Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-13 - Certifying Environmental Impact Report No. ER2018-001, Making Facts and Findings, and Approving a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in Accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Harbor Pointe Senior Living ProjectRESOLUTION NO. 2019-13 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. ER2018-001, MAKING FACTS AND FINDINGS, AND APPROVING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FOR THE HARBOR POINTE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT — A SENIOR CONVALESCENT AND CONGREGATE CARE FACILITY LOCATED AT 101 BAYVIEW PLACE (PA2015-210) WHEREAS, an application was filed by Harbor Pointe Senior Living LLC of California ("Applicant"), with respect to property located at 101 Bayview Place, and legally described as Lot 1 of Tract No. 12528 in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California, as per Map recorded in Book 551 Pages 38 through 41 inclusive of Miscellaneous Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County, Assessor's Parcel No. 442-283-05 ("Property"); WHEREAS, the Applicant proposes the demolition of an existing approximately 8,800 square -foot restaurant ("Kitayama") to accommodate the development of an approximately 85,000 square -foot, three-story senior convalescent and congregate care facility (i.e., memory care and assisted living) as a State -licensed Residential Care Facility for the Elderly ("RCFE") with 120 beds ("Project"); WHEREAS, in order to implement the Project, the Applicant requests or requires the following approvals from the City of Newport Beach ("City"): • General Plan Amendment ("GPA") — The current land use designation is General Commercial Office ("CO -G") which allows 8,000 square feet for restaurant use or 70,000 square feet for office use. The general plan amendment would change the CO -G land use designation to Private Institutions ("PI") and amend Anomaly No. 22 to allow the 85,000 square foot RCFE (Table LU2 and associated figures); • Planned Community Development Plan Amendment (Zoning) — To change the allowed land uses and amend development standards in Area 5 of the Bayview Planned Community ("PC -32") Zoning District; • Major Site Development Review — To ensure the Project is developed in accordance with the applicable planned community and zoning code development standards and regulations pursuant to Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC") Section 20.52.080 (Site Development Reviews); Resolution No. 2019-13 Page 2 of 5 • Conditional Use Permit — To allow the use of the Property as a 120 bed RCFE (memory care and assisted living facility) with conditions of approval that protect the health, safety and general welfare of the surrounding community; • Development Agreement — The applicant has requested a development agreement, which will provide for public benefits as the project is implemented; and • Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") — To address reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts of the Project with corresponding mitigation measures that reduce those environmental impacts in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") in 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et. seq. and the California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq. WHEREAS, the Property is located within the PC -32 Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Element category is designated as CO -G; WHEREAS, the Property is not located within the coastal zone; therefore, a coastal development permit is not required; WHEREAS, on February 23, 2017, the Planning Commission held a study session in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California, to provide initial direction on the Project. No action was taken at the study session. Although not required, the City mailed a courtesy public notice of this study session to property owners within a 300' radius of the Property; WHEREAS, on September 13, 2018, the Planning Commission held a study session in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California, to receive a project update and review the draft EIR. No action was taken at the study session. Although not required, the City mailed a courtesy public notice of this study session to property owners within a 300' radius of the Property; WHEREAS, on December 6, 2018, the Planning Commission held a public hearing in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with California Government Code Section 54950 et. seq. ("Ralph M. Brown Act") and Chapter 20.62 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC"). Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this public hearing; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. PC2018-033 by a unanimous vote of 6-0 recommending approval of the Project, and the land use entitlements referenced above, to the City Council; Resolution No. 2019-13 Page 3 of 5 WHEREAS, pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1, the City is required to consult with California Native American tribes that have requested in writing to be informed of proposed projects in the geographic area that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the tribe. Two tribes have requested notification in writing. The tribal contacts were provided notice on February 12, 2016. California Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1 requires 30 days prior to City Council action to allow tribal contacts to respond with a request to consult. A response letter was received from the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation on May 4, 2016, requesting that a monitor from their tribe oversee ground disturbing construction work. An additional letter was received August 17, 2018. During consultation with staff, City Council Policy K-5 was discussed which requires a qualified archaeologist be present during ground breaking, as well as General Plan Historical Resources Policy HR 2.3 (Cultural Organizations) which requires notification to cultural organizations, including Native American organizations, of proposed developments that have the potential to adversely impact cultural resources and to allow representatives of such groups to monitor grading and/or excavation of development sites. Andrew Salas, the representative for the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation, disagreed that the implementation of those two policies would be sufficient. Accordingly, a condition of approval was included as part of the conditional use permit/site development approval review requiring tribal monitoring. Consultation was closed; WHEREAS, pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq., the State CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code of Regulations, Sections 15000 et seq.), and City Council Policy K-3, it was determined that the project could have a significant adverse effect on the environment, and thus warranted the preparation of an EIR; WHEREAS, on July 22, 2016, the City, as lead agency under CEQA, prepared a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") of the EIR and mailed that NOP to responsible and trustee public agencies, organizations likely to be interested in the potential impacts, property owners within a 300' radius of the Property, and any persons who had previously requested notice in writing; WHEREAS, on August 15, 2016, the City held a public scoping meeting to present the project and to solicit input from interested individuals, organizations, and responsible and trustee public agencies regarding environmental issues that should be addressed in the EIR; WHEREAS, a draft Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2016071062) ("DEIR") and errata have been prepared in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K-3; Resolution No. 2019-13 Page 4 of 5 WHEREAS, the DEIR was circulated for a 50 day comment period beginning on August 10, 2018, and ending on September 28, 2018. The DEIR, comments, and responses to the comments were considered by the Planning Commission in its review of the proposed project; WHEREAS, the Final EIR ("FEIR"), consisting of the NOP, DEIR, Responses to Comments, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached as Exhibits "A" and "B," and incorporated herein by reference, were considered by the Planning Commission in its review of the proposed project; WHEREAS, the FEIR does not identify any significant impacts to the environment which are unavoidable; and WHEREAS, on the basis of the entire environmental review record, the Project, with mitigation measures, will have a less than significant impact upon the environment and there are no known substantial adverse effects on human beings that would be caused. Additionally, there are no long-term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project, nor cumulative impacts anticipated in connection with the project. The mitigation measures identified and incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit B), which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, are feasible and will reduce the potential environmental impacts, with the exception of short-term construction related noise, to a less than significant level. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach resolves as follows: Section 1: The City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby certifies Environmental Impact Report No. ER2018-001 (SCH No. 2016071062), attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference. EIR No. ER2018-001 consists of the Notice of Preparation, Draft Environmental Impact Report, Appendices, Responses to Comments, and Clarifications and Revisions to the Draft Environmental Impact Report. Section 2: The City Council has reviewed and hereby adopts the "CEQA Findings of Fact for the Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project, Final Environmental Impact Report" attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and incorporated herein by reference in accordance with 14 California Code of Regulations, Section 15091 and the California Public Resources Code Section 21081. Section 3: The City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves the Mitigation Monitoring Report Program, attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by reference. Section 4: The recitals provided in this resolution are true and correct and are incorporated into the operative part of this resolution. Resolution No. 2019-13 Page 5 of 5 Section 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this resolution. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this resolution, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Section 6: The City Council finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In addition, project opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges. As project applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate that such applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial challenge, and bear the responsibility for any costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which may be awarded to a successful challenger. Section 7: This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting the resolution. ADOPTED this 12th day of February, 2019 ATTEST: f Leilani I. Brown City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Diane B. Dixon Mayor laY�n't�� vJ Caro Harp City Attorney Attachments: Exhibit A - Environmental Impact Report No. ER2018-001 Exhibit B - Mitigation Monitoring Report Program Exhibit C — Facts and Findings Regarding the Environmental Effects of the Approval of the Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project Exhibit "A" Environmental Impact Report EIR SCH No. 2016071062 • Notice of Preparation • Environmental Analysis • Alternatives Analysis • Appendices • Responses to Comments • Clarifications and Revisions to Draft EIR (Available separate due to bulk) http://www. newportbeachca.gov/index.aspx?paqe= 1347 Exhibit "B" Mitigation Monitoring Report Program Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for Final Environmental ImpactReport Harbor Pointe!aProject (PA2015®210) SCH No. 2016071062 City of Newport Beach Community Development Department 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Contact: Benjamin Zdeba, AICP bzdeba@newportbeachca.gov 949.644.3253 December 2018 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for Final Environmental Impact Report Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project (PA2015-210) SCH No. 2016071062 December 2018 Lead Agency: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Community Development Department 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Contact: Benjamin Zdeba, AICP Prepared by: Psomas 3 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 200 Santa Ana, California 92707 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.................................................................................1 1.1 Introduction.........................................................................................................................1 1.2 Mitigation Monitoring Procedures.............................................................................1 1.3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program....................................................1 HARBOR POINTE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ACRONYM LIST The following are acronyms used in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Matrix: A ALS Advanced Life Support ALUC Airport Land Use Commission APN Assessor's Parcel Number C CBC California Building Code CEQA California Environmental Quality Act City City of Newport Beach CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level CO -G General Commercial Office Council City of Huntington Beach City Council CULT Cultural Resources D dBA A -weighted decibels E EIR Environmental Impact Report F Final EIR Final Environmental Impact Report, Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project (2018) G GEO Geology and Soils H HAZ Hazards and Hazardous Materials L Ley Interior Average Hourly Noise Level LU Land Use and Planning M MM Mitigation Measure MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program N NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NBMC Newport Beach Municipal Code NOI Noise NOI Notice of Intent O OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration P PC -32 Bayview Planned Community Development Plan PI Private Institution Program Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program R RR Regulatory Requirement 11 HARBOR POINTE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SR State Route TRAN Transportation and Traffic HARBOR POINTE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 1.1 INTRODUCTION In accordance with the requirements of Section 21081.6 of the California Public Resources Code, and as part of its certification of the adequacy of Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) for the Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project, the City Council (Council) of the City of Newport Beach (City) adopts the following Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP or Program). The Council adopts this MMRP in its capacity as the lead agency for Final EIR in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.), and the City of Newport Beach Monitoring Requirements. The principal purpose of the MMRP is to ensure that the Council -approved mitigation measures and development requirements for the adopted Project are reported and monitored to ensure compliance with the measures' requirements. In general, City of Newport Beach, Community Development Department is responsible for overseeing implementation and completion of the adopted measures. This includes the review of all monitoring reports, enforcement actions, and document disposition, unless otherwise noted in the attached MMRP Table. However, the Council retains overall responsibility for verifying implementation of all adopted mitigation measures. 1.2 MITIGATION MONITORING PROCEDURES The City is the designated lead agency for the MMRP. The Community Development Department is responsible for reviewing all monitoring reports, enforcement actions, and document disposition, unless otherwise noted in the MMRP Table. 1.3 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The MMRP is provided in tabular format to facilitate effective tracking and documentation of the status of regulatory requirements and mitigation measures. The attached MMRP Table provides the following monitoring information: • Regulatory Requirements. The text of all adopted Regulatory Requirements for the Project from Final EIR. • Mitigation Measures. The text of all adopted mitigation measures for the Project from Final EIR. • Responsible for Implementation. The Project Applicant or designated representative is the responsible party for implementing the measure, and the City of Newport Beach or a designated representative is responsible for monitoring implementation of the measure, unless noted differently. • Timing of Mitigation. A time frame is provided for performance of the mitigation measure, and the points selected are designed to ensure that impact -related components do not proceed without establishing that the mitigation is implemented. HARBOR POINTE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program • Responsibility for Monitoring. The City Department(s) or other public agency(ies) responsible for overseeing the implementation and completion of each measure. • Completion Date. The date the measure is completed. This column of the MMRP Table is to be filled in by the approving/verifying authority at a later date. Upon completion, the MMRP and associated documentation will be kept on file at the City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, Planning Division) 1.4 PROJECT LOCATION The 1.5 -acre Project site is located in the City of Newport Beach, Orange County, California. It is located southwest of State Route (SR) 73, less than one-half mile from the intersection of Jamboree Road and Bristol Street. Specifically, the subject property is immediately bound by Bristol Street and SR -73 on the northeast, Bayview Place and a six -story office building complex on the southeast, Baycrest condominiums on the southwest, and a three-story office building with parking below and the Santa Ana Heights residential neighborhood to the northwest. The current address of the site is 101 Bayview Place, Newport Beach, California 92660. The assessor's parcel number (APN) is 442-283-05. Currently, the Project site is accessed by a driveway on Bayview Place, located along the southeastern Project boundary. Access to Bayview Place is provided by Bristol Street to the northeast and Bayview Way to the south. Jamboree Road, a major north -south thoroughfare, is approximately 0.20 mile east of the Project boundary and provides access to both Bristol Street and Bayview Place. SR -73 is located approximately 0.05 mile north of the Project site and provides access to Jamboree Road from Southbound SR 73. 1.5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY The Project site consists of 1.5 acres of developed land bound by Bristol Street and SR -73 on the northeast, Bayview Place and a six -story office building complex on the southeast, Baycrest condominiums on the southwest, and a three-story office building with parking below and the Santa Ana Heights residential neighborhood to the northwest. The Project consists of applications for a General Plan Amendment (GP2015-004), Planned Community Development Plan Amendment (PD2015-005) for the Bayview Planned Community, Major Site Development Review (SD2015-007), Conditional Use Permit (UP2015-047), Development Agreement (DA2018-006), and Environmental Impact Report (ER2018-001). Approval of these applications would allow for the demolition and removal of the existing approximate 8,800 -square -foot, single -story restaurant, associated parking, and improvements on the site; preparation of the site for redevelopment; and construction of a three-story building with a proposed gross floor area of 84,517 square feet, containing 101 assisted living and memory care units' (120 beds), ancillary uses, and subsurface parking. The units would consist of 42 assisted living studios, 27 assisted living one -bedroom units, 12 assisted living two - Under the existing General Plan, the site is designated for CO -G (General Commercial Office) land uses. The proposed designation of the Project site is PI (Private Institutions), which allows for congregate care homes and convalescent facilities. NBMC Chapter 2070 (Definitions) defines convalescent facilities as establishments that provide care on a 24-hour basis for persons requiring regular medical attention. 2 HARBOR POINTE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program bedroom units, 13 memory care one -bedroom units, and 7 memory care two-bedroom units. Additionally, the proposed facility would include living rooms, dining rooms, grill, fitness room, spa/salon, theater, library, roof garden, community store, computer lab, activity room, medication rooms, and support uses such as offices, lab, mail room, laundry, and maintenance facilities. Separate interior courtyards would offer seating, outdoor dining, and landscaping for the assisted living and memory care residents. The building height is 33 feet at the top of the roof and 39 feet and 6 inches at the highest point, which includes mechanical equipment screening. This is within the height limits for the site in the existing Bayview Planned Community text. Landscaping, drive aisles, and passenger drop-off would also be provided on the property. Construction is expected to take 12 to 14 months. Building excavation would require the removal of approximately 10,300 cubic yards, of which 10,200 cubic yards would be exported and 100 cubic yards would be used for site fill. UNIT MIX AND ANCILLARY USES AT THE FACILITY The first floor of the facility would house the 20 memory care units, including 13 one -bedroom units and 7 two-bedroom units, in addition to a total of 5 assisted living studios. The first floor would also include the main lobby, memory care lobby, living rooms, dining rooms, private dining area, kitchen, courtyards, a patio area, library, copy room, grille, resident care rooms, care offices, quiet room, support facility, administrative offices, mail room, and restroom facilities. The second floor includes assisted living studios, assisted living one -bedroom units, and assisted living two-bedroom units. The 19 assisted living studios are 400 square feet and 480 square feet in size; the 14 assisted living one -bedroom units range in size between 600 and 695 square feet; and the 6 assisted living two-bedroom units range in size from 667 to 870 square feet. In addition, this floor includes lobbies, computer lab, activity room, support facility, housekeeping, storage, standard residential laundry, and administrative office space. The third floor includes assisted living studios, assisted living one -bedroom units, and assisted living two-bedroom units. The 18 assisted living studios are 400 square feet and 480 square feet in size; the 13 assisted living one -bedroom units range in size between 600 and 695 square feet; and the 6 assisted living two-bedroom units range in size from 667 to 870 square feet. In addition, this floor includes lobbies, computer lab, support facilities, housekeeping, storage, standard residential laundry, assisted living roof garden, and restroom facilities. The basement includes parking spaces, lobbies, theater, ticket booth, theater concession, community store, storage, fitness room, spa, salon, staff breakroom, restroom facilities, maintenance, mechanical room, commercial laundry, and electric room. CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN The Project proposes to retain the existing mature landscaping and further enhance it with additional trees and planting along the property line. In addition to trees around the perimeter of the site, the proposed structure would be surrounded by a concrete walk and trees/plantings. Approximately 33 percent of the site would be landscaped upon completion. The Project proposes two interior courtyards, separated by a decorative stone wall with cap, for the assisted living and memory care residents and their guests. The assisted living courtyard HARBOR POINTE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program would include outdoor dining tables and chairs; lounge seating area with trellis, fire element, and wood paving; a water feature; large specimen tree in a raised planter; decorative pots with accent planting; and pedestal paving. The memory care courtyard would include bench seating, planting area, small accent trees in raised planters, water feature, decorative pots with accent planting, and enhanced concrete paving. Additionally, an outdoor amenity/patio is proposed at the northeast of the building's main entrance/waiting area. The patio would include enhanced paving, gardens, seating, and an overhead trellis. PROIECT ACCESS /PARKING An entrance driveway and passenger drop-off are proposed with direct access from Bayview Place, along the southeastern boundary of the Project site. Access to the underground parking is off the main entry, and an exit -only emergency drive to Bristol Street is on the northwest corner of the site. The emergency exit to Bristol Street would include an emergency gate with a Knox - Box. A drive aisle is also provided on the southwest and northwest sides of the building. Section 20.40.040 (Off -Street Parking Spaces Required) of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) requires one parking space per three beds for convalescent facilities; therefore, the proposed Project would be required to provide a total of 40 parking spaces (36 standard and 4 accessible or barrier -free). However, the proposed Project includes 53 parking spaces, which is 13 spaces or approximately 33 percent more than the City requirement. Of the proposed 53 parking spaces, 49 would be standard and 4 would be accessible or barrier -free. 4 HARBOR POINTE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT b c Ca c o � 0 y v F.. u C" us" u a; LO � � m cC •� cC •� bL 0.1 0.01 m p0q czO 0 y 3 CL z O 0 E 0 z p 0 0 E cu z c�. E 0 E �- N w w o 0 p c .V) oaa) a3) N o Q)) (1).� ) co o a) .? vUAAA vc)AAA .� UUAAA 0 O Ubco a) w Ebn ybjD CZ o u bo r. r- A U A cC LL ,N by cz CU O 0 O O �� 0 L7. V O Cts .qtr O 0 L" ""' > cz G 0 a) c)O 0 t a.-) AOd U o ava`"a a, 0 0 u � o _ o m _ o o ro p "" cz +� o p C O s. .5 y_ ro o° UO ^ cv O - o p u y O "0 o a, " s. F> a� o E y G � O i, C u cc � O C O � r 0 u •� 0 iN x Q o GL M w 0 ., 14 @ S~�. o.. E ,> a E bA•� Q) 000 a1 .N o ,, o a0o ?, Cz a) o cri n o bA a, o '� O n? u I- �* O M 3 c° `° a) C ca H O Y a) '_;, a.. F � s>. CZ � O � � C '0 ¢• CJ � = x N z C bA � 10. 0 O tV ! � �: �? N co c° Q) a) 4' Z E M 0 p 3 A a) cls p .": O O is O a) �' `_' °: CZ E 0 O a", N Co +' N p C 0 .0 s. a) 41 p' s. 4' 'O a) y etit 0 U ro to GL LS. N o 30. rs C bq O E La 'p a V .0 4- N v s: 3 a� '� L1. z o w o CU O 4 E cd Z cz O w .+' >� p s. C y E v °' ° aEi v v o Q 41 U CZ ,p CZ ro a`oi o `CL)�" m> Z Z3 ', � W M y W b�0 v O N is O x' y y a p U fl w ' .0 C }' _ _N A o Lr �.+ > +� cup U t0 Z a� x o o � Cl. w o a) Z C) ^� y0 E w is m= V) =— 3 a) CL. O O bA .o c� o .� 2 y N UO �a U � u 'o E 0 .� y 0 n � � p n � 06 bA � .c vii � o �+ N iC o �' � a) � U O O N U 7 �+ d N ++ U .0 t" , 3. m b.0 L Lf) O O� 0 C. E 0 NO y E % rn vp O M O cC •O 9 U [� U U O '0 p a) cz O y L. cz O UTs a) a) a) �. x a) O O 0 0 0 = c m r" 4 0 0 0 V L)Lnz 0 0 0 a) Cc)z p •� s, 3 u s� s. > O 7-. is as a�Uoa C V) °: m � F V U U Ln 0 cam, A a� 0 h v w y qD p� r.. o ..0� U U Q a� a c .r F C CZ 0 0 cz bb CD U_ fl c o 0 LZ < O a� O 4' U H CL � W N �' N 'o a r. 0 v0 as Ecz .- M a y o a) a 0 0 cz c o� "m O G N CU 'C w CC bA c O' G m> a) ' N 'LY 3 a� m N a �� x� - � V a O bn a o° s. bn o A� 3 G. E N V '� �' p> N O a. bA 0 tC 'y ^" Y N ac'i 04 N o <C o w tC p -d 0 3 ip y w a) O O O C ti G aui a) O L O O N_ ) cC s. 4O c. OO bD p 041 ro o �; u 0 0 > 0> 3 v¢ .0 ¢ 0 s- 0 o � •� N x y -0 cc nt y, O w L. O O p C u O bA bU O s. .� N O N C N O C7. O iC O .-. ; w .0 u .� O .O .0 'C o N O� .0 U .p y� W p p bA T3 O a) O N O CZ U cpa N p s0. O O N U .�. p .O �. ,� Y 5,,, O 0 0 S3. p o N O N u 0 O O N u 'C O 7 O M .0 ,� y0 p ' V) G vpi > S3. bb .� `.� GL O bn bA y O ��cz u O o ^� w v 'Lf N '� vNi a) N p, c". o �, •as _o 'o A o -OC .c a. u..� C ca w u u. cd F-� u. ,.� u cc u p 0 o u • • • • • C u ' c � � W V G 0 r, A a, a a. o w 'b O v O y ro N cu , Q C] 4. O p F w CD + O y a pG � bA 4-1 ZI L1. UN " •" ro O U > ro ,S] U C N i. C O O ) bbn � N 'V-' N U .fl U U •E Sh U fC _� S.O. •N fA O U N -c 'Or. N 1+ N ii +•� U N N s. ro U 'C U cu 'p •- O N c„� O N ro U ,W cz � 3 U O .pp • C 'N +�+ 0 N O i,s w ^bO yNp, N 'o .0 O O N y -o E N u a.o °' > U.E.aU o 3 �, 'r=+ O z 04. o y p ^O = N N v y Sr •� Np GC E O &. C GZ. N p G y0, u bA O .0 N bA r.OU O U 'O O O L". >3. 'CS r• ❑ O ro +' U O y x N +' OCl� O s. G O q oma' �° o °„ba o a °'1Z bn U.� v 3 � �Y'�U C U o O ro g O u o N �0 U w° ro o o• s v d C a� O u ro y CL W N O O ro N O bA N ' U 4 � O L7. ro o c ° o ', d o o �' a a ,� F3 a, o o 0.2 '+� " s~ °' E E ' .° ' "EL �:' c ° o o - '- •v � a > a, o >~ o bo v bA E o v E O ro c� s o •- O. �� E b b cz cu ro d O 'C m ro d 3" y .> N N N y � t cp 'O , R ro y 4p •O ro U N C bA '� E O 'in OU O C •� iC bA G O O N V L. Lam. �+ S.: p�'O y �,+ G •� GL C b Up S•+ sU. s�. O prop o� C:) w n s°'. w cn o a s°'. cOc v w° ° w .? tzOi ° in cua v ° ° v sem. O z¢ r, I cam. A Q, p d � co U � H v bA W y iS 1� tw 0. m .. Lam. O 4+ I a�° z0Ec w O O G1 E ° O m N_ p N N •� N p 0 O ro C O O N .4� G N H Y o Y 5 3 o a w � d � U y'' ori a o O O y U 4O 4� U H ¢, so N 4-1 0 0 a Y a� ccz v o iC H CL •p "p z L.' V)O -0 O +-+ bAti '� bA C _ p cC O c0 'd y, U ics cC O_ O i:, s. h O 'O U O O ° O m N O O U CIS +J rn N y 2 r. N "o N � U .'L. .N > -0 by x E 0 O p N O � N �" m V) A ct bio C g p O t3 O N o [j X ` C4 O c0 m �O s. o o W cu ��++ C4' aaj E `� Q) 3 A o 4. F Vl td N 0E z tid% d O ME O OC1 ❑ t. p O '•• CL)" >, cC p0, N zy"p rF, ~ 1 U 'O 'O (d 9 O OO O N v .0 G" S.. u �, b •• V N . O p'+O O C LMcz O U "O " z I y O C O Q) O V v tw O p O' •2 U 0. �. 0 O p 4. ccz x w 4-1 4,,' p O a� bA cn to cC o � � � � y CU 04 O a N 41 C rC CO 0� �" .ro � 1:1 p S: u d p b0 ai o N Ca b0 is i� ,� U V1 o -- O 0 ^O O O 'N c0 N CD N O ..r F E >_.' LS bA ++ O G: �, to O O SO. >~ N O J� p c0 ° M O C O� p O cC M O sem. z O Z! s. >~ E N GT. u, .O O cu 'O Sb cz o cs o 6 d �° ("L)V) ° a s~ bO a? c o s� O s. a� V Y a A co� w Y w 0. OG G ccz .�� 1 ° o cd OU .4 :� o �' a °> cu cu b y N p cc O Ls o N 3 a 4�(A°: °z 0 Ln Q a.V) �Q N = N N a s °B' 1. .- A M o v U a) a) m Ld tc E, 0 41 0 a 0 °o. q a c y 4,oo . � a z�aEO ami y E ami z y ami zca. EO M o E° .E o E o t .0 o E 0 .E 04 o>�:> �E>a' u'E>a'> U U A A L1 U v O Q A v U Q Q A O m ca c o s~ w y 0 °" Q) c o bn a� Cz E eti E C cc O N 0 4_ •° y U j u cn yam, ami f� ., .. F bU . CZ s0. I y 1 4-1 m p 0 1 m tV0 N y .0 O m y A i:. o W a u uo ° c a O O U43 yr d Q. o a ', y o O � U a d o z� aE M �..� N N � w _O 4. .p V a) cz 000 wUU 0 �cc>a a'aQq a p A U +..i O m d +� N N V N M d p a) m E O O 0. O L. cua a— y CD f o cc o '� E CS '4D U O w O m O a0i ro 0 'O —q s.. V) O ..fl O C13_p "lCf 'O G) V) .� 'E �= CT a) y V) p y 'O O L-' � CZ 4 7 E m-rnw0 -0 'a a cu O x 0 °' °' Q. �"' f� .in 0 0 °4' 'N 0. °�' m N N '-� x oEn •c w 'u 0 A o o O '� o a s~ cc w 3 E o CO > z E o .N > A �- .E 0 0 U a) o a 3 's: a s 0 >~ 0 N 0 ro 0 0 w t o sc. v O a N .E > 4' 3 °1 axi �' o > ° o p 0 o v 0° w w a v cc A o .� s. °~ d (D o aEi d 0 cm o O .fl 0 3 V a E o m 0 0 ca o a� '� o 0 In E E O ,'� Ci V) N V N .�4b .� ti U N bA •.. O N O N C ¢ c� c° �, �o �'3U 0 u 0 E O (3) off N p `�°, `_ m E 4,1 > .� 0. '- a m cc S.O. V) 0 N 4. -0 Z _ U o .� m a cC m cc .0 O o 0Co y O cc .0 O U.V o u O U M _O O U 0 4+ 0. o O V) a'c`" E E '-vr o r o m m x E z 0 u.o o is o o 4,-o V, .a o° CSD O. 0. v O w aui af°i C LVA. $D. m E a'"i PL. 'c w m O "CJ d w A a co d U A 'O N 4; p r N 0 O E 3 ,cC u m > d 0 y w t. �'' m N 10, O S.O., M .y cC O O m 6" p •.. 0 0 �•-� o a) a) 'O .a V O m •.. .E d w N > '.. (]. U O ... 0 cuc 3 a) ., O m N �' o oo p bA N •o VO cc 0 0 E U -8 a, E O E m C U ) a) b O p w .ti 0 N m z cc 0 E V O W a o V) � d }^ m is E s. O p a' 'S E E o 3 S 1 P� o f o A A a) o ai U 3 U o w cz a, a zO cmc cua z ,o U� rJ cmc W v° N M � a oac a 0 g A Q, CU ca 0 v u U W N cz �, r. C] ca 07 a 4� 'yam O c 0 �4��aoi4� Q. r. q .. E (3) O a) •.. y y .^ w 0 0 0 O E 0 0: E I- 0 0 O L) C) AA O�.AVAA UU A a) O 41 �••� N cz w U L", ." b0 u O CZ X O O G. bA •O V O y ) 00 to N .4 '� 0 bn Y p U O .� .E .� v O u V u � u M O U .�'� bb L' o O o o i s O y s, CZ •a ro �A�m avv� ti C a .., u m h a.� as bow a.�-o 0 0 4� U 4- U cu y ss. o ° o o a.. t"m 'a CD CL CD a) y 4' s. V) O w b _ C u O N to O C m O N aw 3 R C 41 OO °0Q) O o a ° n 0 ° a o -0 cuM O"x N a)'i >, OV 'O ca O0) mr: �iCZ�� ��F� s V) . LL a) O in. m ca O n w O A= bA o O p 0 vi iC U �' to r- O v' y 0. d 1 . bA W s. V) C, a. � C ' o O a) ca O +' O cz F aV') CZ A bb C v O w u n CL O o u u Z�� etsa) U ° a) t o o — < o - sY. = -0 .°0 a o °o. M ro n. = Ca v wbo �" o vIn C15 o p O. u s°). O a) +� a) a) U bA CO O � a) u O ' CZ CZ N A •� a) C �_ p CZ 0i a j�d E ate.+ N U '� c3 O O «i O �•,' i.. N S-. d N u '^ N u '� cC d.d y N a) ,O a) O O N r; ¢' .w C1 z c t1 O"a E O O N U) w� C f]0 O 4w.. is h.N 0 it .w U i. O O O U `''" $,' �' a) O u cn N of O l p a O p, 3-' s"' O �, Y 4O .� O v U v u 1. �' R. w a) ro ;. a) a o a ro a Zs ° u o s. 4+ i. bA to v u a) -T,'2 Q U a) Q V) cc +� a o° 0 n a a) C4 A ca o v, 3 ° a) a 0. Z cc .o -M� is a y °z z 0 I b ea •� A � a •a d a 0 v F. C W 'd 0.1 •Q C". N O G d cz a � :?(n QQ 0 0 q r CC L O O Sl, bp ct .� w W A y cu O � a� s 0 0 bD r 4+ y > cz En 0 M. 0 41 CU O CL m 'ro pp' p bA � N 'O - u E ' 4' U U p" p .O cOC ate1 C V) O L. O N ,� CZ E .¢' Sw." (�C p api p N ,� m N c C, 'C is O O cz R in yO O" M�+� ¢' '� U p N N n N y 'O y U ('iii N N O O" Q cn u G a bA S-: 7 N L" S]. (E " `� a. ti cC L" O O i" 1: ,� 4 E s" u a' •u _] � L n � � NC 6 R+ ¢ U ^' L (C (z f.' U (4 O 4-7 SO f"' U O O In. � O � Z Qi C (C t0 p UO O cz L1 U O O U m O p � _ (n 'O G !A O CZ > S.' Ln g (n -0"N N E O" cz '"O N .O O U 'O Ou �, '� ti N N s." O Ri U u L.' 0. U p (C LO" � O V O t1'1 C� ^. ..O O p J.O. Z .p p O N C 'C (pig O N N dj a O Lam" N O r-+ p .t. L" �.' w O Vl (a 1O (n � p 'cC y O Vf (C V) Uw O N p �.. U .p pU d () fC bb cz V p u O 0- O w M .3 O p O N 4,O O CV n Q O- (U O O i" i" �+ G'" (n (% .p p O C y C cz O Ou O bA u �, vi C O s d O (E O N '� N U E O �+ E N cz N (C 0. Q (0 N O C O q O m U 7 +' ryC vi GL C N D ttf }' O O O O O to N U (NC O '0 tp. O O '� w G) O y_ Q" E= h +O' (�0 L. (c! O _cz X (+� L" CL w O� 41 �-. N u p U w O" O N t" (n O" N C) L" O" O W (C (n y (0 Z F' Q .�' N O O Q U 'C7 O O O O E (" ,� w n s" u u u U A (n Z 6 V) E- Z Z w z o z a o x a o Z oa w x 6 b q C � a a l cl 0 rA txo r. ao co � c 0 0 � a 0 u q 4; n „ A a a o E o 0 0 o as >i o ao>i .> U U A A A ao v U A A o c C O 0 o 0. 0 0 o O. o v .� ao b0 ,��', O v .� on U EF 4' o o° b o c b a .V) o ao a .N o on 4 0 0 a 'v p S3. y O , o U M b 0 a c0 o cz >, oM O , o �' ccz a` ) 4 1 SM. �o C° 0 cz 0 a 0� a� o o s. v� �, '> U s. 4-z ° A ca C x G 4g � E� ° �O s. p• v N c d y ° ,p vyi c:)' U 3� [W vO a o 0 ao° a° aux Cl. c 0 0 3 c O U O ¢, C N 'O 'O N U ticz �_" O w rd s. ^. U bOjp'CJ N N U ¢. •N 0 'in.U rn ,a�� N O .b �, cC i0 z ° �-' U N ° U Ln +� C + O CS f1 i� S1. cCZ O O O '� 'C C 4-' G U 'O a� cC `� CUa,^ 't3. C 0 t0 O `cG^ U 4� w O C 'O � y O « 3 ° U U U O m U A O> sem. �_ U c°i ° to 41 +� .c N N N U -o .o a) S]. a) a) 'o s. O 0. bA }' O o cC .� U a W ro y � O A ca, > cz '� 3 0 vi so, w >, � ,�; a) LS. o> o `° Y ^O "" o O° ^° Off. p, C U a) O ° m o w �° •� 4b N i� O Ln 0 °� > c°c o' `° o o + o c 0 o o m a y o v� O u°�� iC C 4� i. O m O x ° a) A O ° b O U `''"' E N �., O w0 = OU a) N . °� " ° ate.+ y � cc `� G cd o U O ro ° G +° oCD G w CZ cC o CU i1 y0 C ° 0 'p iu U O� 00 Ri bA W O .O d ti ° U O�> p «f O y E s. U O O p O N O O 'o O N CG =.. a) O �' y = O O � � }' '� M cCZ " A„ F n O 7 U O z m 7 C1 v] c/� bA U ° O bUA � O O U p p N y ^O O O U � O Q) � y Y p p O � C]. <6 p U O Y O. N .� '� r--, '� O p O �+ w O V a 0 oG U ,� > U 0 0 a n ca z A 04 o u F M � Q � z z E � N r•i CIO CD °3 1.. Ct A a a o 0 CA v i. w U >, OD � rs. � u ro cm .r O p U.+ 3 n E >.o a N N zCa p U p U Ufaara U w U O cz p O bA 'a A CZ � U c) a U w U � G bA Q) bn F o U 41 U a.+ O , C CD 41 U cz y ¢�, .0 L, CU d YO GL U U w cz u W+ a 0 0 L1. U U Q) rl °co^0 uU U U o '.0 p 0 N 0 o z y cz s. w a ° U v' d° °' Z o 0 o 0 °� 0 1 o 0 ° m w N� 4'CO o .c x U lz O 41 O O 0 �O. jy� aj ICL 7 y� U Ll p ,p .� ccs W O � N 1O n bn U F ° m s. G N> cz u v O O O N •m U "'p i" U w '41 4-1 U U :.� d f°.' C. � U U U � � � E � O r. w ..7r cif p y .0 w 3 p .y" cz cif 's:; �, s� n a � O � � ti L. ;-+ O is U o '� 'o is N w m is U o W N O .0 s. N u U y U G M 04 n U N bA C c0 F CO O co U > ^0 04— cClU � x ct y to o " U 41 � cv .� W � p" U >, 0 cz � b oo O u d r Fov w0 � "' N .N 'Zs -0 O 401 m u cz cz iC N t„" -� w '3 U O cwa U LS. m to U cz 4.j N LZ. U ti V). S.. U ,'�, �." tC Q) U U U y U 4� r .� O .L G'i cis G: cz O t0 :C , = U `C"y ° .O �� (/1 U }" G N U U 7 iL 'O Q O Q u O y U N O. G1 >~ U bA ° F+ O tC 'C7 U cn L, c� U cn tC cC s. w ... p y a 3 U j M \ s.. cb aC +.+ L. O z O y 'O Lp. O ¢, O U s~ �+ p o O O cb > U "L7 cA w GL U ,�, N U T. cz N O C �+ U iC ,S; U .'..1 U O q >, • V O Q z O s.. co a U U 'U v cn > O "Cl M CLby Cz w CIO � § a £ C CU a ) § e u . r 1. ��. _ / 2� . k / 4. 27W / �� ■ / 3k w §� k \ \u7; � t & m \ = G ) o / / CU t � = \ § o . oacnau ° - / ƒ / j } ( £ § ® 2 G0 cz, w 2 a § o� ��tkz t o 0 �\f�k\ \ 4,1 0 c0 / k w*z — _ Xco \/ o � & ±0\ o o m (Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission, Title 2, Division 6, California Code of Regulations.) § 18702.1. Materiality Standard: Financial Interests in Business Entities. (a) The reasonably foreseeable financial effect of a governmental decision on a business entity in which an official has a financial interest identified in Section 87103(a) or (d) is material whenever the business entity: (1) Initiates the proceeding in which the governmental decision will be made by filing an application, claim, appeal, or request for other government action concerning the business entity; (2) Offers to make a sale of a service or a product to the official's agency: (3) Bids on or enters into a written contract with the official's agency; (4) Is the named manufacturer in a purchase order of any product purchased by the official's agency or the sales provider of any products to the official's agency that aggregates to $1,000 or more in any 12 -month period; (5) Applies for a permit, license, grant, tax credit, exception, variance, or other entitlement that the official's agency is authorized to issue; (6) Is the subject of any inspection, action, or proceeding subject to the regulatory authority of the official's agency; or (7) Is otherwise subject to an action taken by the official's agency, the effect of which is directed solely at the business entity in which the official has an interest. (8) Exception. Notwithstanding the above provisions, any financial effect on a business entity that occurs as a result of a travel payment made for food, lodging, transportation, or fuel, authorized by an agency in the course of carrying out an agency function, to a business entity that provides such services to the general public shall be treated under subdivision (b). (b) For a governmental decision not identified in subdivision (a), the financial effect is material if a prudent person with sufficient information would find it is reasonably foreseeable that the decision's financial effect would contribute to a change in the price of the business entity's publicly traded stock, or the value of a privately -held business entity. Examples of decisions that may be applicable include those that: (1) Authorize, prohibit, regulate or otherwise establish conditions for an activity in which the business entity is engaged; (2) Increase or decrease the amount of competition in the field in which the business entity is engaged; (3) Increase or decrease the need for the products or services that the business entity supplies; (4) Make improvements in the surrounding neighborhood such as redevelopment projects, traffic/road improvements, or parking changes that may affect, either temporarily or permanently, the amount of business the business entity receives; (5) Decide the location of a major development, entertainment facility, or other project that would increase or decrease the amount of business the entity draws from the location of the prod ect; or (6) Increase or decrease the tax burden, debt, or financial or legal liability of the business entity. Note: Authority cited: Section 83112, Government Code. Reference: Sections 87100, 87102.5, 87102.6, 87102.8 and 87103, Government Code. 2 HISTORY 1. New section filed 9-5-85; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 85, No. 36). 2. Amendment filed 10-17-88; operative 11-16-88 (Register 88, No. 43). 3. Amendment of subsection (a)(1) filed 3-14-95; operative 3-14-95 pursuant to Government Code section 11343.4(d) (Register 95, No. 11). 4. Amendment of subsections (a)(2), (a)(3)(E), (a)(4) and (c) -(c)(2) filed 12-11-95; operative 12- 11-95 pursuant to Government Code section 11343.4(d) (Register 95, No. 50). 5. Amendment of subsection (a)(1) and Note filed 6-13-97; operative 6-13-97. Submitted to OAL for printing only (Register 97, No. 24). 6. Repealer and new section filed 11-23-98; operative 11-23-98 pursuant to the 1974 version of Government Code section 11380.2 and title 2, California Code of Regulations, section 18312(d) and (e) (Register 98, No. 48). 7. Editorial correction of History 6 (Register 2000, No. 25). 8. Amendment of section and Note filed 1-10-2001; operative 2-1-2001. Submitted to OAL for filing pursuant to Fair Political Practices Commission v. Office of Administrative Law, 3 Civil C010924, California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, nonpublished decision, April 27, 1992 (FPPC regulations only subject to 1974 Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking requirements) (Register 2001, No. 2). 9. Amendment of subsection (c) filed 1-16-2002; operative 2-15-2002 (Register 2002, No. 3). 10. Amendment of subsection (a) , new subsection (d) and amendment of Note filed 6-10-2003; operative 6-10-2003 (Register 2003, No. 24). 3 11. Change without regulatory effect renumbering former section 18702.1 to section 18704.1 and renumbering former section 18705.1 to section 18702.1 filed 4-27-2015. Submitted to OAL for filing pursuant to Fair Political Practices Commission v. Office of Administrative Law, 3 Civil C010924, California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, nonpublished decision, April 27, 1992 (FPPC regulations only subject to 1974 Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking requirements and not subject to procedural or substantive review by OAL) (Register 2015, No. 18). 4 Exhibit "C" Facts and Findings Regarding the Environmental Effects of the Approval of the Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS FOR THE HARBOR POINTE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2016071062) (PA2015-210) 1. INTRODUCTION The California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21081, and the State CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations, Section 15091 (collectively, CEQA) require that a public agency consider the environmental impacts of a project before a project is approved and make specific findings. The State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 provides: (a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been certified 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 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 or should be adopted by such other agency. 3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. (b) The findings required by subdivision (a) shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (c) The finding in subdivision (a)(2) shall not be made if the agency making the finding has concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with identified feasible mitigation measures or alternatives. The finding in subsection (a)(3) shall describe the specific reasons for rejecting identified mitigation measures and project alternatives. (d) When making the findings required in subdivision (a)(1), the agency shall also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially 1 lessen significant environmental effects. These measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. (e) The public agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other materials which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which its decision is based. (f) A statement made pursuant to Section 15093 does not substitute for the findings required by this section. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 further provides: (a) CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable." (b) Where the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. This statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091. Having received, reviewed, and considered the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) and the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) for the Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project, SCH No. 2016071062 (collectively, the EIR), as well as all other information in the record of proceedings on this matter, the following Findings and Facts in Support of Findings (Findings) are hereby adopted by the City of Newport Beach (City) in its capacity as the CEQA Lead Agency. These Findings set forth the environmental basis for the discretionary actions to be undertaken by the City for the development of the Project. These actions include the certification and/or approval of the following for Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project: • Environmental Impact Report No. ER2018-001 (SCH#2016071062) • General Plan Amendment No. GP2015-004 • Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. PD2015-005 • Major Site Development Review No. SD2015-007. • Conditional Use Permit No. UP2015-047 2 These actions are collectively referred to herein as the Project. A. Document Format These Findings have been organized into the following sections. - 1 . ections:1. Section 1 provides an introduction to these Findings. 2. Section 2 provides a summary of the Project, overview of the discretionary actions required for approval of the Project, and a statement of the Project's objectives. 3. Section 3 provides a summary of previous environmental reviews related to the Project area that took place prior to the environmental review done specifically for the Project, and a summary of public participation in the environmental review for the Project. 4. Section 4 sets forth findings regarding the environmental impacts that were determined to be—as a result of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) and consideration of comments received during the NOP comment period—either not relevant to the Project or clearly not at levels that were deemed significant for consideration at the Project -specific level. 5. Section 5 sets forth findings regarding significant or potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the EIR that the City has determined are either not significant or can feasibly be mitigated to a less than significant level through the imposition of regulatory requirements (RR) and/or mitigation measures (MM). In order to ensure compliance and implementation, all of these measures will be included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Project and adopted as conditions of the Project by the Lead Agency. Where potentially significant impacts can be reduced to less than significant levels through adherence to RRs and MMs, these findings specify how those impacts were reduced to an acceptable level. 6. Section 6 sets forth findings regarding alternatives to the proposed Project B. Custodian and Location of Records The documents and other materials that constitute the administrative record for the City's actions related to the Project are at the City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California 92660. The City of Newport Beach is the custodian of the Administrative Record for the Project. 3 2. PROJECT SUMMARY A. Project Location The 1.5 -acre Project site is located in the City of Newport Beach, Orange County, California. It is located southwest of State Route (SR) 73, less than one-half mile from the intersection of Jamboree Road and Bristol Street. The property is immediately bound by Bristol Street and SR -73 on the northeast, Bayview Place and a six -story office building complex on the southeast, Baycrest condominiums on the southwest, and a three-story office building and the Santa Ana Heights residential neighborhood to the northwest. Regional access to the site is from East Coast Highway (SR -1) via Jamboree Road or the Costa Mesa Freeway (SR -55). The Project site is accessed by a driveway on Bayview Place, located along the southeastern Project boundary. Access to Bayview Place is provided by Bristol Street to the northeast and Bayview Way to the south. Jamboree Road, a major north -south thoroughfare, is approximately 0.20 mile east of the Project boundary and provides access to both Bristol Street and Bayview Place. SR -73 is located approximately 0.05 mile north of the Project site and provides access to Jamboree Road from Southbound SR -73. B. Project Description The Project involves demolition and removal of the existing approximate 8,800 -square - foot, single -story restaurant, associated parking, and improvements on the site; preparation of the site for redevelopment; and construction of a three-story building with a proposed gross floor area of 84,517 square feet, containing 101 assisted living and memory care units (120 beds), ancillary uses, and subsurface parking. The units would consist of 42 assisted living studios, 27 assisted living one -bedroom units, 12 assisted living two-bedroom units, 13 memory care one -bedroom units, and 7 memory care two- bedroom units. Additionally, the proposed facility would include living rooms, dining rooms, grill, fitness room, spa/salon, theater, library, roof garden, community store, computer lab, activity room, medication rooms, and support uses such as offices, lab, mail room, laundry, and maintenance facilities. Separate interior courtyards would offer seating, outdoor dining, and landscaping for the assisted living and memory care residents. Other amenities would include a landscaped walkway around the structure, a roof garden on the third level overlooking the interior courtyards, and a patio accessible from the library on the first floor of the building. The building height is 33 feet at the top of the roof and 39 feet, 6 inches at the highest point, which includes mechanical equipment screening. This is within the height limits in the Bayview Planned Community text. Landscaping, drive aisles, and passenger drop-off would also be provided on the property. 4 C. Legislative and Discretionary Actions Implementation of the Project will require several actions by the City, including Environmental Impact Report No. ER2018-001 (SCH#2016071062): An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to evaluate the environmental impacts resulting from the proposed Project, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended (Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.), and the State CEQA Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000 et seq.). • General Plan Amendment No. GP2015-004: To change the existing land use designation of the Project site from CO -G (General Commercial Office) to PI (Private Institutions). As stated in the General Plan, the PI land use designation allows land uses such as privately -owned facilities that serve the public, including places for religious assembly, private schools, health care, cultural institutions, museums, yacht clubs, congregate homes, and comparable facilities. This proposal would also increase the development allocation in the anomaly table from 70,000 square feet to 85,000 square feet. Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. PD2015-005: The proposed Project would include an amendment to the existing Bayview Planned Community Development Plan (PC -32) to allow for Residential Care Facility for the Elderly (RCFE) (assisted living and memory care for seniors) and amend the land use and development standards for the Project site. The proposed revisions to the PC -32 text are as follows. Increase in floor area from 8,000 square feet for restaurant use or 70,000 square feet for office use to 85,000 square feet for RCFE. According to Chapter 20.40.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC), the parking requirement for convalescent facilities is one space per three beds; with 120 beds, the Project would be required to provide a total of 40 parking spaces (36 standard and 4 accessible or barrier -free). The Project proposes 53 spaces. Of the proposed 53 parking spaces, 49 would be standard and 4 would be accessible or barrier -free. PC -32 would be amended to reflect the applicable parking requirements. Revisions to the allowed land uses in Area 5 of the Bayview Planned Community Development Plan (PC -32), which would involve removing the commercial uses currently allowed and only providing for RCFE. Under the proposed amendment, permitted uses subject to a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) include RCFE as defined by the State of California including assisted living facilities and memory care services serving the elderly and any other uses that in the opinion of the City of Newport Beach Planning Commission are of a similar nature. • Major Site Development Review No. SD2015-007: Major Site Development Review No. SD2015-007 is required pursuant to Section 20.52.080 (Site Development Reviews) of the NBMC to allow the construction of over 19,999 square feet of nonresidential gross floor area. The purpose of the Site Development Review is to review the Project plans to ensure site development is in accordance with the applicable planned community and zoning code development standards. • Conditional Use Permit No. UP2015-047: The amended Bayview Planning Community Development Plan (PC -32) would require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval. Therefore, the proposed Project is required to obtain a CUP to allow the establishment of a 120 -bed senior assisted and memory care facility. • Development Agreement: The proposed Project includes a request for a Development Agreement between the City of Newport Beach and the Applicant. The Development Agreement will provide community benefits determined by decision makers. The Final EIR would also provide environmental information to responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and other public agencies that may be required to grant approvals and permits or coordinate with the City of Newport Beach as a part of Project implementation. These agencies include, but are not limited to: - Airport Land Use Commission of Orange County (ALUC). The Project is within the John Wayne Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP). The overseeing agency, ALUC, must review the proposed Project and determine its consistency with the AELUP. The ALUC considered the Project at its January 17, 2019, public meeting and voted to find the Project consistent with the Commission's AELUP. - Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The Santa Ana RWQCB would approve the Project's compliance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Statewide General Construction Activity permit and Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer System (MS4) permit. - South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Future construction of the Project would require permitting by SCAQMD for Rules 201 (permit to construct), 402 (nuisance odors), 403 (fugitive dust), 445 (wood burning), and 1113 (architectural coatings). 21 D. Statement of Project Objectives The statement of objectives sought by the Project and set forth in the Final EIR is provided as follows: 1. Develop a high quality and safe senior living facility that would respond to the growing demand for senior housing and cater to the needs of the local elderly population. 2. Create a self-sufficient facility that would provide services and amenities to enhance livability for the onsite resident population. 3. Create a mix of assisted living and memory care units that would cater to the specific needs of the resident population. 4. Construct and operate a use that is compatible with and respectful to the surrounding land uses, physically and aesthetically. 5. Create appropriate landscaping buffers to protect privacy of adjoining neighbors and enhance the Project and community. 6. Implement a Project consistent with the Bayview Planned Community Development Plan (PC -32) requirements and standards (e.g., height limit, setbacks). 7. Implement a land use that would result in fewer vehicular trips than the existing use onsite or the permitted land uses in the Bayview Planning Community Development Plan (PC -32). 3. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The EIR prepared for the Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project is the only environmental review conducted for the proposed Project. No other reviews have been previously conducted. The Final EIR includes the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) dated August 2018, written comments on the Draft EIR that were received during the 50 -day public review period, written responses to those comments, clarifications/changes to the Final EIR, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. In conformance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City conducted an extensive environmental review of the Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project: • Completion of the NOP, which was released for a 30 -day public review period from July 22, 2016 through August 22, 2016. The NOP was sent to all responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and the Office of Planning Research and posted at the Orange County Clerk -Recorder's office and on the City's website on July 22, 2016. • During the NOP review period, a Scoping Meeting was held to solicit additional suggestions on the content of the Harbor Pointe Senior Living EIR. Attendees were provided an opportunity to identify verbally or in writing the issues they felt should be addressed in the EIR. The scoping meeting was held on August 15, 2016, at the Civic Center Community Room, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California 92660. The notice of the public scoping meeting was included in the NOP. The Draft EIR was made available for a 50 -day public review period (August 10, 2018 to September 28, 2018). The Draft EIR consisted of analysis of the Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project and the technical appendices. The Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft EIR was published in the Orange County Daily Pilot, a newspaper of general circulation, on August 10, 2018. The NOA was sent to all interested persons, agencies and organizations. The Notice of Completion (NOC) was sent to the State Clearinghouse in Sacramento for distribution to public agencies. The NOA was also posted at the Orange County Clerk -Recorder's office. Copies of the Draft EIR were made available for public review at the City of Newport Beach, Planning Division, Newport Beach Central Branch Library, Newport Beach Balboa Branch Library, and Newport Beach Mariners Branch Library. The Draft EIR was available for download via the City's website: https://www.newportbeachca.gov/government/departments/communit -- development/planning-division/projects-environmental-document-download- page/environmental-document-download-page. • During the public review of the Draft EIR, a Planning Commission Study Session was held on September 13, 2018 in the City Hall Council Chambers, at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California 92660. At the Study Session a total of 23 verbal comments were received. These comments are included and addressed in the Responses to Comments document. • Preparation of a Draft Final EIR included Draft EIR, comments on the Draft EIR, responses to those comments, clarifications/revisions to the Draft EIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) and appended documents. The Responses to Comments were provided to the City Planning Commissioners on November 27, 2018 and posted on the City's website on the same day. • The Planning Commission held a public hearing for the Project on December 6, 2018, in the City Hall Council Chambers, at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. Notices of time, place, and purpose of the public hearing were provided in accordance with CEQA and NBMC. The Final EIR, staff report, and evidence, both written and oral, were presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at this hearing. Notice for this public hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to all property owners within a minimum of 300 feet of the Project site and to all interested persons, agencies and organizations, and posted at the Project site a minimum of 10 days in advance of the hearing, consistent with the NBMC. Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for the meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. • In compliance with Section 15088(b) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (State CEQA Guidelines), the City prepared written Responses to Comments to public agencies and posted the responses on the City's website, at least 10 days prior to certifying the Final EIR. R • The City Council held a public hearing on February 12, 2019, in the City Hall Council Chambers, at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of the time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was provided in accordance with CEQA and NBMC. The Final EIR, staff report, and evidence, both written and oral, were presented to and considered by the City Council at this hearing. Notice for the meeting was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to all property owners within a minimum 300 feet of the Project site and to all interested persons, agencies and organizations, and posted at the Project site a minimum of 10 days in advance of the hearing, consistent with the NBMC. Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for the meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. For purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the Record of Proceedings for the Project consists of the following documents and other evidence, at a minimum.. • All Project application materials submitted to the City by the Applicant and its representatives; • NOP and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the proposed Project; • The Final EIR, including the Draft EIR and all appendices, the Responses to Comments, Clarifications and Revisions as Part of the Final EIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) and all supporting materials referenced therein. All documents, studies, EIRs, or other materials incorporated by reference in the Draft EIR and Final EIR; • Written comments submitted by agencies and members of the public during the 50 -day public review comment period on the Draft EIR; • All responses to the written comments submitted by agencies and members of the public provided at the December 6, 2018, Planning Commission Public Hearing; • The testimony provided by agencies and members of the public at the City Council public hearing on February 12, 2019; • All final City Staff Reports relating to the Draft EIR, Final EIR, and the Project; • All other public reports, documents, studies, memoranda, maps, or other planning documents relating to the Project, the Draft EIR, and the Final EIR prepared by the City, consultants to the City, or Responsible or Trustee Agencies. • The MMRP adopted by the City for the Project; the Ordinances and Resolutions adopted by the City in connection with the proposed Project; and all documents incorporated by reference therein; • These Findings of Fact adopted by the City for the Project, any documents expressly cited in these Findings of Fact; and • Any other relevant materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code Section 21167.6(e). A The documents and other material that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings are based are located at the City of Newport Beach Community Development Department. The custodian for these documents is the City of Newport Beach. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(2) and 14 California Code Regulations Section 15091(e). 4. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES THAT WERE DETERMINED NOT TO BE POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (a) Impacts Determined Less than Significant In Section 2.0, Introduction, Project History, and Setting, of the Draft EIR An Initial Study (IS) was not prepared for the proposed Project, and only an NOP was circulated by the City on July 22, 2016. The scope of the EIR is based on the findings of the technical studies, determination by the City, input received from the agencies and the public as part of the scoping process, and the analysis of topics and CEQA Checklist questions in Section 2.0 of the Draft EIR. Based on the City's determination, the EIR addressed all environmental topics with potential to result in significant effects. Using the City's Environmental Checklist Form, the following issues were assessed as "No Impact" or "Less Than Significant Impact." Therefore, in accordance with Section 15128 of the State CEQA Guidelines, these were identified as topical areas or issues within topical areas that did not receive further evaluation in the Draft EIR: 1) Agriculture and Forest Resources: The Project site and surrounding areas are designated as Urban and Built -Up Land and is not zoned for agriculture. The Project site does not contain Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. No portion of the Project site is covered by a Williamson Act Contract. Additionally, the Project site does not include forest resources, including timberlands. This topic was focused out from further analysis in the Draft EIR. 2) Air Quality: The Project does not include any uses identified by the SCAQMD as being associated with odors and, therefore, would not produce objectionable odors. The potential odor emitted during construction would be associated with construction equipment exhaust and the application of asphalt and architectural coatings and temporary in nature. Odors emitted long-term would include solid waste storage. However, these materials would be stored in compliance with Municipal Code Section 20.30.120. This checklist question was focused out from further analysis in the Draft EIR. 3) Biological Resources: The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Additionally, the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local 10 or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. Further, the Project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. The Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. The Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. This topic was focused out from further analysis in the Draft EIR. 4) Cultural/Scientific Resources: The Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5. The Project site is not identified as a historic resource per the City of Newport Beach General Plan EIR, and no historical resources or districts are located near the Project site. The demolition of the restaurant and associated site improvements and redevelopment of the Project site would not cause any direct or indirect impact to historic resources, nor would it adversely affect the historic significance of historical resources in the City. This checklist question was focused out from further analysis in the Draft EIR. 5) Geology and Soils: The Project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving rupture of a known earthquake fault as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Zoning Map or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault or expose people or structures to landslides. The Project would not be located on expansive soils or require the use of septic systems or alternative waste water disposal systems. These checklist questions were focused out from further analysis in the Draft EIR. 6) Hazards and Hazardous Materials: The Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school; be located on a site, which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as such, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment; result in a safety hazard for the people residing or working in the area associated with proximity to a private airstrip; impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, or expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. These checklist questions were focused out from further analysis in the Draft EIR. 11 7) Hydrology and Water Quality: The Project would not place housing within a 100 - year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map. The proposed Project site is not within a 100 -year flood hazard area and therefore would not impede or redirect flood flows or expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam, nor would it expose people or structures to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. These checklist questions were focused out from further analysis in the Draft EIR. 8) Land Use and Planning: The Project would not divide or disrupt the physical arrangement of an established community, as it would be located on an existing legal lot surrounded by public roads and sidewalks. Additionally, the proposed Project is within the Orange County Central -Coastal NCCP/HCP, but it is not identified for conservation. These checklist questions were focused out from further analysis in the Draft EIR. 9) Mineral Resources: The Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state and would not result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan. No mining activities or mineral extraction uses occur near the Project site, and the site is not underlain by an oilfield. This topic was focused out from further analysis in the Draft EIR. 10) Noise: The Project site is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip and therefore the project would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels related to private aircraft. This checklist question was focused out from further analysis in the Draft EIR. 11) Population or Housing: The Project would not induce substantial population growth directly or indirectly; would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere; and would not displace substantial numbers of people necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. In terms of direct population growth, the 120 - resident population is an insignificant number in relationship to the overall City population. Additionally, the proposed Project would not result in indirect population growth, as the Project would not extend infrastructure beyond the boundaries of the Project site that would facilitate growth. Thus, the proposed Project would not result in direct or indirect population growth in the area. This topic was focused out from further analysis in the Draft EIR. 12) Public Services: The Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance 12 objectives for schools, parks, and other public facilities (libraries). These checklist questions were focused out from further analysis in the Draft EIR. 13) Recreation: The Project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated and would not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. The proposed Project would not substantially increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities due to the nature of the use and the age of the resident population. On-site recreational amenities would be provided to meet the needs of the residents. This topic was focused out from further analysis in the Draft EIR. 14) Transportation/Traffic: The Project would not conflict with the applicable Orange County Transportation Authority's (OCTA's) Congestion Management Plan (CMP) level of service standards and travel demand. The Project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that result in substantial safety risks; and would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. These checklist questions were focused out from further analysis in the Draft EIR. 15) Utilities and Services Systems: The Project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board. This checklist question was focused out from further analysis in the Draft EIR. (b) Impacts Determined to be Less Than Significant in the Draft EIR The following impacts were evaluated in the Draft EIR and determined to be less than significant solely through adherence to the Project design and City requirements. Based upon the environmental analysis presented in the Draft EIR, and the comments received by the public on the Draft EIR, no substantial evidence was submitted to or identified by the City indicating that the Project would have an impact on the following environmental areas: 1) Aesthetics and Visual Resources: The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on scenic vistas; substantially damage scenic resources, adversely affect the visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings; or generate additional light or glare in the Project area. 2) Air Quality: The Project would not conflict with the applicable air quality plan; result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant; or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. 3) Geology and Soils: The Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. 13 4) Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The Project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment or conflict with the plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. 5) Hydrology and Water Quality: The Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level; substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site, substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site; create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or otherwise substantially degrade water quality. 6) Land Use and Planning: The Project would not conflict with any applicable General Plan policies or result in incompatibility with the surrounding uses. 7) Noise and Vibration: The Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels, as the threshold for noise impacts to sensitive uses (65 dBA CNEL contour) would not be exceed. 8) Public Services: The Project would not create significant impacts related to fire protection (project -specific) and police protection services such that would result in substantial adverse physical impacts (provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities) and need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. 9) Transportation and Traffic: The Project -generated traffic would not conflict with applicable City plans governing the performance of the area -wide circulation system (would not result in increased trip generation); substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses; or result in inadequate emergency access. 10) Tribal Cultural Resources: The Project would not cause substantial adverse change in the significance of tribal cultural resources (i.e., site, feature, place, cultural landscape, scared place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe) that are either listed/eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources or determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant. 11) Utilities and Service Systems: The Project would not result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities; 14 result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities; result in insufficient water supplies to serve the Project from existing entitlements and resources; or result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that it has inadequate capacity to serve the Project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments. Additionally, the Project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity and comply with federal, state, and local statues and regulations related to solid waste. 5. FINDINGS REGARDING POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS The following potentially significant environmental impacts were analyzed in the EIR, and the effects of the Project were considered. As a result of environmental analysis of the Project; compliance with existing laws, codes, and statutes; and the identification of the regulatory requirements and feasible mitigation measures (together referred herein as the Mitigation Program), potentially significant impacts have been determined by the City to be reduced to a level of less than significant, and the City has found—in accordance with CEQA Section 21081(a)(1) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a) (1)—that "Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. This is referred to herein as "Finding 1." Where the City has determined—pursuant to CEQA Section 21081(a)(2) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(2)—that "Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency," the City's finding is referred to herein as "Finding 2." A. Cultural Resources (1) Potential Impact: Implementation of the proposed Project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5. Finding 1: Regulatory Requirement is introduced focusing on potential discovery of resources during construction. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is less than significant. Facts in Support of Finding Regulatory Requirement RR CULT -1 (compliance with Paleontological and Archaeological Resource Protection Guidelines in the City Council Policy K-5) requires that if resources (i.e., archaeological) are discovered during construction, all activities be halted until resources are examined by a qualified monitor. Therefore, impacts to significance of an archaeological resources pursuant to Section 15064.5 would be less than significant. 1s Mitigation Measures and Regulatory Requirements RR CULT -1 If archaeological or paleontological resources are discovered during construction, all construction activities in the general area of the discovery shall be temporarily halted until the resource is examined by a qualified monitor, retained by the Developer. The monitor shall recommend next steps (i.e., additional excavation, curation, preservation, etc.). (2) Potential Impact: The project would directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site. Finding 1. Mitigation Measure is introduced requiring presence of a paleontologist monitor during grading and excavation activities. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is mitigated to less than significant. Facts in Support of Finding Mitigation Measure MM CULT -1 requires a paleontologist monitor to be present during grading and excavation activities. If fossil remains are discovered, the paleontologist would have the authority to temporarily divert work to allow recovery of the fossils. Therefore, impacts pertaining to significance of paleontological resources would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures and Regulatory Requirements MM CULT -1 Prior to the issuance of the grading permit, Project Applicant shall provide written evidence to the City of Newport Beach Community Development Department that an Orange County—certified professional Paleontologist has been retained to monitor any potential impacts to paleontological resources throughout the duration of any ground -disturbing activities at the Project site. The paleontologist shall review the Project's final plans and develop and implement a Paleontological Mitigation Plan, which shall include the following minimum elements: • All earthmoving activities 8 -feet or more below the current surface shall be monitored fulltime by a qualified paleontological monitor. • If fossils are discovered, the paleontological monitor has the authority to temporarily divert work, as deemed necessary, to allow recovery of the fossils and evaluation of the fossil locality. • Fossil localities shall require documentation including stratigraphic columns and samples for micropaleontological analyses and for dating. 16 • Fossils shall be prepared to the point of identification prior to being donated to an appropriate repository. The final report shall interpret any paleontological resources discovered in the regional context and provide the catalog and all specialists' reports as appendices. (3) Potential Impact: The project would disturb human remains, including those, interred outside of formal cemeteries. Finding 1. Regulatory Requirement is introduced pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 in case human remains area discovered during excavation and grading activities. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is less than significant. Facts in Support of Finding Regulatory Requirement RR CULT -2 (pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5) requires that if human remains are unearthed, all activities cease, and the County Coroner be notified. Therefore, impacts pertaining to disturbance of human remains would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures and Regulatory Requirements RR CULT -2 In the event that human remains are unearthed during excavation and grading activities, all activity shall cease immediately. Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours. The NAHC shall then contact the most likely descendant of the deceased Native American, who shall serve as consultant on how to proceed with the remains. B. Geology and Soils (1) Potential Impact: The project would expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Strong seismic ground shaking ii. Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction Finding 1. Mitigation Measure is introduced to address potentially significant impacts associated with seismic shaking and seismic ground failure in the form of liquefaction, seismically induced settlement, and lateral spreading. The City 17 hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is mitigated to less than significant. Facts in Support of Finding The Project site is in a seismically active area that would likely experience strong ground shaking during the life of any project developed thereon. However, compliance with existing regulations and implementation of MM GEO-1 would reduce potentially significant impacts. MM GEO-1 requires compliance with the recommendations in the Geotechnical Evaluation prepared by Ninyo & Moore regarding site preparation and building design specification. With implementation of mitigation measure, potential impacts would be mitigated to less than significant. Mitigation Measures and Regulatory Requirements MM GEO-1 Site preparation and building design specifications shall follow the recommendations in the Geotechnical Evaluation prepared by Ninyo & Moore (dated December 2015, updated April 2016): • Earthwork. Earthwork shall be performed in accordance with the requirements of the applicable agencies and recommendations of the Geotechnical Evaluation. • Seismic Design Considerations. Design of the proposed improvements shall be performed in accordance with the requirements of governing jurisdictions and applicable seismic design criteria in the California Building Code (CBC) and the City's Building Code. • Foundations. Foundations shall be designed in accordance with structural considerations and the geotechnical recommendations in the Geotechnical Evaluation. Requirements of the governing jurisdictions, practices of the Structural Engineers Association of California, and applicable building codes shall also be considered in the design of the structures. • Sidewalks. Sidewalks shall be designed in accordance with agency standards. • Corrosivity. Due to the presence of corrosive soils in the Project area, corrosion protection for the Project shall be designed by a Corrosion Engineer. • Concrete Placement. Recommendations regarding the type of cement and concrete cover necessary for the site shall be implemented. • Preliminary Pavement Design Recommendations. Recommendations regarding preliminary pavement design shall be implemented. IN • Drainage. Recommendations regarding adequate surface drainage shall be implemented. • Landscaping. Recommendations regarding landscaping and drought -tolerant plants shall be implemented. The construction specifications shall be reviewed by the City of Newport Beach Building Official prior to issuance of a grading permit. (2) Potential Impact: The Project would be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. Finding 1. Mitigation Measure is introduced to address potentially significant impacts associated with unstable soil resulting in on- or off-site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is mitigated to less than significant. Facts in Support of Finding The Project site is not located in a potential landslide area or a potential liquefaction area; however, the Geotechnical Evaluation indicates that soils between 36 feet below ground surface (bgs) and 49 feet bgs could be susceptible to liquefaction. According to the Geotechnical Evaluation, post -earthquake settlement as a result of liquefaction would be up to 2 inches, and the on-site soils have an expansion index of 93 (high expansion potential). However, MM GEO-1 requires compliance with the recommendations in the Geotechnical Evaluation prepared by Ninyo & Moore regarding site preparation and building design specification. With implementation of mitigation measure, potential impacts would be mitigated to less than significant. Mitigation Measures and Regulatory Requirements The above MM GEO-1 applies. (3) Potential Impact: The Project would be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the California Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property. Finding 1. Mitigation Measure is introduced to address potentially significant impacts associated with expanse soil. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is mitigated to less than significant. Facts in Support of Finding The Geotechnical Evaluation concludes that the Project is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the recommendations in the evaluation are 19 incorporated into the design and construction of the proposed Project. MM GEO- 1 requires compliance with the recommendations in the Geotechnical Evaluation prepared by Ninyo & Moore regarding site preparation and building design specification. Additionally, Project construction would be required to comply with Chapter 15.10, Excavation and Grading, of the City's Municipal Code and other applicable building standards. Therefore, the Project's impacts related to unstable soils would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measure and compliance with City regulations. Mitigation Measures and Regulatory Requirements The above MM GEO-1 applies. C. Hazards and Hazardous Materials (1) Potential Impact: The Project would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Finding 1. Regulatory Requirement is introduced to address potentially significant impacts associated with the transport of potentially hazardous materials, as demolition may include hazardous materials. Demolition activities would be required to comply with existing regulatory requirements. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is less than significant with compliance with regulatory requirement. Facts in Support of Finding Demolition and construction activities for the proposed Project would be relatively short-term (approximately 12 to 14 months), and the transport, use, and disposal of any hazardous materials as part of these activities would be temporary. Construction activities would involve the use of chemical substances such as solvents, paints, fuel for equipment, and other potentially hazardous materials. These materials are common for construction activities, would be used in limited quantities, and do not pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment. As part of the demolition activities the transport of demolition debris would also occur, which may potentially include hazardous materials. However, RR HAZ-1 requires that demolition occur in compliance federal, State, and local standards, including those of federal and State Occupational Safety and Health Administrations (OSHA) and (CalOSHA). With compliance, potential impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures and Regulatory Requirements RR HAZ-1 Demolition shall be conducted in accordance with the remediation and mitigation procedures established by all federal, State, and local standards, including those of the federal and State Occupational Safety and Health Administrations (OSHA and CalOSHA) and South 20 Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) regulations for the excavation, removal, and proper disposal of asbestos -containing materials (SCAQMD Regulation X - National Emission Standards For Hazardous Air Pollutants, Subpart M - National Emission Standards For Asbestos). The materials shall be disposed of at a certified asbestos landfill. The Asbestos -Abatement Contractor shall comply with notification and asbestos -removal procedures outlined in SCAQMD Rule 1403 to reduce asbestos-related health risks. SCAQMD Rule 1403 applies to any demolition or renovation activity and the associated disturbance of asbestos -containing materials. These requirements shall be included on the contractor specifications and verified by the City of Newport Beach's Community Development Department in conjunction with the issuance of a Demolition Permit. (2) Potential Impact: The Project would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Finding 1. Regulatory Requirement is introduced to address potentially significant impacts associated handling and disposal of lead-based paint (LBP) during demolition activities. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is less than significant with compliance with regulatory requirement. Facts in Support of Finding Although Phase I ESA revealed no evidence of recognized environmental conditions (RECs) in connection with the Project site, considering the demolition of the existing restaurant, compliance with the existing regulatory requirements and a survey of hazardous building materials would be required. RR HAZ-2 requires compliance with Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations (Section 1532.1), which sets working practices for lead exposure. With compliance, potential impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures and Regulatory Requirements RR HAZ-2 Contractors shall comply with the requirements of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations (Section 1532.1), which sets exposure limits, exposure monitoring, respiratory protection, and good working practices by workers exposed to lead. Lead -contaminated debris and other wastes shall be managed and disposed of in accordance with the applicable provisions of the California Health and Safety Code. (3) Potential Impact: For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, the Project would result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. 21 Finding 1. Regulatory Requirement is introduced pertaining to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) determination of No Hazard. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is less than significant with compliance with regulatory requirement. Facts in Support of Finding The determination of No Hazard for the proposed structure stated that the structure would not exceed obstruction standards and would not be a hazard to air navigation; however, it required that the FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, be filed electronically within five days after the construction reaches its greatest height. The determination of No Hazard for the temporary construction equipment indicated that the temporary structure (i.e., construction equipment boom lift) would not exceed obstruction standards and would not be a hazard to air navigation. Both determinations stated that while marking and lighting are not necessary, should they be included, they would be installed and maintained in accordance with the FAA Advisory circular 70/7460-1 L. RR HAZ-3 requires filing of FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration. With compliance, potential impacts would be less than significant. Additionally, in light of the required legislative approvals (i.e., General Plan Amendment and amendment to PC -32), per the Public Utilities Code, Division 9, Aviation, Section 21676(b), RR HAZ-4 is included regarding the City referral of the proposed actions to the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). With compliance potential impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures and Regulatory Requirements RR HAZ-3 Federal Aviation Administration Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, shall be filed electronically within five days after the construction reaches its greatest height. This shall be verified by the City of Newport Beach's Community Development Department. RR HAZ-4 Prior to City Council's consideration of the amendments to the General Plan and the Bayview Planned Community Development Plan Amendment (PC -32), the City of Newport Beach Community Development Department shall refer the proposed actions to the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). The referral shall be submitted by the City and agendized by the ALUC staff between the City's expected Planning Commission and City Council hearings (since the ALUC meets on the third Thursday afternoon of each month, submittals must be received in the ALUC office by the first of the month to ensure sufficient time for review, analysis, and agendizing). 22 D. Land Use and Planning (1) Potential Impact: The Project would conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Finding 1. Mitigation Measure is introduced to ensure consistency with the recommendations in the AELUP for projects in the Noise Impact Zone "2". The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is less than significant with incorporation of mitigation measure. Facts in Support of Finding The Project site is in the Noise Impact Zone "2", as designated in the AELUP, and site is subject to aircraft noise and is located in the typical 85 departure Single Event Noise Equivalent Level for several types of aircraft that operate at JWA (A300-600 and the 737-700). Building noise attenuation would ensure that the interior noise levels achieve the 45 -dB standard. The Project would not include public outdoor areas, although it would include common outdoor areas for Project residents. However, based on consistency with the AELUP policy requirements, notification of prospective residents of the presence of operating aircraft is required. MM LU -1 requires notification of prospective residents of the presence of aircraft operating from John Wayne Airport. Therefore, in an abundance of caution, the Project has been identified as having a potential significant impact, which would be mitigated to less than significant with incorporation of mitigation measure. Mitigation Measures and Regulatory Requirements MM LU -1 Prior to issuance of certificates of use and occupancy, the Applicant shall produce evidence to the Community Development Director of a notice for prospective residents that this property is subject to over- flight, sight, and sound of aircraft operating from John Wayne Airport. E. Noise (1) Potential Impact: The Project would result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in a local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies. [Short -Term] (2) Potential Impact: The project would result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Finding 1. Mitigation Measures are introduced to address construction noise increases at adjacent residences, despite the six-foot block wall along the southwest and northwest property lines. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and 23 determines that this impact is less than significant with incorporation of mitigation measure. Facts in Support of Finding Construction activities have the potential to generate substantial increases over ambient noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors and would therefore be audible and potentially disturbing and annoying. Construction noise increases at adjacent residences, without mitigation, could be substantial and potentially significant. Although currently there is a six-foot block wall along the southwest and northwest property line, which would serve to attenuate noise, to further reduce and minimize construction noise levels, MMs N0I-1 and NOI-2 are introduced to reduce the impacts. MM N0I-1 requires 10 -foot high temporary noise barriers to be installed on the northwest and southwest property boundaries reducing the construction noise at the receptors by at least 5 dBA. MM NOI-2 requires construction equipment to have properly operating and maintained mufflers, stationary equipment to be located and equipped to minimize noise, and staging areas to be located as far away from local residences as feasible. With implementation of mitigation measures, potential impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures and Regulatory Requirements MM NOI-1 Prior to the issue of demolition, grading, or building permits, the Applicant shall provide evidence acceptable to the City of Newport Beach Public Works Director and/or Community Development Director, that construction plans and specifications require temporary noise barriers to be installed on the northwestern and southwestern project boundaries. The noise barriers shall be 10 feet high, shall be solid from the ground to the top of the barrier, and have a weight of at least 2.5 pounds per square foot, which is equivalent to 3/ -inch thick plywood. MM N0I-2 Prior to the start of grading, the Applicant shall provide evidence acceptable to the City of Newport Beach Community Development Director that construction plans and specifications require.- a. equire: a. All construction vehicles or equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers; mufflers shall be equivalent to or of greater noise reducing performance than manufacturer's standard. b. Stationary equipment, such as generators, cranes, and air compressors, shall be located as far from local residences as feasible. Stationary equipment shall be equipped with appropriate noise reduction measures (e.g., silencers, shrouds, or other devices) to limit the equipment noise at the nearest sensitive residences to 65 dBA Leq. 24 c. Equipment maintenance, vehicle parking, and material staging areas shall be located as far away from local residences as feasible. d. The Applicant shall provide a qualified "Noise Disturbance Coordinator." The Disturbance Coordinator shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. When a complaint is received, the Disturbance Coordinator shall notify the City within 24 hours of the complaint and determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and shall implement reasonable measures to resolve the complaint, as deemed acceptable by the Community Development Department. The contact name and the telephone number for the Disturbance Coordinator shall be clearly posted on-site. a. Construction activities shall not take place outside the allowable hours specified by NBMC Section 10.28.040 (7 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on weekdays, 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. on Saturdays, construction is prohibited on Sundays and/or federal holidays. (3) Potential Impact: The project would result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. Finding 1. Mitigation Measure is introduced to avoid a potential construction vibration impact requiring that large equipment and similar large vibration - producing equipment not be used within 150 feet of occupied residences and that jackhammers not be used within 60 feet of occupied residences. Vibratory rollers, if used, can be operated in the static mode when within 150 feet of residences. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is less than significant with incorporation of mitigation measure. Facts in Support of Finding Conventional construction equipment would be used for demolition and excavation and grading activities, and large equipment would not be anticipated to be used to develop the Project site. Vibration levels for large bulldozers, caisson drilling, loaded trucks, and jackhammers at a distance of 50 feet would exceed the 72 VdB impact threshold, and would be a potential significant impact. MM N0I-3 would avoid a potential construction vibration impact. With implementation of mitigation measure, potential impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures and Regulatory Requirements MM NOI-3 Prior to the issue of demolition, grading, or building permits, the Applicant shall provide evidence acceptable to the City of Newport Beach Community Development Director that construction plans and specifications require that large bulldozers, large loaded trucks, 25 vibratory rollers (operated in static mode), caisson drilling, and other similar large equipment not be used within 150 feet of occupied residences and that jackhammers not be used within 60 feet of occupied residences. (4) Potential Impact: The Project would result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in a local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies. (Long -Term). (5) Potential Impact: The Project would result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Finding 1. Mitigation Measure is introduced to require compliance with CBC and preparation of a noise analysis. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is less than significant with incorporation of mitigation measure. Facts in Support of Finding Exterior noise from vehicular traffic could potentially expose future residents of the Project to interior and exterior noise levels that would be incompatible with the limits in the City of Newport Beach General Plan and interior noise levels that would exceed the limit specified in the California Building Code. To be consistent with the General Plan, a detailed analysis of noise insulation features must be included in the design. Further, the CBC requires that interior noise levels in habitable rooms subject to exterior noise not exceed 45 dBA CNEL Therefore, MM NOI-4 would be incorporated into the Project to ensure noise compatibility and compliance with the CBC. MM NOI-4 requires a noise analysis demonstrating that interior noise levels would be 45 dBA CNEL or less, and that mechanical ventilation would be provided to habitable rooms facing Bristol Street and Bayview Place. With implementation of mitigation measure, potential impacts would be reduced to less than significant. Mitigation Measures and Regulatory Requirements MM N0I4 Prior to the issue of the building permit for the proposed Project, the Applicant shall submit an acoustical analysis acceptable to the City of Newport Beach Community Development Director or Building Official, that demonstrates that the proposed architectural design would provide an interior noise level of 45 dBA CNEL or less (based on buildout traffic noise conditions and in compliance with the AELUP for JWA) in all habitable rooms of the proposed building facing Bristol Street or Bayview Place. The Applicant shall also submit plans and specifications showing that.- All hat: All residential units facing Bristol Street and Bayview Place shall be provided with a means of mechanical ventilation, as required by the California Building Code for occupancy with windows closed. 26 (6) Potential Impact: For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, the Project would expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. Finding 1. Mitigation Measure is introduced to require compliance with CBC and preparation of a noise analysis. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is less than significant with incorporation of mitigation measure. Facts in Support of Finding The Project site is located approximately 0.7 mile south of John Wayne Airport and within the area covered by the Orange County ALUC Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport. Although the Project site is partially at the 2016 60 dBA CNEL noise contour, MM NOI-4, above, requires demonstrating that interior noise levels would not exceed 45 dBA CNEL based on future traffic noise levels of 70 dBA CNEL or greater. Because the JWA aircraft noise of approximately 60 dBA CNEL is 10 dBA less than the traffic noise, the sum of the aircraft and traffic noise would be negligibly greater than the traffic noise alone. Therefore, MM NOI-4 would ensure adequate noise attenuation from aircraft noise as well as traffic noise. With implementation of mitigation measure, potential impacts would be mitigated to less than significant. Mitigation Measures and Requlatory Requirements The above MM NOI-4 applies. F. Public Services (1) Potential Impact: The Project would result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of fire protection services (cumulative) and associated new or physically altered facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. Finding 1. Mitigation Measure is introduced to address the Project's contribution to cumulative fire protection impact and require payment of Project's pro -rata share of the cost for purchasing and equipping a new rescue ambulance (cumulative impact). The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this cumulative impact is reduced to less than significant with incorporation of mitigation measure. Facts in Support of Finding Future development in the City are expected to increase demand for fire protection services and would contribute to the need for additional equipment and personnel to meet the demand. Based on the evaluation conducted by the Newport Beach Fire Department, an adequate level of service can be provided to meet the long- range demand through the hiring of additional staff and providing additional equipment. However, although the Project's demand for fire protection services 27 would not result in construction of new or expansion of existing facility, to meet the staffing demand of the Project, MM FIRE -1 is proposed to address the Project's contribution to cumulative impacts. With implementation of mitigation measures, potential cumulative impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures and Regulatory Requirements MM FIRE -1 Within 60 calendar days of the City's issuance of the first building permit for the Project, the Applicant shall provide payment to the City of Newport Beach for the Project's pro -rata share of the cost for purchasing and equipping a new rescue ambulance with patient transport and advanced life support (ALS) capabilities to be located at Santa Ana Heights Fire Station No. 7. 6. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES A. Alternatives Selected for Analysis The following two alternatives have been determined to represent a reasonable range of alternatives that could potentially attain most of the basic objectives of the Project and have the potential to avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects of the Project. These alternatives are analyzed in detail in the following sections. • No Project Alternative • Office Development Alternative An EIR must identify an "environmentally superior" alternative, and where the No Project Alternative is identified as environmentally superior, the EIR is required to identify as environmentally superior an alternative from among the others evaluated. Each alternative's environmental impacts are compared to the proposed Project and determined to be environmentally superior, neutral, or inferior. However, only significant impacts are used in making the final determination of whether an alternative is environmentally superior or inferior to the proposed Project. However, no impacts analyzed in the Draft EIR were found to be significant and unavoidable. Subsection 5.4 in Section 5.0, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR identifies the environmentally superior alternative. The proposed Project is analyzed in detail in Section 4.0 of the Draft EIR. 1. Alternatives Comparison Table 1, Comparison of Impacts Associated with the Alternatives and Impacts of the Proposed Project, below, provides a summary matrix that compares the impacts associated with the Project with the impacts of each of the proposed alternatives. M Table 1 Comparison of Impacts Associated with the Alternatives and Impacts of the Proposed Project 29 Alternatives Proposed Project Alternative 1: Alternative 2: Impact Category Impact No Project Office Development Aesthetics Threshold 4.1-1 Have a substantial adverse effect on a Less Than Significant Less Similar scenic vista Threshold 4.1-2 Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock Less Than Significant Less Similar outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway Threshold 4.1-3 Substantially degrade the existing visual Less Than Significant Less Similar character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Threshold 4.1-4 Create a new source of substantial light Less Than Significant Less Similar or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Air Quality Threshold 4.2-1 Conflict with or obstruct implementation Less Than Significant Similar Similar of the applicable air quality plan. Threshold 4.2-2 Construction: Construction: Construction: Violate any air quality standard or Less Than Significant Less Less contribute substantially to an existing or Operation: Operation: Operation: projected air quality violation. Less Than Significant Greater Greater 29 30 Alternatives Proposed Project Alternative 1: Alternative 2: Impact Category Impact No Project Office Development Threshold 4.2-3 Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal Less Than Significant Similar Greater or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). Threshold 4.2.4 Expose sensitive receptors to Less Than Significant Less Similar substantial pollutant concentrations. Cultural Resources Threshold 4.3-1 Cause a substantial adverse change in Less Than Significant Less Greater the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5. Threshold 4.3-2 Directly or indirectly destroy a unique Less Than Significant Less Greater paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. Threshold 4.3.3 Disturb any human remains, including Less Than Significant Less Greater those interred outside of formal cemeteries. Geology and Soils Threshold 4.4-1 Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death Less Than Significant Less Similar involving: with Mitigation (i) Strong seismic ground shaking. (ii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction. Threshold 4.4.2 Result in substantial soil erosion or the Less Than Significant Less Similar loss of topsoil. 30 31 Alternatives Proposed Project Alternative 1: Alternative 2: Impact Category Impact No Project Office Development Threshold 4.4.3 Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become Less Than Significant unstable as a result of the Project, and with Mitigation Less Similar potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. Threshold 4.4-4 Be located on expansive soils, as Less Than Significant defined in Table 18-1-B of the California with Mitigation Less Similar Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Threshold 4.5-1 Construction: Construction: Construction: Generate greenhouse gas emissions, Less Than Significant Less Greater either directly or indirectly, that may Operation: Operation: Operation: have a significant impact on the environment. Less Than Significant Greater Greater Threshold 4.5-2 Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of Less Than Significant Greater Similar reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Threshold 4.6-1 Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine Less Than Significant Less Similar transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Threshold 4.6.2 Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident Less Than Significant Less Similar conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. 31 32 Alternatives Proposed Project Alternative 1: Alternative 2: Impact Category Impact No Project Office Development Threshold 4.6-3 For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a Less Than Significant Less Less public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area Hydrology and Water Quality WATER QUALITY Threshold 4.7.1 Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Less Than Significant Greater Similar Threshold 4.7-6 Otherwise substantially degrade water quality. Threshold 4.7.2 Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater Less Than Significant Less Similar table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted). Threshold 4.7.3 Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area including the alteration of the course of a stream or Less Than Significant Less Similar river, in manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site. DRAINAGE Threshold 4.7-4 Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including Less Than Significant Less Similar through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a 32 33 Alternatives Proposed Project Alternative 1: Alternative 2: Impact Category Impact No Project Office Development manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site. and Threshold 4.7-5 Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Land Use and Planning Threshold 4.8-1 Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project Less Than Significant (including, but not limited to the general with Mitigation Less Less plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Noise Threshold 4.9-1 Result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of Less Than Significant Less Similar standards established in a local general with Mitigation plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies. Threshold 4.9-4 Result in a substantial temporary or Less Than Significant periodic increase in ambient noise levels with Mitigation Less Greater in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project. Threshold 4.9-2 Result in exposure of persons to or Less Than Significant Less Similar generation of excessive groundborne with Mitigation vibration or groundborne noise levels. 33 34 Alternatives Proposed Project Alternative 1: Alternative 2: Impact Category Impact No Project Office Development Threshold 4.9.3 Result in a substantial permanent Less Than Significant increase in ambient noise levels in the with Mitigation Greater Greater Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project. Threshold 4.9.5 For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a Less Than Significant Less Less public airport or public use airport, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. Public Services Threshold 4.10-1 Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: (i) Fire protection Less Than Significant Less Similar (ii) Police protection Less Than Significant Less Similar Transportation/Traffic Threshold 4.11-1 Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, Construction: Construction: Construction: taking into account all modes of Less Than Significant Less Greater transportation including mass transit and Operation: Operation: Operation: non -motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, Less Than Significant Greater Greater including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit. 34 35 Alternatives Proposed Project Alternative 1: Alternative 2: Impact Category Impact No Project Office Development Threshold 4.11-2 Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) Less Than Significant Less Similar and Threshold 4.11-3 Result in inadequate emergency access. Tribal Cultural Resources Threshold 4.12-1 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of Less Than Significant Less Greater historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1 (k), or ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. Utilities and Service Systems Threshold 4.13-1 Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment Less Than Significant Less Similar facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could 35 a) No Project/No Build Alternative Description: Section 15126.6(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR evaluate a "No Project" alternative to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving a proposed project with the impacts of not approving that project. Section 15126.6(e)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines describes the two general types of no project 36 Alternatives Proposed Project Alternative 1: Alternative 2: Impact Category Impact No Project Office Development cause significant environmental impacts. and Threshold 4.13-4 Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the Project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the Project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments. Threshold 4.13-2 Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or Less Than Significant Less Similar expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects. Threshold 4.13-3 Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from Less Than Significant Less Similar existing entitlements and resources, or if are new or expanded entitlements are needed. Threshold 4.13-5 Be served by a landfill with insufficient Less Than Significant Less Similar permitted capacity to accommodate the Project's solid waste disposal needs? Threshold 4.13-6 Not comply with federal, state, and local Less Than Significant Less Similar statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Proposed Project: Development of 3 -story building with 101 assisted living and memory care units, with 120 beds. Alternative 1 — No Project Alternative: No new development; operation of the existing restaurant will continue. Alternative 2 — Office Development Alternative: Construction of 70,000 -square foot office building to replace existing restaurant. Source: Psomas, 2018. a) No Project/No Build Alternative Description: Section 15126.6(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR evaluate a "No Project" alternative to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving a proposed project with the impacts of not approving that project. Section 15126.6(e)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines describes the two general types of no project 36 alternative: (1) when the project is the revision of an existing land use, regulatory policy, or ongoing operation, the no project alternative would be the continuation of that plan and (2) when the project is other than a land use/regulatory plan (e.g., a specific development on an identifiable property), the no project alternative is the circumstance under which that project is not processed (i.e., no development). Under the No Project Alternative, existing site conditions and the environmental setting would remain unchanged. This alternative assumes the site would continue to remain in its existing state without demolition of the existing structure and site improvements, and the continued use and operation of the existing Kitayama restaurant. Environmental Effects: A full discussion of the No Project environmental impacts as compared to the proposed Project is set forth in Subsection 5.3.1 in Section 5, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR, which is hereby incorporated by reference. In comparison to the proposed Project, as shown above in Table 1, the No Project Alternative would result in fewer impacts for the following environmental topics: Aesthetics, Cultural Resources, Hazardous and Hazardous Materials, Public Services, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Utilities and Service Systems. However, the No Project Alternative would generate more operational vehicle trips than the proposed Project, resulting in greater Air Quality, Noise (long-term traffic and on-site noise generation), GHG Emissions, and Transportation/Traffic impacts compared to the Project. Additionally, this alternative would not provide permanent BMPs to reduce water quality impacts over existing conditions, resulting in more impacts associated with Hydrology and Water Quality. Overall, the No Project Alternative would have less environmental impacts than the proposed Project. Ability to Achieve Project Objectives: By not developing the site with the proposed senior living facility, the No Project Alternative would only attain 3 of the 7 Project Objectives identified in Subsection 5.2.1 in Section 5.0, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR. Specifically, the No Project Alternative would not meet the objectives related to the development of a senior living, self-sufficient facility, and a mix of assisted living and memory care units. While the existing restaurant under this Alternative has been developed to be compatible with surrounding land uses; provides landscaping buffers; and complies with the Bayview Planned Community Development Plan, it would not be a land use that would reduce vehicle trips to and from the site, since this Alternative would retain the existing restaurant, as allowed by the existing PC Development Plan. Feasibility: Since the No Project Alternative would allow the existing land use (Kitayama Restaurant) to continue operating on the Project site, the feasibility of this alternative would rely on the economic feasibility of indefinite operation of this use. No changes to the existing conditions would occur, and all operations would continue indefinitely. Finding: In comparison to the proposed Project, the No Project Alternative would reduce impacts to Aesthetics, Cultural Resources, Hazardous and Hazardous Materials, Public Services, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Utilities and Service Systems. This alternative would result in greater Air Quality, GHG Emissions, Noise (long-term traffic and on-site noise generation), Hydrology and Water Quality, and Transportation/Traffic impacts 37 compared to the project. By not developing the site with the proposed senior living project, the No Project Alternative would only attain 3 of the 7 Project Objectives identified in Subsection 5.2.1 in Section 5.0, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR. Overall, even though the No Project Alternative would not result in beneficial effects, such as the reduction of long- term impacts related to Air Quality, GHG Emissions, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Transportation/Traffic, that would occur under the proposed Project, it would have fewer environmental impacts than the proposed Project, making it the environmentally superior alternative. However, since the No Project Alternative fails to meet all but 3 of the Project objectives, it has been rejected by the City in favor of the proposed Project. b) Office Development Alternative Description: The Office Development Alternative assumes the redevelopment of the site with a 70,000-square-foot office building, as allowed under the Bayview Planned Community Development Plan (PC-32) for Area 5 and the General Commercial Office designation of the site in the Newport Beach General Plan. The designation of Restaurant/Professional and Administrative Office for this area would permit development of an administrative and professional office, subject to a use permit, with a maximum of 70,000 square feet in floor area and 35 feet in height. Other development standards such as building site area, off-street parking, setbacks, landscaping, and more are also provided for the Area 5 designation. In compliance with these standards, the Office Development Alternative proposes an office building with 3 floors over 3 stories of subterranean parking garage. Each floor would be approximately 23,000 square feet. The required parking would be accommodated by 57 surface parking spaces and 183 parking spaces in the garage. The building height above the ground surface grade would be 33 feet plus 10 feet for mechanical screening on the roof top. The building basement would be approximately 30 feet deep. Exterior fapade would be glass and aluminum, similar to other buildings in the area. Under the Office Development Alternative, the legislative actions including the General Plan and the Planned Community Development Plan Amendments under the proposed project, would not be required. However, a Major Site Development Review, as well as a Use Permit would still be required as the Professional and Administrative Office is a permitted use, subject to a use permit. Environmental Effects: A full discussion of the Office Development Alternative's environmental impacts compared to those of the proposed Project is set forth in Subsection 5.3.2 in Section 5.0, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR, which is hereby incorporated by reference. The Office Development Alternative would result in reduced impacts related to Land Use and Planning, as compared to the proposed Project. Impacts related to Aesthetics, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Operational Noise, Public Services, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Utilities and Service Systems would be similar to those of the proposed project. However, impacts associated with Air Quality, GHG Emissions, 38 Construction Noise, and Transportation/Traffic would be greater due to the (1) greater number of vehicle trips that would be generated by the office development under this alternative compared to the proposed project, (2) more excavation and soil export required for the Office Development Alternative, and (3) greater energy and water use in the Office Development Alternative. Ability to Achieve Project Objectives: With the redevelopment of the site with an office building, this alternative would fully meet 2 and partially meet 2 of the 7 Project Objectives identified in Subsection 5.2.1 in Section 5.0, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR. Specifically, the Office Development Alternative would not meet the objectives related to the development of a senior living, self-sufficient facility, and a mix of assisted living and memory care units. The proposed office under this alternative could be designed and constructed to be compatible with surrounding land uses and comply with the Bayview Planned Community Development Plan (PC -32). However, the landscaping under this alternative partially meets the objective of creating landscaping buffers, compared to the proposed Project. While this alternative would reduce vehicular trips to and from the site, as generated by the existing restaurant, it would not reduce vehicular trips from any other permitted land use in the Bayview Planned Community Development Plan since the proposed office use would have the same floor area as another permitted use in PC -32. Additionally, this alternative would have increased vehicular trips compared to the proposed project. Feasibility: Although the Office Development Alternative would be physically feasible, it may not be economically feasible. It is uncertain whether this alternative would yield a reasonable return on investment. Finding: The Office Development Alternative would generally have the same impacts as the Project on most issues; with lesser impacts on Land Use and Planning but greater impacts than the project in terms of Air Quality, GHG Emissions, Construction Noise, and Transportation/Traffic. Thus, it cannot be considered an environmentally superior alternative to the project. In addition, this alternative would only meet 3 of the 7 project objectives. Based on the detailed analyses in the Draft EIR Section 5.3.1 (Alternative 1 — No Project Alternative) and Section 5.3.2 (Alternative 2 — Office Development Alternative) and the summaries above and in Tables 1, above, and 5-2 in the Draft EIR, the proposed Project is the next environmentally superior alternative to the No Project Alternative. 39 STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } ss. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH } I, Leilani I. Brown, City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council is seven; the foregoing resolution, being Resolution No. 2019-13 was duly introduced before and adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 12th day of February, 2019; and the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Member Joy Brenner, Council Member Jeff Herdman; Council Member Kevin Muldoon, Mayor Pro Tem Will O'Neill, Mayor Diane Dixon NAYS: Council Member Brad Avery ABSENT: Council Member Duffy Duffield IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the official seal of said City this 13th day of February, 2019. r Leilani I. Brown ' City Clerk Newport Beach, California