Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1705 - CERTIFY FEIR, APPROVE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, ADOPT A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS_NEWPORT BAY MARINA_ 2300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD
RESOLUTION NO. 1705 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH. NO. 2003071144) FOR NEWPORT BAY MARINA LOCATED AT 2300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND STATE AND LOCAL GUIDELINES, MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS THERETO, APPROVING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS WHEREAS, an application was filed by ETCO Development, Inc. with respect to property located at 2300 Newport Boulevard (PA2001 -210) and legally described as Lot 1 of Parcel Map P.M.B. 68148. The applicant seeks approval of a Site Plan Review, Vesting Tentative Tract Map, and Use Permit for the construction of a mixed use development consisting of 27 residential units, 36,000 square feet of commercial floor area, and the reconstruction of bulk heads and boat slips on approximately 2.36 acres in the Cannery Village /McFadden Square area. WHEREAS, it was determined pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code of Regulations, Sections 15000 et seq.) that the Project could have a significant effect on the environment, and thus warranted the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report ( "EIR "); and WHEREAS, on February 23, 2005, the City of Newport Beach, as lead agency under CEQA, prepared a Notice of Preparation ( "NOP ") of the EIR; mailed that NOP to public agencies, organizations, and persons likely to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed Project, and WHEREAS, the City thereafter caused to be prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report ( "DEIR "), which, taking into account the comments it received on the NOP, described the Project and discussed the environmental impacts resulting there from, and on July 19, 2006, circulated the DEIR for public and agency comments; and WHEREAS, the public comment period closed on September 2, 2006; and WHEREAS, the EIR has been prepared and circulated for public review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000, et seq. ( "CEQA "); and WHEREAS, staff of the City of Newport Beach has reviewed the comments received on the draft EIR, has prepared full and complete responses thereto, and on September 22, 2006 distributed the responses in accordance with Public Resources Code section 21092.5: and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach, California, did on the 5th day of October, 2006 and 16th day of November, 2006, hold a duly noticed Planning Commission Resolution No. 1705 Page 2 of 4 public hearing to consider: (1) the certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), (2) the adoption of certain findings and determinations and adopt statement of overriding considerations; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information and the comments pertaining to the DEIR and FEIR at duly noticed meetings held on the 5th day of October, 2006 and on the 16th day of November, 2006; and WHEREAS, a combined Final Environmental Impact Report (collectively, "FEIR ") for the Project was presented to the Planning Commission, as the decision making body of the lead agency, for certification as having been completed in compliance with the provisions of CEQA and State and local guidelines implementing CEQA; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has read and considered all environmental documentation comprising the FEIR, including the comments and the responses to comments, and has found that the FEIR considers all potentially significant environmental impacts of the proposed project and is complete and adequate, and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA and of the State and local CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, prior to action on this Project, the Planning Commission has considered all significant impacts and Project alternatives identified in the FEIR and has found that all potentially significant impacts of the Project have been lessened or avoided to the extent feasible; and WHEREAS, CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines provide that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed and which identifies one or more significant effects of the project unless the public agency makes written findings for each of the significant effects, accompanied by a statement of facts supporting each finding; and WHEREAS, CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines require, where the decision of the Planning Commission allows the occurrence of significant environmental effects which are identified in the EIR, but are not mitigated, the Planning Commission must state in writing the reasons to support its action based on the FEIR and/or other information in the record; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that the Project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Regulations of the City of Newport Beach. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission 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; and 1 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1705 Page 3 of 4 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: SECTION 1. Based on its review and consideration of the FEIR, all written communications and oral testimony regarding the Project which have been submitted to and received by the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission certifies that the FEIR for the Project has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the State and local CEQA Guidelines. The Planning Commission, having final approval authority over the Project, adopts and certifies as complete and adequate the FEIR, which reflects the Planning Commission's independent judgment and analysis. The Planning Commission further certifies that the FEIR was presented to the Planning Commission and that the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the information contained in it prior to approving the Project. SECTION 2. CEQA Finding and Statement of Facts. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15091, the Planning Commission has reviewed and hereby adopts the CEQA Finding and Statement of Facts as shown on the attached Exhibit "A" entitled "CEQA Finding and Statement of Facts," which exhibit is incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 3. Statement of Overriding Considerations. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15093, the Planning Commission has reviewed and hereby makes the Statement of Overriding Considerations to adverse environmental impacts, attached also as Exhibit "B" entitled "Statement of Overriding Considerations," which exhibit is incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15097, the Planning Commission has reviewed and hereby adopts the "Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program" which is included as Exhibit "C ", which exhibit is incorporated herein by reference. SECTIONS. Location and Custodian of Record of Proceedings. The Planning Department of the City of Newport Beach, located at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92263, is hereby designated as the custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Planning Commission's decision is based, which documents and materials shall be available for public inspection and copying in accordance with the provisions of the California Public Records Act (California Government Code Section 6250 et seq.). SECTION 6. Notice of Determination. The Planning Director shall cause the filing of a notice of determination with the County Clerk of the County of Orange and with the state Office of Planning and Research within five working days of this approval. SECTION 7. Certification, Posting and Filing. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach, and the Secretary to the Planning Commission shall certify to the vote adopting this resolution and shall cause a certified copy of this resolution to be filed. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1705 Page 4 of 4 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16t" day of November 2006 AYES: Eaton, Peotter, Cole. Toerge and McDaniel NOES: Hawkins ABSENT: EXHIBIT A CEQA STATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND FACTS Newport Bay Marina Project ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1. Introduction The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Guidelines) provide that: "No public agency shall approve or carry out a Project for which an Environmental Impact Report has been completed and 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." (CEQA Guidelines §15091) Because the EIR identified significant effects which may occur as a result of the Project, and in accordance with the provisions of the Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach, Planning Commission ( "Planning Commission ") hereby adopts these findings as part of the approval of the Project. The City of Newport Beach has prepared an EIR for the proposed Project in accordance with CEQA and CEQA Guidelines requirements. It is not considered reasonable, required or feasible for this Planning Commission to recite every single detail forming the basis for its findings herein, since the voluminous record, incorporated herein by reference and made publicly available, contains the substantial evidence explaining the facts in support. The Planning Commission considers this incorporation approach justified, especially in light of the fact that the Planning Commission has responded in writing to each oral and written comment raising environmental issues and has made this information widely available through staff reports and mailings. Where appropriate and helpful to understanding the basis of the Planning Commission's findings herein, the Commission has mentioned certain aspects of the record arising from public input. 2. Description of the Approved Project 2.4 acre project site is located at 2300 Newport Boulevard and is currently developed with commercial, office and marine uses, including a commercial marina, two boat slipways, office buildings, retail shops, and associated parking. The proposed project consists of a mixed -use development with approximately 36,000 square feet of commercial uses and 27 residential units. The project will require the demolition of all existing buildings on the site. The project proposal includes a partial subterranean garage. The construction of the garage will require excavation of earth material. 1 The project includes site remediation in relation to contaminants (located in sediment near and within the boat slipways) associated with the previous ship building /repair use of the property. The remediation includes removal of sediment that has accumulated to form a shoal in front of the smaller of the two boat slipways. The sediment is contaminated with metals that are considered a hazardous waste. This material (200 square foot area) will be excavated using shore based equipment (i.e. long reach backhoe) and then disposed of at a licensed facility. The project also includes replacement of the existing bulkhead (along approximately 485 feet of waterfront). The existing sheet pile and concrete bulkhead will be demolished and removed using shore based construction equipment. Once the new bulkhead is constructed to tie in the property lines along the subject site, the former bulkhead will be demolished. The project also proposes reconfiguration of the existing 21 -boat slip marina located on the bayward side of the project site, and closure of one existing boat slipway (one slipway will be widen and remain open) used for boat berthing. The boat slipway to remain open and improved will also include a vehicular /pedestrian bridge crossing. The reconfiguration of the boat slips will involve removal of the existing docks and associated pierheads (existing pilings) and replacement of the boat slips and pierheads in the reconfigured layout. The reconfigured layout will facilitate an improved marina use. The number of boat slips will not be increased. The length of each boat slip ranges from 56 feet to 65 feet with the exception of Slip No. 19 (the large slipway with proposed vehicular /pedestrian bridge) which is approximately 150 feet in slip length. This large slipway will accommodate a variety of boat sizes. 3. Alternatives The EIR addressed the proposed Project and several alternatives to this Project. The alternatives examined in the EIR include: (1) No Project alternative (2) Reduced Development Alternative (3) Commercial Development Alternative (4) Residential Development Alternative Three Project alternatives were presented in the EIR.' The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered such alternatives in light of the adverse environmental effects which may result from the Project and the reduction or elimination of such effects which might be accomplished by selection of one of the alternatives. !' I Each alternative is summarized below and the specific economic social or other considerations that are considered to render such alternatives infeasible are set forth. The discussions below are intended to summarize and not fully restate the evidence contained in the Draft EIR, Response to Comments, and the administrative records as a whole. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES: No Project Alternative Under the No Project Alternative, the proposed mixed -use project would not be constructed. This project alternative also assumes that the site would not be developed with residential and/or commercial retail uses. The no project alternative would result in less environmental impacts for several topic areas compared to the proposed project (i.e. air quality, cultural resources, noise, utilities /services etc.). For example, the No Project would not involve the development of 27 residential units and 36,000 square feet of commercial /retail uses at the subject property. The No Project Alternative would not provide for improved and enhanced view corridor to The Rhine Channel and pedestrian access along the waterfront. This alternative also would not provide for the remedial cleanup of the contaminants present within the site (i.e. boat bays — the two inlets) and improvements related to water quality (filter all surface runoff before entering bay). The alternative would not improve the aesthetic appearance of the site nor provide a development that meets current seismic standards and uniform building code (UBC) requirements. All of the environmental impacts associated with the development of the proposed project can be mitigated to a less than significant level with the exception of Cultural Resources (Historical). The No Project would result in reduced environmental impacts than the proposed project (for Historical resources by retaining the existing structures); however, this project alternative does not meet the immediate and long -term project objectives and goals providing housing opportunities to meet the current and future demand of the community and region. Therefore, this alternative has been rejected. Reduced Development Alternative This project alternative would involve development of the site with a reduced development in size from that of the proposed project. This alternative assumes development of approximately twelve (12) residential units and 18,000 square feet of commercial retail uses. Although a few environmental impacts may be lessened in comparison to the proposed project (air quality, noise, traffic, utilities and services), overall, the impacts would be roughly the same and not significant reduced from that of the project. The Reduced Development Alternative also would still require demolishing the existing structures on -site; therefore, significant impacts relative to cultural resources (historical) would not be lessened from that of the proposed project. This development alternative would not significant reduce environmental impacts and would not provide the needed housing and commercial development proposed by the project. Therefore, for these reasons, this alternative has been rejected. 3 Commercial Development Alternative This project alternative includes evaluating potential the developing the site with only commercial uses. The City's current development regulations would allow for up 51,400 square feet of commercial uses at the site. This alternative would not significantly lessen any environmental impacts from that of the proposed project. Many of the environmental impacts would be the same including those associated with air quality, biology, cultural resources (historical), noise, traffic /parking, utilities and services. Development of this alternative would have the same beneficial impacts as that of the project in regards to aesthetics (attractive new buildings, view corridor, provision of pedestrian access along waterfront) , hydrology /water (improved drainage and filtration of runoff before entering bay), and hazardous materials (remedial cleanup). Since the environmental impacts would not be lessened and the project does not provide needed housing (a project objective) this alternative has been rejected. Residential Development Alternative This alternative involves development of all residential uses on the property. This alternative assumes that no commercial /retail /office uses would be constructed. The City's current development regulations would allow for the development of Up to 45 residential units. However, an all residential component would not be found consistent with the City's Land Use Element (LUP) and applicable Specific Plan. As with the all commercial development alternative, none of the environmental impacts associated with the proposed project would be significantly lessened with implementation of this alternative. This alternative would still require demolishing the existing structures on the site to accommodate the construction of 45 residential units. Therefore, adverse significant impacts to cultural resources (historical) would be reduced with this development alternative. Additionally, impacts associated with aesthetics, air quality, biology, traffic, utilities and services would not be lessened with this development alternative. Development of this alternative does not reduce environmental impacts nor provide an economic benefit; therefore, this alternative has been rejected. 4. Findinas of Fact The Planning Commission has reviewed the final EIR prepared to evaluate the proposed Project and has considered the public record on the Project as earlier described in these findings. These findings summarize the data and conclusions contained in the Draft EIR, the various response to comments and the administrative record. The Draft EIR, the various responses to comments and the administrative record are incorporated into these findings as set forth in full. Consistent with the requirements of the CEQA Guidelines, the EIR for the Newport Bay Marina Proiect discusses environmental effects in proportion to their severity and probability of occurrence. To that end, the EIR recognizes that certain areas of impact from the Project are unlikely to occur, or if potentially occurring can be mitigated to a 12 level of less than significant by imposition of conditions to the Project. It is not reasonably anticipated that potential additional impacts will be discovered as a result of future studies (as identified per the mitigation measures) because of the substantial evidence in the administrative record (including the EIR presently). Therefore, these studies are incorporated into the mitigation measures to further assure protection and recognize responsible agency involvement occurring in the normal course of affairs after the lead agency acts. The Planning Commission therefore finds, based on all the data currently available, that while no significant adverse impacts are expected to be discovered as a result of any of these subsequent studies, the requirements of such studies in connection with the Project and the reservation of the power to incorporate any mitigation measures required to mitigate any previously unknown impacts to less than significant levels, is itself adequate mitigation for any impacts disclosed by such subsequent surveys and studies, however, unlikely. The EIR identifies a number of potentially significant adverse environmental effects of the Project. The EIR also identifies mitigation measures which would reduce or eliminate potential adverse effects. These effects and the mitigation .measures are summarized below. All mitigation measures have been written as monitoring programs pursuant to Public Resources Code §21081.6. The drafting of these measures have been designed to ensure compliance during Project implementation as explained further in the EIR. These findings merely summarize data in the EIR administrative record for purposes of identifying the significant impacts and mitigation measures for the Project. The EIR is incorporated by reference into these findings as substantial evidence therefore as if set forth fully in the findings. AESTHETICS Significant Effects Development of the proposed mixed -use project will be visible from locations on -site as well as surrounding areas (residences, open space and roadways). The project will also include landscaping which will further soften the aesthetic appearance of the buildings. The mixed -use project will be visible to travelers on Newport Boulevard, from areas across the Rhine Channel and the immediate surrounding area. Additionally, lighting will also be visible but is not considered significant since the project is located in a developed urbanized area. The project is not considered visually offensive to viewers. Project construction activities will also be visible to viewers. Construction activities are short-term impacts and not considered a significant impact to aesthetics. The project site is not a designated scenic vista nor located near a designated scenic vista. Additionally, the project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings. The project will have an impact structures which are considered significant historical resources. This topic is addressed in the Cultural Resources Section. Findinas Finding 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen many of the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. Mitigation Measures MM 4.1.4 -1: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a landscape plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect for the project for review and approval by the Planning Director. Said landscape plan shall enhance the property and provide visual softening of the proposed three -story buildings and site lighting. The landscaping shall be installed in recognition of vehicular and pedestrian circulation (site distance considerations etc.) and safety. MM 4.1.4 -2: Prior to the issuance of a building pemmit, a site lighting plan shall be prepared and submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. Building and parking lot lighting shall be designed and installed so that all direct lighting rays are confined to the site and adjacent properties and roadways are protected from glare. Mitigation Measures Added None. Mitigation Measures Not Included 104 rem 9 Effects Not Mitigated to a Level of Less Than Sianificant I0relm AIR QUALITY Significant Effects The Pollutant (Nox & PM10) emissions associated with the grading and demolition activities on the project site are projected to be greater than the Significance Thresholds established by the SCAQMD in the CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Therefore, grading and demolition of the proposed project will result in a significant air quality impact. Long term emissions are below the significant threshold levels defined by the SCAQMD, and therefore, project will not have an adverse impact upon the regional emissions. Findings Finding 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen many of the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. Mitigation Measures MM 4.3.4 -1: During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the following measures are complied with to reduce short-term (construction) air quality impacts associated with the project: a) controlling fugitive dust by regular watering, or other dust palliative measures to meet South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust); b) maintaining equipment engines in proper tune; and c) phasing and scheduling construction activities to minimize project- related emissions. MM 4.3.4 -2: During demolition and excavation, daily total haul trucks shall travel no more than cumulative 2,600 miles hauling materials from the project site to the dumping site and back again. Prior to commencement of demolition and grading, the project applicant shall submit to the City calculations showing the proposed travel route for haul trucks, the distance traveled, and how many daily truck trips that can be accommodated while keeping the cumulative miles traveled to bellowed 2,600 miles each day. The daily haul truck trips shall not exceed this amount during the demolition and excavation. MM 4.3.4 -3: During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the project will comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance), to reduce odors from construction activities. rA Mitigation Measures Added None. Mitigation Measures Not Included None. Effects Not Mitigated to a Level of Less Than Significant None. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Significant Effects Impacts of this project to the marine environment appear to result in a positive effect on the marine environment by replacement of most of the existing habitat with habitat of equal or greater value than that disturbed during the course of the project. The existing boat slipways were surveyed and found to be depauperate in species probably due to their location in a dead end channel and the contaminants that are known to reside there. The impacts to the biota from the project are expected to be short term as most of the biota of the intertidal community are species such as compound ascidians, barnacles, mussels, limpets, and oysters with swimming larval forms that will readily colonize new substrate. Intertidal and subtidal algae such as Ulva and Enteromorpha are very fast growing and will readily attach to the new substrate. Other species such as nudibranchs and fish will swim free of the construction area and recolonize the habitat once construction is complete. Disturbances to the substrate in areas outside of the construction areas will have minor effects on polychaete worms, but they too will readily recolonize disturbed areas, so the loss to the infauna will be relatively small, short term in duration, and the impacts are, therefore, considered less than significant. Findings Finding 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen many of the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. Mitigation Measures MM 4.3.4 -1: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a survey will be conducted for the presence of ee /grass and Caulerpa. The biological assessments conducted by CRM and MBC indicate that neither species is present in the project locations, but it is required that not more than 90 days nor less than 30 days prior to initiation of actual construction that both ee /grass and Caulerpa surveys be conducted in September or R October, in which case the results are relevant until the following growth period beginning in March. In no case, will an ee /grass or Caulerpa survey conducted from November to February (non -growth period) be acceptable. MM 4.3.4 -2: Prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Use and Occupancy, the project applicant shall implement the recommended mitigation pertaining to the replacement and restoration Pickleweed and the mudflat area presented in the biological resources report prepared by MBC Applied Environmental Sciences. Mitigation Measures Added None. Mitigation Measures Not Incorporated None. Effects Not Mitigated to a Level of Less Than Significant None. CULTURAL RESOURCES Significant Effects As a result of the records and literature search and the field walkover surveys, no significant cultural resources were found to be present on or immediately adjacent to the project area. Therefore, no further archaeological investigations are recommended by ARMC. Paleontological resources, including fossil remains and associated scientific data, fossil sites, and fossiliferous rocks, could be adversely affected by the direct and indirect environmental impacts accompanying the grading and excavation activities needed for the development of the Newport Bay Marina Mixed -Use Project Area in Newport Beach. Direct impacts would result from the ground- disturbing activities associated with the clearing of the vegetation and soil, excavation of aggregate and increased development of the proposed processing facility. If a significant paleontological resource is identified within the boundaries of the proposed project ground disturbance could result in the loss of paleontological resources, including scientifically important fossil remains, associated geologic data, fossil sites, and fossiliferous rocks, by disturbing fossil- bearing and potentially fossiliferous rocks. Although construction would be a short-term activity, the loss of some fossil remains and the fossil- bearing rocks would be a permanent adverse environmental impact. On this particular parcel the project - related construction activities may have an affect any fossil- bearing formations. The South Coast Shipyard appears to be eligible for listing in the California Register as a historical resource at the local level of significance under Criteria 1 and 3. Under Criterion 1, the South Coast Shipyard is associated with the development of the maritime economy of Newport Beach and with World War II, as a local contributor to the war effort. Under Criterion 3, the South Coast shipyard represents an excellent example of maritime architecture in the City of Newport Beach, particularly on Balboa Peninsula. The buildings are in good condition and retain integrity of location, design, feeling, association, workmanship, materials, and setting. The South Coast Shipyard buildings exhibit a collective distinction as a historic district. All of the buildings located within the South Coast Shipyard are contributors to this district. None of the buildings appear to be individually eligible for listing in the California Register, as the shipyard represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction. None of the buildings appear to be individually eligible for listing in the California Register. The South Coast Shipyard does not appear to be eligible for listing in the California Register under Criteria 2 or 4. Although the shipyard was connected to several prominent business people and noted residents of Newport Beach, none of these individuals were associated with any activities that were demonstrably important to the history of Newport Beach, California, or the nation (Criterion 2). The South Coast Shipyard does not appear to be able to answer questions important in history (Criterion 4). In 1974, the South Coast Shipyard was identified as a historical landmark by the Newport Beach Historical Society. In 1992, the Ad Hoc Historic Preservation Advisory Committee conducted a Historic Resources Inventory for the City of Newport Beach. The South Coast Shipyard was identified as a local historic site, representing historic/architectural themes of local importance. While the South Coast Shipyard was recognized as a locally significant property, the City of Newport Beach does not have a Historic Preservation ordinance, and only encourages the adaptive reuse and preservation of buildings, recognized by the City to be Landmark Buildings. The South Coast Shipyard is not recognized by the City of Newport Beach to be a Landmark Building. Findings Finding 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen many of the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. Finding 2 - 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 EIR. Mitigation Measures MM 4.4.4 -1: During construction activities, if archaeological and /or paleontological resources are encountered, the contractor shall be responsible for temporary halting construction activities in the area of the encountered resources and is responsible for the immediate notification and securing of the site area. A qualified archaeologist and /or paleontologist approved by the City of Newport Beach, Planning Director shall be 10 retained to establish, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of cultural resource finds. If major archaeological and/or paleontological resources are discovered which require long -term halting or redirecting of grading, a report shall be prepared identifying such findings to the City and to the County of Orange. Discovered cultural resources shall be offered to the County of Orange or its designee or a first- refusal basis. MM 4.4.4 -2: The historical study prepared by LSA dated October 2005 recommends the mitigation to reduce the significant impacts to historical resources through the following methods: • Documentation of the South Coast Boatyard shall be provided by the developer prior to issuance of demolition permits by the City of Newport Beach. Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the Planning Director shall be provided an historic narrative, photographs, and architectural drawings of all on -site buildings in accordance with Historic American Building Survey (NABS) Level 1 documentation requirements. The Planning Director shall ensure that the HABS documentation is deposited with the Newport Beach Historical Society, the City of Newport Beach Public Library, the Newport Harbor Nautical Museum, and the• SCCIC located at California State University, Fullerton, prior to issuance of demolition permits. • Prior to issuance of building permits, the Planning Director shall review project building plans and permits to ensure incorporation of design features referencing and memorializing the character - defining features of the South Coast Boatyard into design of the project, including, but not limited to, incorporation of a commemorative plaque depicting the buildings and their context to the historical importance of the structures on site. Such plaque shall be oriented to a public right -of -way (i.e. facing Newport Boulevard), so as to be visible and accessible to the public from such right -of -way. • If previously undocumented cultural resources are found during construction activities within the current project area, a qualified professional archaeologist shall assess the nature and significance of the find in order to recommend appropriate mitigation measures, halting construction activity in the vicinity of the find, if necessary. Mitigation Measures Added None. Mitigation Measures Not Included None. 11 Effects Not Mitigated to a Level of Less Than Significant The Project will result in an unavoidable significant impact to Cultural Resources (historical). GEOLOGY AND SOILS Significant Effects The topography of the site is relatively flat. The site is not located in an area of unique geologic or physical features. There are no evident faults on the site itself. Field observation during the geotechnical investigation (Petra) did not reveal the existence of any active or ancient landslide in the vicinity of the project site. The closest slope in the area of the site is the bluff north of the site on West Coast Highway. The closest known active or potentially active fault is the Newport- Inglewood Fault. Strong ground shaking is the principle cause of most damage sustained during an earthquake. The most severe ground shaking at the site is expected to originate from an earthquake along the Newport- Inglewood fault zone, which the site lies within (Petra). Groundwater at the project site is relatively shallow. Evaluation and analysis during the geotechnical field explorations conducted by Petra indicate fill materials and marine deposit soils located from a depth of 4 to 30 feet below the ground surface are susceptible to liquefaction. Significant total and differential settlement of the foundation may occur due to seismically induced settlement. All potential impacts associated with geology and soils are mitigated to a level of less than significant per the project design and compliance with the City Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC Sec.15.10.140) will reduce any potential impacts to an insignificant level. Findings Finding 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen many of the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. Mitigation Measures MM 4.5.4 -1: The project shall implement the recommendations presented in the geotechnical reports prepared by Petra presented in Appendix D, Volume II of the EIR. MM 4.5.4 -2: Prior to the commencement of construction, design criteria and project specifications that include ground improvement techniques such as stone columns, use of deep foundations which penetrate below the liquefiable zone, pressure grouting, or appropriate combinations of these measures shall be incorporated into the plans for the project. MM 4.5.4 -3: Develop design criteria and project specifications that recognize groundwater may be encountered at the proposed depth of the partially subterranean parking area. Construction of mat foundations or structural slabs may be required. 12 Design of utility lines and surface drainage in the subterranean parking should also consider the presence of a shallow groundwater table. MM 4.5.4 -4: Use appropriate type of cement and concrete specification according to Table 19 -A -4 of the Unifomn Building Code to mitigate contract with corrosive soils and sea water that may come in contact with footings in the area. Mitigation Measures Added None. Mitigation Measures Not Included None. Effects Not Mitigated to a Level of Less Than Significant None. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Significant Impacts During construction activities, the potential exists for localized spills of petroleum -based products, concrete, or other chemicals. These spills could expose workers and the public to hazardous materials either directly, at the site of the spill, or indirectly, by introducing these substances into the watershed. Such impacts are potentially significant; therefore, mitigation measures are provided to reduce the likelihood of a spill and prevent surface water contamination in the event of a spill. Based on compliance with existing regulations regarding hazardous materials, no increase in risk of upset related to hazardous materials is anticipated with the proposed project. The proposed project does involve the transport and disposal of some hazardous materials from waste located in sediment near the slipways. The geological assessments (October 11, 2002, Petra Geotechnical, Inc.) consisted of drilling and sampling four borings to assess the environmental condition of sediments which form a shoal near the slipways. The geologic and chemical data obtained during this assessment indicates that local contamination of the sediments in the shoal (near the slipways) has occurred. Concentrations above the Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration (STLC) for copper and lead are present in the upper three feet below the mudline in the shoal area. The detected concentrations of copper and lead (above the STLC) require that these specific sediments be handled as a hazardous waste if they are excavated and removed. The project is not located within an airport land use plan or close vicinity of a private airstrip (or public airport) that would result in a safety hazard for people residing or 13 working in the project area. The closest airport to the project site is the John Wayne Airport. This airport is approximately 5 miles from the project site. The project will not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. However, during construction activities, the project will need to be coordinated with the City (i.e. construction traffic control plan) especially during summer months when the Newport Beach area is very congested with tourist and beachgoers. To ensure that the project does not interfere with any potential emergency response vehicles, a mitigation measure is presented in (Transportation/Traffic). The site itself does not pose any unusual significant risk of wildland fires. The project construction will be required to comply with applicable safety regulations including fire prevention and an emergency operations plan. Additionally, the project will not interfere with any emergency plan and /or access for emergency operations. Findings Finding 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen many of the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. Finding 2 - Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. Mitigation Measures MM 4.6.4 -1: If during grading and /or construction activities a potential contaminated area is encountered, construction shall cease in the vicinity of the contaminated area. An assessment shall be performed by a qualified hazardous materials specialist to determine the extent and type of contamination. If the site investigation reveals that contamination with pollutant concentrations in excess of Action Levels, as defined by the California Department of Health Services and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, the site shall be remediate during the project construction phase in compliance with the State of California Hazardous Substances Control Law (Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.5) standards established the California Department of Health Services, Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, and the requirements of California Administrative Code, Title 30, Chapter 22 and applicable Federal regulations. MM 4.6.4 -2: The proper use and maintenance of construction equipment, along with the use of general common sense, greatly reduces the potential for contamination. All grading and building plans will include the following construction related measures and that the measures shall be followed by the construction contractor and crew: 14 a. The storage of hazardous materials, chemicals, fuels, and oils and fueling of construction equipment shall be a minimum of 45 meters (150 feet) from any drainage, water supply, or other water feature. L Hazardous materials stored onsite shall be stored in a neat, orderly manner in the appropriate containers and, if possible, under a roof or other enclosure. c. Whenever possible, all of a product shall be used up before disposal of its container. d. If surplus product must be disposed of, the manufacturers or the local and state recommended methods for disposal shall be followed. e. Spills shall be contained and cleaned up immediately after discovery. Manufacturer's methods for spill cleanup of a material shall be followed as described on the Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for each product. MM 4.6.4 -3: Prior to the issuance of any certificate of use and occupancy permit(s), the project applicant shall submit written evidence from the Califomia Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region that no further action is needed and all remediation is completed and construction can proceed. Mitigation Measures Added MM 4.6.4 -4: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall provide evidence that a Final Work Plan (for remediation) has been approved by the RWQCB and that said plan provides for protective measures for contaminated material removal including measures such as use of silt curtains and a watertight clamshell bucket for minimizing the dispersion of containments. Said Plan shall be subject to review and approval by the RWQCB. MM 4.6.4 -5: Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, the applicant shall submit to the Fire Chief a hazardous material disposal plan which identifies the procedures and method of removing and disposing of lead and asbestos in relation to the existing buildings on the site. Mitigation Measures Not Included None. Effects Not Mitigated to a Level of Less Than Significant None. 15 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Significant Impacts The proposed project will have a beneficial impact to water quality. The existing shipyard is proposed to be removed and remediation (contaminants in the sediments of the boat bays) of the site will be conducted in compliance with the requirements of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region. Water quality implementation of the project will include compliance with the adopted Drainage Area Management Plan and adoption of Best Management Practices for handling any runoff from the proposed housing buildings or hardscape. Therefore, impacts to water quality are not anticipated. The proposed project would not substantially increase water runoff. The site is already developed with existing buildings and is located in an urbanized area of the City. The site is largely covered with impervious surface (e.g. asphalt, concrete, etc.) at the present time. The proposed expansion will include demolition of three corrugated metal structures and the asphalt parking lot to accommodate the new buildings. Since the site is presently covered with impervious surface and will continue to be after project implementation, the project will result in an insignificant increase in runoff. The project is located in close proximity to the beach and ocean front. All on -site surface water will be conveyed to a drainage system that includes catch basin filters and that eventually flows toward the bay. The project will result in short-term and long- term impacts to water quality. Short-term impacts will occur as a result of construction and grading activities. Long -term impacts will occur as a result of increased usage of the site by vehicles and people. These impacts can be reduced by procedures that protect the quality of stormwater runoff, such as: site construction, erosion and sediment control programs, sweeping streets, managing solid waste, recycling programs, storm drain and catch basin maintenance, enforcing prohibitions on illegal discharges, controlling spills, supervising waste discharges through permitting, and enforcing the prohibition on certain discharges. Water quality implementation of the project will include compliance with the adopted Drainage Area Management Plan and adoption of Best Management Practices for handling any runoff from the proposed project. The project site is located within a 500 -year flood hazard area. Due to close proximity of the project site to the Pacific Ocean (and the Rhine Channel), the site could potentially experience impacts associated with inundation by tsunami (but unlikely a seiche or mudflow due to the location and topography). The project itself does not expose people or structures to a significant risk involving flooding, or flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. The City of Newport Beach has emergency procedures in the event of a major event (i.e. flooding, earthquake, evacuation plans etc.) Findings 16 Finding 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen many of the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. Finding 2 - Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. Mitigation Measures MM 4.7.4 -1: Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, the applicant shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) and provide evidence that a NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed with the State Regional Water Quality Control Board. Such evidence shall consist of a copy of the NOI stamped by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The SWPPP shall be developed to reduce the risk of the transport of sediment and pollutant from site. The SWPPP shall implement measures to minimize risks from material delivery and storage, spill prevention and control, vehicle and equipment fueling and maintenance, material use, structure construction and painting, paving operations, solid waste management, sanitary waste management, and hazardous waste management. MM 4.7.4 -2: During construction and following completion of development, the recommendations presented in the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) prepared by SP Consulting Group dated February 20, 2006 shall be implemented and complied with to ensure that all potential project impacts to water quality will be reduced to a less than significant level and all applicable local and state water quality requirements complied with by the project applicant (property owner). MM 4.7.4 -3: During construction activities the following shall to be implemented: a. During construction and maintenance activities, equipment shall be in proper working condition and inspected for leaks and drips on a daily basis. The project contractor or representative thereof shall develop and implement a spill prevention and remediation plan and workers shall be instructed as to its requirements. Construction supervisors and workers and maintenance personnel shall be instructed to (1) be alert for indications of equipment - related contamination such as stains and odors, and (2) respond immediately with appropriate actions as detailed in the spill prevention and remediation plan if indications of equipment - related contamination are noted. b. During construction and maintenance activities, fuels, solvents, and lubricants shall be stored in a bermed area so that potential spills and /or leaks shall be contained. Soil contamination resulting from spills and/or leaks shall be remediated as required by Federal and /or state law. Storage areas shall be constructed so that containers shall not be subjected to damage by construction and maintenance equipment. 17 c. Stockpiles of bulk granular building materials shall be covered and secured. d. Any areas of exposed soil, such as dirt stockpiles, dirt berms, and temporary dirt roads, shall be stabilized with controlled amounts of sprinkled water. e. At the close of each working day, any materials tracked onto the street or laying uncontained in the construction areas shall be swept up, and any trash accumulated in construction areas shall be disposed. Concrete, asphalt, and masonry wastes shall be contained and these wastes shall be disposed away from project construction sites. g. Spill kits containing absorbent materials will be kept at the construction site. h. Fuels and other hazardous materials will be stored away from project drainage. MM 4.7.4 -4: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a landscape plan, which includes a maintenance program to control the use of fertilizers and pesticides, and an irrigation system designed to minimize surface runoff and over watering. This plan shall be reviewed by the: City of Newport Beach Planning Department. The landscaping shall be installed and maintained in conformance with the approved plan and maintenance program. Mitigation Measures Added None. Mitigation Measures Not Included None. Effects Not Mitigated to a Level of Less Than Significant None. LAND USE AND PLANNING Significant Impacts The proposed project does not result in any significant impacts relative to land use and planning. The project is consistent with applicable regulation plans and development regulations (i.e. General Plan, Specific Plan, & LCP). The project does not impact any applicable habitat conservation plan (HCP) or natural community conservation plan (NCCP). The project site is not part of a HCP or NCCP. Ir The proposed project will not result in any significant impacts to land use and planning. Mitigation related to other topical areas such as biological resources, cultural resources etc. are presented in the appropriate EIR Sections addressing those areas. Findings Finding 1 - 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 EIR. Mitigation Measures None. Mitigation Measures Added None. Mitigation Measures Not Included None. Effects Not Mitigated to a Level of Less Than Significant None. NOISE Significant Impacts Construction noise represents a short-term impact on ambient noise levels. Noise generated by construction equipment, including trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete mixers and portable generators can reach high levels. Typical noise construction levels are shown in Exhibit 4.9 -3. Construction of the project includes demolition of all existing buildings, grading and excavation associated with the construction of the parking garage and site remediation. However, the project does not propose construction outside of the hours permitted in the Noise Ordinance. The proposed residences are required to meet an outdoor noise standard of 65 CNEL and an indoor noise standard of 45 CNEL. Residences along Newport Boulevard may be exposed to noise levels in excess of 70 CNEL. A few second and third floor balcony units are planned along Newport Boulevard. Noise barrier heights were calculated for sample outside balcony locations facing along 19 Newport Boulevard. Balcony barriers of 5 feet high may be required. In general, noise barrier heights may be reduced considerably through site design, such as setbacks from the roadway, grade separations, and exterior living area orientation. The residential buildings facing Newport Boulevard will experience traffic noise levels of 70 CNEL or greater, and will require outdoor -to- indoor noise reduction of at least a 25 dB. In some cases standard construction will achieve this level of reduction, however, these residences will likely require upgraded windows to achieve the required outdoor to indoor noise reduction. With typical residential construction, a minimum of 20 dB of outdoor -to- indoor noise reduction is achieved with windows closed. With windows open outdoor -to- indoor, noise reduction falls to 12 dBA. Therefore, units requiring more than 12 dB of noise reduction require adequate ventilation per the Uniform Building Code to allow windows to remain closed. Typically this is provided through mechanical ventilation. Mechanical ventilation may be required for all homes in the project. The commercial buildings must comply with an interior noise standard of 50 CNEL. The commercial buildings along Newport Boulevard could experience noise levels in excess of 70 CNEL. Findings Finding 1 - Changes or alterations had been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen many of the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. Mitigation Measures MM 4.9.4 -1: Prior to the issuance of any building permits, detailed engineering construction plans will be submitted to the City for review and approval. The engineering plans shall provide details such as roof and wall elements, room dimensions, window and door dimensions, attic configuration and building insulation. Said plans shall demonstrate and ensure that the City's noise standards are met for proposed mixed -use project (residential and commercial). Mitigation Measures Added None. Mitigation Measures Not Included None. Effects Not Mitigated to a Level of Less Than Significant None. 20 PUBLIC SERVICES Fire The proposed project may potentially increase the number of calls for service to the location; however, it is anticipated that the project will not require any new facilities /staff or affect emergency response times. all proposed structures will be required to be fully fire sprinklered. At this time, the Newport Beach Fire Department has indicated that the project will not result in any significant impacts to facilities, staff and /or services. All fire protection project features must be designed as an integral part of the construction process with all improvements and /or modernization of equipment systems or devices identified and agreed upon by the City of Newport Beach Fire and Marine Department prior to any construction approval. Police There are no plans for additional facilities or expansion of current facilities and /or additional staff. The Newport Beach Police Department (NBPD) indicated that the construction of the project may have an impact on the area, especially if the construction is done in the summer months. The area becomes very busy with traffic and parking issues because of the beachgoers and tourist business that occurs between May and September. Schools The proposed project consists of a mixed -use development that includes 27 new residential units. The project will generate new students, however, the project is consistent with the land use designation of the City's General Plan and zoning and therefore included in the student generation projections for buildout of the City. Based on the current student generation rates, the project could result in the generation of approximately 7 K -12 students (27 units x 0.259 K -12 student/dwelling unit). While the development is not expected to generate significant numbers of students, the District's facilities are overcrowded. Therefore, in compliance with state law the project applicant will be required to pay applicable development impact fees adopted by school district. Parks The proposed project is not anticipated to significantly increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks and recreational facilities. The project will provide additional marine recreation opportunities to the public. Existing parks in the area and beaches are available to the public. Due to the limited population expected in relation to the 27 residential units the increase will be limited in regards to the potential use of parks and recreational facilities in the area. The project applicant will be required to pay applicable park impact fees. Findings 21 Finding 1 - Changes or alterations had been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen many of the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. Finding 2 - Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. Mitiaation Measures MM 4.90.4 -9: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, project construction plans shall be submitted to the City Fire Chief for review to verify that all fire protection is designed in compliance with the requirements of the City of Newport Beach Fire and Marine Department. MM 4.10.4 -2: Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the project applicant shall pay any applicable development school impact fees as required by State law. MM 4A0.4 -3: Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the project applicant shall pay any applicable park impact fees as required by City of Newport Beach and State law. Mitigation Measures Added None. Mitigation Measures Not Included None. Effects Not Mitigated to a Level of Less Than Significant None. TRANSPORTATION Significant Impacts The proposed development is projected to generate approximately 682 trip -ends (net increase) per day with -2 (net) vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 28 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. Six intersections were evaluated per the traffic study conducted for the project. Additionally analysis for one intersection was warranted. The ICU analysis for the intersection of Newport Boulevard and Via Lido assumes existing land configurations and a capacity of 1,600 vehicles per hour per lane with no clearances factor. The traffic study concluded that the project will have no impact on the intersection of Newport Boulevard and Via Lido during the peak hours, which will 22 IV operate at LOS (Level of Service) "A ". The project has no significant impact on the study intersections. Parking for the project will be provided by a underground parking structure, an upper deck parking lot, and on- street parking. No on- street parking will be lost on Newport Boulevard along the project frontage, and two new on- street parking spaces on Newport Boulevard are proposed by relocating an existing fire hydrant. No on- street parking will be lost on 22nd Street. Five on- street parking spaces on The Arcade will be relocated on The Arcade along the project frontage. Findings Finding 1 - Changes or alterations had been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen many of the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. Mitiqation Measures None. Mitigation Measures Added None. Miti-gation Measures Not Included None. Effects Not Mitigated to a Level of Less Than Significant None. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Significant Impacts Water and Sewer Services Based on water consumption factors, development of the project will result in a water consumption of 32,618 gallons of water daily (102,800 sq.ft. of residential uses and 36,000 sq.ft. of commercial uses, 235 gallons /1,000 sq.ft.). The total of 32,618 does not take into account the deduction of the consumption by the existing use to be demolished to accommodate the new development. Based on sewer flow generation factors (5,429 gallons per day (gpd) /acre), development of the project is anticipated to generate 282,308 gallons of wastewater annually. 23 The project will generate an estimated 6,902 gallons of sewage each day (based on OCSD use flow coefficients of 3,451 gpd /acre for medium density residential, 8 -16 du /ac); however, no significant discharges that would exceed wastewater treatment requirements will occur as a result of the development. The project does not include uses that would necessitate treatment beyond that provided by the OCSD and raw sewage generated by the project will not exceed wastewater treatment requirements established by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. Electrical Services The project will require extension of existing electrical facilities to serve the new school buildings and parking area. Based on consumption factors from the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook it is projected that the project will have a consumption rate of 1,221,440 kWh (based on computing square footage by 8.8 KWh /sq.ft. per year). The project is not anticipated to have any significant impacts on electrical services. Natural Gas Services The project will require expansion of gas services to serve the school buildings. No significant adverse impacts associated with providing gas service to the project are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. Solid Waste Services The demolition of the existing structures and surfaces on the project site will result in the generation of solid waste. The majority of the demolition waste can be diverted through a recycle process of wood, metal, concrete, and other building materials. It is estimated that the project will generate approximately 292 pounds of solid waste per day (based on IWMD generation rate of 4 Ibs /unit and 0.005 /sq.ft. for commercial /retail). The project will comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. It is not anticipated that there are any significant impacts relative to providing solid waste pick up and disposal generated by the project. Telephone Services The proposed project will require extension of existing telephone facilities to serve the new buildings. No significant adverse impacts associated with providing telephone service to the project are anticipated as a result of the project. Findings Finding 1 - Changes or alterations had been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen many of the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. 24 Finding 2 - Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. Mitigation Measures MM 4.13.4 -1: Prior to the commencement of construction activities, the project applicant shall coordinate with utility and service organizations regarding any construction activities to ensure existing facilities are protected and any necessary expansion or relocation of facilities are planned and scheduled in consultation with the appropriate public agencies. MM 4.13.4 -1: Prior to the commencement of construction activities, the project applicant shall coordinate with utility and service organizations regarding any construction activities to ensure existing facilities are protected and any necessary expansion or relocation of facilities are planned and scheduled in consultation with the appropriate public agencies. Mitigation Measures Added None. Mitigation Measures Not Included None. Effects Not Mitigated to a Level of Less Than Significant None. 25 EXHIBIT B STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS A. UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE EIR The City of Newport Beach finds that the mitigation measures discussed in Exhibit A (Findings of Facts) will, when implemented, mitigate or substantially reduce most of the environmental effects identified in the Final EIR. Nonetheless, certain significant environmental impacts of the project are unavoidable. For such effects, the City of Newport Beach has balanced the benefits of the project against such unavoidable impacts in its approval. The unavoidable impacts associated with the Newport Bay Marina Project are in the following areas: Cultural Resources The project site buildings appear to be eligible for listing in the California Register as a historical resource at the local level of significance under Criteria 1 and 3. Under Criterion 1, the property (aka the South Coast Shipyard) is associated with the development of the maritime economy of Newport Beach and with World Warll, as a local contributorto the wareffort. Under Criterion 3, the South Coast shipyard represents an excellent example of maritime architecture in the City of Newport Beach, particularly on Balboa Peninsula. The buildings are in good condition and retain integrity of location, design, feeling, association, workmanship, materials, and setting. The site (aka South Coast Shipyard) buildings exhibit a collective distinction as a historic district. All of the buildings located within the subject property are contributors to this district. None of the buildings appear to be individually eligible for listing in the California Register, as the shipyard represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction. None of the buildings appear to be individually eligible for listing in the California Register. To approve the project the City of Newport Beach, Planning Commission, must make a statement of overriding considerations pursuantto State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15043 and 15093. This statement allows a lead agency to cite a projects general economic, social or other benefits as a justification for choosing to allow the occurrence of specified significant environmental effects that have not been avoided. The statement explains why, in the agency =s judgment, the project =s benefits outweigh the unavoidable significant effects. CEQA does not require lead agencies to analyze beneficial impacts in an EIR. Rather, EIR's are to focus on potential significant effects on the environment, defined to be adverse (Public Resources Code, Section 21068). However, these benefits can be cited, if necessary, in a statement of overriding considerations (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15093). B. IDENTIFIED PUBLIC BENEFITS The City of Newport Beach, Planning Commission, in its review and consideration of the proposed Newport Bay Marina project, and in consideration of the unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the project on Cultural Resources, makes the following determinations and finding regarding the Unavoidable Adverse Impacts for the overriding reasons listed below: 1. The project will contribute housing in the City of Newport Beach by the provision of additional residential units (27 dwelling units). The provision of additional housing is a public benefit of the project. The project would provide housing opportunities that assist in meeting the objectives and policies the City's Housing Element and SCAG's Regional Housing Needs Assessment. 2. The project provides for the remediation of hazardous materials (contaminated sediment) located within the project boundary. The remediation will clean up the site and assure a healthy environment for future residents and businesses. Therefore, there is a public benefit of the remediation of hazardous materials that will occur as a result of the implementation of the project. 3. The project will provide an attractive and viable mixed use (residential /commercial) development that optimizes the project site's prime location adjacent to the marina. Additionally, the marina will continue to be provided as well as an enhanced and larger boat slipway. The project will also improve water quality (post- construction) by the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMP's) and treatment of water prior to entering the bay. Currently, the site does not have a treatment system. Therefore, the project will provide an economic and public benefit of providing mixed -use of the property (residential, commercial, and marine uses) as well as improving the water quality from that which currently exists on site. 4. The project will provide for public access along the waterfront by implementing planned pedestrian walkways as well as a pedestrian /vehicular bridge crossing. The provisions of pedestrian walkways and the bridge crossing is a public benefit of the project. 5. Alternatives to the Project were evaluated and considered by the City of Newport Beach Planning Commission, the alternatives included the following; No Project Alternative, Reduced Development Alternative, Commercial Development Alternative, and the Residential Development Alternative. Based on the analysis, it was determined that the Project is the alternative that best meets the City's objectives and goals in providing educational facilities and opportunities to the public in accordance with State law. The Planning Commission hereby finds that all feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR have been and will be implemented with the project, and that any significant unavoidable effects remaining are acceptable due to the above stated specific economic, social and other considerations, based upon the facts set forth above, in the Final EIR and in the public record of the consideration of this project. u t ■ g _ � B \ \ / ? � Q Q / ) k / \ ( (� > \\ �� �] « �] ƒ \ ) e ^{ { \\A)f \L \ \� /22 \a m / =` 2 § \ @ {) ) $ {t k Z3 }}6\k#}\ k ))\ kj \e)�\ ¥�\ k §\ \( } \ {/\ C�j > ®/ 77o } \\ )) \ )( ƒ . �k / ƒ ) 3 2 &z co \)r \aa§N �r ¥&f2 $� ~� -J/$ \7\)7o -Z —ttz), tc co ;®%e=Gf# `�s#Z3 § { \22`\ _m )) Z: t4 E �k���) ƒ/\ k ZOO :- /l 2 ) \ƒ/ ¥7 k 7 \]) \z § } / %z �a±« 77$(77 \a \))\ {), E2 � E 2$(` ®;§ / CO /)/ ©$ {} =#� ƒ]] -§ A+)$) ± ii %a ■>� ■,3§&75 3 � C�j n §� � rz ]a »2) {\\ k( ' �( ) 3 _ {) _±§ ) . \ } j 2 \(D� \/ M\ \ �\\ f /%t)555�§ tz ) {! 0)m M § =2 \m \s`a\k \ \ /�� � ® ` »^` ) \$_/ \ R rf{ 2m E - \ /§ \§ )� k �&2 ©\ /()M ZM{0 f«E.�,lc%a* o §,!%!]]329\ §, \]) {-k7 0� \ m «\ �.E {2` # /2§ k\f ® \)Qj \7t /22k\ o S ■ \ §!]CY �E[��etm( ■±3r @ ■2w£e =£ag27' ■ *me m n It k� > (2 §t \& • &a «& \ \®\ k} ®\ \� ( \ \ k\ 2 ) j 2 /f) # ) \§ \� \/ US t: / ;f2.§ \ee E&#J® moo\ \)gee) o\�§ // \( § *#m® { ; =o k - -aatt: § ° /)\ ] *2 ;o -m d / � _ ^)+ /a[§a§'rz @�& * ` * 22 • !») #7ee%E%7a& 70®��o ! & \\ 2; ;2§\ZEeco It r \� > f/ ¥� ®} {) §k �( > /2/ k§ \ CL : \ ) 2 - 0 a)Co /wfE2fac > }\} \ \ / \kc _ - )0 0E , 0 \ 2 tm } 00 \\ }����c ccW (f� \)UCcc ��)0 cc tm k Zk))(wj��)f)�uc o 2 !aE(a §,) «tE�o § `Zf=4ii|�7k La ® ® ^)a» /O.c q! / \k \�f{(e$ ®77®f»2t{%;\ 2tm [EE mƒ 6. cc —ffi @22 {> t22U E . v2&maa$U.0.0c §)CLC) r C D A Y L :a Y .O O L a a ° q aq c c c ° 3 c5 r 4 p O Y' � � U � v o 3 co o ° d u � O U v 0 ti Y c O .p .y d Y ro b v Q � [d � v .d y � s`£ s o F" N a a 7 7 0 .G 0 O U Vl � O 0 n � � o �❑ o °OO,W Nm cc n-ffi 'o cc (�p � .p = N C N m W O YO d W o U oo U E m° E 9 W = m c m rLn ° —Q E o 10=L2 -E m W -O O N U= U C y N O. L U W W L W cc 01 O W cc O N L W ms's 'O 7 N CO 'j l0 U p m r U o U U C a) W _ °i Z -O y N twm .0 0 3 cL 0 0 0 CL rn`c 3 3J_mm 3 W ao o. W C C C 2 U (n d Q W Z 2 01 C U'p Cm 2Zw O o c m o Ca a)L L cUi 0ai LU U-E O 0 � W U LL c m m 3 W Z U o. m o. `o W m c S C Y Y a) (q C m U' a) "O .L.. Y C ru W C w -O O) O) E "rA Z' W` O — 01 cc U N= 3 'O ._ ._ W O. U -O ._ E O L W a) a) C>> Q C a) O� C C a) 0 W .N Z O. O. a) L m N W -0(/) J a) Z) 'O W rn'S rn L C C O C N O .o E W U p Y W LoL W w O' O O E O O O) C _ 'O W tm W W a) Y > N a) W C O 01 p W Cl L C a) o E W o a) W � W W O Mn p O. cc C YO a) 01 C W m U C C . � 01 01 a) W CL d a-0 L m W W rn oc U O) ° L C C 'o 2 C E C m w W CL m c W a) o r Y p W O_ > �. > O) O. L .s O O) - N a) L U C C .0 V L 3 p O W O) O O. O °' W E a) iA L a) p d W W C W U c m p o O a > cc C W X O O. > W a) > a) W W j a) C O D O p O U Y m a) co E W 'O E .L-. W C O. N 0-6 E -O W� W U U .S o m `O Z m aL- 3 m W -o o a U WO cc W WW - o C E .E . — a) "O U C > U 0 ' w d cc L c U CO N N 5 U > E c > p U d W C a) c R U O a) V O. CCL O C tm C .- C C O. 5 O a) O) 01 C N N C C c C ° O cc U C N W 2 E G CL W w Y W O O U N w N Oa) .L.. . c N L ]a (� > \ om \ \\ !o� ƒ7£ @¢ )/ } \/ -� §§t �Lei ®�- ° °[§! \§) \) 2f ) CZ\ ) } ] \ % \/ ` � e / / } —gym \\ / + \ om \ \\ !o� ƒ7£ @¢ )/ } \/ -� §§t �Lei ®�- ° °[§! \§) \) 2f ) — ) } ] \ % [ ` / / } —gym \\ / + ) j j �\z2@%2± a \ om \ \\ !o� ƒ7£ @¢ )/ } \/ -� §§t �Lei ®�- ° °[§! \§) \) /\f \ \f3 � \ \ \� \\ r2,/) k\m -0\ f0) \ zo vm M \ ■7 §£\££m ■E§aG«a\ r. 2f ;m/ } \\ \ \ \\ —gym \\ \)�2:3m �\z2@%2± ■e2tk%!& /\f \ \f3 � \ \ \� \\ r2,/) k\m -0\ f0) \ zo vm M \ ■7 §£\££m ■E§aG«a\ r. §� > ! 4\ )\ y \ ( { )] % � \ \ ) - - %%6g%��% ®» \) % j\ ƒ)]2222! § }!s® -c c )!\ \ \ \ \j (C6)� �`( }[! \ /$lz�3 ) \\ / \§2 »!`=2a� §))Eg/ \zz E &�, ca , > \\ }\)6 §\j § q) co rz ! z�a)y ` ®¥r/ 2at(Ga% k z $t &« {2a | Jk \ }. § mJ { %)4) »''` -� -�_® i E@ c. §°#e § -7a : ,2222 �)\ \/ ( ® \�( \ \ } \� \)}) /\ \ �.. ®a ;a/ A,,%-Z $ � M 0 � Y U � Q L U U � O J W Q a o ° o C U U N p ,Oj L O U �I G O j O U Q O. O O �J O-rt Q Q s d Q Y � o OQ S Q N C1 O Q O Q 0 0 > °I )( ƒ 4, 4a ®} /i K /(K /) \\ �) / \ ) )) ! § ƒ \ ) ) G G G ? =ao-0 /§\ \ )2*,«]\} ®, 'lzCz /L) »% ®_EZ \>i\\ ! cL ! !2§ e6lto k \/$z \ \( \3 \�( ®4 \ \) �22`t !a _ ; \/ ]) § \ } » * / \ }) k / i( }G §a K /f =za /® K)&{7 -Z . »Qt 443 ���])f ,7E wL> '66�� '`- § |)) \7 °���!« ® ) ��Z3 ,4 «y , 0 (� > ®� \\ Ij a§mw f) ®Kr § � \ \ ƒ ) ) / 6 }]7) ®]#®] r!»a \ \t ®®=\t§ X227(@\ ƒ$ �!!2{\22� -,�a� ¥Z,a, fG°°,®E2i 2 o\f e �,asl222z\at /ft`«} §4A § \>\%»!]4» Etr±} r- r- Co .0 a tb me @� - k 64 �>z, (Cj \ /tim!& -- §e =±�w2.( / ! ®- «�ee2 },f, am%`&!� ®` %.ft /« 2tmJ ��¥ /aa%a4f+e:rE 2e\Kzka§ea i 7 c 0 .W m u � .L V V .L � y n O C a° $ ce U w c c y a y m V � Q p N O 0 T O Y � O o u va � a p 3 U a -�Zsa $;2 �,O gv ." p y"� � d � O.Ci 0 4�O .r i•r 'aka+ y ,a '� p TO O a c y ,y 'x b 9 O zi �ap 4 v V o 4 y ` O� N O 4 y `u 4 y O O 5 .��, i" i C i t Y -: U O C, > iY �5 �' y y4 • L 'Q Q C .ice. O 4 d O U a�i y ti d ti d L O i a U v v � v � O C i y y `� Urn �• � i�� C �� C d � 3 q'p y O -0T d 4 y 'CS O Y p ti��-0 p •O .� o � '7 N .c q y y o� i v� v v �.' o .� � v Y O i� b .0 q' � ¢"� r •� E 1� O p. "�3 L a� a� d` d O O L O V+ p O Q• a� Q 'CS L �.., � L 'C3 Z Q y a V O �. U a� h (� > !§ \ \) »k \} )\ \ \ k� � \ \ \2 \ �!Z3ales |`2« \ \% // T 3339 ® ® ) }» ®(» \� »2 - *\f \( \ \o) § \ ® %\�` ®7 \ ®�z���t\ \§ ( \�\� \� ]f( « \f)){ % ®a < _ - \S: ) ) %2 2M2 \f33${ }\ } / 2 \\ ! ®®� $! {]22; +) § ®2`E§J } - »4 �22)I�2 * «a&�sa® $ 2 \ §f \\)\ /)} g§\4} \ })2 0 �^ o a d C 2QU mq `aQ `nq = p co F, 0 0 'i Q Q O Q u c U V U �mmQ) M Q)� O y m N C pi N �G"O ui W m N� D b U y y W N Q 5 C C d a °: g g a LLI m m n e°_n ' o C o c' U) 3 o m c t C o W M CL y LLI O _� U OU d �s FS, m O m ,t.. W W f0 r