an adverse impact. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. The project proponent shall install all bicycle paths adjacent to each project site and provide all local connections. 2. The project proponent shall prepare a phasing plan for all bicycle • paths to be approved by the City. 3. The project proponent shall install and maintain bicycle racks on the Bayview Landing and Newporter North project sites to encourage the use of alternative routes for the project sites. 4. The project proponent shall fund the implementation of designated bicycle routes for the project site. 5. The City shall endeavor to provide a full range of year -round recreational facilities and instructional programs to adequately meet the current and future needs of each resident. The varied programs and facilities shall include water sports and activities, 40 beach and harbor facilities, active park facilities, passive open areas and view parks, senior citizen facilities, and bicycle trails, pedestrian trails, and scenic highways. 6. The City shall insure implementation of a bikeway system to encourage cycling as an alternative mode of transportation consistent with the Master Plan of Bikeways. 7. The Master Plan of Bikeways shall be implemented concurrent with highway and street improvements, consistent with the City's financial ability to do so, and the availability of alternative funding sources. 8. Appropriate bikeway improvements may be required as a condition of development approvals. 9. The City will work with surrounding agencies for development of connecting bikeways. 10. The City shall maintain a comprehensive signing program of City coastal resources including accessways, bicycle routes, public beaches, and vista points. NOISE Significant Effect ° Construction traffic noise in adjacent residential neighborhoods. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. It is the standard unwritten policy of the City of Newport Beach to require approval by the City Traffic Engineer and Building Department of all construction truck traffic routes. 2. The development of each site shall be subject to the requirements of the General Plan and all applicable specific plans and zoning. The following discretionary approvals: 1. Coastal Permits for sites in the Coastal Zone. 2. Site Plan Review and /or Use Permits. 3. Subdivision Map Act 4. Grading Permits. 3. Construction traffic shall not be routed on San Miguel Drive or San Joaquin Hills Road east of the MacArthur Boulevard. • Significant Effect ° Increase in CNEL generated by the project for San Joaquin Hills Road and MacArthur Boulevard. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 41 Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. The project will contribute to "Fair Share" funds which can be uti- lized for the construction of Noise Walls. 2. As a condition of project approval, units located inside the 65 CNEL contour shall be mitigated to experience outdoor noise levels less than 65 CNEL and indoor noise levels less than 45 CNEL. Specific provisions shall be determined prior to obtaining any grading permit and shall be installed in accordance with a further acoustical study to be prepared for the specific project. 3. The project proponent shall be responsible for expense and con- struction of sound barrier walls along MacArthur Boulevard. The final barrier height shall be determined in conjunction with the chosen roadway configuration for MacArthur Boulevard and Avocado Avenue. Preliminary sound wall heights for the three alternatives to mitigate noise impacts are as follows: NOISE BARRIER REQUIREMENTS ALONG MacARTHUR BOULEVARD BARRIER HEIGHT (FEET) LOCATION WITH COUPLET NO COUPLET -ALT A NO COUPLET -ALT B 'DEPRESSIONS' 'NO DEPRESSIONS' A 7.0 7.5 7.0 B 4.0 5.0 6.5 C 0.5 0.0 2.5 D 1.5 1.5 5.5 E 2.5 1.0 6.0 F 2.0 0.0 5.0 G 2.5 0.0 5.5 H 1.5 0.0 5.0 I 2.0 0.0 5.5 J 2.5 0.0 5.5 K 1.5 0.0 4.5 L 2.5 0.0 6.0 M 3.5 1.5 7.0 N 4.5 3.0 8.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P 2.5 2.0 4.0 Q 5.5 5.5 6.5 R 4.0 4.5 5.5 S 4.0 4.0 5.5 T 5.0 6.0 6.5 U 5.5 5.5 6.0 V 4.5 5.0 5.0 W 4.0 4.0 4.5 X 4.5 4.5 4.5 Y 0.0 6.0 6.0 • Significant Effect Impacts of roadway noise on project uses proposed on PCH /Jamboree, Corporate Plaza West, Newport Village, Avocado MacArthur, Big Canyon/MacArthur, Bayview Landing, and Newport North. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 42 Facts in Suvnort of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. As a condition of project approval, units located inside the 65 CNEL contour shall be mitigated to experience outdoor noise levels less than 65 CNEL and indoor noise levels less than 45 CNEL. Specific provisions shall be determined prior to obtaining any grading permit and shall be installed in accordance further acoustical study to be prepared for the project site. 2. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, an acoustical study shall be prepared based on actual pad, property, roadway grades, building locations, and orientation to assure that noise impacts do not exceed 50 CNEL for interior areas of office buildings and 55 CNEL for interior areas of retail /commercial establishments. 3. As a condition of project approval, units located inside the 65 CNEL contour shall be mitigated to experience outdoor noise levels less than 65 CNEL and indoor noise levels less than 45 CNEL. Spe- cific provisions shall be determined prior to obtaining any grading permit and shall be installed in accordance with a further acousti- cal study to be prepared for the specific project. 4. The project proponent shall be responsible for expense and con- struction of sound barrier walls along MacArthur Boulevard. The final barrier height shall be determined in conjunction with the chosen roadway configuration for MacArthur Boulevard and Avocado Avenue. Preliminary sound wall heights for the three alternatives to mitigate noise impacts are as follows: NOISE BARRIER REQUIREMENTS ALONG MacARTHUR BOULEVARD BARRIER HEIGHT (FEET) LOCATION WITH COUPLET NO COUPLET -ALT A NO COUPLET -ALT B 'DEPRESSIONS' 'NO DEPRESSIONS' A 7.0 7.5 7.0 B 4.0 5.0 6.5 C 0.5 0.0 2.5 D 1.5 1.5 5.5 E 2.5 1.0 6.0 F 2.0 0.0 5.0 G 2.5 0.0 5.5 H 1.5 0.0 5.0 I 2.0 0.0 5.5 J 2.5 0.0 5.5 K 1.5 0.0 4.5 L 2.5 0.0 6.0 M 3.5 1.5 7.0 N 4.5 3.0 8.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P 2.5 2.0 4.0 • Q 5.5 5.5 6.5 R 4.0 4.5 5.5 S 4.0 4.0 5.5 T 5.0 6.0 6.5 U 5.5 5.5 6.0 V 4.5 5.0 5.0 W 4.0 4.0 4.5 X 4.5 4.5 4.5 Y 0.0 6.0 6.0 43 4. Noise barriers shall be constructed of a wall, beam, or combination of wall and beam. The barriers may be constructed of 1/4 -inch plate glass, and masonry material, or stud wall with stucco exterior. Other materials may be acceptable if properly designed. Significant Effect ° Deletion of the Couplet on noise levels adjacent to MacArthur Boulevard between East Coast Highway and San Miguel. Drive. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. As a condition of project approval, units located inside the 65 CNEL contour shall be mitigated to experience outdoor noise levels less than 65 CNEL and indoor noise levels less than 45 CNEL. Spe- cific provisions shall be determined prior to obtaining any grading permit and shall be installed in accordance with a further acousti- cal study to be prepared for the specific project. 2. The project proponent shall be responsible for expense and con- struction of sound barrier walls along MacArthur Boulevard. The final barrier height shall be determined in conjunction with the chosen roadway configuration for MacArthur Boulevard and Avocado Avenue. Preliminary sound wall heights for the three alternatives to mitigate noise impacts are as follows: NOISE BARRIER REQUIREMENTS ALONG MacARTHUR BOULEVARD BARRIER HEIGHT (FEET) LOCATION WITH COUPLET NO COUPLET -ALT A 'DEPRESSIONS' NO COUPLET -ALT B 'NO DEPRESSIONS' A 7.0 7.5 7.0 B 4.0 5.0 6.5 C 0.5 0.0 2.5 D 1.5 1,.5 5.5 E 2.5 1.0 6.0 F 2.0 0.0 5.0 G 2.5 0.0 5.5 H 1.5 0.0 5.0 I 2.0 0,0 5.5 J 2.5 0.0 5.5 K 1.5 0.0 4.5 L 2.5 0.0 6.0 M 3.5 1.5 7.0 N 4.5 3.0 8.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P 2.5 2.0 4.0 Q 5.5 5.5 6.5 R 4.0 4.5 5.5 S 4.0 4.0 5.5 T 5.0 6.0 6.5 U 5.5 5.5 6.0 V 4.5 5.0 5.0 W 4.0 4.0 4.5 X 4.5 4.5 4.5 Y 0.0 6.0 6.0 44 4. Noise barriers shall be constructed of a wall, beam, or combination of wall and beam. The barriers may be constructed of 1/4 -inch plate glass, and masonry material, or stud wall with stucco exterior. Other materials may be acceptable if properly designed. AIR QUALITY 0 Significant Effect ° Air pollutants generated within parking structures could adversely impact downwind areas. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. An air quality assessment of the potential downwind air quality impacts of the proposed parking structures shall be included as part of site plan review for these facilities. The features of the parking structure which will minimize the downwind air contaminant levels shall be included in the :report along with dispersion modeling projecting the downwind air quality levels in nearby areas. Parking structures when designed properly do not result in significant downwind air quality impacts. EARTH RESOURCES Significant Effect ° The implementation of the project will create modifications to existing land uses changing topographical characteristics. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. Prior to implementation of the project the developer shall provide a geotechnical report for all sites included in GPA 85 -1(B). 2. Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be • approved by the Building and Planning Departments. 3. A grading plan, if required, shall include a complete plan for tem- porary and permanent drainage facilities to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 4. The grading permit shall include, if required, a description of haul routes, access points to the site, watering, and a seepage program designed to minimize impacts of haul operations. 45 5. An erosion, siltation, and dust control plan, if required, shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Board, Santa Ana Region. 6. The velocity of concentrated run -off from the project shall be evaluated and erosive velocities controlled as part of the project design. 7. Grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on recommendations of a soil engineer and an engineering geologist subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Department. S. Erosion control measures shall be done on any exposed slopes within thirty days after grading or as approved by the Grading Engineer. Significant Effect Earth moving activities will impact all project sites through soil displacement. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. 2. A grading plan, if required, shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 3. An erosion, siltation, and dust control plan, if required, shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Board, Santa Ana Region. 4. Grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on recommendations of a soil engineer and an engineering geologist subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Department. • 6. Erosion control measures shall be done on any exposed slopes within thirty days after grading or as approved by the Grading Engineer. WATER RESOURCES Significant Effect Implementation of the project will result in modifications to onsite and offsite stormwater runoff. 46 Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. Any onsite systems or extension of culverts for contributory drain- age from areas outside the proposed developments shall be considered a localized condition. These culverts shall be studied during the design phase and any required improvements shall be installed in conformance with local ordinances and accepted engineering practice. 2. All existing and proposed desilting basins located within Newport Center or serving projects located within Newport Center shall be maintained by the project proponent. 3. Existing onsite drainage facilities shall be improved or updated to the satisfaction of the City of Newport Beach. 4. Any exposed slopes shall be planted as soon as possible to reduce erosion potential. 5. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the design engineer shall review and state that the discharge of surface runoff from the project will be performed in a manner to assure that increased peak flows from the project will not :Increase erosion immediately downstream of the system. This shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Building Departments. 6. A Master Plan of Drainage Facilities should be prepared for each site and /or link at the site specific or contributory drainage area level. These planned facilities should connect with existing or currently master planned facilities. Significant Effect ° Development of the sites will increase impervious surfaces which will incrementally increase the amount and velocity of runoff. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been. required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: • 1. Any onsite systems or extension of culverts for contributory drain- age from areas outside the proposed developments shall be considered a localized condition. These culverts shall be studied during the design phase and any required improvements shall be installed in conformance with local ordinances and accepted engineering practice. 2. An erosion, siltation, and dust control plan shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Building Department. A copy will be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. 3. Existing onsite drainage facilities shall be improved or updated to the satisfaction of the City of Newport Beach. 47 4. All parking and other onsite paved surfaces shall be routinely vacuum -swept and cleaned to reduce debris and pollutants carried into the drainage system. 5. The velocity of concentrated runoff from each site shall be evaluat- ed and controlled as part of project design to minimize impacts on adjacent areas. 6. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the design engineer shall re- view and state that the discharge of surface runoff from the project will be performed in a manner to assure that increased peak flows from the project will not increase erosion immediately downstream of the system. This shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Building Departments. 7. A Master Plan of Drainage Facilities should be prepared for each site and /or link at the site specific or contributory drainage area level. These planned facilities should connect with existing or currently master planned facilities. Significant Effect ° Short -term sewage wastes generated during construction. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. The maintenance of sanitary conditions at the time of development of the project. 2. Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permit of any "specific" buildings, a program for the building for the sorting of recyclable materials from other solid wastes shall be developed and approved by the Planning Department. Significant Effect Short -term construction activities will add dust and debris to site runoff. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding • The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. An erosion, siltation, and dust control plan shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Building Department. A copy will be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. 2. Existing onsite drainage facilities shall be improved or updated to the satisfaction of the City of Newport Beach. 48 3. Any exposed slopes shall be planted as soon as possible to reduce erosion potential. 4. All parking and other onsite paved surfaces shall be routinely vacuum -swept and cleaned to reduce debris and pollutants carried into the drainage system. 0 Significant Effect ° The decrease in interim desilting facilities on the Newporter North site. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. All existing and proposed desilting basins located within Newport Center or serving projects located within Newport Center shall be maintained by the project proponent. 2. Existing onsite drainage facilities shall be improved or updated to the satisfaction of the City of Newport Beach. 3. A Master Plan of Drainage Facilities should be prepared for each site and /or link at the site specific or contributory drainage area level. These planned facilities should connect with existing or currently master planned facilities. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Significant Effect Development of the Newporter North site would result in the following: - Loss or degradation of buffer area for coastal scrub. - Loss of wetlands - Loss of endangered species habitation in John Wayne Gulch. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the • project. These measures include the following: 1. Setbacks of development from the bluff edge shall be no less than 100 feet to provide a partial buffer between development and resource areas as well as protect the bluff face coastal sage scrub. The 100 feet setback is the minimum needed to retain existing vegetation and wildlife habitat resources within the bluff face area. A setback of less than 100 feet would not prevent human activity from disturbing the normal behavioral patterns of wildlife when resting, feeding, and reproducing. Allowable uses within the 100 foot setback shall be low intensive uses such as: bicycle and hiking trails, educational signage, benches, and fencing to be approved by the Planning and Public Works Departments. 49 2. Preservation of the John Wayne Gulch wetland areas as natural open space and setbacks of development from the edge of this area. To be fully effective, this setback shall also be a minimum of 100 feet. Allowable uses within the 100 foot setback shall be low intensive uses such as: bicycle and hiking trails, educational signage, benches, and fencing to be approved by the Planning and Public Works 3. Erosion of development areas shall be strictly monitored and con- trolled and all graded areas shall be either built upon or revege- tated prior to the wet season. RESOURCES ° Loss of archaeological resources is considered a significant regional, subregional, and local impact. Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. A qualified archaeologist shall be present during pregrade meetings co inform the developer and grading contractor of the results of the study. In addition, an archaeologist shall be present during grading activities to inspect the underlying soil for cultural resources. If significant cultural resources are uncovered, the archaeologist shall have the authority to stop or temporarily divert construction activities for a period of 48 hours to assess the significance of the find. 2. In the event that significant archaeological remains are uncovered during excavation and /or grading, all work shall stop in that area of the subject property until an appropriate data recovery program can be developed and implemented. The cost of such a program shall be the responsibility of the landowner and /or developer. Potential loss of resources in Newport Village. Finding Finding` 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. i Facts in Support of Finding •The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final :EIR and incorporated into the projec:-� I These measures include the following: 1. su rvey of the site area shall take place d uring which time the suface material should be flagged. This will provide the horizontal surface boundaries of the locus. 50 2. Following the identification of the surface extent of the cultural resources, 5 square meter grid system shall be laid out that encompasses all of the flagged material. 3. Using the grid system, all of the flagged material shall be systema- tically collected. 4. After the collection of the surface material, two to three units measuring 1 square meter shall be placed within the grid system. This will provide the limits of the vertical distribution of the cultural material as well as identifying its subsurface integrity. 5. Following the completion of the subsurface units, a series of hand - dug postholes shall be placed in the site to further define its subsurface horizontal distribution. 6. All material recovered from the surface collection and the subsur- face units shall be analyzed and catalogued. 7. If sufficient shellfish remains are recovered from the subsurface, at least two samples shall be submitted for C14 dating. 8. The results of the test program, including methodology, analysis of recovered material, and recommendations, if necessary, for further work shall be documented in a report and submitted to the client. 9. All of the above work shall be undertaken by an archaeologist on the Orange County List of Certified Archaeological Consultants. 10. Because of the suspected disturbed nature of Locus B, an Orange County Approved Archaeologist shall be present during the initial grading phase at that location previously identified as that of Locus B. If a significant subsurface deposit is uncovered during the grading the client shall be prepared to have the material evaluated and if need be permit the introduction of a limited test -level investigation. Significant Effect ° Potential loss of resources on the PCH /Jamboree, Block 800, Bay-view Landing sites. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alternatives have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. A survey of the site area shall take place during which time the surface material should be flagged. This will provide the horizontal surface boundaries of the locus. 2. Following the identification of the surface extent of the cultural resources, 5 square meter grid system shall be laid out that encompasses all of the flagged material. 3. Using the grid system, all of the flagged material shall be systema- tically collected. 4. After the collection of the surface material, two to three units measuring 1 square meter shall be placed within the grid system. This will provide the limits of the vertical distribution of the cultural material as well as identifying; its subsurface integrity. 51 5. Following the completion of the subsurface units, a series of hand - dug portholes shall be placed in the site to further define its subsurface horizontal distribution. 6. All material recovered from the surface collection and the subsur- subsurface units shall be analyzed and catalogued. 7. If sufficient shellfish remains are covered from the subsurface, at least two samples shall be submitted for C14 dating. 8. The results of the test program, including methodology, analysis of recovered material, and recommendations, if necessary, for further work shall be documented in a report and submitted to the client. 9. All of the above work shall be undertaken by an archaeologist on the Orange County List of Certified Archaeological Consultants. Significant Effect ° Potential loss of CA- Ora -51, -52, -64, -100, and -158 on the Newporter North site. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. Each of the sites shall be surveyed with all of the surface material being flagged. Subsequently, a 100% surface collection of this material shall be implemented. 2. Following the collection of the surface material (and some determin- ation as to the horizontal surface material has been posted) 3 -4 1 square meter units shall be systematically excavated to determine the sites' subsurface integrity, along with its horizontal and vertical extent. 3. All material recovered shall be analyzed and the results documented in a report. In addition to the results of the excavation, statements shall be offered as to the :significance of the site and if the resource area merits a mitigation program. If this is deemed necessary, a specific program shall be outlined. Normally this entails the excavation of a percentage of the total site area as determined by the test phase. Depending on the size of the site a 28 -108 figure is usually considered adequate for mitigation. In the event that the site is only a surface manifestation or sufficient material was not recovered. from the subsurface units to merit additional investigation, this shall be noted as well. In the case of the latter development would be permitted to proceed at the location of the site. On the one hand, the mitigation program would have to be implemented prior to any development. 4. Following the completion of the test -level excavation, and if sufficient material was found to warrant salvage, the client would have the option to preserve the site. This can be done by several means that could be determined at the time of the report preparation. 5. Taking into account the magnitude of systematic testing that trans- pired at Ora -64 during the 1970s it would seem that any additional excavation to determine the horizontal and vertical distribution of the resources or which cultural groups are represented would be 52 redundant. Therefore, three options are being presented for the future management of this important prehistoric site: Option 01 - Preservation This option would preclude for the immediate future disturbance to ® the site. The act of total preservation entails, for example, leaving the site area in its natural state, capping with clean fill dirt (soil which is known to be without cultural material that may have been removed from another site), or the placement of asphalt across the site. If capping with fill is chosen, it would enable the site are to be used as an open space area, park, golf course, or other similar use. Structures that require no major subsurface disturbance for their construction would be permitted, but the installation of, for instance, subsurface sprinkling systems and certain types of plant materials would have to be approached with caution and would possibly require monitoring by a certified archaeologist. If possible, the placement of these watering systems and drains should be placed above the known cultural deposits so as to minimize any disturbances to the cultural resources. This same care should be exercised in the event that asphalting; is chosen for the site area. If total preservation is chosen for Ora -64, it is recommended that prior to the introduction of fill or asphalt a 1008 surface collection be initiated to remove any artifacts that were not collected during the earlier investigations or those that have surfaced since the termination of the last excavation program. This collection should be done in a systematic fashion and be under the direction of an archaeologist that is on the Orange County List of Authorized Archaeologist Consultants. Any recovered material would be analyzed with the results being incorporated into that corpus of data that already exists for the site. It is also recommended that a 1008 surface collection take place even if the site is to be left in its natural state. It is assumed that even if Ora -64 is left in its present condition, construction will take place in the immediate vicinity and because of this, access to the site area will increase. This increased access could create a hazard for those surface artifacts that may be present. Option 2 - Salvage A second option would permit development to take place within the entire site area. A program of this nature constitutes the destruction of an important cultural resource area and should be approached accordingly. Even though the term salvage implies the excavation of the whole site, this is not the case, but instead only a predetermined percentage of the site would actually be excavated. In the case of Ora -64 to consider more than a percentage would not only be prohibitive but extremely time consuming as well. Much of what is outlined below for the partial salvage of Ora -64 in Option 3 can be applied to this second'. alternative. The project director must show through past projects that he is capable of handling an excavation the size that would be required for the • mitigation of a site with the potential of Ora -64. The research design would have to be one that incorporates both regional and local questions concerning the prehistoric inhabitants of the area and as will considers the important data gathered during previous investigation. It is imperative that the crew be comprised of experienced and professional excavators. This is not a venture that could utilize a field class or volunteers who can participate on weekends or only sporadically throughout the duration of the field portion of the project. 53 The salvage of Ora -64 would require a permit from the Coastal Commission and Native American involvement that goes beyond notification. The latter requirement would be necessary because of the known existence of burials. Option 3 - Preservation /Salvage This alternative would permit a portion of the site to undergo a salvage program. This would permit future construction to take place, while at the same time preserving a portion of the site. That sector which is to be preserved versus that to be salvaged could most accurately be determined during the early planning stages for the intended use of the site area. Elements to be considered here would be those areas where burials are known to exist and the sectors with the greatest amount of cultural material. It is recommended that the preservation /salvage ratio be roughly equal in amount. In that area to be preserved it is suggested that the same procedures and limitations be adhered to that were noted for Option 1. The portion to be mitigated would require a research design that is based on the previous knowledge gleaned from the site but that also incorporates those questions that have become pertinent since that last investigation. This program would require a 1008 surface collection, a specific number of hand dug excavation units, analysis of the recovered material, additionaLl C14 dates, and a report that documents the results of the current investigation and which also incorporates the earlier data. A program of this expected magnitude would require a crew of professional archaeologists who would be under the direction of an archaeologist who has the experience and credentials to conduct a project the size of that anticipated even for the partial salvage of Ora -64. This is meant to include an individual, preferably a Ph.D., who has considerable large -scale excavation experience, who has illustrated that he can complete a major project within the specified time limit that the designated budget, one who has produced scholarly site report, also within the agreed upon time frame. A program of this nature would require a coastal permit and Native American involvement particularly if additional burials were encountered. It is anticipated that the field endeavor could consume several months, depending upon the size of the area to be excavated and the number of crew persons. 6. A qualified archaeologist shall be present during pregrade meetings to inform the developer and grading contractor of the results of the study. In addition, an archaeologist shall be present during grading activities to inspect the underlying soil for cultural resources. If significant cultural resources are uncovered, the archaeologist shall have the authority to stop or temporarily divert construction activities for a period of 48 hours to assess the significance of the find. 7. In the event that significant archaeological remains are uncovered during excavation and /or grading, all work shall stop in that area of the subject property until an appropriate data recovery program can be developed and implemented. The cost of such a program shall be the responsibility of the landowner and /or developer. • 8. Prior to issuance of any grading or demolition permits, the appli- cant shall waive the provisions of AB 952 related to city of Newport Beach responsibilities for the mitigation of archaeological impacts in a manner acceptable to the City Attorney. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES Significant Effect ° Potential loss of areas with a moderate to high paleontological sensitivity. 54 Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. Any fossils collected during grading or excavation shall be offered to an institution with educational and research interests such as the Natural History Foundation of Orange County or the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles. 2. A paleontological monitor shall be retained by the landowner and /or developer to attend pregrade meetings and perform inspections during development. The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert, direct, or halt grading in a specific area to allow for salvage of exposed fossil materials. 3. Archaeological, paleontological, and historical resources within the coastal zone shall be investigated in accordance with acceptable scientific procedures and appropriate mitigation measures (including testing, salvage, or presentation) shall be adopted on a case -by -case basis in accordance with regular City policy. 4. Prior to any development, archaeological, paleontological, and his- toric resources shall be mapped and evaluated by a qualified professional. Significant Effect ° Potential loss of areas with significant paleontological resources. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final E:IR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. Any fossils collected during grading or excavation shall be offered to an institution with educational and research interests such as .the Natural History Foundation of Orange County or the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles. 2. A paleontological monitor shall be retained by the landowner and /or developer to attend pregrade meetings and perform inspections during development. The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert, direct, or halt grading in a specific area to allow for salvage of exposed fossil materials. 3. Archaeological, paleontological, and historical resources within the coastal zone shall be investigated in accordance with acceptable scientific procedures and appropriate mitigation measures (including testing, salvage, or presentation) shall be adopted on a case -by -case basis in accordance with regular City policy. 4. Prior to any development, archaeological, paleontological, and his- toric resources shall be mapped and evaluated by a qualified professional. 55 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES Significant Effect The proposed project will create project - related adverse impacts on the presently provide service levels of the City Fire Department. ® Finding Finding ,1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. The project proponents shall provide a five (5) year reservation for a fire station on the San Diego Creek South site. 2. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Fire Department shall review the proposed plans and may require automatic fire sprinkler protection. 3. Any cul -de -sac, building address, and street name shall comply with city standards and shall be approved by the Fire Department. 4. The Fire Department access shall be approved by the Fire Department. 5. As equipped and approved by the Fire Department, all buildings on the project site shall be equipped with fire suppression systems approved by the Fire Department. 6. All accesses to the buildings shall be approved by the Fire Depart- ment. 7. All onsite fire protection (hydrants and Fire Department Connec- tions) shall be approved by the Fire slid Public Works Departments. 8. Fire vehicle access shall be approved by the Fire Department. Significant Effect Southern California Gas Company expects to provide gas service without any significant impacts. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding No significant effect has been identified. • Significant Effect There is a concern expressed that the new construction on the Civic Plaza Expansion site provide adequate off - street parking. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 56 Facts in Suvvort of Findin The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. The project proponent shall submit a parking plan for the Civic Plaza Expansion site to be approved by the City. Significant Effect ° Potential adverse impacts could result if existing bus stops were removed or restricted based on increased'traffic volumes or due to reduced pedestrian accessibility. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. The applicant shall consult with the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department and OCTD regarding proposed changes to existing OCTD facilities (i.e., bus shelters and bus stops). 2. The applicant shall be responsible for the provision of OCTD facilities if the project results in the removal of any existing bus stops, bus shelters, or related amenities (i.e., benches). Significant Effect ° The City of Newport Beach water supply for the area is almost at capa- city. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. Final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation of water - saving devices for the project lavatories and other water using facilities. 0 LJ 57 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED The following effects are those determined by the City of Newport Beach to be significant environmental effects which cannot avoided if the project is implemented. All significant environmental effects that can be feasibly avoided have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project as set forth above. The remaining, unavoidable significant effects are acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations made below, giving greater weight to the remaining, unavoidable significant effect. ignificant Effect ° The proposed project will convert existing vacant areas, undeveloped, and underdeveloped lands to urbanized and more intensive uses. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Finding 3- Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Section 15091 of the Guidelines)." Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue of the following Standard City Policies and Mitigation Measures. 1. The development of each site shall be .subject to the requirements of the General Plan and all applicable specific plans and zoning. The following discretionary approvals: 1. Coastal Permits for sites in the Coastal Zone. 2. Site Plan Review and /or Use Permits. 3. Subdivision Map Act. 4. Grading Permits. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 1. The intensities of development for the project have been reduced for the project on the following sites by the selection of project alternatives: A. Bayview Landing B. Newport Village 2. The densities of development have been reduced by the selection of project alternatives on the following sites: A. Bayview Landing B. Newport Village 3. The project has been modified to retain significant open space areas that will reduce perceived intensities on the following sites: A. Newporter North B. Bayview Landing 58 4. The project is conditioned for the elimination of development rights on the Westbay parcel which will reduce perceived intensities/ densities. 5. Additional specific mitigation measures may be required of future discretionary actions. 6. The project will increase permanent open space available around the Upper Newport Bay, which is an environmental resource of statewide significance. 7. The conversion of land to urbanized and intensive uses could only be avoided by the No Development Alternative which is rejected for the reasons stated in Statement of Facts and Findings in support thereof. The significant effects have been substantially lessened to the extent feasible. However, specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project represents the best reasonable balance and mix of uses for the project area, all factors considered. 2. The alternatives described for each individual site and the project were rejected for the reasons as set forth above and in subsequent sections of this statement. Significant Effect The amendment will change the existing stated direction of future resi- dential development. Most of the future residential development will be more dense and located outside of Newport Center with the exception of the Villa Point and PCH /Jamboree sites. Findine Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Finding 3- Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Section 15091 of the Guidelines)." Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue of the following Standard City Policies and Mitigation Measures. 1. The residential developments shall conform to the City's park requirements. 2. Prior to issuance of any grading and /or building permits for GPA 85 -1(B), an agreement shall be entered into by the project proponent with the City. The agreement shall indicate how the project will meet the Housing Element's goals and objectives. • The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project has been modified to provide for additional housing opportunities within Newport Center on the Newport Village site. 2. The project has been modified to retain significant open space areas that will reduce perceived intensities on the following sites: A. Newporter North B. Bayview Landing 59 3. The project is conditioned for the elimination of development rights on the Westbay parcel which will reduce perceived intensi- ties /densities. 4. Additional specific mitigation measures may be required of future discretionary actions. 5. The project will increase permanent open space available around the Upper Newport Bay, which is an environmental resource of statewide significance. 6. The conversion of land to urbanized and intensive uses could only be avoided by the No Development Alternative which is rejected for the reasons stated in Statement of Facts and Findings in support thereof. 7. The Villa Point, PCH /Jamboree, and Newport Village sites are all presently vacant or substantially vacant parcels in Newport Center that will ultimately be developed for residential land uses. 8. The Newport Center Area as a complex of uses provides significant housing for a variety of needs. These: units are and will be provided in close proximity to employment opportunities. 9. Residential development located outside of the Newport Center area is a reasonable use of these sites. The development proposed blends in a harmonious manner with adjacent developments. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible. However, specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project represents the best reasonable balance and mix of uses for the project area, all factors considered. 2. The alternatives described for each individual site and the project were rejected for the reasons as set forth above and in subsequent sections of this statement. 3. The project proponent has indicated that housing is not a reasonable alternative that will meet their objectives for development in Block 600 and 800. 4. The major source of income that allows construction of the needed circulation system improvements is the office development of the pro- ject. Significant Effect Changes to the development plan in Civic. Plaza have not been submitted and must be considered as creating potentially significant impacts until they can be reviewed. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. • Finding 3- Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Section 15091 of the Guidelines)." Facts in SupRort of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue of the following Standard City Policies and Mitigation Measures. HE 1. The development of each site shall be subject to the requirements of the General Plan and all applicable specific plans and zoning. The following discretionary approvals: 1. Coastal Permits for sites in the Coastal Zone. 2. Site Plan Review and /or Use Permits. 3. Subdivision Map Act. 4. Grading Permits. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 1. The City of Newport Beach has traditionally reviewed specific site plans at future discretionary actions (Use Permits, Site Plan Reviews, etc.). 2. The alternative of increased institutional uses was chosen as an alternative land use to the project. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feas- ible, however, specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project represents the best reasonable balance and mix of uses for the project area, all factors considered. 2. The alternatives described for each individual site and the project were rejected for the reasons as set forth above and in subsequent sections of this statement. 3. The project proponent and the applicant are working toward major increases in cultural amenities in the Civic Plaza area, these include but are not limited to the following: A. Increase library space. B. A larger Art Museum. 4. The increase in museum space and library space was supported by the community in public testimony at the public hearing regarding the project. Significant Effect ° The change of the lower portion of the Bayview landing site from recre- ational vehicle camping or similar recreational uses is an unavoidable adverse impact of the project. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Finding 3- Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in • the Final EIR (Section 15091 of the Guidelines)." Facts in SuP)ort of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 1. Changes have been made to the project to preserve a significant view amenity on the upper portion of the site for the general public. rf I The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feas- ible, however, specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. . 1. The maintenance of the site for recreational vehicle camping was rejected for the reasons stated in this Statement of Finding and Fact in support of those Findings. 2. The top portion of the site will be retained to an extent for public uses that will include opportunities for the general public to enjoy coastal resources. 3. The commercial establishments provide visitor serving facilities which while not coastally dependent are an important aspect of overall coastal planning. 4. The City of Newport Beach and the County of Orange have an agreement for the improvement and enhancement of recreational vehicle camping on the Newport Dunes site. The site is immediately adjacent to the project. 5. The modified plan will permit the construction of a view park on the top portion of the site at no cost to the tax payers. The view park is an important resource for the enjoyment of the Upper Bay and other coastal resources. 6. Given all the alternatives for the project the proposed project rep- resents the best mix of uses for the project area, all factors con- sidered. 7. The alternatives described for each of the individual sites and for the overall project were rejected for the reasons stated above and in the subsequent sections of this statement. 8. None of the alternatives with the exception of the No Project will reduce or eliminate the impact. The No Project Alternative has been reject for the reasons stated in this statement. Significant Effect ° The introduction of the general public into the bluff setback area in the Newporter North site should be considered an unavoidable adverse impact of the project on public safety and liability. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Finding 2- Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. Finding 3- Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in • the Final EIR (Section 15091 of the Guidelines)." Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue of the following Standard City Policies and Mitigation Measures. 1. Prior to the submission of any map for lease, sale, or division of the site, the project proponent shall submit a detailed survey of the project site for approval by the City. M 2. The survey shall indicate the location and extent of all coastal bluffs as defined by the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 3. A preliminary grading concept shall be submitted with the detailed survey. The grading concept shall be in sufficient detail to indicate all locations of proposed access and access impacts on coastal bluffs as defined by the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 4. The property line setbacks shall be no closer to the bluff top than 40 feet or a property line setback shall be no closer to the bluff top than a 2:1 (26.6 degrees) imaginary projection line from the toe of the bluff to the top of the mesa (whichever is greater). 5. Structural construction shall be no closer than 20 feet to the bluff property line setback. 6. Access to the site shall be from Jamboree Road. If access is taken from San Joaquin Hills Road, additional investigation and analysis shall be conducted regarding the stability of the north - facing slope along San Joaquin Hills Road. A buttress may be recommended for stabilization of the slope. A backdrain system for the buttress would aid in controlling the seepage problem. If a buttress fill is necessary, the slope shall be rebuilt at a ratio of 2:1 (26.6 degrees), thereby gaining additional space at the top of the slope. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 1. A large portion of the site will remain undeveloped to preserve the important cultural resources. 2. The preservation of the cultural resources as open space will lessen the amount of land in the bluff set back. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feas- ible by virtue that changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the one making the find- ing. 1. The State Department of Fish and Game and other State Agencies are responsible for monitoring the Upper Newport Bay resources. 2. The Project Proponent will be responsible to securing appropriate permits from State Agencies for development adjacent to Upper Newport Bay. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feas- ible, however, specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. 1. The City of Newport Beach has reviewed the liability and public safety and has found that the importance of the resources outweigh the ove- rall liability for the reasons stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. • 2. Given all the alternatives for the project the proposed project rep- resents the best mix of uses for the project area, all factors con- sidered. 3. The alternatives described for each of the individual sites and for the overall project were rejected for the reasons stated above and in the subsequent sections of this statement. 4. None of the alternatives with the exception of the No Project will reduce or eliminate the impact. The No Project Alternative has been reject for the reasons stated in this statement. 63 Significant Effect Development of the Newporter North site will result in the unavoidable loss of vacant land. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Finding 3- Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Section 15091 of the Guidelines)." Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue of the following Standard City Policies and Mitigation Measures. 1. The development of each site shall be subject to the requirements of the General Plan and all applicable specific plans and zoning. The following discretionary approvals: 1. Coastal Permits for sites in the Coastal Zone. 2. Site Plan Review and /or Use Permits. 3. Subdivision Map Act. 4. Grading Permits. 2. Prior to the submission of any map for lease, sale, or division of the site, the project proponent shall submit a detailed survey of the project site for approval by the City. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 1. The intensities of development for the project have been reduced for the project on the following sites by the selection of project alter- natives: A. Bayview Landing B. Newport Village 2. The densities of development have been reduced by the selection of project alternatives on the following sites: A. Bayview Landing B. Newport Village 3. The project has been modified to retain significant open space areas that will reduce perceived intensities on the following sites: A. Newporter North B. Bayview Landing • 4. The project is conditioned for the elimination of development rights on the Westbay parcel which will reduce perceived intensities/ densities. 5. Additional specific mitigation measures may be required of future discretionary actions. 6. The project will increase permanent open space available around the Upper Newport Bay, which is an environmental resource of statewide significance. 64 7. The conversion of land to urbanized and intensive uses could only be avoided by the No Development Alternative which is rejected for the reasons stated in Statement of Facts and Findings in support thereof. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible, however, specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project represents the best reasonable balance and mix of uses for the project area, all factors considered. 2. The alternatives described for each individual site and the project were rejected for the reasons as sett forth above and in subsequent sections of this statement. Significant Effect ° Existing Newporter North site's cultural resources may delay development of the project. This would preclude phasing of the project as indicated by the project proponent. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Finding 3- Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Section 15091 of the Guidelines)." Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue of the following Standard City Policies and Mitigation Measures. 1. The development of each site shall be subject to the requirements of the General Plan and all applicable specific plans and zoning. The following discretionary approvals: 1. Coastal Permits for sites in the Coastal Zone. 2. Site Plan Review and /or Use Permits. 3. Subdivision Map Act. 4. Grading Permits. 2. Taking into account the magnitude of systematic testing that trans- pired at Ora -64 during the 1970s it would seem that any additional excavation to determine the horizontal and vertical distribution of the resources or which cultural groups are represented would be redundant. Therefore, three options are being presented for the future management of this important prehistoric site. Option #1 - Preservation This option would preclude for the immediate future disturbance to the site. The act of total preservation entails, for example, leav- ing the site area in its natural state, capping with clean fill dirt (soil which is known to be without cultural material that may have been removed from another site), or the placement of asphalt across the site. If capping with fill is chosen, it would enable the site area to be used as an open space area, park, golf course, or other similar use. Structures that require no major subsurface disturbance for their construction would be permitted, but the installation of, for instance, subsurface sprinkling systems and certain types of plant materials would have to be approached with caution and would possibly require monitoring by a certified archaeologist. If possible, the placement of these watering systems and drains should be placed above M the known cultural deposits so as to minimize any disturbances to the cultural resources. This same care should be exercised in the event that asphalting is chosen for the site area. If total preservation is chosen for Ora -64, it is recommended that prior to the introduction of fill or asphalt a 1008 surface collec- tion be initiated to remove any artifacts that were not collected during the earlier investigations or those that have surfaced since the termination of the last excavation program. This collection should be done in a systematic fashion and be under the direction of an archaeologist that is on the Orange County List of Authorized Archaeologist Consultants. Any recovered material would be analyzed with the results being incorporated into that corpus of data that already exists for the site. It is also recommended that a 1008 surface collection take place even if the site is to be left in its natural state. It is assumed that even if Ora -64 is left. in its present condition, con- struction will take place in the immediate vicinity and because of this, access to the site area will increase. This increased access could create a hazard for those surface artifacts that may be pre- sent. Option 2 - Salvage A second option would permit development to take place within the entire site area. A program of this nature constitutes the destruc- tion of an important cultural resource area and should be approached accordingly. Even though the term salvage implies the excavation of the whole site, this is not the case, but instead only a predeter- mined percentage of the site would actually be excavated. In the case of Ora -64 to consider more than a percentage would not only be pro- hibitive but extremely time consuming as well. Much of what is outlined below for the partial salvage of Ora -64 in Option 3 can be applied to this second alternative. The project director must show through past projects that he is capable of hand- ling an excavation the size that would be required for the mitigation of a site with the potential of Ora -64. The research design would have to be one that incorporates both regional and local questions concerning the prehistoric inhabitants of the area and as will con- siders the important data gathered during previous investigations. It is imperative that the crew be comprised of experienced and pro- fessional excavators. This is not a venture that could utilize a field class or volunteers who can participate on weekends or only sporadically throughout the duration of the field portion of the pro- ject. The salvage of Ora -64 would require a permit from the Coastal Commis- sion and Native American involvement that goes beyond notification. The latter requirement would be necessary because of the known existence of burials. Option 3 - Preservation /Salvage This alternative would permit a portion. of the site to undergo a sal- vage program. This would permit future construction to take place, while at the same time preserving a portion of the site. • That sector which is to be preserved versus that to be salvaged could most accurately be determined during the early planning stages for the intended use of the site area. Elements to be considered here would be those areas where burials are known to exist and the sectors with the greatest amount of cultural material. It is recommended that the preservation /salvage ratio be roughly equal in amount. In that area to be preserved it is suggested that the same procedures and limitations be adhered to that were noted for Option 1. The portion to be mitigated would require a research design that is based on the previous knowledge gleamed from the site but that also incorporates those questions that have become pertinent since that M last investigation. This program would require a 1008 surface collec- tion, a specific number of hand dug excavation units, analysis of the recovered material, additional C14 dates, and a report that documents the results of the current investigation and which also incorporates the earlier data. A program of this expected magnitude would require a crew of professional archaeologists who would be under the direc- tion of an archaeologist who has the experience and credentials to conduct a project the size of that anticipated even for the partial salvage of Ora -64. This is meant to include an individual, prefer- ably a PhD., who has considerable large -scale excavation experience, who has illustrated that he can complete a major project within the specified time limit that the designated budget, one who has produced scholarly site report, also within the agreed upon time frame. A program of this nature would require a coastal permit and Native American involvement particularly if additional burials were encoun- tered. It is anticipated that the field endeavor could consume sev- eral months, depending upon the size of the area to be excavated and the number of crew persons. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project has been modified to restrict development on the cultural resources. 2. The phasing of the development of the site has be changed by the city to allow the phasing of development with the circulation system. 3. The project proponent has agreed to modify their phasing plan for development based upon the actions of the City Council. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feas- ible, however, specific economic, social; or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project represents the best reasonable balance and mix of uses for the project area, all factors considered. 2. The alternatives described for each :individual site and the project were rejected for the reasons as set forth above and in subsequent sections of this statement. AESTHETICS Significant Effect Proposed highrise structures would be visible, creating new visual focal points in Newport Center. This is a change in the visual character of Newport Center. Findinix Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant • environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Finding 3- Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Section 15091 of the Guidelines)." Facts in Suyport of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue of the following Standard City Policies and Mitigation Measures. 67 Block 600 1. The maximum height of all new structures shall not exceed 20 stories. Block 800 1. The maximum height of all new structures shall not exceed 12 stories. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feas- ible, however, specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project represents the best balance and mix of uses for the pro- ject area, all factors considered. 2. The alternatives described for each of the individual sites and the project were rejected for the reasons as set forth above and in subsequent sections of this statement. 3. The alternative for Block 600 and Block 800 that would reduce the height of the buildings are not acceptable to the applicant and pro- ject proponent as they would hinder meeting the project objectives. The majority of the funds for the construction of roadway improve- ments are anticipated to come from the office developments in these two blocks. 4. The office developments in the two block will be phased with the cir- culation system to provide for improvements in excess of require- ments. Sia_nificant Effect The introduction of development on the Newporter North and Bayview Land- ing sites combine to create a significant impact on the openness of the area around Upper Newport Bay. The development of these two sites and other presently vacant sites will incrementally contribute to a cumula- tive loss of open space. The loss of open space may be viewed by mem- bers of the general public as a significant impact of the project on the local environment. Findin¢ Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Finding 3- Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Section 15091 of the Guidelines)." Facts in Sunvort of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue of the following Standard City Policies and Mitigation Measures. 1. Earth berms and graded slopes, as required, shall be contoured and . landscaped to the approval of the Building and Planning Department. Newporter North 2. Landscaping plans shall indicate that only native vegetation compa- tible with coastal bluff scrub be allowed on the bluff face. 3. Measures, such as fencing and signs, shall be incorporated into plans to protect the bluff from pedestrian disturbance and as a safety fea- ture to lessen the possibility of someone falling from the bluff edge as required by the Public Works Department. W 4. Prior to subdivision of site plan review, the project proponent shall prepare a detailed grading and landscaping plan for the blufftop set- back. The plan shall be reviewed by the Parks Department, the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department, the Public Works Department, the Building Department, and the Planning Department. 5. A landscaped edge treatment shall be provided along San Joaquin Hills Road and Jamboree Road adjacent to the site and shall be approved by the City in conjunction with subdivision or site plan review. 6. The height limitations shall be thirty -five feet for the Newporter North site. Bayview Landing 7. Landscaping plans shall indicate that only native vegetation compatible with coastal bluff scrub be allowed on the bluff face. 8. Measures, such as fencing and signs, shall be incorporated into plans to protect the bluff from pedestrian disturbance and as a safety feature to lessen the possibility of someone falling from the bluff edge. 9. In conjunction with site plan review or use permit approval, the project proponent shall prepare a detailed grading and landscaping plan for the blufftop setback. The plan shall be reviewed by the Parks Department, the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department, the Public Works Department, the Building Department, and the Planning Department. 10. Height limitations shall be those as noted in the Newport Center Planned Community and District Regulations Text for the Bayview Landing site. 11. A landscaped edge treatment shall be provided along Jamboree Road and East Coast Highway adjacent to the site and shall be approved by the City in conjunction with subdivision or site plan review. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project has been modified to limit development on the top of the Bayview Landing site. 2. The development on the top of the Bayview Landing site has been modi- fied to require in to sit as close as possible to Jamboree Road. The siting of the development near Jamboree Road will less the visibility of the structures. 3. The location of the development on the Newporter North site has been restricted to the portion of the site without cultural resources. 4. The development on the Newporter North site will be limited by the requirements of the city to protect bluff faces. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feas- ible, however, specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project: alternatives identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project represents the best balance and mix of uses for the pro- ject area, all factors considered. 2. The alternatives described.for each of the individual sites and the project were rejected for the reasons as set forth above and in subsequent sections of this statement. W Significant Effect At the General Plan level, it is not necessary to submit site plans, landscape plans, elevations, etc. The extent of potential adverse impacts cannot be fully determined at this time. Finding 40 Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Finding 3- Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Section 15091 of the Guidelines)." Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue of the following Standard City Policies and Mitigation Measures. 1. The development of each site shall be subject to the requirements of the General Plan and all applicable specific plans and zoning. The following discretionary approvals: 1. Coastal permits for sites in the Coastal Zone. 2. Site Plan Review and /or Use Permits. 3. Subdivision Map Act. 4. Grading Permits 2. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. The plan shall be subject to approval by the Planning Department, the Departments of Parks, Beaches, and Recreation, and the Public Works Department. 3. The landscape plan shall include a maintenance program which controls the use of fertilizers and pesticides. 4. The landscape plan shall place emphasis on the use of drought - resistant vegetation and be irrigated via a system designed to avoid surface runoff and overwatering. 5. The project shall be designed to eliminate light and glare spillage onto adjacent properties. 6. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, elevations, and sections. Block 600 7. The maximum height of all new structures shall not exceed 20 stories. Block 800 8. The maximum height of all new structures shall not exceed 12 stories. PCH /Jamboree • 9. A landscaped edge treatment shall be provided on Jamboree Road and East Coast Highway adjacent to the site and shall be approved by the City in conjunction with subdivision or site plan review. 10. Height limitations for structures and landscaping shall be those as noted in the Newport Center Planned Community and District Regulations text for the PCH /Jamboree site in order to minimize view impacts across the site. VLSI Corporate Plaza West 11. Height limitations for structures and landscaping shall be those as noted in the Newport Center Planned Community and District Regulations text for the Corporate Plaza West site in order to minimize view impacts across the site. • Newport Village 12. No illuminated building signs shall be permitted oriented toward MacArthur Boulevard. 13. Height limitations for structures and landscaping shall be those as noted in the Newport Center Planned Community and District Regulations text for the Newport Village site in order to minimize view impacts across the site. 14. Landscaped entry statements shall be provided at the intersections of Avocado Avenue and San Miguel Drive, San Miguel Drive and MacArthur Boulevard, and Avocado Avenue and East: Coast Highway and shall be approved by the City in conjunction with Site Plan Review. 15. Overhead utilities shall be removed between San Miguel Drive and East Coast Highway on MacArthur Boulevard. Avocado/MacArthur 16. No illuminated building signs oriented toward MacArthur Boulevard shall be permitted. 17. Height limitations shall be those as noted in the Newport Center Planned Community and District Regulations text for the Avocado /MacArthur site in order to minimize view impacts across the site. 18. Overhead facilities shall be removed between San Joaquin Hills Road and San Miguel Drive on MacArthur Boulevard. 19. A landscape edge treatment shall be provided along San Joaquin Hills Road, MacArthur Boulevard, Avocado Avenue, and San Miguel Drive. Landscaped entry statements shall be provided at the intersections of San Joaquin Hills Road and Avocado Avenue, San Joaquin Hills Road and MacArthur Boulevard, and San Miguel Drive at Avocado Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard to be approved by the City in conjunction with Site Plan review. Big Canyon/MacArthur 20. A landscaped edge treatment shall be provided along San Joaquin Hills Road and MacArthur Boulevard adjacent to the site and shall be approved by the City in conjunction with subdivision or site plan review. 21. Height limitations shall be those as rioted in the Newport Center Planned Community and District Regulations text for Big Canyon/ MacArthur. Bayview Landing 22. Landscaping plans shall indicate that only native vegetation compatible with coastal bluff scrub be allowed on the bluff face. 23. Measures, such as fencing and signs, shall be incorporated into plans to protect the bluff from pedestrian disturbance and as a safety feature to lessen the possibility of someone falling from the bluff edge. 24. In conjunction with site plan review or use permit approval, the project proponent shall prepare a detailed grading and landscaping plan for the blufftop setback. The plan shall be reviewed by the 71 Parks Department, the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department, the Public Works Department, the Building Department, and the Planning Department. 25. Height limitations shall be those as noted in the Newport Center Planned Community and District Regulations Text for the Bayview • Landing site. 26. A landscaped edge treatment shall be provided along Jamboree Road and East Coast Highway adjacent to the site and shall be approved by the City in conjunction with subdivision or site plan review. Newporter North 27. Landscaping plans shall indicate that only native vegetation compatible with coastal bluff scrub be allowed on the bluff face. 28. Measures, such as fencing and signs, shall be incorporated into plans to protect the bluff from pedestrian disturbance and as a safety feature to lessen the possibility of someone falling from the bluff edge as required by the Public Works Department. 29. Prior to subdivision of site plan review, the project proponent shall prepare a detailed grading and landscaping plan for the blufftop setback. The plan shall be reviewed by the Parks Department, the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department, the Public Works Department, the Building Department, and the Planning Department. 30. A landscaped edge treatment shall be provided along San Joaquin Hills Road and Jamboree Road adjacent to the site and shall be approved by the City in conjunction with subdivision or site plan review. 31. The height limitations shall be thirty -five feet for the Newporter North site. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible, however, specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project represents the best balance and mix of uses for the pro- ject area, all factors considered. 2. The alternatives described for each of the individual sites and the project were rejected for the reasons as set forth above and in subsequent sections of this statement. Significant Effect ° Development of the majority of the project: sites will cause a signifi- cant and unavoidable impact on the present visual character and aes- thetic qualities of the area. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. • Finding 3- Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Section 15091 of the Guidelines)." - Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue of the following Standard City Policies and Mitigation Measures. 72 1. Further visual analysis shall be conducted at the time of subdivision review for the residential areas and use permit or site plan review for the remaining uses. 2. Earth berms and graded slopes, as required, shall be contoured and landscaped to the approval of the Building and Planning Department. • 3. No exterior signs shall be permitted above the second floor elevation of any structure (except Fashion Island). 4. Signage and exterior lighting shall be approved by the Planning Department and the Public Works Department. 5. No illuminated signs shall be roof mounted. 6. All mechanical equipment, vents, and other service equipment shall be shielded or screened from view by architectural features. All screening shall conform to the height limit in each area. 7. An overall sign program for Newport Center shall be approved in conjunction with the Planned Community District Regulations. 8. The project shall be designed to eliminate light and glare spillage onto adjacent properties. 9. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, elevations, and sections. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent that changes or alterations have been required in., or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project has been modified to limit development on the top of the Bayview Landing site. 2. The development on the top of the Bayview Landing site has been modi- fied to require in to sit as close as possible to Jamboree Road. The siting of the development near Jamboree Road will less the visibility of the structures. 3. The location of the development on the Newporter North site has been restricted to the portion of the site without cultural resources. 4. The development on the Newporter North site will be limited by the requirements of the city to protect bluff faces. 5. The project has been modified to provide for additional housing opportunities within Newport Center on the Newport Village site. 6. The project has been modified to retain significant open space areas that will reduce perceived intensities on the following sites: A. Newporter North B. Bayview Landing 7. The project is conditioned for the elimination of development rights on the Westbay parcel which will reduce perceived intensities/ • densities. 6. Additional specific mitigation measure; may be required of future discretionary actions. 7. The project will increase permanent open space available around the Upper Newport Bay, which is an envirorunental resource of statewide significance. 8. The conversion of land to urbanized and intensive uses could only be avoided by the No Development Alternative which is rejected for the reasons stated in Statement of Facts and Findings in support thereof. 73 The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feas- ible, however, specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project represents the best balance and mix of uses for the pro - ject area, all factors considered. 2. The alternatives described for each of the individual sites and the project were rejected for the reasons as set forth above and in subsequent sections of this statement. Significant Effect Short -term visual impacts include construction activities replaced by the long -term impacts of urban development, increased human activity, and a modified landscape. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Finding 3- Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Section 15091 of the Guidelines)." Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue of the following Standard City Policies and Mitigation Measures. 1. No exterior signs shall be permitted above the second floor elevation of any structure (except Fashion Island). 2. Signage and exterior lighting shall be approved by the Planning Department and the Public Works Department. 3. No illuminated signs shall be roof mounted. 4. All mechanical equipment, vents, and other service equipment shall be shielded or screened from view by architectural features. All screening shall conform to the height limit in each area. 5. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. The plan shall be subject to approval by the Planning Department:, the Department of Parks, Beaches, and Recreation, and the Public: Works Department. 6. The project shall be designed to eliminate light and glare spillage onto adjacent properties. 7. The development shall be in substantial. conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, elevations, and sections. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent that • changes or alterations have been required. in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project has been modified to limit development on the top of the Bayview Landing site. 2. The development on the top of the Bayview Landing site has been modi- fied to require in to sit as close as possible to Jamboree Road. The siting of the development near Jamboree Road will lessen the visibility of the structures. 74 3. The location of the development on the Newporter North site has been restricted to the portion of the site without cultural resources. 4. The development on the Newporter North site will be limited by the requirements of the city to protect bluff faces. 5. The project has been modified to provide for additional housing • opportunities within Newport Center on the Newport Village site. 6. The project has been modified to retain significant open space areas that will reduce perceived intensities on the following sites: A. Newporter North B. Bayview Landing 7. The project is conditioned for the elimination of development rights on the Westbay parcel which will reduce perceived intensi- ties /densities. 8. Additional specific mitigation measures may be required of future discretionary actions. 9. The project will increase.permanent open space available around the Upper Newport Bay, which is an environmental resource of statewide significance. 10. The conversion of land to urbanized and intensive uses could only be avoided by the No Development Alternative which is rejected for the reasons stated in Statement of Facts and Findings in support thereof. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feas- ible, however, specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project represents the best balance and mix of uses for the pro- ject area, all factors considered. 2. The alternatives described for each of the individual sites and the project were rejected for the reasons as set forth above and in subsequent sections of this statement. Significant Effect ° Partial view interruptions will occur in the immediately surrounding hillside communities and existing development within Newport Center. Findine Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Finding 3- Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project: alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Section 15091 of the Guidelines)." Facts in Support of Finding • The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue of the following Standard City Policies and Mitigation Measures. Block 600 1. The maximum height of all new structures shall not exceed 20 stories. Block 800 2. The maximum height of all new structures shall not exceed 12 stories. E • 75 PCH /Jamboree 3. . Height limitations for structures and landscaping shall be those as noted in the Newport Center Planned Community and District Regula- tions text for the PCH /Jamboree site in order to minimize view impacts across the site. Corporate Plaza West 4. Height limitations for structures and landscaping shall be those as noted in the Newport Center Planned Community and District Regula- tions text for the Corporate Plaza West site in order to minimize view impacts across the site. Newport Village 5. Height limitations for structures and landscaping shall be those as noted in the Newport Center Planned Community and District Regula- tions text for the Newport Village site in order to minimize view impacts across the site. Avocado/MacArthur 6. Height limitations shall be those as noted in the Newport Center Planned Community and District Regulations text for the Avo- cado /MacArthur site in order to minimize view impacts across the site. Big Canyon/MacArthur 7. Height limitations shall be those as noted in the Newport Center Planned Community and District Regulations text for Big Canyon/ MacArthur. Bayview landing 8. Height limitations shall be those as noted in the Newport Center Planned Community and District Regulations Text for the Bayview Land- ing site. Newporter North 9. The height limitations shall be thirty -five feet for the Newporter North site. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project has been modified to limit development on the top of the Bayview Landing site. 2. The development on the top of the Bayview Landing site has been modi- fied to require in to sit as close as possible to Jamboree Road. The siting of the development near Jamboree. Road will less the visibility of the structures. 3. The location of the development on the Newporter North site has been restricted to the portion of the site without cultural resources. 4. The development on the Newporter North site will be limited by the requirements of the city to protect bluff faces. 5. The project has been modified to provide for additional housing opportunities within Newport Center on the Newport Village site. 76 6. The project has been modified to retain significant open space areas that will reduce perceived intensities on the following sites: A. Newporter North B. Bayview Landing • 7. The project is conditioned for the elimination of development rights on the Westbay parcel which will reduce perceived intensities/ densities. 8. Additional specific mitigation measures may be required of future discretionary actions. 9. The project will increase permanent open space available around the Upper Newport Bay, which is an environmental resource of statewide significance. 10. The conversion of land to urbanized and intensive uses could only be avoided by the No Development Alternative which is rejected for the reasons stated in Statement of Facts and Findings in support thereof. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feas- ible, however, specific economic, social., or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project represents the best balance and mix of uses for the pro- ject area, all factors considered. 2. The alternatives described for each of the individual sites and the project were rejected for the reasons as set forth above and in subsequent sections of this statement. Significant Effect ° The lack of specific site plans for Block 600 precludes the identifica- tion of potential shadows impacts on adjacent properties. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Finding 3- Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Section 15091 of the Guidelines)." Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue of the following Standard City Policies and Mitigation Measures. 1. The maximum height of all new structures shall not exceed 20 stories. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the • project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 1. The mitigation measures have been reviewed and changed base upon tes- timony at public hearing to incorporate changes that would lessen the impact of parking structures on the visual environment. 2. The height of the building discussed in the Draft EIR was 375 feet. The approved height will be 20 stories. 77 The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible, however, specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project represents the best balance and mix of uses for the pro - ject area, all factors considered. 2. The alternatives described for each of the individual sites and the project were rejected for the reasons as set forth above and in subsequent sections of this statement. Significant Effect ° The relationship of views from Block 600 to the onsite hotel and across to Big Canyon have the potential for significant adverse impacts. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Finding 3- Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Section 15091 of the Guidelines)." Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue of the following Standard City Policies and Mitigation Measures. 1. The maximum height of all new structures shall not exceed 20 stories. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 1. The mitigation measures have been reviewed and changed base upon tes- timony at public hearing to incorporate changes that would lessen the impact of parking structures on the visual environment. 2. The height of the building discussed in the Draft EIR was 375 feet. The approved height will be 20 stories. 3. The location of the parking for the proposed office uses will be allowed to be located to better serve the site. Site plan review will provide strict standards under the P -C zoning that are not incorpor- ated into the existing C -0 -H zoning on the site. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible, however, specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project represents the best balance and mix of uses for the pro- ject area, all factors considered. • 2. The alternatives described for each of the individual sites and the project were rejected for the reasons as set forth above and in subsequent sections of this statement. Significant Effect ° Implementation of the project is expected to change the visual appear- ance of the undeveloped Newport Village site. 78 Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. • Finding 3- Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Section 15091 of the Guidelines)." Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue of the following Standard City Policies and Mitigation Measures. 1. No illuminated building signs shall be permitted oriented toward MacArthur Boulevard. 2. Height limitations for structures and landscaping shall be those as noted in the Newport Center Planned Community and District Regula- tions text for the Newport Village site in order to minimize view impacts across the site. 3. Landscaped entry statements shall be provided at the intersections of Avocado Avenue and San Miguel Drive, San Miguel Drive and MacArthur Boulevard, and Avocado Avenue and East Coast Highway and shall be approved by the City in conjunction with Site Plan Review. 4. Overhead utilities shall be removed between San Miguel Drive and East Coast Highway on MacArthur Boulevard. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 1. The proposed use of the site has not been changed from the existing planned land use. 2. The site will be developed for residential land uses. 3. The development of the site with residential land uses will serve to bring the existing residential communities to the east of Newport Center into the Center. This will make the Center more attractive to visitors and residents. 4. The only change to the development of the site by the project will be in the number of units and in the timing of their development with the circulation system. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feas- ible, however, specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project represents the best balance and mix of uses for the pro- ject area, all factors considered. 2. The alternatives described for each of the individual sites and the project were rejected for the reasons as set forth above and in subsequent sections of this statement. Significant Effect ° Development of the Newporter North project will have a significant impact on the visual character and aesthetic qualities of the site. 79 Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Finding 3- Specific economic, social, or other considerations make • infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Section 15091 of the Guidelines)." Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue of the following Standard City Policies and Mitigation Measures. 1. Landscaping plans shall indicate that only native vegetation compa- tible with coastal bluff scrub be allowed on the bluff face. 2. Measures, such as fencing and signs, shall be incorporated into plans to protect the bluff from pedestrian disturbance and as a safety fea- ture to lessen the possibility of someone falling from the bluff edge as required by the Public Works Department. 3. Prior to subdivision of site plan review, the project proponent shall prepare a detailed grading and landscaping plan for the blufftop set- back. The plan shall be reviewed by the Parks Department, the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department, the Public Works Department, the Building Department, and the Planning Department. 4. A landscaped edge treatment shall be provided along San Joaquin Hills Road and Jamboree Road adjacent to the site and shall be approved by the City in conjunction with subdivision or site plan review. 5. The height limitations shall be thirty -five feet for the Newporter North site. 6. The project shall be designed to eliminate light and glare spillage onto adjacent properties. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project has been modified to limit development on the top of the Bayview Landing site. 2. The development on the top of the Bayview Landing site has been modi- fied to require in to sit as close as possible to Jamboree Road. The siting of the development near Jamboree Road will lessen the visibil- ity of the structures. 3. The location of the development on the Newporter North site has been restricted to the portion of the site without cultural resources. 4. The development on the Newporter North site has been restricted by the requirements of the city to protect bluff faces. 5. The project has been modified to provide for additional housing opportunities within Newport Center on the Newport Village site. 6. The project has been modified to retain significant open space areas that will reduce perceived intensities on the following sites: A. Newporter North B. Bayview Landing 7. The project is conditioned for the elimination of development rights on the Westbay parcel which will reduce perceived intensi- ties /densities. m 8. Additional specific mitigation measures may be required of future discretionary actions. 9. The project will increase permanent open space available around the Upper Newport Bay, which is an environmental resource of statewide significance. is 10. The conversion of land to urbanized and intensive uses could only be avoided by the No Development Alternative which is rejected for the reasons stated in Statement of Facts and Findings in support thereof. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible, however, specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project represents the best balance and mix of uses for the pro- ject area, all factors considered. 2. The alternatives described for each of the individual sites and the project were rejected for the reasons as set forth above and in subsequent sections of this statement. Significant Effect ° Views from adjacent roadways and uses to the Newporter North site will be changed. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Finding 3- Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Section 15091 of the Guidelines)." Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue of the following Standard City Policies and Mitigation Measures. 1. Landscaping plans shall indicate that only native vegetation compa- tible with coastal bluff scrub be allowed on the bluff face. 2. Measures, such as fencing and signs, shall be incorporated into plans to protect the bluff from pedestrian disturbance and as a safety fea- ture to lessen the possibility of someone falling from the bluff edge as required by the Public Works Department. 3. Prior to subdivision of site plan review, the project proponent shall prepare a detailed grading and landscaping plan for the blufftop set- back. The plan shall be reviewed by the Parks Department, the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department, the Public Works Department, the Building Department, and the Planning Department. • 4. A landscaped edge treatment shall be provided along San Joaquin Hills Road and Jamboree Road adjacent to the site and shall be approved by the City in conjunction with subdivision or site plan review. 5. The height limitations shall be thirty -five feet for the Newporter North site. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 81 1. The project has been modified to limit development on the top of the Bayview Landing site. 2. The development on the top of the Bayview Landing site has been modi- fied to require in to sit as close as possible to Jamboree Road. The siting of the development near Jamboree Road will less the visibility of the structures. 3. The location of the development on the Newporter North site has been restricted to the portion of the site without cultural resources. 4. The development on the Newporter North site will be limited by the requirements of the city to protect bluff faces. 5. The project has been modified to provide for additional housing opportunities within Newport Center on the Newport Village site. 6. The project has been modified to retain significant open space areas that will reduce perceived intensities on the following sites: A. Newporter North B. Bayview Landing 7. The project is conditioned for the elimination of development rights on the Westbay parcel which will reduce perceived intensities/ densities. 8. Additional specific mitigation measures may be required of future discretionary actions. 9. The project will increase permanent open space available around the Upper Newport Bay, which is an environmental resource of statewide significance. 10. The conversion of land to urbanized and intensive uses could only be avoided by the No Development Alternative which is rejected for the reasons stated in Statement of Facts and Findings in support thereof. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feas- ible, however, specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project: alternatives identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project represents the best balance and mix of uses for the pro- ject area, all factors considered. 2. The alternatives described for each of the individual sites and the project were rejected for the reasons as set forth above and in subsequent sections of this statement. Significant Effect Development of the Newporter North site with residences will substan- tially change the appearance for the site during evening hours. This change may be perceived by some as a significant impact of the project. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been :required in, or incorporated • into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Finding 3- Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Section 15091 of the Guidelines)." Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue of the following Standard City Policies and Mitigation Measures. 82 1. Further visual analysis shall be conducted at the time of subdivision review for the residential areas and use permit or site plan review for the remaining uses. 2. Signage and exterior lighting shall be approved by the Planning Department and the Public Works Department. • 3. The project shall be designed to eliminate light and glare spillage onto adjacent properties. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project has been modified to limit development on the top of the Bayview Landing site. 2. The development on the top of the Bayview Landing site has been modi- fied to require in to sit as close as possible to Jamboree Road. The siting of the development near Jamboree Road will less the visibility of the structures. 3. The location of the development on the Newporter North site has been restricted to the portion of the site without cultural resources. 4. The development on the Newporter North site will be limited by the requirements of the city to protect bluff faces. 5. The project has been modified to provide for additional housing opportunities within Newport Center on the Newport Village site. 6. The project has been modified to retain significant open space areas that will reduce perceived intensities on the following sites: A. Newporter North B. Bayview Landing 7. The project is conditioned for the elimination of development rights on the Westbay parcel which will reduce perceived intensities/ densities. 8. Additional specific mitigation measure:; may be required of future discretionary actions. 9. The project will increase permanent open space available around the Upper Newport Bay, which is an environmental resource of statewide significance. 10. The conversion of land to urbanized and. intensive uses could only be avoided by the No Development Alternative which is rejected for the reasons stated in Statement of Facts and Findings in support thereof. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feas- ible, however, specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project represents the best balance and mix of uses for the pro - jeer area, all factors considered. 2. The alternatives described for each of the individual sites and the project were rejected for the reasons as set forth above and in subsequent sections of this statement. 83 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Vehicular Significant Effect ° The proposed project will add 37,062 average daily trips. • Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. inding 2- Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. Finding 3- Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Section 15091 of the Guidelines)." Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue of the following Standard City Policies and Mitigation Measures. 1. Prior to the occupancy of any GPA 85 -1(B) permitted structure the project proponent shall implement an overall Transportation Manage- ment System (TMS) for Newport Center and the Peripheral Sites. The TMS shall be approved by the City of Newport Beach. 2. Prior to the occupancy of any individual structure permitted by CPA 85 -1(B), a site specific TSM component shall be prepared and approved by the City Public Works and Planning Departments. 3. Prior to the occupancy of Phase I, the intersection improvements listed on Table 1 -GGG shall have been constructed. 4. Prior to the occupancy of Phase II, the intersection improvements listed on Table 1 -III shall have been constructed with the exception that the project proponent shall monitor traffic volumes and re- evaluate the need for improvements at the Jamboree Road intersection of Ford Road, Bison Avenue, and East Bluff Drive (N) in a manner acceptable to the city. Improvements shall be made to these intersections prior to the occupancy of Phase II if it is deemed appropriate by the City. 5. The project proponent shall pay "Fair Share" fees as required by the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 6. The project proponent shall pay San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Fees as required by the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 1. The City of Newport Beach has developed a phasing plan for the pro- ject that is consistent with the overall development proposal. 2. The applicant will be required to improve several roadways with capacity not only for his project, but to serve existing develop- ments and anticipate committed projects. 3. The project overall intensity has been reduced by the elimination of office development on the Newport Village site and commercial devel- opment of the Bayview Landing site. 84 4. The peak hour impacts of the project have been lessened by the change in primary land use on the Civic Plaza site from office to institu- tional. This use will allow for the expansion of existing public uses on the site. 5. The addition of a health club to the overall plan will reduce the • peak hour traffic away from the Center. 6. The addition of childcare will reduce the length of trips. 7. The location of the Orange County Transit District facility will reduce the ADT from the project. 8. The introduction of the teen center on the Bayview Landing site will reduce the number of employment trips and their length of young resi- dents of the community. Changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the one making, the finding. 1. The State Department of Transportation. has the overall responsibility for major roadways in the region. 2. The County of Orange is responsible for the implementation of the San Joaquin Hill Transportation Corridor. 3. The widening of MacArthur Blvd. to four lanes will occur in the City of Irvine. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feas- ible, however, specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project represents the best balance and mix of uses for the pro- ject area, all factors considered. 2. The alternatives described for each of the individual sites and the project were rejected for the reasons as set forth above and in subsequent sections of this statement. AIR QUALITY Significant Effect ° Impact on air quality from emissions generated by motor vehicles. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Finding 2- Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. • Finding 3- Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Section 15091 of the Guidelines)." Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue of the following Standard City Policies and Mitigation Measures. 85 1. Prior to the occupancy of any GPA 85 -1(B) permitted structure the project proponent shall implement an overall Transportation Manage- ment System (TMS) for Newport Center and the Peripheral Sites. The TMS shall be approved by the City of Newport Beach. 2. Prior to the occupancy of any individual structure permitted by GPA 85 -1(B), a site specific TSM component shall be prepared and approved • by the City Public Works and Planning Departments. 3. Mass transit facilities shall be accommodated and integrated into the project. 4. Service establishments including but not limited to restaurants, reproduction centers, gyms /health clubs may be provided within the office areas to minimize the number and length of vehicular trips to obtain these common services. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 1. The City of Newport Beach has developed a phasing plan for the pro- ject that is consistent with the overall development proposal. 2. The applicant will be required to improve several roadways with capacity not only for his project, but to serve existing develop- ments and anticipate committed projects. 3. The project overall intensity has been reduced by the elimination of office development on the Newport Village site and commercial devel- opment of the Bayview Landing site. 4. The peak hour impacts of the project have been lessened by the change in primary land use on the Civic Plaza site from office to institu- tional. This use will allow for the expansion of existing public uses on the site. 5. The addition of a health club to the overall plan will reduce the peak hour traffic away from the Center. 6. The addition of a childcare facility will reduce the length of trips. 7. The location of the Orange County Transit District facility will reduce the ADT from the project. 8. The introduction of the teen center on the Bayview Landing site will reduce the number of employment trips and their length of young resi- dents of the community. Changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the one making the finding. 1. The State Department of Transportation has the overall responsibility for major roadways in the region. 2. The County of Orange is responsible for the implementation of the San Joaquin Hill Transportation Corridor. • 3. The widening of MacArthur Blvd. to eight lanes will occur in the City of Irvine. 4. The State Air Resources Board is responsible for the attainment of National air quality standards. 5. The South Coast Air Quality Management District is responsible for basin wide air quality. 6. The Southern California Association of Governments in association with the SCAQMD is responsible for the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the airshed. EIR The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible, however, specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project represents the best balance and mix of uses for the pro- ject area, all factors considered. 2. The alternatives described for each of the individual sites and the project were rejected for the reasons as set forth above and in subsequent sections of this statement. Sienificant Effect ° Impact on air quality from emissions generated by the combustion of natural gas for space heating and generation of electricity. Findina Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Finding 2- Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and. not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. Finding 3- Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Section 15091 of the Guidelines)." Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue of the following Standard City Policies and Mitigation Measures. 1. Utility energy conservation experts shall be consulted with and energy conservation standards beyond the minimum Title 24 require- ments shall be encouraged. 2. The project should be designed to conform to Title 24, Paragraph 6, Division T -20, Chapter 2, Sub - chapter 4 of the California Administra- tive Code dealing with energy requirements. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 1. The City of Newport Beach has developed a phasing plan for the pro- ject that is consistent with the overall development proposal. 2. The applicant will be required to improve several roadways with capacity not only for his project, but to serve existing develop- ments and anticipate committed projects. 3. The project overall intensity] has been reduced by the elimination of • office development on the Newport Village site and commercial devel- opment of the Bayview Landing site. 4. The peak hour impacts of the project have been lessened by the change in primary land use on the Civic Plaza site from office to institu- tional. This use will allow for the expansion of existing public uses on the site. 5. The addition of a health club to the overall plan will reduce the peak hour traffic away from the Center. 6. The addition of a childcare facility will reduce the length of trips. LIM 7. The location of the Orange County Transit District facility will reduce the ADT from the project. 8. The introduction of the teen center on the Bayview Landing site will reduce the number of employment trips and their length of young resi- dents of the community. Changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the one making the finding. 1. The State Department of Transportation has the overall responsibility for major roadways in the region. 2. The County of Orange is responsible for the implementation of the San Joaquin Hill Transportation Corridor. 3. The widening of MacArthur Blvd. to four lanes will occur in the City of Irvine. 4. The State Air Resources Board is responsible for the attainment of National air quality standards. 5. The South Coast Air Quality Management: District is responsible for basin wide air quality. 6. The Southern California Association of Governments in association with the SCAQMD is responsible for the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the airshed. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feas- ible, however, specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project represents the best balance and mix of uses for the pro- ject area, all factors considered. 2. The alternatives described for each of the individual sites and the project were rejected for the reasons as set forth above and in subsequent sections of this statement. Significant Effect ° Impact on air quality from emissions generated by the use of natural gas and oil for the generation of offsite electricity. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Finding 2- Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. Finding 3- Specific economic, social, or other considerations make • infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Section 15091 of the Guidelines)." Facts in SuDDort of Findin The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue of the following Standard City Policies and Mitigation Measures. 1. Utility energy conservation experts shall be consulted with and energy conservation standards beyond the minimum Title 24 require- ments shall be encouraged. 2. The project should be designed to conform to Title 24, Paragraph 6, Division T -20, Chapter 2, Sub - chapter 4 of the California Administra- tive Code dealing with energy requirements. Changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the one making; the finding. 1. The State Department of Transportation has the overall responsibility • for major roadways in the region. 2. The County of Orange is responsible for the implementation of the San Joaquin Hill Transportation Corridor. 3. The widening of MacArthur Blvd. to four lanes will occur in the City of Irvine. 4. The State Air Resources Board is responsible for the attainment of National air quality standards. 5. The South Coast Air Quality Management District is responsible for basin wide air quality. 6. The Southern California Association of Governments in association with the SCAQMD is responsible for the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the airshed. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feas- ible, however, specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project represents the best balance and mix of uses for the pro- ject area, all factors considered. 2. The alternatives described for each of the individual sites and the project were rejected for the reasons as set forth above and in subsequent sections of this statement. ENERGY Significant Effect ° The proposed project will generate energy demands for onsite utilization of energy resources. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Finding 3- Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Section 15091 of the Guidelines)." Facts in Support of Finding • The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue of the following Standard City Policies and Mitigation Measures. 1. Passive solar energy capture techniques and active solar systems for heating pools and spas shall be incorporated into building design. 2. Utility energy conservation experts shall be consulted with and energy conservation standards beyond the minimum Title 24 requirements shall be encouraged. 3. All new structures will comply with applicable building code require- ments. 4. The project should be designed to conform to Title 24, Paragraph 6, Division T -20, Chapter 2, Sub - chapter 4 of the California Administra- tive Code dealing with energy requirements. 5. The project shall investigate the use of alternative energy resources (i.e. solar) and to the maximum extent economically feasible, • incorporate the use of said resources in project design. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feas- ible, however, specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project represents the best balance and mix of uses for the pro- ject area, all factors considered. 2. The alternatives described for each of the individual sites and the project were rejected for the reasons as set forth above and in subsequent sections of this statement. Significant Effect ° The construction of buildings will entail a one time expenditure of fos- sil fuel energy resources. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Finding 3- Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Section 15091 of the Guidelines)." Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue of the following Standard City Policies and Mitigation Measures. 1. Utility energy conservation experts shall be consulted with and energy conservation standards beyond the minimum Title 24 require- ments shall be encouraged. 2. The project should be designed to conform to Title 24, Paragraph 6, Division T -20, Chapter 2, Sub - chapter 4 of the California Administra- tive Code dealing with energy requirements. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feas- ible, however, specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project: alternatives identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project represents the best balance and mix of uses for the pro- ject area, all factors considered. 2. The alternatives described for each of the individual sites and the • project were rejected for the reasons as set forth above and in subsequent sections of this statement. Significant Effect The energy used on all sites will increase. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. go Finding 3- Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Section 15091 of the Guidelines)." Facts in Support of Finding • The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue of the following Standard City Policies and Mitigation Measures. 1. Passive solar energy capture techniques and active solar systems for heating pools and spas shall be incorporated into building design. 2. Utility energy conservation experts shall be consulted with and energy conservation standards beyond the minimum Title 24 requirements shall be encouraged. 3. All new structures will comply with applicable building code require- ments. 4. The project should be designed to conform to Title 24, Paragraph 6, Division T -20, Chapter 2, Sub - chapter 4 of the California Administra- tive Code dealing with energy requirements. 5. The project shall investigate the use of alternative energy resources (i.e. solar) and to the maximum extent economically feasible, incorporate the use of said resources in project design. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feas- ible, however, specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project represents the best balance and mix of uses for the pro- ject area, all factors considered. 2. The alternatives described for each of the individual sites and the project were rejected for the reasons as set forth above and in subsequent sections of this statement. EARTH RESOURCES Significant Effect ° The project structures will be subject to seismic activity. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Finding 3- Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project: alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Section 15091 of the Guidelines)." Facts in Support of Finding • The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue of the following Standard City Policies and Mitigation Measures. 1. Prior to implementation of the project the developer shall provide a geotechnical report for all sites included in GPA 85 -1(B) Bayview Landing 2. The possibility of stabilizing the bluffs for construction of an East Coast Highway entrance shall be evaluated economically and geotechni- cally and shall be approved by the Building, Planning, and Public Works Departments of the City of Newport Beach. 91 3. Additional investigation of the possible fault trace shall be con- ducted to determine the recency of offset. If the overlying terrace deposits are offset, the fault shall be assigned a preliminary rating of "Potentially Active ". The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feas- ible, however, specific economic, social, or other considerations make • infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project represents the best balance and mix of uses for the pro- ject area, all factors considered. 2. The alternatives described for each of the individual sites and the project were rejected for the reasons as set forth above and in subsequent sections of this statement. WATER RESOURCES Significant Effect Construction activities will increase levels of potential pollutants. Findina Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been. required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Finding 2- Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. Finding 3- Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Section 15091 of the Guidelines)." Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue of the following Standard City Policies and Mitigation Measures. 1. Any onsite systems or extension of culverts for contributory drainage from areas outside the proposed developments shall be considered a localized condition. These culverts shall be studied during the design phase and any required improvements shall be installed in conformance with local ordinances and accepted engineering practice. 2. An erosion, siltation, and dust control plan shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Building Department. A copy will be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. 3. Existing onsite drainage facilities shall be improved or updated to the satisfaction of the City of Newport Beach. 4. Any exposed slopes shall be planted as soon as possible to reduce • erosion potential. 5. All parking and other onsite paved surfaces shall be routinely vacuum -swept and cleaned to reduce debris and pollutants carried into the drainage system. The significant effect has been substantially lesseneed to the extent feasible by virtue that changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the one making the finding. 92 1. The State of California - Regional Water Quality Control Board for the Santa Rana Region has responsibility for overall water quality in this area. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feas- ible, however, specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project represents the best balance and mix of uses for the pro- ject area, all factors considered. 2. The alternatives described for each of the individual sites and the project were rejected for the reasons as set forth above and in subsequent sections of this statement. Significant Effect ° Waters will carry higher quantities of potential pollutants, including fertilizers, petroleum hydrocarbons, and heavy metals. Findin¢ Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Finding 2- Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. Finding 3- Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Section 15091 of the Guidelines)." Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue of the following Standard City Policies and Mitigation Measures. 1. Any onsite systems or extension of culverts for contributory drainage from areas outside the proposed developments shall be considered a localized condition. These culverts shall be studied during the design phase and any required improvements shall be installed in conformance with local ordinances and accepted engineering practice. 2. All existing and proposed desilting basins located within Newport Center or serving projects located within Newport Center shall be maintained by the project proponent. 3. An erosion, siltation, and dust control plan shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Building, Department. A copy will be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. 4. Existing onsite drainage facilities shall be improved or updated to the satisfaction of the City of Newport Beach. 5. Any exposed slopes shall be planted as soon as possible to reduce erosion potential. 6. All parking and other onsite paved surfaces shall be routinely vacuum -swept and cleaned to reduce debris and pollutants carried into the drainage system. 7. The velocity of concentrated runoff from each site shall be evaluated and controlled as part of project design to minimize impacts on adja- cent areas. 93 PCH /Jamboree 8. For the PCH /Jamboree site, a drainage study should be prepared during the design phase and an offsite storm drain system be constructed which will outlet to the Back Bay or to an existing system with adequate capacity, or some type of onsite retention facility should be constructed such that the peak flows generated do not exceed the • capacity of downstream facilities. This study should also address potential groundwater problems and necessary mitigation. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feas- ible by virtue that changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the one making the find- ing. 1. The State of California - Regional Water Quality Control Board for the Santa Ana Region has responsibility for overall water quality in this area. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feas- ible, however, specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project represents the best balance and mix of uses for the pro- ject area, all factors considered. 2. The alternatives described for each of the individual sites and the project were rejected for the reasons as set forth above and in subsequent sections of this statement. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Significant Effect ° Development of the Newporter North site adds to the loss of open space buffering Upper Newport Bay and subjects the Newport Bay Ecological Reserve to greater encroachment of urban development and harassment of wildlife. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Finding 2- Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. Finding 3- Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project: alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Section 15091 of the Guidelines)." Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue of the following Standard City Policies and Mitigation . Measures. 1. Setbacks of development from the bluff edge shall be no less than 100 feet to provide a partial buffer between development and resource areas as well as protect the bluff face coastal sage scrub. The 100 feet setback is the minimum needed to retain existing vegetation and wildlife habitat resources within the bluff face area. A setback of less than 100 feet would not prevent human activity from disturbing the normal behavioral patterns of wildlife when resting, feeding, and reproducing. Allowable uses within the 100 foot setback shall be low 94 intensive uses such as: bicycle and hiking trails, educational signage, benches, and fencing to be approved by the Planning and Public Works Departments. 2. Preservation of the John Wayne Gulch wetland areas as natural open space and setbacks of development from the edge of this area. To be fully effective, this setback shall. also be a minimum of 100 feet. • Allowable uses within the 100 foot setback shall be low intensive uses such as: bicycle and hiking trails, educational signage, benches, and fencing to be approved by the Planning and Public Works Departments. 3. Erosion of development areas shall. be strictly monitored and con- trolled and all graded areas shall be either built upon or revege- tated prior to the wet season. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent that changes or alterations have been required in., or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 1. The cultural resource area on the Newporter North site will be retained as open space. This will expand the area of available with- out major harassment. 2. The Westbay site development rights will be transferred to Newport Center. This area will remain in open. spaces uses. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feas- ible by virtue that changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the one making the find- ing. 1. The State Department of Fish and Game (DF &G) has the responsibility for the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. 2. The DF&G has indicated that a 100 feet setback is a reasonable dis- tance to protect the resources. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feas- ible, however, specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project represents the best balance and mix of uses for the pro- ject area, all factors considered. 2. The alternatives described for each of the individual sites and the project were rejected for the reasons as set forth above and in subsequent sections of this statement. Significant Effect ° Development of the Newporter North site will result in the following: - Removal of significant habitat - Loss of buffer areas 0 Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantivally lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Finding 2- Such changes or alterations are: within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. 95 Finding 3- Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Section 15091 of the Guidelines)." Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent • feasible by virtue of the following Standard City Policies and Mitigation Measures. 1. Setbacks of development from the bluff edge shall be no less than 100 feet to provide a partial buffer between development and resource areas as well as protect the bluff facie coastal sage scrub. The 100 feet setback is the minimum needed to retain existing vegetation and wildlife habitat resources within the bluff face area. A setback of less than 100 feet would not prevent: human activity from disturbing the normal behavioral patterns of wildlife when resting, feeding, and reproducing. Allowable uses within the 100 foot setback shall be low intensive uses such as: bicycle and hiking trails, educational signage, benches, and fencing to be approved by the Planning and Public Works Departments. 2. Preservation of the John Wayne Gulch wetland areas as natural open space and setbacks of development from the edge of this area. To be fully effective, this setback shall also be a minimum of 100 feet. Allowable uses within the 100 foot setback shall be low intensive uses such as: bicycle and hiking trails, educational signage, benches, and fencing to be approved by the Planning and Public Works Departments. 3. Erosion of development areas shall be strictly monitored and controlled and all graded areas shall be either built upon or revegetated prior to the wet season. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feas- ible by virtue that changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the one making the find- ing. 1. The State Department of Fish and Game (DF &G) has the responsibility for the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. 2. The DF&G has indicated that a 100 feet setback is a reasonable dis- tance to protect the resources. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feas- ible, however, specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project represents the best balance: and mix of uses for the pro- ject area, all factors considered. 2. The alternatives described for each of the individual sites and the project were rejected for the reasons as set forth above and in subsequent sections of this statement. CULTURAL RESOURCES • Significant Effect The cost incurred to the City for mitigation of Archaeological site(s) and /or long term liability for the site(s). Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. M Finding 3- Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Section 15091 of the Guidelines)." Facts in Support of Finding . The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue of the following Standard City Policies and Mitigation Measures. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue of the following Standard City Policies and Mitigation Measures. 1. The development of each site shall be subject to the requirements of the General Plan and all applicable specific plans and zoning. The following discretionary approvals: 1. Coastal Permits for sites in the Coastal Zone. 2. Site Plan Review and /or Use Permits. 3. Subdivision Map Act. 4. Grading Permits. 2. Taking into account the magnitude of systematic testing that transpired at Ora -64 during the 1970s it would seem that any additional excavation to determine the horizontal and vertical distribution of the resources or which cultural groups are represented would be redundant. Therefore, three options are being presented for the future management of this important prehistoric site. Option #1 - Preservation This option would preclude for the immediate future disturbance to the site. The act of total preservation entails, for example, leaving the site area in its natural state, capping with clean fill dirt (soil which is known to be without cultural material that may have been removed from another site), or the placement of asphalt across the site. If capping with fill is chosen, it would enable the site area to be used as an open space area, park, golf course, or other similar use. Structures that require no major subsurface disturbance for their construction would be permitted, but the installation of, for instance, subsurface sprinkling systems and certain types of plant materials would have to be approached with caution and would possibly require monitoring by a certified archaeologist. If possible, the placement of these watering systems and drains should be placed above the known cultural deposits so as to minimize any disturbances to the cultural resources. This same care should be exercised in the event that asphalting is chosen for the site area. If total preservation is chosen for Ora -64, it is recommended that prior to the introduction of fill or asphalt a 1008 surface collection be initiated to remove any artifacts that were not collected during the earlier investigations or those that have surfaced since the termination of the last excavation program. This collection should be done in a systematic fashion and be under the direction of an archaeologist that is on the Orange County List of Authorized Archaeologist Consultants. • Any recovered material would be analyzed with the results being incorporated into that corpus of data that already exists for the site. It is also recommended that a 1008 surface collection take place even if the site is to be left in its natural state. It is assumed that even if Ora -64 is left in its present condition, construction will take place in the immediate vicinity and because of this, access to the site area will increase. This increased access could create a hazard for those surface artifacts that may be present. 97 Option 2 - Salvage A second option would permit development to take place within the entire site area. A program of this nature constitutes the destruction of an important cultural resource area and should be approached accordingly. Even though the term salvage implies the • excavation of the whole site, this is not the case, but instead only a predetermined percentage of the site would actually be excavated. In the case of Ora -64 to consider more than a percentage would not only be prohibitive but extremely time: consuming as well. Much of what is outlined below for the partial salvage of Ora -64 in Option 3 can be applied to this second alternative. The project director must show through past projects that he is capable of handling an excavation the size that would be required for the mitigation of a site with the potential of Ora -64. The research design would have to be one that incorporates both regional and local questions concerning the prehistoric inhabitants of the area and as will considers the important data gathered during previous investigations. It is imperative that the crew be comprised of experienced and professional excavators. This is not a venture that could utilize a field class or volunteers who can participate on weekends or only sporadically throughout the duration of the field portion of the project. The salvage of Ora -64 would require a permit from the Coastal Commission and Native American involvement that goes beyond notification. The latter requirement would be necessary because of the known existence of burials. Option 3 - Preservation /Salvage This alternative would permit a portion of the site to undergo a salvage program. This would permit_ future construction to take place, while at the same time preserving a portion of the site. That sector which is to be preserved versus that to be salvaged could most accurately be determined during the early planning stages for the intended use of the site area. Elements to be considered here would be those areas where burials are known to exist and the sectors with the greatest amount of cultural material. It is recommended that the preservation /salvage ratio be roughly equal in amount. In that area to be preserved it is suggested that the same procedures and limitations be adhered to that were noted for Option 1. The portion to be mitigated would require a research design that is based on the previous knowledge gleaned from the site but that also incorporates those questions that have become pertinent since that last investigation. This program would require a 1008 surface collection, a specific number of hand dug excavation units, analysis of the recovered material, additional C14 dates, and a report that documents the results of the current investigation and which also incorporates the earlier data. A program of this expected magnitude would require a crew of professional archaeologists who would be under the direction of an archaeologist who has the experience and credentials to conduct a project the size of that anticipated even for the partial salvage of Ora -64. This is meant to include an individual, preferably a PhD., who has considerable large -scale • excavation experience, who has illustrated that he can complete a major project within the specified time limit that the designated budget, one who has produced scholarly site report, also within the agreed upon time frame. A program of this nature would require a coastal permit and Native American involvement particularly if additional burials were encountered. It is anticipated that the field endeavor could consume several months, depending upon the size of the area to be excavated and the number of crew persons. 3. Prior to issuance of any grading or demolition permits, the applicant shall waive the provisions of AB 952 :related to City of Newport Beach responsibilities for the mitigation of archaeological impacts in a manner acceptable to the City Attorney. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feas- ible, however, specific economic, social, or other considerations make . infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project represents the best balance and mix of uses for the pro- ject area, all factors considered. 2. The alternatives described for each of the individual sites and the project were rejected for the reasons as set forth above and in subsequent sections of this statement. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES Significant Effect ° The proposed project will incrementally impact the service levels cur- rently provided by the Police Department. Finding Finding 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Finding 3- Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Section 15091 of the Guidelines)." Facts in Suvport of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue of the following Standard City Policies and Mitigation Measures. 1. The project proponent shall work in conjunction with the City of New- port Beach Police Department to ensure that crime prevention features are included in building design and construction. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible, however, specific economic, social., or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project represents the best balance and mix of uses for the pro- ject area, all factors considered. 2. The alternatives described for each of the individual sites and the project were rejected for the reasons as set forth above and in subsequent sections of this statement . • 99 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES The Draft EIR evaluated alternatives for the overall project and for each individual site. The approved project represents a refinement to the orig- inal plan applied for by the project proponent and initiated by the City of Newport Beach. The original plan has been modified during the course of the public review through a series of actions including but not limited to those listed below: 1. The City Staff analysis of the project. 2. Refinement of the land uses based upon meetings between the applicant and members of the community. 3. The responses to the Notice of Preparation. 4. The responses to the Nonstatutory Advisement. 5. The responses to the comments on the Draft EIR. 6. The testimony at the Scoping Meetings held related to the environ- mental documentation. 7. The testimony at the public hearing on the Draft EIR and plan held before the City of Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Coun- cil. 8. The recommendations of the Quality of Life Committee. 9. The recommendations of the City of Newport Beach Planning Commis- sion. 10. The data in the Final EIR. Findings 1. The above described refinement of the original plan has been accom- plished in manner so as to provide for the greatest public involve- ment in the planning and CEQA process. 2. The planning process has developed a refined land use plan that is in substantial conformance with the plan under which the Notice of Prep- aration was issued and Draft EIR prepared. 3. The Certified Final EIR indicates all refinement to the plan that have been incorporated into the final project. 4. The Mitigation Measures and Standard City Policies have been made a part of the refined land use plan. 5. The following provides a brief description of project alternatives. 6. The alternatives were rejected in favor of the current project pro- posal. 7. The rationale for rejection of each alternative is provided below. 8. The rejection rationale is supported by testimony in the public record including but not limited to the Certified Final EIR. • NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE The No Project Alternative assumes development of the 11 sites under the existing City of Newport Beach General Plan. Findings Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the pro- ject's No Project Alternatives identified in the Final EIR and described above in that: 100 1. Additional development would be permitted under the existing General Plan on each of the sites. 2. The No Project Alternative would not provide for the expansion of the library, the Newport Harbor Art Museum, or other cultural facilities. 3. The No Project Alternative would not provide day care facilities that . are based upon testimony at the public hearings in need in the commu- nity. 4. The No Project Alternative would not provide the $1.8 million esti- mated in revenues to the community annually that the project would provide. 5. The No Project Alternative would not: provide the estimated $50 mil- lion in roadway improvements to the community. 6. The No Project Alternative would continue piecemeal development of Newport Center and the Peripheral Sites. It would not meet an objec- tive of a comprehensive analysis of the overall development. 7. The No Project Alternative would not meet the planning and design objectives of the project proponent as expressed in the Draft EIR Volumes 1 and 5. 8. The Alternative would not be an increase in housing over the existing plan. 9. The project represents the best reasonable balance and mix of use for the project area, better than the No Project Alternative, all factors considered. 10. The remaining significant effects of the project are acceptable when balanced against facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Con- siderations and stated above, giving greater weight to the remaining, unavoidable significant effect, and are more acceptable than those anticipated from this No Project Alternative. NO DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE The No Development Alternative would retain each of the 11 sites of the 85 -1(B) in their existing condition. Findings Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the project No Development Alternatives identified in the Final EIR and described above in that: 1. By not allowing the development of the project, development demands would still exist. The demands would create cumulative impacts simi- lar to those described in the Final :EIR. 2. The No Development Alternative would not provide for the expansion of the library, the Newport Harbor Art I+fuseum, or other cultural facili- ties. 3. The No Development Alternative would not provide day care facilities that based upon testimony at the public hearings, are needed in the . community. 4. The No Development Alternative would not provide the $1.8 million estimated in revenues to the community annually that the project would provide. 5. The No Development Alternative would not provide the estimated $50 million in roadway improvements to the community. 6. The No Development Alternative would continue piecemeal development of Newport Center and the Peripheral Sites. It would not meet an objective of a comprehensive analysis; of the overall development. 101 7. The No Development Alternative would not meet the planning and design objectives of the project proponent as expressed in the Draft EIR Volumes 1 and 5. S. The No Development Alternative would not be an ,increase in housing over the existing plan. • 9. The project represents the best reasonable balance and mix of use for the project area, better than the No Development Alternative, all factors considered. 10. The No Development Alternative would not provide additional housing for low income families. 11. The No Development Alternative would not provide additional employ- ment opportunities within the community. It would not provide a Teen Center that will train the community's youth for employment in the restaurant industry. 12. The No Development Alternative would deny the property owner a rea- sonable use of his property. 13. The No Development Alternative would not provide for the removal of development rights from the Westbay parcel and its future utilization as a part of the Upper Newport Bay Regional Park. 14. The remaining significant effects of the project are acceptable when balanced against facts set forth in, the Statement of Overriding Con- siderations and stated above, giving greater weight to the remaining, unavoidable significant effect, and are more acceptable than those anticipated from this No Development Alternative. NO DEVELOPMENT: DEVELOPMENT AT ANOTHER LOCATION ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE NEWPORT CENTER SITES CORPORATE PLAZA EAST The Corporate Plaza East site has been identified as an alternative site that could be developed with office, commercial, residential, and restau- rant uses. BLOCK 100: GATEWAY PLAZA Block 100: Gateway Plaza has been identified as an alternative site that could be developed with office, commercial, and restaurant uses. BLOCK 200: DESIGN PLAZA Block 200: Design Plaza has been identified as an alternative site that could be developed with office, commercial, and restaurant uses. BLOCK 300 Block 300 has been identified as an alternative site that could be developed with office, commercial, and restaurant uses. BLOCK 400: MEDICAL PLAZA • Block 400: Medical Plaza has been identified as an alternative site that could be developed with offices (medical). BLOCK 500 Block 500 has been identified as an alternative site that could be devel- oped with office, commercial, residential, and restaurant uses. BLOCK 700: PACIFIC MUTUAL Block 700: Pacific Mutual has been identified as an alternative site that could be developed with office, support commercial, and restaurant uses. 102 BLOCK 800: PACIFIC PLAZA EXISTING DEVELOPMENT Block 800: Pacific Plaza Existing Development has been identified as an alternative site that could be developed with office, commercial, and res- taurant uses. BLOCK 900: MARRIOTT /GRANVILLE • Block 900: Marriott /Granville has been identified as an alternative site that could be developed with office, residential, and restaurant uses. PCH FRONTAGE The PCH Frontage site has been identified as an alternative site that could be developed with office, commercial, residential, and restaurant uses. FLOATING USES /TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR) This alternative would be to add all development proposed as a part of GPA 85 -1(B) as "Floating and /or TDR" entitlements. OTHER SITES IN NEWPORT BEACH WESTBAY The Westbay site has been identified as an alternative site that could be developed with residential uses. EAST BLUFF REMNANT The East Bluff Remnant site has been identified as an alternative site that could be developed with residential uses. FREEWAY RESERVATION EAST The Freeway Reservation East site has been identified as an alternative site that could be developed with residential uses. POINT DEL MAR Point del Mar has been identified as an alternative site that could be developed with residential uses. SAN DIEGO CREEK NORTH San Diego Creek North has been identified as an alternative site that could be developed with office and commercial uses. JAMBOREE/MACARTHUR The Jamboree /MacArthur site has been identified as an alternative site that could be developed with office and commercial uses. SAN DIEGO CREEK SOUTH The San Diego Creek South site has been identified as an alternative site that could be developed with office and commercial uses. CASTAWAYS • The Castaways site has been identified as an alternative site that could be developed with residential, commercial, restaurant, and institutional uses. OTHER SITES WITHIN THE SUBREGIONAL AREA VACANT LAND This alternative assumes the development of the project or a portion of the project on vacant land within the subregional planning area. The proposed 103 project for office, commercial, and residential uses could be developed on vacant land in the Cities of Costa Mesa, :Irvine, and /or Huntington Beach and in unincorporated Orange County. The MacArthur Boulevard improvements could only be developed at the loca- tion proposed. major roadway improvements could accompany the development of the project land uses on vacant land within the areas described above. UNDERDEVELOPED AREAS This alternative assumes the development of the project or a portion of the project on underdeveloped land within the subregional planning area. The proposed project's office, commercial, and residential uses could be developed on underdeveloped land in the Cities of Costa Mesa, Irvine, and /or Huntington Beach and in unincorporated Orange County. The MacArthur improvements could only be developed at the location pro- posed. Major roadway improvements could accompany the development of the project land uses on land within the areas described above. The development rights requested by the project proponent and initiated by the City could be developed according to the General Plan on any of the following the following sites as described in this Statement and the Final EIR. ALTERNATIVE NEWPORT CENTER SITES Corporate Plaza East Gateway Plaza Design Plaza Block 300 Block 400 - Medical Plaza Block 500 Block 700 - Pacific Mutual Plaza Block 800 - Pacific Plaza Existing Development Block 900 - Marriott /Granville PCH Frontage Floating Uses /Transfer of Development Rights (TOR) OTHER SITES IN NEWPORT BEACH Westbay East Bluff Remnant Freeway Reservation East Point del Mar San Diego Creek North Jamboree /MacArthur San Diego Creek South Castaways OTHER SITES IN THE SUBREGIONAL AREA Vacant Land Underdeveloped Land Findings Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the No Development: Development at Another Location (DAL Alternative) identified ® in the Final EIR and described above in that; 1. The cumulative impacts described in the Final EIR would remain the same for the project if it were to be developed elsewhere in the Center. 2. The DAL Alternative would not provide for the expansion of the library, the Newport Harbor Art Museum, or other cultural facilities. 3. The DAL Alternative would not provide day care facilities that based upon testimony at the public hearings, are needed in the community. 104 4. The DAL Alternative would not provide the $1.8 million estimated in revenues to the community annually that the project would provide. 5. The DAL Alternative would not provide the estimated $50 million in roadway improvements to the community. 6. The DAL Alternative would continue piecemeal development of Newport • Center and the Peripheral Sites. It would not meet an objective of a comprehensive analysis of the overall development. 7. The DAL Alternative would not meet the planning and design objectives of the project proponent as expressed in the Draft EIR Volumes 1 and 5. 8. The DAL Alternative would not an increase in housing over the exist- ing plan. 9. The project represents the best reasonable balance and mix of use for the project area, better than the DAL Alternative, all factors con- sidered. 10. The DAL Alternative would not provide additional housing for low income families. 11. The DAL Alternative would not provide additional employment opportu- nities within the community. It would not provide a Teen Center that will train the community's youth for employment in the restaurant industry. 12. The DAL Alternative would deny the property owner a reasonable use of his property. 13. The DAL Alternative would not provide for the removal of development rights from the Westbay parcel and its future utilization as a part of the Upper Newport Bay Regional Park. 14. The DAL Alternative does not provide for all uses on the sites within the Center that are included in the proposed project. 15. The Corporate Plaza site is only a superior location for some and not all of the proposed planned land use. 16. Homes were not determined to be an environmentally superior use to the project are the Corporate Plaza, Gateway Plaza, Design Plaza, Block 300, Block 400: Medical Plaza, Block 500, Block 700- Pacific Mutual, Block 800: Pacific Plaza Existing Development, and Block 900: Marriott /Granville sites. 17. A limited number of homes could be constructed on the PCH Frontage Site. This would increase the impacts of the increase demand for housing created by the project development at one or several of the alternative locations within Newport Center. 18. The major traffic impacts of the project would remain if the project were to develop no matter where its location with the Center. 19. The concept of floating units is not easily understood by the general public and its acceptance as a major planning determinant for the Center is questionable. 20. The development of the Westbay site with significant number of resi- dential units would expose persons to noise from aircraft overflights not present to the same degree at the. project. 21. The development of the Westbay site would have similar impact on cul- tural and biological resources as the project. 22. The Westbay site is not surrounded by major arterial highways as is the project residential developments. • • 105 23. The East Bluff Remnant site is a significant biological resource area that could not sustain a significant residential population. 24. The Point del Mar project has been ;approved and committed by the City of Newport Beach since the start of the planning process for the pro- ject. The redevelopment of that site for significantly higher densi- ties is not likely. Higher density use was previously rejected by the City based upon opposition to development densities. 25. The San Diego Creek North site and the Jamboree MacArthur site could not be developed with all of the development and the variety of development planned for the project. 26. The San Diego Creek South site is adjacent to San Diego Creek, across Jamboree Road from the Ecological Reserve, and adjacent to the Free- way and major arterial highways. The site is better planned for the expansion of the North Ford project than the uses contemplated by the project. 27. The Castaways site would have the same biological, cultural, and geo- logical impacts as the development of the Newporter North site. No major commercial and /or office development would be acceptable to the community based upon previous submittals for this site. 28. The remaining significant effects of the project are acceptable when balanced against facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Con- siderations and stated above, giving: greater weight to the remaining, unavoidable significant effect, and are more acceptable than those anticipated from this DAL Alternative. GPA 80 -3 APPROVED PROJECT On August 31, 1981, the City of Newport Beach certified GPA 80 -3 EIR and approved the project to allow for the development: Block 600, Block 900, PCH /Jamboree, PCH Frontage, Corporate Plaza West, Newport Village, and Avocado /MacArthur. GPA 80 -3 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS The City of Newport Beach Planning Commission recommended that the follow- ing development be approved: Block 600: PCH /Jamboree: Corporate Plaza West: Newport Village: Avocado /MacArthur Marriott Hotel GPA 80 -3 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS 225,000 sq. 525,000 sq. 80,000 sq. 123,300 sq. 20,000 sq. 208,750 sq, 100,000 sq., OCTD Transi 10,000 sq. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. t Fa ft. Office Residential (115 units) Office Office Office Commercial /Restaurant Office cility Office The City of Newport Beach staff recommended that the following development be approved: ° Block 600: 225,000 sq. ft. Office 400 rooms Hotel ° PCH /Jamboree: 225,000 sq. ft. Residential ( +225 du's) ° Corporate Plaza West: 80,000 sq. ft. Office ° Newport Village: 123,400 sq. ft. Office 20,000 sq. ft. Commercial /Restaurant 208,750 sq. ft. Office ° Avocado /MacArthur: 100,000 sq. ft. Office OCTD Transit Facility ° Marriott Hotel 10,000 sq. ft. Office • 0 GPA 80 -3 PROPOSED PROJECT Block 600: PCH /Jamboree: Corporate Plaza West: Newport Village: Avocado /MacArthur ° Marriott Hotel GPA 80 -3 ALTERNATIVES 106 450,000 sq. ft. Office 500 rooms Hotel, related facilities 225,000 sq. ft. Residential ( +225 du's) 80,000 sq. ft. Office 100,000 sq. ft. Office 20,000 sq. ft. Retail 150,000 sq. ft. Office 100,000 sq. ft. Office 165 rooms Hotel, related facilities • No Project • Reduction In Scope Of Proposed Project - Development According To The Existing General Plan - Elimination Of The Hotels From The Project - Elimination Of Office Use From The Project Other Land Uses - Residential - Public Use The several GPA 80 -3 Alternatives reviewed in the Final EIR are listed above. Each of these alternative is rejected with the findings listed below. Findinss Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the No Development: Development at Another Location (GPA 80 -3 Alternatives) identified in the Final EIR and described above in that; 1. The cumulative impacts described in the Final EIR would remain the same for the project if it were to be developed else where in the Center. 2. The GPA 80 -3 Alternatives would not provide for the expansion of the library, the Newport Harbor Art Museum, or other cultural facilities. 3. The GPA 80 -3 Alternatives would not provide day care facilities that based upon testimony at the public hearings are needed in the commu- nity. 4. The GPA 80 -3 Alternatives would not provide the $1.8 million esti- mated in revenues to the community annually that the project would provide. 5. The GPA 80 -3 Alternatives would not provide the estimated $50 million in roadway improvements to the community. 6. The GPA 80 -3 Alternatives would not meet the planning and design objectives of the project proponent as expressed in the Draft EIR Volumes 1 and 5. 7. The GPA 80 -3 Alternatives would not an increase in housing over the existing plan. 8. The project represents the best reasonable balance and mix of use for the project area, better than the GPA 80 -3 Alternatives, all factors considered. 9. The GPA 80 -3 Alternatives would not provide additional housing for low income families. 10. The GPA 80 -3 Alternatives would not provide for the removal of devel- opment rights from the Westbay parcel. and its future utilization as a part of the Upper Newport Bay Regional Park. 11. The GPA 80 -3 Alternative does not provide for all uses on the sites within the Center that are included in the proposed project. 14)/ 12. The concept of floating units is not easily understood by the general public and its acceptance as a major planning determinant for the Center is questionable. 13. The remaining significant effects of the project are acceptable when balanced against facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Con- siderations and stated above, giving; greater weight to the remaining, • unavoidable significant effect, and are more acceptable than those anticipated from this GPA 80 -3 Alternatives. FASHION ISLAND ALTERNATIVES The following alternatives to the project were evaluated for Fashion Island: 1. No Project (150 units) 2. Office 3. Commercial a. Increased b. Decreased 4. Residential 5. Institutional 6. Hotel The several Alternatives for development in Fashion Island are reviewed in the Final EIR and listed above. Each of these alternative is rejected with the findings listed below. Findings Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the No Development: Development at Another Location (GPA 80 -3 Alternatives) identified in the Final EIR and described above in that; 1. The site specific No Project Alternative will have greater land use, aesthetic, and vehicular impacts than the project. 2. The site specific No Project Alternative will have the same impacts on bikeways pedestrian activities, air quality, earth resources, water resources, biological resources, cultural resources, and public services and utilities as the project. 3. The site specific Office Alternative would have the same land use, aesthetic, bikeways, pedestrian activity, earth resources, water resources, biological resources, and cultural resources impacts as the project. 4. The site specific Office Alternative would have greater onsite noise impacts, air quality, and vehicular :impacts than the project. 5. The site specific Hotel Alternative would have the same land use, aesthetic, bikeways, pedestrian activity, earth resources, water resources, biological resources and cultural resources impacts as the project. 6. The site specific Hotel Alternative would have greater onsite noise impacts, air quality, and vehicular impacts than the project. 7. The site specific decreased commercial alternative would have the same • aesthetic, bikeways, pedestrian, earth resources, water resources, biological resources, and cultural resources impacts as the project. 8. The site specific residential alternative would have the same aes- thetic, bikeways, pedestrian, earth resources, water resources, bio- logical resources, and cultural resources impacts as the project. 9. The Theater Alternative was incorporated in the project to provide for additional night time activities in the center. 10. It is anticipated that theaters will add patrons to the stores and have a positive effect on the revenues from the center, 108 11. The Increased Commercial Alternative was incorporated into the pro- ject to provide for the expansion of major tenants in the Center. 12. The Increased Commercial Alternative will add to the revenues from the project. 13. The Increase Commercial Alternative is a site superior alternative to • the development of commercial on the Bayview Landing site as origi- nally proposed. 14. The additional parking need for the Increase Commercial Alternative can easily be accommodated in the Center without impacting other users. 15. The Theater Alternative will provide additional entertainment for the residents of the community and less travel time and distances to other communities by the City's population. 16. The Theater Alternative creates nighttime activities that presently do not exist at Fashion Island. 17. The Theater Alternative will provide a use that generally will have hours of operation that will allow for the joint use of parking with the regional shopping center. 18. The remaining significant effects of the project are acceptable when balanced against facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Con- siderations and stated above, giving greater weight to the remaining, unavoidable significant effect, and are more acceptable than those anticipated from these Alternatives. BLOCK 600 The following alternatives to the project were evaluated for Fashion Island: 1. No Project 2. GPA 80 -3 The several Alternatives for development in Block 800 are reviewed in the Final EIR and listed above. Each of these alternative is rejected with the findings listed below. Findinps • Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the alternatives identified in the Final EIR and described above in that; 1. The site specific No Project Alternative will have greater onsite noise impacts than will the project. 2. The site specific No Project Alternative will have the same impacts on aesthetics, bikeways pedestrian activities, earth resources, water resources, biological resources, and cultural resources. a. Approved Project b. Planning Commission Recommendation C. Staff d. Proposed project 3. Office a. Increased b. Decreased 4. Hotel 5. Commercial a. Office support b. Stand alone 6. Residential a. Mixed -use b. Stand alone 7. Theater The several Alternatives for development in Block 800 are reviewed in the Final EIR and listed above. Each of these alternative is rejected with the findings listed below. Findinps • Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the alternatives identified in the Final EIR and described above in that; 1. The site specific No Project Alternative will have greater onsite noise impacts than will the project. 2. The site specific No Project Alternative will have the same impacts on aesthetics, bikeways pedestrian activities, earth resources, water resources, biological resources, and cultural resources. 109 3. The site specific Increased Office Alternative would have greater land use, aesthetic, housing, transportation and circulation, noise, air quality, earth resources, water resources, biological resources, cultural resources, and public services and utility impacts than the project. 4. The General Plan Amendment 80 -3 Alternatives would have greater land • use, aesthetic, housing, transportation and circulation, noise, air quality, earth resources, water resources, biological resources, cul- tural resources, and public services and utility impacts than the project. 5. The Hotel Alternative would have greater land use impacts that the proposed project. 6. The Hotel Alternative would have greater onsite noise impacts than the proposed project. 7. The Commercial Alternative would have the same or greater impacts that the project on housing, vehicular traffic, noise, and air quality. 8. The Residential Alternative would have greater land use, bikeways, and pedestrian impacts than the project. 9. The Residential Alternative would have similar impacts to the project on aesthetics, earth resources, water resources, biological resources, and cultural resources. 10. The Theater Alternative was selected for the Fashion Island area. That area is better suited for the use that the Block 600 area. 11. The Theater Alternative was incorporated in the project to provide for additional nighttime activities in the center. 12. The hotel alternative is rejected because it does not meet the pre- sent planning objectives of the City and /or project proponent. 13. The project proposed for Block 600 will provide significant revenues to the project proponent to allow them to make many of the proposed circulation system and aesthetic improvements that have been indi- cated and conditioned as a part of this project. 14. Free standing commercial development would be in direct competition with uses in the Fashion Island area and should be rejected. 15. Commercial uses that are supportive of the existing office and hotel uses in the block will be allowed and permitted by the proposed pro- ject. 16. The remaining significant effects of the project are acceptable when balanced against facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Con- siderations and stated above, giving greater weight to the remaining, unavoidable significant effect, and are more acceptable than those anticipated from these Alternatives. CIVIC PLAZA EXPANSION 1. . 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. No Project Office a. Increased b. Decreased Commercial Theater Restaurant Institutional The several Alternatives for development in Civic Plaza are reviewed in the Final EIR and listed above. Each of these alternative is rejected with the findings listed below. 110 Findines Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the Alternatives identified in the Final EIR and described above in that: 1. The Civic Plaza area was not a part of the General Plan Amendment 80 -3 analysis. The project is more comprehensive in its scope. • 2. The Increased Office Alternative would have greater land use, aes- thetics, housing, transportation and circulation, noise, air quality, earth resources, water resources, biological resources, cultural resources and public services and utility impacts than the proposed project. 3. The No Project Alternative would have greater land use, aesthetic, air quality, and public services and utility impacts than the pro- ject. 4. The No Project Alternative would have the same earth resources, water resources, biological resources, cultural resources, bikeways and pedestrian impacts as the project. 5. The Increased Office and the Decreased Office Alternatives were rejected in favor of the project as the project will provide for the enhancement of civic cultural resources in the community. 6. The project provides for the use of the vacant property in the Civic Plaza area in a manner that is compatible with the existing land use. 7. The alternative land use of office was rejected in favor of institu- tional uses. 8. The increased institutional use of the property beyond the quantity originally stated in the project proponent's request and initiated by the City of Newport Beach is a reasonable amount and will not over- burden support system based upon the information contained in the Final EIR. 9. The Theater Alternative was selected for the Fashion Island area. That area is better suited for the use that the Civic Plaza area. 10. The Theater Alternative was incorporated in the project to provide for additional nighttime activities in the center. 11. The institutional use will allow a reasonable investment on the prop- erty when viewed in relation to other uses. 12. Development of the site for cultural uses such as expansion of the library and art museum would provide for opportunities to the citi- zens of Newport Beach and surrounding communities that are not pres- ently available in the City. 13. The remaining significant effects of the project are acceptable when balanced against facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Con- siderations and stated above, giving greater weight to the remaining, unavoidable significant effect, and are more acceptable than those anticipated from these Alternatives. BLOCK 800 1. No Project 2. Office a. Increased b. Decreased 3. Hotel 4. Commercial 5. Residential 6. Theater 111 The several Alternatives for development in Block 800 are reviewed in the Final EIR and listed above. Each of these alternative is rejected with the findings listed below. Findings Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the • alternatives identified in the Final EIR and described above in that: 1. The site specific No Project Alternative will have greater onsite noise impacts than will the project. 2. The site specific No Project Alternative will have the same impacts on aesthetics, bikeways pedestrian activities, earth resources, water resources, biological resources, and cultural resources. 3. The site specific Increased Office Alternative would have greater land use, aesthetic, housing, transportation and circulation, noise, air quality, earth resources, water resources, biological resources, cultural resources, and public services and utility impacts than the project. 4. The Hotel Alternative would have greater land use impacts than the 12. The project proposed for Block 800 will provide significant revenues to the project proponent to allow them to make many of the proposed circulation system and aesthetic improvements that have been indi- cated and conditioned as a part of this project. 13. Free standing commercial development would be in direct competition with uses in the Fashion Island area and should be rejected. 14. Commercial uses that are supportive of the existing office and hotel uses in the block will be allowed and permitted by the proposed pro- ject. • 15. The remaining significant effects of the project are acceptable when balanced against facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Con- siderations and stated above, giving greater weight to the remaining, unavoidable significant effect, and are more acceptable than those anticipated from these Alternatives. PCH /JAMBOREE 1. No Project 2. GPA 80 -3 a. Approved Project proposed project. 5. The Hotel Alternative would have greater onsite noise impacts than the proposed project. 6. The Commercial Alternative would have the same or greater impacts that the project on housing, vehicular traffic, noise, and air quality. 7. The Residential Alternative would have greater land use, bikeways, and pedestrian impacts than the project. 8. The Residential Alternative would have the impacts similar to the project on aesthetics, earth resources, water resources, biological resources, and cultural resources. 9. The Theater Alternative was selected for the Fashion Island area. That area is better suited for the use that the Block 600 area. 10. The Theater Alternative was incorporated in the project to provide for additional night time activities, in the center. 11. The hotel alternative is rejected because it does not meet the pre- sent planning objectives of the city and /or project proponent. 12. The project proposed for Block 800 will provide significant revenues to the project proponent to allow them to make many of the proposed circulation system and aesthetic improvements that have been indi- cated and conditioned as a part of this project. 13. Free standing commercial development would be in direct competition with uses in the Fashion Island area and should be rejected. 14. Commercial uses that are supportive of the existing office and hotel uses in the block will be allowed and permitted by the proposed pro- ject. • 15. The remaining significant effects of the project are acceptable when balanced against facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Con- siderations and stated above, giving greater weight to the remaining, unavoidable significant effect, and are more acceptable than those anticipated from these Alternatives. PCH /JAMBOREE 1. No Project 2. GPA 80 -3 a. Approved Project 112 b. Planning Commission The several Alternatives for development in PCH /Jamboree are reviewed in the Final EIR and listed above. Each of these alternative is rejected with the findings listed below. Findings Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the Alternatives identified in the Final EIR and described above in that; 1. The No Project Alternative would have greater land use, aesthetics, housing, vehicular transportation circulation, noise, air quality, and public services and utility impacts that the proposed project. 2. The No Project Alternative would have the same bikeway, pedestrian, earth resources, water resources, biological resources, and cultural resources. 3. The General Plan Amendment 80 -3 Alternatives would have greater land use, aesthetics, housing, vehicular transportation circulation, noise, air quality, and public services and utility impacts that the proposed project. 4. The General Plan 80 -3 Alternatives would have the same bikeway, pedestrian, earth resources, water resources, biological resources, and cultural resources. 5. The Hotel Alternative would have greater land use, aesthetics, hous- ing, vehicular transportation circulation, noise, air quality, and public services and utility impacts that the proposed project. 6. The Hotel Alternative would have the same bikeway, pedestrian, earth resources, water resources, biological resources, and cultural resources. 7. The Commercial Alternative would have greater land use, aesthetics, housing, vehicular transportation circulation, noise, air quality, and public services and utility impacts that the proposed project. B. The Commercial Alternative would have the same bikeway, pedestrian, earth resources, water resources, biological resources, and cultural resources. 9. The increased and Decreased Residential Alternatives would have the same land use, aesthetic, bikeways, pedestrian earth resources, water resources, biological resources, and cultural resources impacts. 10. The Increased Residential Alternative would have greater vehicular • impacts than the proposed project will have. 11. The Restaurant Alternative will have greater of the same impacts as the project will have on land use, aesthetics, transportation and circulation, noise, air quality, earth resources, water resources, biological resources, cultural resources, and public services and utilities. 12. The Recreational Alternative would have the same or greater land use, transportation and circulation, noise, air quality, earth resources, water resources, biological resources, cultural resources and public services and utilities. C. Staff d. Proposed Project 3. Office 4. Hotel 5. Commercial 6. Residential • a. Increased b. Decreased 7. Restaurant 8. Recreational The several Alternatives for development in PCH /Jamboree are reviewed in the Final EIR and listed above. Each of these alternative is rejected with the findings listed below. Findings Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the Alternatives identified in the Final EIR and described above in that; 1. The No Project Alternative would have greater land use, aesthetics, housing, vehicular transportation circulation, noise, air quality, and public services and utility impacts that the proposed project. 2. The No Project Alternative would have the same bikeway, pedestrian, earth resources, water resources, biological resources, and cultural resources. 3. The General Plan Amendment 80 -3 Alternatives would have greater land use, aesthetics, housing, vehicular transportation circulation, noise, air quality, and public services and utility impacts that the proposed project. 4. The General Plan 80 -3 Alternatives would have the same bikeway, pedestrian, earth resources, water resources, biological resources, and cultural resources. 5. The Hotel Alternative would have greater land use, aesthetics, hous- ing, vehicular transportation circulation, noise, air quality, and public services and utility impacts that the proposed project. 6. The Hotel Alternative would have the same bikeway, pedestrian, earth resources, water resources, biological resources, and cultural resources. 7. The Commercial Alternative would have greater land use, aesthetics, housing, vehicular transportation circulation, noise, air quality, and public services and utility impacts that the proposed project. B. The Commercial Alternative would have the same bikeway, pedestrian, earth resources, water resources, biological resources, and cultural resources. 9. The increased and Decreased Residential Alternatives would have the same land use, aesthetic, bikeways, pedestrian earth resources, water resources, biological resources, and cultural resources impacts. 10. The Increased Residential Alternative would have greater vehicular • impacts than the proposed project will have. 11. The Restaurant Alternative will have greater of the same impacts as the project will have on land use, aesthetics, transportation and circulation, noise, air quality, earth resources, water resources, biological resources, cultural resources, and public services and utilities. 12. The Recreational Alternative would have the same or greater land use, transportation and circulation, noise, air quality, earth resources, water resources, biological resources, cultural resources and public services and utilities. 113 13. The remaining significant effects of the project are acceptable when balanced against facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Con- siderations and stated above, giving greater weight to the remaining, unavoidable significant effect, and are more acceptable than those anticipated from these Alternatives. CORPORATE PLAZA WEST • 1. No Project 2. GPA 80 -3 a. Approved Project b. Planning Commission C. Staff d. Proposed Project 3. Office a. Increased b. Decreased 4. Hotel 5. Commercial 6. Residential 7. Restaurant 8. Recreational The several Alternatives for development in Corporate Plaza West are reviewed in the Final EIR and listed above. Each of these alternative is rejected with the findings listed below. Findings Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the Alternatives identified in the Final EIR and described above in that; 1. The site specific No Project Alternative will have greater vehicular, on site noise, air quality and public services and utility impacts than will the project. 2. The site specific No Project Alternative will have the same impacts on land use, aesthetics, bikeways, pedestrian activities, earth resources, water resources, biological resources, and cultural resources. 3. The site specific General Plan Amendment 80 -3 Alternatives will have greater land use, aesthetic, housing, vehicular, on site noise, air quality and public services and utility impacts than will the pro- ject. 4. The site specific General Plan Amendment 80 -3 Alternatives will have the same impacts on bikeways, pedestrian activities, earth resources, water resources, biological resources, and cultural resources. 5. The site specific Increase Office Alternative will have greater land use, aesthetic, housing, vehicular, on site noise, air quality and public services and utility impacts than will the project. 6. The site specific Increased Office Alternative will have the same impacts on bikeways, pedestrian activities, earth resources, water resources, biological resources, and cultural resources. 7. The site specific Decreased Office Alternative will have greater land use, aesthetic, housing, vehicular, on site noise, air quality and public services and utility impacts than will the project. 8. The site specific Decreased Office Alternative will have the same impacts on bikeways, pedestrian activities, earth resources, water resources, biological resources, and cultural resources. 9. The site specific Commercial Alternative will have greater land use, aesthetic, housing, vehicular, on site noise, air quality and public services and utility impacts than will the project. 114 10. The site specific Commercial Alternative will have the same impacts on bikeways, pedestrian activities, earth resources, water resources, biological resources, and cultural resources. 11. The Residential Alternative would have the same land use, aesthetic, bikeways, pedestrian, earth resources, water resources, biological resources, and cultural resources as would the project. • 12. The Restaurant Alternative would have the same or greater impact as the project on land use, aesthetics, housing, transportation and cir- culation, air quality, earth resources, water resources, biological resources, cultural resources, and public services and utilities. 13. The Recreational Alternative would have greater land use impacts than would the project. 14. The Theater Alternative was selected for the Fashion Island area. That area is better suited for the use than is this area. 15. The Theater Alternative was incorporated in the project to provide for additional night time activities in the center. 16. The hotel alternative is rejected because it does not meet the pre- sent planning objectives of the city and /or project proponent. 17. The project proposed for Corporate Plaza West will provide signifi- cant revenues to the project proponent to allow them to make many of the proposed circulation system and aesthetic improvements that have been indicated and conditioned as a part of this project. 18. Free standing commercial development would be in direct competition with uses in the Fashion Island areei and should be rejected. 19. Commercial uses that are supportive of the existing office and hotel uses in the block will be allowed and permitted by the proposed pro- ject. 20. The introduction of residential uses: into the Corporate Plaza West site would not meet the objective for planning and design for the center stated by the project proponent in Volumes 1 and 5 of the Draft EIR. 21. The commercial alternative would be in direct competition with existing uses in the Corona Del Mar area. 22. The introduction of commercial uses into this area would effect the capacity of the highway in a negative manner. 23. The Commercial Alternative would make East Coast Highway into strip commercial development along the frontage of Newport Center. This is not desirable from either the planning objectives of the City and /or project proponent. 24. The remaining significant effects of the project are acceptable when balanced against facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Con- siderations and stated above, giving greater weight to the remaining, unavoidable significant effect, and are more acceptable than those anticipated from these Alternatives. • NEWPORT VILLAGE 1. No Project 2. GPA 80 -3 a. Approved Project b. Planning Commission C. Staff d. Proposed Project 3. Office a. Increased b. Decreased 4. Hotel 115 5. Commercial a. Increased b. Decreased 6. Residential 7. Theater The several Alternatives for development in Newport Village are reviewed in • the Final EIR and listed above. Each of these alternative is rejected with the findings listed below. Findings Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the Alternatives identified in the Final EIR and described above in that: 1. The site specific No Project Alternative will have greater onsite noise impacts than will the project, 2. The site specific No Project Alternative will have the same impacts on aesthetics, bikeways, pedestrian activities, earth resources, water resources, biological resources, and cultural resources. 3. The site specific General Plan Amendment 80 -3 Alternatives will have the same impacts on aesthetics, bikeways, pedestrian activities, earth resources, water resources, biological resources, and cultural resources. 4. The Residential Alternative selected was in substantial compliance with those reviewed in the Draft EIR.. 5. The selection of the residential land use for the Newport Village site allowed for the addition of housing units that will be affordable in some instances to the employees of the project. 6. Increased housing opportunities in the community is consistent with the objectives of the Housing Element. 7. The commercial alternative would be in direct competition with the existing uses in the Corona del Mar area. 8. The introduction of commercial uses into this area would effect the capacity of the highway in a negative manner. 9. The commercial Alternative would make East Coast Highway into strip commercial development along the frontage of Newport Center. This is not desirable from either the planning objectives of the City and /or project proponent. 10. The Alternative of a Lake/Desilting Basin is reject for the reasons stated in the Statement of Findings and Facts in Support of Findings approved in conjunction with the approval and rescindment of GPA 80 -3. 11. The Lake /Desilting Basin Alternative would be located in a location that would be upstream of a significant amount of the pollutants. 12. The incorporation of a health club /gym into the project on the Corpo- rate Plaza East site was within the range of alternatives presented • in the GPA 85 -1(B) EIR. 13. That the Corporate Plaza East site proposed for the health club facility was within the geographical boundaries of the Newport Vil- lage site as originally proposed with the conceptual curvalinear alignment of Avocado Avenue. 14. Health club is not a traditional commercial use and is not viewed as a traffic generator. It was provided to provide a desired use within walking distance to employees in Newport Center and the adjacent resi- dential uses. 15. Meets the expressed objectives to provide community supported uses in Newport Center. OW 16. The remaining significant effects of the project are acceptable when balanced against facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Con- siderations and stated above, giving greater weight to the remaining, unavoidable significant effect, and are more acceptable than those anticipated from these Alternatives. CORPORATE • 1. 2. 3. 4. PLAZA EAST Office Commercial Residential Restaurant The several alternatives for development on the Corporate Plaza East site are reviewed in the Final EIR and are listed above. Each of these alterna- tives was previously rejected for the development of the proposed project. Action has been taken in the approval of the GPA 85 -1(B) EIR to incorporate the use of a health club /gym facility, a non- traditional commercial use in Corporate Plaza East. 1. The use would not be in direct competition with the existing uses in the Corona del Mar area. 2. The introduction of non - traditional commercial uses into this area would not effect the capacity of the highway in a negative manner. 3. The non - traditional commercial use would not make East Coast Highway a strip commercial development along the frontage of Newport Center. This is not desirable from either the planning objectives of the City and /or project proponent. 4. The incorporation of a health club /gym facility meets the expressed needs and desires of the community as expressed during public hearings on the proposed project. 5. The remaining significant effects of the project are acceptable when balanced against facts set forth in the Statement of Over- riding Considerations and stated above, giving greater weight to the remaining, unavoidable significant effect, and are more acceptable than those anticipated from these Alternatives. AVOCADO/MACARTHUR 1. No Project 2. GPA 80 -3 The several Alternatives for development in Avocado /MacArthur are reviewed in the Final EIR and listed above. Each of these alternative is rejected • with the findings listed below. Findings Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the alternatives identified in the Final EIR and described above in that: 1. The site specific No Project Alternative will have the same impacts on aesthetics, bikeways pedestrian activities, earth resources, water resources, biological resources, and cultural resources. a. Approved Project b. Planning Commission c. Staff d. Proposed Project 3. Office a. Increased b. Decreased 4. Hotel 5. Commercial 6. Theater The several Alternatives for development in Avocado /MacArthur are reviewed in the Final EIR and listed above. Each of these alternative is rejected • with the findings listed below. Findings Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the alternatives identified in the Final EIR and described above in that: 1. The site specific No Project Alternative will have the same impacts on aesthetics, bikeways pedestrian activities, earth resources, water resources, biological resources, and cultural resources. 117 2. The site specific General Plan Amendment 80 -3 Alternatives would have greater land use, aesthetic, housing, vehicular, noise, air quality, and public services and utility impacts than the project. 3. The General Plan Amendment 80 -3 Alternatives would have the same impacts on bikeways, earth resources, water resources, biological resources and cultural resources. • 4. The site specific Increased Office Alternative would have greater land use, aesthetic, housing, vehicular, noise, air quality, and pub- lic services and utility impacts than the project. 5. The Increase Office Alternative would have the same impacts on bike- ways, earth resources, water resources, biological resources and cul- tural resources. 6. The Hotel Alternative would have greater housing impacts than would the project. 7. The Commercial Alternative would have greater land use, aesthetics, housing, vehicular, noise, air quality, and public services and util- ity impacts than would the proposed project. 8. The Hotel Alternative would have greater onsite noise impacts that the proposed project. 9. The Commercial Alternative would have the same or greater impacts that the project on housing, vehicular traffic, noise, and air quality. 10. The Theater Alternative was selected for the Fashion Island area. That area is better suited for the use for than is this area. 11. The Theater Alternative was incorporated in the project to provide for additional night time activities in the Newport Center this area is too removed to benefit the majority of Newport Center. 12. Free standing commercial development would be in direct competition with uses in the Fashion Island area and should be rejected. 13. Commercial uses that are supportive of the existing office and hotel uses in the block will be allowed and permitted by the proposed pro- ject. 14. A day care facility was incorporated into the project on the Avo- cado /MacArthur site as a use deficient in the community and greatly supported by its citizens as noted at public hearings on the project. 15. The remaining significant effects of the project are acceptable when balanced against facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Con- siderations and stated above, giving greater weight to the remaining, unavoidable significant effect, and are more acceptable than those anticipated from these Alternatives. BIG CANYON/MACARTHUR 1. No Project 2. Residential a. Increased b. Decreased 3. Open Space 4. Circulation The several Alternatives for development in Big Canyon /MacArthur are reviewed in the Final EIR and listed above. Each of these alternative is rejected with the findings listed below. Findings Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the alternatives identified in the Final EIR and described above in that: 118 1. The site specific General Plan Amendment 80 -3 Alternatives would have greater impacts on bikeways and pedestrian activities. 2. The site was not a part or General :Plan Amendment 80 -3. 3. The site specific Increased Residential Alternative would have greater land use, aesthetic, vehicular, noise, air quality, and pub- lic services and utility impacts than the project. 4. The Increase Residential Alternative would have the same impacts on housing, bikeways, earth resources, water resources, biological resources and cultural resources. 5. The Decreased Residential Alternative would have the same impacts as would the project on aesthetics, bikeways, pedestrian, earth resources, water resources, biological resources, and cultural resources as would the project. 6. The Circulation Alternative is rejected as the need for the land for highway purposes in the Couplet has been removed by the selection of the non couplet alternative. 7. The retention of the area in open space or as a reservation for high- way improvements without the need for the couplet would deprive the property owner of a reasonable use of his property. 9. The remaining significant effects of the project are acceptable when balanced against facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Con- siderations and stated above, giving; greater weight to the remaining, unavoidable significant effect, and are more acceptable than those anticipated from these Alternatives. BAYVIEW LANDING 1. No Project 2. Hotel 3. Commercial a. Increased b. Decreased 4. Residential 5. Recreational 6. Institutional The several Alternatives for development in Bayview Landing are reviewed in the Final EIR and listed above. Several of these alternative are rejected with the findings listed below. Findings Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the alternatives identified in the Final EIR and described above in that; 1. The project site specific was not a part of General Plan Amendment 80 -3. 2. The site specific No Project Alternative would have greater aesthetic impacts than the project. 3. The Hotel Alternative would have the greater impacts on land use, • aesthetics, and vehicular than would the project. 4. The Increase Commercial Alternative would have greater land use, aes- thetic, housing, vehicular, noise, and air quality impacts than would the proposed project. 5. The concept of a teen center is favored by civic leaders. 6. The teen center will provide employment and training for the youth of the community. • 0 119 7. The project will preserve views from the site for the motorist and pedestrian traveling along East Coast Highway. 8. The project will provide a reasonable use of the property that is or may not be available in another location within the community. 9. The commercial activities will be consistent with the Local Coastal Program in that they will provide visitor serving activities with the coastal zone. 10. The institutional use of the property was considered in the Draft EIR and the chosen use is with in the range of development intensity pro- posed and analyzed for the site. 11. The project proponent will dedicate and improve a view park facili- ties providing aesthetic and recreational amenities to the community. 12. The project proponent will dedicate a view park facility of not less than four acres. 13. Site plan review will ensure that views of and across the site are presented and potentially enhanced. 14. The remaining significant effects of the project are acceptable when balanced against facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Con- siderations and stated above, giving greater weight to the remaining, unavoidable significant effect, and are more acceptable than those anticipated from these Alternatives. NEWPORTER NORTH 1. No Project 2. Hotel 3. Residential a. Increased b. Decreased 4. Institutional 5. Recreational The several Alternatives for development in Newport North are reviewed in the Final EIR and listed above. Each of these alternative is rejected with the findings listed below. Findings Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the alternatives identified in the Final EIR and described above in that: 1. The project site specific was not a part of General Plan Amendment 80 -3. 2. The site specific No Project Alternative would have the same or less aesthetic and the same earth resources, water resources, biological resources, and cultural resource impacts as would the project. 3. The Hotel Alternative would have the greater impacts on land use, same or less vehicular, the same aesthetic, bikeways, pedestrian, earth resources, water resources, biological resources, and cultural resources impacts as would the project. 4. The project would not substantially change in appearance is a slight decrease in residential was made from that which was approved. 5. The project incorporates the potential for an institutional use, such as an Orange County Natural History Museum on the property in the cultural resources area. 6. The project will provide a reasonable use of the property that is or may not be available in another location within the community. 120 7. The institutional use of the property was considered in the Draft EIR and the chosen use is with in the range of development intensity pro- posed and analyzed for the site. 8. Any structures to be located in the cultural resource areas would require separate mitigation. • 9. The remaining significant effects of the project are acceptable when balanced against facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Con- siderations and stated above, giving greater weight to the remaining, unavoidable significant effect, and are more acceptable than those anticipated from these Alternatives. SAN DIEGO CREEK NORTH 1. Office 2. Commercial The several alternatives for development on the San Diego Creek North site are reviewed in the EIR and are listed above. Each of the alternatives was previously rejected for the development: of the proposed project. Action has been taken in the approval of the CPA 85 -1(B) EIR to incorporate the retention of a 2.5 acre fire station facility site. 1. The approved use is within the range of uses considered in the Draft EIR. 2. The project incorporates the potential for an institutional use of the property for a fire station. 3. The project will provide a reasonable use of the property that is or may not be available in another location within the community. 4. The remaining significant effects of the project are acceptable when balanced against facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding.Con- siderations and stated above, giving greater height to the remaining, unavoidable significant effect, and are more acceptable than those anticipated from these alternatives. WESTBAY 1. Residential. The alternative for development on the Westbay site is reviewed in the EIR and is listed above. This alternative was previously rejected for the development of the proposed project. Action has been taken in the approval of the CPA 85 -1(B) EIR to change the land use designation to allow for only recreational and environmental open space. 1 The project will provide a reasonable use of the property that is or may not be available in another location within the community. 2. The recreational and open space use of the site provides a balance of recreational and urban uses within the community. 3. Designation of the site for recreational and environmental open space implements the concept of a park for the Westbay site. 4. The project use of the property is considered an acceptable and • appropriate use adjacent to the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. 5. The project will preserve the cultural heritage of the site. 6. The use of the property will create an open space use providing visual relief in the community. 7. Use of the property for recreation and environmental open space will provide public views of the bay. 8. The project is consistent with the redevelopment plan of the County of Orange. 121 9. The remaining significant effects of the project are acceptable when balanced against facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Con- siderations and stated above, giving greater weight to the unavail- able significant effect and are more acceptable than those antici- pated from the alternative. SPECIFIC CIRCULATION ALTERNATIVES NO PROJECT - EXISTING GENERAL PLAN This alternative assumes development of the circulation system as described under the existing General Plan. The existing Circulation Element desig- nates MacArthur Boulevard and Avocado Avenue as a primary Couplet 3 -lanes in each direction. The roads are shown as a one -way couplet. Avocado Avenue as one -way south bound. MacArthur Boulevard as one -way north bound. No Project Alternative Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D The several Alternatives for development of Specific Circulation changes are reviewed in the Final EIR and listed above. Each of these alternative is rejected with the findings listed below. Findings Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the alternatives identified in the Final EIR and described above in that; 1. The specific circulation system alternative was not a part of General Plan Amendment 80 -3. 2. The alternatives are reject for the reason state in the Statement of Finding and Facts in Support of Finds made in conjunction with GPA 79 -2. 3. The remaining significant effects of the project are acceptable when balanced against facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Con- siderations and stated above, giving greater weight to the remaining, unavoidable significant effect, and are more acceptable than those anticipated from these Alternatives. JAMBOREE ROAD GRADE SEPARATION This alternative assumes the development of a grade separation at the intersection of East Coast Highway and Jamboree Road. ALTERNATIVE A: ROADWAY MODIFICATION The Alternative for development of a grade separation at East Coast Highway and Jamboree Road was reviewed in the Final EIR. The city choose the alternative a mitigation measure to project specific and cumulative impacts. Findings • Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the other alternatives identified in the Final EIR; 1. The specific circulation system alternative was not a part of General Plan Amendment 80 -3. 2. The grade separation is the only way to reduce traffic level to acceptable levels at the intersection. 3. The remainder of the alternatives were rejected for the reasons stated in the Final EIS and Project Report. 122 4. The remaining significant effects of the project are acceptable when balanced against facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Con- siderations and stated above, giving greater weight to the remaining, unavoidable significant effect, and are more acceptable than those anticipated from these Alternatives. ELIMINATION OF THE SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR • The alternative assumes the elimination of the San Joaquin Hills Transpor- tation Corridor (SJHTC). The Final EIR looked at the potential for the elimination of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC). The city did not select this as an alternative for the several reasons stated in the Final EIR and the Facts stated below. The City rejected this alternative with the following finding; 1. The elimination of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor is beyond the jurisdiction of the City of Newport Beach. 2. The elimination of the SJHTC would not lessen traffic and circulation problems within the community. 3. The alternative would not substantially effect the impact of project traffic. FORD ROAD CONNECTION TO THE SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AND SAN MIGUEL DRIVE CONNECTION TO THE SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRI- DOR The system would be modified to eliminate access provisions for the SJHTC to delete the interchange of Ford Road (extended) and to delete the portion of San Joaquin Hills Road between Pelican Hill Road and the SJHTC (the segment between Pelican Hill Road and San Canyon Road). The Final EIR looked at the potential for the elimination of the Ford Road Connection to the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC) and San Miguel Drive Connection to the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC) and the San Miguel Drive connection to the SJHTC. The city did not select this as an alternative for the several reasons stated in the Final EIR and the Facts stated below. The City rejected this alternative with the following finding; 1. The elimination of the roadways would make traffic conditions in the city worse than if the roadways were to be implemented. 2. The roadways are outside of the City of Newport Beach and as such are beyond the direct control of the community. 3. The city has adopted policy on the San Joaquin Hills that would be in direct conflict with the deletion of the major on ramps. PELICAN HILL ROAD CONNECTION TO THE SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRI- DOR The system would be modified to eliminate the portion of Pelican Hill Road between the SJHTC and Bonita Canyon Road. • The Final EIR looked at the potential for the elimination of the Pelican Hill Road connection to the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC). The city did not select this as an alternative for the several reasons stated in the Final EIR and the Facts stated below. The City rejected this alternative with the following; finding; 1. The connection is outside of the city and is the responsibility of another jurisdiction. 2. The impacts of the deletion of the roadway are those described in the Final EIR. 3. The deletion of the roadway will not effect project traffic impacts to a significant extent. 123 4. The deletion of the roadway will not better traffic and circulation in the City of Newport Beach. ELIMINATION OF PARKING ON EAST COAST HIGHWAY IN CORONA DEL MAR This alternative would be to provide peak hour parking restrictions or total parking restrictions on East Coast Highway in Corona del Mar. • The Final EIR looked at the elimination of parking on East Coast Highway in Corona del Mar. The City did not select this alternative for several reasons stated in the Final EIR and the Facts stated below. The City rejected this alternative with the following finding; 1. Merchants in Corona del Mar are opposed to the elimination of parking on East Coast Highway. 2. Residents in Corona del Mar are opposed to the elimination of parking on East Coast Highway. 3. The deletion of parking would hurt business in the Corona del Mar area. UNIVERSITY DRIVE EXTENSION The alternative would be the extension of University Drive from Jamboree Road to Irvine Avenue. The Final EIR looked at the potential for the Extension of University Drive. The city did not select this as an alternative for the several rea- sons stated in the Final EIR and the Facts stated below. The City rejected this alternative with the following finding; 1. The extension of University Drive is acceptable at this time to the community and is not a part of the City' adopted LCP. 2. The roadway would create significant biological impacts that cannot be deemed accepted at this time to the community. 3. The roadway would not eliminate the specific area of major concern in the Corona Del Mar area. • Exhibit 2 1 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The California Environmental Quality Act requires a public agency to bal- ance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environ- mental risks in determining whether to approve the project. The City of • Newport Beach has determined that the unavoidable risks of this project are acceptable when balanced against the benefits of this project, giving greater weight to the unavoidable environmental risks. In making this determination, the following factors and public benefits were considered or decisions made: 1. The proposed project and its individual components are consistent and compatible with other existing and proposed uses in the vicinity of the project and community in general. 2. The proposed project represents infill development located in an urban area where adequate facilities and services are available. 3. The density and intensity of the project is appropriate. 4. The density and intensity of the project is similar to the existing adjacent development. 5. The proposed project will implement established policies of the Gen- eral Plan Housing Element to increase the production of housing. 6. The proposed project supports the City's responsibility to designate sufficient vacant land for residential use with appropriate standards to produce housing at the lowest possible cost consistent with Sec- tion 65913 of the Government code. 7. The proposed project will contribute to a fair share of roadway improvements, specifically the City's Fair Share Traffic contribution Ordinance No. 8416, and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Fee Program. 8. Revenues generated by the proposed project will exceed costs associ- ated with serving the proposed project: resulting in a financial gain to the City. 9. The proposed project includes the development of a transit terminal in Newport Center, thereby encouraging use of mass transit and a reduction in traffic. 10. Increased number of residences will be developed in Newport Center and Peripheral Sites, in close prcximity to shopping and a major employment center. 11. In view of all factors the project represents a reasonable balance and mix of uses for the project area. 12. The majority of impacts associated with this project are regional in nature, and the project's cumulative and incremental contribution to those impacts is considered minimal and acceptable from a regional perspective. • 13. The proposed project is needed to maintain quality in Fashion Island and the Center's competitiveness with other regional shopping and office centers. This benefits the City fiscally and the residents of the City. 14. Roadway improvements to which the proposed project will be required to contribute an equitable share will add roadway capacity in excess of that required to accommodate the increase in project - related traf- fic, and will thereby aide in alleviating existing traffic congestion in the City. PA 15. The proposed project supports the City's policy to eliminate con- straints to housing production, increase allowed density, and to pro- vide incentives to the building industry to facilitate the provision of housing for low and moderate income: housing. 16. The proposed project provides a regional circulation improvements, • such as the construction of Pelican Hill Road that will improve the quality of life in the community by directing travel around rather than through the community. 17. The project provides for child care in close proximity to employment. This has been identified as a major need within the community. 18. The project provides $50 million in circulation system improvements. 19. The project provides $1 million in landscape improvements that are not required to mitigate environmental impacts of the project or meed existing city requirements. 20. The project will provide additional office space within the commu- nity. This will allow many firms to remain in Newport Center, rather than moving to other employment areas when they need to expand. 21. The project will provide for the expansion of major retail tenants within the Center. This will allow them to continue to be competi- tive with other regional commercial centers. 22. The project will help to implement the County of Orange Upper Newport Bay Regional Park. This will benefit citizens well beyond the City and County boundaries. 23. The project will improve coastal access by providing view opportuni- ties across the Bayview Landing site. 24. The project will improve coastal access and preserve coastal resources by providing important setbacks from biological and archae- ological resources on the Newporter North site. 25. The project will provide job training and employment to the communi- ties youth through the opportunity afforded by the teen center con- cept. 26. The size and scale of the project will allow for the retention of small employers within the community. 27. The retention of cost effective offices in a garden park setting will be provided as well as high rise office development. This provides a needed mix of opportunities for employers. 28. The project will reduce the loss of sales tax to other communities by the provision of new commercial opportunities. 29. The project will provide appropriate controls on drainage areas. This will improve to a limited extent, water quality in Newport Bay. 30. The project will provide visitor serving commercial activities in the Coastal Zone at the Bayview Landing site. This is consistent with • and supported by the Coastal Act. 31. The project provides for alternative transportation opportunities by implementation of bicycle facilities. These include individual bicycle trails, bicycle racks and staging on the Bayview Landing site, opportunities on the Newporter North site, and regional trails on Pelican Hill Road. 32. The project provides leisure time activities in Fashion Island such as movies, restaurants, and other activity generators. These will achieve community desires of improving nighttime activities in the Center. M 33. The project will add recreational opportunities to the Center in the form of a major health club. This will improve the quality and pos- sibility quantity of life of the communities residents and employees in the center. 34. Funds and /or land will be provided for parks in the community through • the City Park Dedication Ordinance. 35. Funds will be provided for noise walls in the community to less cumu- lative project noise impacts through the City's Fair Share Traffic contribution Ordinance No. 8416. 36. The project will establish planning limits on the intensity and den- sity of land use for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites. l J Exhibit 3 (Location I Allowable 1 (Block 0- Corporate Plaza 1 I-------------------------- -- 445,200 (0)I -'- 1----- (Block 100 - Gateway Plaza 1 ---- - - 165,000 - - - -I (0)I I----------------- ----- ----- '-- - I • IBlock 200- Design Plaza 1 1 ------------------------------- ---- ------ --- 150,000 - - I (0)I I IBlock 300 1 --------------- 80,000 I (0)1 1 1 I----------------- ---- 2,400 (T)1 -------- - I IBlock 400 - Medical Plaza 1 I--------------------------- - ---- ----- -- 380,000 --- I (0)I --- I IBlock 500 1 I---------------- -------------- ---------- - 323,550 - - - - I (0)1 I---------- IBlock 600 1 - 1,100,000 - - - -I (0)I 1 1 I------------------------------- 325 (H)I _ I---------- IBlock 700 - Pacific Mutual 1 I------------------------------ - 290,800 - - - -1 (0)1 I IBlock 800 1 ---------- - 693,100 - - - - I (0)1 1 1 I------------------------------ 8,000 (C)1 I --------- (Blocks 700 /800 -Civic Plaza 1 - - 234,706 - - - - I (0)1 1 1 I------------------------------ 113,000 (I)] I ------- IBlock 900- Marriott Hotel 1 --- - - 611 - - - I (H)1 I Granville Apartmental 67 (R)1 I 1 I------------------------------ 10,000 (0)1 I --------- (Avocado /MacArthur 1 - - - 44,000 - - - I (0)] I 1 I---------------------------- -- 15,000 ------ (C)I I---- ]Newport Village I I----------------------- - - 560 - - - I (R)1 ------- I---------- (Corporate Plaza West, 1 I------------------------------ - - 123,400 - - - I (0)l I ---------- (Villa Point 1 I----------------------------- - - 284 - - - I (R)i - I ---------- (Fashion Island 1 - - 1,429,250 - - - I (C)] I 1 1------------------------------ I---------- 2,500 (T)1 ISea Island I I -------------------------- - - 132 - - -I (R)] ---- I- IMiacellaneous I ---- ----- - - - - - I I I Institutional I 58,100 (I)l I Golf -18 holes I t I Automotive -5 acres I 1 I Tennis -24 courts I i ]TOTALS 1 4,039,756 (0)I I 1 1,452,250 (C)1 I 1 4,900 (T)I I 1 936 (H)t I 1 1,043 (R); 1 171,100 (I)I •