Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
GP Update-Final EIR and All Elements-Supplemental
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT Agenda Item No. 2 July 20, 2006 TO: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: City Manager's Office Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager 949 - 644 -3222, swood @city.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: General Plan Update — Final Environmental Impact Report and all Elements APPLICANT NAME: City of Newport Beach Charter Section 423 Analysis Council Policy A -18 requires that proposed General Plan Amendments be reviewed to determine if the 100 peak hour trip, 40,000 square foot or 100 dwelling unit thresholds are exceeded. General Plan Amendments which exceed any one of these thresholds are required to be submitted to the electorate for approval. Because this amendment is a comprehensive update of the General Plan including a comprehensive revision of goals policies and land uses in the Land Use Element, the analysis necessarily included the entire Land Use Element Planning Area. The following information compares the number of authorized residential units, non - residential floor area (including floor area associated with mixed use development) and both AM and PM peak hour trips in the existing and proposed General Plans, and shows the differential between them. The peak hour trip analysis uses the ITE trip rates established in Council Policy A -18. 11 This number has been adjust down by 3 trips, to account for the difference between the sub -areas and other areas peak hour reduction table and the full planning area calculated reduction table, which is a result of mathematical rounding. This reduces the PM peak hour reduction of the proposed General Plan by 3 trips. Residential Non - residential A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour units Floor Area Trips Trips Existing General Plan 48,819 31,760,884 s .ft. 102,435 128,322' Less 20% of Prior Amendments 17 11,726 s .ft 35 37 Adjusted Existing GP 48,802 31,749,158 s .ft. 102,400 128,288 Proposed General Plan 49,968 31,234,660 s .ft. 101,243 127,287 Differential +1,166 - 514,498 s .ft. -1,157 -998 11 This number has been adjust down by 3 trips, to account for the difference between the sub -areas and other areas peak hour reduction table and the full planning area calculated reduction table, which is a result of mathematical rounding. This reduces the PM peak hour reduction of the proposed General Plan by 3 trips. General Plan Update July 20, 2006 Page 2 The proposed project exceeds the 100 residential unit threshold. Therefore Section 423 of the Charter requires that this amendment be submitted to the electorate for approval. The detailed information used to prepare the preceding analysis is attached for the information of the Planning Commission. These spreadsheets provide a breakdown of land uses authorized by the existing and proposed General Plans by statistical area and by subarea for the proposed General Plan as well as all other areas of the City. The numbers for the proposed General Plan include all General Plan Amendments approved since adoption of Charter Section 423. This Charter section and Council Policy A -18 require these amendments to be tracked as 'Prior Amendments" at 80% of the increase($) in threshold(s) for ten years. This is to determine if minor amendments in a single Statistical Area cumulatively exceed any of the thresholds. To make this analysis consistent with Section 423 tracking requirements, 20% of the units, square footage and peak hour trips of prior amendments have been deducted from the existing General Plan numbers (so they are counted appropriately at 80 %). Prior amendments are included at 100% for the proposed General Plan. As required by Policy A -18, the "Prior Amendment' Entitlement Table is attached to this report. Submitted by: Sharon Wood Assistant City Manager Attachments: 1. Plan -to -Plan Comparison Table 2. Peak Hour Trip Comparison Table 3. Prior Amendments Entitlement Table I: \Users \PLN \Shared \1PLANCOM\2006 \0720 \PC GPU 7 -20 -06 SUPP (2) (2).doc CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN 2006 UPDATE Volume IA Final Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR Changes and Responses to Comments) SCH No. 2006011119 Prepared for City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915 Prepared by EIP Associates 12301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430 Los Angeles, California 90025 July 2006 Volume IA Final Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR Changes and Responses to Comments) CHAPTER 8 Introduction to the Final EIR ................................................. ............................... 8 -1 8.1 CEQA Requirements .......................................................................... ............................8 -1 8.2 Use of the Final EIR ........................................................................... ............................8 -1 Figures Error! No table of contents entries found. Tables Error! No table of contents entries found. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR IN 8.1 CEQA REQUIREMENTS Before approving a project, the Cakfornia Enoironmental,Quaki i Aa (CEQA) requires the Lead Agency to prepare and certify a Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR). The contents of a Final EIR are specified in Section 15132 of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that: The Final EIR shall consist of a. The Draft EIR ors. revision of the Draft. b. Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR either verbatim or in summary. c. A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR d. The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process. e. Any other information added by the Lead Agency. In summary, this Final EIR consists of three volumes: • Volume I— City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update Draft EIR • Volume IA —Draft EIR Changes, Responses to Comments, and Final EIR Report Preparers • Volume II— Technical Appendices to the Draft EIR The determination that the City of Newport Beach (the City) is the "lead agency" is trade in accordance with Sections 15051 and 15367 of the CEQA Guidelines, which define the lead agency as the public agency that has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project. The Lead Agency must provide each agency that commented on the Draft EIR with a copy of the Lead Agencies' proposed response at least 10 days before certifying the Final EIR. 8.2 USE OF THE FINAL EIR The Final EIR allows the public and the City an opportunity to review revisions to the Draft EIR, the response to comments, and other components of the EIR, prior to approval of the project. The Final EIR serves as the environmental document to support approval of the proposed project, either in whole or in part, if the project is approved. After completing the Final EIR, and before approving the project, the Lead Agency must make the following three certifications, as required by Section 15090 of the CEQA Guidelines: • The Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA • The Final EIR was presented to the decision - making body of the Lead Agency, and that the decision- making body reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR prior to approving the project • The Final EIR reflects the Lead Agency's independent judgment and analysis City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 8 -1 As required by Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines, no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified that identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings (Findings of Fact) for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding supported by substantial evidence in the record. The possible findings are: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. 3. Specific economic, 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. These certifications and the Findings of Fact are included in a separate Findings document. Both the Final EIR and the Findings are submitted to the City for consideration of the proposed project. 8.3 CHANGES TO THE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE It should be noted that since publication of the Draft EIR, the City Council and Planning Commission have scheduled /conducted 18 public hearings to discuss the proposed General Plan Update. As a result of this public involvement process, the City Council has directed changes to the proposed General Plan Update regarding land use intensities, type of use, and other policy revisions. These changes have been indicated where relevant in response to the comments provided by the public on the Draft EIR. Table 8 -1 identifies the proposed development directed by City Council in each subarea. For ease of comparison, the amount of development for the existing General Plan, as well as for the General Plan Update identified in the Draft EIR is also provided. The table also shows the average daily trips that would be generated by the existing General Plan, the proposed General Plan Update as analyzed in the Draft EIR, and the proposed General Plan Update as proposed to be revised by the City Council. 8 -2 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR go \ \ \ \O / � 7 � k $ 2 b\ . \/ » ®4r m m. E\�« §0 CCm 4.6 % k §- 2 0)�[f §7§ f =ar. . 23@73» §r (.�• • §_. /•07 ) 7 ? a 4 § ;\ } §),)�) §E2= ;ILƒ ■lE (k0 \ } -� LL \\§) ±v , f 23£� -,� e.. =.o• £/� '� ^ Jf \ \ } !\ # - # 2« 2w go \ \ \ / ME \ / A co i - - § $ \ � / . ƒ�■ a«% # co $�. _ ^ }: « : \ cli » ■° )% ` ® 0 \® C! x =} §§ °\ . \fie '\ ƒ / $ 3 %0 0 -00-C \ j \ = 2� ( /k) k }k §I }} \ \> •� \\ /�� \ \ 12'L'U �} :. 7 7 } $ Ci \( \ 7 )�§) Li § \z$\ \\a w)\)�k C ƒ) IL ALL 2 �7It7& k })k)+ .0 z m I � • J l..1.. / ME \ / A co F1 K W m 6 Q c a a O G L U O m m t O 3 z z O u t in rn • � � I� r� W of Q • ap n _o ' m�a0 aO O 4 U 0 O C O N C O • '•' w O m = W Sc mo •QI '�d Q:��Einvt �z • O. a' Q LL N L X N O O' O U a 3 E Z l¢L c C N@ N O O V E N O N H N N N • a E Ep li aNN w E O • • .. LL X ?�^2 Q V O N E �' and N U'°G x ^2 p q Z x p " R • • • Z m = C 1 L Q 4] N Mu N U V m a • O 0 O U' .NO.. W O N 3 p N O N uj t0 t O N L N O • � AD 'C O f d e = O d d= LLJ Q 4 • R < U- U U o m m c • M.55 � _ E • o E LL E o E X '° E X_ O • IL yam. U 75 R g LL Z 0� o � � m ( q � c v • • m E a ` 42i m LL m F1 K W m 6 Q c a a O G L U O m m t O 3 z z O u _(D a a a c a s 0 `m C N t U C) N C O Q 3 z Z O U I m kml p • M 'F • N � O oc a0 O • d O) C � y U • ?? z • � 3 m • q =- £ L • O Lm c d O •fi m d N • 37 "� o� d :� �j -g •� % X 'O � 1� LL L y N d o o m 'O N O a O OHE m Z• @ N O •• w 0 aci °r3 E U O o O c Lj c v ':: � h ai c x w c� Q m E� a� m 2¢ c i • rn n o M O O) o�o O Q � m • c m t N tvi„ •° m io E m m >d o a> o m 3 ol Q � £ •e _m m o °o c r O S Z m p •� t6 �O y lL •- V N p z W- ! d rG c m U a N E !uU N N O N a R m O m a m fr 0 O V5 LU tm (9 7 E • •d c t�m � m o O '� m 'rn o � x m . x O x c°h -do v •rn H z m H h m N M f0 [O O O ap Oi Qf' 1 R O • O 3��R O O C d .py �3; �3ai _(D a a a c a s 0 `m C N t U C) N C O Q 3 z Z O U I m rl Cb $ � $ d " . lf# k I$ - u ) \ \ ƒ \ d _ ( .\.2 = |0 -r= ® o=&goff� »m$$7)&$ /=» /,27 ` \ .2fiJ =27 ¥zLLI / CN ^ j§)° k .0 Cl! 2 \ / @4& fa a■� * rl Cb CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN 2006 UPDATE Findings of Fact/ Statement of Overriding Considerations Prepared for City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915 Prepared by EIP Associates 12301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430 Los Angeles, California 90025 July 2006 CHAPTER 1 Introduction ........... ............................... ......................... Error! Bookmark not defined. CHAPTER 2 CEQA Findings ............................... ............................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.1 Introduction .................................. ............................... Error! Bookmark not defined. CHAPTER 3 Findings Regarding Project Alternatives ................................ ............................... 3 -1 3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................... ............................3 -1 3.2 Project Objectives ............................................................................... ............................3 -1 3.3 Selection of Alternatives ..................................................................... ............................3 -2 3.4 Project Alternative Findings .............................................................. ............................3 -2 CHAPTER 4 Statement of Overriding Considerations ........ ............................... 4.1 Introduction ......................................................... ............................... 4.2 Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts ....... ............................... 4.3 Findings ................................................................. ............................... 4.4 Overriding Considerations ................................. ............................... Table Table 2 -1 CEQA Findings ..................................................... ............................... ................... 4 -1 .......................4 -1 ....................... 4-1 ....................... 4-3 ....................... 4-4 .......................2 -2 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Findings of Fact /Statement of Overriding Considerations ill This document presents the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations that must be adopted by the City of Newport Beach (City) pursuant to the requirements of Sections 15091 and 15093, respectively, of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines) prior to the approval of the City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update (proposed project). This document is organized as follows: Chapter 1 Introduction to the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations. Chapter 2 Presents the CEQA Findings of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), including the identified significant impacts. Chapter 3 Presents the alternatives to the proposed project and evaluates them in relation to the findings contained in Section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. The City must consider and make findings regarding alternatives when a project would involve environmental impacts that cannot be reduced to a less - than- significant level, or cannot be substantially reduced, by proposed mitigation measures. Chapter 4 Presents a Statement of Overriding Considerations that is required in accordance with Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines for significant impacts of the proposed project that cannot be mitigated to a less - than - significant level. As noted in Chapter 8 of the Final EIR, since publication of the Draft EIR, the City Council and Planning Commission have conducted eighteen public hearings to discuss the proposed General Plan Update. As a result of this public's input during this process and to lessen the environmental impacts identified in the EIR, the City Council has directed City staff to make changes to the proposed General Plan Update that would reduce the Project's land use intensities and add circulation system improvements to reduce traffic impacts. In addition, the Council has made policy additions and other revisions to reduce environmental impacts. These changes are discussed in Chapters 8 and 9 of the Final EIR, with land use density and intensity reductions and resulting reductions in average daily trip generation shown on Table 8 -1, and policy additions and revisions in response to DEIR comments shown in Chapter 9, Text Changes. In addition, two circulation system improvements have been added to the Circulation Element: a second left turn lane at Riverside Drive and Coast Highway, and an additional right turn lane and through lane at Campus Drive and Bristol Street. These improvements decrease the number of intersections that would operate at a level of service worse than "D," and allow the Circulation Element policy to establish LOS D as the City's standard for two additional intersections. These Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations reflect the reductions and changes to the project that the Planning Commission and City Council have indicated should be incorporated into the proposed General Plan prior to its adoption. All recommended reductions, revisions and policy modifications to the proposed General Plan Update that occurred after the issuance of the Draft EIR are within the scope of impacts analyzed in the EIR and would eliminate or reduce the severity of environmental impacts, rather than result in an increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Draft City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Findings of Fact /Statement of Overriding Considerations 1 -1 EIR. As such, recirculation of the EIR is not required, in accordance with Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. 1 -2 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Findings of Fact /Statement of Overriding Considerations 2.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter presents the potential impacts that were identified in the EIR and the findings that are required in accordance with Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines. The possible findings for each significant and /or potentially significant adverse impact are as follows: (a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid, substantially lessen, or reduce the magnitude of the significant environmental effect as identified in the FIR ("Finding 1 "). (b) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the findings. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. ("Finding 2') (c) Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives in the EIR ("Finding 3'�. Table 2 -1 (CEQA Findings) summarizes the significant unavoidable impacts of the General Plan Update, as currently proposed for adoption. Additional facts which support the findings are set forth in the Draft EIR, the Final EIR, the staff report to the City Council, and the record of proceedings. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Findings of Fact /Statement of Overriding Considerations 2 -1 N w a c m V t d Q 1%im °HLo�M m•yom� c°.cS � r a d t n c �!' m E o c a c 3 N e-" N .a >~ :5 �cc�Np == -ZE°cm o°ad8 >:_.EmW.- N C Q m T O V U m> 'O 'O fOi O_ .y } U m— o n an d- c .° a s :- �c `r%i S m m a' �6 a m O N° . @ o° s a L £ 3 o N a I° L6 E ENo9 E`c Zaoi$ica`� 3?'° -sy3v °mom m 3a > 0 ag o. `-'= mcn Z= of N3LN TO O+_K 3d -ON c6L Oa OZ.... c m V _ m- N a d �... c m N 2 .Z` m a W > ... O ? d d' C C OI O Clad�+a -in Eo ��-mo m" m =`om W=m mm Qa N.- C� 00 yTnN V�c�3a n��Od C N— O ynJ �V �cOV c m E 0 0� 8 m a C Wc �z � Z'o O L6 V U .- N C 'w `„ N uj N n O N � m 7 N m .6 0 - . 75 nfw m c 8E C- 3w o -02(6 W'- m"m > m o m`oz x am �L "m ... �•o c� m� a> N m a c E w 075 N_d�Ot OLmN Ny`nH NQ��aU�m0 _ c moo; X00 nup�i�a E dQ ma Ems-$ "'S mE'- ' --==mw coy° c apt ,ti... afa aci Fm a me v W.2 2 m W'zt aai ma 3.8 E...� m � � �E rno y O m > 'E '`- n=8�. 2�§am- ro =mc8$ No � °� ii -°• � �- y " d vi � � a m c o m c may `o n o � c c ,�w ama��pmc' -y 'ycO'm 025 d °m aaS2 ac o rnm.8° c rn� c'N o= LL Z'N�amo@a- rn2�ao£ LL �8a`ma>aiamOES M- m o o m > c o � c N m N N O O z�amin M _ m V• � J L E m m c n rn K » Q L N � a UaN Oa�p.. C Of c.2 °dc�a�oy Lo 3 o w O. in C C L� 'U d Q -65:s moo c o ��Uia -°i m m m 032 n 0 o o� N c d C O N p d C U1 m 22. 75 • O.NL •O 4. t c m 0 < F- 8`ofi w mc7 rn5 W a c %5-5.2 QQ c o �c N N 00- as Ny m ° n E c E N E m m may ,a .mm a m o N C .Z a' CY c 3¢ R o d N N O N �O p EA C w O a a m 2 m o N y c N C7 U C O � O C CD fm/f - OI O O N p K p Ec.d3m> Cl) N Z ;G Z O L... $ p N p O m a c m m 0 w E _m E o E c m c E O 1 Q m m E a S. .rTr N N E Q 3 C C O a m m a p;G. N m m R c O �vaa vi maQ c £ 8 W a p.N E O yi C _O] m 4 y o O C- rn U mg w m Q N l0 N p U O m m d >. o Tm 8.A w y a i Q C Q O_ E 3 W. pc 0 °c 10 E o��ma a rm -mpmm m 5 ai {Cpj m N �F f6 m Cl E C 8� P- C 'd jn c ` M H !!+ w L E O Q S af g N m '- U C m O ;"� W m and U .tm.. ac m g a E N N d p U a U y h a O d O '= r m 0 o U y E N y p a O .O O a O• E- c je a O c> m m 0 mp t p� �U m O m £ tE C m o g z d m a oco o N � p d aa_>0 m Y s o c aci ccO y L W cG U O 2 [6 m V t� O N �O p EA C w O a a m 2 m o N y c N C7 U C O � O C CD fm/f - OI O O N p K p Ec.d3m> Cl) N p O m a c m m E E O 1 vami ¢ N o m a S. �vaa vi maQ c 8 C 0= U NUU y✓ C _O] m 4 y o O C- N p U O m m �L m3 n0'Ea a y N O L 0 N ymy N V Q C Q O_ O N �O p EA C w O a a m 2 m o N y c N C7 U C O � O C CD fm/f - OI O O N p K p Ec.d3m> Cl) N T d @ O O G t a N N c N C N O ca C N m C C @ @ m - c a a w U = @'O d d fOO m U' C7 n N L 0 O C m � a •� m m O 3 m 4n E N N9�6Q O t0 ma'�P3Nd;� a = rC7 @m m� n a � • - U -O � O N V N L O O) y EL O VC a C O p E 2 N@ N m O N m FL ZE r` 0 Q O N U CCj` U O p c Z c d @ 0 m 1 d O f` 'y r3 y N a ° 0- y LLJ UimEO�a cmE ' pmt UI m C y= m it C e@ J. Z c m m 7 d 0 N yN Or �LON N'O 2 N�� dOG C-i m tO o = ama�i'rnc'o° °m _a @a m2Lo��om� 0a m'�o � E a oc°��mEa3ic ¢o� s op°'c T d @ O O G t a N N c N C N O ca C N m C C @ @ m - c a a w U = @'O d d fOO m U' C7 n N L 0 O C m � a •� m m O 3 m 4n E N N9�6Q O t0 ma'�P3Nd;� a = rC7 @m m� n a � • - U -O � O N V N k 2 k /kj \/ / § 3]q) Z E#] -zwk }�■m #7§a k{ }k \))k Za7 31 Mn §2ƒ / \� k)2m §)2k 12f£ \kk )� \\\0 fa / / fa /\Zkt 7 (I }k${f2$ |f «K,£_����aaf {§-a 0 C z�§a \ \ / \ \ W\� \z§ « \ \■--] ±�w C3 z0 $�ta�« - =122 I �0E! ■¥#$EZ10u -5 - =m, -«2E °! = k\2][a�a��afa ,%&- �#®ZZ -k �7�f2k - { ƒ�k ®)A 72EZ 13 1 6-0 §\a )\ /k / ƒJ *$f§\ ©a=£E))) = 2�E \$ �2eEKKe`« =£ -a - m, /kj \/ / § 3]q) Z E#] -zwk }�■m #7§a k{ }k \))k Za7 31 Mn §2ƒ / \� k)2m §)2k 12f£ z. C a N N c R N .6 .mc -yoo ccmi 'Q c'o a>;mrn g A2 c rn d� a N w o — U m N co 0 R @ o m@ F C m [O y N m E m y y L U � @ a c Q c= E n m c m M r o c.0mm U �3s$mui coca o oao3' m�•��.0 _.'z -7._ �m C m ry N M O m N� W fl. N y C t O O. O U J Q J L O OJ j Z 0 o c N m m o° c o� h m � c U W Q O O U o £ m c a m m t a _ m I[J m @ O y Ease �(7 N 3 a' m �O N 0= — m m c Q'O R £ w v c o a c c 3 y a fi v w a y m !� c N Z z @ . NU o'gjjg fi @ N Q U a m> m 0 0 L !c a . Z a o- m a n m o c �>;o3ocmyY m n m y m y Q@ .0 y E& m m o Q U w= m a m m m m O Y C @ 30 y w t N c m 0 d N m @ U pr m Q Q J N Q c C m m W @ H E 42 aQ fi�o� mN ayi m qd� c m @ E N C7 N EL c a op W N a N m8ma WEE °a 75 �• c m °- y m o- c y@ y 3 C U n O'S m Q y 2 m aci "m Q c m `o a @aa s:c o H o- zm a d o rn° a° t o m ism m0-.0 c M 3 o > o 'O cWW 'aa7oo 9 d J W :Q `o.Q�U m ii C7 W fA .mc -yoo ccmi 'Q c'o a>;mrn g A2 c rn d� a N w o — U m N co 0 R @ o m@ F C m [O y N m E m y y L U � @ a c Q c= E n m c m M r o c.0mm U �3s$mui coca o oao3' m�•��.0 _.'z -7._ �m C m ry N M O m N� W fl. N y C t O O. O U J Q J L O OJ j Z 0 o c N m m o° c o� h m � c U W Q O O U o £ m c a m m t a _ m I[J m @ O y Ease �(7 N 3 a' m �O N W m C J rl N d !A C N L W W L + O j m_ .L0 d d c c p, c E fl- 3 UO L ! C w Z P a N ... L m cu'o aci �YiS 0£ m�° $m3m�m > >�om °c �,Lm.,drnct_c3 c O "RO d m ... a O E@c�m = c o ff ca aL.�r?a d R c°im ° 0 v mss° QL a' E m v E N m 0 N c H Qu rn 2 c 3> w m m m c Qoa �.., m Z C 9 !E C N m m .@. O m w(�La La°i „O R O N O) 'H a d C j IE U "O C j a) O N- y Q w X O m Q_ ' H m C V m W m O N O N C = N R of N N @ -p "O @ ° H H e6 t C O n N O N a 0 G R Z O y c W ? �, N @ cc SOS p N N y E U O U J m m'C C E Q j W N6 C R 7 a v U m '@O O U p- N m E O U fN m H C C to C C W LO {O 3£ o@ m U @ m@ y Z {Gp N d U U C .S E N W m E c L m m �Z N c@ m o m �N 0 v $ 3� LD U ai p H O @ C o p N O] @ lO {s C o m @ N H U m C O °� @ 0 y carom H c 3 m r+i .- C d o rriE m d W c r E E A a? Z m E z a CL m_ «m m z E Q E@ c trio m mm�v9 c m ooa. -mo E c ° m _ m.!-W0E ya lL 0 CD W 0 N Je Z H @-0 w L rl N d !A C N L W W L + O j m_ .L0 d d c c p, c E fl- 3 UO L ! C w Z P a N ... L m cu'o aci �YiS 0£ m�° $m3m�m > >�om °c �,Lm.,drnct_c3 c O "RO d m ... a O E@c�m = c o ff ca aL.�r?a d R c°im ° 0 v mss° QL a' E m v E N m 0 N c H Qu rn 2 c 3> w m m m c Qoa �.., m Z C 9 !E C N m m .@. O m w(�La La°i „O R O N O) 'H a d C j IE U "O C j a) O N- y Q w X O m Q_ ' H m C V m W m O N O N C = N R of N N @ -p "O @ ° H H e6 t C O n N O N a 0 G R Z O y c W ? �, N @ cc SOS p N N y E U O U J m m'C C E Q j W N6 C R 7 a v U m '@O O U rl N U° m d c c p, c E fl- a "- ° ccy o o t m 3$ LD t U c O "RO d m ... a O c m co c a X d Q R $ QL a' E m v E N m 0 N c H Ma- rn 2 c 3> w m m m c E m N= w �.., m Z C 9 !E C N m m .@. O m w(�La La°i E Q c a m L a 4 a m 'yo d 9 N a m °amciEmacinrn E2�°taci3�2 E rl N m oc�a ca o!n NW 'C CC'j' 0341 c _rn� o x�rns La _U c c • _E a°i E o 3 m m C m C nN c o w E �c • P z E ma y m a U N r m a 0 m ma O C y vS O N m A E O O y U'O E"m U- C N C r C O. C O U C d m m Q n O C{pp m — v y r C> m N O N m aUi .... H m,� d 2 N Ln N mEF I W C w M N O O m m m 0 Z -'h L C N>, m � a N O N n N a U N C 0 M m [c6 E'O @: L C y ° .y m E yo m a d m m m y ` Z c 0 o 2 p E m .m a 3 O d' CCy N N 7 E@ c m c lL Z (T W N c rnv a.n $ LL a toi m O N m o 'C m tU6 § c c c m o m C m C nN c o w E �c • P m a� � coi o o N r m a 0 ma n3 p_O vi � U� O y U'O yO w- O m zU FE O 1- ccEo$ 0 LpLI mEF m L O r O C:5 03 'C m m m y o m `o_ E• c c c m C O m m C m C nN c an d m° Em m E V m N r m a 0 ma n3 p_O vi nax O y U'O X E � X n m .2 m N a C N m m m o m c m m m oa�c1Oi mE:e o £ co d M E E o c •� v o..g' 3� E ._ m '.yQ �Q. m Tdm C C 9gE3 O� Em N C }.• d C � d N d � rna3E mEEEmm um, m i '0 vi LD E mm'UEw C)«.y0m �m > > O c -• � � m m c rna cg a m c m 2Ca'y C- m'm'F N m W m E.dm m m 0 @ E m�3O°"0maiU °"0m n o i" •S m` x o C7 m o c' o cOi C m c N 3 m E $ E E Q O. 5 Cj m D1 lD C a N 9 p F z° £ LL Er•m�, o£ E �Ln LD 'O c c> 2Y m Q E y L E a U m LL W a (.D a m s a E O y umi 2'o(7m �Y3 m c y R N HE U m U v a 0 a�m C d y U y m m c U m N 0 m �Ur n°i E$' 3'm aci fc m C O U E E p E o. 0 o `moo y_ �,E p m o OQ 0 N .y n E NN w . EM OI t6 _ m O O m c m d H 8 3 o Q C 4l (6 C m aRi a� E m{ C7 Cm)m 3 cL�U y U• o ,t v -po ca E Wad CD U d a dm�my�o S O C y Cpmj��EE a m d o a a y En8a� m n nU 3 n£ C N aC�. MW Q a V Q m C N E N= N E m N fj C f6 m- c cc m _rn a 9 N m C 9 N N c O N ,2 Z M ',m0 c cis y m c y y N N= O O m L 00 N y m � �- ^m E.21 iL z° tL-UO names ° E m m m m o m c m m m oa�c1Oi mE:e o £ co d M E E o c •� v o..g' 3� E ._ m '.yQ �Q. m Tdm C C 9gE3 O� Em N C }.• d C � d N d � rna3E mEEEmm um, m i '0 vi LD E mm'UEw C)«.y0m �m > > O c -• � � m m c rna cg a m c m 2Ca'y C- m'm'F N m W m E.dm m m 0 @ E m�3O°"0maiU °"0m n o i" •S m` x o C7 m o c' o cOi C m c N 3 m E $ E E Q O. 5 Cj m D1 lD C a N 9 p F z° £ LL Er•m�, o£ E �Ln LD 'O c c> 2Y m Q E y L E a U m LL W a (.D a m s a E O y umi dam y R N HE m a�m m c m m t3 aci fc m E p E o. 0 o `moo p m o OQ 0 -cmo od S Q Q c > Q m c m d H 8 3 o Q m aRi a� E m{ C7 U• o ,t v -po CD C a m m 0 S] h Q S O C y Cpmj��EE y En8a� m n nU 3 n£ IL- 3 3 rmn dam £'o a�m m c m m t3 aci L T c m C7 U• o ,t v -po Ny C O a O E y En8a� P N 3.1 INTRODUCTION The EIR prepared for the Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update considered four alternatives to the proposed project. Pursuant to Section 15126.6(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, the primary intent of an alternatives evaluation is to "describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives." This chapter describes the project objectives and design criteria used to develop and evaluate project alternatives presented in the Draft EIR. A description of the alternatives compared to the proposed project and the findings regarding the feasibility of adopting the described alternatives is presented for use by the City in the decision - making process. 3.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES @-The project seeks to achieve the following objectives, many of which were identified by the community during the extensive public outreach and participation process, as expressed in the Visioning Statement developed by the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) and approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council: Preserve and enhance Newport Beach's character as a beautiful, unique residential community. ■ Reflect a conservative growth strategy that: > Balances needs for housing, jobs and services > Limits land use changes to a very small amount of the City's land area > Directs land use changes to areas where residents have expressed a willingness to consider change and where sustainable development can occur > Protects natural resources, open space, and recreational opportunities • Protect and enhance water quality. • Protect and enhance recreational opportunities and public access to open space and natural resources. • Modify land uses, densities, and intensities so that traffic generation is controlled. • Improve traffic flow without changing the character of the City. • Preserve and enhance parks, art, cultural and educational facilities and programs that contribute to residents' quality of life. • Ensure the City has adequate municipal revenue to provide first rate municipal services, such as police, fire, lifeguard, library, recreation, refuse collection and recycling, and infrastructure maintenance. • Attract visitors to Newport Beach's harbor, beaches, hotels, restaurants, and shops with as little impact as possible on residents and natural resources. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Findings of Fact /Statement of Overriding Considerations 3 -1 ■ Encourage revitalization of older and economically challenged commercial areas so that the areas continue to be community resources and have a positive impact on the value of nearby property and the local economy. ■ Maintain Newport Harbor as one of the premier small boat recreational boating harbors in the world, while causing little or no impact on the environment. ■ Control and contain noise and traffic impacts from operations at John Wayne Airport to protect the residents' quality of life and property values. ■ Modify the Land Use Element and other elements to reflect changes in the law and planning practices that have occurred in the 17 years since the last comprehensive amendments were approved. ■ Provide effective means to ensure compliance with Section 423 of the City Charter. 3.3 SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES The range of feasible alternatives was selected and discussed in a manner to foster meaningful public participation and informed decision - making. Among the factors that were taken into account when considering the feasibility of alternatives (as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[t][1]) were environmental impacts, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and attainment of project objectives. As stated in Section 15126.6(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR need not consider an alternative whose effects could not be reasonably identified, whose implementation is remote or speculative, or one that would not achieve the basic project objectives. The analysis includes sufficient information about each alternative to provide meaningful evaluation, analysis and comparison with the proposed project. 3.4 PROJECT ALTERNATIVE FINDINGS The following is a description of the alternatives evaluated in comparison to the proposed project, as well as a description of the specific economic, social, or other considerations that make them infeasible for avoiding or lessening the impacts. The City finds that the adoption of any of the alternatives to the project is infeasible. The reasons for each finding are provided following the description of the alternative, and is further described in the Draft EIR. As shown below and in Chapter 5 (Alternatives) of the Draft EIR, four alternatives, including the No Project /No Development alternative, were evaluated in comparison to the proposed project. The environmental advantages and disadvantages of each of these alternatives are described. The alternatives that were selected for analysis include: ■ Alternative 1: No Project /No Development —With this alternative, development under the proposed General Plan Update would not occur. The Planning Area would remain developed with existing land uses and intensities. ■ Alternative 2: No Project /No Action (Existing General Plan) —With this alternative, development under the proposed General Plan Update would not occur. Development would be guided by the existing General Plan. ■ Alternative 3: GPAC Recommendations —With this alternative, development would be guided by a General Plan consisting of the land use recommendations formulated by the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC), which would generally result in less development. 3 -2 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Findings of Fact /Statement of Overriding Considerations Chapter 3 Findings Regarding Project Alternatives..) ■ Alternative 4: Subarea Only Minimum —With this alternative, development would be guided by a General Plan consisting of land uses resulting in the lowest density of all the alternatives (except the existing General Plan) studied during the preparation of the General Plan Update. This alternative would result in the least amount of new development, when considered against the other action alternatives. Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Evaluation As stated previously, Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines sets forth the requirement to consider and discuss a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project. The alternatives to be discussed must be both reasonable and feasible. During the public review period of the Draft EIR, an additional alternative, irrespective of those analyzed in the Draft EIR, was recommended by R.A. Nichols Engineering in a comment letter dated June 7, 2006 (refer to comment letter R of the Final EIR). The proposed alternative suggested the reduction in travel lane width on East Coast Highway through Corona del Mar, a roadway section which already is at substandard width. This further reduction would be required in order to have a third lane against the curb at a width that would be operational as an extra through lane during the peak period and as parking during the off -peak period. However, this is not preferred from a traffic engineering perspective because of safety considerations and the ability of the road to adequately serve traffic volumes. This alternative has been studied, and while it may be beneficial for certain alternative transportation purposes (i.e., cyclists), other implications of the alternative would include a reduction in size of the landscaped center median in some places, loss of on- street parking that serves the commercial properties in Corona del Mar during peak traffic periods, and additional travel lanes for pedestrians to cross during peak traffic periods. Additionally, the confusion that is likely to result from a change in roadway configuration and flow during short periods during the day could also create unsafe traffic conditions. All of these consequences, when considered together, resulted in the removal of this alternative from further consideration. During the time period that the DEIR was circulated for public review, the City received written suggestions regarding alternatives to various components of the project rather than to the project as a whole. One commenter suggested a number of potential improvements that were intended to reduce congestion along East Coast Highway in Corona del Mar. These suggestions were responded to in the Final EIR, Response to Comments in responses R1-3. Additionally these have all previously been suggested to the City Council and discussed at previous City Council meetings. During these deliberations, the City Council received analysis and testimony by both the Director of Public Works and the City Traffic Engineer outlining the costs, difficulties in design and construction, lack of available right -of -way and the implications to the residential and commercial interests in Corona del Mar. Testimony was also received from the Corona del Mar Business Improvement District and the Corona del Mar Residents Association in opposition to these suggestion. Based on all this information and public comment, the City Council concluded that the suggestions were either physically infeasible to implement, or would result in serious economic and social implications which were unacceptable to the City, including adverse impacts to the businesses along Coast Highway and the community's and City goal to support and enhance the pedestrian orientation of the area. For these reasons, these suggestions were not added to alternatives under consideration in the Environmental Impact Report. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Findings of Fact /Statement of Overriding Considerations 3 -3 Chapter 3 Findings Regarding Project Alternatives Alternative 1: No Project /No Development Alternative The No Project /No Development Alternative would prohibit all new development, restricting urban growth to its current extent. This alternative assumes that no additional development and growth within the Planning Area would occur. The population would remain at existing levels of approximately 53,120 residents, and no construction of additional dwelling units or non - residential building area would occur. No alterations to the City would occur (with the exception of previously- approved development) and all existing facilities including residential development and commercial and industrial uses would generally remain in their current condition. Some minor population growth could occur within the City, to the extent that existing residential units or units that have already been approved could accommodate additional residents. None of the impacts of the proposed General Plan Update would result. Future conditions within the City, except for the impacts of regional growth, would generally be the same as existing conditions, which were described in the environmental setting section for each environmental topic. It should be noted that implementation of this alternative would not result in the construction of transportation improvements identified in the proposed project. Regional traffic growth would still occur, resulting in the potential for traffic impacts that would otherwise be mitigated by the proposed project. Notwithstanding this effect, this alternative would result in less severe impacts than under the proposed project. Findings The City hereby fords that the No Project /No Development Alternative is infeasible for the following environmental, economic, social, and other considerations: • Adequate housing would not be provided to meet the City's obligations to provide its fair share of regional population and housing growth per SCAG and the RHNA. The Housing Element could not be implemented, or would have to be amended in a manner that probably would not be certified by the State Department of Housing and Community Development. • Jobs /housing balance, which helps to locate residents closer to their jobs, would not improve. • Street intersection improvements, which would mitigate increases in traffic congestion resulting from regional and local growth, would have to be funded from sources other than developer contributions, and might not be implemented. • Acreage of the City's parklands, in the western portion of the City and on Banning Ranch, would not increase. • Economic vitality or physical quality of Balboa Village, Mariners' Mile, Lido Village, West Newport Highway, Cannery Village, or Mc Fadden Square would not improve. • Due to the absence of policy, protection of the City's water quality, biological resources, visual resources, and other important natural resources would not be assured. • Municipal revenue increases related to land use would be limited to allowable annual increases in property tax, transfer of real property, and any sales increases that could be accommodated within existing commercial space. • Opportunities for participation by the City's residents in arts and cultural activities would not increase. • The City could not legally implement this alternative since it would require the City to stop all future development. This is beyond the City's legal ability. 3 -4 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Findings of Fact /Statement of Overriding Considerations Chapter 3 Findings Regarding Project Alternatives Alternative 2: No Project /No Action Alternative (Existing General Plan) Implementation of the No Project /No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) would result in development within the Planning Area that would not meet all of the project objectives established for the proposed General Plan Update for the City of Newport Beach. The No Project /No Action Alternative represents the continuation of the City's existing General Plan to guide future growth and development within the City. For this alternative, impacts would be analyzed under a maximum buildout scenario within the City with the allowed land uses and approved transportation improvements that are designated in the City's existing General Plan. Compared with the proposed project, the overall development potential in the City under this alternative would generally be reduced for some land use types, but would be increased for other types. The existing General Plan allows more square feet of office space, commercial and industrial land uses than the proposed General Plan Update, while the proposed General Plan Update would allow more residential, visitot- serving commercial (hotel /motel), institutional and park land uses than the existing General Plan. This alternative is considered environmentally superior in certain issue areas (per the CEQA Guidelines) but would also result in potentially greater environmental impacts than the proposed project in other areas. For example, and as shown in Chapter 5 of the Draft EIR, Alternative 2 would result in potentially greater environmental impacts than the proposed project with respect to: ■ Aesthetics —Due to a lack of community character and neighborhood protection policies, as well as the potential for more intense development of Banning Ranch, without an open space option, impacts would be potentially greater. ■ Biological Resources —Due to the potential for more intense development of Banning Ranch, without an open space option, impacts would be potentially greater. ■ Recreation and Open Space —The overall amount of land designated for parks and active open space under this alternative would be less than the proposed project, thereby increasing the potential use and subsequent degradation of those facilities /opportunities both within and surrounding the City. ■ Transportation —This alternative does not include the same degree of intersection improvements as the proposed General Plan Update, and would result in more intersections operating at LOS E or F. Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in lesser environmental impacts than the proposed project with respect to Land Use and Planning, Noise, Population and Housing, and Public Services due to the lesser level of development and /or changes to existing land uses that would occur within the City. Impacts with respect to Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Utilities and Service Systems would result in impacts similar to the proposed project under this alternative. Findings The City hereby finds that the No Project /No Action Alternative (Existing General Plan) is infeasible for the following environmental, economic, social, and other considerations: City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Findings of Fact /Statement of Overriding Considerations 3 -5 Chapter 3 Findings Regarding Project Alternatives ■ While it provides adequate housing supply to meet the City's obligations to provide its fair share of regional population and housing growth per SCAG and the RHNA to 2008, it is unlikely that there would be sufficient capacity for the 20 year time frame of the updated General Plan. ■ jobs /housing balance, which helps to locate residents closer to their jobs, would not improve. ■ Development that is reflective of the intended scale of the City's neighborhoods and districts (due to the absence of policy) would not be assured. ■ No differentiation would occur between the scale and character of the City's commercial districts, including those that would be pedestrian- oriented (due to the absence of policy). ■ Street intersection improvements, which would mitigate increases in traffic congestion resulting from regional and local growth, would have to be funded from sources other than developer contributions, and might not be implemented. ■ Acreage of the City's parklands, in the western portion of the City and on Banning Ranch, would not increase. ■ Economic vitality or physical quality of Balboa Village, Mariners' Mile, Lido Village, West Newport Highway, Cannery Village, or Mc Fadden Square would be less likely to improve without the potential for residential use. ■ Due to the absence of policy, protection of the City's water quality, biological resources, visual resources, and other important natural resources would not be assured. ■ Opportunities for participation by the City's residents in arts and cultural activities would not increase. ■ The City's General Plan would remain out of date and out of compliance with changes in State law. ■ The City would continue to be considered a "non- conforming agency" by the Airport Land Use Commission. Alternative 3: GPAC Recommendations This alternative would result in less commercial and industrial development than the proposed General Plan Update. In addition, mixed use along Old Newport Boulevard and Balboa Peninsula would be less than under the proposed General Plan Update, and there would also be a somewhat different mix of uses in Balboa Village. Outside the subareas, potential residential density would be reduced in Lido Isle, Balboa Island and West Newport. This alternative would still increase development citywide, when compared to existing conditions. Policies within the proposed General Plan Update would still be adopted, except those related to residential development in the Airport Area. Implementation of the GPAC Recommendations Alternative (Alternative 3) would result in development within the Planning Area that would generally meet the project objectives established for the proposed General Plan Update for the City of Newport Beach. Under this alternative, the potential environmental impacts due to implementation of GPAC recommendations would increase measurably with respect to Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The alternative would result in greater industrial and fewer commercial uses compared to the proposed project. As such, impacts related to the routine transport, use, or disposal, as well as those related to reasonably foreseeable upset conditions, would be greater than the proposed project as a result of more frequent use of hazardous materials. Impacts with respect to Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology /Mineral Resources, Hydrology and Water Quality, Public Services, Recreation and Open Space, Transportation, and Utilities and Service Systems would be less than the proposed project, 3 -6 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Findings of Fact /Statement of Overriding Considerations Chapter 3 Findings Regarding Project Alternatives while impacts related to Aesthetics, Land Use and Planning, Noise, and Population and Housing would be similar in nature and scale to the proposed General Plan Update. Findings The City hereby finds that the GPAC Recommendations Alternative is infeasible for the following environmental, economic, social, and other considerations: ■ This alternative would generate at least 30,431 more average daily trips than the reduced project being considered by the City Council for approval. ■ This alternative would allow residential development in the 65 dBA CNEL contour for John Wayne Airport, resulting in significant unavoidable impacts from the exposure of sensitive land uses to hazards and noise. Alternative 4: Subarea Only Minimum Under the Subarea Only Minimum Alternative (Alternative 4), new development would be less than the proposed General Plan Update. In addition, the amount of new development would be reduced when compared to development allowed under the existing General Plan and under Alternative 3, the GPAC Recommendations. Specifically, under this alternative, residential land uses would be less than the proposed project in the Airport Area, Balboa Peninsula, West Newport Mesa, Balboa Village, and Old Newport Boulevard. No residential development would occur in Banning Ranch. Office uses would be less in West Newport Mesa, Newport Center /Fashion Island, and Old Newport Boulevard (where no office uses are proposed). Commercial uses would be less in Newport Centex /Fashion Island, Airport Area, Balboa Peninsula, West Newport Highway, Old Newport Boulevard, and Banning Ranch (where no commercial uses are proposed). Industrial uses are proposed in West Newport Mesa, but at a level significantly below the proposed project, while industrial uses in the Airport Area would be greater than under the proposed project. Finally, institutional uses would be the same or less under this alternative for all areas where such uses are proposed under the proposed project. Policies within the proposed General Plan Update would still be adopted. No potential environmental impacts resulting from the implementation of this alternative would be greater, in terms of level of significance, than the proposed project. The Subarea Only Minimum Alternative (Alternative 4) is considered to be the environmentally superior alternative. Findings The City hereby finds that the Subarea Only Minimim Alternative is infeasible for the following environmental, economic, social, and other considerations: • Economic vitality or physical quality of Balboa Village, Mariners' Mile, Lido Village, West Newport Highway, Cannery Village, or Mc Fadden Square would be less likely to improve without the potential for residential development. • Generation of municipal revenue to provide municipal services would be less than under the proposed project. • jobs /housing balance would not be improved as much as under the proposed project. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Findings of Fact /Statement of Overriding Considerations 3-7 Reduced Project As noted in Chapter 1 of this document and in Chapter 8 of the Final EIR, since publication of the Draft EIR, the City Council and Planning Commission have conducted eighteen public hearings to discuss the proposed General Plan Update. As a result of this public involvement process and the information provided in the EIR, the City Council has directed changes to the proposed General Plan Update that would reduce the Project's land use intensities and add circulation system improvements to reduce traffic impacts. In addition, the Council has made policy additions and revisions to reduce environmental impacts. For the most part, these changes are discussed in Chapters 8 and 9 of the Final EIR, with land use density and intensity reductions and resulting reductions in average daily trip generation shown on Table 8 -1, and policy additions and revisions in response to DEIR comments shown in Chapter 9, Text Changes. Land use density and intensity changes include reduction of residential development in the Airport Area of 2,100 units (and restriction of residential development to areas outside the John Wayne Airport 65 dBA CNEL contour); reduction of residential density in Lido Village, Mariners' Mile and West Newport Mesa; reduction of floor area ratios in Balboa Village, Cannery Village, Corona del Mar, Lido Village, Mariners' Mile, McFadden Square, Old Newport Boulevard, West Newport Mesa, and Westcliff Drive; and the following reductions in Newport Center: 150 residential units, 40,000 square feet of office development, 50,000 square feet of retail development, and 60 hotel rooms. In addition, two circulation system improvements have been added to the Circulation Element: a second left turn lane at Riverside Avenue and Coast Highway, and an additional right turn lane and through lane at Campus Drive and Bristol Street. These improvements decrease the number of intersections that would operate at a level of service worse than "D," (from 10 to 8) and allow the Circulation Element policy to establish LOS D as the City's standard for two additional intersections. These reductions and changes in the project avoid or reduce the magnitude of the following significant environmental impacts, as discussed in greater detail in Chapter 2, CEQA Findings: • Aesthetics and Visual Quality Impact 4.1 -3 will be lessened by the addition of requirements for exterior lighting guidelines for Banning Ranch • Air Quality Impact 4.2 -1 will be reduced to a less than significant level because the projected population at buildout of the reduced project General Plan will be less than the SCAG projection. • Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact 4.6 -7 will be reduced to a less than significant level because residential development will not be permitted within the JWA 65 dBA CNEL contour. • Land Use and Planning Impact 4.8 -1 will be reduced to a less than significant level because residential development will not be permitted within the JWA 65 dBA CNEL contour. • Noise Impact 4.9 -5 will be reduced to a less than significant level because residential development will not be permitted within the JWA 65 dBA CNEL contour. 3 -8 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Findings of Fact /Statement of Overriding Considerations Population and Housing Impact 4.10 -1 will be lessened because the projected population at buildout of the reduced project General Plan will be less than the SCAG projection. Findings The City finds that it is the intent of the City Council to approve the Reduced Project described above, including all reductions and revisions to the General Plan to reduce environmental impacts, as described above. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Findings of Fact /Statement of Overriding Considerations 3 -9 Chapter 4 Statement of Overriding Considerations 4.1 INTRODUCTION Section 15093 of the CEQA guidelines states: (a) CEQA requires the decision- making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable." (b) When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reason to support its actions based on the final EIR and /or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. The City of Newport Beach (City) proposes to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding the potential unavoidable significant impacts of the proposed project. This section describes the anticipated economic, social, and other benefits or other considerations of the proposed project to support the decision to proceed with the project even though all of the identified impacts are not mitigated to a less - than - significant level. 4.2 UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS The City is proposing to approve the proposed project and has prepared and certified an EIR required by CEQA. These impacts are unavoidable because it has been determined that no mitigation is feasible. The following is a list of the impacts of the proposed project found to be significant and unavoidable. Refer to Chapter 2 (CEQA Findings) for further clarification regarding the impacts listed below. Aesthetics Impact 4.1 -3 If development ultimately occurs in Banning Ranch, the proposed project would result in increased light effects caused by new development. Cumulative development, in conjunction with the proposed project, would result in significant unavoidable impacts related to new sources of nighttime lighting within the Banning Ranch Area. 4 -10 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Findings of Fact /Statement of Overriding Considerations Air Quality Impact 4.2 -1 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Air Quality Management Plan. Impact 4.2 -2 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would result in construction emissions that would contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Impact 4.2 -3 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the region is in nonattainment under an applicable national or State ambient air quality standard. Cumulatively, the proposed project would also have significant and unavoidable impacts with regards to the above - mentioned impacts. Cultural Impact 4.4 -1 Development under the proposed General Plan Update would result in the demolition of historic structures. Cumulatively, the proposed project would also have a significant and unavoidable impact with regards to the above - mentioned impact. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact 4.6 -7 Should residential development be constructed within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour, implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Planning Area as a result of the proximity of a public airport. Land Use and Planning Impact 4.8 -1 Should residential development be constructed within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour, implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could involve new uses and structures that may result in intensification of development within the Planning Area that creates incompatibilities with adjacent land uses. Noise Impact 4.9 -1 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would generate or expose persons to ambient noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Impact 4.9 -2 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would expose persons to vibration levels generated during construction activities that would exceed 72 VdB. Impact 4.9 -3 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would result in substantial permanent increases in traffic - related ambient noise levels. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Findings of Fact /Statement of Overriding Considerations 4.11 Impact 4.9 -5 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would expose sensitive receptors in proximity to the John Wayne Airport to excessive noise levels. Cumulatively, the proposed project would also have significant and unavoidable impacts with regards to the above - mentioned impacts. Population and Housing Impact 4.10.1 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would induce substantial growth in an area, either directly or indirectly. Transportation Impact 4.13 -2 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would contribute to a substantial increase in deficient freeway segments and tamps. Cumulatively, the proposed project would also have a significant and unavoidable impact with regards to the above - mentioned impact. Short -Term Impacts Of the thirteen significant unavoidable impacts directly attributable to the proposed project and associated cumulative impacts, as identified above, none would be classified as short -term. Because this document is programmatic in nature and would be used to guide future development and subsequent environmental analysis within the City, potential short-term impacts will be analyzed during specific projects CEQA review. Long -Term Impacts Of the thiteen significant unavoidable impacts directly attributable to the proposed project and associated cumulative impacts, as identified above, all of the aforementioned impacts are considered long -term. 4.3 FINDINGS The City has evaluated all feasible mitigation measures with respect to these impacts (see Chapter 2, CEQA Findings). The City has also examined a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project (see Chapter 3, Findings Regarding Project Alternatives). Based on this examination, the City has determined that the Subarea Only Minimum Alternative (Alternative 4) is considered to be the environmentally superior alternative. While the Subarea Only Minimum Alternative would potentially result in less significant environmental impacts than the proposed project, the City finds this alternative infeasible and less desirable than the proposed project and has rejected this alternative from further consideration because it would not achieve the environmental, economic, social, and other considerations outlined in Chapter 3 (Findings Regarding Project Alternatives). 4 -12 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Findings of Fact /Statement of Overriding Considerations Chapter 4 Statement of Overriding Considerations 4.4 OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Specific economic, social, or other considerations outweigh the impacts stated above. The reasons for proceeding with the proposed project, even though all of the identified impacts are not fully mitigated to a less - than- significant level, are described below. Proposed Project Benefits 1. The updated General Plan substantially increases opportunities for employees to live in proximity to their jobs reducing the number and length of vehicle commutes. The existing General Plan Housing Element, adopted in August 2003, specified a capacity of 582 housing units, which would increase to 727 units if all parcels exercised their density bonus for affordable units. The updated Plan provides for the conversion of retail, office, and industrial properties for residential purposes, increasing the City's total housing capacity to approximately 7,000 units. Of these, the majority of units are integrated into the Airport Area, West Newport Mesa, and in Newport Center, directly supporting and in within a one - quarter mile walking distance of the City's principal jobs centers. 2. The updated Plan emphasizes the development of mixed -use structures that integrate housing with ground level retail and office uses. In addition to providing opportunities for residents to live closer to their jobs (live /work and other facilities), residents would be located closer to retail, commercial services, and entertainment. The Institute of Transportation and Traffic Engineering indicates that mixed use development can reduce trips by at least 10 percent from single use developments. Additionally, locating residents in proximity to commercial uses increases the customer base and economic activity of businesses, provides an "eyes -on" mixed use community that improves public safety, and increases pedestrian activity within the area. 3. The updated General Plan provides for the development of a mix of commercial and residential uses that will facilitate the economic improvement and revitalization of deteriorated districts including Balboa Village, Mariners' Mile, West Newport Highway, Lido Village, Cannery Village, and McFadden Square. The City's Retail Market Analysis, prepared by Applied Development Economics, documents the lack of economic performance of businesses in these areas and promotes their revitalization through consolidation of retail uses, replacement and infill of obsolete businesses, and introduction of housing in mixed -use projects. All of these are provided for in the updated General Plan and are seen as key strategies to maintain the City's municipal revenue, as well as to improve the quality of development in these areas. 4. The updated General Plan provides development and design guidelines that will maintain and enhance the character of the City's residential neighborhoods, commercial districts, and business parks. It provides for the management of the design and scale of new and replacement housing in the City's neighborhoods to preserve their character and quality. It distinguishes pedestrian from automobile- oriented commercial districts, by regulating the location and design of sidewalk fronting building elevations, location of parking, and implementation of streetscape amenities in the latter. 5. The updated General Plan recognizes the importance of Newport Harbor to the City and region by establishing policies regarding the development of appropriate uses along its periphery, maximizing opportunities for water recreational and marine commercial uses, assuring public access to the waterfront, controlling off -site drainage into the Harbor and improving water quality, enhancing its visual character, and coordinating ongoing Harbor operations and activities. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Findings of Fact /Statement of Overriding Considerations 4 -13 Chapter 4 Statement of Overriding Considerations 6. The updated General Plan assures compatibility of land uses located in the environs of John Wayne Airport through requirements that new development be constructed in compliance with the height restrictions set forth by the Federal Aviation Administration and residential development outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise comout specified in the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP). 7. The updated General Plan specifies improvements at intersections throughout the City that will reduce congestion and improve traffic flows from conditions that would result from the existing General Plan. Generally, these improvements involve the re- striping and /or widening of intersections adding turn lanes and pockets that can largely be accomplished within existing right -of- ways or with little acquisition of land. 8. The updated General Plan establishes standards for traffic level of service (LOS) at intersections. 9. The updated General Plan will improve the opportunities for parks and recreation facilities to serve the City's residents and visitors. It provides for the development of a new park at Banning Ranch, whether acquired as open space or partially developed, that will provide playfields and passive recreational opportunities for the underserved western portion of the City. Additionally, the Plan, for the first time in Policy R 1.9, prioritizes park and recreational facility improvements. 10. The updated General Plan, for the fast time, provides new strategies for the protection of the City's historic buildings and districts in accordance with state and federal statutes. 11. Similarly, for the first time, the updated General Plan enhances opportunities for the public's participation in the rich diversity of arts and cultural facilities and events in the City. These address the programming of events, development of facilities, and funding of both. 12. For the first time, the updated General Plan defines comprehensive policies to protect Newport Beach's important natural environmental resources. These establish regulations for land use and capital improvements that will improve the quality of terrestrial waterways, Newport Harbor, and Upper Newport Bay; reduce air emissions and degradation of the airshed; limit development intrusion into natural habitats; and protect coastal dunes, archaeological and paleontological resources, mineral resources, and visual resources. Among the extensive policies that will improve the area's water quality are the control of runoff and discharge into the storm drainage system, control of chemical uses, use of Best Management Practices in development, integration of natural wetlands in development, and minimization of impervious surfaces. Biological resources are protected through requirements for environmental study areas: site- specific surveys to identify the presence of listed animal and plant species, limitation on the taking of any species and mitigation of impacts, establishment of buffers for developments abutting such resources, compliance with the Orange County Natural Communities Conservation Plan, support of giant kelp reforestation and eelgrass protection programs, and management of resources in Upper Newport Bay. 13. The updated General Plan improves public safety for Newport Beach's residents through an integrated program of standards for the location and design of development, hazard abatement and risk mitigation, and emergency preparedness and response. These address risks from coastal hazards (tsunamis and rogue waves, storm surges, and coastal erosion), geologic hazards, seismic hazards, flooding, urban and wildland fires, hazardous materials, and aviation hazards. 4 -14 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Findings of Fact /Statement of Overriding Considerations