HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-90 - Certifying Environmental Impact Report No. ER2021-002 (SCH No. 2020110087), Adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Adopting California Environmental Quality Act Findings of Fact for the Residences at Newport Center LocatedRESOLUTION NO. 2021-90
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. ER2021-002
(SCH NO. 2020110087), ADOPTING THE MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND
ADOPTING CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT FINDINGS OF FACT FOR THE RESIDENCES AT
NEWPORT CENTER LOCATED AT 150 NEWPORT
CENTER DRIVE (PA2020-020)
WHEREAS, Section 200 of the City of Newport Beach ("City") Charter vests the
City Council with the authority to make and enforce all laws, rules and regulations with
respect to municipal affairs subject only to the restrictions and limitations contained in the
Charter and the State Constitution, and the power to exercise, or act pursuant to any and
all rights, powers, and privileges, or procedures granted or prescribed by any law of the
State of California;
WHEREAS, an application was filed by Newport Center Anacapa Associates, LLC
("Applicant"), with respect to property located at 150 Newport Center Drive and legally
described in Exhibit 'A," which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference
("Property");
WHEREAS, the Project includes the demolition of an existing 2,085 -square -foot car
wash, convenience market, and gas station and the construction of a four-story structure
consisting of 28 condominium units and common space amenity areas over a two-level
below -grade parking garage ("Project") which require the following approvals by the City:
• General Plan Amendment No. GP2020-001 — to change the Property's land use
designation from Regional Commercial Office (CO -R) to Multiple Residential
(RM) and create a new Anomaly Location for the Property that authorizes a
maximum development density of 28 dwelling units;
• Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2020-008 — to change the Property's zoning
designation from Office Regional (OR) to Planned Community (PC) District;
• Planned Community Development Plan No. PC2020-001 - to establish land
uses and development standards for the Property including a waiver of the
minimum site area;
Resolution No. 2021-90
Page 2 of 6
• Major Site Development Review No. SD2020-001 —to allow for the development
of a four-story structure containing 28 luxury condominium units and common
space areas over a two-level below -grade parking garage;
• Tentative Tract Map No. NT2020-001 — to establish a 28 -unit residential
condominium subdivision map on the 1.26 -acre Property that would allow each
unit to be sold individually;
• Development Agreement No. DA2020-001 — to provide the Applicant with the
vested right to develop the Project subject to the rules and regulations in effect at
the time of Project approval and to provide the City with assurance that certain
obligations of the Applicant will be met, including public benefit fees;
• Environmental Impact Report No. ER2021-002 - to disclose reasonably
foreseeable environmental impacts resulting from the legislative and project
specific discretionary approvals, the City has determined that an Initial Study and
Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") are warranted for the Project pursuant to
California Public Resources Code Section 23000 et seq. ("CEQA"), Title 14,
Division 6, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations ("CEQA Guidelines"),
and City Council Policy K-3; and
• Rescind Use Permit No. UP1461 — rescind use permit since the Project will
replace the operation of the existing car wash;
WHEREAS, the Project is designated Regional Commercial Office (CO -R) by the
City of Newport Beach General Plan ("General Plan") Land Use Element and is located
within the Office Regional (OR) Zoning District,
WHEREAS, the Property is not located within the coastal zone;
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K-
3 (Implementation Procedures for the California Environmental Quality Act), it was
determined that the Project may have a significant adverse effect on the environment,
and thus warranted the preparation of an EIR;
WHEREAS, on November 5, 2020, the City, as lead agency under CEQA,
prepared a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") of the EIR and mailed that NOP to responsible
and trustee public agencies, organizations and persons likely to be interested in the
potential impacts of the Project, including any persons who had previously requested
notice in writing;
Resolution No. 2021-90
Page 3 of 6
WHEREAS, on November 30, 2020, the City held a publicly -noticed EIR scoping
meeting to present the Project and to solicit input from interested individuals, organizations,
and responsible and trustee public agencies regarding environmental issues that should be
addressed in the EIR;
WHEREAS, due to the State Emergency related to COVID-19 and as allowed
pursuant to Executive Order N-29-20, the City hosted the EIR Scoping Meeting via an
internet-based video and phone conferencing service;
WHEREAS, a Draft EIR (SCH No. 2020110087) ("DEIR") was prepared in
compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K-3;
WHEREAS, the DEIR was circulated for a 45 -day comment period beginning on
April 29, 2021 and ending on June 14, 2021;
WHEREAS, the City reviewed all comments to the DEIR and prepared written
responses to comments;
WHEREAS, the Final EIR, consisting of the NOP, Initial Study, Draft EIR,
Responses to Comments, Revisions to the DEIR, and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program are attached as Exhibits "B" and "C," and incorporated herein by
reference;
WHEREAS, the following environmental topics were identified as having potential
impacts by the implementation of the Project: Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological
Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions,
Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Land Use and Planning, Noise, Transportation, and
Tribal Cultural Resources;
WHEREAS, the Final EIR recommends the adoption of nine mitigation measures
to reduce the potentially significant adverse impacts to a less than significant level related
to Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology/Soils, and Tribal Cultural
Resources;
WHEREAS, the mitigation measures are identified in the Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program, which is included as Exhibit "C";
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 21080.3.1 of the California Public Resources
Code, on December 7, 2020, the City provided notice to California Native American tribes
that have requested in writing to be informed of projects in the geographic area that is
traditionally and culturally affiliated with the tribe;
Resolution No. 2021-90
Page 4 of 6
WHEREAS, the City provided notice to the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians —
Kizh Nation, the Juaneno Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemnen Nation — Belardes, the
Gabrielino Tongva Tribe with the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation and
the Juaneno Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemnen Nation — Belardes requesting
consultation within the time prescribed in Section 21080.3.1 of the Public Resources
Code;
WHEREAS, based upon the consultation, the DEIR was updated to incorporate
mitigation measures requiring a qualified archaeological monitor and qualified Native
American Tribal monitor are retained to monitor the Property during any ground disturbing
construction activities;
WHEREAS, a study session was held on May 6, 2021, in the Council Chambers
located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach to introduce the Project to the Planning
Commission and discuss the procedures for environmental review;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 19, 2021
in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time,
place and purpose of the hearing was given in accordance with California Government
Code Section 54950 et seq. ("Ralph M. Brown Act") and Chapters 15.45 (Development
Agreements), 19.12 (Tentative Map Review), 20.56 (Planned Community District
Procedures) and 20.62 (Public Hearings) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code
("NBMC"). Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the
Planning Commission at this public hearing;
WHEREAS, at the hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No.
PC2021-024 by a unanimous vote (7 ayes, 0 nays) recommending the City Council
approve the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on September 28, 2021, in the
Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time,
place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown
Act and Chapters 15.45 (Development Agreements), 19.12 (Tentative Map Review),
20.56 (Planned Community District Procedures) and 20.62 (Public Hearings) of the
NBMC. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the City
Council at this public hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach resolves as
follows:
Resolution No. 2021-90
Page 5of6
Section 1: The City Council hereby certifies Environmental Impact Report No.
ER2021-002 (SCH No. 2020110087), which is attached here to as Exhibit "B" and
incorporated herein by reference consisting of the NOP, Initial Study, DEIR, Responses
to Comments, revisions to the DEIR. The City Council finds that information added to
the Final EIR prior to certification merely clarifies, amplifies or makes insignificant
modifications to the environmental document and any changes or alterations incorporated
into the Final EIR which substantially lessen or avoid one or more of the significant
adverse environmental impact does not warrant recirculation of the Final EIR. Rather, all
information added to the Final EIR after public notice of the availability of the Draft EIR
for public review but before certification, merely clarifies, amplifies or makes insignificant
modifications to the Final EIR.
Section 2: The City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Report
Program attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and incorporated herein by reference and finds
that on the basis of the entire environmental record, the Project, with mitigation measures
incorporated into the Project will result in either no project -level impacts or less -than -
significant project -level impacts, and there are no known significant and unavoidable
effects on the environment that would be caused by the Project.
Section 3: The City Council hereby adopts the CEQA Findings of Fact
Regarding the Environmental Effects of the Approval of the Residences at Newport
Center Project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 and Section 21081 of the
California Public Resources Code attached hereto as Exhibit "D," and incorporated herein
by reference.
Section 4: The recitals provided in this resolution are true and correct and are
incorporated into the operative part of this resolution.
Section 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
resolution is, for any reason, held to b;e invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not
affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this resolution. The City
Council hereby declares that it would have passed this resolution, and each section,
subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or
more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or
unconstitutional.
Resolution No. 2021-90
Page 6 of 6
Section 6: The City Council finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA
determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In
addition, project opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges. As
project applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate that
such applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial
challenge, and bear the responsibility for any costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which
may be awarded to a successful challenger.
Section 7: This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the
City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting the resolution.
ADOPTED this 28th day of September, 2021.
Leilani I. Brown
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
Aaron C. Harp
City Attorney
Attachment(s): Exhibit A — Legal Description
Exhibit B — Environmental Impact Report No. 2021-002
Exhibit C — Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Exhibit D — CEQA Findings of Fact Regarding the Environmental
Effects of the Approval of the Residences at Newport Center Project
Exhibit "A"
Legal Description
The property is legally described as Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 29-34 (Resubdivision No.
282) being a portion of Block 93 of Irvine's subdivision as per map recorded in Book 1, Page
88 of Miscellaneous Record Maps, records of Orange County, California.
Exhibit "B"
Environmental Impact Report
EIR SCH No. 2020110087
• Notice of Preparation
• Initial Study
• Environmental Analysis
• Alternatives Analysis
• Appendices
• Responses to Comments
• Errata
(Available separately due to bulk)
http://www.newportbeachca.gov/CEQA
Exhibit "C"
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
m
a`o
O
O.
b,0
CI-
t
O
O.
aJ
cr
C
m
0
C
0
f�6
ao
e�
0
GJ
u
CL
E
m
C
a
E
O
LU
■❑
m
E
PC
r-
00
O
O
O
N
O
N
O
Z
u
V)
u
U
m
Cl)
co
t
O
Q
3
v
z
0
U
u
U
C
Cl)
no
a
a
m
v
J
a°on
m
CL
c
u °
4
C �
cCv
U byU
A
� 3
a
U
to
CZ
U O
a
a�
¢ �z
C4 p
o
aC'um
e
ca w
c > o
O
O
O 'O G
NC >i 0 O
un
E i � 3 o°n
tia
° a L
a 0.mm0.cCd �:d�
Cfj
t.
C4 cd
cd
- SO
CC nac'
o
�>
p
c>
U
aQua
b
�
.°'
E'
O
`;°c
o
C, o
i n c
�o
c
cd
.
^r
�
C u
O
a+O c� N
yCp
(A
�
'.
b
a O a OE 4- a
L
U yC � 40O
°
�9
p 4 cd MO
a y N
9
UbA
vm
N
4-N
No
v0
M
_
N
ani o avi = o r= .9
43 U °_' E d 3
i.
> y 3 3
n c
v o
vc
Cd {�t�..�� U `� p >
= y
0
Y 0
G
- cd
$. cd �' y . lC
'O H OD `n
' lC
b w G_ 1.^
3 C C vc� p C d C 'G u Q, 7 cd
N v
.�
AQ
O 0
>.5 cd .� N b4 .o v O
cn
O
C cid `n
O N •^� C L U F O
b
C
u
y
Q. y +•+ b C O f3.
Cd
C
° Cd
L
U n y C y N N
a m
E Ca
°
E E L o Uo
3
�. c 0
U
o
s a s �i� M CLF C
c
0
r-
00
O
O
O
N
O
N
O
Z
u
V)
u
U
m
Cl)
co
t
O
Q
3
v
z
0
U
u
U
C
Cl)
no
a
a
m
v
J
a°on
m
CL
E
m
L
O
L
a
W
C
E
0
Q
CU
D:
C
m
b0
C
•L
CO
G
0
m
2
a� t
41
C O
v =-
U N
L 4J
CL M
O u
w E
z =
m c
a
u E
U
C C
4J 0
� L
N .>
v C
= W
O
I
U
C �
C C
U
n°n �
A
I
L
a
y �
C .0
CL O
U q
G:i p
q
C U
�d
G �
d
Qt
�I
a+
U > > v cd
•
`''^'
..n 0
N O i
w
y O -' +N 'B O 'O i .a
tU
O
N +' h h
v .oo
a:
fiLFnC .vmoi...'L
>°
� 3tn
F••ii
Cdoaa
uO�
�=
N
•G
,�,
°LC
a=a
o
aN
OC
-3wOtn.U.=3
C
3
4
'.�3 .G N
0 0 C +�,,,
C
c0. . C tU..
'b
cd OL N
.0 7 "
y s G v-
C y
p
L
Y
°
.o
-o
3
°°
L'
O O . c
C
v~ UU❑"
° " y
X1...0.
°
y
tn 'O N
o
>
.0
E'
> cd a
L +-• 'b C
rn
L Q.
b .i C
bU ++ U
.N.
' by p • U
H 0En 'D
C
C 4] .D a+
• V .--.
y
,�
b0
O y
C°
•�°[
O
L y N
o
o
OnN
°
N=cd
d
U
0
°
o°
sC s
c
°3
,Ne�`
d
"a
0
d
iC
c
CSUCCC
o b
4) a+v
>
U
NL
tp
O N O
q O
AOtrA
Uy
q
•,.,N..
C
0
N
++
M
JrC7
> N
°U
w
O
NCd
CL
m
O
Cd
O•"O0
Ocd *>
-tip
"
_.�to
C
aas
EQ
C
C
r. y
iGC:
N •
cd
O
1
o
0
O
o
•*�°
C
Cd
O
.O
._ NCd
Cd
> H i
u
C
i
C
E
a
0
C
w
C
d
ar
a°
00
0
0
r -I
O
N
O
N
0
z
U
Ln
=
tko
m
a
m
dA
O
a`
ao
c
0
CL
cu
o=
m
an
c
'C
O
C
O
O
f0
h0
►Cl
r-
00
O
O
IH
O
N
O
N
2
V
N
Q
3
Q)
Z
N
bA
f9
CL
3 �
u Q
�
ro
a.
�
bA 421
0
O
N
N �
6,
a
Ld
.° �w
C, y id w u
y
o
N O1010 C• E
C
Z c oQ o
C o
o f o E
o .c c ° id
U m E z
� L
C U
U
N
pp y C
m
R
E Vl
�+ �". L •� N
O
_�
E
.,
p 7 >
o
aL o ao`oCd
Q
R! N cd Ci NV o N L pp �� C b V N Op C O
�+ �+ 'd N O O m o
CO O
1 N
Y
L
C
.0
o
y— 0
CCL
c?
V
O
0
10
0 U
E-"
cd
E 'o
E Cly y ,_
Q
u
C c Z
u
�,,'
O_ O O
C
y s
vCi R > L. F- �
C N
�
y
N "� C O tCd N iL
y � n E � N �
u Cd
.0 'a0
.� u
•> U
H ,O, U C N
b4
°�' C Y
°
C
°
cd
°� o
�,
`'
o w id 4~ O
U
cd E °q
ca
-- N
b0
'Q
(D
AC° N to C >d
Y
v ..d
R Q +C U O
0
C L
7 N
U ,C
c14
N
U
C O A
U
d
O
N b
L
W O
aNi f3.
cd Y
E
aui
n
aNi
E
O
N
'15 U• � �
C
N
N
Q c
L U s ° U t
N
p
U ° � C U
Q
Gl
•R U N
�
b R
y
U
�"' cd
N cd 7 c3 U
c w fC
U 'UO
'
O NIM
.
co
0
`
C
O
Q
R.- N O
>
oA O N
O
co cd
ObA
O •
.+"'
N4«OA
O O
'�' �•.Sg�
.0
_
N 'uOaRi
E
7N�a�uo
w
Rf
Z'b td
cd
-ooG
-0,,,r-
bb
on ns
0C
C
0
vo
cd
N b N T N N N V) +-'
uUj -S•ItU^7-.
C uu
ci
N
a
"oo
U ,
Ea
g
L ">
.6(@v.)
C>
OE C
ri
y
L
L U O
Cd R
u
cd y 7
ccf
C
a
O Co C X
O C v �
O C C`
� tU OR
O
U
G C
O U N
U L
a� C
U U U U
.0 C °
y b
C �'
0
.b cd
O 4"'
o u b
R
ti o oR a
o
v b
C V ro m�
•�
U
... cd '
cn
b Oc C
O
yO D'cdQ>c
c
> Ctai
Cd
ccC;3
ei
= C
H a� N E u 0
C
a cd
C X U C C E
0 U a cd 0 .
r-
00
O
O
IH
O
N
O
N
2
V
N
Q
3
Q)
Z
N
bA
f9
CL
E
i
v t
c o
CU a
U W
a a
ani E
z
41
ca c
cu a
u E
U
C r-
0 O
y .>
N =
OG w
u °
Ca R
u .0
bCn V
i
a
c
a°
0
c
0
E R
a
8
yC.
C r"C-.
N
C 0.+V..
O :U�.. N
o an
" C O
• V
V
.�..
U
.� .�..
C 'C
bA h
O 0 aS 0C
p,
InO_
CA
E
D -d
-
00
iC' D
V "C9 N
c
C
Q o
p
R
u O
V
o
0. C
U c
o
on .�
O s
O w
ca
V
C R
L
r
6.G
u F"
to
�• y
R U
CA
G
�V. C
ca
.0 •DR
oq
vVi
y
y .0V
co
> F
O D
°:
s n 0
0
0.
m
� a
0Q
3
°;
a
U
�
c F�
O ro
_o Q
N
c
OU
° •°r' aoi
C
3
V
N
C
CC'm
C
Ems- 'C a
by
y
F
R U 0
Ha
to.
•Q•
'
.� .b •�
.b
C V G
O V cd
C O '�
'p OCd 'C
cn
V
R) C'sa
V
s R
^ V C
.fl En R z
O C C
u M.
V
�
.�
� U m E E
O 0 y �- y 0
v
R
a
E
c
d
E
c
0
L
C
W
a
d
a
r-
00
0
O
0
N
O
N
O
z
U
N
N
on
ca
a
bA
O
L-
CL a
aC
c
0
a
a
o:
L
f6
!]A
�L
0
Y
c
SO
G
C
O
z
IC
bz
i
a� t
C:41 0
CU Q.
U
Y
L Y
O U
Q
Q..
v E
z =
Y 41
M c
'� v
Ql C
U C
r
41 O
L
N >
W
HI
r-
00
O
O
1-1O
N
O
N
u
N
u
•�
C R'
R C
C L•
bA i
u
A
=a
C ,C
O 4
N'
ao
C
O
C pp
O C9
CL
H
0 C
O O
C ❑
cd C�
c�
O C ,�? O
O
O
U
u
O
C C
r1 =
=.D
ca
N Qp
V
N °
rL
iO
o
co
p
j $
U
.•,°
>
-
O->- -0
°-
m -
u�o"
O
O
Od'
U
O Z
OA
Uy °y
d44
=U
b4
I, .
E d
I,
a.
O
°O
P,
C In N O C's
'O
4•.CO:coN
'v
w
Go .
'
aCCR�.
w'CaO��c
d
O n.O
.D 4y w N
,>
O n
OO U Cd;d
°p
a
m-0u°i o
aCr
$ AoNy
=Crv°`On"
cd
CC. U =<° cis
C
a n
°
CCbn
ccUCOqO
d,
O
o
A
Cd 0. 2 >
3
4- °
� t�
�
�
a cd
C
y O
N
ti
O CG
cd ;d OLN
"
c_
i
°
c
w°00 o
dc0a.-� co�
o •o
o
>>'vUG),
roz>o0.
w
u
ed
i
I
C
d
C
L
C
W I
I
i+
C
U
w
O
r-
00
O
O
1-1O
N
O
N
u
N
N
_
U
t
O
G.
C1
z
m
u
u
_
v
Ln
cu
2
L
O
Fy L N
LL O 'p
VI N
T..
OU_
`� U .� -0 C ' �." a5 O
N Uu
O O
aL..
C's
0 76
as.+
mid
N
O
0 eOj N
Q
N
N
��..
4.
^p y 10 1
d
0 V] C C
C,3
L
U p
'n cd
p
q N
O
..o
O
c N ti"
v c
>>
mm
n� u
cd
:�
15
0+•
_O CL
0-a,c
i
U
to
m bto
C
p o0A O p
T
ai
p
3
O
,
1+
U, O
CO
�•-•
ajcam.
0
Y
N •��
`
U
`A p "4 s
cd
�
�^ z
!-�
U_
a?
O L
4.
E
N
..� N
��,, O
y
N
O
7J U N
O
O�
Q.
C O •O
U
N
O
G_
N
N>
> >
CO
O
tUN.
NU i: •�
OC >cd
O
O
O O
OVol
U
eY
ti
C!1 �O cOd
OU
v
ci c H
E U a U 'UO
UO
cli
Z
.
v
R
d
a
d
8
a
0
a
W
U
N
u
u
ca
N
m
O
0 -
cu v
z
0
U
u
U
C
N
CLO
Q
m
au
J
W
(U t
O
c o_
v OJ
V �
L u
O �
Q �
3 Qc..
C
Z e
Y
Ln cucu
U C
Q) O
72.!=L .L?
W
■ 1�
mm
of
I
u
�
C CI
U C
V) A
L
C C;i
O L;
G O'.
y
C
NU
W �
C
O
.O
C d
G
r.i
'C
C
O O
E
S
a c
°' H
w v'
D o
c
a� o
w�9
,�,
s v o E -
y
F-
c�
n
o
al
Q
oCL U
a
�•,
ami'
b
i
o
ocd
a
ci
b
& E
c cd
aui
c oca U
0
.�
u
v
S
.E
a
c
7 o.
Q. w
o
o
'L. Z E
a
o
.c
a� . ❑
w
o N
o
a U
Z
E
3 ou E .0 C a�
G O 0
�
o �
. O
.i �
y. a+
3
N L � �
y
�Cc>i
i 0.
ro
cd
aCo C
to
cu
Dom
CE7
�
.o
.'riN
>
O
y U
O.D
. QU
U
UOs
.E
-.aoCai
.z�
Uv
c
v
4?v
H
°xva
a
0
c�
b,o i•-
.o
u
M
i
CG
G
CJ I
�+
I
6�
C.
0
.L..
C.
w
CQ
i
O
a,
00
0
0
0
N
O
N
O
Z
S
U
Ln
7�
U
1"
N
hA
m
a
O
I-
CL a
no
c
t
0
Q.
ce
G
m
ao
c
•L
0
CQ
G
C
O
a) t
a' LO
C ^
U aJ
4-
a0.
a
w E
z
m +°
� a
v
v E
(U =
.0 0
Lq
.�
W
H!
c
u �
d
w �
ao d
A
^a
c
a o
d•
a
0
H
.�
O
U
«1 tpL
p > p
ct
'.Qry
O
O N z cd
.� .�. d
N
.O
O C '� E
o
E
o
°
o
Q
n
>
�C's
= c—
ul
cUd
U
'
c r -
+6•�'
U
QE-
E t
C
U
C cpdU-CpoO
QaE
a-
'AocS
S.a
cqj
y
'
°
'DU
U_
.W
-LUO
m
i•
E
t
Uwa'wEU >,
Op O
E
2
=
cuU
°
>
>
a c
F—
p
U �.o
opU
'>
r-a�
Q
V.
Qj
%~
O
'cl
..
c
'B Y Q
!]. cid
Q
CL
i cn ai
G.
C',"U
��+ U c�
G L G.
E
L •G
U° U
v
R
C.
E
a
d
a
a
w
R
G
a
r,
w
0
O
O
N
O
N
0
z
U
N
t
u
ro
v
m
t
0
CL
3
a,
z
0
u
u
U
a
v
w
a
a,
J
00
m
CL
ca
as
O
a`
C
O
CL
aJ
C
m
u
•L
O
c
0
0
ca
an
r"
00
0
0
N
O
N
O
z
U
Ln
0
04a
3 �
C
u p
ccs
u.
C U
i
aj
Cd
�)
C [
fl
U0.
Qz
U
a o
o
a U
C
R
8
� i
C
Q.
on
a
o m
on
o M
a o
p
C coo O 'G
A �•^ 7,
vi by 77
N N N^ w
N -0 00
0a N
•_
U
^ .N
y._... ... c0
C O
U
V
O. cF0„ N
vi N
N U o� Cd
+.t' 'ch
Q
b L U
> N i-
C
�—
° U ° o
ro
N E
o ami
O
v _
O d bA �'
a� En
U
v b C
D
(d °E
cd
ta on
+r + O
N
N
C
00 RS N
�!1 ^ V
�
w
C •r" R1
N cd � V
Q O
a .�
U
� +•' � >
U O� 7
O O � .^
�
U � � V 0 z�,'
y
d
[
^ E
n
1.
x 0.
0 d
UOa
>
CdC
cU
r
O
U
:O
x°
to p 0
y
U
C
Ctd U Vl
++
d '� s
a+ O bA .
C
N
N O O
O N c0
U
'
bA
N
cd N O\ y y+
V
N V �^
r
cd
L+ Lam'
c`d
U O konc�
14
O f� b .CC
2 V] coo "O cco
a�
00p . , U U � " o
c0. � z 13. Cn
� Oii
v
b b
C
CZ O
C
o°•
ro a
C
C
�
�
c
C
,G �
api
?� •.�
u
r"
00
0
0
N
O
N
O
z
U
Ln
0
04a
E
v �
= 0
a� Q -
U O
i 4-1
3 a
v E
Z
41
m 41
L
OJ �
u E
C O
N
:2 O
a .c
C W
■ ❑
■ ■
u �
C
w �
0
0
Cin
v p C y
V O
9 V o
d
Oa u
0 O v •U
C
m o u
a u m o u
N
°
�+
o
'a+
'O y
CS.
O O y y
U
0 C.
O C' by
>
+ U O 'O c
C
O cd b°A O N
n 0 1a o
a` 0 0.o.?m
O
U c - r... U bA
n o a o rs c -0c c
O Ta O o
bbU U ^ - 4. N Cd
.n > .'� ro O is
°U"a'
" ^ L
U
o
_
G
C
Cd
yr
z m
o°
.o
OH
°bN7n
u a�
y U
0d
C
U
0, c 4,
O � to Uao
rn V) c
•Tap
>
"°°o oC
4� W'0
p rn qecd
G�
En V A — .
Oa\V
V
o
°
a
C11 0 "a 0
o
° o.
bo
L
Gw
c 3 °~�' U° bA .c
p
6 C O
c
0
.0 ca o
c id •- C Y
3
° 4f c c
G O "a
a>
y F N o ayi d E
o
n o C 0
C. �, O
L 12
U c '
•
w cts.
tw
°
}, b
�
y
zo
x
�
cU cd
c.
O '�V
C C n.
.
^c
9
0p.
p
yOp
N C
W
Ces
U O tG
Cd
�
O
Va >
O0 `
y
O o w a°Ai ami vOi a� o
a a 2 o4 .= Occ
.a
LL O b +-
y api ,� ¢
a a°
y y .O vai
.o
ca
° -cs o+
ca y-. O N 4r
� [a' = ° -0 O O,
y
3 N
•
L
U cd �' w w co by
O u°
d. O
W
o p O
m O IJ
y c= y y vi
r. c
O
.y
U
y
.O >
o c 3 U
0
c a Id N
L
C. vii .— E= U w fN, O N
r-
00
O
O
IH
O
N
O
N
u
m
t
O
Q
3
N
Z
4—
O
U
U
C
4J
w
a
v
J
0
as
m
a
ca
0
0
D-
u
t c
0
CL
c
0
c
0
c
0
CA
F-7
v
+' o
c CL
v a
U �
i 4.
Q Q
(i E
PJ
v
v E
U
v
V) c
W
O
� o
0
Q�
c
s
h
czE
�, un
115
aU c ari
z o f° o
U
C!
a w p
y y 0
a`.UWC]L1 a
o
a�
c
�
O
O
pf)
a o
c v
a
cc
F
= c
CO
c .�
4
y
X
y
0 0
N 0 V
a C.Ca
T
E O
Wcts
0 0
O
y O p
OL 0.
3
N
.mac
Cn
o
+�+
N
YO
°
o v c 3
civ Co
fn
0
rn
Ham.+
'N..
E
G
O
U
CC o
Q 0
C
i
M G. E O
by
kn on
-Q
-a p
6'• 73 �
�
i
� � amzgua
U
to
bo
cz
c
'in CV
O 3
L .�
,�
fV (�
'�
Y
o a o 3 'c
C'sa
n .-
y ti 5 0
0
OL 0 .> rn
C O
x
IDa�tn
.0
Q
L u
GJ
•Ly
i Q
d
N�
C
C� y
o
y
� L� y N
0
cd
A.
cd oo
an .r
c
'a`�
3 E
ti
c
a co �,
° c
Q °' 0
ami
a
CL c
v O
o
Co
r- CL v .0
0 Cts
a
°o.
to
U
'fl
C yJlz
ar
C
U .O N Cd
S o u x i 'U; oa
CA
ZZ a 3
°c
o
FL- U ti B E V
►]
()
V
C
a)
L4
aJ
cc
■❑
■■
r-
00
0
0
O
N
O
N
6
z
V
t
U
CO
aJ
ca
t
O
Q
3
v
z
O
T
V
U
C
v
Q
aj
J
N
ei
tio
al
m
CL
3 „
�
u O
Com„
CO V �:
° °
°c+o
o- 3 a •� � 0 0
°pa-
CL E"c
¢ z ° ° O
ao
¢
oE
'r .Y cd
O U O fl
D cd
Con
Y b 'Y
�ooOJOcz
v O r •� O O c a0 O
7
cad
cn
o
U E
o o
c w
a to
s
a
.^
> .E
to
o
E
s U
b c
o
cd
wv
° R
0
O
Y
a
to
.•;
,�
O O c}:,
cd cd
G]. 0 cd
Ln
c
0
U cd
0 T
o
E
c .
o
w
o
ai
0
U
o
Yri
to,°
oco
oo
°
,c v)
c o w
—
<'"'
id
L
7 ..c
O
a N
0 i �"'
y O cd cd
id a
"
a-0
o
°zLla
(�
Erio. 3
aca n
��•,
y
Ln
a.
3
ro aUi
a�
o o
ci
° c `� � 'a
y
•-•i
7-,
cc
N U
00
8
0
In
CID•�;
c-
a�
C N fl.
r U
X >
a
C:
U
U
O
U
-0
cad U
v
O
_
Cy
cid
C. N
7
0
rl
L °U C3 >o
A4
0
cd c"°
""
o `n
o
a, a c
v
0- C. o
Fes- c(U
r-
00
0
0
O
N
O
N
6
z
V
t
U
CO
aJ
ca
t
O
Q
3
v
z
O
T
V
U
C
v
Q
aj
J
N
ei
tio
al
m
CL
Exhibit "D"
CEQA Findings of Fact Regarding the Environmental Effects of the Approval of
the Residences at Newport Center Project
Facts and Findings
Regarding the Environmental Effects of the
Approval of the
Residences at Newport Center
(State Clearinghouse No. 2020110087)
City of Newport Beach File No. PA2020-020:
Development Agreement No. DA2020-001
General Plan Amendment No. GP2020-001
Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2020-008
Planned Community Development Plan No. PC2020-001
Major Site Development Review No. SD2020-001
Tentative Tract Map No. NT2020-001
Lead Agency
City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
CEOA Consultant
T&B Planning, Inc.
3200 El Camino Real, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92602
Proiect Applicant
Newport Center Anacapa Associates, LLC
901 Dove Street, #270
Newport Beach, CA 92660
August 23, 2021
Table of Contents
Section Name and Number page
I.
INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................................... l
II.
PROJECT SUMMARY.............................................................................................................................................. I
3. Air Quality....................................................................................................................................................
A. Project Site Definitions........................................................................................................................................1
4. Biological Resources....................................................................................................................................
B. Site Location.........................................................................................................................................................2
5. Cultural Resources........................................................................................................................................
C. Project Description.............................................................................................................................................. 2
6. Energy..................................................................................................................... ................16
1. Development Agreement No. DA2020-001..................................................................................................... 2
7. Geology and Soils.........................................................................................................................................
* General Plan Amendment No. GP2020-001................................................................................................... 2
S. Hazards and Hazardous Materials...............................................................................................................
3. Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2020-008.................................................................................................... 3
9. Hydrology and Water Quality.......................................................................................................................
4. Planned Community Development Plan No. PC2020-001............................................................................. 3
10. Land Use and Planning................................................................................................................................
5. Major Site Development Review No. SD2020-001......................................................................................... 3
11. Mineral Resources........................................................................................................................................
6. Tentative Tract Map No. NT2020-001............................................................................................................ 3
12. Noise.............................................................................................................................................................
D. City of Newport Beach Actions Covered By the EIR........................................................................................ 4
13. Population and Housing...............................................................................................................................
E. Approvals Required from Other Agencies........................................................................................................ 4
14. Public Services..............................................................................................................................................
F. Project Objectives................................................................................................................................................ 5
15. Recreation.....................................................................................................................................................32
III.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION......................................................................6
IV.
INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT FINDING................................................................................................................ 8
V.
FINDING OF NO LEGAL REQUIREMENT TO RECIRCULATE THE EIR...................................................8
VI.
GENERAL FINDING ON MITIGATION MEASURES........................................................................................8
VII.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND FINDINGS................................................................................................. 9
A. Impacts Found Not to be Significant as Part of the Initial Study Process....................................................10
1. Aesthetics......................................................................................................................................................10
2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources.............................................................................................................
10
3. Air Quality....................................................................................................................................................
11
4. Biological Resources....................................................................................................................................
12
5. Cultural Resources........................................................................................................................................
15
6. Energy..................................................................................................................... ................16
7. Geology and Soils.........................................................................................................................................
18
S. Hazards and Hazardous Materials...............................................................................................................
21
9. Hydrology and Water Quality.......................................................................................................................
24
10. Land Use and Planning................................................................................................................................
28
11. Mineral Resources........................................................................................................................................
28
12. Noise.............................................................................................................................................................
29
13. Population and Housing...............................................................................................................................
29
14. Public Services..............................................................................................................................................
30
15. Recreation.....................................................................................................................................................32
16. Transportation..............................................................................................................................................
33
17. Utilities and Service Systems........................................................................................................................
34
18. Wildfire.........................................................................................................................................................
37
B. Impacts Identified in the EIR as No Impact or Less than Significant Impact - No Mitigation
Required......................................................................................................................................................
37
LAesthetics......................................................................................................................................................37
2. Air Quality ....................................................................................................................................................
41
3. Cultural Resources........................................................................................................................................
43
4. Greenhouse Gas Emissions...........................................................................................................................
43
Residences at Newport Center
Facts and Findings
Page i
State Clearinghouse No. 2020110087
August 23, 2021
Table of Contents
Section Name and Number page
5.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials...............................................................................................................
44
6.
Land Use and Planning ...................................................................................... .........................................
46
7.
Noise.............................................................................................................................................................46
S.
Transportation ..............................................................................................................................................
47
C. Impacts
Identified in the EIR as Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated ................................
48
1.
Biological Resources....................................................................................................................................
48
2.
Cultural Resources........................................................................................................................................
50
3.
Geology and Soils.........................................................................................................................................
54
4.
Tribal Cultural Resources.............................................................................................................................
57
D. Impacts Determined by the EIR to be Significant and Unavoidable............................................................. 61
VIII. SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS...................................................................61
IX. GROWTH -INDUCING IMPACTS.........................................................................................................................62
X. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES..................................................................................................................................63
A. No Project/No Redevelopment Alternative...................................................................................................... 63
B. No Project/Office Redevelopment Alternative................................................................................................ 64
C. Commercial/Restaurant Redevelopment Alternative..................................................................................... 66
D. Multiple Unit Residential (RM) Alternative.................................................................................................... 67
E. Range of Alternatives......................................................................................................................................... 68
Residences at Newport Center State Clearinghouse No. 20201 10087
Facts and Findings August 23, 2021
Page ii
I. INTRODUCTION
The City of Newport Beach ("City") has completed an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"; State
Clearinghouse Number 2020110087) for the proposed Residences at Newport Center project and associated
applications (hereafter, the "Project" or "proposed Project"). The City is the Lead Agency for the purposes of
preparing and certifying the EIR pursuant to §§ 15050 and 15367 of the State California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.).
The purpose of this EIR is to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Project, which
consists of applications for a Development Agreement (DA2020-041), a General Plan Amendment (GP2020-
001), a Zoning Code Amendment (CA2020-008), a Planned Community Development Plan (PC2020-001)
(referred to as the Residences at Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan (PCDP)), a Major
Site Development Review (SD2020-001), and a Tentative Tract Map (NT2020-001). These applications are
collectively referred to by the City of Newport Beach as file number PA2020-020. In compliance with
§ 21002.1 of the CEQA statute and § 15002 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City, as Lead Agency, has
prepared an EIR to (1) provide information to the general public, the local community, responsible and
interested public agencies and the City's decision-making bodies and other organizations, entities, and
interested persons of the potential environmental effects of the proposed Project, feasible measures to reduce
potentially significant environmental effects, and alternatives that could reduce or avoid the significant effects
of the proposed Project, (2) enable the City to consider environmental consequences when deciding whether
to approve the proposed Project, and (3) to satisfy the substantive and procedural requirements of CEQA.
The City Council of the City of Newport Beach (the "City Council") in approving Project, makes the Findings
described below. The Findings are based upon the entire record before the City Council, including the EIR
prepared for the Project by the City acting as lead agency under CEQA. The City adopts the facts and analyses
in the EIR, which are summarized herein for convenience. The omission of some detail or aspect of the EIR
herein does not mean that it has been rejected by the City.
Hereafter, the Notice of Preparation, Notice of Availability, Draft EIR, Technical Studies, Final EIR
(containing responses to public comments on the Draft EIR and text and exhibit revisions to the Draft EIR),
and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) will be referred to collectively herein as the
"EIR" unless otherwise specified.
II. PROJECT SUMMARY
A. Proiect Site Definitions
The Project Applicant (Newport Center Anacapa Associates, Inc.) submitted applications to the City of
Newport Beach for a Development Agreement (DA2020-001), a General Plan Amendment (GP2020-001), a
Zoning Code Amendment (CA2020-008), a Planned Community Development Plan (PC2020-001) (referred
to as the Residences at Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan (PCDP)), a Major Site
Development Review (SD2020-001), and a Tentative Tract Map (NT2020-001). These applications are
collectively referred to by the City of Newport Beach as file number PA2020-020. File number PA2020-020
involves the proposed entitlement of a 1.26 -acre property for the demolition and removal of "The Newport
Beach Car Wash" and the redevelopment of the site with a proposed mid -rise residential building to consist of
a 28 -unit residential condominium building with subterranean parking.
Residences at Newport Center State Clearinghouse No. 20201 10087
Facts and Findings August 23, 2021
Page I
B. Site Location
The approximately 1.26 -acre Project site is located on Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 442-231-12 at the
physical address of 150 Newport Center Drive in the City of Newport Beach, Orange County, California. The
Project site is located immediately south of Newport Center Drive, immediately west of Anacapa Drive, and
immediately northeast of an existing office park (Gateway Plaza). The Project site is located south of a regional
shopping center (Fashion Island) which is located north of Newport Center Drive. According to the City's
General Plan Figure LU3, Statistical Area Map, the Project site is within the City of Newport Beach's Newport
Center/Fashion Island Sub -Area (Statistical Area L1).
C. Proiect Description
As previously indicated, the Project Applicant (Newport Center Anacapa Associates, Inc.) submitted
applications to the City of Newport Beach for a Development Agreement (DA2020-001), a General Plan
Amendment (GP2020-001), a Zoning Code Amendment (CA2020-008), a Planned Community Development
Plan (PC2020-001) (referred to as the Residences at Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan
(PCDP)), a Major Site Development Review (SD2020-001), and a Tentative Tract Map (NT2020-001). These
applications are collectively referred to by the City of Newport Beach as file number PA2020-020. As
described in more detail below, PA2020-020 would allow for the entitlement of a 1.26 -acre property for the
demolition and removal of "The Newport Beach Car Wash" and the redevelopment of the site with a proposed
mid -rise residential building to consist of a 28 -unit residential condominium building with subterranean
parking.
1. Development Agreement No. DA2020-001
The Project Applicant and the City of Newport Beach propose to enter into a Development Agreement for the
proposed Project. California Government Code Sections 65864-65869.5 authorize the use of development
agreements between any city, county, or city and county, with any person having a legal or equitable interest
in real property for the development of the property. The Development Agreement would provide the Project
Applicant with the assurance that the development of the Project may proceed subject to the rules and
regulations in effect at the time of Project approval. The Development Agreement also would provide the City
of Newport Beach with the assurance that certain obligations of the Project Applicant would be met, including,
but not limited to, how the Project would be constructed, the required installation of public improvements, the
Applicant's contribution toward funding community improvements, and other conditions.
2. General Plan Amendment No. GP2020-001
The Project Applicant's proposed General Plan Amendment No. GP2020-001 would change the Project site's
existing land use designation from Regional Commercial Office (CO -R) to Multiple Residential (RM). As
stated in the General Plan, the RM land use designation is intended to provide primarily for multi -family
residential development containing attached or detached dwelling units. An amendment to the General Plan
Table LU2 (Anomaly Locations), would be required to create a new Anomaly Location for the Project site that
authorizes a maximum development density of 28 units. The new Anomaly would be created to accommodate
the increase in dwelling units within the Statistical Area. The Project site is currently included within Anomaly
35, which allows a maximum development intensity of 199,095 square feet. Therefore, Anomaly 35 would be
amended to reduce the allowed commercial square footage from 199,095 square feet to 197,010 square feet,
reflecting the removal of the carwash buildings on the project site.
Residences at Newport Center State Clearinghouse No. 2020110087
Facts and Findings August 23, 2021
Page 2
3. Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2020-008
The City of Newport Beach Zoning Code is contained as Title 20 "Planning and Zoning" of the City's
Municipal Code. Under existing conditions, the Project site is located within the "OR (Office Regional)
Zoning District." The on-site gas station is an ancillary use to the car wash, which is permitted via a use permit
in the OR zone (Use Permit No. UP1461). The Project Applicant's proposed Zoning Code Amendment No.
CA2020-008 seeks to change the site's existing zoning classification from OR to the "PC (Planned Community
District)" zoning classification. According to City Municipal Code Section 20.26.010(B) (Planned Community
Zoning District), the PC Zoning District is intended to provide for areas appropriate for the development of
coordinated, comprehensive projects that result in a superior environment.
4. Planned Community Development Plan No. PC2020-001
The Project Applicant proposes a Planned Community (PC) Development Plan (PCDP) to ensure broader
coordination and consistency with the surrounding neighborhood, including a higher level of architectural
quality supporting the Newport Center environment. Chapter 20.56 (Planned Community Development
District Procedures) of the City of Newport Beach Zoning Code regulates the establishment of a PC. The
ordinance allows for the diversification of uses as they relate to each other in a physical and environmental
arrangement while ensuring substantial compliance with the spirit, intent, and provisions of the Zoning Code.
Section 20.56.020 (Area Requirements) of the Zoning Code identifies a minimum acreage requirement of 10
acres of improved land area for the establishment of a PC District. As allowed by this Zoning Code Section,
the Project Applicant is requesting City Council to waive the minimum acreage requirement to establish the
proposed PC, because the Project site is 1.26 acres in size.
The PC District is a designation given to land for which a PCDP has been prepared and the PCDP is the
document that identifies land use relationships and associated development standards for that PC District. The
Project Applicant's proposed PCDP includes a specific set of standards and procedures for implementation
and continuation of dwelling units within Statistical Area L1 while ensuring substantial compliance with the
spirit, intent, and provisions of the Zoning Code. The Project's proposed PCDP text identifies general
conditions and regulations and provides for land use and development regulations for the Project site. The
proposed PCDP text is under review with the City of Newport Beach. Where the standards of the PCDP text
conflict with the regulations of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the regulations contained in the PCDP
text would take precedence. The Newport Beach Municipal Code would continue to regulate all development
within the PCDP when such regulations are not provided within the PCDP text.
5. Major Site Development Review No. SD2020-001
Because the Project would consist of a residential development with five or more dwelling units with a tentative
map, Major Site Development Review No. SD2020-001 is required to fulfill the requirements of Newport
Beach Municipal Code Section 20.52.080 (Site Development Reviews). The primary purpose of the site
development review is to review the Project plans for compliance with the proposed PCDP text. As part of
Major Site Development Review No. SD2020-001, the City of Newport Beach would review the Project's
Plans, inclusive of the Tentative Tract Map and Site Plan.
6. Tentative Tract Map No. NT2020-001
The Applicant proposes a condominium subdivision map to establish a 28 -unit residential condominium tract
on the 1.26 -acre Project site. Tentative Tract Map No. NT2020-001 provides a legal description for the Project
site and shows the location of proposed and existing sewer lines, sewer lateral, existing driveway easements,
Residences at Newport Center State Clearinghouse No. 20201 10087
Facts and Findings August 23, 2021
Page 3
fire hydrants, domestic and irrigation water lines, fire water lines, electric vaults, and the location of the
existing building on-site to be demolished. The Tentative Tract Map would allow each condominium unit to
be sold individually.
D. City of Newport Beach Actions Covered By the EIR
The following discretionary and administrative actions are required of the City of Newport Beach to implement
the Project. The EIR prepared for the Project covers all discretionary and administrative approvals which may
be needed to construct and implement the Project, whether or not they are explicitly listed below.
• Approve Development Agreement (DA2020-001);
• Approve General Plan Amendment (GP2020-001);
• Approve Zoning Code Amendment (CA2020-008);
• Approve Planned Community Development Plan (PC2020-001);
• Approve Major Site Development Review (SD2020-001);
• Approve Tentative Tract Map (NT2020-001);
• Approve final maps, parcel mergers, or parcel consolidations as may be necessary;
• Approve conditional or temporary use permits, if required;
• Approve water, sewer, and storm drain infrastructure design
• Issue grading permits;
• Issue building permits;
• Approve road improvement plans;
• Issue encroachment permits;
E. Approvals Required from Other Agencies
The following are the known approvals that would be required by other agencies:
• Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Permit. NPDES permits apply to construction sites of one acre
or more. Project construction would disturb more than one acre of land; therefore, a NPDES
Permit from the Santa Ana RWQCB would be required.
• Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA), Approvals for Underground Storage Tank
Removal. The Project would require approval from the OCHCA, which oversees the
Residences at Newport Center State Clearinghouse No. 20201 10087
Facts and Findings August 23, 2021
Page 4
underground storage tank (UST) inspection program throughout Orange County, including the
City of Newport Beach. The purpose of the OCHCA UST inspection program is to ensure that
hazardous materials stored in USTs are not released into the environment. The Project entails
the removal of three existing 12,000 -gallon USTs during the construction process; therefore,
to ensure no hazardous materials are released during the removal process, OCHCA would be
required to approve the removal.
F. Project Objectives
The underlying purpose and goal of the proposed Project is to redevelop an underutilized economically
challenged property in the Newport Center area with residential units located within walking distance to
employment, shopping, entertainment, and recreation. The following objectives are intended to achieve these
underlying purposes:
A. Redevelop an underutilized property with a use that is financially feasible to construct and operate.
B. Make efficient use of existing infrastructure by repurposing a property with a higher and better use
than currently occurs on the property.
C. Maximize the surface use of a redeveloped property by accommodating parking underground.
D. Increase the available housing stock within the City of Newport Beach and maximize the development
potential of the site by constructing a project with at least 22 dwelling units per acre.
E. Provide housing options for owner -occupied mid -rise multi -family flats in Newport Center to diversify
the range of available residential housing unit types.
F. Introduce a luxury, multi -family residential development in Newport Center that can attract households
in the surrounding area that are seeking low maintenance and single -level living options.
G. Provide a new multi -family residential development in Newport Center that is within walking distance
of, and has pedestrian connections to, employment, shopping, entertainment, public services, and
recreation.
H. Maintain high-quality architectural design in Newport Center by adding a building that has a
recognizable architectural style and that complements the architectural styles that exist in the
surrounding Newport Center community
I. Implement a residential development that provides on-site amenities for its residents.
J. Redevelop a property that uses outdated operational technologies with a new use that is designed to be
energy efficient and avoid the excessive use of energy and water.
Residences at Newport Center State Clearinghouse No. 2020110087
Facts and Findings August 23, 2021
Page 5
III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The City of Newport Beach conducted an extensive environmental review of the Project to ensure that the
City's decision makers and the public are fully informed about potential significant environmental effects of
the Project; to identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced; to prevent
significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in the Project through the use of
mitigation measures which have been found to be feasible; and to disclose to the public the reasons why the
City has approved the Project in the manner chosen in light of the significant environmental effects which have
been identified in the EIR. In order to do this, the City of Newport Beach, acting as lead agency under CEQA,
undertook the following:
Prepared a CEQA Environmental Initial Study, dated November 5, 2020, to determine the scope
of the EIR and a Notice of Preparation (NOP), dated November 5, 2020, to indicate that an EIR
would be prepared to evaluate the Project's potential to impact the environment. The Notice of
Preparation identified the environmental issues to be analyzed in the Project's EIR as: Aesthetics,
Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Land Use and Planning, Noise, Transportation,
Tribal Cultural Resources, Mandatory Findings of Significance;
• Filed the NOP with the California Office of Planning and Research (the "State Clearinghouse") for
distribution to Responsible Agencies, Trustee Agencies, and other interested parties on November
5, 2020, for a 30 -day public review period. The NOP was distributed for public review to solicit
responses that would help the City identify the full scope and range of potential environmental
concerns associated with the Project so that these issues could be fully examined in the EIR;
Held a publicly -noticed EIR Scoping Meeting on November 30, 2020, to solicit comments from
the public on the environmental issue areas that should be analyzed in the EIR. Due to the State
Emergency related to COVID-19 and as allowed pursuant to Executive Order N-29-20, the City of
Newport Beach hosted the EIR Scoping Meeting via an internet-based video and phone
conferencing service. The EIR Scoping Meeting provided public agencies, interested parties, and
members of the general public an additional opportunity to learn about the Project, the CEQA
review process, and how to submit comments on the scope and range of potential environmental
concerns to be addressed in the EIR;
• Sent a Notice of Completion and electronic copies of the Draft EIR to the California Office of
Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse, on April 29, 2021;
• Filed a Notice of Availability with the County of Orange Clerk -Recorder Department on April 29,
2021, informing the public that the Draft EIR was available for a 45 -day review period beginning
on April 29, 2021, and ending on June 14, 2021;
• Mailed the Notice of Availability to all Responsible Agencies, Trustee Agencies, other interested
parties, and organizations and individuals who had previously requested the Notice on April 29,
2021;
• Mailed the Notice of Availability to all property owners within a 300 -foot radius of the Project Site
on April 29, 2020;
Residences at Newport Center
Facts and Findings
Page 6
State Clearinghouse No. 2020110087
August 23, 2021
• Placed copies of the Draft EIR on the City's website, at the City of Newport Beach Community
Development Department public counter, and at the Newport Beach Public Library - Corona del
Mar Branch, Newport Beach Public Library - Balboa Branch, Newport Beach Public Library —
Mariners Branch, and the Newport Beach Public Library — Central Library.
• Published the Notice of Availability in the City of Newport Beach News Splash on April 29, 2021;
• Published the Notice of Availability in the Daily Pilot which is the newspaper of general circulation
in the area affected by the Project on May 1, 2021;
• Prepared responses to comments on the Draft EIR received during the 45 -day comment period on
the Draft EIR, which have been included in the Final EIR;
• Published a notice on August 7, 2021, in the Daily Pilot, the newspaper of general circulation in
the area affected by the Project, that the Planning Commission would hold a public hearing on
August 19, 2021, to recommend to the City Council the certification of the Final EIR as having
been prepared in compliance with CEQA and the approval of the Project;
• Mailed notice of the Planning Commission hearing to all property owners within a 300 -foot radius
of the Project Site on August 5, 2021.
• Sent notice of the Planning Commission's hearing to all organizations and individuals who had
previously requested notification of anything having to do with the Project on August 11, 2021;
• Held a public hearing of the Planning Commission on August 19, 2021;
• Published a notice on September 18, 2021, in the Daily Pilot, the newspaper of general circulation
in the area affected by the Project, that the City Council would hold a hearing on September 28,
2021, to consider certification of the Final EIR as having been prepared in compliance with CEQA
and approve the Project;
• Mailed notice of the City Council hearing to all property owners within a 300 -foot radius of the
Project Site on September 18, 2021;
• Sent notice of the City Council's hearing to all organizations and individuals who had previously
requested notification of anything having to do with the Project on September 18, 2021;
• Held a public hearing of the City Council on September 28, 2021 and, after full consideration of
all comments, written and oral, certified that the Final EIR had been completed in compliance with
CEQA and approved the Project;
All of the documents and notices identified above and all of the documents and sources of information that are
required to be part of the Project's administrative record pursuant to Public Resources Code §21167.6(e) are
on file with the City of Newport Beach Community Development Department located at 100 Civic Center
Drive, First Floor Bay B, Newport Beach, California, 92660. Questions should be directed to Liz
Westmoreland, Associate Planner with the City's Community Development Department.
Residences at Newport Center
Facts and Findings
Page 7
State Clearinghouse No. 2020110087
August 23, 2021
IV. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT FINDING
Finding: The EIR for the Project reflects the City's and the City Council's independent judgment and
analysis.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The EIR was prepared by T&B Planning, Inc., an independent consulting
firm hired and funded by the City of Newport Beach and working under
the supervision and direction of Planning Division staff of the City of
Newport Beach Community Development Department. The City Council,
as the City's final decision-making body for the Project, received and
reviewed the Final EIR and the comments, written and oral, provided by
public agencies and members of the public prior to certifying that the Final
EIR complied with CEQA. The professional qualifications and reputation
of the EIR Consultant, the supervision and direction of the EIR Consultant
by City staff, the thorough and independent review of the Draft EIR and
Final EIR, including comments and responses, by City staff, the review
and careful consideration by the Planning Commission of the Final EIR,
including comments and responses, and the review and careful
consideration by the City Council of the Final EIR, including comments
and responses, all conclusively show that the Final EIR is the product of
and reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City of Newport
Beach as the Lead Agency, and of the City Council as the decision-making
body for the Project.
V. FINDING OF NO LEGAL REQUIREMENT TO RECIRCULATE THE EIR
Finding: The City Council finds that the Final EIR does not add significant new information to the Draft
EIR (subsequently referred to as "Draft EIR" or "DEIR") that would require recirculation of the
EIR.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The City Council recognizes that the Final EIR incorporates information
obtained and produced after the Draft EIR was completed and that the
Final EIR contains additions, amplifications, clarifications, and minor
modifications to the Draft EIR. The City Council has reviewed and
considered the Final EIR and all of the information contained in the Final
EIR and has determined that the new information added to the Final EIR
does not involve a new significant environmental impact, a substantial
increase in the severity of an environmental impact, nor a feasible
mitigation measure or an alternative considerably different from others
previously analyzed that the Project applicant declined to adopt and that
would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the Project.
No information provided to the City Council indicates that the Draft EIR
was inadequate or conclusory or that the public was deprived of a
meaningful opportunity to review and comment on the Draft EIR.
VI. GENERAL FINDING ON MITIGATION MEASURES
In preparing the Conditions of Approval for this Project, City staff incorporated the mitigation measures
recommended in the EIR and its MMRP as applicable to the Project. In the event that the Conditions of
Residences at Newport Center
Facts and Findings
Page 8
State Clearinghouse No. 2020110087
August 23, 2021
Approval do not use the exact wording of the mitigation measures recommended in the EIR, in each such
instance, the adopted Conditions of Approval are intended to be identical or substantially similar to the
recommended mitigation measure. Any minor revisions were made for the purpose of improving clarity or to
better define the intended purpose.
Finding: Unless specifically stated to the contrary in these Findings, it is the City's intent to adopt all
mitigation measures recommended by the EIR that are applicable to the Project. If a measure has,
through error, been omitted from the Conditions of Approval or from these Findings, and that
measure is not specifically reflected in these Findings, that measure shall be deemed to be adopted
pursuant to this paragraph. In addition, unless specifically stated to the contrary in these Findings,
all Conditions of Approval repeating or rewording mitigation measures recommended in the EIR
are intended to be substantially similar to the mitigation measures recommended in the EIR and
are found to be equally effective in avoiding or lessening the identified environmental impact. In
each instance, the Conditions of Approval contain the final wording for the mitigation measures.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND FINDINGS
City staff reports, the EIR, written and oral testimony at public meetings or hearings, these Facts and Findings,
and other information in the administrative record, serve as the basis for the City's environmental
determination.
An Initial Study was prepared for the proposed Project, which is included as Technical Appendix A to the EIR.
Through the Initial Study process, the City determined that the proposed Project could potentially cause
adverse environmental effects, and that an EIR was required. The City also determined that the Project had no
potential to result in significant adverse effects to the 11 primary environmental subject areas, including:
Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Land Use and Planning, Noise, Transportation, and Tribal
Cultural Resources. Additionally, it was determined as part of the Project's Initial Study that the Project clearly
would have no impact or a less -than -significant impact under some, but not all, of the thresholds of significance
under the issue areas of Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Energy, Hydrology and Water Quality, Mineral
Resources, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildfire.
Therefore, those thresholds of significance were not required to be analyzed in detail in EIR Section 4.0,
Environmental Analysis. The discussion of issues (and the additional distinct thresholds) found not to be
significant as part of the Initial Study process is presented in Subsection 5.0, Other CEQA Considerations, of
the EIR. The City concurs with the conclusion of the Initial Study that the issues discussed under Subsection
VILA, below, were found to have no significant impact.
The detailed analysis of potentially significant environmental impacts of the Project and proposed mitigation
measures for the Project are presented in Section 4.0 of the EIR. Responses to comments from the public and
other government agencies on the EIR are provided in Section F.2 of the Final EIR.
The EIR evaluated thresholds for I 1 primary environmental subject areas for potential impacts, including:
Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Land Use and Planning, Noise, Transportation, and Tribal
Cultural Resources.
Both Project -specific and cumulative impacts were evaluated. The City concurs with the conclusions of the
EIR that the issues and sub -issues discussed in Subsections VILB and C, below, were found to have either no
Residences at Newport Center State Clearinghouse No. 2020110087
Facts and Findings August 23, 2021
Page 9
significant and unavoidable environmental impacts or that the environmental impacts could be mitigated to a
level of less than significant.
A. Impacts Found Not to be Significant as Part of the Initial Study Process
1. Aesthetics
a. Scenic Resources within a State Scenic Highway
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
State scenic highway? (Initial Study Threshold b)
Finding: Impacts related to Aesthetics Threshold b are discussed in Subsection 5.4.1 of the EIR. Based on
the entire record, the City finds that the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect to
Aesthetics Threshold b, and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: According to the California Department of Transportation's (Caltrans)
List of Eligible and Officially Designated Scenic Highways, there are no
Officially Designated State scenic highways in the City of Newport Beach.
Portions of SR -1 are identified as "Eligible" for State Scenic Highway
designation, including the segment of SR -1 located approximately 0.31 -
mile south of the Project site. Due to intervening development and
topography, no portion of the Project site is visible from SR -1 under
existing conditions; however, given that the Project's building would be
four stories tall, the upper floor of the proposed structure has the potential
to be visible from portions of SR -1, in the viewshed looking north toward
Fashion Island. The Project site is located north of SR -1 in a highly
urbanized area near other similarly sized buildings in and around Fashion
Island and south Newport Center. Because the Project site and its existing
features are not currently visible from SR -1, the demolition and removal
of existing features would have no effect on the viewshed of SR -1. When
the Project is developed as proposed, the residential condominium
structure would be a compatible height to other nearby structures in
Newport Center and has no reasonable potential to damage scenic
resources visible from SR -1. Further, because SR -1 is not an Officially
Designated State scenic highway corridor, the Project would have no
potential impact to scenic resources visible from a State scenic highway.
(DEIR p. 5-6)
2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would have a substantial adverse effect to Agriculture
and Forestry Resources. (Initial Study Thresholds a, b, c, d, and e)
Finding: Impacts related to Agriculture and Forestry Resources are discussed in Subsection 5.4.2 of the EIR.
Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would not have a substantial adverse
effect to Agriculture and Forestry Resources, and no mitigation is required.
Residences at Newport Center State Clearinghouse No. 20201 10087
Facts and Findings August 23, 2021
Page 10
Facts in Support of the Finding: According to the California Department of Conservation's California
Important Farmland Finder, the Project site and immediately surrounding
areas do not contain any lands that are mapped by the California Resources
Agency as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance ("Important Farmland"). The Project site is designated as
"Urban and Built -Up Land. The Project site is not zoned for agricultural
use, is not under a Williamson Act contract, and is not surrounded by lands
zoned for agricultural use.
There are no lands within the City of Newport Beach, including the Project
site and properties surrounding the Project site, that are zoned for forest
land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production.
As such, the proposed Project has no potential to convert Prime Farmland,
Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use, conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract, and has no potential to conflict with existing
zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland
zoned Timberland Production or result in the loss of forest land to non -
forest use. (DEIR pp. 5-6 to 5-7).
3. Air Quality
a. Other Emissions / Odors
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would result in other emissions (such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people. (Initial Study
Threshold d)
Finding: Impacts related to Air Quality Threshold d are discussed in detail in Subsection 5.4.3 of the EIR.
Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would not result in other emissions (such
as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people, and no mitigation is
required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project site is a 1.26 -acre property that has been developed as a car
wash with ancillary gas station and convenience market since
approximately 1970. The replacement of these uses with a 28 -unit
residential condominium building would result in fewer air emissions and
odor potential in the long-term, particularly associated with removal of the
gas station. A residential structure is a land use that is not typically
associated with emitting objectionable air pollutants and odors.
The potential for adverse odor sources associated with the Project is
limited to demolition and construction equipment exhaust and the
application of asphalt and architectural coatings during construction
activities and the temporary storage of typical municipal solid waste
(refuse) during the Project's lifetime. Construction -related odors would be
Residences at Newport Center State Clearinghouse No. 2020110087"
Facts and Findings August 23, 2021
Page I 1
Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project site has been fully developed with a car wash and ancillary
services since 1970. Vegetation located on and near the Project site is
ornamental landscaping. As shown in Figure NRI, Biological Resources,
of the City of Newport Beach's General Plan, the Project site and
surrounding area do not contain any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community. Implementation of the proposed Project would have
no reasonable potential to result in substantial adverse effects on riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community. No impact would occur.
(DEIR p. 5-9)
b. Federally -Protected Wetlands
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would have a substantial adverse effect on State- or
federally -protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption,
or other means. (Initial Study Threshold c)
Finding: Impacts related to Biological Resources Threshold c are discussed in detail in Subsection 5.4.4 of
the EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would not impact any State- or
federally -protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means, and no mitigation is
required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project site has been fully developed with a car wash and ancillary
services since 1970. Vegetation located on and near the Project site is
ornamental landscaping. The Project site does not contain any wetland
habitat or any other naturally occurring water features; therefore, because
no State or federally protected wetlands occur on the site, the proposed
Project has no potential to result in a substantial adverse effect on wetlands
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.
No impact would occur. (DEIR p. 5-9)
c. Wildlife Movement, Wildlife Corridor Wildlife Nursery Sites
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would interfere substantially with the movement of any
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native
resident migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites. (Initial Study Threshold d)
Finding: Impacts related to Biological Resources Threshold d are discussed in detail in Subsection 5.4.4 of
the EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project does not have the potential to
interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites, and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project site has been fully developed with a car wash and ancillary
services since 1970 and is completely surrounded by public roads and
office and commercial development. The Project site does not serve as a
wildlife corridor, nursery, or otherwise facilitate the movement of native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. There is no reasonable
Residences at Newport Center
Facts and Findings
Page 13
State Clearinghouse No. 2020110087
August 23, 2021
potential for the Project to substantially interfere with wildlife movement.
The only potential for migratory species to be present is the potential for
migratory birds to nest in trees that would be removed to construct the
Project. Nesting habitat would be replaced as part of Project
implementation with the planting of new trees as part of the Project's
landscaping plan. Migratory birds are protected under the federal
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). (DEIR p. 5-9)
d. Local Policies and/or Ordinances Protecting Biolosical Resources
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance. (Initial Study Threshold e)
Finding: Impacts related to Biological Resources Threshold a are discussed in detail in Subsection 5.4.4 of
the EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would not conflict with any local
policies or ordinances protecting biological resources and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: Project implementation would require tree removals and the planting of
new trees. Tree removals would entail 28 existing on-site trees and trees
in the Anacapa Drive and Newport Center Drive right-of-way segments
fronting the Project site. As part of the Project's landscaping plan, the
street trees would be replaced with new trees and new trees also would be
planted on the Project site around the perimeter of the building in open
areas. The Project is in compliance with City Council Policy G-1. The
purpose of Council Policy G-1 is to "establish and maintain appropriate
diversity in tree species and age classes to provide a stable and sustainable
urban forest with an inventory that the City can reasonably maintain in a
healthy and safe condition through the efficient use of City resources"
Pursuant to Council Policy G-1 provisions for "All Other City Trees," (i.e.,
those not designated as Special or Problem Trees) it is the policy of the
City Council to review and approve the Project's landscaping plan during
public hearings for the Project. Because the Project Applicant proposes to
replace the removed trees, including trees in the Anacapa Drive and
Newport Center Drive rights-of-way, and because the City Council will
have the authority to review and approve the Project's landscaping plan to
ensure overall consistency with City Council Policy G-1, impacts
associated with this issue would be less than significant.
The Project site is not located within or contiguous to any of the
Environmental Study Areas (ESAs) identified by the Newport Beach
General Plan EIR Figure 4.3-2. No other local policies addressing
biological resources apply to the Project. Due to the Project's location
within a highly urbanized portion of the City of Newport Beach and
because the site contains no natural habitat, Chapter 7.26 of the City's
Municipal Code (Protection of Natural Habitat for Migratory and Other
Waterfowl) is not applicable. Similarly, General Plan Policy NR 10.1,
which requires future development to cooperate with State and federal
agencies and private organizations in the protection of biological
Residences at Newport Center State Clearinghouse No. 2020110087
Facts and Findings August 23, 2021
Page 14
resources, is not applicable due to the lack of natural habitat and biological
resources on the Project site. The Project site does not contain any
terrestrial or marine resources that require protection, as the Project site is
fully developed under existing conditions. Accordingly, the Project would
not involve nor require any consultation with state and federal resource
protection agencies or private organizations concerned with the protection
of sensitive biological resources. The Project would not conflict with any
of the City's other General Plan Policies related to biological resources for
the same reason of lack of on-site sensitive biological resources. Impacts
would be less than significant. (DEIR p. 5-10)
e. Adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or Other
Approved Local, Regional, or State Habitat Conservation Plan
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. (Initial Study Threshold 0
Finding: Impacts related to Biological Resources Threshold f are discussed in detail in Subsection 5.4.4 of
the EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would not conflict with the
provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan, and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project site is within the Central and Coastal Orange County
NCCP/HCP, which does not identify the Project site and surrounding areas
for conservation (Orange County, 2019). Due to the developed nature of
the Project site, the site also does not contain any habitat or any of the
plant or animal species addressed by the NCCP/HCP. Accordingly, the
Project has no potential to conflict with the NCCP/HCP. There are no
additional Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation
Plans, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans
applicable to the Project site or vicinity. Accordingly, no impact would
occur. (DEIR p. 5-10)
5. Cultural Resources
a. Disturbance of Human Remains Outside Formal Cemeteries
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside formal cemeteries (Initial Study Threshold c).
Finding: Impacts related to Cultural Resources Threshold c are discussed in detail in Subsection 5.4.5 of the
EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project's potential to disturb human remains,
including those interred outside formal cemeteries, would be less than significant, and no
mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project site is a 1.26 -acre property that has been developed as a car
wash with ancillary gas station and convenience market since
approximately 1970. The Project site is not known to have ever been used
Residences at Newport Center
Facts and Findings
Page 15
State Clearinghouse No. 2020110087
August 23, 2021
as a cemetery and the possibility of uncovering human remains during site
grading activities is remote due to the previous development at the site.
However, in the unlikely event that human remains are encountered,
compliance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 would
be required. Mandatory compliance with these provisions of California
state law would ensure that impacts to human remains, if unearthed during
construction activities, would be appropriately treated and ensure that
potential impacts are less than significant. Potential impacts associated
with potential inadvertent discoveries of human remains would be reduced
to less than significant through mandatory compliance with California
Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. (DEIR p. 5-11).
6. Energy
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would result in a potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, or
wasteful use of energy resources, during Project construction or operation,
and whether the Project would conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan
for renewable energy or energy efficiency. (Initial Study Thresholds a and b)
Finding: Impacts related to Energy are discussed in Subsection 5.4.6 of the EIR. Based on the entire record,
the City finds that the Project would not result in a potentially significant environmental impact
due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, and would not conflict with or
obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project's construction process would consume electricity and fuel.
Project -related construction activities would represent a "single -event"
demand and would not require on-going or permanent commitment of
energy resources. Fuel consumed by construction equipment and
construction worker and vendor trips would be the primary energy
resource expended over the course of Project -related construction. The
equipment used for Project construction would conform to California Air
Resources Board (CARB) regulations and California emissions standards.
Project -related construction activities are not materially different than
other construction projects that occur in Orange County and there are no
unusual Project characteristics or construction processes that would
require the use of equipment that would be more energy -intensive than is
used for comparable construction projects. The expected construction
equipment fleet is listed in the Project's Construction Management Plan
on file with the City of Newport Beach. All Project -related construction
equipment would be required to conform to current emissions standards
(and related fuel efficiencies). As supported by the preceding discussion,
the Project's construction -related energy consumption would not be
considered inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary.
The Project does not propose uses or operations that would inherently
result in excessive and wasteful energy use. Residents and visitors would
travel to and from the Project by passenger vehicles, and occasional trucks
are assumed for deliveries and to service the building (large item
Residences at Newport Center State Clearinghouse No. 2020110087
Facts and Findings August 23, 2021
Page 16
Residences at Newport Center
Facts and Findings
deliveries, trash pickup, etc.) All vehicles are required by law to have
enhanced vehicle fuel economies pursuant to federal and State laws, and
the transition of passenger vehicles and trucks to alternative energy
sources (e.g., electricity, natural gas, bio fuels, hydrogen cells) are
expected to decrease gasoline fuel demands in the future. In June 2020,
the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted a new Advanced
Clean Truck Regulation Rule requiring truck manufacturers to transition
from diesel trucks and vans to electric zero -emission trucks beginning in
2024. By 2045, every new truck sold in California will be required to be
zero -emission electric. In September 2020, California Governor Newsom
issued Executive Order N-70-20, which states that it is a goal of the State
that 100 percent of in-state sales of new passenger cars and trucks will be
zero -emission by 2035. Based on the Project's location with shopping,
restaurant, entertainment, personal service, and office uses all within a
0.25 -mile radius, the provision of electric vehicle (EV) capability in the
building's garages and guest spaces, and the transition to zero -emission
vehicles in California, Project transportation -related energy consumption
would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary.
The Project would not cause or result in the need for additional energy
facilities or an additional or expanded energy delivery system; existing
utility connections are site -adjacent. Building operations and site
maintenance activities associated with the Project would consume
electricity and potentially natural gas. Natural gas would be supplied to
the Project by Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) and
electricity would be supplied by Southern California Edison (SCE). For
new development, compliance with California Building Standards Code,
Title 24, Part 6, Energy Efficiency Standards and California Green
Building Standards Code (CALGreen) is considered demonstrable
evidence of efficient use of energy. The proposed building would be
required to promote and provide for energy efficiencies as required by
CALGreen, and in so doing would meet all California Building Standards
Code Title 24 standards. There is no reasonable potential that the
Project's operation would result in environmental impacts associated with
the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, or the
wasteful use of energy resources; therefore, impacts would be less than
significant.
There are no adopted State plans for renewable energy or energy
efficiency that are directly applicable to the proposed Project. Thus, the
Project would have no potential to conflict with such plans, and no impact
would occur. The Project would be consistent with or otherwise would
not conflict with policies and requirements related to energy conservation.
The City of Newport Beach's Energy Action Plan (EAP) focuses on
reducing energy usage by City facilities and conducting community -wide
energy awareness and outreach programs. The Project is required to be
energy-efficient per the California Building Standards Code Title 24, Part
6, Energy Efficiency Standards (California Energy Code), and thereby
Page 17
State Clearinghouse No. 20201 10087
August 23, 2021
consistent with the City's EAP. California Code of Regulations Title 24
Part 6: California's Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and
Nonresidential Buildings, was first adopted in 1978 in response to a
legislative mandate to reduce California's energy consumption. The 2019
version of Title 24 was adopted by the California Energy Commission
(CEC) and became effective on January 1, 2020 and is applicable to the
Project. Compliance with the applicable Title 24 requirements is enforced
through the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 15.17,
Energy Code. Thus, Project consistency with Title 24 requirements would
occur as part of the City's review of building permit applications. The
Project's building shell and components, such as windows; roof systems:
electrical and lighting systems: and heating, ventilating, and air
conditioning systems would be required to meet applicable Title 24
Standards. Because the Project is required by State law and City
Municipal Code standards to be designed, constructed, and operated to
meet or exceed all applicable energy efficiency standards, the Project
would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable
energy or energy efficiency. Accordingly, impacts would be less than
significant. (DEIR pp. 5-11 to 5-13)
7. Geology and Soils
a. Known Earthquake Fault, Strong Seismic Ground Shaking Seismic -related Ground Failure
and Landslides
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i)
Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist
for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault; ii) Strong
seismic ground shaking; iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including
liquefaction; iv) Landslides. (Initial Study Threshold a)
Finding: Impacts related to Geology and Soils Threshold a are discussed in Subsection 5.4.7 of the EIR.
Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would not directly or indirectly cause
potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture
of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault; ii) Strong seismic ground shaking; iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including
liquefaction; iv) Landslides. No mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: As with much of the southern California region, the Project site is in a
seismically active area. The Project site is not located within an Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and no known faults underlie the site;
therefore, there is no potential of ground rupture. According to the Project
site's Geotechnical Feasibility Study prepared by NMG Geotechnical, Inc.
(NMG), the Project site is not located in an area classified by the State as
having soils that are potentially liquefiable or in an area mapped as
susceptible to seismically induced landslides. Moreover, the Project site
Residences at Newport Center State Clearinghouse No. 2020110087
Facts and Findings August 23, 2021
Page 18
is not located in an area that is subject to potential liquefaction hazards.
Accordingly, impacts due to seismic -related ground failure (including
liquefaction) would be less than significant. Additionally, due to the
relatively flat gently sloping nature of the Project site and immediately
surrounding areas, the Project site has no potential to be affected by
landslides. No impacts would occur.
As with most structures in southern California, the proposed Project could
be subject to ground shaking during seismic events along local and
regional faults that would occur during the lifetime of the proposed
Project. Construction of the Project is required to comply with the
California Building Standards Code (CALGreen) and the City of Newport
Beach Municipal Code Title 15, Buildings and Construction, and the
Project Applicant would be required by the City of Newport Beach as part
of its grading and building permits to implement the recommendations
identified in the Project's Geotechnical Feasibility Study prepared by
NMG, which is on file with the City. State law requires that all cities and
counties in California enforce the building codes as mandated by the
California Building Standards Commission. With the Project's mandatory
compliance with these standard and site-specific design and construction
measures, potential impacts related to seismic ground shaking would be
less than significant. (DEIR pp. 5-13 to 5-14)
b. Substantial Soil Erosion of the Loss of Topsoil
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil. (Initial Study Threshold b)
Finding: Impacts related to Geology and Soils Threshold b are discussed in Subsection 5.4.7 of the EIR.
Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would not result in substantial soil erosion
or the loss of topsoil.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The proposed demolition and grading activities associated with the Project
would temporarily expose underlying soils to water and air, which would
increase erosion susceptibility while the soils are exposed. Exposed soils
would be subject to erosion during rainfall events or high winds due to the
removal of structures, pavement, and/or stabilizing vegetation and
exposure of these erodible materials to wind and water. Erosion by water
would be greatest during the first rainy season after grading and before the
Project's foundation is constructed and paving and landscaping occur.
Erosion by wind would be highest during periods of high wind speeds
when soils are exposed. The Project Applicant would be required to obtain
coverage under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit for construction activities. The NPDES permit is
required by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB) for all projects that include construction activities, such as
clearing, grading, and/or excavation that disturb at least one acre of total
land area. Additionally, during grading and other construction activities,
the Project would be subject to the requirements established in City of
Residences at Newport Center State Clearinghouse No. 2020110087'
Facts and Findings August 23, 2021
Page 19
Newport Beach Municipal Code, Chapter 23.35, Water Quality Control,
and the Project Applicant also would be required to prepare and implement
a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that would identify the
erosion control measures, such as construction fencing, sandbags, and
other erosion -control features, that would be implemented during the
construction phase to reduce the potential for soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil. In addition, construction activities associated with the Project
would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 -Fugitive Dust,
which would minimize wind -related erosion hazards during construction
activities. Mandatory compliance with the Project's NPDES permit,
SWPPP, and the regulatory requirements of the City of Newport Beach
and the SCAQMD would ensure that water and wind erosion are
minimized and not substantial. As such, construction of the Project would
result in a less -than -significant impact.
After construction, the Project would be fully developed with impervious
surfaces and landscaping, offering no reasonable potential for substantial
erosion to occur. The Project's storm water is proposed to drain towards
the southwest portion of the site into a catch basin, and then discharge into
the City's municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4). All development
within the City of Newport Beach, including the Project, is subject to the
provisions of the City's NPDES MS4 Permit and the Orange County
Drainage Area Master Plan (DAMP). DAMP provisions include the
implementation of appropriate best management practices (BMPs)
including a range of methods that minimize off-site erosion, including but
not limited to hydrodynamic devices, swales/biofilters, basins, and various
filters. The Project would comply with the DAMP by installing Project
design features, as specified in the Project's required Preliminary Water
Quality Management Plan (WQMP) prepared by Fuscoe Engineering,
which is on file at the City of Newport Beach. The Project would result
in a nominal increase in the runoff rate and/or runoff volume as compared
to the existing condition, which would not result in any significant siltation
or erosional effects associated with water discharge. As such,
implementation of the Project would result in a less -than -significant
impact. (DEIR pp. 5-14 to 5-15)
c. Septic Tanks or Alternative Waste Disposal Systems
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of wastewater. (Initial Study Threshold e)
Finding: Impacts related to Geology and Soils Threshold a are discussed in Subsection 5.4.7 of the EIR.
Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would not have soils incapable of
adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where
sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater, and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: Under existing conditions, the City's municipal sewer system serves
the Project site. The Project would include facilities that would also
Residences at Newport Center State Clearinghouse No. 2020110087
Facts and Findings August 23, 2021
Page 20
connect to the City's municipal sewer system. No septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems are proposed as part of the
Project; therefore, no impact would occur. (DEIR p. 5-15)
8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
a. Hazardous Emissions, Materials. Substances or Waste within One-quarter Mile of a School
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of
an existing or proposed school. (Initial Study Threshold c)
Finding: Impacts related to Hazards and Hazardous Materials Threshold c are discussed in Subsection 5.4.8
of the EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would not emit hazardous
emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The nearest school facility to the Project site is the Harbor View
Elementary School, which is located approximately 0.61 -mile
southeast of the Project site; therefore, there are no existing or proposed
schools within one-quarter mile of the site. The Project entails
development of the site with residential land uses, which is a use not
associated with hazardous emissions or the storage or use of acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste. Therefore, the Project
would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an
existing or proposed school. No impact would occur. (DEIR p. 5-15)
b. List of Hazardous Materials Sites
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites which compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment. (Initial Study Threshold d)
Finding: Impacts related to Hazards and Hazardous Materials Threshold d are discussed in Subsection 5.4.8
of the EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would not be located on a site
which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites which compiled pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: A review of the California Environmental Protection Agency's
(CaIEPA) Cortese List Data Resources (which lists the facilities/sites
identified as meeting the "Cortese List" requirements) indicates that the
Project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (CaIEPA,
2020). Therefore, the Project has no potential to create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment due to the presence of an
existing hazardous materials site identified on a list compiled pursuant
Residences at Newport Center State Clearinghouse No. 2020110087
Facts and Findings August 23, 2021
Page 21
to Government Code Section 65962.5. No impact would occur. (DEIR
p. 5-15)
c. Airport Land Use Plan
Potential Significant Impact: For a project within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
whether the project would result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for
people residing or working in the project area. (Initial Study Threshold e)
Finding: Impacts related to Hazards and Hazardous Materials Threshold a are discussed in Subsection 5.4.8
of the EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would not result in a safety
hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area, for a project within an
airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, or within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport. No mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: John Wayne Airport (JWA) is located approximately 3.6 miles
north/northeast of the Project site and is the nearest public airport to the
Project site. Within the Notification Area boundary, ALUC must be
notified of any proposed construction or structural alterations involving
a land use or legislative amendment in the AELUP Planning Area,
development that exceeds 200 feet above ground level, and all heliports
or helistops. In addition, projects that surpass 200 feet above ground
level must also file Form 7460-1 with the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA).
Based on the AELUP, the Project would not result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in the area. The Project site is located
approximately 19,200 feet south from the nearest point of the JWA
runway. As detailed in the AELUP for JWA, the subject parcel is not
located within the AELUP Part 77 Notification Area for JWA. Because
the Project's proposed building would not exceed 200 feet in height,
and is not located within the FAA notification area, ALUC review
would not be required and the Project's proposed building would not
pose an obstruction.
Additionally, according to the AELUP Appendix D, the Project site is
not within the 60 A -weighted decibel (dB) Community Noise
Equivalent Level (CNEL) contour, within Runway Protection Zones,
or within Safety Zones. Therefore, the Project would not result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in the area. No impact
would occur. (DEIR p. 5-16)
d. Emergency Response Plan or Emery Evacuation Plan
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
(Initial Study Threshold f)
Residences at Newport Center
Facts and Findings
Page 22
State Clearinghouse No. 2020110087
August 23, 2021
Finding: Impacts related to Hazards and Hazardous Materials Threshold f are discussed in Subsection 5.4.8
of the EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would not impair
implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The City of Newport Beach adopted the City of Newport Beach
Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), prepared by the City of Newport
Beach Fire Department (NBFD), in September 2011. The EOP does
not identify any specific requirements for the Project site, nor is the site
identified by the EOP as being part of an emergency evacuation route,
nor is the site directly adjacent to an emergency evacuation route.
McArthur Boulevard, located 0.3 -mile east of the Project site, is the
nearest designated tsunami evacuation route identified in the City's
Emergency Operations Plan.
Although temporary lane closures on surrounding streets may be
required during short periods of the Project's construction period in
order to construct the Project and connect the Project to the existing
utility facilities within the existing roadways, the construction of the
Project would not require the complete closure of any public or private
streets or roadways during construction. For all temporary closures,
which may include single lanes and sidewalk segments, the Project
Applicant would be required to obtain a Temporary Street and
Sidewalk Closure Permit from the City of Newport Beach Public
Works Department. Therefore, there is no potential for the Project to
impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No impact
would occur. (DEIR pp. 5-15 to 5-16)
e. Expose People ort Structure to Wildland Fires
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.
(Initial Study Threshold g)
Finding: Impacts related to Hazards and Hazardous Materials Threshold g are discussed in Subsection 5.4.8
of the EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would not expose people or
structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: Figure S4, Wildfire Hazards, of the City of Newport Beach General
Plan Safety Element indicates that the Project site and surrounding
areas are considered to have a low or no susceptibility to wildland fire
hazards. The Project site is surrounded by highly urbanized uses and
is not located adjacent to wildland areas. Therefore, the Project's
potential to expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury, or death involving wildland fires would not occur. No impact
would occur. (DEIR p. 5-17)
Residences at Newport Center State Clearinghouse No. 2020110087
Facts and Findings August 23, 2021
Page 23
9. Hydrology and Water Quality
a. Water Quality Standards/Waste Discharge Requirements
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements. (Initial Study Threshold a)
Finding: Impacts related to Hydrology and Water Quality Threshold a are discussed in detail in Subsection
5.4.9 of the EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would not cause or
contribute to the violation of any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, and no
mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: Construction of the Project would involve demolition/site preparation,
grading, paving, utility installation, building construction, and landscaping
activities, which have the potential to generate water quality pollutants
such as silt, debris, organic waste, and chemicals (e.g., paints, solvents).
Should these materials come into contact with water that reaches the
groundwater table or flows off site to a public storm drain, the potential
exists for the Project's construction activities to adversely affect water
quality. As such, short-term water quality impacts have the potential to
occur during construction in the absence of any protective or avoidance
measures. However, pursuant to the requirements of the Santa Ana
RWQCB and City of Newport Beach, the Project Applicant would be
required to obtain coverage under the State's General Construction Storm
Water Permit for construction activities (NPDES permit), which would
reduce impacts to less than significant.
An NPDES permit is required for all development projects that include
construction activities, such as clearing, grading, and/or excavation, that
disturb at least one acre of total land area. Mandatory compliance with
regulatory requirements would ensure that the proposed Project does not
violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during
construction activities.
Compliance with required regulations, permits, and a site-specific Water
Quality Management Plan (WQMP) would be required as a condition of
approval for the Project to minimize the release of potential waterborne
pollutants, including pollutants of concern for downstream receiving
waters. Long-term maintenance of on-site water quality features also
would be required as a condition of approval to ensure the long-term
effectiveness of all on-site water quality features.
The Project Applicant or any successor in interest would be required to
prepare a SWPPP for operational activities and implement a long-term
water quality sampling and monitoring program or receive an exemption.
Because the permit is dependent upon a detailed accounting of all
operational activities and procedures, and the SWPPP (or exemption
thereto) would be prepared at the time the Project's building users and
Residences at Newport Center State Clearinghouse No. 2020110087
Facts and Findings August 23, 2021
Page 24
their operational characteristics are known. However, based on the
performance requirements of the NPDES Industrial General Permit, it is
reasonably assured that mandatory compliance with all applicable water
quality regulations would further reduce potential water quality impacts
during the Project's long-term operation. The Project would not violate
any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or ground water quality during long-term
operation. (DEIR pp. 5-17 and 5-18)
b. Groundwater Supply and Recharge
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may
impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. (Initial Study
Threshold b)
Finding: Impacts related to Hydrology and Water Quality Threshold b are discussed in detail in Subsection
5.4.9 of the EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would not substantially
decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin, and no mitigation is
required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: No groundwater wells are located on the Project site or proposed as part
of the Project. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not deplete
groundwater supplies associated with water well withdrawal. For these
reasons, no impact associated with groundwater supply depletion would
occur.
The Project site is not located within a groundwater recharge basin and
therefore cannot contribute to the recharge of any regional aquifer or local
water table with beneficial potable water uses. Implementation of the
Project would nominally increase the amount of impervious surfaces on-
site from 80% under existing conditions to 85% under proposed
conditions. However, given that the Project site is already developed with
impervious surfaces since 1970, implementation of the Project would not
interfere with groundwater recharge. Moreover, according to the WQMP,
due to the geographical conditions on-site, the excavated depth of the
proposed building, and the anticipated presence of perched groundwater
between the marine terrace deposits and bedrock, infiltration of runoff on-
site is considered infeasible. (DEIR p. 5-18)
c. Alteration of Existing Drainage Patterns
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or
river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would
i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site, ii) substantially
increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on or off-site; iii) create or contribute runoff water which would
Residences at Newport Center State Clearinghouse No. 20201 10087
Facts and Findings August 23, 2021
Page 25
exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or iv) impede or
redirect flood flows (Initial Study Threshold c)
Finding: Impacts related to Hydrology and Water Quality Threshold c are discussed in detail in Subsection
5.4.9 of the EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would not substantially
alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course
of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would i)
result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site, ii) substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off-site; iii) create or contribute
runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems
or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or iv) impede or redirect flood flows
and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: With the implementation of the Project, the site's existing hydrological
characteristics would not be substantially altered; under the proposed
conditions, the runoff would continue to drain towards the southwest
portion of the site and the new on-site storm drain lines would tie into the
existing 10 -inch storm drain and catch basin at the southwest end of the
site. The storm drain system then discharges into the City Municipal
Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) facility along Civic Center Drive
towards East Coast Highway, where it is conveyed west to the Lower
Newport Bay for discharge as occurs under existing conditions.
Therefore, with the buildout of the Project, there would be no significant
alteration of the site's existing drainage pattern.
As detailed in the Preliminary WQMP prepared for the Project, the number
of impermeable surfaces on-site would increase by about 5%, from
approximately 80% to 85%. Low -flows and first flush runoff would drain
through a proposed biotreatment system to remove water pollutants and
sediment prior to discharge at the southwest end of the site. Because the
Project would not substantially alter the drainage pattern of the subject
property or immediately surrounding area, would install best management
practices (BMPs) including but not limited to a biotreatment system as
part of its required WQMP, and would not substantially increase the rate
or amount of storm water runoff discharged from the site, implementation
of the Project would not result in or increase water pollutant discharges or
flood hazard risks on- or off-site. Because the existing 10 -inch storm drain
has sufficient capacity to convey runoff from the Project site under
existing conditions, and because the rate and volume of runoff would not
substantially increase with the buildout of the Project, the Project also
would not create or contribute runoff which would exceed the capacity of
any existing or planned storm water drainage system. Impacts would be
less than significant.
The subject property is located outside of the 100 -year floodplain and
outside the 500 -year floodplain (greater than 0.2% annual chance of
flooding). Additionally, no portion of the Project site is located within a
Residences at Newport Center State Clearinghouse No. 20201 10087
Facts and Findings August 23, 2021
Page 26
designated 100 -year flood hazard area. Therefore, the Project would have
no potential to impede or redirect flood flows.
The Project would alter existing ground contours of the Project Site and
install impervious surfaces, which would result in changes to the site's
existing, internal drainage patterns. Although the Project would alter the
subject property's internal drainage patterns, such changes would not
result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site, either during
construction or during long-term operation. (DEIR p. 5-19 and 5-20)
d. Risk Release of Pollutants due to Proiect Inundation
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of
pollutants due to project inundation (Initial Study Threshold d).
Finding: Impacts related to Hydrology and Water Quality Threshold a are discussed in detail in Subsection
5.4.9 of the EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would not risk release
of pollutants due to project inundation and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The City of Newport Beach provides a tsunami inundation zone map
which indicates that the Project site and surrounding area are not located
within the tsunami advisory evacuation zone. The site is not located
adjacent to a confined body of water; therefore, the potential for the
seismic hazard of a seiche (an oscillation of a body of water in an enclosed
basin) is considered very low to nil. Additionally, the Project site is
located in an area with no reasonable potential of flooding. Based on the
foregoing, the Project would not pose a risk of releasing water pollutants
due to water inundation. (DEIR p. 5-20)
e. Conflicts with Water Quality/Groundwater Management Plans
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.
(Initial Study Threshold e)
Finding: Impacts related to Hydrology and Water Quality Threshold a are discussed in detail in Subsection
5.4.9 of the EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would not conflict with
or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management
plan, and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: With the implementation of the Project -specific SWPPP and WQMP, the
Project would not result in any conflicts with the Santa Ana River Basin
Plan.
In regards to groundwater management planning, the Project site is within
the Coastal Plain of Orange County Basin (Basin 8-1). The California
Department of Water Resources (DWR), classifies this basin as a medium -
priority basin. According to the Sustainable Groundwater Management
Act (SGMA), signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown on September 16,
2014, local public agencies and Groundwater Sustainability Agencies
Residences at Newport Center State Clearinghouse No. 2020110087
Facts and Findings August 23, 2021
Page 27
(GSAs) in "high"- and "medium" -priority basins are required to develop
and implement Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) or Alternatives
to GSPs (DWR, 2020). GSPs are detailed road maps for how groundwater
basins will reach long term sustainability. The GSA for Basin 8-1 is
comprised of the OCWD, City of La Habra, and Irvine Ranch Water
District (IRWD). These agencies collaborated and submitted an
Alternative to a GSP titled Basin 8-1 Alternative on January 1, 2017, to
the DWR. This Alternative documents the basin conditions; basin
management is based on measurable objectives and minimum thresholds
defined to prevent significant and unreasonable impacts on the
sustainability indicators defined in the Alternative. The Project is not a
water -intensive use and the Project site is not located within a groundwater
recharge area. Thus, the Project would have no potential to conflict with
or obstruct implementation of the Basin 8-1 Alternative. No impact would
occur. (DEIR p. 5-20)
10. Land Use and Planning
a. Divide an Established Community
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would physically divide an established community
(Initial Study Threshold a).
Finding: Impacts related to Land Use and Planning Threshold a are discussed in detail in Subsection 5.4. 10
of the EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would not physically divide
an established community, and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project site is bounded on two sides by existing roadways to the north
and to the east (Newport Center Drive and Anacapa Drive), by a parking
lot to the west, and by a complex of low-rise office buildings to the south.
Other land uses within the Project vicinity consist of commercial/office
land uses, with Fashion Island shopping mall located north of the Project
site, and north of Newport Center Drive. No residential uses are located
adjacent to the Project site under existing conditions. The nearest existing
residential land use to the Project site is the Granville Private Residential
Community, which is a gated community located approximately 0.15 -mile
to the west. The Project would establish a new residential building on a
site that is currently used for a car wash and ancillary gas station. As such,
the Project has no potential to physically divide an established community.
(DEIR p. 5-21)
11. Mineral Resources
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would have a substantial adverse effect related to Mineral
Resources. (Initial Study Thresholds a and b)
Finding: Impacts related to Mineral Resources are discussed in Subsection 5.4.11 of the EIR. Based on the
entire record, the City finds that the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect related to
mineral resources, and no mitigation is required.
Residences at Newport Center
Facts and Findings
Page 28
State Clearinghouse No. 20201 10087
August 23. 2021
Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project site is fully developed with urban uses. No mines, wells, or
other resource extraction activity occurs on the property or is known to
have ever occurred on the property. According to the City's General Plan
EIR, Figure 4.5-4, Mineral Resource Zones, which relies on mapping
conducted by the California Geological Survey for areas known as Mineral
Resources Zones (MRZs), the Project site is mapped as being on the
boundary between MRZ-I and MRZ-3. Areas mapped MRZ-I are defined
as "areas where available geologic information indicates that there is little
or no likelihood for the presence of significant mineral resources." Areas
mapped MRZ-3 are defined as "areas containing mineral deposits of
undetermined significance." Accordingly, implementation of the Project
would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State.
The Project site is not identified as a locally -important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on the City's General Plan, a specific plan, or
other land use plan. Accordingly, no impact would occur. (DEIR p. 5-21)
12. Noise
a. Noise from Private Airstrip
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project, located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an
airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would expose people residing
or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels. (Initial Study
Threshold c)
Finding: Impacts related to Noise Threshold c are discussed in detail is Subsection 5.4.12 of the EIR. Based
on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would not expose people residing or working in
the Project area to excessive noise levels from a private airstrip, and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: There are no private airstrips within the vicinity of the Project site. As
shown on Figure N4 of the Newport Beach General Plan, and as similarly
presented on the Airport Impact Zones exhibit of the AELUP, the Project
site is not subject to airport -related noise levels exceeding 60 A -weighted
decibels (dBA) community noise equivalent level (CNEL). Because the
Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to
excessive airport -related noise levels, no impact would occur. (DEIR p.
5-22)
13. Population and Housing
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would have a substantial adverse effect related to
Population and Housing. (Initial Study Thresholds a and b)
Finding: Impacts related to Population and Housing are discussed in Subsection 5.4.13 of the EIR. Based
on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect
related to Population and Housing, and no mitigation is required.
Residences at Newport Center
Facts and Findings
Page 29
State Clearinghouse No. 2020110087
August 23, 2021
Facts in Support of the Finding: According to the State of California Department of Housing, the City of
Newport Beach has an average household size of 2.19 persons per
household. The Project Applicant proposes to redevelop the site with 28
new condominium units, which would result in a population increase of
approximately 62 persons. According to the United States Census Bureau
(USCB), as of July 2019, the City was estimated to have a population of
84,534 people. The Project's proposed 62 -person increase would
represent an approximately 0.07% ([62 people _ 84,534 people] x 100 =
0.07%) increase in the City's population. None of the improvements
proposed as part of the Project would foster an indirect increase in the
City's population because the surrounding area is fully developed and the
Project is connecting to existing infrastructure systems. The vicinity of
the Project site is an urbanized area that already includes a variety of land
uses, including office, retail (Fashion Island), restaurant, entertainment,
and commercial land uses. The approximately 62 -person population that
the Project would accommodate is not substantial and would not adversely
affect the surrounding physical environment. The Project would provide
28 condominium units in Newport Center on a site that was not previously
planned for residential development but there is no reasonable potential
that the Project would induce unplanned population growth on other
properties that would affect the physical environment, as such the
Project's potential to induce substantial unplanned population growth in
an area, either directly or indirectly would be less than significant. Because
there are no residences on the Project site under existing conditions,
implementation of the Project would not displace housing or people and
would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
No impact would occur. (DEIR p. 5-22 and 5-23)
14. Public Services
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would have a substantial adverse effect to Public
Services. (Initial Study Threshold a (a -d))
Finding: Impacts related to Public Services are discussed in Subsection 5.4.14 of the EIR. Based on the
entire record, the City finds that the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect to Public
Services, and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: Public Services - Fire Protection: The nearest fire station to the Project site
is NBFD Station No. 3 at 868 Santa Barbara Drive, one roadway mile
northwest. Implementation of the Project could result in an increase in the
site's existing demand for fire protection services (due to medical
emergencies and fire protection needs associated with residential uses).
Due to the limited scale of the Project being 28 condominium units in one
building, the Project is not expected to measurably impact average
response times because, under existing conditions, the Project site's
existing car wash and ancillary uses are already in the NBFD service area
and are adequately served by the existing NBFD service facilities. The
proposed building would be constructed in accordance with current fire
codes and would replace the older on-site building that was constructed in
Residences at Newport Center State Clearinghouse No. 20201 10087
Facts and Findings August 23, 2021
Page 30
Residences at Newport Center
Facts and Findings
1970. Due to the Project's location approximately one mile from NBFD
Station No. 3 in Newport Center, the Project would be adequately served
by existing fire services and no new or expanded facilities are warranted.
The Project would be required to comply with City of Newport Beach Fire
Department Project conditions of approval including the provision of fire
alarm systems, fire sprinklers, emergency power outlets, etc. The
emergency access staging area on Anacapa Drive would be marked for
exclusive use by the Fire Department. Thus, the Project would comply
with all required conditions of approval from the City's Fire Department.
Accordingly, implementation of the Project would be adequately served
by the City's existing fire protection facilities, and the Project would not
result in nor require the expansion or construction of any new fire
protection facilities.
Public Services- Police Protection: Under existing conditions, the Project
site's existing car wash and an ancillary gas station are served by the
Newport Beach Police Department (NBPD) for police protection services.
Due to the limited scale of the Project being 28 condominium units in one
building, the Project is not expected to measurably impact average
response times because, under existing conditions, the Project site's
existing car wash and ancillary uses are already in the NBPD service area
and are adequately served by the existing NBPD service facilities.
Public Services - School Facilities: Under existing conditions, the Project
site is occupied by a car wash and ancillary uses, which does not generate
any demand for school services. The Project would result in the
construction of 28 condominium units anticipated to generate an
approximate 62 -person increase in the City's population. The Project site
is located within the Newport -Mesa Unified School District (NMUSD).
The Project has the potential to generate school -aged children who would
require school services. Based on the student generation rates assumed in
the General Plan EIR, the Project's 28 condominiums would generate
approximately 12 school -aged children consisting of six new elementary
school students, three middle school students, and three high school
students. Based on the school district's school locator application, students
from the Project would attend Corona Del Mar High School and Lincoln
Elementary School. The most recent information from the California
Department of Education (DOE) shows that the most current (2019-2020)
school year enrollment at Corona Dela Mar High School is 2,416 students
and at Lincoln Elementary School is 416 students. The Project's expected
student generation is calculated to increase the student enrollment by
approximately 0.24% at Corona Del Mar High School and by
approximately 1.4% at Lincoln Elementary School. Accordingly, the
Project would result in a nominal increase in student enrollment. The
General Plan EIR notes that policies within the General Plan would assure
the provision of appropriate school facilities as necessary to serve the
City's growing population. The Project Applicant would be required to
pay school fees in accordance with Public Education Code Section
17072.10-18. The provision of school fees would assist the NMUSD in
Page 31
State Clearinghouse No. 20201 10087
August 23, 2021
meeting the Project's incremental demand for school services. Although
it is possible that the NMUSD may ultimately need to construct new
school facilities in the region to serve the growing population within their
service boundaries, such facility planning is conducted by the NMUSD
and is not the responsibility of the Project. Mandatory payment of school
impact fees would reduce the Project's impacts on school facilities to a
level below significant.
Public Services: - Library Facilities: Under existing conditions, the Project
site's existing car wash and ancillary uses do not generate demand for
library facilities. Upon implementation of the Project, the existing uses
would be demolished and replaced with a 28 -unit condominium building
accommodating approximately 62 persons. As such, the demand for
library services within the City would be incrementally increased because
of the Project's resident population increase. The General Plan Arts and
Cultural Element does not establish any quantitative standards for
determining the amount of physical library space needed to serve the
City's population. Additionally, given changes in technology (i.e., the use
of electronic media in lieu of hard copy media), the demand for physical
library space based on population -based projections is speculative. The
Newport Beach Central Library underwent an approximately 17,000 -
square -foot expansion in 2013 to service the City's population and the
addition of approximately 62 persons to the City's population associated
with the Project has no potential to directly or indirectly create the need to
construct a new future library or physically expand an existing library
facility. According to the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Section
3.08.020, library services receive funding from property tax. As such, a
portion of the Project's tax assessment would be dedicated to the City's
Library Fund. Impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR pp. 5-23
through 5-25)
15. Recreation
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would have a substantial adverse effect related to
Recreation. (Initial Study Thresholds a and b)
Finding: Impacts related to Recreation are discussed in Subsection 5.4.15 of the EIR. Based on the entire
record, the City finds that the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect related to
Recreation, and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: As detailed in the City's General Plan EIR, the City of Newport Beach
contains 12 service areas for parkland and the Project site is within Service
Area 9. When the General Plan was last prepared, its Recreation Element
and Figure RI I indicated a park surplus within this service area. (of note,
the Civic Center Park was subsequently constructed).
The Project site has been in use as a car wash with ancillary uses since the
1970s and generates little if any demand on park land because it is not a
Residences at Newport Center State Clearinghouse No. 2020110087
Facts and Findings August 23, 2021
Page 32
residential use. Future residents of the Project site are likely to mostly
utilize the two closest public parks - Civic Center Park and Irvine Terrace
Park. The use of Civic Center Park and/or Irvine Terrace Park by the
Project's estimated 62 residents would not result in substantial
deterioration to these existing facilities due to the small increase in
population associated with the Project. Additionally, the Project includes
common and private open space areas as part of the Project design to help
meet the recreation needs of future residents. As identified on the
Project's Plans, the Project would include approximately 3,600 S.F. of
common open space including a dog nun, pool, hot tub, fitness center, and
private open space on residential patios, which would fully help to meet
the leisure and recreational needs of future Project residents. Based on the
City's Parkland Standard of five acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, the
Project's estimated population increase of 62 persons would result in a
demand for approximately 0.31 -acre of parkland. In accordance with
General Plan Recreation Element Policy R 1.1, the Project Applicant
would be required to contribute in -lieu park fees pursuant to the City's
Park Dedication Fee Ordinance and City Resolution No. 2007-30, which
is used in part by the City to develop parks and recreational facilities. The
Project site is located in Service Area 9 which is one of the two service
areas identified within the City as having a park surplus. The surplus,
combined with the fact that the Project will provide on-site private
recreational amenities and contribute in -lieu park fees, demonstrates that
there is no reasonable potential that the Project's projected 62 residents
would increase the use of public recreational facilities such that physical
deterioration of the facilities would occur. There are sufficient existing
park facilities to serve Service Area 9 because there is an excess of
parkland in the Project area. Because the Project would not directly or
indirectly result in the need for new or expanded recreational facilities that
could have an adverse physical effect on the environment, impacts would
be less than significant. Impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR pp.
5-28 and 5-29)
16. Transportation
a. Hazards Due to a Geometric Design Feature or Incompatible Uses
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment). (Initial Study Threshold C)
Finding: Impacts related to Transportation Threshold c are discussed in detail in Subsection 5.4.16 of the
EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would not result in inadequate
emergency access, and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: Apart from the potential installation of utility tie -backs along the Project
site's frontage, the Project does not involve any improvements to off-site
public roadways or intersections and complete street closures would not
occur during the Project's construction phase. There may be the need to
Residences at Newport Center
Facts and Findings
Page 33
State Clearinghouse No. 2020110087
August 23, 2021
temporarily close a lane in Newport Center Drive and/or Anacapa Drive
during the construction of tie -backs, which would be subject to review by
the Public Works Department. However, due to the temporary nature of
the lane closures, and the required implementation of mandatory traffic
control measures during lane closures, less -than -significant impacts would
occur. Similarly, the location of driveway access points on-site would
comply with City roadway standards and the proposed driveways would
provide for adequate sight distance. The City of Newport Beach's
Transportation Engineer will review the access points regarding adequate
site distance so that the Project would conform to City codes.
Accordingly, the Project would not increase hazards due to a design
feature and impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR pp. 5-27 and
5-28)
b. Inadequate Emergency Access
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would result in inadequate emergency access (Initial
Study Threshold D)
Finding: Impacts related to Transportation Threshold d are discussed in detail in Subsection 5.4.16 of the
EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would not result in inadequate
emergency access, and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project Applicant proposes adequate emergency access to the site via
compliance with various conditions of approval from the City Fire
Department, including the provision of a marked staging area on Anacapa
Drive for exclusive use by the Fire Department. Additionally, the Project
would not require the complete closure of any public or private streets or
roadways during construction; therefore, any construction within public
roadways would not impede use of roads for emergencies or access for
emergency response vehicles because emergency vehicles would be able
to access the Project site and adjacent properties during construction
should a lane be closed. Therefore, the Project would not result in
inadequate emergency access, and no impact would occur. (DEIR pp. 5-
27)
17. Utilities and Service Systems
a. New or Expanded Utility Facilities
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would require or result in the relocation or construction
of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage,
electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction
or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effect (Initial
Study Threshold a)
Residences at Newport Center
Facts and Findings
Page 34
State Clearinghouse No. 2020110087
August 23, 2021
Finding: Impacts related to Utilities and Service Systems are discussed in Subsection 5.4.17 of the EIR.
Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would not have a substantial adverse
effect related to Utilities and Service Systems, and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project would entail local connections to existing water, wastewater
treatment, storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, and
telecommunications facilities, as these facilities currently are available
within the immediately surrounding area. Such local connections are
inherent to the Project's construction phase, and impacts associated with
the Project's construction phase were evaluated in the Draft EIR under the
appropriate topical subheadings, as described herein. There are no
components of the Project's proposed utility connections that would result
in significant environmental effects beyond what already is evaluated in
the Draft EIR for the Project's construction phase under associated
environmental topic areas. (DEIR pp. 5-27 and 5-28)
b. Sufficient Water Supplies
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry
and multiple dry years (Initial Study Threshold b)
Finding: Impacts related to Utilities and Service Systems are discussed in Subsection 5.4.17 of the EIR.
Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would not have a substantial adverse
effect related to Utilities and Service Systems, and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project's existing use consumes more domestic water than would the
proposed Project. The site's existing uses are considered in the City's
Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), which concludes that the City's
existing entitlements have sufficient water supplies to serve its existing
and projected demand. More specifically, according to the City's UWMP,
the City of Newport Beach can meet the water demands of its customers
in normal, single dry, and multiple dry years between 2020 and 2040. As
the Project would result in a reduced water demand compared to the
existing car wash and ancillary uses, the Project would have a less than
significant impact on water supply sufficiency. Impacts would be less than
significant. (DEIR pp. 5-28 and 5-29)
c. Wastewater Treatment Capacit
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would have result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve the project, that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's
existing commitments (Initial Study Threshold c)
Finding: Impacts related to Utilities and Service Systems are discussed in Subsection 5.4.17 of the EIR.
Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would not have a substantial adverse
effect related to Utilities and Service Systems, and no mitigation is required.
Residences at Newport Center
Facts and Findings
Page 35
State Clearinghouse No. 20201 10087
August 23, 2021
Facts in Support of the Finding: Under existing conditions, the Project site is developed with
approximately 2,085 gross S.F. of building area for the existing car wash
with an ancillary gas station, parking lot, landscape, and hardscape areas.
The Project Applicant would demolish the existing structure and
redevelop the site with an approximately 174,614 gross S.F. residential
structure (103,158 gross S.F. of floor area + 71,456 gross S.F. of parking
garage area = 174,614 gross S.F. residential structure). Although the
Project Applicant would redevelop the Project site with a larger building
and use not anticipated for in the City's General Plan and UWMP, the
Project's proposed use would result in a decrease in demand for
wastewater treatment services as compared to existing conditions. As
such, the OCSD's existing wastewater treatment facilities have adequate
capacity to serve the Project's project demand in addition to its existing
commitments. Impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR p. 5-29)
d. Solid Waste Infrastructure Capacity
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise
impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals (Initial Study Threshold
d)
Finding: Impacts related to Utilities and Service Systems are discussed in Subsection 5.4.17 of the EIR.
Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would not have a substantial adverse
effect related to Utilities and Service Systems, and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: Based on the solid waste generation rates presented in General Plan EIR
Table 4.14-14 for multi -family residential uses, the 28 units proposed on
the site would result in the long-term generation of approximately 179.5
pounds per day of solid waste (at a rate of 6.41 pounds per unit per day
[28 units x 6.41 pounds/unit]). The Project's estimated solid waste would
represent approximately 0.005% of the permitted daily tonnage at the
Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill. This amount of solid waste would
result in a nominal increase in the amount of solid waste conveyed to the
Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill and that would be met by the
landfill's permitted capacity. Therefore, with the implementation of the
Project, there would be a less -than -significant impact on the landfill's
permitted capacity of 11,500 tons per day. (DEIR p. 5-30)
e. Solid Waste Reduction
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would comply with federal, state, and local management
and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste (Initial Study
Threshold e)
Finding: Impacts related to Utilities and Service Systems are discussed in Subsection 5.4.17 of the EIR.
Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would not have a substantial adverse
effect related to Utilities and Service Systems, and no mitigation is required.
Residences at Newport Center State Clearinghouse No. 2020110087
Facts and Findings August 23, 2021
Page 36
Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project would be subject to the City's Recycling Service Fee pursuant
to Municipal Code Chapter 2.30, which is intended to assist the City in
meeting the 50% diversion objective. Commercial waste haulers within
the City are subject to Municipal Code Section 12.63.120 (Recycling
Requirement), which states, "No person providing commercial solid waste
handling services or conducting a solid waste enterprise shall deposit fifty
(50) percent or more of the solid waste collected by the person in the City
at any landfill." Furthermore, the Project would be required to comply
with Municipal Code Section 20.30.120 (Solid Waste and Recyclable
Materials Storage), which mandates that all multi -unit projects with five
or more dwelling units "...provide enclosed refuse and recyclable material
storage areas with solid roofs." Accordingly, the Project would be fully
compliant with all applicable federal, State, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste, resulting in a less -than -significant
impact. (DEIR p. 5-30)
18. Wildfire
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would have a substantial adverse effect related to
Wildfire. (Initial Study Thresholds a, b, c, and d)
Finding: Impacts related to Wildfire are discussed in Subsection 5.4.18 of the EIR. Based on the entire
record, the City finds that the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect related to
Wildfire, and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
(CalFire), the Project site and area is within a local responsibility area and
is not within proximity to a very high fire hazard severity zone (CalFire,
2020). Additionally, according to the City's General Plan Figure S4,
Wildfire Hazards, the Project site is within a low/none fire susceptibility
zone. As such, because the Project site is not within an SRA or lands
classified as a very high fire hazard severity zone, the Project would result
in no impacts related to wildfire. (DEIR p. 5-31)
B. Impacts Identified in the EIR as No Impact or Less than Significant Impact - No Mitigation
Required
1. Aesthetics
a. Scenic Vista
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.
(Threshold a)
Finding: Impacts related to Aesthetics Threshold a are discussed in detail in Subsection 4.1 of the EIR.
Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would not have a substantive adverse
effect on a scenic vista. No mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding:
Residences at Newport Center
Facts and Findings
The Project site is located in the Newport Center area, from which
views of the Pacific Ocean are available from some locations looking
Page 37
State Clearinghouse No. 20201 10087
August 23, 2021
west and southwest, and views of distant landforms are available from
some locations looking north, east and northeast. Due to distance and
intervening development, construction of the proposed four-story
building on the approximately 1.26 -acre Project site would not
substantially or adversely affect views to distant landforms from public
viewing areas. This includes, but is not limited to, views to the
northeast (San Joaquin Hills and Santa Ana Mountains) and views to
the northwest (the Palos Verdes Peninsula in Los Angeles County).
The San Joaquin Hills are located approximately five miles from the
Project site and the peak of the Santa Ana Mountains and the Palos
Verdes Peninsula are located more than 20 miles from the Project site,
and the San Gabriel Mountains (visible on clear days from the Newport
Center area) are located approximately 50 miles north of the Project
site. Due to the distance to these features, they are large features part
of the distant horizon view. Looking east toward the hills and
mountains from lower elevations, the Project's building would be
lower in stature than the horizon; hill and mountain views would
remain visible beyond the building. Looking north towards the Palos
Verdes Peninsula from higher elevations; the Project's building on a
1.26 -acre site has no potential to substantially block a wide horizon
view located more than 20 miles in the distance.
The scenic vistas available in the vicinity of the Project site are views
of the Pacific Ocean; as such, if views of the Pacific Ocean would be
blocked, obscured, or substantially and adversely affected as seen from
a coastal view road or a public view point identified on Figure NR3,
Coastal Views, of the City's General Plan, the impact will be regarded
as significant. Effects to scenic vistas from other public locations and
private properties were not considered significant in the Draft EIR
because the City's General Plan expressly calls for the protection of
ocean views from the locations and roadway corridors identified on
General Plan Figure NR3 (refer to General Plan Policies NR 20. 1, NR
20.2, and NR 20.3) and the City does not have any ordinances, plans,
or policies in place that call for the protection of views from other
locations or from privately -owned property.
Figure NR3, Coastal Views, of the City's General Plan Natural
Resources Element, identifies locations in the City where the City has
determined that coastal views should be preserved. Figure NR3 shows
that the closest Coastal View Road to the Project site is the segment of
Newport Center Drive that runs parallel to Anacapa Drive, about 800
feet west of the Project site, from Newport Center Drive E/W to
Farallon Drive/Granville Drive. Figure NR3 also identifies the
segment of MacArthur Boulevard from San Joaquin Hills Road to
Coast Highway (located approximately 0.3 miles east of the Project
site) and Avocado Avenue from San Joaquin Hills Road to Coast
Highway (located approximately 0.2 miles east of the Project site) as
Coastal View Roads. (Newport Beach, 2006a, Figure NR3).
Kesidences at Newport Center State Clearinghouse No. 2020110087
Facts and Findings August 23, 2021
Page 38
Residences at Newport Center
Facts and Findings
■ Newport Center Drive: In the viewshed of the Pacific Ocean
as seen from the segment of Newport Center Drive that is
designated a Coastal View Road, the Project site is not visible.
Along this roadway segment, views of the Pacific Ocean are
toward the southwest, whereas views of the Project site are due
west to northwest. Even when looking due west toward the
Project site from the intersection of Newport Center Drive with
Newport Center Drive E/W, the Project site is in the distant
background, not highly visible, and not in the viewshed of the
Pacific Ocean. Implementation of the proposed Project would
have no impact on scenic ocean views as seen from this
segment of Newport Center Drive.
■ Avocado Avenue: In the viewshed of the Pacific Ocean as seen
from the segment of Avocado Avenue that is designated a
Coastal View Road, the Project site is not visible. Along this
roadway segment, views of the Pacific Ocean are seen straight
down Avocado Avenue to the south/southwest, whereas views
of the Project site are due west/northwest. Views toward the
Project site are obscured by buildings and landscaping and the
Project site is not in the viewshed of the Pacific Ocean.
Implementation of the proposed Project would have no impact
on scenic ocean views as seen from this segment of Newport
Center Drive.
■ MacArthur Boulevard: In the viewshed of the Pacific Ocean as
seen from the segment of MacArthur Boulevard that is
designated a Coastal View Road, the Project site is not visible.
Along this roadway segment, views of the Pacific Ocean are
seen straight down MacArthur Boulevard to the
south/southwest, whereas views of the Project site are due
west/northwest. Views toward the Project site are obscured by
landscaping and the Project site is not in the viewshed of the
Pacific Ocean. Implementation of the proposed Project would
have no impact on scenic ocean views as seen from this
segment of MacArthur Boulevard.
As depicted on General Plan Figure NR3, the nearest Public View Point
designated by the General Plan is located at Irvine Terrace Park, south
of the Project site and south of East Coast Highway. Civic Center Park,
located between MacArthur Boulevard and Avocado Avenue,
approximately 0.2 -mile east of the Project site, was constructed after
the General Plan was adopted and affords public views of the Pacific
Ocean, including from an elevated pedestrian viewing platform. As
Page 39
State Clearinghouse No. 2020110087
August 23, 2021
such, Civic Center Park is also considered a Public View Point for
purposes of analysis in this EIR.
• Irvine Terrace Park: The viewshed of the Pacific Ocean as seen
from Irvine Terrace Park is due west, looking in the opposite
direction of the Project site. As such, the Project site is not in
the viewshed of the Pacific Ocean as seen from Irvine Terrace
Park. Implementation of the proposed Project would have no
impact on scenic ocean views as seen from this park.
■ Civic Center Park: In the viewshed of the Pacific Ocean as seen
from Civic Center Park, the Project site is partially visible
although is mostly blocked from view by intervening structures
and landscaping. Implementation of the proposed Project
would have a less -than -significant impact on scenic ocean
views as seen from this park because due to the descending
ground elevation between Civic Center Park and the Project
site and the proposed height of the building, the proposed
building would appear lower in profile than the horizon ocean
view.
During construction activities, construction equipment, including
cranes, would be used that may temporarily be visible on the skyline
when looking across the Project site from any direction. However, the
use of such construction equipment would be temporary in duration and
the equipment would be removed at the end of the construction period.
Equipment such as cranes would not be of any substantive mass to
block or substantially obscure a scenic ocean view. Accordingly, there
would be no substantial change to public views from Coastal View
Roads or Public View Points during the Project's short-term temporary
construction activities.
Based on the foregoing analysis, the proposed Project would have a
less than significant impact on scenic vistas. (DEIR pp. 4.1-13
through 4.1-16)
b. Scenic Quality
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project in an urbanized area, would conflict with applicable
zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. (Threshold c)
Finding: Impacts related to Aesthetics Threshold c are discussed in detail in Subsection 4.1 of the EIR.
Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would not conflict with applicable zoning
and other regulations governing scenic quality. No mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project would not conflict with any City General Plan Policy
pertaining to scenic quality. The Project is required to be designed in
Residences at Newport Center
Facts and Findings
Page 40
State Clearinghouse No. 20201 10087
August 23, 2021
compliance with applicable provisions of the City of Newport Beach
Municipal Code, as well as the Project's proposed Planned Community
Development Plan (PCDP), and would therefore not conflict with
applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. (DEIR
pp. 4.1-17 through 4.1-24 and p. 4.1-24)
c. Substantial Light or Glare
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views. (Threshold d)
Finding: Impacts related to Aesthetics Threshold d are discussed in detail in Subsection 4.1 of the EIR.
Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would not conflict with applicable zoning
and other regulations governing scenic quality. No mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project is required to be in compliance with light restriction provisions
contained in the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, as well as the
Project's proposed Planned Community Development Plan (PCDP), and
would therefore not create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views. No mitigation is required.
(DEIR p. 4.1-24)
2. Air Quality
a. Air Quality Plan
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan. (Threshold a)
Finding: Impacts related to Air Quality Threshold a are discussed in detail in Subsection 4.2 of the EIR.
Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would not conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air quality plan. No mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: Project -related activities would not exceed SCAQMD regional or localized
emissions thresholds during construction or long-term operation. Although
the Project, which proposes the development of 28 condominium units
would change the land use, the Project would generate less vehicular traffic
and consequently fewer emissions than if the Project site were developed
consistent with its CO -R designation. Stated another way, although the
Project entails changing the site's land use, development of the proposed
Project would result in a decrease in development intensity and subsequent
air emissions that would result from the Project. Thus, the Project would not
exceed the assumptions of the AQMP. Because the Project would not result
in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations
or cause or contribute to new violations, delay the timely attainment of air
quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP
and would not exceed the growth assumptions in the AQMP, the Project
would be consistent with the AQMP and impacts would be less -than -
significant. No mitigation is required. (DEIR pp. 4.2-16 and 4.2-17)
Residences at Newport Center State Clearinghouse No. 2020110087
Facts and Findings August 23, 2021
Page 41
b. Criteria Pollutants
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non -attainment under
an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. (Threshold b)
Finding: Impacts related to Air Quality Threshold b are discussed in detail in Subsection 4.2 of the EIR.
Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would not result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non -attainment
under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. No mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The SCAB has a "non -attainment" designation for ozone (1- and 8 -hour)
and particulate matter (PM2.5 and PMIo) under existing conditions. Because
the Project's construction activities would not emit substantial
concentrations of VOCs, NOx, CO, Sox, PMIo and PM2.5 and would not
contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation on a direct or
cumulatively -considerable basis, Project construction impacts related to
these emissions would be less than significant and no mitigation is
required. Although no mitigation is required, construction contractors
would still be obligated to comply with applicable SCAQMD Rules,
including but not limited to, Rule 401 (Visible Emissions); Rule 402
(Nuisance Odors), Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust), Rule 1113 (Architectural
Coatings), and Rule 1403 (Asbestos Emissions from
Demo I ition/Renovation Activities). The Project's operation would result
in peak daily emissions of VOCs, NOx, CO, SOx, and particulate matter
(Mo and PM2.5) that would fall far below the applicable SCAQMD
regional thresholds. Therefore, the Project would not emit substantial
concentrations of these pollutants and would not contribute to an existing
or projected air quality violation on a direct or cumulatively -considerable
basis. Because the Project would not emit substantial concentrations of
VOCs, NOx, CO, Sox, PMIo and PM25 and would not contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation on a direct or cumulatively -
considerable basis, impacts associated with these operational emissions
would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. (DEIR pp.
4.2-17 through 4.2-19)
c. Substantial Pollutant Concentrations
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations. (Threshold c)
Finding: Impacts related to Air Quality Threshold c are discussed in detail in Subsection 4.2 of the EIR.
Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would not conflict expose sensitive
receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. No mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: Because the Project's localized NOx, CO, and particulate matter (PMIo and
PM2.$) emissions would not exceed applicable SCAQMD thresholds during
Project construction, Project construction would not expose any sensitive
Residences at Newport Center State Clearinghouse No, 2020110087
Facts and Findings August 23, 2021
Page 42
receptors in the vicinity of the Project site to substantial criteria pollutant
concentrations. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no
mitigation is required. (DEIR pp. 4.2-19 through 4.2-21)
3. Cultural Resources
a. Historic Resources
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an historic resource pursuant to Section 15064.5. (DEIR
Threshold a)
Finding: Impacts related to Cultural Resources Threshold a are discussed in detail in Subsection 4.4 of the
EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would not cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of an historic resource pursuant to Section 15064.5, No impact would
occur and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: Because no historic resources, as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.5, exist on the Project site, there is no potential for the proposed
Project to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5. (DEIR pp. 4.4-8 and 4.4-
9)
4. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
a. Significant Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases. (Threshold a)
Finding: Impacts related to Greenhouse Gas Emissions Threshold a are discussed in detail in Subsection 4.6
of the EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would not generate greenhouse
gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment,
and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The City of Newport Beach utilizes a screening threshold of 3,000 metric
tons of carbon monoxide equivalent of MTCO2e per year to determine if
additional analysis is required. This approach is a widely accepted
screening threshold used by the City of Newport Beach and numerous
agencies in the SCAB. The Project would result in approximately 357.28
MTCO2e per year; thus, the proposed Project would not exceed the City's
screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year and impacts would be less
than significant. (DEIR pp. 4.6-16 and 4.6-18)
b. Conflict with an Applicable Plan Policy, or Regulation
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases. (Threshold b)
Residences at Newport Center State Clearinghouse No. 20201 10087
Facts and Findings August 23, 2021
Page 43
Finding: Impacts related to Greenhouse Gas Emissions Threshold b are discussed in detail in Subsection 4.6
of the EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would not conflict with an
applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases, and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project would be consistent with or otherwise would not conflict with
the CARB 2017 Scoping Plan, which is the applicable plan adopted for
the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. The 2017
Scoping Plan Update reflects the 2030 target of a 40% reduction below
1990 levels, set by Executive Order B-30-15 and codified by SB 32. The
City's Energy Action Plan (EAP) is not directly applicable to the proposed
Project because the goals and policies in the Plan are focused on energy
efficiency and sustainability of City facilities. However, because the
Project is required to comply with CALGreen and Title 24 standards, the
Project would not conflict with the community -wide energy use goals of
the EAP. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with or otherwise
would not conflict with, applicable regulations, policies, plans, and policy
goals that would further reduce GHG emissions, and impacts would be
less than significant. (DEIR p. 4.6-17 and 4.6-18)
5. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
a. Routine Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials. (Threshold a)
Finding: Impacts related to Hazards and Hazardous Materials Threshold a are discussed in detail in
Subsection 4.7 of the EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would not
create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials, and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The existing USTs, dispensers, and piping that are present onsite that are
associated with the site's current use as a car wash would be required to
be removed, handled, and disposed of in accordance with all applicable
local and State regulations. Because existing USTs, dispensers, and piping
would be required to be removed, handled, and disposed of in accordance
with all applicable local and State regulations, implementation of the
Project would not expose the public or the environment to significant
hazards associated with the removal and disposal of the on-site USTs,
dispensers, and piping from the Project site. Because the Project site
contains structures known to be constructed before 1978, there is the
potential that asbestos -containing materials (ACMs) and/or lead-based
paint is present on the Project site. Improper use, storage, or transportation
of hazardous materials can result in accidental releases or spills,
potentially posing health risks to workers, the public, and the environment.
This is a standard risk on all construction sites, and there would be no
greater risk for improper handling, transportation, or spills associated with
Residences at Newport Center State Clearinghouse No. 2020110087
Facts and Findings August 23, 2021
Page 44
the Project than would occur on any other similar construction site.
Construction contractors would be required to comply with all applicable
federal, State, and local laws and regulations regarding the transport, use,
and storage of hazardous construction -related materials, including but not
limited requirements imposed by the EPA, DTSC, and the Santa Ana
RWQCB. With mandatory compliance with applicable hazardous
materials regulations, the Project would not create significant hazard to
the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal
of hazardous materials during the construction phase. Pursuant to State
law and local regulations, residents of the Project's proposed
condominium building would be required to dispose of household
hazardous waste (e.g., batteries, used oil, paint, etc.) at a permitted
household hazardous waste collection facility. During Project construction
and operation, mandatory compliance to federal, State, and local
regulations would ensure that the proposed Project would not create a
significant hazard to the environment due to routine transport, use,
disposal, or upset of hazardous materials. Impacts would be less than
significant and no mitigation is required. (DEIR pp. 4.7-10 through 4.7-
14)
b. Release of Hazardous Materials
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. (Threshold
b)
Finding: Impacts related to Hazards and Hazardous Materials Threshold b are
discussed in detail in Subsection 4.7 of the EIR. Based on the entire record,
the City finds that the Project would not create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The existing USTs, dispensers, and piping that are present onsite that are
associated with the site's current use as a car wash would be required to
be removed, handled, and disposed of in accordance with all applicable
local and State regulations. Because existing USTs, dispensers, and piping
would be required to be removed, handled, and disposed of in accordance
with all applicable local and State regulations, implementation of the
Project would not expose the public or the environment to significant
hazards associated with the removal and disposal of the on-site USTs,
dispensers, and piping from the Project site. Because the Project site
contains structures known to be constructed before 1978, there is the
potential that asbestos -containing materials (ACMs) and/or lead-based
paint is present on the Project site. Improper use, storage, or transportation
of hazardous materials can result in accidental releases or spills,
potentially posing health risks to workers, the public, and the environment.
This is a standard risk on all construction sites, and there would be no
greater risk for improper handling, transportation, or spills associated with
Residences at Newport Center State Clearinghouse No. 2020110087
Facts and Findings August 23, 2021
Page 45
the Project than would occur on any other similar construction site.
Construction contractors would be required to comply with all applicable
federal, State, and local laws and regulations regarding the transport, use,
and storage of hazardous construction -related materials, including but not
limited requirements imposed by the EPA, DTSC, and the Santa Ana
RWQCB. With mandatory compliance with applicable hazardous
materials regulations, the Project would not create significant hazard to
the public or the environment during the construction phase. Pursuant to
State law and local regulations, residents of the Project's proposed
condominium building would be required to dispose of household
hazardous waste (e.g., batteries, used oil, paint, etc.) at a permitted
household hazardous waste collection facility. During Project construction
and operation, mandatory compliance to federal, State, and local
regulations would ensure that the proposed Project would not create a
significant hazard to the environment due to routine transport, use,
disposal, or upset of hazardous materials. Impacts would be less than
significant and no mitigation is required. (DEIR pp. 4.7-10 through 4.7-
14)
6. Land Use and Planning
a. Conflicts with Plans
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. (Threshold b)
Finding: Impacts related to Land Use and Planning Threshold a are discussed in detail in Subsection 4.8 of
the EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would not result in significant
land use and planning conflicts in the context of compliance with applicable environmental plans,
policies, and regulations beyond those identified in other Subsections of the EIR. Impacts would
be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project's proposed General Plan Amendment and Zoning Map
Amendment would eliminate inconsistencies between the proposed on-
site land use and the site's existing zoning classifications and land use
designations. The Project would not result in significant land use and
planning conflicts in the context of compliance with applicable
environmental plans, policies, and regulations beyond those identified in
other Subsections of the Draft EIR. (DEIR pp. 4.8-8 through 4.8-30)
7. Noise
a. Noise Standards
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would result in generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in
excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,
or applicable standards of other agencies. (Threshold a)
Residences at Newport Center State Clearinghouse No. 2020110087
Facts and Findings August 23, 2021
Page 46
Finding: Impacts related to Noise Threshold a are discussed in detail in Subsection 4.9 of the EIR. Based
on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would not result in generation of a substantial
temporary or penmanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project would generate short-term construction and long-term
operational noise but would not generate noise levels during construction
and/or operation that exceed the standards established by the City of
Newport Beach General Plan or Municipal Code. (DEIR pp. 4.9-17
through 4.9-24 and 4.9-26)
b. Groundbome Vibration or Noise
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would result in the generation of excessive groundbome
vibration or groundbome noise levels. (Threshold b)
Finding: Impacts related to Noise Threshold b are discussed in detail in Subsection 4.9 of the EIR. Based
on the entire record, the City finds that Project construction -related activities and operation would
not generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels and impacts would be
less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: At distances ranging from 99 feet (at location R4) to 1,002 feet (at location
R3) from the Project site boundary, the highest construction vibration
levels are estimated to range from 38.9 to 69.1 VdB and would remain
below the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual
maximum acceptable vibration criteria of 78 VdB for daytime residential
uses at all receiver locations. Furthermore, vibration levels at the site of
the closest sensitive receiver would not be sustained during the entire
construction period but would occur rather, only during the times that
heavy construction equipment is operating. Because the Project's highest
construction vibration levels would not exceed FTA's threshold of 78 VdB
for daytime residential uses, the Project -related vibration impacts during
construction -related activities would be less than significant and no
mitigation is required. (DEIR pp. 4.9-24 through 4.9-26)
8. Transportation
a. Conflict with Applicable Program Plan Ordinance or Policy
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would conflict with an applicable program, plan,
ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. (Threshold a)
Finding: Impacts related to Transportation Threshold a are discussed in detail in Subsection 4.10 of the EIR.
Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would not conflict with a program, plan,
ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system; therefore, impacts would be less than
significant and no mitigation is required.
Residences at Newport Center State Clearinghouse No. 20201 10087
Facts and Findings August 23, 2021
Page 47
Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project would be consistent with the goals and policies of SCAG's
regional planning program and any applicable General Plan policies
addressing the circulation system. Because the Project would be fully
consistent with all applicable programs, plans, ordinances, or policies
addressing the City's circulation system, including transit, roadway,
bicycle, and pedestrian facilities, Project impacts due to a conflict with
applicable programs, plans, ordinances, and policies would be less than
significant and no mitigation is required. (DEIR pp. 4.10-7 through 4.10-
11)
b. Circulation Network
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
section 15064.3, subdivision (b). (Threshold b)
Finding: Impacts related to Transportation Threshold bare discussed in detail in Subsection 4.10 of the EIR.
Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would not conflict or be inconsistent with
CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b). Impacts would be less than significant and no
mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding: Because the Project is calculated to generate 667 fewer daily traffic trips
than the Project site's existing use as a car wash, the Project would be
consistent with City Council Policy K-3 and generate a less -than -
significant environmental impact related to VMT. Therefore,
implementation of the Project would not generate excessive VMT, which
is defined in CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(b) as the metric used to
evaluate project -related transportation impacts. In addition, the Project site
is close, (less than 0.50) mile from the transit hub. Because the Project's
152 trips are less than the 300 trips criteria in the City's TPO guidelines,
the Project would be exempt from provisions in the City's TPO and would
not result in substantial adverse effects on the circulation network. In
addition, the Project would generate 667 fewer daily trips than the site's
existing use, which results in the Project being screened out from
additional VMT analysis. Therefore, the Project would not generate
substantial VMT and impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR pp.
4.10-10 through 4.10-12)
C. Impacts Identified in the EIR as Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
1. Biological Resources
a. Habitat Modification
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would have a substantial adverse effect, either directly
or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service. (Threshold a)
Residences at Newport Center State Clearinghouse No. 20201 10087
Facts and Findings August 23, 2021
Page 48
Finding: Impacts related to Biological Resources Threshold are discussed in Subsection 4.3 of the DEIR.
Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project has the potential to result in impacts to
nesting birds if habitat is removed during the nesting season. Mitigation is required, and would
reduce impacts to less -than -significant levels.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project would not result in impacts to sensitive natural plant
communities, special -status plants, or special -status animals. However,
the Project has the potential to impact nesting birds if habitat is
removed during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31)
which is considered a significant impact. With the Project's mandatory
compliance with the MBTA, a less than significant impact would occur
associated with the Project's impacts on migratory birds. Although
migratory birds are protected under the federal MBTA, the City of
Newport Beach applies Mitigation Measure MM 4.3-1 as a condition
of approval for development projects in the City to ensure compliance
with the MBTA. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.3-1
would eliminate the Project's potential to result in an adverse effect to
nesting birds by requiring that habitat removal activities either occur
outside of the nesting bird season (generally identified as between
February 1 and August 31) or that a qualified biologist ensure that no
active nests are present. If nesting migratory birds are present, the
mitigation requires avoidance of active bird nests in conformance with
accepted protocols and regulatory requirements. With implementation
of the required mitigation, impacts to nesting migratory birds protected
by the federal MBTA and/or California Fish and Game Code would be
reduced to below a level of significance. (DEIR pp. 4.3-6 and 4.3-7)
Residences at Newport Center
Facts and Findings
MM 4.3-1: As a condition of demolition permits, tree removal permits,
clearing permits, and any other permits that would authorize the
disturbance to and removal of potential bird nesting habitat shall be
prohibited during the migratory bird nesting season (February 1
through August 31) unless a migratory bird nesting survey is
completed. If demolition andlor vegetation removal is planned to occur
during the migratory bird nesting season (February I — August 31),
then a migratory bird nesting survey shall be completed in accordance
with the following requirements:
a) Within three (3) days prior to initiating demolition, tree
removals and/or vegetation clearing, a nesting bird survey
shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within the suitable
habitat to be removed and within a 250 foot radius.
b) If the survey reveals no active nesting, the proposed action may
proceed.
c) If the survey identifies the presence of active sensitive bird
nests, then the nests shall not be disturbed unless the qualified
biologist verifies through non-invasive methods that either (i)
the adult birds have not begun egg -laying and incubation; or
Page 49
State Clearinghouse No. 2020110087
August 23, 2021
(h) the juveniles from the occupied nests are capable of
independent survival.
d) If the biologist is not able to verify any of the conditions from
sub -item 'A " above, then no disturbance shall occur within a
buffer zone specified by the qualified biologistfor each nest or
nesting site. The buffer zone shall be species -appropriate (no
less than 100 foot radius around the nest for non -raptors and
no more than a 500 foot radius around the nest for raptors, or
as otherwise determined by the qualified biologist) and shall
be sufficient to protect the nest from direct and indirect impacts
from construction activities. The nests and buffer zones shall
be field checked approximately weekly by a qualified biological
monitor. The approved buffer zone shall be marked in the field
with construction fencing, within which no vegetation clearing
or ground disturbance shall commence until the qualified
biologist with City concurrence verify that the nests are no
longer occupied and/or juvenile birds can survive
independently from the nests. (DEIR p. 4.3-7)
2. Cultural Resources
a. Archaeological Resources
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5.
(Threshold b)
Finding: Impacts related to Cultural Resources Threshold b are discussed in detail in Subsection 4.4 of the
EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that mitigation measures are required to address the
remote potential that unknown and undiscovered archaeological resources may be impacted by
development should be they be discovered and not properly identified and treated. With
implementation of required mitigation, potential impacts would be reduced to below a level of
significance.
Facts in Support of the Finding: Under existing conditions, the Project site is fully disturbed to a depth of
9 to 14 feet and developed on the surface with a car wash, ancillary gas
station and convenience market, and a parking lot and associated features.
Due to the depth of the excavation required for the proposed subterranean
parking structure, there is a potential that previously buried archeological
resources may be encountered where excavation depths exceed the depth
of disturbance associated with previous construction activities not
associated with the proposed Project. If archaeological resources are
unearthed during the Project's excavation activities that meet the CEQA
Guidelines § 15064.5 definition of significant resources, and they are not
properly identified and treated, a potentially significant impact could
occur. Mitigation Measures MM 4.4-1 through MM 4.4-5 would require
the implementation of an archaeological monitoring and treatment
program during the Project's construction activities, should unique
Residences at Newport Center State Clearinghouse No. 2020110087
Facts and Findings August 23, 2021
Page 50
archaeological resources be found. Treatment of significant resources in
compliance with Public Resources Code § 21083.2 would reduce the
Project's potentially significant impact to less than significant. Therefore,
with compliance with MM 4.4-1 through MM 4.4-5, the Project's potential
to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5
would be reduced to less than significant. (DEIR pp. 4.4-8, 4.4-9, and
4.4-12)
MM 4.4-1: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or any other permit
that authorizes disturbance of native soil, the Developer/Applicant shall a
retain a professional archaeologist who meets the U.S. Secretary of the
Interior Standards (S01), to conduct monitoring. The Project
Archaeologist shall have the authority to temporarily redirect
earthmoving activities in the event that suspected archaeological or tribal
cultural resources are unearthed during Project construction. The Project
Archaeologist, with participation from Consulting Native American
Tribe(s) including the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation,
and the Juaneno Band of Mission Indians -Acjachemen Nation -Belardes,
the contractor, and the City of Newport Beach, shall develop an
Archeological Monitoring Plan to address the details, timing and
responsibility of all archaeological and tribal cultural monitoring and
mitigation activities that will occur on the Project site. A consulting tribe
is defined as a tribe that initiated the AB52 tribal consultation process for
the Project, has not opted out of the AB52 consultation process, and has
completed AB52 consultation with the City as provided for in Cal Pub Res
Code Section 21080.3.2(b)(1) of AB52. The Developer/Applicant is
responsible for securing any required monitoring agreements with the
Tribes. Details in the Plan shall include:
a) Project grading and development scheduling;
b) The development of a rotating schedule in coordination with the
Developer and the Project Archeologist for designated Native
American Tribal Monitors from the consulting tribes during
grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities on the site:
including the scheduling, safety requirements, duties, scope of
work;
c) The Project archaeologist and the Consulting Tribes(s) that
choose to participate shall attend a pre -grading meeting with the
City, the construction manager and any subcontractors and will
conduct a mandatory Cultural Resources Worker Sensitivity
Training to those in attendance. The Training will include a brief
review of the cultural sensitivity of the Project site and the
surrounding area; what resources could potentially be identified
during earthmoving activities; the requirements of the monitoring
program; the protocols that apply in the event inadvertent
discoveries of cultural resources are identified, including who to
Residences at Newport Center State Clearinghouse No. 20201 10087
Facts and Findings August 23, 2021
Page 51
contact and appropriate avoidance measures until the find(s) can
be properly evaluated; and any other appropriate protocols. All
new construction personnel that will conduct disturbance
activities in native soil and that begin work on the Project
following the initial Training must take the Cultural Sensitivity
Training prior to beginning work and the Project archaeologist
and Consulting Tribe(s) that choose to participate shall make
themselves available to provide the training on an as -needed
basis;
d) If the Project Archaeologist or the Tribal Monitor suspect a
resource has been discovered, they shall immediately cause soil
disturbing operations to stop in a 50 foot radius around the find
to allow identification and evaluation of the suspected resource.
In consultation with the Native American Monitor, the Project
Archaeologist shall evaluate the suspected resource and make a
determination of significance pursuant to California Public
Resources Code Section 21083.2. If a significant resource is
discovered, a qualified person meeting the Secretary of the
Interior's standards (36 CFR 61), Tribal Representatives and
Monitors and the City of Newport Beach shall be consulted to
determine appropriate measures to avoid or mitigate negative
effects on the resource. Measures need to be tailored to the
resource and circumstances of the find, so cannot be determined
in advance. Determinations and recommendations by the
qualified person meeting the Secretary of the Interior's standards
(36 CFR 61) shall be submitted to the Cityfor consideration, and
implemented as deemed appropriate by the City in consultation
with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and any and
all Consulting Native American Tribes as defined in MM 4.4-1
before any further work commences in the affected area. (DEIR
pp. 4.4-9 through 4.4-11)
MM 4.4-2: In the event that significant Native American cultural
resources are discovered, the following procedures shall be carried out
for final disposition of the discoveries:
a) One or more of the following treatment methods shall occur.
Evidence of such shall be provided to the City of Newport Beach.
i. Preservation -In -Place of the cultural resources, if
feasible. Preservation in place means avoiding the
resources, leaving them in the place they were found with
no development affecting the integrity of the resources.
ii. Onsite reburial of the discovered items as detailed in the
treatment plan. This shall include measures and
provisions to protect the future reburial area from any
future impacts in perpetuity. Reburial shall not occur until
Residences at Newport Center State Clearinghouse No. 20201 10087
Facts and Findings August 23, 2021
Page 52
all legally required cataloging and basic recordation have
been completed. No recordation of sacred items is
permitted without the written consent of all Consulting
Native American Tribal Governments as defined in MM
4.4-1. The location for the future reburial area shall be
identified on a confidential exhibit on file with the City,
and concurred to by the Consulting Native American
Tribal Governments prior to the issuance of a grading
permit. (DEIR p. 4.4-11)
MM 4.3-3: The Developer or contractor shall provide a minimum of 30
days advance notice to the City and Consulting Tribes of all earthwork
activities in native soil. (DEIR p. 4.4-12)
MM 4.3-4: The City shall verify that the following note is included on the
Grading Plan:
" If any suspected archaeological or tribal cultural resources are
discovered during ground -disturbing activities and the Project
Archaeologist or Native American Tribal Representatives are not
present, the construction supervisor is obligated to halt work in a 50 -
foot radius around the find and call the Project Archaeologist and the
Tribal Representatives to the site to assess the significance of the find.
(DEIR p. 4.4-12)
MM 4.4-5: If Native American human remains and/or grave goods are
discovered during Project construction, then all construction activities
shall immediately cease. Native American "human remains" are defined
to include "an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition
or skeletal completeness. " (Pub. Res. Code § 5097.98 (d)(1)) Funerary
objects, referred to as "associated grave goods, " shall be treated in the
same manner and with the same dignity and respect as human remains.
(Pub. Res. Code § 5097.98 (a), d)(1) and (2). Any discoveries of human
skeletal material or human remains shall be immediately reported to the
County Coroner (Health & Safety Code § 7050.5(c); 14 Cal. Code Regs.
§ 15064.5(e)(I)(B)), and all ground -disturbing project ground -disturbing
activities on site and in any other area where the presence of human
remains and/or grave goods are suspected to be present, shall immediately
halt and remain halted until the coroner has determined the nature of the
remains. (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15064.5(e).) If the coroner recognizes the
human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe
they are Native American, he or she shall contact, within 24 hours, the
Native American Heritage Commission, and Public Resources Code
Section 5097.98 shall be followed. (DEIR p. 4.4-12)
Residences at Newport Center State Clearinghouse No. 2020110087
Facts and Findings August 23, 2021
Page 53
3. Geology and Soils
a. Unstable Geologic Unit or Soil
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse. (Threshold c)
Finding: Impacts related to Geology and Soils Threshold c are discussed in detail in Subsection 4.5 of the
EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that mitigation measures are required to address the
remote potential that unknown and undiscovered archaeological resources may be impacted by
development should be they be discovered and not properly identified and treated. With
compliance with MM 4.5-1 and MM 4.5-2, the Project's potential for impacts associated with
unstable soils would be reduced to less than significant.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The execution of construction activities in unstable soil conditions could
lead to environmental effects associated with lengthening the construction
process (temporary air emission and construction -related noise, for
example). Therefore, a potentially significant construction -related impact
associated with unstable soils would occur during Project construction.
During excavation and construction of the proposed Project's
subterranean parking structure, there is a potential for impacts associated
with soils that may unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of
the construction of the proposed Project, if water seepage occurs that may
result in sloughing, slumping or other instability of vertical excavations.
Based on NMG's review of the site, past geotechnical investigations for
the site and for the surrounding area, NMG determined that the Project
site is suitable for the development of the proposed Project from a
geotechnical standpoint, provided the Project is designed and constructed
in accordance with the geotechnical considerations and recommendations.
In addition, as with every development project, mandatory adherence to
the California Building Standards Code (CBSC) would be required. As a
standard condition of Project approval, the Project would be required to
comply with the site-specific recommendations contained in the Project -
specific geotechnical report. However, in an abundance of caution,
mitigation is recommended. The application of MM 4.5-1 would require
that the Building Official or his/her designee shall ensure that the grading
plan indicates the methods by which adequate shoring would occur. The
application of MM 4.5-1 would ensure that the subsurface excavation
would not slough or slump. (DEIR pp. 4.5-7, 4.5-8, 4.5-9 and 4.5-10)
MM 4.5-1: Slopes created during subsurface excavations associated
with the Project's construction process shall be shored in accordance
with OSHA excavation safety regulations (Title 29 Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 1926.650-652 [Subpart P]) to the satisfaction of the
City of Newport Beach Building Official. Prior to the issuance of a
grading permit, the Building Official or his/her designee shall ensure
that the grading plan indicates the methods by which adequate shoring
Residences at Newport Center State Clearinghouse No. 20201 10087
Facts and Findings August 23, 2021
Page 54
will occur. The shoring methods must ensure that the subsurface
excavation will not slough or slump. The Construction Contractor
shall implement the shoring requirements throughout the subsurface
excavation period and allow inspection of the shoring method by the
City of Newport Beach. (DEIR p. 4.5-10)
MM 4.5-2: Expansive soils shall not be present as fill material below
the building slab and footings. During the property's site preparation
and grading phases, expansive soils shall be mixed with other soil
material to provide a uniform blend of material, compacted to a
minimum of 90 percent relevant compaction, to the satisfaction of the
City of Newport Beach Building Official. Prior to the issuance of a
grading permit, the Building Official or his/her designee shall ensure
that the grading plan indicates a subsurface soil content that is non -
expansive and compacted to at least 90 percent. The Construction
Contractor shall implement the requirements throughout the site
preparation and grading process and allow inspection of grading by
the City of Newport Beach. (DEIR pp. 4.5-10 and 4.5-11)
b. Expansive Soil
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18- l -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or
indirect risks to life or property. (Threshold d)
Finding: Impacts related to Geology and Soils Threshold d are discussed in detail in Subsection 4.5 of the
EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that mitigation measures are required to address the
potential for the Project to be developed on an expansive soil. With compliance with MM 4.5-1
and MM 4.5-2, the Project's potential to be constructed on expansive soil, creating substantial
direct or indirect risks to life or property, would be reduced to less than significant.
Facts in Support of the Finding: On-site soil testing conducted by the Project's geotechnical engineer, NMG,
concluded that the expansion potential of onsite soils is anticipated to
generally range from "Very Low" to "Medium" within the terrace and
existing fill materials. Soils with "High" expansion are likely to be
encountered in the siltstone/claystone of the Monterey Bedrock. The
potential for expansive soils to be encountered at the Project site represents
a potentially significant impact, because the presence of expansive soil
could lead to structural instability if the soils are not properly treated during
the construction process. Based on NMG's review of the site, past
geotechnical investigations for the site and for the surrounding area, NMG
determined that the Project site is suitable for the development of the
proposed Project from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the Project is
designed and constructed in accordance with the geotechnical
considerations and recommendations. In addition, as with every
development project, mandatory adherence to the California Building
Standards Code (CBSC) would be required. As a standard condition of
Project approval, the Project would be required to comply with the site-
specific recommendations contained in the Project -specific geotechnical
Residences at Newport Center State Clearinghouse No. 20201 10087
Facts and Findings August 23, 2021
Page 55
report. However, in an abundance of caution, mitigation is recommended.
The application of MM 4.5-2 would require that the Building Official or
his/her designee shall ensure that the grading plan indicates a subsurface soil
content that is non -expansive and compacted to at least 90 percent. The
application of MM 4.5-2 would ensure that expansive soils are blended with
other soil material and compacted so as not to create a geologic hazard. With
compliance with MM 4.5-1 and MM 4.5-2, the Project's potential to be
constructed on expansive soil, creating substantial direct or indirect risks to
life or property, would be reduced to less than significant. (DEIR pp. 4.5-
8, 4.5-9 and 4.5-11)
MM 4.5-1: Slopes created during subsurface excavations associated
with the Project's construction process shall be shored in accordance
with OSHA excavation safety regulations (Title 29 Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 1926.650-652 (Subpart PJ) to the satisfaction of the
City of Newport Beach Building Oficial. Prior to the issuance of a
grading permit, the Building Oficial or his/her designee shall ensure
that the grading plan indicates the methods by which adequate shoring
will occur. The shoring methods must ensure that the subsurface
excavation will not slough or slump. The Construction Contractor
shall implement the shoring requirements throughout the subsurface
excavation period and allow inspection of the shoring method by the
City of Newport Beach. (DEIR p. 4.5-10)
MM 4.5-2: Expansive soils shall not be present as fill material below
the building slab and footings. During the property's site preparation
and grading phases, expansive soils shall be mixed with other soil
material to provide a uniform blend of material, compacted to a
minimum of 90 percent relevant compaction, to the satisfaction of the
City of Newport Beach Building Oficial. Prior to the issuance of a
grading permit, the Building Oficial or his/her designee shall ensure
that the grading plan indicates a subsurface soil content that is non -
expansive and compacted to at least 90 percent. The Construction
Contractor shall implement the requirements throughout the site
preparation and grading process and allow inspection of grading by
the City of Newport Beach. (DEIR pp. 4.5-10 and 4.5-11)
c. Unique Paleontological Resource or Geological Feature
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. (Threshold f)
Finding: Impacts related to Geology and Soils Threshold f are discussed in detail in Subsection 4.5 of the
EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that mitigation measures are required to address the
potential that that unknown and undiscovered paleontological resources may be impacted by
development should be they be discovered and not properly identified and treated. With
compliance with MM 4.5-3, the Project's potential to directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature, would be reduced to less than
significant.
Residences at Newport Center State Clearinghouse No. 2020110087
Facts and Findings August 23, 2021
Page 56
Facts in Support of the Finding: Due to the depth of the excavation required for the proposed subterranean
parking structure, there is a potential that previously buried paleontological
resources may be encountered where excavation depths exceed the depth
of disturbance associated with previous construction activities. If
paleontological resources are unearthed during the Project's excavation
activities and they are not properly identified and treated, a potentially
significant impact could occur. Implementation of MM 4.5-3 would ensure
proper identification and subsequent treatment of any significant
paleontological resource, site, or unique geologic feature that may be
encountered during ground -disturbing activities associated with Project
excavation activities on the Project site. With implementation of MM 4.5-
3 the Project's potential to impact paleontological resources on the Project
site would be reduced to less than significant. (DEIR pp. 4.5-9, 4.5-10,
and 4.5-11)
4. Tribal Cultural Resources
a. Known Tribal Cultural Resources
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource (TCR), defined in Public Resources
Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is
geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred
place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and
that is: (1) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical
resources or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public
Resources Code section 5020.1(k); or (2) A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be
significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1. (Threshold a)
Finding: Impacts related to Tribal Cultural Resources Threshold a are discussed in detail in Subsection 4.11
of the EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that mitigation measures are required to
address the remote potential that unknown and undiscovered tribal cultural resources may be
impacted by development should be they be discovered and not properly identified and treated.
With implementation of required mitigation, potential impacts would be reduced to below a level
of significance.
Facts in Support of the Finding: Pursuant to SB 18, in January 2021, the Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC) conducted a Sacred Lands File (SLF) check on the
Project site, the results of which were negative. In addition, the City
conducted consultation with the Native American Tribes identified by the
NAHC. Because the site is fully developed under existing conditions and
none of the Tribes identified any known TCRs on the site under existing
conditions. As documented in EIR Subsection 4.4, Cultural Resources,
and based on a site-specific technical report prepared by Duke Cultural
Resources Management (CRM), the Project site does not contain any
known archaeological resources. Although Subsection 4.4 notes that there
is a potential for uncovering previously -undiscovered archaeological
Residences at Newport Center State Clearinghouse No. 2020110087
Facts and Findings August 23, 2021
Page 57
resources (including TCRs) during Project ground -disturbing activities),
mitigation has been identified to require that a qualified archaeological
monitor and a qualified Native American Tribal monitor are retained to
monitor the Project site during earthmoving activities and implement
mitigation to the satisfaction of the City in the event that any significant
archaeological or tribal cultural resources are inadvertently unearthed
during excavation and grading activities. Implementation of Mitigation
Measures MM 4.4-1 through MM 4.4-5 would ensure the proper
identification and subsequent treatment of any TCRs that may be
encountered during ground -disturbing activities associated with Project
construction. With implementation of the required mitigation, the
Project's potential impacts to important subsurface TCRs (if such
resources are unearthed during Project construction) would be reduced to
less -than -significant levels. (DEIR pp. 4.11-6 through 4.11-8)
MM 4.4-1: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or any other permit
that authorizes disturbance of native soil, the Developer/Applicant shall a
retain a professional archaeologist who meets the U.S. Secretary of the
Interior Standards (SOI), to conduct monitoring. The Project
Archaeologist shall have the authority to temporarily redirect
earthmoving activities in the event that suspected archaeological or tribal
cultural resources are unearthed during Project construction. The Project
Archaeologist, with participation from Consulting Native American
Tribe(s) including the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation,
and the Juaneno Band of Mission Indians — Acjachemen Nation-Belardes,
the contractor, and the City of Newport Beach, shall develop an
Archeological Monitoring Plan to address the details, timing and
responsibility of all archaeological and tribal cultural monitoring and
mitigation activities that will occur on the Project site. A consulting tribe
is defined as a tribe that initiated the AB52 tribal consultation process for
the Project, has not opted out of the AB52 consultation process, and has
completed AB52 consultation with the City as provided for in Cal Pub Res
Code Section 21080.3.2(b)(1) of AB52. The Developer/Applicant is
responsible for securing any required monitoring agreements with the
Tribes. Details in the Plan shall include:
a) Project grading and development scheduling;
b) The development of a rotating schedule in coordination with the
Developer and the Project Archeologist for designated Native
American Tribal Monitors from the consulting tribes during
grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities on the site:
including the scheduling, safety requirements, duties, scope of
work;
c) The Project archaeologist and the Consulting Tribes(s) that
choose to participate shall attend a pre -grading meeting with the
City, the construction manager and any subcontractors and will
conduct a mandatory Cultural Resources Worker Sensitivity
Residences at Newport Center State Clearinghouse No. 20201 10087
Facts and Findings August 23, 2021
Page 58
Residences at Newport Center
Facts and Findings
Training to those in attendance. The Training will include a brief
review of the cultural sensitivity of the Project site and the
surrounding area; what resources could potentially be identified
during earthmoving activities; the requirements of the monitoring
program; the protocols that apply in the event inadvertent
discoveries of cultural resources are identified, including who to
contact and appropriate avoidance measures until the finds) can
be properly evaluated; and any other appropriate protocols. All
new construction personnel that will conduct disturbance
activities in native soil and that begin work on the Project
following the initial Training must take the Cultural Sensitivity
Training prior to beginning work and the Project archaeologist
and Consulting Tribe(s) that choose to participate shall make
themselves available to provide the training on an as -needed
basis;
d) If the Project Archaeologist or the Tribal Monitor suspect a
resource has been discovered, they shall immediately cause soil
disturbing operations to stop in a 50 foot radius around the find
to allow identification and evaluation of the suspected resource.
In consultation with the Native American Monitor, the Project
Archaeologist shall evaluate the suspected resource and make a
determination of significance pursuant to California Public
Resources Code Section 21083.2. If a significant resource is
discovered, a qualified person meeting the Secretary of the
Interior's standards (36 CFR 61), Tribal Representatives and
Monitors and the City of Newport Beach shall be consulted to
determine appropriate measures to avoid or mitigate negative
effects on the resource. Measures need to be tailored to the
resource and circumstances of the find, so cannot be determined
in advance. Determinations and recommendations by the
qualified person meeting the Secretary of the Interior's standards
(36 CFR 61) shall be submitted to the Cityfor consideration, and
implemented as deemed appropriate by the City in consultation
with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and any and
all Consulting Native American Tribes as defined in MM 4.4-1
before any further work commences in the affected area. (DEIR
pp. 4.4-9 through 4.4-11)
MM 4.4-2: In the event that significant Native American cultural
resources are discovered, the following procedures shall be carried out
for final disposition of the discoveries:
a) One or more of the following treatment methods shall occur.
Evidence of such shall be provided to the City of Newport Beach.
Preservation -In -Place of the cultural resources, if
feasible. Preservation in place means avoiding the
Page 59
State Clearinghouse No. 2020110087
August 23, 2021
resources, leaving them in the place they were found with
no development affecting the integrity of the resources.
ii. Onsite reburial of the discovered items as detailed in the
treatment plan. This shall include measures and
provisions to protect the future reburial area from any
future impacts in perpetuity. Reburial shall not occur until
all legally required cataloging and basic recordation have
been completed. No recordation of sacred items is
permitted without the written consent of all Consulting
Native American Tribal Governments as defined in MM
4.4-1. The location for the future reburial area shall be
identified on a confidential exhibit on file with the City,
and concurred to by the Consulting Native American
Tribal Governments prior to the issuance of a grading
permit. (DEIR p. 4.4-I1)
MM 4.3-3: The Developer or contractor shall provide a minimum of 30
days advance notice to the City and Consulting Tribes of all earthwork
activities in native soil. (DEIR p. 4.4-12)
MM 4.3-4: The City shall verify that the following note is included on the
Grading Plan:
" If any suspected archaeological or tribal cultural resources are
discovered during ground -disturbing activities and the Project
Archaeologist or Native American Tribal Representatives are not
present, the construction supervisor is obligated to halt work in a 50 -
foot radius around the find and call the Project Archaeologist and the
Tribal Representatives to the site to assess the significance of the find.
(DEIR p. 4.4-12)
MM 4.4-5: If Native American human remains and/or grave goods are
discovered during Project construction, then all construction activities
shall immediately cease. Native American "human remains " are defined
to include "an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition
or skeletal completeness. " (Pub. Res. Code § 5097.98 (d)(1).) Funerary
objects, referred to as "associated grave goods, " shall be treated in the
same manner and with the same dignity and respect as human remains.
(Pub. Res. Code § 5097.98 (a), d)(1) and (2). Any discoveries of human
skeletal material or human remains shall be immediately reported to the
County Coroner (Health & Safety Code § 7050.5(c); 14 Cal. Code Regs.
§ 15064.5(e)(1)(B)), and all ground -disturbing project ground -disturbing
activities on site and in any other area where the presence of human
remains andlor grave goods are suspected to be present, shall immediately
halt and remain halted until the coroner has determined the nature of the
remains. (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15064.5(e).) If the coroner recognizes the
human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe
they are Native American, he or she shall contact, within 24 hours, the
Residences at Newport Center State Clearinghouse No. 2020110087
Facts and Findings August 23, 2021
Page 60
Native American Heritage Commission, and Public Resources Code
Section 5097.98 shall be followed. (DEIR p. 4.4-12)
D. Imaacts Determined by the EIR to be Significant and Unavoidable
No impacts were determined by the EIR to be significant and unavoidable.
VIII. SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Potential Significant Impact: Whether any significant irreversible environmental changes would result
from implementation of the Project. An environmental change would fall into
this category if a) the project would involve a large commitment of non-
renewable resources; b) the primary and secondary impacts of the project
would generally commit future generations to similar uses; c) the project
involves uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential
environmental accidents; or d) the proposed consumption of resources is not
justified (e.g., the project results in the wasteful use of energy).
Finding: Significant irreversible environmental effects which would be caused by the Project are discussed
in detail in Subsection 5.2 of the EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project
would not cause an irreversible change that would result in a significant adverse effect to the
environment.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project site has been developed as a car wash facility with associated
convenience market and gas station since 1970. Because the site is fully
developed under existing conditions, no non-renewable resources exist on
the Project site. Therefore, because there are no non-renewable resources
that exist on the site under existing conditions, conversion of the Project
site from its current fully developed condition to a residential land use
would have no direct effect on any non-renewable resources. (DEIR p.
5-1)
Natural resources, in the form of construction materials and energy
resources, would be used in the construction of the proposed Project. The
consumption of these natural resources would represent an irreversible
change to the environment. However, implementation of a 28 -unit
residential condominium building with subterranean parking would have
no measurable adverse effect on the availability of such resources,
including resources that may be non-renewable (e.g., construction
aggregates, fossil fuels). Additionally, the Project is required by law to
comply with the California Building Standards Code (CALGreen), which
will minimize the Project's demand for energy, including energy produced
from non-renewable sources. (DEIR pp. 5-1 and 5-2)
The consumption of non-renewable resources to construct and operate the
Project over the long-term would likely commit subsequent generations to
the same use of the land and similar patterns of energy consumption, since
the development of this Project represents a large investment of capital
and thus reduces the likelihood that the completed Project would be
Residences at Newport Center State Clearinghouse No. 2020110087
Facts and Findings August 23, 2021
Page 61
demolished and some alternative land uses developed in the near future.
However, due to the limited scale of the proposed development on 1.26
acres, and because the Project would occur in Newport Center within a
predominately built -out portion of the City of Newport Beach, the
proposed Project would not be expected to either directly or indirectly
result in significant irreversible environmental changes to the Newport
Center area. The Newport Center area is developed with urban uses and
will continue to be developed with urban uses into the foreseeable future.
Accordingly, the Project and its environmental effects would not compel
or commit surrounding properties to land uses other than those that exist
today or those that are planned by the City of Newport Beach General
Plan. For this reason, the Project would not result in a significant,
irreversible change to nearby, off-site properties. (DEIR p. 5-2)
EIR Subsection 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, provides an
analysis of the potential for hazardous materials to be transported to/from
the Project site and or used on the site during construction and operation.
As concluded in the analysis, mandatory compliance with federal, State,
and local regulations related to hazardous materials handling, storage, and
use by all Project construction contractors (near term) and occupants
(long-term) would ensure that any hazardous materials used on-site would
be safely and appropriately handled to preclude any irreversible damage
to the environment that could result if hazardous materials were released
from the site. (DEIR p. 5-2)
IX. GROWTH -INDUCING IMPACTS
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the proposed Project could be growth inducing. The CEQA
Guidelines identify a project as growth inducing if it would foster economic
or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly
or indirectly, in the surrounding environment (CEQA Guidelines
§ 15126.2(d)).
Finding: The Project's potential to result in growth -inducing impacts is discussed in detail in Subsection 5.3
of the EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would not result in substantial,
adverse growth -inducing impacts.
Facts in Support of the Finding: Population growth would likely take place as a result of the proposed
Project's operation as a residential building, but the limited intensity of
population growth at the site associated with the construction of 28
residential units with approximately 62 persons would not represent a
substantial deviation from the planned growth identified in the City of
Newport Beach General Plan. The Project's construction -related and
operational -related employees would purchase goods and services in the
region, but any secondary increase in employment associated with
meeting these goods and services needs would be marginal,
accommodated by existing goods and service providers, and highly
unlikely to result in any new physical impacts to the environment. (DEIR
pp. 5-2 and 5-3)
Residences at Newport Center State Clearinghouse No. 2020110087
Facts and Findings August 23, 2021
Page 62
Based on the Department of Finance (DOF) statistics, the proposed Project
would result in approximately 62 persons living in the 28 condominium
units (28 dwelling units x 2.19 persons per household = 61.32 persons,
stated herein as 62 persons). The Project's proposed 62 -person increase
would represent an approximately 0.07% ([62 people - 85,378 people] x
100 = 0.07%) increase in the City's population. None of the improvements
proposed as part of the Project would foster an indirect increase in the
City's population because the surrounding area is fully developed and the
Project is connecting to existing infrastructure systems. The vicinity of
the Project site is an urbanized area that already includes a variety of land
uses, including office, retail (Fashion Island), restaurant, entertainment,
and commercial land uses. (DEIR p. 5-4)
The proposed Project would help to meet the demand for luxury multi-
family residences within Newport Beach and would be served by the
existing infrastructure in the Project area, as well as the nearby commercial
and employment opportunities. The operation and maintenance of the
Project would generate several jobs, but any potential growth -inducing
impact of the employment of persons at the Project site would be offset by
the removal of the jobs associated with the existing car wash and ancillary
fuel operation. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not directly
promote growth either at the Project site or at the adjacent and surrounding
properties. In conclusion, it is unlikely, speculative, and not reasonably
foreseeable that the Project would induce growth in the form of additional
economic activity or employment that would result in measurable impacts
on the off-site physical environment. (DEIR p. 5-4)
X. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
A. No Proiect/No Redevelopment Alternative
The No Project/No Redevelopment Alternative allows decision -makers to compare the environmental impacts
of approving the proposed Project to the environmental impacts that would occur if the property were to be
unchanged from existing conditions for the foreseeable future. The No Project/No Redevelopment Alternative
evaluates no redevelopment of the property and no additional development on the Project site beyond that
which occurs under existing conditions. As such, the Project site would remain occupied by the existing car
wash with ancillary gas station and convenience market, which this alternative assumes would continue to
operate.
Finding: Alternatives to the Project are discussed in detail in Section 6.0 of the EIR. Based on the entire
record, the City finds that the No Project/No Redevelopment Alternative was considered but rejects
the Alternative because it would fail to meet all of the Project objectives. Specifically, because
retaining the site in its existing condition as a car wash does not support the land value and purchase
price of the property and the owner does not plan to continue its use, the alternative would not
redevelop an underutilized property with a use that is financially feasible to construct and operate
or make efficient use of existing infrastructure by repurposing a property with a higher and better
use than currently occurs on the property. In addition, the alternative would fail to maximize the
surface use of a redeveloped property by accommodating parking underground. The alternative
Residences at Newport Center State Clearinghouse No. 2020110087
Facts and Findings August 23, 2021
Page 63
also would not help the City meets its housing goals or reduce the commuting distance between
housing units and nearby jobs, services, and entertainment because it would fail to meet the
following objectives: i) increase the available housing stock within the City of Newport Beach and
maximize the development potential of the site by constructing a project with at least 22 dwelling
units, ii)provide housing options for owner -occupied mid -rise multi -family flats in Newport Center
to diversify the range of available residential housing unit types, iii) introduce a luxury, multi-
family residential development in Newport Center than can attract households in the surrounding
area that are seeking low maintenance and single -level living options, iv) provide a new multi-
family residential development in Newport Center that is within walking distance of, and has
pedestrian connections to, employment, shopping, entertainment, public services, and recreation,
or v) implement a residential development that provides on-site amenities for its residents. The
alternative would also not maintain high-quality architectural design in Newport Center by adding
a building that has a recognizable architectural style and that complements the architectural styles
that exist in the surrounding Newport Center community. Also, maintaining the site in its current
use under this alternative would continue its use as a car wash that is not energy-efficient and that
would therefore fail to meet the Project's objective to redevelop a property that uses outdated
operational technologies with a new use that is designed to be energy efficient and avoid the
wasteful use of energy and water.
Facts in Support of the Finding: Although all of the Project's significant effects would be mitigated to
below a level of significance, implementation of the No Project/No
Redevelopment Alternative would avoid all of the Project's potentially
significant impacts to the environment. However, because the existing car
wash with ancillary gas station and convenience market generates more
daily traffic to and from the site than would the Project's proposed
residential condominium building, effects associated with vehicular -
related air pollutant emissions, greenhouse gas emissions, and noise would
be greater under the No Project/No Redevelopment Alternative than
would occur under the proposed Project. In addition, the on-site use
dispenses gasoline, uses chemicals in the car washing operation, generates
wastewater as a byproduct of the car washing operation, and produces
noise from vacuums, dryers, and an outdoor sound amplification system
which would continue to occur on the site. For these reasons, the No
Project/No Redevelopment Alternative is not an environmentally superior
alternative. The No Project/No Redevelopment Alternative would also
fail to meet all of the Project objectives. In addition, retaining the site in
its existing condition as a car wash does not support the land value and
purchase price of the property and the owner does not plan to continue its
use. (DEIR pp. 6-7 through 6-13) Accordingly, the City rejects the No
Project/No Redevelopment Alternative.
B. No Proiect/Office Redevelopment Alternative
The No Project Alternative/Office Redevelopment Alternative evaluates redevelopment of the Project site with
an office building that would implement the site's existing Office Regional (OR) zoning designation and City
of Newport Beach General Plan "CO -R (Regional Commercial Office)" land use designation. The No
Project/Office Redevelopment Alternative was selected by the Lead Agency to compare the environmental
effects of the proposed Project against what could reasonably occur if the Project site were developed with
Residences at Newport Center
Facts and Findings
Page 64
State Clearinghouse No. 2020110087
August 23, 2021
office uses in conformance with the site's existing zoning and General Plan designations and other applicable
Municipal Code regulations.
Finding: Alternatives to the Project are discussed in detail in Section 6.0 of the EIR. Based on the entire
record, the City finds that the No Project Alternative/Office Redevelopment Alternative was
considered but rejects the alternative because it would fail to meet seven of the ten Project
objectives. Specifically, the No Project/Office Redevelopment Alternative would not meet the
Project objectives related to providing residential development in Newport Center.
Facts in Support of the Finding: Implementation of the No Project/Office Redevelopment Alternative
would reduce but not avoid the Project's significant impacts to cultural
resources, TCRs, paleontological resources (potential presence of
significant subsurface resources that could be unearthed and disturbed
during ground excavation) and geology/soils (temporary unstable geologic
units or soils, and the potential for expansive soils to be encountered
during ground excavation). Impacts to biology (habitat removals that
could potentially contain active migratory bird nests) would be identical
under this alternative and the proposed Project. All of the Project's
significant impacts would be mitigated to below a level of significance,
and the same mitigation measures would apply to this alternative. This
alternative slightly reduces impacts associated with cultural resources,
TCRs, and paleontological resources and reduces impacts associated with
geology/soils due to the limited need for subsurface excavation. This
alternative reduces impacts associated with construction noise because
construction would occur over a shorter timeframe and reduces GHG
emissions because fewer vehicle trips would travel to and from the site
and the building's area -source and energy -source would be lowered due
to its smaller size compared to the Project. Because the No Project/Office
Redevelopment Alternative results in a lower traffic volume than would
the proposed Project, this alternative reduces traffic impacts and
corresponding reduction in mobile source air quality emissions and
vehicular -related operational noise. No impacts to land use and planning
would occur because the alternative would be consistent with the site's
zoning and General Plan designations and would have potentially reduced
aesthetic effects because the building height would be lower than the
building height proposed by the Project. In regards to the Project
objectives, the No Project/Office Redevelopment Alternative would meet
three of the Project's ten objectives. The No Project/Office
Redevelopment Alternative would fail to the other seven Project
objectives. Specifically, the No Project/Office Redevelopment Alternative
would not meet the Project objectives related to providing residential
development in Newport Center. (DEIR pp. 6-20 and 6-21) Accordingly,
the City rejects the No Project/Office Redevelopment Alternative.
Residences at Newport Center State Clearinghouse No. 2020110087
Facts and Findings August 23, 2021
Page 65
C. Commercial/Restaurant Redevelopment Alternative
The Commercial/Restaurant Redevelopment Alternative evaluates redevelopment of the Project site with a
single or two-story restaurant in a contemporary architectural design. The existing car wash and ancillary
convenience market, gas station and associated improvements would be removed from the property as would
occur under the proposed Project to redevelop the site. This alternative would provide for the highest intensity
of commercial development allowed under the property's existing General Plan "Regional Commercial Office
(CO -R)" land use designation and "OR (Office RegionaI)" Zoning District designation. The
Commercial/Restaurant Redevelopment Alternative was selected by the Lead Agency to compare the
environmental effects of the proposed Project against what could reasonably occur if the Project site were
developed to the highest traffic generating use per existing land use and zoning designations. Although
technically this alternative is another version of a no project alternative because it considers redevelopment of
the site in accordance with a use that is allowed on the site by property's existing CO -R General Plan and OR
Zoning District designation, the Lead Agency has not identified the Commercial/Restaurant Redevelopment
Alternative as a true no project alternative, because depending on physical and operational characteristics,
many food service businesses require the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) or Minor Use Permit
(MUP) in order to operate in the OR Zoning District. A Site Development Review (SDR) would also be
required to construct a building with 10,000 S.F. of gross floor area or greater. Depending on the characteristics
of the restaurant proposed, a parking waiver may be required to reduce the number of required parking spaces.
Finding: Alternatives to the Project are discussed in detail in Section 6.0 of the EIR. Based on the entire
record, the City finds that the Commercial/Restaurant Redevelopment Alternative was considered
but rejects the alternative because it would fail to meet 6 of the Project Objectives, specifically the
Project objectives related to providing residential development in Newport Center.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The implementation of the Commercial/Restaurant Redevelopment
Alternative would reduce, but not avoid, the Project's significant impacts
to cultural resources, TCRs, paleontological (potential presence of
significant subsurface resources that could be unearthed and disturbed
during ground excavation) and geology/soils (temporary unstable geologic
units or soils, and the potential for expansive soils to be encountered
during ground excavation). Impacts to biology (habitat removals that
could potentially contain active migratory bird nests) would be identical
under this alternative as with the proposed Project. All of the Project's
significant impacts would be mitigated to below a level of significance,
and the same mitigation measures would apply to this alternative. This
alternative would have decreased impacts associated with construction
noise because construction would occur over a shorter timeframe.
Because the Commercial/Restaurant Redevelopment Alternative would
result in a higher traffic volume than would the proposed Project, this
alternative would result in a corresponding increase in vehicular -related
air quality emissions, GHG emissions, and operational noise. Few if any
impacts to land use and planning would occur because the alternative
would be consistent with the site's zoning and General Plan designations
and would have reduced aesthetic effects because the building height
would be slightly lower than the building height proposed by the Project.
In regards to the Project objectives, the Commercial/Restaurant
Redevelopment Alternative would meet 4 of the Project's 10 objectives
but would fail to meet the remaining 6 objectives. Specifically, the
Residences at Newport Center State Clearinghouse No. 20201 10087
Facts and Findings August 23, 2021
Page 66
Commercial/Restaurant Redevelopment Alternative would not meet the
Project objectives related to providing residential development in Newport
Center. (DEIR p. 6-28) Accordingly, the City rejects the
Commercial/Restaurant Redevelopment Alternative.
D. Multiple Unit Residential (RM) Alternative
The Multiple Unit Residential (RM) Alternative was selected by the Lead Agency to compare the
environmental effects of the proposed Project against what could reasonably occur on the Project site if the
site was developed with a different type and number of multi -family residential units that require substantially
less subsurface excavation and a shorter construction duration, to reduce the proposed Project's temporary
construction -related effects and potential impacts related to subsurface excavation.
Finding: Alternatives to the Project are discussed in detail in Section 6.0 of the EIR. Based on the entire
record, the City finds that although the Multiple Unit Residential (RM) Alternative is identified as
an Environmentally Superior Alternative that is not the No Project Alternative; the Multiple Unit
Residential (RM) Alternative would fail to meet six of the Project's ten objectives.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The implementation of the Multiple Unit Residential (RM) Alternative
would reduce, but not avoid, the Project's significant impacts to cultural
resources, TCRs, paleontological resources (potential presence of
significant subsurface resources that could be unearthed and disturbed
during ground excavation) and geology/soils (geologic units or soils and
expansive soils that may be unstable). Impacts to biology (habitat
removals that could potentially contain active migratory bird nests) would
be identical under this alternative and the proposed Project. All of the
Project's significant impacts would be mitigated to below a level of
significance, and the same mitigation measures would apply to this
alternative. This alternative would have decreased impacts regarding
cultural resources, TCRs, paleontological resources, and geology/soils due
to the limited need for subsurface excavation for a subterranean parking
structure. This alternative would have decreased impacts associated with
construction noise because construction would occur over a shorter
timeframe. Because the Multiple Unit Residential (RM) Alternative
would result in a slightly lower daily traffic volume than would the
proposed Project, this alternative would have slightly reduced traffic
impacts and a corresponding slight decrease in vehicular -related air
quality emissions and operational noise. Similar impacts to land use and
planning would occur because, like the proposed Project, this alternative
would require a change in the property's General Plan and zoning
designations from commercial to residential, although this alternative
would result in a shorter building than the proposed Project. Reduced
aesthetic effects would occur because the building height would be lower
than the building height proposed by the Project. However, the townhome
design would be less consistent with the surrounding commercial and
office development. The Multiple Unit Residential (RM) Alternative is
identified as an Environmentally Superior Alternatives that is not the No
Project Alternative; however, the Multiple Unit Residential (RM)
Alternative would fail to meet six of the Project's ten objectives.
Residences at Newport Center State Clearinghouse No. 2020110087
Facts and Findings August 23, 2021
Page 67
E. Range of Alternatives
Finding: The City finds that Alternatives to the Project consisting of the No Project/No Redevelopment
Alternative, the No Project/Office Redevelopment Alternative, the Commercial/Restaurant
Alternative, and the Multiple Unit Residential (RM) Alternative, represent a reasonable range of
alternatives.
Facts in Support of the Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21002 and the State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15126.6(a), an EIR must assess a reasonable range of
alternatives to the project action or location. Section 15126.6(a) places
special emphasis on focusing the discussion on alternatives which provide
opportunities for eliminating any significant adverse environmental
impacts, or reducing them to a level of insignificance, even if the
alternative would impede to some degree the attainment of the project
objectives, or would be costlier. The discussion of alternatives is governed
by the "rule of reason." The EIR need not consider an alternative whose
effect cannot be reasonably ascertained, or does not contribute to an
informed decision-making and public participation process. Because there
are no reasonably feasible and available alternative sites for the Project or
alternative land uses for the Project Site, consideration of the No
Project/No Redevelopment Alternative, the No Project/Office
Redevelopment Alternative, the Commercial/Restaurant Alternative, and
the Multiple Unit Residential (RM) Alternative represents a reasonable
range of alternatives. The purpose of the CEQA requirements of studying
a reasonable range of alternatives would not be met by constructing
additional alternatives that would not meet the basic objectives of the
Project. There are no other feasible alternatives that would achieve all of
the Project's basic objectives while lessening or avoiding the Project's
significant environmental effects.
Residences at Newport Center State Clearinghouse No. 2020110087
Facts and Findings August 23, 2021
Page 68
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGE } ss.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH f
I, Leilani I. Brown, City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, California, do hereby certify that the
whole number of members of the City Council is seven, the foregoing resolution, being Resolution
No. 2021-90 was duly introduced before and adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting
of said Council held on the 281h day of September, 2021, and the same was so passed and adopted by
the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Mayor Brad Avery, Mayor Pro Tem Kevin Muldoon, Council Member Noah Blom,
Council Member Joy Brenner, Council Member Diane Dixon, Council Member
Duffy Duffield, Council Member Will O'Neill
NAYS: None
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the official seal of
said City this 291h day of September, 2021.
C
Leilani I. Brown
City Clerk
Newport Beach, California