Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout85-74 - Bayview Project Environmental Impact Reportu RESOLUTION NO. 85 -74 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CERTIFYING AS COMPLETE AND ADEQUATE THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED BY THE COUNTY OF ORANGE FOR THE BAYVIEW PROJECT, MAKING STATEMENTS OF FACT WITH SUPPORTING FINDINGS AND MITIGATION MEASURES AND STATEMENTS OF 0VERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS WHEREAS, Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) 440 has been prepared to address the environmental effects, mitigation measures, and project alternatives associated with proposed Land Use Element Amendment (LU) 85 -1, Zone Change: (ZC) 84 -SP, Community Profile Amendment (CPA) 84 -11, and Site Plan /Use Permit SP84- 78/UP84 -78 for the Bayview project; and, WHEREAS, DEIR 440 was prepared pursuant to the require- ments of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , the State Guidelines (Guidelines), and County Environmental Analysis procedures; and WHEREAS, written and oral comments on DEIR 440 were received from the public during and after the public review period; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the County of Orange conducted public hearings to receive all public testimony with respect to DEIR 440; and WHEREAS, such comments and testimony were responded to through a response to comments document, various staff reports, and testimony submitted to the Planning Commission and received by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Orange; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach has reviewed all environmental documentation comprising EIR 440 and has found that EIR 440 considers all environmental effects of the Bayview portion proposed Land Use Element Amendment LU 85 -1, Zone Change 84 -8P, Community Profile Amendment 84 -11 and Site Plan /Use • Permit SP84- 78/UP84 -78 and is complete and adequate and fully complies,, with all requirements of CEQA and the Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council of the City of Newport Beach that EIR 440 be certified as complete and adequate; and WHEREAS, Section 21081 of CEQA and Section 15090 of the Guidelines requires that the City Council make one or more of the following findings prior to approval of a project for which an EIR has been completed identifying one or more significant effects of the project, along with statements of acts supporting each finding: FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the EIR. FINDING 2 - Such changes or alterations are within the respon- sibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. FINDING 3 - Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR; and WHEREAS, Section 15093(a) of the Guidelines requires the City Council to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project; and WHEREAS, Section 15093(b) requires, where the decision of the City Council allows the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the EIR but are not mitigated, the City must state in writing the reasons to support its action based on the EIR or other information in the record. • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach that: 1. The City Council makes the Findings contained in the - 2 - Statement of Facts with respect to significant impacts identified in the Final EIR together with the Finding that each fact in support of the Findings is true and is based upon substantial evidence in the record, including the Final EIR. The Statement of Facts is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and incorporated herein by this reference as if • fully set forth. 2. The City Council finds that the Facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations are true and are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including the Final EIR. The Statement of Overriding Considerations is attached hereto as Exhibit 2 and incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth. 3. The City Council finds that the Final EIR has identified all significant environmental effects of the project and that there are no known potential environmental impacts not addressed in the Final EIR. 4. The City Council finds that all significant effects of the project are set forth in the Statement of Facts. 5. The City Council finds that although the Final EIR identifies certain significant environmental effects that will result if the project is approved, all significant effects that can feasibly be avoided or mitigated have been avoided or mitigated by the imposi- tion of Conditions on the approved project and the imposition of mitigation measures as set forth in the Statement of Facts and the Final EIR. 6. The City Council finds that potential mitigation measures and project alternatives not incorporated into the project were rejected as infeasible, based upon specific economic, social and other considerations as set forth in the Statement of Facts and the Final EIR. 7. The City Council finds that the unavoidable significant tially reduced in their impacts by the imposition of Conditions on the - 3 - impacts of the project, as identified in the Statement of Facts, that have not been reduced to a level of insignificance have been substan- tially reduced in their impacts by the imposition of Conditions on the - 3 - approved project and the imposition of mitigation measures. In making its decision on the project, the City Council has given greater weight to the adverse environmental impacts. The City Council finds that the remaining unavoidable significant impacts are clearly outweighed by the economic, social and other benefits of the project, as set forth • in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. S. The City Council finds that: the Final EIR has described all reasonable alternatives to the project that could feasibly obtain the basic objectives of the project, even when those alternatives might impede the attainment of project objectives and might be more costly. Further, the City Council finds that a good faith effort was made to incorporate alternatives in the preparation of the Draft EIR and all reasonable alternatives were considered in the review process of the Final EIR and ultimate decisions on the project. 9. The City Council finds that the project should be approved and that any alternative to this action should not be approved for the project based on the information contained in the Final EIR, the data contained in the Statement of Facts and for the reasons stated in the public record and those contained in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. 10. The City Council finds that a good faith effort has been made to seek out and incorporate all points of view in the preparation of the Draft and Final EIR as indicated in the public record on the project, including the Final EIR. 11. The City Council finds that during the public hearing process on the Bayview Project, the County of Orange and the environ- mental documents evaluated a range of alternatives and the project, as approved by this Resolution, is included within that range of alter- natives. The City Council has considered the recommendation of the Planning Commission in its decision on the project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby certify the Final EIR for the Bayview Project as complete and adequate in that it addresses all environmental effects of the - 4 - proposed project and fully complies with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and the CEQA Guidelines. Said Final EIR is composed of the following elements: a) Certified Final Environmental. Impact Report No. 440 of the County of Orange • b) Planning Commission Staff Reports c) Planning Commission Minutes d) City Council Staff Reports e) City Council Minutes f) City Council Resolution and Ordinance g) Comments and responses received prior to final action and not contained in a) through f) above. All of the above information has been and will be on file with the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915, (714) 644 -3225. ATTEST: CITY CLERK PLT/kk 9/23/85 CC14 ADOPTED THIS 23rd day of September , 1985. - 5 - EXHIBIT I STATEMENT OF FACTS SEPTEMBER 23, 1985 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED • PROJECT, FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO SAID EFFECTS, AND STATEMENT OF FACTS IN SUPPORT THEREOF, ALL WITH RESPECT TO THE BAYVIEW DEVELOPMENT. BACKGROUND The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State EIR Guidelines (Guidelines) promulgated pursuant thereto provide: "NO public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been completed and which identified one or more significant effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of these significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding." (Section 15091) The City of Newport Beach proposes to approve an amendment to the General Plan, a Zone Change, and a Development Agreement. The pro- posed actions constitute a project under CEQA and the Guidelines, and an Environmental Impact Report is required. The County of Orange prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project. Draft EIR (DEIR) 440 evaluated the proposed project and a series of alterna- tives. In the course of the public review of DEIR 440 the project land use plan was refined to reflect comments received during the public review period and additional consideration given to project alternatives. The current project proposal is a a refinement of the original project land use plan and the Regional Park /Business Park /Res- idential Development alternative presented in DEIR 440 (See Section 6.15 of the DEIR). In light of the refined project proposal, the environmental impacts identified in DEIR 440 were reevaluated and it was determined that there were no new significant adverse impacts which were not addressed within the context of the DEIR. This reevaluation of project impacts is documented in Volume III, Section V of Final EIR 440. The refined land use plan for the project is hereafter identified as the proposed project for purposes of making required findings and statements pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The EIR identified certain significant effects which may occur as a result of this project. Further, this City Council has determined that the EIR is complete and has been prepared in accor- dance with CEQA and the Guidelines. Therefore, the following findings are set forth herein pursuant to Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines. EARTH RESOURCES • Significant Effect - Existing topography will be altered by grading of the entire site with exception of areas below the bicycle /equestrian trails. Fill will be placed southerly of Orchard DRive to create a level building pad. FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incor- porated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding - In refining the project proposal, the amount of open space within the project site was increased by approxi- mately 5.7f acres. This increase in open space will reduce the amount of development area subject to grading. Preliminary soils engineering and geologic studies prepared for the ;project recommended mitigating measures and future, more detailed studies. These recommendations have been incorporated into the design of the project and as con- ditions of approval. A Resource Management Plan (LU85 -1 Conditions of Approval) will ensure that graded areas will be compatible with • natural landforms. The interface of the open space area with proposed trails and bay dredging shall be coordinated with responsible agencies. An erosion control plan for graded areas shall be submitted prior to or concurrent with a subdivision map. Additional specific mitigation measures may be required in conjunction with subsequent technical studies required for future discretionary actions. The nature of such studies and relationship to the project proposal are described in Attachment 2. WATER RESOURCES Significant Effect - Surface runoff and. drainage flows will increase from site development. This project, in conjunction with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects, will result in a significant cumulative adverse impact on water quality in Newport Bay. FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incor- porated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding - In refining the project proposal, the amount of open space within the project site was increased by approxi- mately 5.7± acres. This increase in open space will reduce the amount of development area and will, to a limited extent, decrease surface runoff. A comprehensive erosion control program and Runoff Management Plan shall be required with subsequent project approvals. Best management practices specified in the Upper Newport Bay 208 Water Quality Control Plan shall be implemented. Transport of debris and other pollutants to Upper Newport Bay shall be controlled through frequent paved surface (e.g., parking lot) cleaning and landscape maintenance controls of the use of fertilizers and pesticides. Additional specific mitigation measures may be required in conjunction with subsequent technical studies required for future discretionary actions. The nature of such studies and relationship to the project are described in Attachment 2. All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project or future project approvals as set forth above. FINDING 3 - Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings - Impacts to water quality resulting from increased surface runoff and drainage flows would be reduced under project alternatives which include less impervious surface area than the current project proposal. The no development alternative, while reducing urban runoff impacts, would continue to allow erosion of • sediment from the site which has ad adverse impact on the Back Bay. The Business Park- High -Rise alternative would have a similar impact to the proposed project. The recreation alternative would reduce both silt and urban runoff impacts. These alternatives were evaluated in the Draft EIR and considered during the course of the public review process. Said project alternatives were rejected in favor of the current proposal for the reasons cited above as well as for reasons noted in Attachment 3. -2- The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations made below, giving greater weight to the remaining, unavoidable significant effect. CULTURAL RESOURCES Significant Effect - Archaeological sites CA- Ora -192, -348, and -351 are expected to be impacted by removal of vegetation and site grading. • Destruction of onsite cultural resources would be a significant impact. Paleontological resources (specifically fossiliferous terrace deposits) along Upper Newport Bay will be destroyed with site develop- ment. FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incor- porated into, the project which avoid. or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding - The mitigation measures include an extensive program of archaeological site testing and, based on test level investigation, preservation, salvage, partial salvage or no mitigation to be determined on a site by site basis. Procedures regarding routine surveillance for presently undetected archaeological and paleontological resources and temporary redirection of grading or work stoppage are also established. Additional specific mitigation measures may be required in conjunction with subsequent technical studies required for future discretionary actions. The nature of such studies and relationship to the project proposal are described in Attachment 2. All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project or future project approvals as set forth above. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Significant Effect - Construction activities and an increase in urban activity on the site may result in both short and long -term "harass- ment" effects to wildlife in adjacent habitats. Of specific concern is the endangered lightfooted clapper rail, know to utilize the marshes around the Ecological Reserve.. Earthmoving operations may cause sediment to accumulate in adjacent marsh areas, during site grading. FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incor- porated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding - Sensitive: marsh habitat and associated wildlife shall be protected through public access and erosion con- trols, berms and native vegetation screening. Grading and fill shall be restricted to areas above the proposed trail area along Bayview Way, thus preserving sensitive habitat areas. Biological resource impacts will be further reduced through measures included in the Resource Management and Runoff Management plans (LU85 -1 Conditions of Approval). Additional specific mitigation measures may be required in conjunction with subsequent technical studies required for future discretionary • actions. The nature of such studies and relationship to the project proposal are described in Attachment 2. T.AMT) UqF. Significant Effect - Eventual development of the project site will result in the irretrievable conversion of undeveloped land and a vacant elementary school site to more intense urban uses. This -3- project, in conjunction with past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects, will have a significant cumulative adverse impact on the intensity of land use in the project vicinity. The Bayview project is not consistent with all aspects of County LUCP scenarios currently under study. Although the project provides for a regional park, development of the site would preclude the inclusion of the entirety of the parcel in the • conceptual boundaries of the proposed county Upper Newport Bay Region- al Park. FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incor- porated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding - The project as described in the Draft EIR has been modified. A Refined Land Use Plan (R -LUP) has been prepared. The project changes include additional open space and recreational area. The R -LUP (i.e., proposed project) land uses are considered compatible with surrounding existing and planned land uses. Approval of the SPA -LUP would increase permanent open space available for the proposed Upper Newport Bay Regional Park relative to the originally proposed land use plan evaluated in the Draft EIR. Fur- ther, the R -LUP implements what would otherwise be a nonbinding park dedication mitigation measure associated with the originally proposed plan (Attachment 1, #27). The project is conditioned to offer irrevo- cably for dedication of land for park and trail purposes (LU85 -1 Conditions of Approval). Development of the remainder of the site will not preclude establishing a viable: regional park, nor limit its operation. Additional specific mitigation measures may be required in conjunction with subsequent technical studies required for future discretionary actions. The nature of such studies and relationship to the project proposal are described in Attachment 2. All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and. incorporated into the project or future project approvals as set forth. above. FINDING 3 - Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding - The conversion of vacant land to urban uses would only be avoided under the No Development alternative and possibly or partially under the Regional Park /Recreational Facilities alternatives. The no development alternative, however, would be inconsistent with the existing General Plan designation which allows residential uses within the study area. Project alternatives which would still result in the conversion of land but would be less intense than the current project proposal include: No Project, LUCP Scenarios 1, 2, 3, 5 and 8, and the Business Park- Low - Rise /Reduced Intensity. Although less intense than the current proposal, the no project, and LUCP Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 alternatives would allow noise - sensitive residential uses adjacent to Bristol Street and could present the potential fur substantial unmitigable noise impacts. These alterna- tives were evaluated in the Draft EIR and considered during the course of the public review process. Said project alternatives were rejected in favor of the current proposal for the reasons cited above as well • as for reasons noted in Attachment 3. The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations made below, giving greater weight to the remaining, unavoidable significant effect. -4- TRANSPORTATION /CIRCULATION Significant Effect - This project, in conjunction with other past, present and foreseeable future projects will have a significant adverse impact on traffic and circulation. With the addition of 14,077 average daily trip ends, nineteen critical intersections will be impacted, with project - related traffic amounting to greater than one percent of the 211 hour peak period traffic for the the area. Of the critical intersections, twelve of the nineteen are estimated to is have ICU values greater than 0.90 for 1989 conditions without the project. The addition of project - related traffic results in fifteen intersections of the nineteen having an ICU greater that 0.90. A traffic signal will be warranted at the project access point on Jamboree Road. FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incor- porated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding - The originally proposed project evalu- ated in DEIR 440 has been changed. The R -LUP provides a reduction in average daily trips (ADT) from the original project. The project will contribute to or provide full improvements to significantly affected intersections and roadways. Key roadway and intersection improvements will be required prior to project occupancy. The project shall participate in potential fee programs for major roads in the vicinity. To facilitate areawide circulation, options for a potential future extension of University Drive between Jamboree Drive and Irvine Avenue have been maintained with the project. The traffic impact of the Bayview Development will be monitored through participation in the County Annual Monitoring Report/Development Monitoring Program process to ensure timely provision of needed capacity. Additional specific mitigation measures may be required in conjunction with subsequent technical studies and relationship to the project proposal are de- scribed in Attachment 2. 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. Facts in Support of Finding - Potential widening of southbound Bristol Street in the project area to accommodate cumulative traffic demands will require permits from Caltrans for construction within the state right -of -way. All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project or future project approvals as set forth above. FINDING 3 - Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding - Traffic impacts, both positive (proposed local circulation system improvements) and negative would be be avoided under the No Development alternative. All of the other alternatives would result in the generation of • vehicle trips which would have direct and indirect (cumulative) impacts, the extent of which would be relative to the intensity of development proposed by each alternative. Traffic impacts would be notably less than the current proposal under the LUCP Scenarios 1 and 3 alternatives due to the low traffic generation characteristics of residential, agricultural, and equestrian uses; and slightly less -5- under the no project, LUCP Scenarios 2, 5, 8, and the Business Park -Low Rise /Reduced Intensity alteratives due to lower traffic impacts associated with the Regional Park /Recreation Facilities alternative would depend on the specific uses proposed but would probably be less than the current proposal. All other alternatives considered for the project would have traffic impacts similar to those of the current proposal. These alternatives were evaluated in the Draft EIR and considered during the course of the public review process. Said project alternatives were rejected in favor of the • current proposal for the reasons cited above as well as for reasons noted in Attachment 3. The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations made below, giving greater weight to the remaining, unavoidable significant effect. ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT Significant Effect - Construction noise will have a short -term impact on noise levels in adjacent local residential areas. However, this project, in conjunction within other past, present and foreseeable future projects will have a significant cumulative adverse impact on roadway noise levels in the area. The proposed project will be exposed to noise levels greater than acceptable by Orange County standards. Potential land use conflicts between residential and non - residential uses are anticipated. FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incor- porated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding - The project will comply with an exten- sive list of mitigation measures and /or conditions to reduce short -term and cumulatively significant long -term noise effects (Attachment 1, #31 through 39). Residential lots and dwellings shall be sound attenuated to meet county interior and exterior noise stan- dards. A detailed acoustical analysis report shall be required describing the exterior noise environment and proposed acoustical design features. Project generated noise at the nearest noise - sensitive receptor shall not exceed the adopted county standard. An avigation easement over the property will be conveyed to the county, and prospective purchasers, .lessees or tenants shall be notified to jet noise impacts onsite. Additional specific mitigation measures may be required in conjunction with subsequent technical studies required for future discretionary actions. The nature of such studies and relationships to the project proposal are described in Attachment 2. All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and. incorporated into the project or future project approvals as set forth above. FINDING 3 - Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings - Noise impacts to or from the project . site would only be avoided under the No Development alternative. Noise impacts to onsite uses would be substantially greater under the no project, and LUCP Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 alternatives than under the current proposal. This is due to these alternatives allowing residen- tial development adjacent to Bristol Street. Noise impacts to the project site under the LUCP Scenarios 5 and 8, Business Park -Low Rise, Business Park -High Rise, Office Park, and Business Park Low- Rise /Reduced Intensity alternatives, would be comparable to the current proposal due to existing nearby noise influences and the proposal of uses with noise sensitivity characteristics similar to that of the currently proposed uses. Noise impacts from development on the project site would relate primarily to the amount of traffic generated by each proposal alternative (see facts in support of Finding No. 3 for Transportation /Circulation above). These alterna- tives were evaluated in the Draft EIR and considered during the course of the public review process. Said project alternatives were rejected in favor of the current proposal for the reasons cited above as well • as for reasons noted in Attachment 3. The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against facts set forth above and is the Statement of Overriding Considerations made below, giving greater weight to the remaining, unavoidable significant effect. AIR QUALITY Significant Effect - This project, in conjunction with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects, will result in an incremental degradation of air quality. The project will generate a maximum of 88,685 miles of vehicular travel daily which will impact regional air quality. FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incor- porated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding - The cumulative effects of vehicular emissions will be reduced through legislative controls, the provision of public transit in the area and location of employment centers in closer proximity to housing /labor supply. Adopted "reasonable avail- able control measures" for air quality effects shall be investigated for their application to the project. 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. Facts in Support of Finding - The California State Air Resources Board, the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the South- ern California Association of Governments have authority for the formulation, administration and enforcement of regional air quality management plans, including control of mobile and stationary sources of pollutant emissions. All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been eliminated or substantially lessened by the virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project or future project approvals as set forth above. FINDING 3 - Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. - Facts in Support of Finding - With the exception of the No Development alternative, each of the alternatives considered for the project will result in an incremental degradation of air quality. The extent of such degradation will depend on the intensity of development proposed by each alternative. These alternatives were evaluated in the Draft EIR and considered during the course of the public review process. The alternatives were rejected in favor of the current proposal for the reasons cited above as well as for reasons noted in Attachment 3. The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations made below, giving greater weight to the remaining, unavoidable significant effect. -7- PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES Significant Effect - Annexation of the 64 acre site to Irvine Ranch Water District will be required for water and wastewater services. The project will add to the demand for fire personnel and equipment, police, water, wastewater and transit, and will cumulatively affect the remaining capacities of these services and utilities in conjunc- tion with ongoing growth in the area. • FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incor- porated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. • Facts in Support of Finding - Project participation in the Annual Monitoring Report /Development Monitoring Program process ensures that development will occur only with available infrastructure capacity and service capabilities. Methods to meet project fire protection re- quirements will be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the fire chief prior to development. Water and sewer availability will be verified. Additional specific mitigation measures may be required in conjunction with subsequent technical studies and relationship to the project proposal are described in Attachment 2. 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. Facts in Support of Finding - Site annexation to the Irvine Ranch Water District will be subject to approval of the Local Agency Forma- tion Commission. Also, the provision of public services and utilities to the study area will be subject to the! approval of /or agreement with the affected agency. All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project or future project approvals as set forth above. FINDING 3 - Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding - With the exception of the No Development alternative and possibly the Regional Park /Recreational Facility alternative, all of the project alternatives would result in a demand for public services and utilities. It is recognized, however, that the level of demands will depend on the development intensity of the project alternatives. These alternatives were evaluated in the Draft EIR and considered during the course of the public review process. Said project alternatives were rejected in favor of the current proposal for the reasons cited above as well as for reasons noted in Attachment 3. The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations made below, giving greater weight to the remaining, unavoidable significant effect. ENERGY RESOURCES Significant Effect - The project will result in an increase in demand for electricity and natural gas. cm FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incor- porated into, the project which avoid. or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding - Conservation measures are required to reduce energy requirements of the proposed development. The project will meet or exceed state energy standards for appliances and new buildings. • All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project or future project approvals as set forth above. AESTHETICS Significant Effect - Project development: will alter the visual charac- ter and aesthetic qualities of the area. Within the proposed develop- ment, the relationship between the residential and commercial area along Bayview Place is a potentially sicnificant impact. FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incor- porated into, the project which avoid. or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding - Landscape treatments and the project's visual interface with the Upper Newport: Bay Ecological Preserve will be coordinated and carefully controlled through the Resource Manage- ment Plan. The plan will ensure continuity and an appropriate transi- tion between development and open space. Approval of both preliminary and subsequent detailed landscape plans will be required prior to development. Assurances of continued interior and exterior slope and landscape maintenance will be required. Additional specific mitiga- tion measures may be required in conjunction with subsequent technical studies required for future discretionary actions. The nature of such studies and relationship to the project proposal are described in Attachment 2. All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project or future project approvals as set forth above. FINDING 3 - Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding - With the exception of the No Development alternative and possibly the Regional Park /Recreation Facility alter- native, development of the project site under any of the other project alternatives would substantially alter the visual character of the study area, as will the current project proposal. Visual impacts would be notably less than those of current project proposal under the No Project, and Business Park- Low -Rise /Reduced Intensity, and LUCP Scenarios 1, 2, 3, alternatives as the uses allowed under these alternatives would have a lower profile. LUCP Scenarios 5 and 8, and the Business Park -High Rise and Office alternatives would provide for multistory buildings, therefore presenting the potential for similar if not greater visual impacts than the current proposal. These alternatives were evaluated in the Draft: EIR and considered during the • course of the public review process. Said project alternatives were rejected in favor of the current proposal for the reasons cited above as well as for reasons noted in Attachment 3. The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations made below, giving greater weight to the remaining, unavoidable significant effect. Gm ATTACHMENT 1 LIST OF MITIGATION MEASURES* Earth Resources 1. The types of foundations for all mid -rise structures shall be determined after site - specific foundation investigation has been is conducted and when tentative foundation loads and other design details, including depths of basements are known. 2. The final pavement section thickness shall be determined based upon testing performed when designs are complete and the traffic indexes have been assigned. 3. Prior to application for any grading permit, the applicant shall submit soils engineering and geologic (if appropriate due to slope conditions) studies to the Manager, Development Services, County of Orange, for his approval. These reports will primarily involve assessment of potential soil - related constraints and hazards such as slope instability, settlement, liquefaction, or related secondary seismic impacts where determined to be a appropriate by the Manager, Development Services. The report shall include evaluation of potentially expansive soil and recommended construction procedures and /or design criteria to minimize their effect of these soils on the proposed development. All reports shall recommend appropriate mitigation measures and be completed in the manner specified in the Orange County Grading Manual and State /County Subdivision Ordinance or the City of Newport Beach. 4. All slopes shall be designed at 2- horizontal to 1- vertical or flatter except in areas where specific studies indicate that steeper slopes are feasible. 5. Prior to implementation level approvals (i.e., tentative tract, site plan, etc.) , the applicant shall provide evidence to the Director of Regulation, EMA, which indicates that graded areas will be compatible with natural landform characteristics. Criteria to achieve the desired effect may include: a. Recontouring the existing landforms to provide a smooth and gradual transition between graded slopes and existing grade while preserving the basic topographic character of the existing site. b. Variation and combination of slopes 2:1, 3:1, and 4:1 to create a more natural character wherever possible within the graded areas. C. Attempting to balance between cut and fill within the overall area\ to eliminate an offsite and import /export situation. d. Obscuring slope drainage structures with a variety of plant materials. e. Incorporation of architectural and design techniques into the project in order to minimize grading and enhancement of offsite views such as split levels, clustering, etc. f. Preservation of visual opportunities from hillsides by providing for panoramic views from selected locations such as view corridors, sensitive landscape placement, etc. *This final list of mitigation measures incorporates and supercedes all previous mitigation measures in EIR 440. - 10 - 6. Prior to application of any grading permit, plan, etc., the applicant shall submit an erosion control plan to the Manager, Development Services, County of Orange or The City of Newport Beach, for approval which shall include a discussion of measures for dust pollution and mitigation of erosion caused by wind and water. The plan shall also provide for effective planting, maintenance, irrigation, and seed germination by the applicant prior to the rainy season in graded areas which would otherwise remain exposed in accordance with Subarticle 13 of the Grading • and Excavation Code or with the requirements of the City of Newport Beach. 7. The applications for the development of the site shall include haul routes which include a description of haul routes, access points to the site, and a watering and sweeping program designed to minimize impacts of haul operations. S. The interface of the open space area with proposed plans for trails and dredging below the 20 -foot contour shall be coordinat- ed with the City of Newport Beach and the Department of Fish and Game. Water Resources 9. The velocity of concentrated runoff from the site shall be evaluated and erosive velocities controlled as a part of the final design of the drainage facilities. 10. Prior to application for any grading permit, the applicant shall submit to the Manager, Development: Services, County of Orange, for review and approval an erosion control program which indi- cates that proper control of siltation, sedimentation, and other pollutants will be implemented as required in the Orange County Grading Code and Grading Manual. 11. Concurrent with the recordation of the first Tentative Tract Map, the applicant shall be required to participate in the appropriate master Plan of Drainage facility, in a manner meeting the ap- proval of the Manager, Development Services or the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department. Participation may include the construction of master plan facilities and /or dedication of right -of -way and /or payment of drainage fees. Information shall be submitted addressing the development's offsite impacts, including diversions, offsite areas that drain onto and /or through the project, justification of any diversions, and evi- dence that proposed drainage patterns will not overload existing storm drains. In addition, the applicant shall provide a study which indicates that alternatives to underground conduit drainage facilities, such as park /retention basins, natural swales, or open greenbelt areas, have been considered. Future maintenance requirements shall also be addressed as they relate to the erosion control solutions. 12. Prior to rainy season, all of the existing slopes shall be planted to reduce erosion potential. 13. All parking lots and other onsite paved surfaces in the commer- cial areas shall be vacuum swept and cleaned weekly to reduce debris and pollutants carried into the drainage system and ultimately to Upper Newport Bay. t14. The landscape and irrigation plans for all common areas of the development shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. The plans shall include a maintenance program that includes the controls of fertilizers and pesticides. - 11 - 15. The tentative tract map contains a proposed drainage system which collects and discharges runoff from the site to a grass -lined swale between Bayview freshwater runoff prior to discharge into the Ecological Reserve. Design will be coordinated with the Department of Fish and Game. 16. During construction, the applicant shall implement Best Manage- ment Practices (BMPS) contained in the Upper Newport Bay 208 Water Quality Control Plan. • Cultural Resources Archaeological Resources 17. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, an archaeologist shall be retained by the applicant to perform a subsurface test level investigation and surface collection for CA -Ora -192, -348, and -351 as outlined in the recommendations of the Archaeological Assessment prepared for this EIR. This study is on file with the Environmental Analysis Division, County of Orange. The test level report evaluating the sites shall include discussion of significance (depth, nature, condition, and extent of resources), final mitigation recommendations, and cost estimates. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit and based on the report rec- ommendations and County policy, final mitigation shall be carried out based upon a determination as to the site's disposition by the Manager, Environmental Analysis Division. Possible deter- minations include, but are not limited to, preservation, salvage, partial salvage, or o mitigation necessary. 18. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, project applicant shall provide written evidence to the Manager, Environmental Analysis Division that a County- certified archaeologist has been retained, shall be present at the pregrading conference, shall establish procedures for archaeological resource surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the project developer, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting as appropriate. If additional or unexpected archaeological features are discovered, the archaeologist shall report such findings to the project developer and to the Manager, Environmental Analysis Division. If the archaeological resources are found to be significant, the archaeological observer shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the project developer, for disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the Manager, Environmental Analysis Division. 19. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, project applicant shall provide written evidence to Manager, Environmental Analysis Division that a County- certified paleontologist has been retained by the applicant to conduct preconstruction salvage of the exposed resources. The paleontologist shall submit a follow -up report on survey methodology and findings to the Manager, En- vironmental Analysis Division for review and approval. 20. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, project applicant shall provide written evidence to Manager, Environmental Analysis Division that a County- certified paleontologist has been retained by the applicant to observe grading activities and salvage fossils as necessary. The paleontologist shall be present at the pregrading conference, shall establish procedures for • paleontological resource surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the project developer, procedures for temporari- ly halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identifica- tion, and evaluation of the fossils. If major paleontological resources are discovered, which require long -term halting or redirecting of grading, the paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the project developer, which ensure proper exploration and /or salvage. These actions, - 12 - as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to approval by the Manager, Environmental Analysis Division. If significant fossils are found, the paleontologist shall submit a follow -up report for approval by the Manager, Environmental Analysis Division, which shall include the period of inspection, analysis of the fossils found, and present repository of the fossils. 21. Where feasible, the landowner shall donate the salvaged fossils • to an institution with an interest in curating the collection. Such institutions include, but are not limited to, the Natural History Foundation of Orange County or the Natural History Museum Of Los Angeles, County. Biological Resources 22. Grading activities or deposition of fill for project development shall not take place at or below the trail area generally depict- ed in the City of Newport Beach "Beach, Bicycle, and Equestrian Trail Study" (see Exhibit 10). This will eliminate the chance of the coastal brackish marsh located adjacent to the site from being directly impacted by the project. 23. Immediate stabilization of bare soils should be conducted to avoid significant erosion hazards. Mitigation measures in the Water Resources section of this EIR list suggested measures related to erosion control. 24. Immediately following construction, cut and fill slopes and natural slopes adjacent to the bay shall be revegetated with suitable native plant material and stabilized to reduce ero- sion /sedimentation hazards and to prevent the intrusion of non - native plant species into adjacent areas. 25. Public access to sensitive marsh habitat shall be controlled through adequate signage along any adjacent public trails. 26. Berming with native vegetation shall be established along the bay side of Bayview Way and at the bottom of the "T" intersection with Bayview Place to shield the adjacent area of the bay from roadway noise and nighttime auto lights. Berming shall be at least three feet high. Land Use and Land Use Plans 27. During the public review period, consideration shall be given to dedicating a portion of the property for regional park purposes. Determination as to the parcel size, location, and feasibility of such action shall be determined prior to approval of the General Plan amendment and zone change. Traffic and Circulation 28. The applicant will be required to contribute to or provide full improvements to intersection and roadway improvements listed in Table 12 (Revised) prior to the occupancy of the project. If the committed intersection improvements listed on Table 5 (Revised) are not constructed prior to occupancy, the applicant will also be required to contribute to or provide the improvements. The applicant will also be required to provide roadway improvement as OPspecified in the Development Agreement. 29. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall pay fees as prescribed in the fee program for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor and if such a program is established by the Board of Supervisors or the City of Newport Beach, partici- pate in a fee program for transportation improvements in the Santa Ana Heights /Airport Area. - 13 - 30. A right -of -way reservation shall be placed on that portion of the project site which may be impacted by feasible alternative alignments of proposed University Drive between the present terminus of Mesa Drive and the boundary of the Upper Newport Bay Ecology Reserve. The reservation shall remain in effect until 1) the County selects an alignment for University Drive, or 2) the County determines that an extension of University Drive through the property will not be required, or 3) twenty -four months from tentative tract approval have elapsed. • The limits of the right -of -way reservation shall be defined by an engineering feasibility study acceptable to the Manager, Trans- portation /Flood Office, EMA, and the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department, and shall be shown on all site plans and tentative tract maps. Acoustic Environment 31. All residential lots and dwellings shall be sound - attenuated against present and projected noise, which shall be the energy sum of all noise impacting the project, so as not to exceed an exterior standard of 65 CNEL and an interior standard of 45 CNEL. In addition, the maximum interior sound levels due to intrusive sounds shall not exceed 55 dBA for railroad noise or 65 dBA for aircraft noise. The design level shall be determined by cal- culating the energy average of the maximum levels of the loudest 30 percent of intrusive sounds expected to occur during any 24 -hour period. It is not intended for the L max component of the noise condition of approval to apply to any tract or portion thereof where the energy sum of all noise impacting the property, expressed in terms of dB CNEL, is less than 57. An accredited expert or authority in the field of acoustics shall submit evidence in accordance with the following procedure which certifies that the aforementioned standards will be satisfied in a manner which complies with zoning regulations: a. An acoustical analysis report shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach for approval either prior to recordation of a final tract /parcel map or prior to completion of any application for grading permits, if required by the County. The report shall describe in detail the exterior noise environment. Optionally, acoustical design features to satisfy the interior noise standards may be included in the report. b. Prior to issuance of building permits, satisfactory evidence shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach which indicates that the sound - attenuation measures specified in the approved acoustical report have been incorporated into the project design. 33. At the time of the first tentative tract map approval /site plan, the following conditions shall apply: a. Noise levels generated by this project during operation shall not exceed 50 dBA at the nearest noise - sensitive receptor property line (including future residential, etc.). An acoustical analysis report and appropriate plans shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach for review and • approval, describing the noise generation potential and proposed attenuation measures necessary to meet the 50 dBA standard. The approved attenuation features shall be incorporated into the plans and specifications of the project prior to the issuance of any building permits. - 14 - b. Noise levels generated by this project during operation shall also comply with Orange County Noise Ordinance No. 2715. 34. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, the applicant shall submit to the Manager, Environmental Analysis Division, in writing, his intention to comply with the following: a. All construction vehicles or equipment, fixed or mobile, • operated within 1,000 feet of a dwelling shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers. b. All operations shall comply with Orange County Noise Ordi- nance No. 2715. C. Stockpiling and /or vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as practicable from dwellings as determined by the Manager, Environmental Analysis Division. 35. Prior to recordation of the first final tract /parcel map, the owner of record of the property within the boundaries of this tentative tract /parcel map shall prepare and record a declaration that this property is subject to overflight, sight, and sound of aircraft operating from John Wayne Airport in a manner meeting the approval of the City of Newport Beach. 36. Prior to the issuance of any certificates of use and occupancy, the developer shall produce evidence acceptable to the City of Newport Beach, that the Department of Real Estate of the State of California Final Subdivision Public Report contains information stating this property is subject to the overflight, sight, and sound of aircraft operating from John Wayne Airport. 37. Prior to the recordation of the first final tract map /the final parcel map, an avigation easement over this property shall be offered for dedication to the County of Orange in a manner meeting the approval of the Manager, Environmental Analysis Division. 38. Prior to the issuance of any certificates of use and occupancy, the applicant shall post signs that indicate certain areas of the development are "Jet Noise Impact Areas." The format, number, and location of said signs shall be as specified by the City of Newport Beach. 39. Prior to sale, lease, or rental of any structure or portion thereof, the owner shall provide to each prospective purchaser, lessee, or tenant a notice that the property is subject to overflight, sight, and sound of aircraft operating from John Wayne Airport. The form and method of distribution of said notice shall be as approved by the City of Newport Beach. Air Quality 40. Compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust Emissions) will assist in mitigating the impact of construction- generated dust particulates. 41. Orange County's vehicular emissions will be reduced through legislative exhaust emissions controls and the provision of both mass transit in the area and the creation of closer employment centers. 42. At precise planning stages, the developer shall investigate implementing, where appropriate, the six reasonably available control measures which the County Board of Supervisors adopted to support on April 15, 1980: - 15 - • Energy conserving street lights; • Traffic light synchronization; • Preferential carpool parking; • Modified work hours; • Ridesharing; • Bicycle /pedestrian facilities to reduce vehicle miles traveled. Public Services and Utilities Fire Protection 43. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall identify in a manner meeting the approval of the Fire Chief that steps will be taken to protect structures and modify wildland fire hazards. The applicant will be required to reduce the risk of loss of life and damage to property to an acceptable level through design of the project: and /or modification of fuels on the project site and adjacent wildlands. If fuel modification is selected as the preferred solution, the applicant will submit a fuel modification plan for the approval of the Fire Chief which will identify appropriate methods to reduce impacts on biological resource values or on visually sensitive areas. Areas of partic- ularly high biological or science value may require alteration of development design or special treatment of fuel modification as the appropriate method of reducing fire hazards. 44. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate in a manner meeting the approval of the Fire Chief that existing infrastructure and fire protection services are adequate to serve the proposed development. Where existing response time and services are inadequate, or where existing water supply systems are inadequate to protect the proposed development, the applicant shall indicate to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief, the method and phasing of efforts to achieve adequate fire protection capabilities. Possible measures to be considered include dedication of :Eire station sites, financial contributions toward additional equipment and personnel, required improvements in water capacity, or increased built -in fire protection for structures. 45. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall submit water improvement plans to be approved by the Fire Chief for fire protection purposes. The adequacy and reliability of water system design, location of valves, and distribution of fire hydrants will be evaluated in accordance with Insurance Services Office suggested standards contained in the Fire Suppression Rating Schedule. A financial security shall be posted for the installation, if required. 46. Prior to the issuance of any building permit for combustible construction, the applicant shall submit evidence to the Fire Chief that a water supply for fire protection is available. 47. Prior to the approval of the site plan application, the applicant shall depict on a site plan building locations and private drive arrangements for approval by the Fire Chief on any portion of the subdivision map served by private streets not previously depict- ed. • 48. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall submit a construction phasing plan for approval by the Fire Chief. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the adequacy of emergency vehicle access for the number of dwelling units served. 49. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, the applicant shall submit a fuel modification plan and program for approval by the Fire Chief. The plan shall show the special treatment to achieve - 16 - an acceptable level of risk in regard to the exposure of struc- tures to flammable vegetation and shall address the method of removal and installation (mechanical or hand labor) and pro- visions for its continuous maintenance. The fuel modification plan will identify appropriate methods to reduce impacts on biological resource values or on visually sensitive areas. Areas of particularly high biological or scenic value may require alteration of development design or special treatment of fuel modification as the appropriate method of reducing fire hazard. • The approved fuel modification plan shall be installed under the supervision of the Fire Chief and completed prior to the issuance of applicable use and occupancy permits. 50. Prior to final recordation of the first tentative tract map, the applicant shall offer an irrevocable fire protection access easement as required by the Fire Chief for any private roadways within the development. The easement shall be continuous with the travelway for the private drivers as shown on the approved use permit, and shall be dedicated to the City of Newport Beach. The CC &Rs shall contain provisions which prohibit obstructions within the fire protection access easement and also require Fire Chief approval for any modifications such as speed bumps, control gates, or changes in parking plans within said easements. 51. Prior to issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall submit construction details for any controlled entry access for approval by the Fire Chief. These details shall include width, clear height, and means of emergency vehicle override. Law Enforcement 52. Adequate street lighting and clearly identifiable address indica- tors on all commercial buildings shall be provided. 53. Non - residential portions of the proposed project shall incorpo- rate an internal security system (security guards, alarms, access limits after hours) that shall be reviewed by the Police and Fire Departments and approved by the Director of Planning. Schools No mitigation measures are necessary. Public Transit 54. The applicant shall consult with OCTD regarding tentative map design and shall incorporate transit and /or bus stops, bus shelters, bus turn outs, and passenger waiting areas. This shall occur prior to the issuance of any building permits and /or grading permits. Water 55. Final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation of water - saving devices for lavatories and other water -using facilities. Public and private toilet facilities shall be low -flush toilets and low -flow faucets. Insulation shall be required for hot water lines. Any public flush valve- operated water closets will have a three- gallon flush, and drinking fountains will have self - closing valves. 56. A landscape irrigation system shall be designed for all common areas which minimizes water consumption. 57. Prior to approval of final map availability of water will be verified by the serving agency. - 17 - 58. The landscape program shall be designed to maximize the use of drought- resistant plant material. Wastewater 59. Prior to approval of final map availability of sewer shall be verified by the serving agency. Solid Waste • No mitigation measures are necessary. Energy Consumption and Conservation 60. Air infiltration via doors and windows in exterior walls and adjacent to unconditioned spaces shall be minimized through proper design and use of weatherstripping. 61. Determination of design loads for heating and cooling require- ments shall be in accordance with state standards. 62. HVAC equipment for conditioned structures shall meet or exceed, if feasible, the operating efficiency standards specified in the State Appliance Efficiency Regulations. 63. All water heating devices shall meet or exceed the operating efficiency standards specified in the State Appliance Efficiency Regulations. 64. Exterior and parking -level lighting design shall maximize the use of energy- efficient High Intensity Discharge Lighting sources. Such sources include, in ascending order of efficiency, mercury lamps, metal halide lamps, and high - pressure sodium lamps. 65. The project will be constructed in conformance with the recently revised State Title 24 energy standards for new building. Aesthetics 66. As conceptually denoted on Exhibit 4 (Volume III), landscaping between the trail system and Bayview Way and along the fill slope above Bayview Way will be provided. Where feasible, a berm along the top of the slope along the bay side of Bayview Way will also be provided in final designs. 67. The maximum grade separation feasible between the trail system, Bayview Way, and proposed development has been provided. Grade separation ranges up to 35 feet. 68. All areas to be dedicated to the County in fee or for landscape maintenance purpose or irrevocably offered shall be landscaped, equipped for irrigation, and improved in accordance with a plan process as follows: a. Preliminary Plan - Prior to the recordation of each final tract map, an agreement shall be entered into and financial security guaranteeing the landscaping improvements and the maintenance thereof shall be posted. Said agreement and security shall be based on a preliminary landscape plan showing walls, fences, sound attenuation measures, walks, • stairs, drives, parking, signs, trash areas, major plant material and uses, and all structures and grading proposed, with a cost estimate for the landscape improvements. The preliminary plan and cost estimate shall be reviewed and approved by the Manager, Development Services. Said plan shall take into account the EMA Standard Plans for land- scaped areas, adopted plant palette guides, and applicable scenic and specific plan requirements. - 18 - b. Detailed Plan - Prior to clearance for issuance of any building permit(s), a detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Manager, Development Services, County of Orange. Detailed plans shall show the items of the preliminary plan and the detailed irrigation and landscaping design. C. Installation Certification - Prior to the issuance of final certificates of use and occupancy and the release of the • financial security guaranteeing the landscape improvements, said improvements shall be installed and shall be certified by a licensed landscape architect as having been installed in accordance with the approved detailed plans. Said certification shall be furnished in writing to the Manager, Construction Division. 69. All areas /lots to be landscaped which will be privately main- tained shall be landscaped and equipped for irrigation in accor- dance with a plan certified by a licensed landscape architect as taking into account the EMA Standard Plans for landscaped areas, adopted plant palette guides, applicable scenic and specific plan requirements, Grading Code erosion control requirements, and any appropriate conditions of approval. 70. All Type "B" slopes and all open space lots shall be granted in fee to the homeowners association who shall be responsible for their maintenance and upkeep. 71. An easement over all of the Type "A" slopes adjacent to Jamboree Road and Bayview Way shall be irrevocably offered to the County of Orange for landscape maintenance and scenic highway purposes. Until such time as the offer of dedication is accepted by the County of Orange, the said landscape maintenance responsibility shall be the responsibility of the subdivider /developer or their assigns or the homeowners association, as applicable. Slope stability and maintenance responsibilities shall remain the responsibility of the subdivider /developer or their assigns or the current underlying owner(s) of the slopes, as applicable, and shall not be included in the irrevocable easement offer. The County may or may not accept the said offer of dedication at the time of final tract /parcel map approval for recordation. Fur- ther, it is possible that the County of Orange will never accept the dedication. 72. Prior to the approval of final map, availability of water shall be verified by the serving agency. 73. Within the commercial areas, the applicant shall provide bicycle racks in safe and convenient areas to encourage the use of bicycles. In addition, an onstreet bike path will be provided on Bayview Place to provide access from commercial and residential areas to Bayview Way. 74. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a qualified geotechnical consultant shall investigate the reported fault trace in the northeast corner of the site to determine its location and relative age. This study will evaluate the potential for surface rupture. 75. The following measure should be incorporated into the design and operation of the proposed project: Develop, promote and maintain a ridesharing program for all employees at the commercial and hotel sites. Register all employees with Orange County Transit District (OCTD) ridesharing program. - 19 - • SR11 • ° Survey employees to determine current ridesharing level. Perform follow -up surveys in three, six and twelve months to determine employee participation. ° Subsidize the employees' ridesharing program (i.e., free bus passes, vanpool programs). ° Install bus shelters to encourage transit usage. - 20 - ATTACHMENT 2 FUTURE STUDIES • Consistent with the requirements of CEQA and the Guidelines, EIR440 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 Bayview development are unlikely to occur, or if potentially occurring can be mitigated to a level of insignificance by imposition of conditions to future subdivision maps and grading permits so that these impact: areas were not analyzed in as great a depth as other impacts. The following constitute the subse- quent technical studies that will be needed and prepared prior to tentative tract map or grading permit approval with respect to Bayview Development: 1. Geology and soil investigation including a foundation investigation for all multi - story commercial structures; 2. Demonstration of the application of contour grading crite- ria; 3. Erosion control plan including designation of haul routes and access points; 4. Runoff management plan; 5. Landscape and irrigation plans; 6. Archaeological /test -level investigations and final mitiga- tion recommendations; 7. Engineering feasibility study to establish arterial right -of -way reservation; 8. Detailed site - specific acoustical analyses; 9. Resource Management Plan; and 10. Infrastructure engineering plans. The City Council therefore finds, based upon all data currently available, that while no significant adverse impacts are expected to be discovered as a result of any of these subsequent, focused studies, the requirements for such studies as a condition to the Bayview Development, and the reservation of the power to incorporate any mitigation measures required to mitigate any disclosed impacts to insignificant levels in a timely manner, is itself adequate mitigation for any impacts disclosed by such subsequent surveys and studies, however unlikely. SR11 • - 21 - ATTACHMENT 3 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Fifteen alternatives to the original project proposal were identified and evaluated in DEIR 440 (see Section 6.0 of DEIR. The current project proposal referred to as the Refined Land Use Plan (R -LUP) , represents a refinement of both the original plan and the Regional Park /Business Park /Residential Development alternative included in the DEIR. This refinement of the original project proposal occurred in light of comments received during the public review period for DEIR 440 and consideration given to the project alternatives identified in the DEIR. The following provides a brief description of project alternatives other than the Regional Park /Business Park /Residential Development alternative which was incorporated into the current proposal and why each one was rejected in favor of the current project proposal. No Project - This alternative assumes development under existing general plan /zoning designations which include suburban residential uses and open space. The disadvantages of this alternative in compar- ison to the current project proposal include the lack of commercial and business park uses which provide for a balanced development, increased potential for impacts to water resources (irrigation run- off) , lack of provisions for circulation system improvements, and greater incompatibility with existing and future noise sources. Also, this alternative would still have similar impacts to topography, geology, vegetations, existing land uses, and land use plans similar to those of the current proposal. No Development - This alternative assumes that the project site remains in its existing condition and no development occurs. By not allowing any development of the project site, land use intensification pressures and development demands would be displaced to other nearby areas and the cumulative impacts similar to those identified in EIR 440 would still occur. Under this alternative, continued erosion and sedimentation impacts to Upper Newport Bay would continue, the pro- vision of additional housing and employment opportunities would not be realized, and the enhancement of passive recreation areas near Upper Newport Bay would not occur. This alternative would also deny the property owner any reasonable use of his land. LUCP Scenario 1 - Under this alternative, the project site would be used for agriculture and the existing school site for medium density residential development. The major disadvantage of this alternative is that in light of the existing and anticipated land use patterns and trends in the local area, agricultural uses would be incompatible with surrounding existing and planned development and would not represent a logical extension of urban uses in the area. Also, it is unlikely that agricultural activities could exist as an economically viable use on the project site. Potential impacts to water quality in the Upper Newport Bay resulting from agricultural activities (pesticides, fertilizers, erosion, etc.) would be another significant negative impact. LUCP Scenario 2 - This alternative assumes that the project site would be used for public facilities, medium density residential development, and conservation /open space. This alternative would have • similar impacts on geology /soils, water resources, biological re- sources, community services and utilities as those associated with the current proposal. This alternative presents a greater potential for unmitigable noise impacts by designating residential uses adjacent to Bristol Street and the Corona del Mar freeway. Another disadvantage of this alternative, in comparison with the current proposal, is that the benefits offered 22 by including onsite commercial/business park uses would not be re- alized (the current proposal is more of a self- contained development). LUCP Scenario 3 - This alternative assumes that the project site would be used for medium density residential uses, conservation /open space and possibly equestrian facilities. The key disadvantages associated with this alternative are basically the same as those cited for LUCP Scenario 2. Also, onsite equestrian facilities would most likely prove to be incompatible with adjacent medium- density residential isdevelopment. LUCP Scenario 5 - Under this alternative the project site would be developed for high- density residential uses, business park development and equestrian facilities. Potential impacts associated with this alternative are similar to those of the current project proposal. Similar to LUCP Scenario 3, the compatibility of equestrian facilities adjacent to high density residential uses and business park develop- ment is questionable. The current proposal has the advantage of offering residential and business park uses and instead of equestrian facilities the current project proposal provides for open space /recreation uses with a broader public appeal and use. LUCP Scenario 8 - This alternative is essentially the same as LUCP Scenario 5 with the exception that it: specifically recognizes the potential for extending University Drive from Jamboree Road through to Irvine Avenue. This alternative has the same disadvantages as noted for LUCP Scenario 5. However, the concept of recognizing the poten- tial extension of University Drive was identified in the public review process as being important to the project. As such, the current project proposal, R -LUP, does not preclude options for the potential extension of University Drive. Business Park -Low Rise - This alternative would provide for the uses currently proposed but would limit business park development to low -rise buildings- only. The major disadvantage of this alternative is that in order to maintain a comparable amount of office floor area as the current proposal, the lower building heights would require larger building footprints. In decreasing the amount of open area between buildings, view corridors would be reduced, and the ambience and visual character of the project would be negatively affected. Also, this alternative would increase the amount of impervious surface area associated with the project, thus increasing the amount of surface runoff. Business Park -High Rise - As opposed to the previous alternative, this alternative would allow increased building heights in the business park area. This alternative was rejected in favor of the current proposal as it was felt that increasing the height of business park buildings would negatively impact the overall appearance of the project both in terms of views from Bristol Street and Jamboree Road, and in terms of the visual transition between residential areas and the business park area. The current proposal is felt to represent a "balanced" community; functionally and aesthetically. Office - This alternative would delete the commercial and the hotel uses from the business park area. This alternative was rejected because, unlike the current project proposal, the alternative does not • provide for onsite commercial uses which increase the self- sufficiency of the development, nor does it recognize the fact that commercial and hotel uses both provide substantially greater tax revenues than do office and residential uses. Also, this alternative does not include the proposed hotel that provided for the commercial recreation oppor- tunities which could complement the proposed Upper Newport Bay Region- al Park. - 23 - • Business Park - Low - Rise /Reduced Intensity - This alternative is very similar to the Business Park - Low -Rise alternative, discussed earlier, except that in lowering the allowable building height, the building footprint could not be increased. The net effect would be to reduce the intensity of development proposed within the business park area. The major drawback of this alternative is that by reducing the amount of office floor area which could be sold or leases, various fixed capital costs such as infrastructure improvement costs are higher for the remaining development. By reducing the base to which such fixed costs can be spread, the price of housing and remaining floor area may be increased sufficiently to jeopardize the economic viability of the project. Also, by reducing the amount of office area within the project site, business support for the proposed onsite hotel may be reduced. Residential Design Alternative - This alternative would retain the proposed business park and hotel uses, and would maintain the same number of swelling units as was originally proposed, but would provide for different densities or residential units within the study area. The residential area would be redesigned. to provide 5,000 -6,000 square foot lots adjacent to the existing residential uses adjacent to the site. The area adjacent to the proposed business park and fronting the Upper Newport Bay would be developed with attached single - family homes at a higher density. With the exception of land use compatibil- ity, this alternative would not offer- a significant reduction in environmental impacts as compared to the project proposal. However, the concept of redesigning the residential area to respond better to adjacent land uses was considered during the public review process and has been incorporated into the current project design. The higher density residential development proposed for the project will be located near the business park and commercial areas, while lower density residential units will be situated along most of the area bordered by existing residential development as well as by the proposed park area. Regional Park /Recreational Facility - This alternative would develop the site completely for recreational /regional park facilities. This alternative was rejected in favor of the current project proposal for a number of reasons, including: opportunities to provide new, quality housing as well as substantial employment opportunities in the area would be lost; opportunities for a mixed use development providing a broader range of public benefits would be lost and the project would place significantly increased responsibility on the County of Orange to purchase, develop and maintain all of the project site as a region- al park. More importantly, this alternative was rejected in favor of the current proposal which provides for regional park uses as well as meets the development demands of the area. - 24 - EXHIBIT 2 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS December 4, 1.984 BACKGROUND The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State EIR Guidelines promulgated pursuant thereto provide: "(a) CEQA requires the decision -maker to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. Where agencies have taken action resulting in environmental damage without explaining the reasons which supported the decision, courts have invalidated the action. "(b) Where the decision of the public agency allows the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but not mitigated, the agency must state in writing the reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and /or other information records. This statement may be necessary if the agency also makes the finding under Section 15091 (a)(2) or (a)(3). "(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 Notices of Determination." (Section 15093 of the Guidelines) The City Council of the City of Newport Beach proposes to approve an amendment to the General Plan, a Zone Change, and Development Agreement. Because the action constitutes a Project under CEQA and the Guidelines, an environmental impact report (EIR) was prepared. The EIR has identified certain significant environment effects that will follow from this project and the City Council desires to approve this project. After determining that the EIR is complete and has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and the Guidelines, and making the accompanying Statement of Facts, the City Council has also weighed the significant effects of the project against the overriding considerations noted as follows: 1. In light of existing development and recent development trends in the project vicinity, the project represents a logical extension of urban services and facilities. 2. The project provides a self - contained multi -use development including a mix of residential, commercial, recreational and office uses which serve to reduce off -site vehicular travel. 3. The project provides a source of tax revenues to the County of . Orange and the City of Newport Beach. 4. The project includes provisions for erosion control and drainage management which will ultimately reduce the amount of silt entering runoff to Upper Newport Bay. - 25 - 5. Provisions are included in the project to enhance public access to the regional trail and park system along Upper Newport Bay for passive recreation and wildlife observation. 6. The project will provide quality single- family and multi - family housing opportunities. 7. The design of the project provides for several alignment alterna- tives for the possible future extension of University Drive • through the project site. Such a project design increases the options available in evaluating, selecting and designing an alignment for the possible future extension of University Drive. 8. The project is consistent with the policies of the California Coastal Act in providing visitor - serving facilities adjacent to and within the coastal zone. 9. The project recognizes and responds to the policies of the Master Plan of Regional Parks through provisions to dedicate a portion of the project site to the County of Orange as part of a proposed regional park. 10. Beyond meeting park requirements, the project provides private recreational facilities to meet on site needs. 11. The project is complementary to existing and proposed land uses in the project vicinity and community in general. 12. As a result of the project, there will be improvements made to the local circulation systems. SR11 • - 26 -