No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout24 - Fletcher Jones Motorcars (Fletcher Jones, Jr., applicant) 3300 Jamboree Road, Newport Beach010 �E�wPoRl CrrY OF NEVVcURT BEACH Hearing Date: September 11, 1995 PLANNING\BUILDING DEPARTMENT Agenda Item No.: 33oo NEWPORT BOULEVARD Staff Person: Patricia Temple NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 714 644-3228 (714) 644-5200% FAX (714) 64450 REPORT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL BY THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH SUBJECT: Fletcher Jones Motorcars SSP 1 1 1995 (Fletcher Jones, Jr., applicant) 3300 Jamboree Road, Newport Beach�.S 95 /oa,z SUMMARY: The applications being considered will, if approved, allowof r e development of a new facility for Fletcher Jones Motorcars - Mercedes Benz. In addition to new and used car sales and leasing, the dealership will offer auto service, including body work, a parts department, customer lounge, and boutique retail sales areas. A substantial amount of the auto storage areas are enclosed in a parking structure. Suggested Action Hold public hearing; if desired: 1. Adopt Resolution No. , certifying EIR No. 155 2. Adopt Resolution No. , approving General Plan Amendment No. 95-1(D) 3. Adopt Resolution No. , approving Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 39 4. Adopt Resolution No. , approving Amendment No. 823 5. Sustain the Action of the Planning Commission for Traffic Study No. 108 and Use Permit No. 3565 r -2 - z -c 6. Adopt Ordinance No. 95-42, approving the First Amendment to Development Agreement No. 6 - CIOSA C' -301,7 7. Adopt Ordinance No. 9543, approving Development Agreement No. 9 - Fletcher Jones Motorcars Background In 1994, the City became aware that Fletcher Jones Motorcars was considering relocation to a site in the City of Irvine. After discussions with Mr. Ted Jones, the City and the applicant decided to pursue entitlement to allow for construction of a new automobile dealership on the San Diego Creek North site. As part of the agreement between the applicant and the City, a sharing of entitlement and development costs was agreed to in a Memorandum of Understanding executed on March 10, 1995. That agreement provided for the City to offset certain development costs which were extraordinary, due to the highly constrained nature of the proposed development site. Some of the development constraints present on the San Diego Creek North are: The presence of Coastal Sage Scrub habitat, a protected habitat of the California Gnatcatcher. The presence of wetlands on site. Water and utility lines and easements • Multiple ownerships, which include The Irvine Company, the Transportation Corridor Agencies and the State Department of Transportation. The main portion of the site was also part of the CIOSA Agreement, and slated for dedication to the City as part of that agreement. / • Potential need to use a portion of the site for a connector ramp (JR -5) between Jamboree Road and the Corona del Mar Freeway (SR -73). Due to difficulties associated with the entitlement process, the City has managed the program with the participation of representatives of Fletcher Jones Motorcars. This hearing will conclude the basic entitlement actions, and will allow the project to proceed to the Coastal Commission at its November hearing. Planning Commission Recommendation At its meeting of August 24, 1995, the Planning Commission voted (5 ayes, 2 absent) to recommend City Council approval of these items. A copy of the staff report and an excerpt of the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting are attached for the consideration of the City Council. Respectfully submitted, a�&C-4* i� Patricia L. Temple Planning Manager Attachments: 1. Staff Report to Planning Commission dated August 24, 1995 2. Excerpt of draft Planning Commission minutes of August 24, 1995 3. Resolution for Certification of Environmental Impact Report No. 155 4. Resolution for General Plan Amendment 95-1 (D) 5. Resolution for Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 39 6. Resolution for Amendment No. 823 7. Ordinance No. 95-42 (First Amendment to Development Agreement No. 6 - CIOSA) 8. Ordinance No. 95-43 (Development Agreement No. 9 - Fletcher Jones Motorcars) 9. Memorandum of Understanding 10. Final Environmental Impact Report No. 155 11. Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 155 was previously distributed PLT:.. F:\WP51\PLANNING\1 PUBNOT\FLETCHRAUP3565C2.DOC FLETCHER JONES MOTORCARS SEPTEMBER 11, 1995 Page 2 �Ev� voRr CrIY OF NER a -ORT BEACH PLANNING\BUILDING DEPARTMENT u = 33oo NEWPORT BOULEVARD 4�,soar NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (7t4) 44-32oo; FAX (Its) 644-j28o Hearing Date: Agenda Item No.: Staff' Person: Appeal Period: REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT: Fletcher Jones Motorcars (Fletcher Jones, Jr., applicant) 3300 Jamboree Road, Newport Beach Attachment No. 1 August 24, 1995 3 Patricia Temple (714) 644-3228 automatic SUMMARY: The applications being considered will, if approved allow for the development of a new facility for Fletcher Jones Motorcars - Mercedes Benz. In addition to new and used car sales and leasing, the dealership will offer auto service, including body work, a parts department, customer lounge, and boutique retail sales areas. A substantial amount of the auto storage areas are enclosed in a parking structure. REQUESTED ACTION: If desired, recommend City Council approval of. • A. Certification of EIR Na 155, (Public Hearing); • x General Plan Amendment No. 9S -1(D), (Public Hearing) • C Local Coastal Program Amendment Na 39, (Public Hearing); • D. Amendment Na 823, (Public Hearing); • E Traffic Study Na 108; (Public Hearing); • F. Use Permit Na 356S; (Public Hearing); • G. Development Agreement Na 6 (CIOSA);(Public Hearing), • H. Development Agreement Na 9; (Public Hearing). procedures are set forth in Council Policy S-1 and K-3, Title 20 and Title 15 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Appropriateness of the Proposed Use/Neighborhood Compatibility: Does the automobile sales facility represent the most appropriate use of the property, and would the project be compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. 2. Potential Loss of Public Facilities: Will the change in the Zoning designation for this site, which currently provides for: open space, a potential fire station, as well as a Park and Ride station contribute to a loss of public services. 3. Fiscal Implications: What are the fiscal implications of the proposed project. VICINITY " iii_ L a O I tt _ I :! �Q✓� ^; ������` \ �� I » . ,. a_ _. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS . TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR finder Construction) FLETCHER JONES MOTORCARS' The subject property is currently an undeveloped site in the San Diego Creek North and Jamboree MacArthur Planned Community. To the north of the subject property is the Corona Del Mar Freeway corridor and easterly of the site across Jamboree Road is the Bayview Planned Community which is developed with a high-rise hotel and mid -rise office buildings. To the south of the site is the proposed extension of Bayview Way, with a wetland mitigation area (for the TCA) and the San Diego Creek Channel beyond, and is bounded on the west by the San Joaquin MIS Transportation Corridor that is currently under construction. FLETCHER JONES MOTORCARS AUGUST 24, 1995 Page 2 ANALYSIS SUMMARY - KEY ISSUES 1. Appropriateness of the Proposed Use/Neighborhood Compatibility: The site has been designated for some form of commercial development since the General Plan was adopted in 1972. It is located in a triangle which is highly impacted by local arterial and regional transportation facilities. It is this highly visible location which makes the site desirable for the proposed use. From a land use standpoint, the use proposed for the site is compatible with the surrounding area, since its isolation from sensitive land uses will minimize land use conflicts. 2. Potential Loss of Public Facilities: The primary issues associated with the amendment to the CIOSA agreement are loss of a site for a fire station and a park-and-ride facility, the primary uses identified for the site if it came into public ownership. In terms of the fire station, the site has been considered for an additional facility to improve levels of service in the most northerly parts of town. It is not, however, considered optimal from the point of view of the Fire Department. This Department is looking for a site which will either serve both the east and west side of Newport Bay and/or allow for the relocation of an existing facility to improve service while not increasing the total number of fire stations serving the City. This site does not allow for the accomplishment of these goals. Therefore, the loss of the site as a fire station site is not considered significant by staff. A park-and-ride facility was also identified as a possible use of the property. This use was considered due to the location of the site in close proximity to the high occupancy vehicle (HOV) access lanes of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC). This loss should be considered by the Planning Commission in making its decision on this project. However, it should be noted that a park-and-ride facility in this location could be questioned, as it is within a major employment center. Most facilities of this nature are located in close proximity to residential concentrations, to gather and bring people to employment areas. Therefore, the loss of a park-and-ride location in this area is not considered significant. 3. Fiscal Implications: Subsequent to the approval of the CIOSA Agreement, the City's fiscal situation has become strained. The City became very aware that preservation of all sources of revenue is a priority. At the same time, the City became aware that Fletcher Jones Motorcars was considering relocation to alternate sites in the City of Irvine. This would have significant impacts to the fiscal health of the City, since this business is the eighth highest revenue generator in the City. The City quickly sought out sites within the City which could be used for an automobile dealership meeting the criteria established by Mr. Ted Jones. The San Diego Creek North site was identified as having sufficient size and appropriate location to accommodate the needs of Fletcher Jones Motorcars, and would, therefore, keep this significant business in the City of Newport Beach. For the information of the Planning Commission, the 1994 revenue associated with the existing automobile dealership was approximately $569,000, including property, sales and business taxes. An estimate of the City's services costs for the business is approximately $165,000, which is predominantly the fair share cost of police services. FLETCHER JONES MOTORCARS AUGUST 24, 1995 Page 3 ANALYSIS OF REQUESTED APPROVALS A. Environmental Impact Report Na 155 COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and City Council Policy K-3, a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) has been prepared to evaluate the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. The DEIR was published on June 19th for a 45 -day public review period that extended through Thursday, August 3, 1995. Copies of the DEIR were distributed to the Commission previously, and were also made available to all interested parties without charge. According to standard City policy, the DEIR was prepared by City staff and consultants selected and directly managed by City staff The DEIR concludes that if the proposed mitigation measures are adopted, the project would not cause any significant environment effects in all analysis areas, which the exception of that listed below: • The project will contribute to the cumulative loss of open space in the region. B & C General Plan Amendment No. 95-1(D) and Local Coastal Proeram Amendment No. 39 Proposed is an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element and the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan to redesignate the site from Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial (APF) to Retail and Service Commercial(RSC). The development intensity for the site would also be changed from 112,000 sq.ft. of allowable development to a Floor Area Ratio of 0.5/0.75, consistent with other RSC designated areas in the City. Should the Planning Commission wish to recommend to the City Council the approval of these Amendments, draft Resolutions have been provided. D. Amendment No. 823 An amendment to the adopted Planned Community District Regulations for San Diego Creek North and Jamboree/MacArthur has been requested to establish Area No. 4 and to revise the permitted uses allowed within that area, to establish an automobile sales facility, subject to the securing of a use permit. A strikeout and underline copy of the proposed amended Planned Community District Regulations is attached for the Commission's information. Should the Planning Commission wish to recommend to the City Council the approval of Amendment No. 823, the adoption of the attached Resolution is suggested. METCHER JONES MOTORCARS AUGUST 24, 1995 Page 4 E Trafc Study No. 108 As required by the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance, a traffic study was prepared for the proposed project. Based upon the information contained in the study, the project will cause an increase in an already unacceptable level of service at two intersections (Jamboree Road/Bristol Street South and Campus-Irvine/Bristol Street South). The Traffic Phasing Ordinance provides that reasonably foreseeable future improvements that affect the study area be included in the TPO analysis. There are three programmed improvements in the City which will have a direct benefit in reducing project impacts. These improvements are fully funded, and are scheduled for completion prior to or the same time as project occupancy. These are improvements to Birch Street -Mesa Drive, the construction a connection between SR 55 and SR -73 (Connector "D"), and an intersection improvement at Jamboree Road/Bristol Street South. With these improvements the project meets the criteria of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. On a long-range basis, however, there will be a cumulative impact to the intersection of Jamboree Road/Bristol Street North. A mitigation measure has been included which will require a fair share contribution to the future improvement of this intersection. F. Use Permit No. 3565 A Use Permit is required for the establishment of an automobile facility subject to the approval of the General Plan Amendment to the San Diego Creek North Planned Community Fletcher Jones Motorcars is proposing to relocate their existing automobile sales and service facility, located at 1301 Quail Street, Newport Beach, and to develop a currently vacant site located at 3300 Jamboree. The proposed development will include a 3 -story, 89,000 square foot parking structure for visitor and employee parking, automobile sales, parts department, service department, automobile showroom display area, employee lounge, related offices, and outdoor display areas. Also included is a 1,800 square foot food establishment located within the interior of the building for the convenience of customers and employees. n ETCHER JONES MOTORCARS AUGUST 24, 1995 Page 5 .� Enclosed Parking Structure Ground Level Middle Level TOTAL ENCLOSED PARKING Roof -Top Parking sq.ft. Total Canopies and Open Decks - sq.ft. Parking Spaces Provided: Customer Parking Service Parking Employee Parking Body Shop Parking Vehicle Storage Vehicle Display TOTAL PARKING SPACES HEIGHT LIlVIIT Key Issues Lighting and Illumination 38,000 sq.ft. 51,000 sq.ft. � . 63,500 sq.ft. 21,460 sq.ft. 39 spaces 245 spaces 100 spaces 78 spaces 154 spaces 280 spaces 900 spaces 32 feet The subject property is located on property that is situated a sufficient distance from residential development so that lighting would not have an adverse impact in the vicinity of the project. Staff has included appropriate conditions of approval to insure that the lighting system will be designed and maintained in such a manner as to eliminate light and glare onto adjacent properties. FLETCHER JONES MOTORCARS AUGUST 24, 1995 Page 6 8 Landscaping, and Aesthetics The proposed project includes a detailed landscape plan that includes a shaded auto court, a canopy entry accented by palm trees, a eucalyptus hedgerow to the rear of the site, a 6 foot hedge screening, and additional shade and accent trees. The landscape plan also includes a combination of enriched paving, turf:, groundcover and shrub area, along with a putting green as an amenity for waiting customers. Appropriate conditions of approval have been included for the landscaping of the site. The proposal includes 8 foot high black vinyl coated chain link fencing that is covered with flowering vines, to be located at the northwest corner of the site, to provide for an aesthetically pleasing view from Jamboree Road. A 6' high masonry wall is located to the rear of the site for security purposes. G. Development Agreement No. 6 (GOSA) The CIOSA Agreement is a comprehensive program for land use entitlement, circulation system improvements and open space dedication throughout the City of Newport Beach. Through this process and approval, several significant sites owned by The Irvine Company received vested entitlement, including Upper Castaways and Newporter North. The program also included the dedication to the City of Newport Beach, for open space, park and public facility uses, a number of sites, including the San Diego Creek North site. This site was designated for public facilities, and the primary uses envisioned were a fire station and a park-and-ride facility. In order to approve the project, an amendment to the CIOSA agreement is required. The amendments are minor in nature, and only require revision to various exhibits attached to the agreement. A copy of the agreement amendment, as well as the original CIOSA Agreement is attached for the information of the Planning Commission. H. Development Agreement No. 9 The City and Fletcher Jones Motorcars propose to enter into a Development Agreement to define and confirm their commitments in relationship to the proposed project. In this agreement the City commits assemble the building parcel, to waive certain fees, to assist in obtaining permits, to prepare the Environmental Impact Report, and to construct a portion of Bayview Way. The developer's commitments include to cooperate in negotiations with various utility companies, to prepare the concept plans and designs, to diligently pursue financing, to construct the project, to pay an annual reimbursement assessment, and pay fair share fees. A copy of the draft agreement is attached for the review of the Commission. Specific Findings and Recommendations Section 20.80.060 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that in order to grant any use permit, the Planning Commission shall find that the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use or building applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. FLETCHER JONES MOTORCARS AUGUST 24, 1995 Page 7 (,) Should the Planning Commission wish to approve the subject applications and recommend to the City Council the adoption and approval, the findings and conditions of approval set forth in the attached Exhibit "A" are suggested. Should the Planning Commission be of the opinion that the proposed facility is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and the loss of a potential site for public facilities or a fire station is not off -set by the benefits of the proposed project, Findings for Denial are included in Exhibit `B". PLANNING/BUILDING DEPARTMENT Patricia Temple Advance Planning Manager Attachments: Exhibit "A" Resolution Recommending Approval to the City Council of General Plan Amendment No. 95-1(D) Resolution Recommending Approval to the City Council of Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 39 Resolution Recommending Approval to the City Council of Amendment No. 823 Strikeout and Underline of San Diego Creek North and Jamboree/MacArthur Planned Community District Regulations Resolution Recommending Approval to the City Council the 1 st Amendment to Development Agreement No. b (CIOSA) with attachment Resolution Recommending Approval to the City Council of Development Agreement No. 9 with attachment Exhibit `B" Appendix "A" - detailed analysis CIOSA Agreement Response to Comments of EIR No. 155 Previously Distributed to the Planning Commission: Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 155 METCHER JONES MOTORCARS AUGUST 24, 1991 Page 8 ' b EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Fletcher Jones Motorcars EIR No. 155 General Plan Amendment No. 95-1(D) Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 39 Amendment No. 823 Traffic Study No. 108 Use Permit No. 3565. Development No. 6 (CIOSA) Development Agreement No. 9 A. EmRronmenlal Impact Report No. 155. Findings: That an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and City Policy. 2. That the proposed Final EIR, which includes the Draft EIR, Comments and Responses, revisions to the Draft EIR, and all related documents in the record is complete and adequate to satisfy all the requirements of CEQA for the proposed project. 3. That the analysis and conclusions contained in the proposed Final EIR reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission. 4. That the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the proposed Final EIR prior to making its recommendations to the City Council. Mitigation Measures: 1. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the grading contractor shall identify a spoils site for deposition of exported material. Such spoils site shall have obtained CEQA clearance in accordance with the requirements of the local jurisdiction where the site is located. 2. As specified in the geotechnical report prepared for the site (Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc., May 1995), all loose, compressible natural soils and/or loose, compressible on-site fill soils should be removed from fill areas where exposed at final grade and replaced with compacted fills in accordance with the recommendations of the geotechnical engineer. All grading should be accomplished under the observation and testing of the project soils engineer and engineering geologist in accordance with the recommendations contained in nETCHER JONES MOTORCARS AUGUST 24, 1995 Page 9 l the project geotechnical report, the current grading ordinance of the City of Newport Beach and earthwork specifications contained in Appendix F of the geotechnical report. The site preparation recommendations outlined in section 5.3 of the geotechnical report / shall be followed. 3. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant or successor in interest shall demonstrate to the City of Newport Beach Building Department that all facilities will be designed and constructed as specified in the City adopted version of the Uniform Building Code. 4. Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. The application for grading permit shall be accompanied by a grading plan and specifications and supporting data consisting of soils engineering and engineering geology reports or other reports if required by the building official. The grading plan shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 6. The grading plan shall include a description of haul routes, access points to the site, watering, and sweeping program designed to minimize impact of haul operations. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of grading permits and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. The velocity of concentrated run-off from the project site shall be evaluated and erosive velocities controlled as part of the project design. 9. Grading operations and drainage requirements shall meet the standards set forth in the City's Building Code (Appendix Chapter 70 - Excavation and Grading, Sections 7001- 7019) and the Building Department's General Grading Specifications. 10. The erosion control measures shall be completed on any exposed slopes within thirty days after grading, or as approved by the Building Department. 11. Fugitive dust emissions during construction shall be minimized by watering the site for dust control, containing excavated soil on-site until it is hauled away, and periodically washing adjacent streets to remove accumulated materials. 12. Prior to the issuance of any building permits a specific soils and foundation study shall be prepared and approved by the Building Department. 13. Sites where the potential for liquefaction has been identified, or any other site where the potential for liquefaction may be encountered during subsequent investigations, shall be further evaluated by a geotechnical consultant to verify the low potential for liquefaction. FLETCHER JONES MOTORCARS AUGUST 24, 1995 Page 10 �Z The evaluation shall include subsurface investigation with standard penetration testing or other appropriate means of analysis for liquefaction potential. The project geotechnical consultant shall provide a statement concerning the potential for liquefaction and its possible impact on proposed development. If necessary, the geotechnical consultant shall provide mitigation measures which could include mechanical densification of liquefiable layers, dewatering, fill surcharging or other appropriate measures. The Geotechnical Consultant's report shall be signed by a Certified Engineering Geologist and a Registered Civil Engineer and shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the Building Department prior to issuance of Grading Permit. Grading and building plans shall reflect the recommendations of the study to the satisfaction of the Building Department. 14. Any necessary diversion devices, catchment devices, or velocity reducers shall be incorporated into the grading plan and approved by the Building Department prior to issuance of grading permits. Berms or other catchment devices shall be incorporated into the grading plans to divert sheet flow runoff away from areas which have been stripped of natural vegetation. Velocity reducers shall be incorporated into the design, especially where drainage devices exit to natural ground. 15. All fill slopes shall be properly compacted during grading in conformance with the City Grading Code and verified by the project Geotechnical Consultant. Slopes shall be planted with vegetation upon completion of grading. Conformance with this measure shall be verified by the Building Department prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. 16. Berms and brow ditches shall be constructed to the satisfaction and approval of the Building Department. Water shall not be allowed to drain over any manufactured slope face. Top -of -slope soil berms shall be incorporated into grading plans to prevent surface runoff from draining over future fill slopes. Brow ditches shall be incorporated into grading plans to divert surficial runoff from ungraded natural areas around future cut slopes. The design of berms and brow ditches shall be approved by the Building Department prior to issuance of grading permits. 17. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, appropriate artificial substances shall be recommended by the project landscape architect and approved by the Building Department for use in reducing surface erosion until permanent landscaping is well established. Upon completion of grading, stripped areas shall be covered with artificial substances approved by the Building Department. 18. Prior to the issuance of grading, permits, written recommendations for the mitigation of compressible/collapsible soil potential for the project site shall be provided by the geotechnical consultant. Foundation recommendations shall be included. Recommendations shall be incorporated as conditions of approval for the site-specific tentative tract maps and grading plans to the satisfaction of the Building Department. Recommendations shall be based on surface and subsurface mapping, laboratory testing and analysis. Mitigation, if necessary, could include: removal and recompaction of identified compressible/collapsible zones, fill surcharging and settlement monitoring, compaction grouting, or foundation design which utilizes deep piles, or other HXTCHER JONES MOTORCARS AUGUST 24, 1995 Page 11 13 recommended measures. The geotechnical consultant's site-specific reports shall be signed by a Certified Engineering Geologist and Registered Civil Engineer, and shall be approved by the Building Department. / 19. Written recommendations for the mitigation of expansive and corrosive soil potential for each site, shall be provided by the project corrosion consultant, geotechnical consultant and/or Civil engineer. Foundation recommendations shall be included. Recommendations shall be based on surface and subsurface mapping, laboratory testing and analysis and shall be incorporated into final building plans prior to issuance of building permits. The geotechnical consultant's site-specific reports shall be signed by a Certified Engineering Geologist and Registered City Engineer, and shall be approved by the Building Department. 20. The project geotechnical consultant and/or civil engineer shall prepare written site-specific reviews of the tentative tract maps and grading plans addressing all salient geotechnical issues, including groundwater. These reports shall provide findings, conclusions and recommendations regarding near -surface groundwater and the potential for artificially induced groundwater as a result of future development, and the effects groundwater may have on bluffs, slopes and structures. The reports shall also address the potential for ground subsidence on the site and properties adjacent to the sites if dewatering is recommended. The geotechnical consultant and/or civil engineer's reports shall be signed by a Certified Engineering Geologist and Registered Civil engineer and shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Building Department prior to issuance of a grading permit. 21. Prior to issuance of any grading permit, an erosion, siltation, and dust control plan shall be submitted, and shall be subject to the approval of the Building Department. 22. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, the design engineer shall verify that the discharge of surface runoff from development of any site will be performed in a manner so that increased peak flows from the site will not increase erosion immediately downstream of the system. As part of this review, the velocity of concentrated runoff from the project shall be evaluated, and erosive velocities controlled as part of the final project design. This report shall be reviewed by the Planning Department and approved by the Building Department. 23. Erosion control measures contained in the erosion siltation and dust control plan shall be implemented on any exposed slopes within 30 days after grading, or as otherwise directed by the Building Department. 24. Any existing on-site drainage facilities shall be improved as required, or updated concurrent with grading and development, to the satisfaction of the Public Works and Building Departments. Improvement plans shall be approved by the Public Works Department prior to issuance of a grading permit. 25. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant (or applicant's grading contractor) shall provide to the Building and Public Works Departments haul route plans that include nETCHER JONES MOTORCARS AUGUST 24, M Page 12 i1 a description of haul routes, access points to the sites, and watering and sweeping program designed to minimize impacts of the haul operation. These plans shall be re- viewed and approved by the Public Works Department. Copies of the plans shall be submitted to the City's Planning Department. 26. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall incorporate the following erosion control methods into grading plans and operations to the satisfaction of the Build- ing Department. a. An approved material such as straw, wood chips, plastic or similar materials shall be used to stabilize graded areas prior to revegetation or construction. b. Airborne and vehicle borne sediment shall be controlled during construction by: the regular sprinkling of exposed soils and the moistening of vehicles loads. C. An approved material such as riprap (a ground cover of large, loose, angular stones) shall be used to stabilize any slopes with seepage problems to protect the topsoils in areas of concentrated runoff. 27. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project geotechnical consultant and/or civil engineer shall develop a plan for the diversion of stormwater away from any exposed slopes during grading and construction activities. The plan shall include the use of temporary right-of-way diversions (i.e., berms or swales) located at disturbed areas or graded right-of-ways. The plan will be approved by the Public Works and Building Departments, and implemented during grading and construction activities. 28. The applicant shall provide a temporary gravel entrance located at every construction site entrance. The location of this entrance shall be incorporated into grading plans ,prior to the issuance of grading permits. To reduce or eliminate mud and sediment carried by vehi- cles or runoff onto public rights-of-way, the gravel shall cover the entire width of the entrance, and its length shall be no less than 50 feet. The entrance plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works and Building Departments concurrent with review and approval of grading plans. 29. The applicant shall construct filter berms or other approved devise for the temporary gravel entrance. The berms shall consist of a ridge of gravel placed across graded right- of-ways to decrease and filter runoff levels while permitting construction traffic to continue. The location of berms shall be incorporated into grading plans prior to the issuance of grading permits. The plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works and Building Departments. 30. During grading and construction, the applicant shall provide a temporary sediment basin located at the point of greatest runoff from any construction area. The location of this basin shall be incorporated into grading plans. It shall consist of an embankment of compacted soils across a drainage. The basin shall not be located in an area where its FLETCHER JONES MOTORCARS AUGUST 24, 1995 Page 13 r failure would lead to loss of life or the loss of service of public utilities or roads. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Building Department. 31. Notice of Intent. Prior to the approval of a grading permit, the project sponsor shall submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the appropriate fees for coverage of the project under the General Construction Activity Storm Water Runoff Permit to the State Water Resources Control Board at least 30 days prior to initiation of construction activity at the site. The NOI shall include information about the project such as construction activities, material building/management practices, site characteristics, and receiving water informa- tion. As required by the General Construction Permit, the project shall develop and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), including inspection of stormwater con- trols structures and pollution prevention measures. The SWPPP shall be implemented concurrent with the beginning of the construction activities, and the plan shall be kept on site. 32. Structural BMP Controls. Prior to the issuance of any Grading Permit, the project proponent shall ensure that the project includes implementation of appropriate structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce the extent of pollutants in stormwater flows from the site. Said structural BMPs shall meet the approval of the Public Works Department. The following structural BMPs are suggested for consideration at the pro- ject site: • Grassed or landscaped swales • Reduction in the amount of directly connected impervious area (DCIA) • Inlet trash racks or bars • Filter strips. Maintenance of the selected structural BMPs will be required throughout the life of the project to ensure proper operation. 33. Non -Structural BMP Controls. Prior to the issuance of certificates of use and occupancy, the project proponent shall submit an operations plan that ensures that the project operation shall include non-structural BMPs, including the following: Periodic cleaning (i.e., street sweeping) Routinely cleaning on-site storm drain manholes and catch basins Source control surveys of all on-site industrial facilities METCHER JONES MOTORCARS AUGUST 24, 1995 Page 14 6 • Controlling washdown of non-stormwater discharges from project development facilities • Providing information to employees on disposal of waste oil, grease, and pesticide containers • Carefully controlling pesticide and fertilizer usage • Providing covered areas for trash receptacles, or enclosed features to prevent direct contact with precipitation • Efficient landscaping irrigation • Common area litter control • Housekeeping of loading docks. All non-structural BMPs shall meet the approval of the Public Works Department. 34. Water Quality Management Plan. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, consistent with the Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) prepared by the County of Orange for compliance with their municipal storm water NPDES permit requirement, the project proponent shall prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). Said WQMP shall meet the approval of the Public Works Department. The WQMP shall indicate the proposed structural and non-structural, permanent stormwater quality control measure. to be utilized for the project, shall identify the potential pollutant source on the project, and shall describe how the project implements the objectives outlined in the DAMP. 35. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the final plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities shall be approved by the Public Works Department. Any systems shown to be required by the review shall be the responsibility of the developer, unless otherwise provided for through an agreement with the property owner or serving agency. 36. Prior to approval of building permits, the project should contribute, on a fair share basis, towards the cost of the improvement at the intersection of Jamboree Road/Bristol Street North. Said contributions shall meet with the approval of the Director of Public Works. 37. Standard dust control practices dictated by SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be followed. 38. The applicant shall specify the use of concrete, emulsified asphalt, or asphaltic cement, none of which produce significant quantities of VOC emissions. 39. Any rooftop or other mechanical equipment shall be sound attenuated in such a manner as to achieve a maximum sound level of 55 dBA at the property line. FLETCHER JONES MOTORCARS AUGUST 24, 1995 Page 15 40. Any mechanical equipment and emergency power generators shall be screened from view, and noise associated with said installations shall be sound attenuated so as not to exceed 55 dBA at the property line. The latter shall be based upon the recommendations of a licensed engineer practicing in acoustics, and shall be approved by the Planning Department. 41. Pursuant to the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Section 10.28.040, construction adjacent to existing residential development shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. Con- struction shall not be allowed outside of these hours Monday through Saturday or at any time on Sundays and federal holidays. Verification of this shall be provided to the Planning Department. 42. Final project design will include measures to buffer the project from adjacent wetland areas, including the SJHTC mitigation site and the existing wetland adjacent to the southeast corner of the project. The final buffer design shall be approved by the California Department of Fish and Game and the California Coastal Commission. While a combination of landscaping and the presence of the Bayview extension may be considered adequate to buffer the project from the SJHTC mitigation site, additional measures will likely be required for the nearer existing wetland site. Design measures to be considered include a five foot high concrete block wall or equivalent barrier that will preclude human access from the project site and reduce the effects of human activity. 43. Impacts resulting from the use of non-native, invasive plant species will be mitigated by developing a landscape plan that avoids the use of non-native invasive plants. A landscape plan prepared with consideration of the following information must be approved by the City prior to the issuance of building permits: Prohibited Species All non-native plants that are potentially invasive via airborne seeds, or that are particularly difficult to control once escaped, will be prohibited from all parts of the project. Such species include, but are not limited to, the following: • Tree -of -heaven (Ailanthus spp.) • Giant reed (Arundo donax) " • Garland chrysanthemum (Chrysanthemum coronarium) • Pampas grass (Cortaderia spp.) • Brooms (Cytisus spp.) • Bermuda buttercup (Oxalispes-caprae) • Fountain/Kikuyu grass (Pennisetum spp.) • German ivy (Senecio mikanoides) • Tamarisk (Tamarix spp.). FLETCHERJONES MOTORCARS AUGUST 24, 1995 Page 16 15 Permitted Species Some invasive, exotic species are known to be controllable in well managed situations. Such species may be used in project landscaping if a City approved biologist approves the species and proposed use. For example, areas that are separated from existing wetland areas by a substantial area of paving could be planted with hybrid bermuda grass. Non- native, invasive species that could be used under these circumstances include, but are not limited to, the following: • Hottentot -fig (Cwpohrotus edulis)2 • Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon)3 • Myoporum (Myoporum laetum) • Pepper trees (Schinus spp.) • Cape Honeysuckle (Tecomaria capensis)1 • Periwinkle (Vinca spp.). 44. The effects of night lighting on adjacent natural areas, including the SJHTC mitigation site, will be reduced by the design of lighting that is either low intensity or highly directional. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a lighting plan shall be approved by the City, demonstrating that appropriate lighting will be installed for the display area, parking lots and areas adjacent to wetlands to minimize spillage into the habitat areas. The plan will include, but not be limited to, lighting directed onto the project site, and the use of soft light intensity fixtures. Prior to the issuance of any certificate of use and occupancy, the project proponent shall provide evidence, meeting the approval of the City, that the installed lighting meets the objectives of the plan. If necessary, shields on the back of lights or other screening shall be placed to cut off light beyond project area. 45. Prior to the issuance of grading permits for the project, a detailed Interim Habitat Loss Mitigation Plan (MNT) shall be prepared by the City and submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) for approval. The purpose of these measures is to increase the amount and quality of scrub habitat that can be utilized by the California gnatcatcher and other species that require this habitat. This will both compensate for the project induced loss of potential breeding habitat and increase the potential for wildlife movement by increasing the size of important populations. 2 Should be prohibited in areas adjacent to natural open spaces. Hybrid Bermuda grass, which is sterile or produces only sterile seed, should be permitted in landscaped areas, when surrounded by an appropriate hardscape buffer or an apron of non-invasive plant species (to prevent vegetative spread into natural areas). nXTCHER JONES MOTORCARS AUGUST 24, 1995 Page 17 / The specific habitat replacement and exotic weed removal measures discussed below are to be incorporated into the detailed H- LMP, although they may be modified with the approval of the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The detailed HUTAP will include the following elements: • Overview/Objective • Plant Palettes and Planting Densities • Planting Methods and Timing • Site Preparation • Exotic Weed Removal • Irrigation • Maintenance • Performance Standards • Monitoring • Remedial Measures. The implementation of these measures will occur at the first feasible opportunity, with consideration of site preparation and plant propagule collection requirements. 46. An approximately 3.5 acre portion of the City owned property hi the Big Canyon area adjacent to Upper Newport Bay shall be restored/converted to coastal sage scrub habitat. It is estimated that the additional habitat to be created is sufficient to increase the California gnatcatcher population by at least one pair. 47. As part of the Big Canyon restoration effort, the City will implement a three year program for the removal of pampas grass and myoporum from City property in the mouth of Big Canyon (Figure 4.7.2). The first year will concentrate on initial removal at an appropriate time of year, i.e., prior to seed formation. The following two years will consist of spot removal of new seedlings or root sprouts. 48. City Council Policy K-5 outlines the City's requirements with respect to archaeological resources. The following specific measures are recommended in conformance with Policy K-5. A. A qualified archaeologist shall be present during pregrade meetings to inform the project sponsor and grading contractor of the results of any previous studies. In addition, an archaeologist shall be present during grading activities to inspect the underlying soil for cultural resources. If significant cultural resources are uncovered, the archaeologist shall have the authority to stop or temporarily divert construction activities for a period of 48 hours to assess the significance of the find. �. B. In the event that significant archaeological remains are uncovered during excavation and/or grading, all work shall stop in that area of subject property until an appropriate data recovery program can be developed and implemented. The cost of such a program shall be the responsibility of the project sponsor. METCHER )ONES MOTORCARS AUGUST 24, 1995 Page 18 )-D C. Prior to issuance of any grading or demolition permits, the applicant shall waive the provisions of AB 952 related to City of Newport Beach responsibilities for the mitigation of archaeological impacts in a manner acceptable to the City Attorney. 49. Any sites uncovered shall be mitigated pursuant to Council Policy K-5. Where further testing or salvage is required, the applicant shall select a City approved, qualified archaeologist to excavate a sample of the site. All testing and salvage shall be conducted prior to issuance of grading permits or use of an area for recreational purposes. A written report summarizing the findings of the testing and data recovery program shall be submitted to the Planning Department within 90 days of the completed data recovery program. 50. The applicant shall donate all archaeological material, historic, or prehistoric, recovered during the project to a local institution that has the proper facilities for curation, display and study by qualified scholars. All material shall be transferred to the approved facility after laboratory analysis and a report have been completed. The appropriate local institution shall be approved by the Planning Department based on a recommendation from the qualified archaeologist. 51. A pre -grade reconnaissance of the area shall be made by a qualified paleontologist to assess whether any significant fossils currently are exposed. Any fossils observed and deemed significant shall be salvaged. 52. A qualified paleontologist shall . be retained to monitor and, if necessary, salvage scientifically significant fossil remains. 53. The paleontologist shall have the power to temporarily divert or direct grading efforts to allow the evaluation and any necessary salvage of exposed fossils. 54. Monitoring shall be on a full-time basis during grading in geologic units of high paleontologic sensitivity. 55. Spot-checking of low sensitivity sediments shall be conducted by a qualified paleontologist. Should significant fossils be observed during grading in these units, full- time monitoring may be required. 56. All collected fossils shall be donated to a museum approved by the City of Newport Beach Planning Department. 57. A final report summarizing findings, including an itemized inventory and contextual stratigraphic data, shall accompany the fossils to the designated repository; an additional copy shall be sent to the appropriate Lead Agency. 58. A landscape screen and/or equivalent barrier shall be constructed along the northeastern project boundary to screen service areas from view from the Jamboree Road southbound on-ramp and from the bicycle trail that will parallel the on-ramp. FLETCHER JONES MOTORCARS AUGUST 24, 1995 Page 19 59 we Prior to approval of a grading permit, grading specifications for the project shall require the following to the satisfaction of the Building Department: a) All trash on the site shall be disposed of properly. b) Hazardous materials residue in the vicinity of the five gallon solvent can and the tar residue identified on the wood debris and soils shall be removed and disposed of properly. After removal of the debris, soils in the vicinity of the contaminated sites shall be tested to ensure proper cleanup, per the recommendations of the environmental remediation engineer. c) Creosote treated power poles shall be removed and disposed of properly upon relocation, per the recommendations of the environmental remediation engineer. d) Any abandoned septic tanks systems encountered during grading shall be disposed of properly, per City of Newport Beach requirements. Prior to the approval of a grading permit, the project proponent shall determine the appropriate method of wastewater disposal to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. 61. If disposal through a septic tank system is selected, the project proponent shall construct the system in compliance with "On -Site Sewage Absorption System Guidelines" prepared by the Orange County Health Care Agency. Consistency with said guidelines shall be determined by the Public Works Department prior to issuance of a grading permit for any septic tank facilities. The septic tank shall be operated in a manner to avoid pollution of local groundwater supplies. D General Plan Amendment No. 95-1(D): Adopt Resolution No. recommending City Council approval of GPA 95-1(D). C Local Coastal Local Coastal Prowam Amendment No. 39Amendment No. 39• Adopt Resolution No. recommending City Council approval of Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 39. D. Amendment No. 823: Adopt Resolution No. recommending City Council approval of Amendment No. 823. HXTCHER JONES MOTORCARS AUGUST 24, 1995 Page 20 E Trac Studv Na 108: Findin 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the peak -hour traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Policy, S-1. 2. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project -generated traffic will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic on any'major,"primary-modified,' or'primary street. 3. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project -generated traffic will be greater than one percent of the existing traffic during the 2.5 hour peak period on six of the nineteen study intersections and that the ICU analysis for five of those six intersections indicates that the resulting ICU is not made worse and is not considered a significant impact. Conditions: That per the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) Analysis, no significant project impacts are identified. Currently scheduled and fully -funded projects will be completed prior to or at project occupancy to off -set any project impacts. 2. That in the General Plan buildout, the project contributes towards a significant impact at the intersection of Jamboree Road/Bristol Street North. That the project should .contribute, on a fair share basis, towards the cost of the improvements identified at that project study area intersection. F. Use Permit No. 3565, Approve the use permit, making the following findings and with the following conditions of approval: Findings: 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. That adequate on-site parking is available for the existing and proposed uses. 3. That the proposed development will not have any significant environmental impact. 4. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easernents acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. 5. That the Police Department has indicated that they do not contemplate any problems from the proposed operation. FLETCHER JONES MOTORCARS AUGUST 24, 1995 Page 21 �� 6. That the proposed use of roof top parking will not, under the circumstances of this particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the city. 7. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code. That adequate provision for vehicular traffic circulation is being made for the auto sales facility. 9. The approval of Use Permit No. 3565 will not, under the circumstances of the case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and fiuther that the proposed modification related to the proposed signing is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. Conditions: That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plan and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That the required on-site parking be provided consistent with the approved site plan 3. That all signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.06 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Said signs shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer if located adjacent to the vehicular ingress and egress.. 4. That the project shall comply with State Disabled Access requirements. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 6. That the on-site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. 7. That the intersection of the private drives at Bayview Way be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 50 miles per hour. Slopes, landscape, walls and other obstruction shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight line shall not exceed twenty four inches in height. The sight distance requirement may be modified at non- critical locations, subject to approval of the Traffic Engineer. That the applicant shall prepare a landscape plan to be approved prior to the issuance of Building Permits. Said plan shall be approved by the Public Works Department, Planning Department, and the General Services Department. 9. That asphalt or concrete access roads shall be provided to all public utilities, vaults, manholes, and junction structure locations, with width to be approved by the Public Works Department. H.ETCHER JONES MOTORCARS AUGUST 24, 1995 Page22 �� 10. That all vehicular access rights to Jamboree Road be released and relinquished to the City of Newport Beach. 11. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits... 12. That the construction of the Bayview Way improvements be in accordance with the agreements between the City of Newport Beach and Fletcher Jones Motor Cars. That a sidewalk be constructed along the Jamboree Road frontage. All work within the public right- of-way shall be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 13. That street, drainage and utility improvements be shown on standard improvement plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer. 14. That a drainage plan be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Public Works Department. Any modification or extensions to the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown to be required by the study shall be the responsibility of the developer. 15. That the Edison transformer serving the site be located outside the sight distance planes as described in City Standard 110-L. 16. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways, and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. A traffic control plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. There shall be no construction storage or delivery of materials within the Jamboree Road right-of-way. 17. That a fire protection system acceptable to the Fire Department be installed by the developer and tested by the Fire Department prior to storage of any combustible materials or start of any structural framing. 18. That the developer obtain permission from the Metropolitan Water District and Mesa Consolidated Water District to construct within their easements. 19. That the raised island nose at the entrance/exit shall be pulled back so that it is entirely on private property. 20. That the landscaping at the entrance shall conform to City sight Distance Standard No. 110-L 21. That HC (handicap) parking be shown on the parking plan and that adequate customer and employee parking be provided to current City standards. All handicap parking shall be designated with a sign and pavement marling. =CHER JONES MOTORCARS AUGUST 24, 1995 Page 23 �� 22. That the monument signs, slopes, walls and landscaping along the Jamboree Road frontage shall be considered in the site distance requirements. The Bayview Way and Jamboree Road intersection shall be designed to provide sight distance of 50 miles per hour. / 23. That all unloading and loading of vehicles shall be done on-site. 24. That site access shall be provided for emergency access per City Fire/Marine and Public Works standards. 25. That on-site fire hydrants shall be provided as required in the Uniform Building Code and Fire/Marine standards. 26. That all buildings shall be fully sprinklered per NFPA 13 and Flre/Marine standards. 27. That the applicant shall provide fire protection equipment and devices associated with special hazards presented in design of the facility and protect those hazards as prescribed in the Uniform Building Code and nationally recognized standards as approved by the Fire/Marine Departments. 28. That all automobile servicing, repair, washing and detailing shall be conducted within the building. 29. That all wash water shall drain into the sanitary sewer system and that grease traps shall be provided in all drains where petroleum residues may enter the sewer system, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department and the Public Works Department. 30. That the illumination of any open automobile display area or roof top parking area shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to eliminate direct light and glare on adjoining properties southerly and westerly of the site. A timing device shall turn off any light facing towards the residential properties or neighboring properties at 10:00 p.m. every night. Said design features shall be incorporated into a lighting plan prepared and signed by a Licensed Electrical Engineer, with a letter from the engineer stating that, in his opinion, that these requirements have been met. That the lighting and illumination plan for the roof top parking area shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Director. 31. That no outdoor loudspeaker or paging system shall be permitted in conjunction with the proposed operation unless otherwise approved the Planning Department. 32. That no windshield signs shall be permitted, and that all signs shall meet the requirements of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code. 33. That no banners, pennants, balloons, wind signs, moving signs, or flashing or animated electrical signs shall be displayed. 34. That a Use Permit shall be required for the establishment of a restaurant that is open to the general public, within the facility. RLETCHER JONES MOTORCARS AUGUST 24, 1995 Page 24 (� 35. That the project comply with the Uniform Building Code, disabled access, and energy regulations. 36. Health Department approval is required for the food establishment located within the project. 37. That where grease may be introduced into the drainage systems, grease interceptors shall be installed on all fixtures as required by the.Uniform Plumbing Code, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department and the Utilities Department. 38. That all employees shall park on-site. 39. That the hours of operation shall be limited between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. daily. - 40. That all trash areas shall be screened from adjoining properties and streets. 41. That the project shall be designed to eliminate light and glare spillage on adjacent uses. 42. That a washout area for refuse containers be provided in such a way as to allow direct drainage into the sewer system and not into the Bay or storm drains, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department and the Public Works Department. 43. That. Coastal Commission approval shall be obtained prior to issuance of anygrading or building permits unless .otherwise approved by the Public Works Department and the Planning Department. 44. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this Use Permit or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this Use Permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this Use Permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 45. That this Use Permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. G. Development Agreement No. 6 (CIOSA): Adopt Resolution No. recommending City Council approval of Revisions to Development Agreement No. 6. H. Development Agreement No. 9. Adopt Resolution No. recommending City Council approval of Development Agreement No. 9. n ETCHER JONES MOTORCARS AUGUST 24, 1995 Page 25 y? 1. APPENDIX 'W' LOCATION: 3300 Jamboree, that portion of Lot 146, Block 51, of Irvine's Subdivision, .as shown a map recorded in Book 1, Page 88 of Miscellaneous Maps, Records of Orange County, California and that portion of Lot 145, Block 50, of Irvine's Subdivision, as shown a map recorded in Book 1, Page 88 of Vascellaneous Maps, Records of Orange County, California ZONE: PC APPLICANT: Fletcher Jones, Jr., OWNER: City of Newport Beach Environmental Compliance (California Environmental Quality Act) In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and City Council Policy K-3, a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) has been prepared to evaluate the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. The DEIR was published on June 19th for a 45 -day public review period that extended through Thursday, August 3, 1995 Copies of the DEIR were distributed to the Commission previously, and were also made available to all interested parties without charge. Detailed responses to each comment letter received during the public review period will be provided to the Commission prior to the public hearing. Responses to late comments will also be provided within a reasonable time after receipt of the comments. Since this property is located in the Coastal Zone, Coastal Commission approval will be required prior to issuance of any building or grading permits. Summary Response to the Key Issues Detailed Traffic Analysis A traffic study was required to determine the compatibility of the proposed project under the guidelines of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. A traffic study has been prepared for the proposed project in conformance with the City`s Traffic Phasing Ordinance and City Council Policy S-1 to examine the consistency and conformity of the project with the City's Circulation Element. The City Traffic Engineer identified the following nineteen (19) intersections for detailed evaluation in the traffic study. 1. Jamboree Road/Campus Drive 2. Jamboree Road/Bristol Street North FLETCHER JONES MOTORCARS AUGUST 24, 1995 Page 26 �� 3. Jamboree Road/Bristol Street South 4. Jamboree RoadBayview Way 5. Jamboree Road/University Drive 6. Jamboree Road/Bison Avenue 7. Jamboree Road/Ford Road 8. Jamboree Road/San Joaquin Hills Road 9. Jamboree Road/East Coast Highway 10. MacArthur Boulevard/Campus Drive 11. MacArthur Boulevard/Jamboree Road 12. MacArthur Boulevard/ Bison Avenue 13. MacArthur Boulevard/Ford Road 14. MacArthur Boulevard/San Joaquin Hills Road 15. MacArthur Boulevard/East Coast Highway 16. Campus Drive/ Bristol Street North 17. Campus Drive/ Bristol Street South 18. Birch street/Bristol Street North 19. Birch Street/Bristol Street South The first step in evaluating an intersection's traffic volume capacity, based on a General Plan Buildout, is to conduct a 1% traffic volume analysis, taking into consideration existing traffic, regional growth, and committed projects that the City has granted approvals. If the project's generated traffic is less than one percent traffic volume on all approach segments to the selected intersections during the projected peak 2-1/2 hour volume in either the morning or afternoon, then the project's traffic impact is considered insignificant and in compliance with the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance requirement. In the event that the project's generated traffic exceeds the one percent traffic volume analysis on any approach leg to any of the selected intersections, then further analysis would be required which consists of Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis. The one percent traffic volume test was applied to the selected intersections and six of the intersections exceeded the maximum one percent volume test. The intersection of Jamboree Road/Bristol Street North, Jamboree Road/Bristol Street South, Jamboree Road/Bayview Way, Jamboree Road/University Drive, Jamboree Road/Bison Avenue, Jamboree Road/Ford Road, Jamboree Road/San Joaquin Hills Road, Jamboree Road/East Coast Highway, MacArthur Boulevard/Janiboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard/ Bison Avenue, MacArthur Boulevard/San Joaquin Hills Road and Campus Drive/ Bristol Street South exceed 1% of the intersection traffic volume; therefore, further ICU analysis for these intersections became necessary. As required by the TPO implementation guidelines, critical intersections, where project volumes exceed the one percent test volumes, will need mitigation if the project causes an intersection to exceed an ICU of 0.90 or makes worse an intersection that already exceeds the 0.90 threshold during the a.m. or p.m. peak hour. The ICU analysis worksheets for the 12 intersections examined in the City of Newport Beach are presented in Appendix `B" of the Traffic Study which was included with the EIR. The ICU analysis indicates that eight of the twelve intersections will not exceed the 0.90 ICU threshold value for the cumulative and existing plus cumulative plus project conditions. These intersections are FLETCHER JONES MOTORCARS AUGUST 24, 1995 Page 27 y�r i located at Jamboree Road/Bristol Street North, Jamboree Road/Bayview Way, Jamboree Road/University Drive, Jamboree Road/Bison Avenue, Jamboree Road/Ford Road, Jamboree Road/San Joaquin 10s Road, Jamboree Road/East Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard/ Bison Avenue and will operate at acceptable levels of service for both peak periods. The ICU analysis indicates that two of the intersections will exceed the 0.90 ICU threshold value for the cumulative and existing plus cumulative plus project conditions. These critical intersections are located at MacArthur Boulevard/Jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard/San Joaquin H1lls Road, however, will not make worse the intersections' ICU values and are not considered a sigllificant project impact. The ICU analysis also indicates that the remaining two intersections will exceed the 0.90 ICU threshold value for the cumulative and existing plus cumulative plus project conditions and make worse by 0.01 or greater the ICU at the Jamboree Road/Bristol Street South and Campus Drive/ Bristol Street South intersections. The Traffic Study also indicates that the TPO guidelines provide that any reasonably foreseeable improvement projects which may affect the study area intersections be included in the TPO analysis. Therefore, improvements identified in the traffic study included in Volume II Appendices of the EIR indicate that forecasted improvements will reduce the project contribution at the intersection of Campus Drive/Bristol Street South intersection to a level below the "One -Percent" threshold and off- set any project contribution to the overall ICU value, thereby negating any project impacts at this intersection. Improvements at the intersection of Jamboree Road/Bristol Street South will reduce the ICU values of the a.m. and p.m. peaks to 0.83 and 0.85, respectively, well under the 0.90 thra>hoid. Vehicular Access To The Site Access to the site will be provided from the proposed extension of Bayview Way from its existing terminus at Jamboree Road easterly for approximately 600 feet to the on site wetland area. The project, as proposed, would not encroach into the wetland area. The proposed roadway alignment would accommodate the future extension of Bayview Way (University Drive North) through the wetland area as depicted on the City of Newport Beach General Plan. The extension of this roadway is not a part of the project and is not considered necessary to accommodate the traffic anticipated to be generated by the proposed project. Restaurant Facility The attached floor plan also denotes an 1,800 square foot bistro within the subject automobile facility. At the time of this application, the applicant does not have definite plans for the type of food use to be established. Said food establishment shall be subject to the approval of a Use Permit if the applicant is desirous of opening to the general public. An appropriate condition of approval has been included in this report. FLETCHER JONES MOTORCARS AUGUST 24, 1995 Page 28 Required Parking The Municipal Code and the San Diego Creek North /Jamboree - MacArthur Planned Community District Regulations do not contain any specific parking requirements for automobile sales facilities. The Planning Commission has traditionally required the provision of customer and employee parking at the same rate as would be required for general office uses. However, in this particular case, it is staffs opinion that 900 spaces would be adequate to serve the subject automobile sales facility. Proposed Height Limit The land formation of the proposed site is being altered to accommodate the proposed development. In order to obtain access from Bayview Way, site development will require the export of approximately 160,000 cubic yards of soil, due to the fact that the site topography is currently too high to accommodate site access from the proposed Bayview Way. Due to the large amount of exportation of soil involved, the new grat!'e established on the site will be approximately 27 feet below the existing grades on the site. The proposed building for the automobile sales facility is approximately 32 feet in height with a 37 foot parapet wall located over the main showroom display area. It is staffs opinion that the proposed building is designed in accordance with Chapter 20.02 of the Municipal Code, in that the measurement of height is measured from the site's existing elevations and contours, and the new finished grade is substantially lower than the site's existing grades. ft 2. "P, ;,* FLETCRERJONES MOTORCARS AUGUST 24, 1995 Page 29 3� 3,7- RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE SAN DIEGO CREEK NORTH SITE FROM ADMINISTRATIVE, PROFESSIONAL AND FINANCIAL COMMERCIAL (APF) TO RETAIL AND SERVICE COMMERCIAL (RSC) AND ESTABLISH THE PERMITTED INTENSITY OF DEVELOPMENT. [GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 95-1(D)] WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the Newport Beach General Plan the Land Use Element has been prepared; and WHEREAS, the Land Use Element sets forth objectives, supporting policies and limitations for development in the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, the Land Use Element designates the general distribution and general location and extent of the uses of land and building intensities in a number of ways, including residential land use categories and population projections, commercial floor area limitations, and the floor area ratio ordinances; and WHEREAS, the Land Use and Circulation Elements are correlated as required by California planning law; and WHEREAS, the provisions and policies of the Land Use and Circulation Elements are further implemented by the traffic analysis procedures of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance and the implementation programs of that Ordinance and the Fair Share Traffic Contribution Fee Ordinance; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 707 of the Charter of the City of Newport Beach, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing to consider Amendment No. 95-1(D) to the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan; and WHEREAS, Draft EIR No. 155 has been prepared for the proposed project in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. �3 1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach that General Plan Amendment 95-1(D), which would redesignate the site from Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial (APF) to Retail and Service Commercial(RSC) on the San Diego Creek North Site is recommended for approval by the City Council as follows: Land Use Element: Page 73 3. San Diego Creek North This site is located on Jamboree Road easterly of the Bayview Planned Community. The site is designated forti^i.:e, Professional and Finaneial Commercial Retail and Service Commercia&R.SC,� land use and is allocated a floor area ratio of 0.5/0.75. 112,000 square feet. ADOPTED this day of , 1995, by the following vote, to wit: TOD RIDGEWAY CHAIRMAN BY MICHAEL KRANZLEY SECRETARY AYES NOES ABSENT FAWP51 \PLANNING\IPUBNOT\FLETCHRJ\RES-GPA.DOC l RESOLUTION NO. 95 = A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 39 FOR THE SAN DIEGO CREEK NORTH SITE WHEREAS, the Coastal Act of 1976 requires the City of Newport Beach to prepare a local coastal program, and WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the Coastal Act, a Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan has been prepared; and WHEREAS, said Land Use Plan sets forth objectives and supporting policies which serve as a guide for future development in coastal areas of the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a duly noticed public hearing to consider a certain amendment to the Land Use Plan of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Quality Act an Environmental Impact has been prepared for the proposed project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach that an amendment to the Land Use Plan of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program is recommended for approval to the City Council, as follows: Page 68: 3. San Diego Creek North This site is located on Jamboree Road easterly of the Bayview Planned Community. The site is designated for Adaiii4strative,PFO&SSiOnal and Financial Ce is Retail and Service Commercial(RSC)1and use and is allocated a floor area ratio of 0.5/0.75. 112,000 square feet. A Fire Statien r-esefvatien ef 2.5 aer-es is else designated in this area. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission has read and considered the information contained in the draft Environmental Impact Report, and determines that it is adequate to serve as the environmental documentation for the project. 36 i ADOPTED this day of , 1995, by the following vote, to wit: A NOES ABSENT Im TOD RIDGEWAY CHAIRMAN BY MICHAEL KRANZLEY SECRETARY RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE THE PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS FOR THE SAN DIEGO CREEK NORTH AND JAMBOREE/MACARTHUR PLANNED COMMUNITY (PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENT NO. 823) WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the Newport Beach General Plan the Land Use Element has been prepared; and WHEREAS, the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides specific procedures for the implementation of Planned Community zoning for properties within the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, the proposed revisions to the Planned Community District Regulations are consistent with the Newport Beach General Plan, as proposed by the accompanying General Plan Amendment No. 95-1 (D); and and WHEREAS, the proposed project meets the criteria of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby recommend approval by the City Council an amendment to the San Diego Creek North and Jamboree/MacArthur Planned Community District Regulations as attached hereon as Exhibit 1. ADOPTED this day of August, 1995, by the following vote, to wit: AYES NOES ABSENT BY _ TOD RIDGEWAY CHAIRMAN BY MICHAEL KRANZLEY SECRETARY Attachment: Exhibit 1 EXHIBIT 1 AMENDMENT NO. 823 SAN DIEGO CREEK NORTH AND JAMBOREE/MACARTHUR PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS Prepared for: City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Prepared by: The Irvine Company 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92658-8904 Adopted Ordinance No. Amendment No. i mow. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. Introduction 1 Section I General Notes 4 Section II Permitted Uses 5 List of Figures Figure I General Site Location 2 Figure II Land Use Plan 3 Figure III Statistical Analysis 7 INTRODUCTION PURPOSE AND INTENT The San Diego Creek North and Jamboree/MacArthur Planned Community (P -C) Districts Regulations have been developed in compliance with the City of Newport Beach General Plan. This P -C has also been developed pursuant to Chapter 20.51 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The intent of these District Regulations is to provide for the retention of the sites as open space and public facilities areas with selected permitted uses; and the establishment of an area for an automobile dealership facility with sales and repair; support retail and food uses. �I VI f'L `♦ °isr 'Puml�UNITY -- �. R/Cr aLC - MACgRThIUR NOT To SCALE 2 4p� SAN DIEGO CREEK CHANNEL RETAIL +SERVICE COMMERCIAL OPEN SPACE/PUBLIC FACILITIES NATURAL OPEN SPACE LAND USE PLAN Q`% SAKI DIEGO CREEK NJJAMDOREE MAC ARTHUR PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT -N- �I3 NOT TO SCALE SECTION I GENERAL NOTES 1. WATER SERVICE Water within the Planned Community will be furnished by the City of Newport Beach. 2. GRADING AND EROSION Grading and erosion control shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the City of Newport Beach Grading Ordinance and shall be subject to permits issued by the Building and Planning Departments. SECTION II PERMITTED USES The following are permitted uses within the natural open space area (Area 1): 1. Preservation and restoration of existing habitat and wetlands. 2. Habitat and wetland creation and enhancement. 3. Ecological and agricultural research. 4. Utilities 5. Equestrian, pedestrian and bicycle trails. The following are permitted uses within the open space/public facilities area (Area 2): 1. Preservation and restoration of existing habitat and wetlands. 2. Passive and active public recreation facilities such as hiking, biking, scenic outlooks, picnicking and equestrian trails. 3. Biotic gardens. 4. Other uses that the Planning Commission finds compatible with the natural amenities of this parcel. S. Transportation corridors, appurtenant facilities, arterial highways and vehicular access to the other permitted uses. 6. Utilities and water tanks. 7. Fuel modifications zones. 5 76 S. Park and ride faeiiity. J Fire statTeR -1-G8. Drainage and flood control facilities. 449. Any grading necessary for the permitted uses. 4_2L10. Off-site directional sign. 4311. Enhanced landscaped corner. The following are permitted uses within the open space/public facilities area (Area 3): 1. Preservation and restoration of existing habitat and wetlands. 2. Passive public recreation uses. l 3. Biotic gardens. 4. Other uses that the Planning Commission finds compatible with the natural amenities of this parcel. 5. Transportation corridors, appurtenant facilities, arterial highways and vehicular access to the other permitted uses. 6. Utilities and water tanks. 7. Fuel modifications zones. 8. Drainage and flood control facilities. 9. Any grading necessary for the permitted uses. 10. Off-site directional signs. 11. Enhanced landscaped corner. The following are permitted uses within the retail service commercial area (Area 4): 1. Accessory support retail 2. Specialty Food Establishments in accordance with Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 3. Signs in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 4. Preservation and restoration of existing habitat and wetlands. S. Passive and active public recreation facilities such as hiking, biking, scenic outlooks, picnicking and equestrian trail -- 6. Biotic aardens. 7. Other uses that the Planning Commission finds compatible with the natural amenities of this parcel. 8. Transportation corridors, appurtenant facilities, arterial hiahways and vehicular access to the other permitted uses. 9. Utilities and water tanks. 10. Fuel modifications zones. 11. Drainage and flood control facilities. 12. Any grading necessary for the permitted uses. 13. Off-site directional signs. 14. Enhanced landscaped corner. THE FOLLOWING ARE PERMITTED USES SUBJECT TO THE SECURING OF A USE PERMIT: 7 47 1. Automobile sales facilities, subject to the securing of a use permit. 2. Automobile repair facilities only in conjunction with new or used cars sales facilities as the primary use, subject to the securing of a use permit. 3. Restaurants, subject to the securing of a use permit. =0 may. FIGURE III STATISTICAL ANALYSIS San Diego Creek North and Jamboree/MacArthur Type Open Space Open Space/Public Facilities 6 n Diego Greek Ner-th— Total - Open Space Retail and Service Commercial ,jamboreeMaeA-i-thur Teta Acreage Acreage Area (Net) 1 2.0 2 12.E 3.07 3 4.7 4 9.63 San Diego Creek North & Jamboree/MacArthur TOTAL ::\...',PCTEXT\PCSDCN.892 19.4 9 q "I SECTION I. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Block 500 1. Project Area Net Acreage 19.66 2. Percentage of Site Coverage a. Building Footprint 20% maximum b. Landscape 30% minimum 3. Maximum building floor area will not exceed 397,046 square feet. 4. The square footage of individual building sites are subject to adjustment as long as the limitations on total development are not violated. Any adjustment in the square footages for each building site shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. S0 PCT—Ow A.C-t .s, ins 3 SECTION I. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Block 500 1. Project Area Net Acreage 2. Percentage of Site Coverage a. Building Footprint b. Landscape 19.66 20% maximum 30% minimum 3. Maximum building floor area will not exceed 398,112 square feet. 4. The square footage of individual building sites are subject to adjustment as long as the limitations on total development are not violated. Any adjustment in the square footages for each building site shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. �1 PCrW.5W3 6 . � RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE CIOSA AGREEMENT (DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 6) WHEREAS, the State Legislature and the City Council have determined that the lack of certainty in the approval of development projects can result in a waste of resources, escalate the cost of housing and other development to the consumer, and discourage investment in and commitment to comprehensive planning which would make maximum efficient utilization of resources at the least economic cost to the public; and WHEREAS, the assurance that an applicant may proceed with a project in accordance with existing policies, rules and regulations, and subject to conditions of approval, will strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning, and reduce the economic costs of development; and WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65864 et seq. authorizes cities to enter into development agreements with any person having a legal or equitable interest in real property for the development of the property; and WHEREAS, Chapter 15.45 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides requirements and procedures for the amendment of development agreements; and WHEREAS, Amendment No. 1 to Development Agreement No. 6 has been prepared in compliance with state law and the Newport Beach Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, in compliance with state law and city ordinance, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission to consider Amendment No. 1 to Development Agreement No. 6; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the Amendment is in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and Guidelines promulgated thereunder, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that said Amendment is in conformance with the Newport Beach General Plan, as proposed by accompanying General Plan Amendment No. 95-1 (D); and WHEREAS, the adoption of the Development Agreement Amendment will not preclude the City from conducting future discretionary reviews in connection with the project, nor 5� would it prevent the City from imposing conditions or requirements to mitigate significant impacts identified in such reviews provided that the measures do not render the project infeasible. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby recommends City Council approval of Amendment No. 1 to Development Agreement No. 6. ADOPTED this _ day of . 1995, by the following vote, to wit: AYES NOES ABSENT 131 TOD RIDGEWAY CHAIRMAN BY MICHAEL KRANZLEY SECRETARY Attachment: Exhibit 1: Amendment No. 1 to Development Agreement No. 6 F.\WP51\PLANNING\1PUBNOTV=CHRJ\RE01-DA6.DOC EXEMPT RECORDING REQUEST PER GOVERNMENT CODE 1 6103 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: City Clerk City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663-3884 FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENT AND OPEN SPACE AGREEMENT (Pursuant to Government Code Sections 65864-65869.5) This FIRST AMENDMENT ("Amendment") to the CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENT AND OPEN SPACE AGREEMENT (the " CIOSA ")is entered into this _day of , 1995, by and between the charter city ("City") and The Irvine Company, a Michigan corporation, ("Company"). City and Company are sometimes collectively referred to herein as the "Parties." RECITALS A. On June 30th, 1993, City and Company entered into the CIOSA, an agreement authorized pursuant to Government Code section 65867 and Chapter 15.45 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The CIOSA was recorded as Document No. 93-0479122 of the Official Records of Orange County, California. The CIOSA was entered into pursuant to Government Code section 65867 and Chapter 15.45 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. B. Along with other property owned by Company and described therein, the CIOSA applies to that area of City known as San Diego Creek North ("SDC North"). The CIOSA restricts use of SDC North to open space/ public facilities, consistent with City's Ordinance No. 92-39. C. City and Company are now in agreement that SDC North should be made available for use as the possible future site of an automobile dealership, consistent with the standards and requirements set forth in Exhibit " A " hereto, to the extent that SDC North is not required for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. Accordingly, City and Company desire to enter into this Amendment amending the CIOSA to permit development of SDC North with an automobile dealership. 1 AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration received by each part from the other, City and Company agree as follows: 1. Exhibit " D " to the CIOSA is hereby amended by changing the "DEVELOPMENT" column for SDC North from —Open Space" to "Open Space/Retail and Service Commercial," and the "DEVELOPMENT AREA (ACRES)" column for SDC North from "-0-" to "9.6. " 2. Exhibit —E: to the CIOSA is hereby amended by changing the "OPEN SPACE ACRES TO BE DEDICATED" column for SDC North from —8.611 to —0, " with an added footnote indicating dedication for commercial purposes. 3. Exhibit "I" to the CIOSA is hereby amended changing the Category 2 site limitations and related constraints map for San Diego Creek North. WHEREFORE, this Amendment is entered into effective the date first written above. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a Municipal corporation By: Mayor ATTESTS City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Robert H. Burnham City Attorney THE IRVINE COMPANY, a Michigan corporation By: By: 2 Gary H. Hunt Executive Vice President Peter D. Zeughauser Vice President & General Counsel EXHIBIT "D" CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENT AND OPEN SPACE AGREEMENT DEVELOPMENT AREA DATE: 11/24/92 # PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT AREA (ACRES) 1. SAN DIEGO CREEK SOUTH Residential - 300 D.U. 18.4 2. SAN DIEGO CREEK NORTH Aper &paces Retail and Service Commercial -9- 9.6 3. JAMBOREE/MAC ARTHUR Open Space -0- 4. UPPER CASTAWAYS Residential - 151 D.U. 26.0 5. BAYVIEW LANDING Restaurant - 10,000 S.F. or Health Club - 40,000 S.F. or Senior Residential - 120 D.U. 5.0 6. NEWPORTER NORTH Residential - 212 D.U. 30.0 7. BLOCK 800 Residential - 245 D.U. 6.4 8. CORPORATE PLAZA WEST Office - 94,000 S.F. 9.0 9. FREEWAY RESERVATION North Area South Area Residential - 36 D.U. Residential - 12. D.U. 7.5 3.5 10. NEWPORTER KNOLL Open Space -o- il. NEWPORTER RESORT Hotel - Additional 68 Rooms onsite 12. NEWPORT VILLAGE from library to San Miguel) Open Space -0- TOTAL 115.4 EXHIBIT "E" CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENT AND OPEN SPACE AGREEMENT OPEN SPACE DEDICATION DATE; 11/24/92 # PROPERTY OPEN SPACE ACRES TO BE DECICATED (4) TIMING OF DEDICATION 1. SAN DIEGO CREEK SOUTH 2.4 (3) 2. SAN DIEGO CREEK NORTH -0- (5) 3. JAMBOREE/MAC ARTHUR 4.7 (3) 4. UPPER CASTAWAYS 30.6 (2) 5. BAYVIEW LANDING 11.1 (1) 6. NEWPORTER NORTH 47.2 (2) 7. BLOCK 800 -0- N/A 8. CORPORATE PLAZA WEST -0- N/A 9. FREEWAY RESERVATION North Area South Area 17.3 -0- (2) N/A 10. NEWPORTER KNOLL 12.0 (1) 11. NEWPORTER RESORT -0- N/A 12. NEWPORT VILLAGE from library to San Miguel) 12.8 (4) TOTAL 138.1 (1) Open Space to be dedicated upon Effective Date of Agreement. (2) Open Space to be dedicated upon issuance of first building permit. (3) Open Space shall be offered for dedication upon issuance of last building permit of all projects contained in this Agreement. The Company may elect to waive this condition. (4) Open Space area to be dedicated upon issuance of first building permits for both Upper Castaways and Newporter North. (5) 8.6 acres will be dedicated to the City for commercial land use. CATEGORY 2 Definition. Category 2 sites have either a range of principal permitted uses or no specific delineation of a "development envelope" and "maximum extent of grading for non-public uses." (F through H) Sites included in this category are: F. JamboreeAlac Arthur G. San Diego Creek North H. Newporter Resort Future Discretionary Review: All uses on Jamboree/MacArthur and San Diego Creek—Nort#� would be subject to future CEQA/Coastal Development Permit review. Thus, for purposes of future Coastal Act and LCP review of Jamboree/MacArthur and-an—Diege Creek Notch, approval of the Development Agreement and Development Agreement Addendum provides the following: Deletion of office uses allowed by the approved Newport Beach LUP; Other public facility uses identified for each site in the Development Agreement PC text as found to be within the scope of the approved Newport Beach LUP but, due to absence of analysis of potential impacts and absence of development envelope/maximum grading maps, such uses are subject to full future discretionary review; No encroachment or loss of wetlands is approved and not other habitat - related findings are made other than that the habitat protection/restoration designation for the San Diego Creek north area bordering San Diego Creek is consistent with and in furtherance of Coastal Act Sections 30231 and 302233. The Impacts of the additional hotel rooms on the Newporter Resort would be subject to future CEQA/Coastal Development Permit requirements with full discretionary review. The impact of commercial development on the San Diego Creek North site will be subject to future CEQA/Coastal Development Permit requirements with full discretionary review. z < ell z < RESOLUTION NO. - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 9 WHEREAS, the State Legislature and the City Council have determined that the lack of certainty in the approval of development projects can result in a waste of resources, escalate the cost of housing and other development to the consumer, and discourage investment in and commitment to comprehensive planning which would make maximum efficient utilization of resources at the least economic cost to the public; and WHEREAS, the assurance that an applicant may proceed with a project in accordance with existing policies, rules and regulations, and subject to conditions of approval, will strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning, and reduce the economic costs of development; and WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65864 et seq. authorizes cities to enter into development agreements with any person having a legal or equitable interest in real property for the development of the property; and WHEREAS, Chapter 15.45 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides requirements and procedures for the amendment of development agreements; and WHEREAS, Development Agreement No. 9 has been prepared in compliance with state law and the Newport Beach Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, in compliance with state law and city ordinance, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission to consider Development Agreement No. 9; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that Development Agreement No. 9 is in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and Guidelines promulgated thereunder; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that said Development Agreement No. 9 is in conformance with the Newport Beach General Plan, as proposed by accompanying General Plan Amendment No. 95-1 (D); and WHEREAS, the adoption of the Development Agreement will not preclude the City from conducting future discretionary reviews in connection with the project, nor would it prevent the City from imposing conditions or requirements to mitigate significant impacts identified in such reviews provided that the measures do not render the project infeasible. bI NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby recommends City Council approval of Development Agreement No. 9. ADOPTED this _ day of , 1995, by the following vote, to wit: f31 TOD RIDGEWAY CHAIRMAN BY MICHAEL KRANZLEY SECRETARY Attachment: Exhibit 1: Development Agreement No. 9 AYES NOES /DM" FAWP51TLANNING\1PUBNOTTLETCHRARES-DM DOC M- 6),- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY September 8, 1995 TO: Mayor and Members of City Council FROM: Bob Burnham, City Attorney RE: Fletcher Jones Development Agreement CIOSA Amendment The Development Agreement introduced at the August 28, 1995 meeting contained certain typographical and clerical errors. Those errors have been corrected and the modifications do not change the substance of the Agreement. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council adopt Development Agreement No. 9. 'A - de/ccfletch.mem DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 9 TABLE OF CONTENTS ARTICLE I. Recitals II. Definitions and Rules of Interpretation III. Representations and Warranties IV. Commitments of City V. Commitments of Developer VI. Development of the Site VII. Special Provisions VIII. Defaults, Remedies and Termination IX. General Provisions PAGE P 1 DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THIS DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ("the Agreement") is made and entered into as of the day of , 1995, by and between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ("City") and Fletcher Jones Motor Cars, Inc. ("Developer"). I. RECITALS Section 1.01: City is a municipal corporation and charter city. City is authorized to enter into this Agreement pursuant to authority of California Government Code § 65864 et seq. and Chapter 15.45 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. ection 1.02: Developer is a corporation duly authorized to conduct business in the State of California. Section 1.03: 2 Developer currently owns and operates an automobile dealership on real property located at 1301 Quail Street in the City of Newport Beach. The Chief Executive Officer of Developer has operated automobile dealerships for 25 years. Developer has operated the Mercedes Benz automobile dealership for the past 3 1/2 years. Developer's operation has been successful but Developer does not own the property and the current location does not afford Developer any significant frontage on a major arterial highway. Developer has received offers to relocate the dealership to another city but would prefer to remain in the City of Newport Beach. Developer currently generates significant sales tax revenues for the City of Newport Beach and those revenues would be lost in the event of a relocation of the dealership to another jurisdiction and City services would suffer as a consequence. Section 1.04: City, in reliance on the special skill and ability of Developer to operate a successful automobile dealership and Developer's affiliation with Mercedes Benz, has undertaken efforts to retain Developer's automobile dealership in the City and desires to enter into this Agreement so that Developer will continue to operate the automobile dealership within the City for a minimum of 20 years. 3 Section 1.03: City has entered into an agreement with the Irvine Company ("TIC") pursuant to which City has the right to acquire a parcel consisting of approximately acres of vacant land commonly known as San Diego Creek North and legally described in Parcel A. City is currently negotiating with Cal Trans to acquire their interest in a 1.8 acre parcel of vacant land contiguous to, and immediately east of Parcel A and legally described in Exhibit B (Parcel B). City is also negotiating with the Transportation Corridor Agency to acquire a acre parcel of vacant land contiguous to, and immediately west of, Parcel A and which is legally described in Exhibit C (Parcel C) The parcels of land described in Exhibits A, B and C are collectively referred to as the Development Site. Section 1.04: City and Developer have determined that the Development Site is of sufficient size to accommodate an automobile dealership larger than the current operation and provides increased visibility and access due to the proximity of the site to major arterials and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. Section 1.05: 51 NO Developer and City acknowledge that the Development Site, while advantageous from the standpoint of size, visibility and access, is difficult and expensive to develop due to the topography, the presence of major public utilities (such as water and electrical facilities), the proximity of the property to wetlands, the need—te aequire r^=__'_- the need to acquire Parcel B and Parcel C which are each owned by public entities, and the cost of public improvements necessary to achieve physical access to the site. Permits and approvals are, or may be, required from numerous public entities and the current owner of the property as a pre- condition to construction of an automobile dealership on the site. Section 1.06: City and Developer acknowledge that construction of an automobile dealership on the Development Site will require each party to devote a substantial amount of time, effort and money to secure each of the parcels and all entitlements. Many of these expenditures will occur prior to the actual transfer of the Development Site from the City to Developer and prior to the realization of the financial benefits each party can expect once the dealership is constructed. Developer acknowledges that City is required, prior to dedication of parcel A by TIC, to commit to the construction of a major storm drain system and modifications to a Development Agreement between the City and TIC. City acknowledges that Developer, prior to receipt of the Development Site, has committed to continue operations in the City of Newport Beach 5 \ F 1 rather than relocate to another jurisdiction and is committing to incur site development costs substantially above those normally associated with the construction of an automobile dealership. Section 1.07: The primary consideration to the City for this Agreement is retention of an automobile dealership that is the single largest sales tax generator in Newport Beach. The primary consideration to Developer for this Agreement is the right to construct an automobile dealership on property owned by Developer and which will be visible and accessible to a large volume of potential customers and in close proximity to the majority of Developer's current customers. II. DEFINITIONS AND RULES OF INTERPRETATION Section 2.01: Definition of Words and Terms In addition to any words and terms defined elsewhere in this Agreement, the following definitions shall apply to the words and terms used in this Agreement. A. "Automobile Dealership" means the construction and operation of a franehised new and used Mercedes Benz auteffieb " C. 1�, dealership sales and service facility on the Development Site fe-r- B. "CIOSA" shall mean the Circulation and Improvement in Open Space Agreement between the City of Newport Beach and the Irvine Company dated June 30, 1993. C. "City" shall mean the City of Newport Beach. D. "City permit" shall mean any permit, license or approval to be granted by the City of Newport Beach, including amendments to CIOSA, amendments to the Planned Community Development Text for San Diego Creek North, zone changes for parcels B and C, amendments to the Land Use Element of the General Plan relative to parcels A, B and C, approval of an environmental document, amendments to the Land Use Plan of the local coastal program, approval of grading permits, approval of building permits, approval of water and sewer connection permits which the City empowered to approve and are necessary for construction of the project. E. "Dedication Agreement" shall mean the agreement between the City and TIC pursuant to which the City acquires Parcel A a copy of which is attached as Exhibit D. F. "Developer" shall mean Fletcher Jones Motor Cars, Inc. 7 0 A,, l G. "Development Agreement Ordinance" shall mean Chapter 15.45 of Title 15 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. H. "Development Site" shall mean parcels A, B and C (as described in Exhibits A, B and C). I. "Discretionary project approval" shall mean all permits, approvals, licenses or authorizations, including non -City permits and certain City permits which involve the exercise of discretion and are necessary to implement the project. The project's specific approvals do not include building and grading permits issued by City. J. "Force Majeure" shall mean delays due to war; insurrection; strikes; lock -outs; riots; floods; public enemy; epidemics; quarantine; restrictions; freight and embargoes; lack of transportation; governmental restrictions or priority; litigation; unusually severe weather; inability to secure necessary labor, materials or tools, delays of any contract work, subcontractor supplier; acts of another party; acts or the failure to act of any public or governmental agency or entity; or any other causes beyond the control, or without the fault of, the party claiming an extension of time perform. An extension of time for any cause shall only be for the period of the forced delay and shall commence ` to run from the time of the commencement of the cause. 0 K. "Future general regulations" means those general regulations adopted by the City after the effective date of this Agreement. L. "General regulations" means those ordinances, resolutions, policies, plans and guidelines of the City which are generally applicable to the use of land and/or construction within the City and include General Plan, zoning ordinance, water and sewer ordinances, building ordinances, traffic impact fee ordinances, building excise tax ordinances, and similar ordinances, resolutions, policies and plans. M. "Grant deed" means an instrument in the form of Exhibit E to the escrow agreement. N. "Hazardous materials" means any flammable explosives, radioactive materials, hazardous waste, toxic substances or related materials, and shall include but not be limited to, substance defined as "hazardous substance," "hazardous materials," or toxic substances in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980 and subsequently amended (circa), the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, the Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA), substances defined as "hazardous waste" in Section 25117 of the California Health and Safety Code; "hazardous substances" as defined in Section 25316 of the California Health and Safety Code; and those substances defined 0 1 as "hazardous waste" in regulations adopted, and publications promulgated, pursuant to any of the foregoing. K I O. "Jamboree flyover" means the proposed transition ramp from northbound Jamboree Road to the northbound lanes of State Route 73, which may be constructed over a portion of Parcel C, and designated on TCA plans and specifications as JR -5 ramp. P. "Non -City permit" shall mean any permit, approval, license or authorization to be granted by an entity other than the City of Newport Beach and which is necessary for the construction of the project. Q. "Parcel All shall mean the real property described in Exhibit A. R. "Parcel B" shall mean the real property described in Exhibit B. S. "Parcel C" shall mean the real property described in Exhibit C. T. "Permitted exceptions" shall mean (1) those exceptions to i title set forth in Exhibit E and (2) as to any Parcel, those exceptions to title specified on the title policy obtained by City and which Developer has either not disapproved or disapproved and 10 corporations, including private or public entities as well as natural persons. C. Whenever this Agreement requires either party to make any payment or perform, or refrain from performing, any act or obligation, each such provision shall be construed as an express covenant to make the payment, to perform, or not to perform as the case may be relevant to an act or obligation. The table of contents and article and section headings of this Agreement are not treated as part of the Agreement and do not effect the meaning, terms or conditions of this Agreement. REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES Section 3.01: Representations by City City makes the following representations and warranties to Developer: A. City is a municipal corporation and charter city duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the constitution and laws of the State of California. By proper action of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, the Mayor of the City has been duly authorized to execute this Agreement and the City is authorized to perform all of its obligations pursuant to this 12 the City has cured. U. "Project" means all actions that are a prerequisite to construction of an Automobile Dealership on the Development Site including City acquisition of Parcel A from TIC, City acquisition of Parcel B from Cal Trans, City acquisition of parcel C from the TCA, the approval of all City permits and non -City permits and the construction and operation of an automobile dealership on the Development Site in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement and as specified in the Conceptual Site and Improvement Plans (Exhibit F) subject only to modifications approved by the City Council subsequent to public hearings or pursuant to agreement of the parties. V. "TCA" shall mean the Transportation Corridor Agency. W. "TIC" shall mean the Irvine Company. Section 2.02: Rules of Interpretation A. Words of the masculine gender shall be deemed and construed correlative words of a feminine and neuter genders. B. Unless the context shall otherwise indicate, words importing the singular shall include the plural and vice versa. And words importing person shall include firms, associations, 11 Agreement. This Agreement is enforceable at law and in equity against the City in accordance with its terms unless enforcement is barred by bankruptcy proceedings or other laws affecting creditors rights generally. City represents and warrants to Developer that it has the lawful power and authority to enter into the transactions, and carry out the obligations contemplated by this Agreement. B. The execution and performance of this Agreement by the City will not conflict with, or result in any breach, of the terms, conditions or provisions of any agreement or instrument to which the City is a party or by which the City is bound. C. City has determined that the project will further the public good and is consistent with all City ordinances, plans and policies, except to the extent this Agreement contemplates an amendment to any ordinance, resolution, plan or policy. D. The City permits described in Exhibit G and the non -City permits described in Exhibit H are to the City's knowledge, a complete list of all of the permits, licenses and approvals necessary to implement the project and permit the construction and operation of an automobile dealership on the Development Site. E. This Agreement is enforceable in law and in equity against City in accordance with its terms, unless enforcement is barred by bankruptcy proceedings or other laws affecting creditor's 13 rights generally. Section 3.02: Representations by Developer Developer makes the following representations and warranties to City: A. Developer is a corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California, and is authorized and qualified to do business in the State of California. B. Developer has the lawful power and authority to enter into, and perform the obligations required, this Agreement. By appropriate corporate action, Developer has duly authorized and ratified this Agreement. Fletcher Jones, Jr. has been authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of the corporation. This Agreement is enforceable at law and in equity against Developer in accordance with its terms unless enforcement is barred by bankruptcy proceedings or other laws affecting creditors rights generally. C. The execution and performance of this Agreement by Developer will not conflict with, or result in a breach of any of the terms, conditions or provisions of, any other agreement, instrument or document to which Developer is a party or by which Developer or any of its properties bound. 14 IV. CITY COMMITMENTS Section 4.01: Pre -Transfer Commitments City shall acquire parcel A from TIC on or before —(date)— in (date)in accordance with the terms and conditions of the (Dedication Agreement) attached as Exhibit D. City agrees to perform all of its obligations under the Dedication Agreement. Any material breach of the Dedication Agreement by the City shall be considered a material breach of this Agreement by City and, in the event of such a breach, Developer shall have the rights and remedies specified in Section 8.04. Parcel A shall be acquired by the city subject to the limitations and restrictions specified in the Dedication Agreement including limitations on the use of Parcel A, restrictions on the right to convert use of Parcel A to a use other than an automobile dealership, and the right of architectural review and approval of conceptual and design development site plans and improvement plans. A. City shall use its best efforts to obtain title to parcel B from Cal Trans. City shall acquire Parcel B on or before Parcel B shall be acquired by the City free and clear of any liens or 'encumbrances which would interfere or impede development of the project. City's obligation to acquire Parcel B is contingent upon payment by Developer of all costs and expenses 15 i associated with the acquisition of the property and Developer's obligation to pay such costs and expenses is contingent upon Developer's prior approval of such costs and expenses. B. City shall waive all planning, building, water, sewer and other processing fees City normally collects from an applicant for any permit or entitlement to develop property on behalf of the City, for deposit into the General Fund or specified City account, and which represent fees which City is authorized to waive. The parties agree the City does not have the power to waive, and is not required to waive fees such as TCA fees and school impact fees which are collected by the City on behalf of other agencies. C. City shall acquire Parcel C on or before City shall acquire Parcel C at no cost to Developer. City shall lease Parcel C to Developer subject to public utilities easements which do not impede or interfere with development of the Project and subject to an easement for street and highway purposes retained by the TCA for the benefit of Caltrans which is necessary to accommodate the possible construction. The easement retained by the TCA for the benefit of Caltrans shall provide that the bridge structure soffet profile of the Jamboree flyover between Bayview Way and Bristol Street will provide a minimum eighteen (18) foot clearance above grade at the center line of Bayview and the soffet �- profile will also guarantee a minimum twenty (20) foot clearance above the easterly "top of curb elevation" on Jamboree Road from Ems: the northerly curb line of Bayview through and including the south curb line of South Bristol Street. The approximate soffet profile will be provided to Developer on or before enable Developer's architects and designer to prepare a grading plan which will maximize the view of the automobile dealership from Jamboree Road. D. City shall cooperate with Developer, and use its best efforts, to obtain all required non -City permits. City shall initiate, and/or promptly process, all applications for City permits, including General Plan amendments, zoning amendments, and amendments to the Land Use Plan of the local coastal program, that are necessary or required to implement the project. City agrees to approve all City permits subject to its obligation to conduct public hearings to comply with applicable law, the presentation of substantial evidence in support of all required findings or decisions necessary to approve the permit, and subject to the requirement that the application and related documents fully comply with all applicable state and local laws, rules, plans and policies except to the extent that amendments to current plans are required to implement the project. City shall prepare staff reports, public notices and other documents relevant to City permits in a timely manner at no cost to Developer. E. City shall prepare and process an Environmental Impact Report evaluating the potential impacts of implementation of the 17 project. City shall retain a Project Manager to expedite preparation of the EIR, interface with the EIR consultant and keep ,— i Developer informed as to the status and progress of the EIR. City shall pay all costs of the EIR related to the analysis of the environmental impacts of constructing off-site improvements. F. City shall notify Developer of the preparation of all documents prepared by the City or its consultants relative to bids, cost estimates and scopes of work. City shall provide Developer with copies of all such documents, will allow Developer to review and comment on the documents prior to distribution and will cooperate with Developer to minimize the costs incurred in performing the tasks identified in Exhibit I and other matters l related to implementation of the project. The City permits and non -City permits for which documents, reports or studies are, or may be, required and the City's pro -rata share of the estimated costs of preparing these documents, reports or studies are identified in Exhibit I. City shall pay fifty percent (500) of any cost or expense in excess of those estimated for the documents, reports or studies identified in Exhibit I. G. City shall construct an extension of Bayview Drive from the east curb line of Jamboree Road to a point approximately 600 feet easterly of Jamboree Road. City has estimated the cost of constructing the Bayview Drive extension to be approximately $400,000. City shall fund the construction of the Bayview Drive "M extension with the cost of construction reimbursed by Developer through the assessments paid pursuant to Section 5.03(c) and Developer shall have no other liability with respect to the construction of the Bayview Drive extension. H. City shall secure from TIC for the Developer upon the execution of this agreement a right of entry to parcel A for purposes of conducting test, examinations or studies for the purposes of determining the suitability of the parcel for development, to devise an appropriate plan for the grading of the site and to determine the size and design of proposed structures or improvements. The right of entry to the site shall require Developer to defend, indemnify and hold TIC harmless with respect to any claim, loss or damage arising from, or any way related, to the right of entry. I. City shall retain geotechnical consultants and other experts as necessary to perform soils, geologic, engineering, and other tests necessary to determine if the soil, geologic and other conditions of the development site are suitable for the construction of the project. The test results shall be submitted to Developer within five days after receipt by the City. The development site shall be considered suitable for construction of all necessary improvements unless the Developer notifies the City, in writing, within thirty days after receipt of the test results, the development site is not physically suited to the implementation 19 of the project. Section 4.02: Commitment to Transfer i City shall convey to Developer all of its right, title and interest in Parcels A and B, and grant Developer a long term lease hold interest to the surface area represented by Parcel C within thirty (30) days after satisfaction of the following conditions, one or more of which may be waived by Developer: A. City has acquired fee simple title to Parcels A, B and C, or such interest in each Parcel that will allow Developer to fully implement the project subject only to permitted exceptions and provided that Developer is able to acquire title insurance for the Development Site. B. All discretionary project approvals have been granted, subject only to conditions and requirements approved by Developer and the appeal period with respect to each permit has expired and no appeal has been filed. C. Soils, engineering and related reports have been approved by City and Developer or City and Developer have failed to object to the reports within the period specified in this Agreement. D. Developer has complied with all of its pre -transfer obligations and Developer's representations and warranties remain 20 9k._ ,,( P1., true and correct as of the date of conveyance. E. City shall convey Parcels A and B, and grant Developer a lease hold interest in Parcel C, through escrow, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the escrow instructions, and in accordance with the following: 1. City shall provide Developer with an ALTA extended coverage owner's policy of title insurance in the amount of insuring that Developer owns fee simple title to the Development Site subject only to permitted exceptions. 2. City shall pay the cost for the title insurance and fifty percent (50%) of the escrow fees. City shall also pay any documentary transfer taxes. 3. City's right, title and interest shall be conveyed to Developer by deeds and/or a lease in a form substantially identical to Exhibit E. Section 4.03: Post -Transfer Commitments A. City shall promptly review, process and approve all applications for building permit applications submitted by Developer in conjunction with implementation of the Project. City shall promptly conduct on-site inspections when requested by Developer or its representatives during the course of construction of any improvement on the Development Site. City shall promptly issue an appropriate Certificate of Occupancy when construction of 21 improvements has been completed in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement and all applicable ordinances, policies and plans. B. Developer shall have a vested right to implement the project upon Developer's acceptance of title to the Development Site and subject to Developer's compliance with the construction schedule specified in Exhibit D. City shall not be permitted to apply future general regulations to the project without Developer's express written consent. Except as expressly provided in this Agreement, no initiative, measure, moratorium, referendum, ordinance, statute, regulation, policy or other provision of law which in any way interferes with, impedes or restricts the 1 development or use of the property as an automobile dealership shall be applied to the Development Site during the term of this Agreement. M DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS Section 5.01: Pre -Transfer Commitments A. Developer shall use its best efforts to promptly file for, and diligently pursue to approval, all required City permits and non -City permits. Developer shall pay its pro -rata share of the cost associated with preparation of documents, reports and studies as specified in Exhibit I. In the event the actual cost of preparing reports, documents and studies for the permits or tasks 22 exceeds the costs identified in Exhibit I, Developer shall pay fifty percent (500) of the additional and unanticipated cost. Developer shall cooperate with City and its consultants relative to bids, cost estimates and scopes of work prepared in conjunction with applications for City permits and non -City permits. B. Developer shall cooperate with City in negotiations with entities who own utility facilities above and beneath the surface of the Development Site. Developer shall comply with all reasonable requests of those entities whose facilities must be relocated prior to construction, including the provision of financial security to guarantee the performance of all tasks associated with relocation of the facility and indemnification of. the entity during the course of relocation. C. Developer shall prepare at its sole cost and expense, all conceptual plans and designs describing proposed site development for submission to City and all other public or private entities whose permission is required to implement the project. Developer shall cooperate in the preparation of any environmental document and pay the cost of preparing that portion of any environmental document directly related to the development of the automobile dealership. D. Within days after the date of this Agreement, Developer shall perform soils, geologic, engineering and other 23 tests necessary to determine if the soil, geologic and other conditions of the Development Site are suitable for the construction of the project. The test results shall be submitted to the City within five (5) days after receipt by Developer. The Development Site shall be considered suitable for construction of all necessary improvements unless City or Developer notifies the other, in writing and within thirty (30) days after receipt of the test results, that the Development Site is not physically suited to implementation of the project. E. denes,Developer shall diligently seek commitments for financing that pe3�ti-en of the cost of eenstruetd:-ng the project whieh Developer dees net intend to-pa---frem its ewn ass shall have sole and absolute discretion with regard to the amount terms and source of financing. Developer shall advise City on a regular basis of its progress in securing requisite financing. Section 5.02: Commitment to Accept Property Developer shall accept conveyance of City's right, title and interest in Parcels A and B, and except the leasehold interest in Parcel C, when the following conditions have been satisfied: A. City has acquired fee simple title to Parcels A—and B, \�_, and er—erg}eta leasehold interest for 50 years in ea -eh Parcel that Will allew Develeper te fully implement e pej eet sub7ee-t-C only to permitted exceptions and provided that Developer is able to acquire title insurance for the Development Site. B. All discretionary project approvals have been granted, subject only to conditions and requirements approved by Developer and the appeal period with respect to each permit has expired and no appeal has been filed. C. Soils, engineering and related reports have been approved by City and Developer or City and Developer have failed to object to the reports within the period specified in this Agreement. D. City has complied with all of its pre -transfer obligations and City's representations and warranties remain true and correct as of the date of conveyance. Section 5.03: Post -Transfer Commitments A. Developer shall gybe responsible for the entire cost of designing and constructing all on-site and off-site improvements normally associated with an automobile dealership including water lines, sewer lines, electrical lines, gas lines, telephone lines, internal access roads, showrooms, repair facilities, storage facilities, loading and unloading facilities and parking facilities. 25 81 t� B. Developer shall commence and complete construction of the Project in compliance with this Agreement and shall commence operation as an automobile dealership within tena reasonable time after City issues a Certificate of Occupancy. Except as otherwise provided herein, Developer shall continue to use the Development Site as a Mercedes Benz automobile dealership for the term of this Agreement subject to force majeure. C. Developer shall pay an annual assessment to City of $80,000 per year for five (5) years. Developer's assessments will be used by City, for the most part, to reimburse City for the cost of constructing the extension of Bayview Drive along the frontage of the property. Developer's first annual assessment shall be due and payable 180 days subsequent to the date on which the Gertifzieate Geeiapaney is issued by the Developer commences doing business at the Development Site and the four (4) subsequent assessments shall be due in twelve (12) month intervals from the date of the first payment. D. Developer shall pay fair share fees concurrently with the issuance of the first grading or building permit by City. City shall calculate the fair share fees within fifteen (15) days after Developer submits complete plans for Plan Check. The fair share fees shall be based upon the number of projected average daily trips based upon the floor area depicted on the plans and the trip generation rate for an automobile dealership. Developer shall also 26 0 pay impact fees - such as San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor fees and any school impact fee that is collected by, but does not directly benefit the City. Jones shall not be required to pay any building or development impact fee, or make any circulation system improvement other than the annual assessment described in Subsection 5.03(c), and the fees specified in this Section. VI. DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE Section 6.01: The Project shall be developed in compliance with the Conceptual Site Plan (Exhibit F), which has been approved by City, the scope of work (Exhibit J) the Special Land Use Restrictions and other conditions of the Dedication Agreement, all subject to modifications submitted by Developer and approved, in writing, by City and TIC. City and TIC's written approval of any modification shall not be unreasonably withheld. Section 6.02: Construction Schedule A. Developer shall submit applications for all permits necessary to construct the project within 60 days after the Development Site is conveyed to the Developer. Developer shall commence construction within 30 days after issuance of acquired 27 Cf building or grading permits whichever last occurs, subject to force majeure, thereafter diligently prosecute to completion the construction of the project. Developer shall strictly adhere to the construction schedule attached as Exhibit K subject to delay and extension due to force majeure or with written approval by City which shall not be unreasonably withheld. Developer shall furnish City with periodic status reports on the progress of construction when requested by the City but no more frequently than once a calendar month. City shall act upon all applications submitted by Developer with respect to the Development Site within 30 days of submission. Section 6.03: Rights of Access For the purposes of assuring compliance with this Agreement and conducting required inspections of all construction in progress, City shall have the right of access to the site without charge or fees during normal construction hours. VII. SPECIAL PROVISIONS Section 7.01: This Agreement and the obligations of the parties shall be effective as of the date of execution, however, the vested rights W3 CSD of Developer shall become effective upon the conveyance of the Development Site by City to Developer. Section 7.02: Term of the Agreement The term of this Agreement shall begin on the effective date and continue for twenty (20) years unless otherwise terminated or modified. Section 7.03: Assignment A. City is relying apen the speeial ski:11 and ability ef Developer to eperatea sueeess-ful auteftebile—dealership an Develeper, 9 aff,, atien with 4ereedes Benz. Aeeer-d-ingly Develep^_ the Deaelepffient Site feragered of twenty(20)and agree& net teExcept as otherwise provided herein, Developers shall not sell, transfer or assign all or a portion of Developer's interest in the Development Site Atemebil= Dealership, or improvements without the express written consent of City and City shall be entitled not unreasonably withhold its consent, unless —the Develeper has the same skill and ability te eperate the A?dtemebil-e Dealership and the same speeial relatienship w -it Developer shall not sell all, or a controlling interest in Developer's Mercedes Benz dealership_ unless such sale is first approved by Mercedes Benz In the 29 91 event City appreve sconsents to any sale of the Development Site from Developer to a successor within twenty (20) years from j the date on which Developer commences operation as an Automobile Dealership on the Development Site, City and Developer shall each receive fifty percent (500) of the net profit on the sale Vie. Net profit on the sale shall be defined to mean the sale price less the following costs by Jones: 1. Site development cost including the cost of constructing all on-site and off-site improvements, all costs incurred in conjunction with grading of the Development Site; 2. Costs incurred in obtaining entitlements; 3. Costs associated with the acquisition of Parcel B; 4. Development and impact fees, including fair share fees, Transportation Corridor fees and school district impact fees; 5. The amount of the annual assessment paid by the Developer pursuant to Section 5.03(c); 6. Costs incurred relative to the transfer of the Development Site. 7. The cost of constructing all subsequent improvements or additions to the Development Site. B. The restrictions on transfer and assignment and the division of net profit in the event of a transfer shall not apply to any of the following: 1. Any transfer of all or a portion of the Developer's interest in the Development Site or improvements to any member of the family of Fletcher Jones, Jr. whether by sale, inheritance, 30 Cy MAD gift or otherwise; 2. Any transfer of all or a portion of the Development Site or any improvement to any firm, corporation, partnership, trust or other entity at least fifty-one percent (510) of which is owned by Fletcher Jones, Jr. Section 7.04: Annual Review Pursuant to the provisions of state law and the Newport Beach Development Agreement Ordinance, City ehallmav review Developer's good faith substantial compliance with this Agreement from time to time, but not more frequently than every twelve (12) months during the term. The annual review shall be conducted at a public hearing noticed in accordance with the provisions of the Development Agreement Ordinance. The annual review ehea-lMay include a detailed report of compliance of various conditions and mitigation measures. Developer shall be feunddeemed to be in compliance with this Agreement unless the Newport Beach City Council determines, based upon substantial evidence presented at mea public hearing that Developer has not complied with material provisions of this Agreement applicable to the project as of the date of the annual review. City's failure to conduct a -n annuazperiodic reviews of this Agreement shall not constitute or be asserted by the City as a breach by Developer. Developer shall have the right to judicial review of any adverse decision of the City Council. 31 Section 7.05: Estoppel Certificate Either party may, at any time, deliver written notice to the other requesting an estoppel certificate stating: A. The Agreement is in full force and effect and is a binding obligation of the parties. B. The Agreement has not been amended or modified either orally or in writing or so amended identifying the amendments. C. No default of performance of the requesting party's obligations under the Agreement exists or, if a default does exist the nature and amount of any default. D. The party receiving a request for an estoppel certificate shall provide a signed certificate to the requesting party within thirty (30) days after receipt of the request. The estoppel certificate shall be in substantially the form as provided in Exhibit L. Section 7.06: Reversion/Performance A. Documents conveying title to the Development Site shall provide that the Development Site reverts to the City in the event 32 C4 Developer fails to operate the Automobile Dealership on the site at any time during the term of this Agreement subject to the following: 1. Developer shall have the right to continue the Automobile Dealership with any other vehicle make or model available in the event Developer has been unable to receive and sell enough Mercedes Benz automobiles to successfully support operation of the dealership; and 2. Developer shall have the right to convert the Development Site to a use other than an automobile dealership provided the use is consistent with the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan, the Land Use Plan of the local coastal program of the City of Newport Beach, and all applicable zoning ordinances, resolutions, policies and plans and subject further to compliance with the terms and conditions of the Dedication Agreement and the Special Land Use Restrictions attached to the Dedication Agreement as Exhibit D. B. City assumes, and Developer concurs, that Developer will generate a minimum of $ millien iiaverage annual gross sales of $80,000,000.00 during the first five (5) years of operation whi , will, in turn, generate appreximite . $ ; , lien in sales tax revenue. Developer shall use its best efforts to generate the estimated annual gross revenue contemplated by the parties. In the 33 C5 i event Developer fails to generate $-- millien inaveraae annual gross revenue of $80,000,000.00 during the first five (5) years of the operation of the dealership, Developer shall reimburse City a portion of its actual costs incurred in performing the tasks identified in Exhibit B in accordance with the following formula. Difference between estimated gross average annual revenue and actual X City's actual coat gross average annual revenue Actual groes average annual revenue Amendment of Agreement This Agreement may be amended from time to time by the written mutual consent of the parties or their successors in interest, but only in the manner provided by the Government Code or the Development Agreement Ordinance. Section 7.07: Use of Development Site prior to Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. In the event the Development Site is not _completed prior to the expiration of Developer's lease term at 1301 Ouail Street and Developer is, for any reason, unable to occupy the Quail Street premises on a month to month basis, Developer may utilize temporary facilities to conduct all business operations of the dealership at the Development Site, until the construction of the Development Site is completed, and a Certificate of Occupancy is obtained and City shall approve such occupancy and use. VIII. 34 (I( \_Y DEFAULTS, REMEDIES AND TERMINATION Section 8.01: The failure by either party to perform any material term or provision of this Agreement shall constitute a default when the failure of performance is not cured thirty (30) days following written notice of default served by the non -defaulting party or if such default cannot with the exercise of due diligence be cured within 30 days, when the defaulting party has not commenced to cure such default within 30 days following written notice of default, or has not diligently proceeded to cure such default. In no event shall any legal action to enforce this Agreement be instituted against the party in default until at least thirty (30) days after notice of default is given. Section 8.02: Any failure or delay by either party in asserting any of its rights or remedies as to any breach or default shall not operate as a waiver of the non -defaulting remedies. Section 8.03: Except as provided—in Seetien otherwise provided herein the parties agree that the only remedyies for a material breach of 35 this Agreement prior to the conveyance of the Development Site from City to Developer shall be an action for specific performance or termination of the Agreement. The parties agree and acknowledge that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain the amount of damages sustained by the non -breaching party in the event of a breach of either party prior to the on -set of the City's obligation to convey, and Developer's obligation to accept, the Development Site. The parties also acknowledge and agree that, in such event, the non -defaulting party would not have an adequate remedy at law and, int— the --abeenee—ef the right to ebtain speeific per-fermanee, the nen def-aulting party eedid be deprived ef the eensiderati-en fer this Agreement. Section 8.04: Termination by Developer Developer shall have the right to terminate this Agreement prior to conveyance of the property in the event that: A. Developer fails to obtain all discretionary project approvals on or before December 31, 1995 subject only to conditions and requirements approved by Developer unless, prior tc termination, Developer obtains all discretionary project approvals; 103A B. City fails to acquire sufficient legal interests to Parcels A, B and C to permit Developer to implement the project 36 CI prior to December 31, 1995 unless prior to notice of termination, City acquires the requisite interest and tenders title to Developer; or C. Developer or City disapproves the engineering soil or geologic conditions of the Development Site as provided in Section S. 01 (D) . D. Developer fails to obtain financing for the cost of the proiect as provided in 5 . 01 (E) . E. Developer gives written notice of termination to City in Developers sole and absolute discretion. Termination shall be effective on thirty (30) days written notice. Section 8.05: Termination by City City may terminate this Agreement in the event that: A. Developer fails to obtain all discretionary project approvals on or before December 31, 1995 unless Developer has obtained all discretionary project approvals prior to the effective date of termination; 37 q,1 E B. Developer fails to construct the required improvements in accordance with the construction schedule subject to the provisions �- of this Agreement relating to force majeure; C. If Developer assigns this Agreement in contravention of the provisions of Section 7.03; or D. Developer fails to accept an appropriate interest in Parcels A, B and C when obligated to do so pursuant to the provisions of Section 5.02. Section 8.06: City shall have the additional right, at its option to acquire title to the Development Site and take possession of the Development Site with all improvements thereon, and subject to anv liens, or encumbrances thereon if, after the construction commencement date and prior to the recordation of the Certificate of Completion, Developer, unless due to force majeure: A. Fails to commence construction of the improvements as required by this Agreement for a period of three (3) consecutive months after written notice from the City; or B. Without good cause, abandons or substantially suspends construction of the improvements for a period of three (3) on: Boa consecutive months after written notice from City to commence construction; or C. Developer fails to operate a Mercedes Benz automobile dealership on the Development Site at any time during the term of this Agreement provided, however, City may not terminate this Agreement if Developer has been unable to receive and sell enough automobiles to successfully support operation of the dealership in which event Developer shall have the right to continue the automobile dealership with any other vehicle line available and provided, further, Developer shall have the right to convert the property to other uses subject to the terms and conditions of the Dedication Agreement. ARTICLE IX. GENERAL PROVISIONS Section 9.1: Notices, Demands and Communications Between the Parties All notices, consents and approvals required or permitted under this Agreement must be in writing and shall be sent by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, to the City or the Developer at the addresses set forth below or hand delivered at such addresses. City: City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard 39 P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768 Attn: City Manager Developer: Fletcher Jones Motorcars 1301 Quail Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 Attn: Fletcher Jones, Jr. Fletcher Jones Management Group 175 E. Reno, C-6 Las Vegas, NV 89109 Attn: Fletcher Jones, Jr. Such written notices, consents and approvals may be sent in the same manner to such other addresses as either party may from time to time designate by mail. Notices, consents and approvals shall not be effective until five (5) days after mailing. Section $9.2: Conflicts of Interest No member, official or employee of the City shall have any personal interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement, nor shall any such member, official or employee participate in any decision relating to this Agreement which affects their personal interests or the interests of any corporation, partnership or association in which they are directly or indirectly interested. The Developer warrants that it has not paid or given, and will not pay or give, any third person, any money or other consideration for obtaining this Agreement. Section $9.3: Nonliability of City, Officials, Employees, Officers and Directors 40 No member, official or employee of the City shall be personally liable to the Developer, in the event of any default or breach by the Agency, for any amount which may become due to the Developer or on any obligations under the terms of this Agreement. Section 59.4: Inspection of Books and Records The City has the right, upon not less than seventy-two (72) hours' notice and at reasonable times, to inspect the books and records of the Developer pertaining to the Development Site and the Project as pertinent to the purposes of this Agreement. The Developer also has the right, upon not less than seventy-two (72) hours' notice and at reasonable times, to inspect the books and records of the Agency pertaining to the Development Site and the Project pertinent to the purposes of this Agreement. Section 59.5: Execution in Counterparts This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be an original, and all of which shall constitute but one and the same instrument. Section 59.6: Effect of Prior Negotiations and Agreements This Agreement constitutes the sole and exclusive agreement between the parties, and supersedes all negotiations or previous agreements between the parties with respect to all or any part of the subject matter of this Agreement. 41 Section &9.7: Waivers and Amendments All waivers of the provisions of this Agreement must be in writing and signed by the appropriate authorities of the City and the Developer. All amendments to this Agreement must be in writing and signed by the appropriate authorities of the Agency and the Developer. Section &9.8: Severability In the event any provision of this Agreement shall be held invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not invalidate or render unenforceable any other provision hereof. Section &9.9: Governing Law This Agreement shall be construed and governed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Section 49.10: Time of the Essence City and Developer expressly agree and acknowledge that time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement. Section 49.11: Validity This Agreement shall be of no force or effect and shall not bind the Agency to any of its terms unless and until it has been �- approved by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach. 42 IT WITNESS WHEREOF, this DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT has been executed by the partied hereto by their respective officers all as of the date hereinabove written. ch\agreemt\DispDev3.agt 8-2-95 DEVELOPER CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Mayor John Hedges 43 10 Up Findings: EXHIBIT `B" FINDINGS FOR DENIAL USE PERMIT NO. 3565 That the proposed development is inconsistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and CIOSA Agreement. 2. That the proposed development will adversely impact future public facilities, particularly, a potential fire station and a potential Park and Ride facility. 3. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3565 will, under the circumstances of this particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood, or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City. pq s FILE COPY 1)0 f1r.T PEN'O'!E CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENT AND OPEN SPACE AGREEMENT (Pursuant to Government Code Sections 65864-65869.5) 1 Mq RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: City Clerk City of Newport Beach 330 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663-3884 CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENT AND OPEN SPACE AGREEMENT (Pursuant to Government Code Sections 65864-65869.5) This CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENT AND OPEN SPACE AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is entered into this day of , 1993, by and between the City of Newport Beach, California, a municipal corporation and charter city ("City") and The Irvine Company, a Michigan corporation, ("Company"). City and Company are sometimes collectively referred to herein as the "Parties." RECITALS A. Company is the owner of those parcels of real property (collectively, the "Property") described on Exhibit "All and depicted on Exhibit 11B.1' Aside from in -fill sites, the Property represents virtually all of Company's remaining undeveloped real property in the city limits of City as of the date of this Agreement. B. In 1987, the City Council of Newport Beach initiated amendments to the Land Use and Circulation elements to determine desired levels of growth and the amount of growth that could be accommodated by the circulation system at build out. This comprehensive update of the General Plan began with an evaluation of the type and density of growth permitted on each parcel within the City and included a thorough analysis of the circulation system improvements necessary to accommodate additional traffic at service levels acceptable to the City Council. This process culminated in 1988 amendments to the Land Use and Circulation element which greatly reduced permitted growth while recognizing the need for some development to assist in funding needed circulation system improvements. The General Plan recognizes the importance of "phasing circulation system improvements with development" and to "construct a-nd in advance" those "major circulation improvements which may be required of more than one developer...." C. According to the Land Use Element of the General Plan, the Property represents less than 23% of all future residential growth, less than 8% of all future commercial growth, and less than 10% of the additional traffic projected from all permitted growth. Given current state and federal budget deficits, and depletion of local sources of revenue, the accumulation of funds necessary to complete all required master plan circulation improvements may take 20 years kr\circop15.agt 1 or more and many of those improvements are needed today. D. This Agreement implements General Plan policies and goals by enabling City to fund and complete circulation system improvements prior to the construction of projects and much more rapidly than could be accomplished by current City ordinances through the following: 1. Company's prepayment of the fees required by Chapter 15.38 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, or successor ordinance, for all development permitted on the Property prior to the commencement of any individual project; 2. Company's commitment to construct, or assist in the construction of, circulation system improvements adjacent to individual parcels concurrent with development of the adjacent parcel; and 3. Company's no interest loan to City for the construction of circulation system improvements with repayment based solely upon contributions from other developers. Company's agreement to prepay fees, construct frontage improvements and advance funds represents a financial commitment in excess of 20 million dollars. E. The Agreement also requires the preservation or dedication of land for park and open space purposes to a greater extent, and much more rapidly, than required by the City's park dedication ordinance or the Recreation and Open Space Element. The open space and public facility land dedications required by this Agreement represent at least seventy-two (72) acres more land than would be required under the current General Plan, and Park Dedication Ordinance so Newport Beach residents will be able to enjoy the open space years before the land would otherwise be available for public use. F. This Agreement is consistent with provisions of state law (Government Code Section 65864 et seq.) and local law (Chapter 15.45) which authorize binding agreements that: (i) encourage investment in, and commitment to, comprehensive planning and public facilities financing; (ii) strengthen the public planning process and encourage private implementation of the local general plan; (iii) provide certainty in the approval of projects in order to avoid waste of time and resources; and (vi) reduce the economic costs of development by providing assurance to the property owners that it may proceed with its projects in accordance with existing policies, rules, and regulations. G. This Agreement satisfies the provisions of Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code in that it constitutes a comprehensive phased land use development and circulation system improvement plan with construction of all phases not anticipated to be complete within sixty (60) months of project approval, the kr\circop15.a9t 2 1 � project is subject to an agreement which requires the construction of major improvements early in the development phasing program and development anticipated to be complete within sixty (60) months of project approval will not cause or make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at any intersection for which there is a feasible identified improvement. Moreover, the plan results in an overall benefit to traffic circulation and will result in an overall reduction in intersection capacity utilization at impacted intersections. H. The City Council finds that this Agreement is: (i) consistent with City's General Plan and all applicable specific plans as of the date of this Agreement; (ii) in the best interests of the health, safety, and general welfare of City, its residents, and the public; (iii) entered into pursuant to, and constitutes a present exercise of, City's police power; and (iv) consistent, and has been approved in accordance, with provisions of Government Code Section 65867 and Chapter 15.45 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, City and Company agree as follows: 1. Definitions. 1..1 "Advance" shall mean that sum described in paragraph 2.4 below. 1. .2 "Agreement Date" is the date on which this Agreement was executed, as first set forth above. 1. .3 "CEOA" is the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. 1..4 "City Council" is the City Council of City. 1..5 "Development Concept" means the number of dwelling units, product type (such as single family detached versus single family attached), lot size, or floor area in the case of residential projects and the developable area or permitted gross floor area in the case of retail and office development. 1..6 "Effective Date" shall be the first date on which all of the following have occurred: (1) the California Coastal Commission has given final approval to this Agreement, (2) the time for filing a legal challenge to the approval of this Agreement, the environmental or planning documents related to this Agreement, or the process or procedures preliminary to approval by the City or California Coastal Commission has expired under all applicable statutes of limitation without a kr\circop15.a9t 3 lawsuit being filed, or if such a lawsuit is filed, a final judgment upholding this Agreement, related documents or the approval process has been entered, and (3) City has issued a grading permit or building permit for development on the Property other than (a) development on the southerly portion of Freeway Reservation East, (b) a low and/or very low senior citizen housing development on Bayview Landing, (c) a senior citizen housing development in Block 800, and (d) the Newporter Resort expansion. In the event that the Effective Date has not occurred on or before the fifth anniversary date of the City's execution of this Agreement, this Agreement may be terminated upon written notice from either party. 1..7 "Fair Share Fees" shall mean those fees assessable by City pursuant to Chapter 15.38 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, or successor ordinance. 1. .8 "Frontage Improvements" consist of those circulation improvements listed in Exhibit "C" as to each respective parcel of the Property and shall include all work necessary to bring the street to Master Plan Standards including, without limitation, pavement, curb, gutter, sidewalk and medians. Frontage Improvements also include dedication of all right of way necessary to construct the street to Master Plan Standards. If the street to be improved is along the boundary of a parcel, the Frontage Improvements include all work necessary to improve the street to Master Plan Standards between the property line (after dedication) and the center line of the street. If the street to be improved runs through a parcel, Frontage Improvements include all work necessary to improve the street to Master Plan Standards. 1. .9 "Master Plan Standards" shall mean those provisions of the Newport Beach Circulation Element, State law, County or City ordinance, resolution or regulation, Public Works Department specification or standard, or construction documents that govern the design or improvement of the Frontage Improvements listed in Exhibit "C." The Master Plan standards shall be those in effect as of the Effective Date of this Agreement. In the event of a change to the Master Plan standards subsequent to the Effective Date, City may request dedication, without cost to the City, of any additional right of way necessary to complete the circulation system improvement to then current Master Plan standards, and Company shall dedicate the additional right of way unless to do so would require a significant change in the Development Concept specified in the relevant PC Text for the adjacent parcel. 1..10 "PC Text" shall mean the planned community development text specifying the type and intensity or density of development permitted on each parcel of property covered by this Agreement, as shown in Exhibit "H". kr\6 rcop15.a9t 4 1 1..11 "Party" means either City or Company or both, as determined by the context. 1..12 "Project" consists of on-site and off-site improvements Company is required to construct with respect to each parcel of the Property as provided in this Agreement or as authorized by the entitlement provisions of the relevant PC Text (Exhibit "H") and in Exhibits "C" and "D," as well as the improvements to MacArthur Boulevard described in Section 2.3, as further defined, enhanced or modified by provisions of this Agreement or related environmental documentation. The term Project does not consist of any improvement shown on any PC Text for a parcel Company is required to dedicate to City for open space and public facility purposes. 1..13 "Property" is the real property on which the Project is, or will be, located as described on Exhibit "A" and depicted on Exhibit 11B.11 2. Circulation Improvement Funding. Company shall assist in the funding of circulation system improvements in City as follows: 2..1 Fair Share Fees. Within ten (10) days following the Effective Date, Company shall prepay to City all Fair Share Fees that Company would be required to pay as a condition to development of the Project consistent with the type and intensity and/or density of development for the Property specified in the PC Texts. In the event Company proceeds with development on any parcel of the Property identified as exceptions in Section 1..6 prior to the Effective Date, Company shall be required to pay to City the Fair Share Fees for that development prior to the Effective Date with the fees paid to be credited against Company's obligation pursuant to this Section. 2..2 Frontage Improvements. A. Completion/Bonding. Company shall complete, or provide acceptable security for completion of, Frontage Improvements at or prior to recordation of the final subdivision map for any respective parcel of Property listed on Exhibit 11C.11 Company shall complete Frontage Improvements prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy if no subdivision map is processed preliminary to construction on any parcel. The cost of Frontage Improvements as specified in Exhibit "C" is approximate, has been included for purposes of calculating the amount of the Advance, and Company's obligations with respect to Frontage Improvements shall not be affected if the actual cost of one or more of the improvements is greater than that estimated in this Agreement. kr\circop15.agt 5 B. Dedication. The dedication of necessary right of way for the Frontage Improvements shall be made when Company constructs Frontage Improvements or when City requests dedication in contemplation of a construction project involving the Frontage Improvements and for which funding has been identified and approved by any Federal, State or local agency from which funding was requested. In the case of a State highway, dedication shall be made to the State and in sufficient time to meet State standards for right of way certification prior to advertising for bids to construct the project. Company shall dedicate right of way without charge or expense to City or the State in consideration of the development entitlement conferred by this Agreement and the relevant PC Text. The value of land required to be dedicated shall not be considered in the calculation of the cost of Frontage Improvements nor the amount of the Advance. Prior to the Effective Date, Company shall consider in good faith, and has indicated a general willingness te, but is not required, to approve, City requests for dedication of right of way in excess of that required under the Agreement when necessary to make Frontage Improvements when City has obtained commitments from Federal, State or local sources to fund a portion of the costs of such improvement. C. Acceleration of MacArthur Boulevard Right of Way Dedication. Company shall within thirty (30) days after a written notice to dedicate is served as provided in Section 17, dedicate the right of way along the west side of MacArthur Boulevard between Pacific Coast Highway and San Joaquin Hills Road necessary to widen and relocate the roadway to Master Plan standards. Company's obligation to dedicate right of way pursuant to this Subsection shall commence eighteen (18) months after the Agreement Date. 2..3 MacArthur Boulevard Improvements Northerly of Ford Road. Commencing no later than ten (10) days after the Effective Date, Company shall use its best efforts to obtain all necessary permits for, commence construction of, and diligently pursue to completion, the widening of MacArthur Boulevard between Ford Road and the location of the proposed preferred alignment for the future San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, such that there are a minimum of six travel lanes and a minimum of three northbound travel lanes. Company shall not be required to expend more than five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000.00) in direct project -related costs to comply with its obligation to widen MacArthur Boulevard as provided in this Subsection. kr\circop15.agt 2..4 _Company Advance. Subject to the provisions of Section 3..4, Company shall, on or before the Effective Date, make available to City a sum of money which City may use for circulation system improvements or projects necessary to complete the City's Master Plan of arterial highways as specified in the Circulation Element to the Newport Beach General Plan. This advance shall be calculated and utilized in accordance with the following: kr\circop15.agt A. Amount of Advance. The Advance shall be $20,600,000.00 less $4,806,000.00 (the estimated total cost of the Frontage Improvements as described in Exhibit 11CII, but not necessarily the actual cost) and less the amount of Fair Share Fees for the Property as determined on the Agreement date). B. Adiustments. The Advance shall be adjusted by the percentage increase or decrease in the California Highway Construction Items ("CHCI") Index (or the most similar index in the event the CHCI Index is no longer published) between the Agreement Date and the Effective Date. C. Use of Advance. City shall use the Advance only to fund improvements that are consistent with the Circulation Element and satisfy at least one of the following criteria: 1. Insure that no unsatisfactory level of traffic service is caused, or made worse, at any intersection impacted by the project for which there is a feasible identified improvement; 2. Contribute to the overall reduction in intersection capacity utilization at intersections impacted by traffic generated by development authorized by this Agreement, taking into account peak hour traffic volumes; and 3. Represent improvements which have been considered by the City Council in finding that the benefits to traffic circulation resulting from this Agreement substantially outweigh any increase in traffic congestion at impacted, but unimproved, intersections. City shall have the right to substitute circulation improvements for those identified in the traffic study prepared in conjunction with EIR 148 and/or imposed as mitigation measures by the City Council, provided, the substitute improvements reduce traffic to the same, or greater, degree as those originally proposed and satisfy one or more of the criteria specified above. 3. Terms and Conditions of the Advance. The Advance shall be subject to the following terms and conditions: 3..1 Interest. City shall pay no interest on the Advance or any City draw on the Advance; 3..2 Limitation. City shall draw down the Advance only for the reasonable costs and expenses associated with the construction of circulation improvements including, without limitation, design, right of way acquisition, engineering, environmental analysis, contract administration, and construction. City may not draw upon the Advance for arbitrage or similar purposes. 3..3 Timing of Draws. City and Company shall each act in good faith with respect to the timing of draws against the Advance. City and Company shall establish procedures for effecting draws against the Advance which insure prompt payment of contractors, consultants and suppliers and minimize the administrative and accounting burden on City, while avoiding any significant reduction in the interest Company would receive. 3..4 Accelerated Draws Against the Advance. City shall, prior to the Effective Date, use its best efforts to obtain funding for roadway improvements from Federal, State and local sources. City is focusing its efforts on funding for the improvement of MacArthur Boulevard between Pacific Coast Highway and San Joaquin Hills Road to Master Plan standards. (MacArthur Phase I). The parties acknowledge that it is unlikely City will receive funding for MacArthur Phase I from Federal, State or County sources unless City is willing and financially able to commit matching funds. In such event, City may, no sooner than two (2) years after the Agreement Date, submit a written request for Company's consent to draw against the Advance prior to the Effective Date. Company shall consider in good faith, and while not legally obligated to do so has indicated a general willingness to approve, requests from City for draws against the Advance prior to the Effective Date if necessary to secure matching funds from Federal, State, County or private sources that represent a substantial portion of the cost of constructing MacArthur Phase I or other circulation improvements identified in 2..4(C). 3..5 Use Of Advance. City shall, to the maximum extent practical, continue to pursue and use any and all private, county, state and/or federal sources of funds for circulation system improvements as and to the extent available. 3..6 Reduction Of Advance By Draws. As draws are made against the Advance, the total remaining balance of the Advance shall be permanently reduced by the amount of the draw; and kr\circop15.agt 8 'l� 4. 3..7 Repayment Of Advance._ follows: City shall repay the Advance as (a) From and continuously following the City's first draw on the Advance, City shall, to the extent permitted by law, collect Fair Share Fees (or their equivalent) from the owners of properties within City (other than the Property). City shall pay to Company Fifty percent (50%) of all such fees collected to repay any unreimbursed draw against the Advance until City's repayment obligations expire as provided in Subsection (d); (b) City shall periodically recalculate the amount of Fair Share Fees as specified in the relevant ordinance; (c) City shall to the extent permitted by statutory or decisional law amend its Fair Share Ordinance, or take such other action as may be appropriate, to create an obligation on the part of other property owners to reimburse the City and Company for circulation improvements funded, in whole or in part, through draws on the Advance. However, the parties acknowledge that the state of law with respect to development or impact fees is uncertain and there is no guaranty that the City will be able legally to require fees from property owners to pay Fair Share Fees for already constructed improvements or to reimburse Company all or a portion of the Advance. (d) City's repayment obligations on the Advance shall expire twenty (20) years from the Effective Date. 3..8 Availability. The Advance shall continue to remain available for a period of twenty (20) years from the Effective Date, notwithstanding the completion of all permitted development on the Property. Limitation On Further Obligations. 4..1 Financial Obligations. The financial obligations which Company' has agreed to undertake pursuant to this Agreement satisfy and are in lieu of any and all financial obligations City could impose on Company for circulation improvements, are necessary to complete the Master Plan of Arterial Highways (exclusive, however, of participation in the funding for construction of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor) with respect to the Property, and fully and irrevocably satisfy the obligations of City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance, the Fair Share Traffic Contribution Ordinance and all similar and/or successor ordinances or requirements. City shall require no reservation or dedication of land or payment of kr%circop15.agt 9 S. fees for park and open space purposes with respect to the Property, or any circulation improvement necessary to complete the City's Master Plan of streets and highways, except as expressly provided in this Agreement. 4..2 Dedication. Company shall, however, dedicate additional right of way that may be required by amendments to the Circulation Element, mitigation measures identified in any environmental document related to the property, or problems identified in the preparation of construction documents, unless to do so would require a significant change in the Development Concept specified for the parcel pursuant to the applicable PC Text. Open Space and Public Facility Dedications. 5..1 Company shall dedicate to City the area shown as open space/public facilities on the Planned Community Development text for each parcel with the exception of certain lands on the San Diego Creek North Site that may be necessary for implementation of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor which should be offered for dedication directly to the Transportation Corridor Agency, with the exception of certain lands on the San Diego Creek north site that may be necessary for implementation of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor which should be offered for dedication directly to the Transportation Corridor Agency. The amount and general location of land to be dedicated is specified in each P C Text. All parcels shall be offered for dedication to the City in fee simple, subject only to the conditions and restrictions specified in Exhibit "F" and the conditions or restrictions other than the limitations on use specified in the P C Text. The parcels shall be dedicated in accordance with the schedule specified in Exhibit "E." The dedication shall be accepted by City within a reasonable period of time (not to exceed ninety (90) days) following Company's offer of dedication, provided, however, any parcel adjacent to or in close proximity to a proposed future highway or tollway to be funded in whole or in part with federal funds shall not be accepted by City until construction of the highway or tollway has commenced, or Company has elected to waive this restriction, whichever first occurs. City shall have the right to transfer some or all of the dedicated property to any public entity, non-profit corporation, unincorporated association or other organization so long as the transfer is conditioned upon use of the property in accordance with the limitations specified in the Planned Community Development Text (or more stringent restrictions) and the transfer is subject to the conditions and restrictions described in Exhibit "F." Notwithstanding the provisions of this Section and the special covenants and restrictions specified in Exhibit "F", City and Company may agree to use up to four (4) of the dedicated parcels for the purpose of constructing low and/or very low income senior housing. kr\circop15.agt 10 5..2 Company acknowledges that the dedication of the property required by this Agreement is in consideration of the development rights specified in this Agreement and Planned Community Development Text, and represents measures adopted by the City Council to mitigate environmental impacts. Company also acknowledges that it has received full value for the property to be dedicated in the form of vested entitlement on the various parcels on which development is permitted. City and company agree that the grant of entitlement in exchange for dedication satisfies those provisions of the state and federal constitution that require compensation for any taking of private property. 5..3 On September 11, 1985, City and Company entered into the Dedication and Park Agreement for the Mouth of Big Canyon (Park Credit Agreement). Pursuant to the Park Credit Agreement, Company dedicated approximately 39.5 acres of property commonly known as the Mouth of Big Canyon to City for open space and park purposes. In consideration of this dedication, City granted Company 5 acres of park credit to be applied to dedications that would be required as conditions to the development on certain parcels known as the 'Credit Subdivisions.' Some park credit has been applied to offset dedications otherwise required of development on PCH frontage (Villa Point Apartments), Big Canyon Area 10, and Big Canyon Area 16. The property covered by this Agreement represents substantially all of the parcels to which the remaining credit could be applied. Company acknowledges that the provisions of this Agreement do not constitute any breach or violation of City's duties pursuant to the Park Credit Agreement. Company waives and gives up any right to compensation for any park dedication credit it would be entitled to apply to the Property pursuant to the Park Credit Agreement, and also waives any right to rescind, in whole or part, its dedication of the Mouth of Big Canyon to City by virtue of its inability to apply park dedication credit to the Property covered by this Agreement. City acknowledges that the remaining park dedication credit may be applied to the development or re- development of parcels or property not covered by this Agreement. 5..4 City acknowledges the Company's right to sell any or all of the parcels subject to this Agreement, to third parties, including non-profit third parties which may wish to purchase certain parcels for the purpose of preserving same for open space uses., City agrees to cooperate with Company and said third parties, to the extent permitted by law, to effectuate such transactions and agrees to utilize its offices in good faith to accommodate the interests of the general public, the Company and third parties. kr\circop15.agt 11 6. Development of the Property. 6..1 Project. The permitted uses and the density or intensity of development of the Property, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, shall be as shown and identified for each parcel of the Property on the relevant PC Text. City shall not prevent development of the Property for the uses and to the density or intensity of development set forth in Planned Community Development text. In addition, Company and City will adhere, to the extent feasible, to the processing schedule provided in Exhibit 11G.11 6..2 Effect of Agreement on Applications for Land Use Approvals. In connection with any approval which City is required, permitted or has the right to give relating to the Project, or otherwise under its ordinances, resolutions and codes, City shall not impose any condition or restriction that prevents Company from developing the Property with the uses and.to the maximum densities and intensities permitted by the PC Texts. Subject to review for completeness, City shall accept for processing and shall timely review and act on all applications for further land use entitlement approvals with respect to the Project called for or required under this Agreement. Company may apply to the City for permits or approvals necessary to modify or amend the development specified in the PC Texts provided the request does not propose an increase in the maximum densities or intensities, any increase in the maximum height and size of proposed structures, nor propose a change in use that generates more peak hour traffic or more daily traffic. Further, the building locations shall not be significantly altered from those shown on the PC Text. 6..3 Mello -Roos Community Facilities District. Pursuant to Chapter 2.5 (commencing with Section 53312) Part I, Division 2, Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of California, commonly known as the "Mello -Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982," Company may petition City Council to establish one or more community facilities districts including some or all of the Property for the purpose of financing Company's obligations under this Agreement. City shall have the sole discretion to determine whether to establish such a district, the improvements to be financed, and the method of financing such improvements. 6..4 Future Discretionary Reviews. City shall retain its discretionary powers in reviewing applications for project - related development approvals submitted before the Effective Date, provided that those powers will be applied in a manner that is consistent with this Agreement and will not prevent Company from development of the Project with the land uses, and to the densities or intensities, permitted by this Agreement. Except as provided herein, future discretionary kr\circop15.a9t 12 approvals, including but not limited to rezoning, tentative and parcel map approvals, plot plans and plan development approvals, shall be consistent with this Agreement and the relevant P C Text. Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent City from imposing measures to mitigate significant effects identified in any environmental document prepared for development of the Project provided; (a) The measure is not in conflict with the park and open space or circulation system improvement provisions of this Agreement; (b) The measure does not conflict with the provisions of Section 4 of the Agreement; and (c) In the event the measure relates to the sighting of development to avoid a significant effect (as defined in CEQA), and renders the project infeasible, Company shall be entitled to terminate this Agreement pursuant to Section 7.3. City shall retain full discretion to impose standard conditions generally applicable to subdivision or parcel maps, exclusive of park or open space dedications, improvements required to complete the circulation element or comply with any Congestion Management Program or Growth Management Plan requirements, Fair Share Fees, or Traffic Phasing Ordinance improvements. The Traffic Study prepared in conjunction with this Agreement fully satisfies the provisions of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance for all development authorized by this Agreement, and no Traffic Study shall be required in conjunction with any application for approvals or permits necessary to construct development authorized by this Agreement so long as the application is consistent with the provisions of this Agreement and the relevant PC Text. The City also retains full discretion to impose conditions pursuant to the site plan review provisions set forth in Section 20.01.070 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Further, the City of Newport or the California Coastal Commission retain discretion in the review and approval of Coastal Development Permits as set forth in the Addendum to this agreement attached as Exhibit "I." 6..5 No Conflicting Enactments. City shall not apply to the Project any ordinance, policy, rule, regulation or other measure enacted or effective after the Agreement Date which is \ in conflict with this Agreement. This Section shall not restrict City's ability to enact an ordinance, policy, rule, regulation or other measure applicable to the Project pursuant to California Government Code Section 65866 in accordance with the procedures specified in Section 7. No moratorium or other limitation (whether relating to the rate, timing or sequencing of the development or construction of all or any part of the Project and whether enacted by initiative or otherwise) kr\circop15.agt 13 7. affecting subdivision maps, building permits, occupancy certificates or other entitlement to use approved, issued or granted within City, or portions of City, shall apply to the Project. 6..6 Benefits to Company. Company has expended and will continue to expend substantial amounts of time and money on the planning and infrastructure construction of the Project. Company represents and City acknowledges that Company would not make such expenditures without this Agreement and such expenditures will be made in reliance upon this Agreement. The benefit to Company under this Agreement consists of the assurance that Company will preserve the right to develop the Property as planned. City acknowledges that Company will be investing money and planning effort in the Project in reliance on City's covenants and representations in this Agreement and City agrees that Company may reasonably and justifiably rely on City's covenants and representations in this Agreement and on the enforceability of this Agreement, except as to the power of the City to collect fees to repay Company as specified in subsection 3.6. 6..7 Notwithstanding any other provision of the Agreement, the project shall include mitigation measures adopted by the City Council in conjunction with the approval of this Agreement and the certification of the Environmental Impact Report and which are to be satisfied, performed or implemented by Company. Company shall perform, satisfy or implement all mitigation measures for which it is responsible at its own cost and expense. Company expressly waives any rights it may have regarding limitations on the cost or expense of mitigating impacts on archeological or paleontological resources pursuant to Section 21083.2 of the Public Resources Code as to any portion of the Property not dedicated to the City for open space or public facilities. Rules, Regulations and Official Policies. 7..1 New Rules. This Agreement shall not prevent City from applying to the Project the following rules, regulations and policies (collectively "Regulations") adopted or effective after the Agreement Date, provided that the same are adopted and applied City-wide: (a) Procedural Regulations relating to hearing bodies, petitions, applications, notices, findings, records, hearings, reports, recommendations, appeals and. any other matter of procedure; (b) Regulations which are not in conflict with this Agreement; or (c) Regulations which are kr\circop15.agt 14 in conflict with this tY� Agreement, if such Regulations have been consented to in writing by Company. 7..2 Taxes, Assessments and Fees. Except as limited by Section 4 of this Agreement, City may impose such taxes, assessments and fees adopted or effective after the Agreement Date, including but not limited to business license taxes or franchise fees, on the Project as are imposed on a City-wide basis. 7..3 New Laws, Rules, or Regulations. This Section shall apply in the event either party believes that any county, state, or federal law, rule, regulation or plan enacted or applied after the Agreement Date prevents or precludes compliance with one or more provisions of this Agreement (conflicting rule). (a) Notice and Copies: Either party shall provide the other Party with: (1) written notice of the existence of the conflicting rule; (2) a copy of the conflicting rule; and (3) the reasons why the conflicting rule would preclude or prevent compliance by that party with one or more provisions of this Agreement and any proposed modification to the Agreement necessary to comply with the conflicting rule; (b) Modification Conference: The Parties shall, within thirty (30) days of the notice required in Section 6.3(a), meet and confer in good faith in a reasonable attempt to agree on the effect of the conflicting rule and proposed modifications of this Agreement to conform with the conflicting rule; and, (c) Council Hearings: Regardless of whether the Parties reach any tentative agreement on the matters involved in the modification conference required by Section 6.3(b) above, the matter shall be scheduled for a public hearing before City Council. City shall give at least thirty (30) days' public notice of such hearing, pursuant to Government Code Section 65867. City Council, at such hearing, shall determine the exact modification or suspension which it believes is necessary to conform the Agreement to the conflicting rule. Company, at the hearing, shall have the right to offer oral and written testimony. Any proposed modification shall be taken by the affirmative vote of not less than a majority of City Council. Within thirty (30) days thereafter, Company shall either elect, in writing delivered to City, to accept the modification, or terminate this Agreement. 8. Utility Capacity. City shall use its best efforts to plan for, and provide (to the extent provided by City to other developments), sufficient water and local sewer capacity or service kr\circop15.agt 15 to serve all development of the Property authorized by this Agreement. City shall require no greater reduction in utility service to any parcel of the Property than is required by the general provider of the service. In the event City declares an utility moratorium, the individual parcels of the Property shall have priority for utility service over other developments when service becomes available. Nothing in this Agreement limits City,s ability to impose reasonable conditions on future discretionary approvals which require Company to install utility lines and appurtenances servicing the Property. 9. Proiect as a Private Undertaking. The development of the Project is a private development, that neither Party is acting as the agent of the other in any respect hereunder, and that each Party is an independent contracting entity with respect to the terms, covenants and conditions contained in this Agreement. No partnership, joint venture or other association of any kind is formed by this Agreement. The only relationship between City and Company is that of a government entity regulating the development of private property by the owner of such property. 10. Term. The term of this Agreement shall continue until all permits required for occupancy and operation of the Project as contemplated by the Project have been issued, and the City has drawn and repaid all of the Advance, provided that in no event shall such term exceed twenty (20) years as measured from the Effective Date. Pursuant to Section 66452.6(a) of the California Subdivision Map Act, any tentative Subdivision Map approved for the Property, whether designated a "vesting tentative map" or otherwise, may be extended by City to the date on which this Agreement terminates. 11. Amendment or Cancellation of Agreement. Other than modifications of this Agreement pursuant to Section 7.3, this Agreement may be amended or canceled in whole or in part only by mutual written and executed consent of the Parties in compliance with Government Code Section 65868. 12. Enforcement. Unless amended or canceled as provided in Section 12, or modified or suspended pursuant to Government Code Section 65869.5, this Agreement is enforceable by either Party notwithstanding any change in any applicable general or specific plan, zoning, subdivision or building regulation or other applicable ordinance or regulation adopted by City (including by the voters of City) which purports to apply to any or all of the Property. 13. Periodic Review of Compliance. City and Company shall review this Agreement at least once every twelve (12) months from the kr\circop15.agt 16 �� t Effective Date in accordance with Sections 65865 and 65865.1 of the California Government Code. At such reviews, Company shall demonstrate its good faith compliance with this Agreement. Company agrees to furnish such evidence of good faith compliance as City, in the reasonable exercise of its discretion and after reasonable notice to Company, may require. Company shall be deemed to be in good faith compliance with this Agreement if City is not entitled pursuant to Section 14.1 to terminate this Agreement. 14. Events of Default. 14..1 Default by Company. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65865.1, if City determines following a noticed public hearing and on the basis of substantial evidence that Company has not complied in good faith with Company's obligations pursuant to this Agreement, City shall, by written notice to Company, specify the manner in which Company has failed to so comply and state the steps Company must take to bring itself into compliance. If, within thirty (30) days after receipt of the written notice from City specifying the manner in which Company has failed to so comply, Company does not. commence all steps reasonably necessary to bring itself into compliance as required and thereafter diligently pursue such steps to completion, then Company shall be deemed to be in default under the terms of this Agreement and City may (a) seek a modification of this Agreement, (b) terminate this Agreement, or (c) seek any other available remedies, as provided in Section 14.3. 14..2 Default by City. If City has not complied with any of its obligations and limitations under this Agreement, Company shall, by written notice to City, specify the manner in which City has failed to so comply and state the steps necessary for City to bring itself into compliance. If, within thirty (30) days after receipt of the written notice from Company specifying the manner in which City has failed to so comply, City does not bring itself into compliance, then City shall be deemed to be in default under the terms of this Agreement and Company may (a) seek a modification of this Agreement, (b) terminate this Agreement, or (c) seek any other available remedy as provided in Section 14.3. Except as provided below, if City adopts or enforces any moratorium, de facto or de jure, or other similar limitation (whether relating to the rate, timing or sequencing of the development or construction of all or any part of the Project and whether enacted by*initiative or otherwise) affecting the processing or approval of subdivision maps, building permits, occupancy certificates or other entitlement to use which is applied to the Project, then Company may immediately seek a modification of this Agreement, terminate this Agreement, or seek any other available remedy, as provided in Section 14.3. City shall not be in default pursuant to this Section if: (a) it adopts a temporary citywide moratorium on development due to its kr\circop15.agt 17 .zb inability to supply sufficient water to then current customers as necessary to maintain minimum levels of health, safety and sanitation; or (b) it is required to enforce a moratorium because of a law, rule, regulation or plan identified in Section 7.3; (c) the enactment of the moratorium or other limitation is the result of a court order. 14..3 specific Performance Remedy. Due to the size, nature and scope of the Project, and due to the fact that it may not be practical or possible to restore the Property to its natural condition once implementation of this Agreement has begun, the Parties acknowledge that, except as provided in Section 14.4, money damages and remedies at law generally are inadequate and that specific performance is appropriate for the enforcement of this Agreement. Except as provided in Section 14.4, the remedy of specific performance or, in the alternative, a writ . of mandate, shall be the sole and exclusive legal remedy available to either party in the event of the default, or alleged default, by the other. 14..4 Repayment of Advance Upon Termination. A. Amount of Reimbursement. If Company elects to terminate this Agreement as provided under Paragraph 7.3 or 14.2, City shall reimburse Company the total of (a) any outstanding and unpaid draws against the Advance, and (b) any prepaid Fair Share Fees attributable to parcels of the Property for which no building or grading permit has been issued as of the date of termination ("Reimbursement Amount"). City shall pay no interest on the Reimbursement Amount, or any portion thereof. B. Termination Pursuant to 7.3. If Company terminates pursuant to Paragraph 7.3, City shall pay Company seventy-five percent (75%) of the Fair Share Fees collected until Company is reimbursed the Reimbursement Amount or City's reimbursement obligation terminates pursuant to Subsection 3.7(d). C. Termination Pursuant to 14.2. If Company terminates pursuant to Paragraph 14.2, City shall reimburse Company the Reimbursement Amount from a combination of Fair Share Fees and the General Fund. The intent of the parties is to provide for General Fund reimbursement of the Reimbursement Amount in proportion to the percentage of development not constructed as of the date of termination. The portion to be reimbursed from the General Fund shall be calculated as follows: Reimbursement Average Daily Trips Attributable Amount X to Parcels not Developed as of Termination Total Average Daily Trips for the Project kr%circop15.agt 18 That portion of the Reimbursement Amount due from the General Fund shall be paid in four (4) equal annual installments beginning on September 1st of the fiscal year following the date of termination. City shall also pay to Company seventy-five percent (75%) of the Fair Share Fees collected from the date of termination until the remainder of the Reimbursement Amount has been fully repaid or City's reimbursement obligation terminates pursuant to Subsection 3.7(d). For purposes of this Subsection, the term "parcels not developed" shall mean those parcels for which Company has not received building permits for the development permitted pursuant to this Agreement, commenced construction of that development, and expended a substantial sum of money during the course of construction. The average daily trips for parcels partially developed shall be prorated. 15. cooperation. Each Party covenants to take such reasonable actions and execute all documents that may be necessary to achieve the purposes and objectives of this Agreement. 16. Force Majeure. Neither Party shall be deemed to be in default where failure or delay in performance of any of its obligations under this Agreement is caused, through no fault of the Party whose performance is prevented or delayed, by floods, earthquakes, other Acts of God, fires, wars, riots or similar hostilities, strikes or other labor difficulties, State or Federal regulations, or court actions. Except as specified above, nonperformance shall not be excused because of the act or omission of a third person. 17. Notices. Any notice or demand which shall be required or permitted by law or any provision of this Agreement shall be in writing and if the same is to be served upon a Party, may be personally delivered to the Party, or shall be deposited in the United States mail, certified, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, or shall be delivered by overnight courier, overnight courier charges prepaid, and shall be addressed as follows: TO CITY: City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Post Office Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 92663-3884 Attn: City Manager With a copy to: City Attorney City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Post Office Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 92663-3884 12A kr\circop15.agt 19 TO COMPANY: The Irvine Company 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92660-0015 Attn: General Counsel With a copy to: Latham & Watkins 650 Town Center Drive Costa Mesa, California 92626-1918 Attn: Robert K. Break Either Party may change the address stated herein by notice to the other Party in the manner provided in this Section, and thereafter notices shall be addressed and submitted to the new address. Notice shall be deemed to be delivered upon the earlier of (a) the date received or (b) three (3) business days after deposit in the mail as provided above. 18. Transfers and Assignments. 18..1 Right to Assign. Company shall have the right to sell, lease, transfer or assign the Property in whole or in part (provided that no such partial transfer shall cause a violation of the Subdivision Map Act, Government Code Section 66410, et seq.) to any person, partnership, joint venture, firm or corporation at any time during the term of this Agreement without prior notice to City; provided, however, that any such sale, lease, transfer or assignment shall include the assignment and assumption of the rights, duties and obligations arising under or from this Agreement to the transferee with respect to that part of the Property transferred. Company shall no longer be obligated under this Agreement as to that part of the Property which was sold, leased, transferred or assigned if Company is not in default under this Agreement at the time of the sale, lease, transfer or assignment. In no event, however, shall Company be relieved from its obligations hereunder to prepay the Fair Share Fees, or to fulfill its obligations pursuant to Sections 2, 3, 4 and 5 of this Agreement. 18..2 Binding on Successors and Assigns. The burdens of this Agreement are binding upon, and the benefits of this Agreement inure to, all successors in interest of the parties to this Agreement, and constitute covenants which run with the Property. In order to provide continued notice thereof, this Agreement and all amendments thereto will be recorded by the Parties. kr\circop15.agt 20 127 19. Exhibits. The following documents are attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference: Exhibit Designation Description "A" Legal Description of the Property "B" Depiction of the Property "C" Frontage Improvements "D" Development Plan (Including Density and Intensity of Development) "E" Open Space Dedication "F" Open Space Dedication Conditions "G" Processing Schedule "H" List of PC Texts "I" Addendum 20. Rules of Construction and Miscellaneous Terms. 20..1 Gender. The singular includes the plural; the masculine and neuter include the feminine; "shall" is mandatory, "may" is permissive. 20..2 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence regarding each provision of this Agreement in which time is an element. 20..3 Waiver. Failure by a Party to insist upon the strict performance of any of the provisions of this Agreement by the other Party, and failure by a Party to exercise its rights upon a default by the other Party hereto, shall not constitute a waiver of that Party's right to demand strict compliance by such other Party in the future. 20..4 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be identical and may be introduced in evidence or used for any other purpose without any other counterpart, but all of which shall together constitute one and the same Agreement. kr\d rcop15.agt 21 20..5 Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement and supersedes all prior agreements and understandings, both written and oral, between City and Company with respect to the subject matter hereof. 20..6 _severability. If any provision of this Agreement or the application thereof to any party or circumstances shall be held invalid or unenforceable to any extent, the remainder of this Agreement or the application of such provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to whom or which it is held invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected thereby, and each provision of this Agreement shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. 20..7 Construction. This Agreement has been drafted after extensive negotiation and revision. Both Company and City are sophisticated parties represented by independent counsel throughout the negotiations. City and Company each agree and acknowledge that the terms of this Agreement are fair and reasonable, taking into account their respective purposes, terms and conditions. In accordance with the foregoing, this Agreement shall be construed as a whole in accordance with its fair meaning and no principle or presumption of contract construction or interpretation shall be used to construe the whole or any part of this Agreement in favor of or against either City and Company. 20..8 No Third Party Beneficiaries. The only parties to this Agreement are City and Company. There are no third party beneficiaries and this Agreement is not intended and shall not be construed to benefit or be enforceable by any other person whatsoever. 20..9 Governing Law. This Agreement and any dispute arising hereunder shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. 20..10 section Headings. All Section headings and subheadings are inserted for convenience only and shall not affect any construction or interpretation of this Agreement. 20..11 Incorporation of Recitals and Exhibits. Recitals A through H and attached Exhibits "All through IWO are hereby incorporated herein by this reference as though fully set forth in full. kr\circop15.agt 2 2 21. Authority to Execute. The persons executing this Agreement warrant and represent that they have the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the entity for which they are executing this Agreement, and further warrant and represent that they have the authority to bind their respective Party to the performance of its obligations hereunder. 22. Recordation. This Agreement and any amendment or modification hereto or cancellation hereof shall be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of the County of Orange, by the City Clerk within the period required by Section 65868.5 of the Government Code. kr\circop15.agt 23 SIGNATURE PAGE TO CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENT AND OPEN SPACE AGREEMENT THE IRVINE COMPANY A Michigan corporation CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of CAL.• r County of__ On ;2- s 3 before me, ���/ a e 4/,, A vN 7 -- DATE NAME, TITLE OF OFFICER • E.G..'JANE DOE, NOTARY PUBLIC' personally appeared --.0 1-41lc}r.c 4- Cvn"va G 1?A,5;,s1y NAME(S) OF SIGNER(S) ersonally known to me - OR - ❑ proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and ac- knowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their �•PAT DE LA HUNT signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), ':.:.cl CO-k.t?:1.F92C739 Z Z ; -•� :1):;.� z or the entity upon behalf of which the 2 ��il�./j Nc," P-,:blc — COIIiCrmia ;:,r•!�: COU-Nry person(s) acted, executed the instrument. My Cci.n1. FY,?!'CS MIAR 21. 1991 WITNESS my hand and official seal. THIS CERTIFICATE MUST BE ATTACHED TO THE DOCUMENT DESCRIBED AT RIGHT: Though the data requested here is not required by law, it could prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form. SIGNATURE O NOTARY OPTIONAL SECTION TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT No. 5193 ® OPTIONAL SECTION CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER Though statute does not require the Notary to fill in the data below, doing so may prove invaluable to persons relying on the document. INDIVIDUAL CORPORATE OFFICER(S) TITLE(S) E] PARTNER(S) [-] LIMITED [:]GENERAL ❑ ATTORNEY-IN-FACT TRUSTEE(S) GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR E] OTHER: SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: NAME OF PERSONS) OR ENTITY(IES) NUMBER OF PAGES DATE OF DOCUMENT SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE (1992 NATIONAL NOTARY ASSOCIATION • 8236 Remmet Ave., P.O. Box 7184 • Canoga Park, CA 91309-7184 City c.Lerx f // �L. I APPROVED AS TO FORM: F. i-1 Robert H. Burnham City Attorney kr\circopl5.agt 24 SIGNATURE PAGE TO CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENT AND OPEN SPACE AGREEMENT ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ��• 1. �._. Robert H. Burnham City Attorney kr\circop15.agt 24 THE IRVINE COMPANY A Michigan corporation Af By: Gary H. Hunt Its: Executive Vice President By: Peter D. Zeughauser Its: Vice President & General CoI CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, A Municipal Corporation 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE On June 23, 1993, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared Gary H. Hunt and Peter D. Zeughauser, personally known to me to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that they executed the same in their authorized capacities and that by their signature on the instrument the persons, or the entity upon behalf of which the persons acted, executed the instrument. Witness my hand and official seal. 16,12't "'A. Lam, Carole M. Zaffino Notary Public in and for said County and State CAROLE M. 7AFFINO to COMM. *4666C3 Notcry Public -Cc—' 7^Cia C t=n C:ZANCc C,: (A Wy CCTrT.:-::C.". � July J1, [4;_ a-� EXHIBIT 'A" CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENT AND OPEN SPACE AGREEMENT DATE: 09/04/92 # PROPERTY GROSS ACRES GENERAL PLAN ENTITLEMENT 1. San Diego Creek South I 21.0 Residential — 300 D.U. 2. San Diego Creek North I 14.7 Office — 112,000 S.F. 3. Jamboree/MacArthur 4.7 Office — 50,000 S.F. 4. Upper Castaways 56.6 Residential — 151 D.U. 5. Bay View Landing 16.1 Restaurant — 10,000 S.F or Health Club — 40,000 S.F. 6. Newporter North 77.2 Residential — 212 D.U. 7. Block 800 6.4 Residential — 245 D.U. 8. Corporate Plaza West 9.0 Office — 94,000 S.F. 9. Freeway Reservation 28.3 Residential — 76 D.U. 10. Newporter Knoll 12.0 Open Space 11. Newporter Resort — — — — Hotel — Additional 68 Rooms 12. Newport Village from library to San Miguel) 12.8 Administrative/Professional Financial — 0 S.F. TOTAL 258.8 X36 EXHIBIT "B" Newport Beach Undeveloped Sites CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENT AND OPEN SPACE AGREEMENT , �� EXHIBIT 'C' CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENT AND OPEN SPACE AGREEMENT FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS DATE: 05/29/92 FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO BE ESTIMATED # PROPERTY CONSTRUCTED OR BONDED FOR COST $ WITH PROJECT DEVELOPMENT 1. San Diego Creek South Jamboree Road/University Drive frontage $400,000. and intersection improvements. 2. San Diego Creek North None —0- 3. Jamboree/MacArthur None —0- 4. Upper Castaways Provide R.W. and grade for ultimate width of Dover along property frontage. $600,000. 5. Bay View Landing None —0- 6. Newporter North Construct frontage improvements along $300,000. Jamboree at access to property. 7. Block 800 Install traffic signal at Santa Cruz/ $130,000. San Clemente intersection. 8. Corporate Plaza West None —0- 9. Freeway Reservation Construct 1/2 section of MacArthur to $1,260,600. ultimate width along frontage of develo ed portion of property. 10. Newporter Knoll None —0- 11. Newporter Resort None —0— Other Projects A. Construct 1/2 section of McArthur $807,000 to ultimate width along frontage of TIC owned property at Newport Village. B. Construction 1/2 section of MacArthur $1,308,200 to ultimate width along frontage of Big Can on Area 16 resent. bonded for. TOTAL $4,806,000 EXHIBIT "D" CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENT AND OPEN SPACE AGREEMENT DEVELOPMENT AREA DATE: 11/24/92 DEVELOPMENT # i PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT i AREA (ACRES) i 1. SAN DIEGO CREEK SOUTH Residential — 300 D.U. 18.4 2. i SAN DIEGO CREEK NORTH Open Space —0— 3.Ji AMBOREE/MAC ARTHUR j Open Space —07 --j �4. UPPER CASTAWAYS i Residential — 151 D.U. 26.0 5. BAY VIEW LANDING ! Restaurant — 10,000 S.F. or 5.0 i Health Club — 40,000 S.F. or Senior Residential — 120 D.U. i^ 6. NEWPORTER NORTH Residential — 212 D.U. 30.0 7. 1 BLOCK 800 Residential — 245 D.U. i 6.4 8. CORPORATE PLAZA WEST I Office — 94,000 S.F. j 9.0 9. FREEWAY RESERVATION North Area i Residential — 36 D.U. 7.5 South Area Residential — 12 D.U. 3.5 10. f4EWPORTER KNOLL i Open Space —0= 11. i NEWPORTER RESORT ; Hotel — Additional 68 Rooms t onsite j 12. L— NEWPORT VILLAGE Open Space from library San —0— to Miguel i TOTAL 106.0 t EXHIBIT 'E' CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENT AND OPEN SPACE AGREEMENT OPEN SPACE DEDICATION DATE: 11/24/92 T__- # PROPERTY OPEN SPACE ACRES TO BE DEDICATED U - TIMING OF DEDICATION 1. SAN DIEGO CREEK SOUTH I 2.4 (3)) 2. SAN DIEGO CREEK NORTH 8.6 (3) 3. 4. JAMBOREE/MAC ARTHUR UPPER CASTAWAYS 4.7 30.6 (3) (2) 5. I BAY VIEW LANDING 11.1 (1) 6. I NEWPORTER NORTH I 47.2 (2) 7. BLOCK 800 —0— I N/A 8. CORPORATE PLAZA WEST I —0— I N/A 9. FREEWAY RESERVATION North Area South Area 17.3 j —0— (2) N/A 10. I NEWPORTER KNOLL I 12.0 (1) 11. NEWPORTER RESORT I —0— N/A 12. NEWPORT VILLAGE from library to San Miguel 12.8 (4) TOTAL 146.7 I (1) Open Space to be dedicated upon Effective Date of Agreement. (2) Open Space to be dedicated upon issuance of first building permit. (3) Open Space shall be offered for dedication upon issuance of last building permit of all projects contained in this Agreement. The Company may elect to waive this condition. (4) Open Space area to be dedicated upon issuance of first building permits for both Upper Castaways and Newporter North. EXHIBIT "F" OPEN SPACE DEDICATION CONDITIONS The parcel(s) to be dedicated/conveyed to the City will be transferred (a) without any warranty concerning suitability for City's intended use of the property, (b) without any warranty concerning the absence of hazardous or toxic materials, (c) subject to standard CLTA exceptions to title, (d) subject to existing encroachments and easements of record or apparent as of the date of this Agreement, and (e) subject to the following reservations and covenants: (1) a reservation of ground water and mineral rights, but without surface entry; (2) a reservation of easements as needed for installation of utilities required to serve development on other properties (e.g. a drainage easement across Newporter North), to perform habitat mitigation in or adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas to mitigate for development impacts on development parcels, for reburial of disturbed native American remains on Newporter North, for public rights-of-way, and for temporary construction access and staging; and (3) covenants that the parcel(s) will be used consistent with the PC Texts, that the Company will have the right to review and comment on park plans and improvement plans, that the City will not require the Company to provide, directly or indirectly, for parking related to public use of the conveyed lands, that the City will maintain the lands in a safe and attractive condition, and that the City will not abandon the conveyed parcels nor transfer them to a third party for any development purpose. Notwithstanding the foregoing: 1. Company shall complete, to City's satisfaction, a remediation program for the removal of known petroleum products or hazardous wastes on the Bayview Landing Parcel prior to dedication. Company shall diligently pursue the remediation program to completion so that timing of the dedication is not affected. 2. To facilitate the widening of Dover Drive or access to the park or open space on Castaways, the City may convey to the Lutheran Church a portion of the dedicated parcel on the south side of the Church property. The amount of property conveyed to the Church in the event Dover Drive is widened shall, at a minimum, provide replacement parking for spaces lost as a result of a widening. Any conveyance to the Church to provide replacement parking shall be conditioned on the Church's conveyance of Dover Drive frontage necessary to accommodate the widening to Master Plan standards. 3. Company shall have the right to waive any and all of the reservations or covenants with respect to any parcel to be dedicated so long as the proposed use of the property is consistent with the PC Text. 01 f • H Z w w w cr0 6 w U CL (J) -j U a w a �O=� U CO (� N p �- z ° wcnCC Z > O O cc cc a CL z O P U E U Z !9 m w o c c o E c cr-w !� 3i E w H 0 m 3 % w_ w d w m c Y N d E E co w � Fj c c U Z m o Cry E$ _ E z.c c0 m U w 'w t mcc °' 0 > c o U c Bcc m U¢ a U) U d d d w v Q UJ U W U W � - N C7 V to 0 Qr � r r EXHIBIT "H" ORDINANCE/AMENDMENT DATE OF PLANNED COMMUNITY TEXT NO. ADOPTION 1. North Ford Amendment Amendment No. 766 8/24/92 (San Diego Creek South) 2. San Diego Creek North and Ordinance No. 92-39 8/24/92 Jamboree/MacArthur 3. Upper Castaways Ordinance No. 92-36 9/28/92 4. Bayview Landing Ordinance No. 92-38 9/28/92 5. Newporter North/Newporter Knoll Ordinance No. 92-37 8/24/92 6. Block 800 Amendment Amendment No. 769 8/24/92 7. Corporate Plaza West Ordinance No. 92-40 8/24/92 8. Harbor View Hills Amendment Amendment No. 763 8/24/92 (Freeway Reservation) Exh—H !q3 EXHIBIT "I" NEWPORT BEACH CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENT AND OPEN SPACE AGREEMENT ADDENDUM Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65869, a development agreement for property located in the coastal zone, without a certified local coastal program, must be approved by the California Coastal Commission. On June 10, 1993, the California Coastal Commission approved the Newport Beach Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement and this Addendum. The Addendum language shall take precedence over the Development Agreement and Planned Community text language and where there is a conflict, the Addendum shall supersede. The Addendum comprises the following: 1. Text that correlates two categories of site maps representing two levels of development specificity and text defining the scope of future discretionary review under CEQA, the Coastal Act and other state and federal environmental laws. 2. Site maps identifying development parameters and sensitive habitat. I f mbdosaa.519 I q l CATEGORYI Definition. Category 1 sites have: (1) specifically defined principal permitted uses; (2) specifically delineated "development envelopes" and (3) specifically defined "maximum extent of grading for non-public uses" lines. They are specifically delineated on the Development Agreement Addendum site maps (A through E): Sites included in this category are: A. Upper Castaways B. Newporter North/Newporter Knoll C. San Diego Creek South D. Bay View Landing E. Corporate Plaza West Future Discretionary Review: The following provisos apply: a. The Development Agreement specifically provides for future CEQA review in connection with the City discretionary site permit process; b. Future Coastal Act discretionary review (Coastal Development Permit through Coastal Commission or the City) may result in further limitations on the mapped development area based on new/more specific biological or geotechnical information, provided that the landowner may relocate development within the "maximum extent of grading area for non-public uses" shown on the Development Agreement Addendum map so long as: (i) City of Newport Beach height, lot coverage, setback and other similar requirements are met; (ii) the alternative location is not in conflict with specific environmental resource protection siting criteria resulting from future CEQA/Coastal Act or other regulatory agency requirements; and (iii) the intensity and type of development and the total amount of development acreage are consistent with the Development Agreement PC regulations and maximum extent of grading maps in the Addendum; C. Site specific erosion and urban runoff control measures and other impact mitigation measures (e.g. light and glare) are subject to full CEQA, Clean Water Act, Coastal Act and other applicable state and federal environmental law discretionary review; d. Public facility and open space uses requiring site alteration and/or providing access in close proximity to sensitive habitat areas are subject to the same discretionary review provisions as development uses; 1 f mbdosas.Sl9 Iq� e. Development effecting the habitat of any species listed as threatened or endangered under the state and federal endangered species acts or affecting "waters of the United States' is subject to the full regulatory authority of those endangered species acts and Corps 404 requirements, as indicated in the Development Agreement EIR, under federal law supremacy and under Government Code Section 65869.5. f. Site specific coastal development permit applications shall include approvals from the California Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, where applicable. g. Wetland encroachment is limited to that necessary for the expansion of Dover Drive on the Upper Castaways site. The access road for the Newporter North site shall avoid wetland encroachment; if such access is later determined to be infeasible, the applicant may, through a coastal development permit application, propose that alternative means of ingress and egress meet the requirements of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. All wetland encroachment shall be subject to the following criteria: 1. Wetland encroachment shall be the absolute minimum necessary for construction of the improvement. The encroachment shall be approximately .8 acres of wetland fill at Upper Castaways. The site specific coastal development permit shall include an analysis of the least environmentally damaging Dover Drive construction alternative. 2. All wetland encroachment shall be mitigated at a ratio of 4 square feet of wetlands created for each square foot lost. Encroachment mitigation may occur onsite or offsite so long as it is within the vicinity of the Upper Newport Bay ecological reserve and within the coastal zone boundary. 3. The site specific coastal development permit request shall include a detailed wetland mitigation plan which includes phasing, planting and monitoring/maintenance provisions. 4. Wetland buffers of 100 feet shall be maintained; however, the buffer width may be reduced to 50 feet if the California Department of Fish and Game finds such reduction will not adversely impact the wetland resource. Nothing in this section relieves Company of its obligation to make, and pay for, the improvements described in Exhibit "C". h. Any bluff stabilization necessary to resolve existing erosion problems shall involve: 1. The least amount of work necessary to eliminate, or to reduce to a level of insignificance, the existing erosion problem. 2 fn: nbciosa a .5 19 2. No significant land form alteration of the bluff face shall be allowed in order to rectify existing and potential geologic instability for the residential development area; non -engineered solutions shall be utilized such as greater setbacks if necessary. Minor grading and filling or erosion gullies shall be permitted to stabilize public use areas. 3 fn:nbciosaa.519 1q7 7 O, F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ . . . . . . . .. •��_�: •��; NOTE: Development area denotes the portion -, of the site identified for development of residential uses in the proposed PC Text. .��; Grading could also occur for roads, . : ;%� open space uses, trails, and bluff • •:�� , restoration, outside of areas designated for development. i .� 1 '•�;� VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES FRESHWATER MARSH �• •,; INTRODUCED ANNUAL GRASSLAND .!.�,: !;�;� ;� COASTAL SAGE SCRUB SALT MARSH • DEVELOPMENT AREA NOTE: Grading will occur for roads, open space uses, trails, bluff restoration, etc. outside of areas designated for development. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. AREAS BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES UPPER CASTAWAYS CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENT & OPEN SPACE AGREEMENT Citv of NPwnnri Raarh Source: Steven Nelson IN PLANNING. INC I no scale \i \ Al S rA1 `�y``�•�; 0 z - D r . � z � ' i1 M E ` u U „ p ato 4�' 10V•Vl � a A N •� O 6 u a Q u °p 0 .. ...- u V., •N 1. � N .. 0 C� O, v z 1A . . . . . . . . . . [. c 0 N d Z C Q) U) 0 U) of.. Z J� co Q � Z . , cz . U Z � Q W D 0 W Q U U ::)-<i 0 Q O ~ CC < F— Q Z O U I a w oC a w CL 0 w w //w� V♦ O (� L O a cn w U m O w a Cu O O m O z Y W CCzZ O W W WW W 0y� o� CC ?in -a Z - U -z F cc0CL O F= cn znz WvcL 0 CC U O CL LU z W, w cc i F - Z W 1 0 ` W a • iii ��� 1.`M • • �.� r�wT • • ��/Irk• 1�� .,. .;. l :: •.w,. ••• ' •,. ; U) F— • D • • o > of.. Z J� co Q � Z . , cz . U Z � Q W D 0 W Q U U ::)-<i 0 Q O ~ CC < F— Q Z O U I a w oC a w CL 0 w w //w� V♦ O (� L O a cn w U m O w a Cu O O m O z Y W CCzZ O W W WW W 0y� o� CC ?in -a Z - U -z F cc0CL O F= cn znz WvcL 0 CC U O CL LU z W, w cc Q F - Z W 1 0 ` W of.. Z J� co Q � Z . , cz . U Z � Q W D 0 W Q U U ::)-<i 0 Q O ~ CC < F— Q Z O U I a w oC a w CL 0 w w //w� V♦ O (� L O a cn w U m O w a Cu O O m O z Y W CCzZ O W W WW W 0y� o� CC ?in -a Z - U -z F cc0CL O F= cn znz WvcL 0 CC U O CL LU z W, Q w cr Q F - z w 0- 0 J w w 0 a . c ^ ° .. 8 No. ^oc. o v u u a ,u.E;• U 00 � u u0.0.0►.9 u° pw� - '0 « C ►V. w :2 ~ 0 3 w in w > wC) Q U- cc w 00 ,-� LO m co N O C a W a F - v v ° z .F u „ W °ao n u p ° O � to W C-6 G1 � b ~ u •� u ro � `u :: (n W CZ O LW m cc CL WCC Cc:U�w� a . c ^ ° .. 8 No. ^oc. o v u u a ,u.E;• U 00 � u u0.0.0►.9 u° pw� - '0 « C ►V. w :2 ~ 0 3 w in w > wC) Q U- cc w 00 ,-� LO m co N O C a W a F - z W n (L O W W C-6 G1 � z Z C]U)��U W (n W CZ O LW m cc CL WCC Cc:U�w� C� o CL � CL ZUZ o� o a V Z UwU cc 0 Ct: U O `Q cn J ' U i W a m (n m r a z v z • D z m 0 w m a C) 0 � a 0 z 3 z a �; •� 1 �)) .tea -.. -- I � .,< ' \'v I �i \��'� I I� I •��� 11'�a li 1 u+ r^ �j}, . a , ; � y � ' `�' '' '��- .��J.11.1.11 � V; pis �`m� 3",::'....r_�`'�� •�, _I 1. Ii ;}.I, ;`11'1.4.. __ __ -..✓.; � � ,_� \ Y /,,,� J. ' II „� ,�_ -i /y.� ',''BON � -"`'` \\ ` �� 1 x /I , / '•_ MEN AN rn _o 0 C E C" c E v •eo N V p�q ea u •0 4 ` � V p 7 A A C t}�( 9 Q r ".„ C u a p y u u p= a p 6 E u. U u C o 0 C. v to q... V p '0 u a n yE ^ pap o v u v p w H O 0 .Y .1 X41 ••XX Vie.• ,,,1, • 1 .X. XX X X 0 z U) ai U 0 0 U CV .� CU cz U V O 1 a W a Z W :^E a. 0 LLJ W Z W L11 U LLj >wm CL a f 0 -� °- a Q. ZC)Z tl.. L11 0 < > F- Cn o>\ W Q �wv U M °_ cr0 U 0 W a U 0 0 0_M W 1 i CC �. .4 n r < w O 1 Z Q z Q LLL Z ui < W U C) < < O w < Q > z O 0 z U) ai U 0 0 U CV .� CU cz U V O 1 a W a Z W :^E a. 0 LLJ W Z W L11 U LLj >wm CL a f 0 -� °- a Q. ZC)Z tl.. L11 0 < > F- Cn o>\ W Q �wv U M °_ cr0 U 0 W a U 0 0 0_M W 1 i 0 zQ0 *M O o> mm _r- z DD oN zD n Z D -� m 44 4444 4 T T; M r x� Z o�=o a z v m ti > m r m m o rn M N 'o. � n o n n n n 44 4444 4 T T; IQ Q w `0 10$ Q C ` © �D °aEZ m WLLJ o v a Hamma O coag W > n y m W CD 0 L a © Cl Etc C. CL O ,C p © C H CD 0 L > C W F- O Z to W cc Q x • W �' � '?IO 3S101i x.110' i=. W /. � n CL . O to W cc Q z W n CL O > F- W 0 ZZ Ww WQw� v �N>WMa) W O C O a (D CL CCQ a ccWzUz Q U)0_3wv C ~ v) Ll. W UW cc mo CC 0 V U O�//�� � V/ W CC a U_ O p J y J" M W CATEGORY 2 Definition. Category 2 sites have either a range of principal permitted uses or no specific delineation of a "development envelope" and "maximum extent of grading for non-public uses." (F through H) Sites included in this category are: F. Jamboree/MacArthur G. San Diego Creek North H. Newporter Resort Future Discretionary Review: All uses on Jamboree/MacArthur and San Diego Creek North would be subject to future CEQA/Coastal Development Permit review. Thus, for purposes of future Coastal Act and LCP review of Jamboree/MacArthur and San Diego Creek North, approval of the Development Agreement and Development Agreement Addendum provides the following: - Deletion of office uses allowed by the approved Newport Beach LUP; - Other public facility uses identified for each site in the Development Agreement PC text as found to be within the scope of the approved Newport Beach LUP but, due to absence of analysis of potential impacts and absence of development envelope/maximum grading maps, such uses are subject to full future discretionary review; - No encroachment or loss of wetlands is approved and no other habitat -related findings are made other than that the habitat protection/restoration designation for the San Diego Creek North area bordering San Diego Creek is consistent with and in furtherance of Coastal Act Sections 30231 and 302233. The impacts of the additional hotel rooms on the Newporter Resort would be subject to future CEQA/Coastal Development Permit requirements with full discretionary review. fn:nbciosaa.519 1 ✓ q l 0 16o I LA I m C, t H 5 Q o u c m C m ca00 mH ai H m C -b -a 8ct�00 % C a m m 'gym •- a E�3< cc •- 1-' O .'Z w Q p Z 7)_ W �< 0 Q U w U) > w F- Q C w F - w w > cn a w cc a z w IL O \w UJ °-6 = Z Z uj 0, W W L Cl) CC W a W OU0w c� O a- Q c Cc: W2va - w zo<Z CCP- U)c to m � w v vaso O cn a U_ 0 O O m s G cn a w cc a z w IL O \w UJ °-6 = Z Z uj 0, W W L Cl) CC W a W OU0w c� O a- Q c Cc: W2va - w zo<Z CCP- U)c to m � w v vaso O cn a U_ 0 O O m I l : 0141 4 RRA A z i rn Z % . •.X� L 0 � + � ,+; 111 •� �•� '-"� .. � -\ � � � co Po Z I ..................... ,Foy-. I ' Cyf[Y z 6 I ' s•N 71 W Sa -43v0C)0Z �n ? R I m,m0oaO °fir i4 x -CCD m N m >MO 5 Kzcn a �f° mo ;mm b F 6 :•i gj 3IDaI Z a v �b� T U) w H zz CJ C O U F— w w U) cc Q IA_ Lw /y r {. L. w (n 0 w D cr C z d C Lf) > � U ci O U C o 1'I e" w a F - z ui m a. O J W ujPod �0Ww WZww� O W occur Opc°-Qa OC U Z vz ('O ..- w � z -� U) D w c� W co ovc Q � �U) O cnW cc J U � 0 0 m n A C o 7 CD =0 O 'h v R� (D Z O v Ca CD co G n� , CD � d n (O � N CD 3 CD Z 0 2 rr • ti. i bo ,.`y��`f-``mo�`i{{,, • �nt� ` a ii p.ti� h } � r�7•• � . y � � � ' :. 1 Irl• �` �'� _ to :� �� '�^!..fit•. '�� p?t�:? 1:Fw£�t � , "'' w"�.'#' � :,.t . -• �� a r ,ate "' . - - ' — � Sri �t tr � •�ryLy�� � 2 • � �xZr ~� t. ..S' � 5""}�;' �' ..+, Fes:' i Yyi`� 7� `a-$�`M4 � ?�, t COMMISSIONERS Motic Ayes Absei F)" R A ! - a CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Attachment No. 2 MINUTES Anmict'M 1995 ROLL INDEX CALL Gifford addressed Ms Clauson on the intent of allowing an auto dea ship to have an auto repair facility at hand. She didn't want a nice to g facility dealership and on a different location an unattractive body sh . Ridgeway stated that we are already in a Use Permit ode. An automobile repair required a Use Permit previously and still do , but now it must be tied to an automobile sales and that is causing a pro m. Delino suggested possible language re ing back to the word "ancillary" and adding in an adjoining location. Ridgeway poinZthatsituation these parcels do not adjoin. Newport Impoerrari dealership down the way so the problem may exPublic Hearin Motion s made to delay this item until the next Planning Commission on ,n Sept er 7th for further review and analysis. * *'* otion was voted on. MOTION CARRIED. it SUBJECT: Fletcher Jones, Motor Cars Item No. 3300 Jamboree Road APPLICANT: Fletcher Jones, Jr. Use Permit No. 3565 (Public Hearing), P 3565 General Plan Amendment No. 95-1(D), 3PA 95-1 Resolution No. 1400 Resoluti Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 39 (Public No. 140 Hearing), Resolution Number 1401 CP No. Amendment No. 823 (Public Hearing), esoluti No. 140 Resolution No. 1402 P, No. 82 esoluti -4- No. 14C 1('6 3 (D' on 39 on 1 .on COMMISSIONERS ��sF90\\c9� o � p1,gs CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Amnmt 24 1995 ROLL CALL IND.. Traffic Study No. 108 TS No. ] Development Agreement No. 6 amendment to DA No. E (CIOSA), Resolution No. 1403 Resoluti Development Agreement No. 9, No. 14C Resolution No. 1404 DA No. S Resoluti Environmental Impact Report No. 155. No. 14C EIR No. The applications being considered will, if approved, allow for the development of a new facility for Fletcher Jones Motorcars - Mercedes Benz. In addition to new and used car sales and leasing, the dealership will offer auto service, including body work, a parts department, customer lounge, and boutique retail sales areas. A substantial amount of the auto storage areas are enclosed in a parking structure. Staff reported that the staff report referenced the list of approvals needed to enable Fletcher Jones Motorcars to relocate their existing business and that this is a joint effort between the City of Newport Beach and Fletcher Jones. This relocation is necessary due to the problems of an expiring lease, present site location is not the best from dealership standpoint and site configuration is fragmented and does not allow business to operate in the most efficient manner. A Memorandum of Understanding has been entered into by the City, the dealership and The Irvine Company to establish the relationships and obligations and the benefits to each of the parties. This M.O.U. establishes cost-sharing provisions between Fletcher Jones Motorcars and the City of Newport Beach to facilitate the entitlement and other agency approvals needed to permit the auto dealership on the site which is located on the corner of Jamboree and new Bayview Way. The M.O.U. is a City Council approved, separate and freestanding document. The City is providing a contract engineer who is dealing with other agency permits. City is not offering sales tax rebates or other give backs of long term. Ms Temple explained the handout on Off-site Mitigation Measures with minor modifications suggested in the EIR and included in the conditions of approval. These are clarifications of habitat restorations. The -5- 08 .on 13 .on 14 15 COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Aucnist 24. 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX applicant was provided a copy of the handout at the request of Chairman Ridgeway. Staff discussed in depth the Development Agreement No. 6 (CIOSA) and the EIR. The TCA parcel will be transferred to the City following discussion by the City Council in the near future. Public Hearing was opened. Fletcher Jones, Jr., 37 Linda Isle - stated that he agrees to all the conditions set forth in the Planning Report. He was questioned by Ridgeway about the construction process for approval and commencement. If approval process is completed in October and November they hope to start grading in January and complete in early December, 1996. Grading plans and construction documents have begun. Emmett Berkery, 3345 Newport Boulevard - stated that since last November he has been a contract consultant to the City on the Fletcher Jones project among others. He explained that the Transportation Corridor Agency parcel is approximately a 2 1/2 acre parcel westerly of the proposed development. The TCA acquired this parcel from the Irvine Company to accommodate future construction of the JR 5 ramp which would take north bound Jamboree Road traffic onto north and west bound Route 73. That ramp is not part of the current corridor construction, it is identified for a future project. The City is acquiring this parcel from TCA and leasing to Fletcher Jones to accommodate the construction of the JR 5 ramp which would be built as a fly over or bridge ramp and the dealership would use the space underneath. If the JR 5 ramp was determined not to be built then the City would probably deed that parcel to Fletcher Jones. On August 10th, the Corridor Agency Board of Directors approved two MOU's that would allow for the transfer of title from the Agency to the City with the Agency reserving the right to construct the ramp at a future date. These MOU's will be considered at City Council August 28th. Both of these MOU's are acceptable to Fletcher Jones Motorcars with height and clearance -6- I�� COMMISSIONERS �i� C '�i�'9-y soy `�� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES August 24. 1995 ROLL CALL ING� . concerns having been addressed. Southern California Edison and Fletcher Jones Motorcars have addressed issue of removal of electrical poles and overhead wires, to be removed prior to building. Within a month or so, alignments and agreements will be prepared by Edison with a three or four month time frame to relocate poles. Jim Harris, architect of record, of 2120 Main Street, Huntington Beach - clarified an item that referred to height of fence being 6 feet that is actually 8 feet. This 8 foot fence is a security fence on the back side perimeter of the lot that will be screened with vine. A request has been made to change one of the wall structures adjacent to the 8 foot fence, that is still in the planning stage. On page 24, Item 26, all buildings shall be fully sprinklered per NFPA 13. There is one little building that is a wash rack and after having met with Building Department and Fire Departments, that is not a sprinklered building. Item 34, Use Permit for a restaurant only if it is opened to the Public for use. No Use Permit for a restaurant used for internal use only. He requested clarification on the handout of LSA Associates, Inc. pertaining to 4.7.31, regarding use of soft light intensity fixtures which was explained can be sodium fixture or any fixture that meets that standard of review. Gifford clarified with Harris the issue of 6 foot hedge screening and 8 foot high black vinyl coated chain link fencing covered with flowering vines. Also additional verbiage in Item No. 26 shall read ....unless otherwise determined by the Fire Department and Building Department. Dolores Otting, Newport Beach - asked staff for information on project costs for the City of Newport Beach. Also, the TCA land swap is due to salt water mitigation that will occur and eventually the City will be in charge of it later. Staff responded that one of the terms of transfer from the TCA to the City of the JR 5 ramp parcel is that the City will take on the maintenance requirements for the mitigation the TCA is creating on the southerly side ` of Bayview Way. A cost analysis sheet was passed to Ms Auding and referenced. -7- COMMISSIONERS AbSE Aye: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES August 24, 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX Ms Clauson stated that the general overview of the cost is information from the MOU in preparation for this project. The actual cost evaluation and benefits have been negotiated through the City Manager and they are in the purview of the City Council. The action tonight for the Planning Commission is to focus on use of property as opposed to previous uses and evaluation of the environmental documents. The cost sheet handed out is a matter of public documentation and a copy was given to Ms. Auding. She was directed to ask any further questions of Council regarding this matter. Public Hearing was closed. �n I * Motion was made to recommend approval to City Council of Certification of EIR No. 155; General Plan Amendment No. 95-1(D), Resolution No. 1400; Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 39, Resolution No. 1401; Amendment No. 823, Resolution No. 1402; Traffic Study No. 108; Use Permit No. 3565 subject to discussed change and Condition 26; Development Agreement No. 6, Resolution No. 1403; Development Agreement No. 9, Resolution Number 1404 and to incorporate the Mitigation Measure 4.7.31 and 4.7.32. Motion was called for and an oral vote taken to recommend approval to City Council subject to the findings and conditions and Mitigation :nt * Measures 4.7-31 and 4.7-32. MOTION CARRIED. * * * * * A. Environmental Impact Report No. 155: Findin s: 1. That an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and City Policy. -8- 1 ��`� COMMISSIONERS �\`�F�90 o \ c •�a. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Aumist 24. 1995 ROLLi CALL IND,. 2. That the proposed Final EK which includes the Draft EIR, Comments and Responses, revisions to the Draft EIR, and all related documents in the record is complete and adequate to satisfy all the requirements of CEQA for the proposed project. 3. That the analysis and conclusions contained in the proposed Final EIR reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission. 4. That the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the proposed Final EIR prior to making its recommendations to the City Council. Mitigation Measures: 1. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the grading contractor shall identify a spoils site for deposition of exported material. Such spoils site shall have obtained CEQA clearance in accordance with the requirements of the local jurisdiction where the site is located. 2. As specified in the geotechnical report prepared for the site (Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc., May 1995), all loose, compressible natural soils and/or loose, compressible on-site fill soils should be removed from fill areas where exposed at final grade and replaced with compacted fills in accordance with the recommendations of the geotechnical engineer. All grading should be accomplished under the observation and testing of the project soils engineer and engineering geologist in accordance with the recommendations contained in the project geotechnical report, the current grading ordinance of the City of Newport Beach and earthwork specifications contained in Appendix F of the geotechnical report. The site preparation recommendations outlined in section 5.3 of the geotechnical report shall be followed. -9- I�i� COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES August 24. 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX 3. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant or successor in interest shall demonstrate to the City of Newport Beach Building Department that all facilities will be designed and constructed as specified in the City adopted version of the Uniform Building Code. 4. Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. The application for grading permit shall be accompanied by a grading plan and specifications and supporting data consisting of soils engineering and engineering geology reports or other reports if required by the building official. 5. The grading plan shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 6. The grading plan shall include a description of haul routes, access points to the site, watering, and sweeping program designed to minimize impact of haul operations. 7. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of grading permits and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. 8. The velocity of concentrated run-off from the project site shall be evaluated and erosive velocities controlled as part of the project design. 9. Grading operations and drainage requirements shall meet the standards set forth in the City's Building Code (Appendix Chapter 70 - Excavation and Grading, Sections 7001-7019) and the Building Department's General Grading Specifications. -10- 1�) 1 COMMISSIONERS AO CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Aumist 24. 1995 ROLL CALL 10. The erosion control measures shall be completed on any exposed slopes within thirty days after grading, or as approved by the Building Department. 11. Fugitive dust emissions during construction shall be minimized by watering the site for dust control, containing excavated soil on- site until it is hauled away, and periodically washing adjacent streets to remove accumulated materials. 12. Prior to the issuance of any building permits a specific soils and foundation study shall be prepared and approved by the Building Department. 13. Sites where the potential for liquefaction has been identified, or any other site where the potential for liquefaction may be encountered during subsequent investigations, shall be further evaluated by a geotechnical consultant to verify the low potential for liquefaction. The evaluation shall include subsurface investigation with standard penetration testing or other appropriate means of analysis for liquefaction potential. The project geotechnical consultant shall provide a statement concerning the potential for liquefaction and its possible impact on proposed development. If necessary, the geotechnical consultant shall provide mitigation measures which could include mechanical densification of liquefiable layers, dewatering, fill sur- charging or other appropriate measures. The Geotechnical Consultant's report shall be signed by a Certified Engineering Geologist and a Registered Civil Engineer and shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the Building Department prior to issuance of Grading Permit. Grading and building plans shall reflect the recommendations of the study to the satisfaction of the Building Department. 14. Any necessary diversion devices, catchment devices, or velocity \ reducers shall be incorporated into the grading plan and approved by the Building Department prior to issuance of grading permits. -11- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES n..,,..�� nA ! nnc ROLL CALL au uua.� aii✓ INDEX Berms or other catchment devices shall be incorporated into the grading plans to divert sheet flow runoff away from areas which have been stripped of natural vegetation. Velocity reducers shall be incorporated into the design, especially where drainage devices exit to natural ground. 15. All fill slopes shall be properly compacted during grading in conformance with the City Grading Code and verified by the project Geotechnical Consultant. Slopes shall be planted with vegetation upon completion of grading. Conformance with this measure shall be verified by the Building Department prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. 16. Berms and brow ditches shall be constructed to the satisfaction and approval of the Building Department. Water shall not be allowed to drain over any manufactured slope face. Top -of -slope soil berms shall be incorporated into grading plans to prevent surface runoff from draining over future fill slopes. Brow ditches shall be incorporated into grading plans to divert surficial runoff from ungraded natural areas around future cut slopes. The design of berms and brow ditches shall be approved by the Building Department prior to issuance of grading permits. 17. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, appropriate artificial sub- stances shall be recommended by the project landscape architect and approved by the Building Department for use in reducing surface erosion until permanent landscaping is well established. Upon completion of grading, stripped areas shall be covered with artificial substances approved by the Building Department. 18. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, written recommendations for the mitigation of compressible/collapsible soil potential for the project site shall be provided by the geotechnical consultant. Foundation recommendations shall be included. Recommendations shall be incorporated as conditions of approval for the site-specific tentative tract maps and grading -12- ��3 COMMISSIONERS AO CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Aumict 24. 1995 ROLL CALL INDL. _ plans to the satisfaction of the Building Department. Recommendations shall be based on surface and subsurface mapping, laboratory testing and analysis. Mitigation, if necessary, could include: removal and recompaction of identified compress- ible/collapsible zones, fill surcharging and settlement monitoring, compaction grouting, or foundation design which utilizes deep piles, or other recommended measures. The geotechnical consultant's site-specific reports shall be signed by a Certified Engineering Geologist and Registered Civil Engineer, and shall be approved by the Building Department. 19. Written recommendations for the mitigation of expansive and corrosive soil potential for each site, shall be provided by the project corrosion consultant, geotechnical consultant and/or Civil engineer. Foundation recommendations shall be included. Recommendations shall be based on surface and subsurface mapping, laboratory testing and analysis and shall be incorporated into final building plans prior to issuance of building permits. The geotechnical consultant's site-specific reports shall be signed by a Certified Engineering Geologist and Registered City Engineer, and shall be approved by the Building Department. 20. The project geotechnical consultant and/or civil engineer shall prepare written site-specific reviews of the tentative tract maps and grading plans addressing all salient geotechnical issues, including groundwater. These reports shall provide findings, conclusions and recommendations regarding near -surface groundwater and the potential for artificially induced groundwater as a result of future development, and the effects groundwater may have on bluffs, slopes and structures. The reports shall also address the potential for ground subsidence on the site and properties adjacent to the sites if dewatering is recommended. The geotechnical consultant and/or civil engineer's reports shall be signed by a Certified Engineering Geologist and Registered Civil engineer and shall be completed to -13- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Anonct 24 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX the satisfaction of the Building Department prior to issuance of a grading permit. 21. Prior to issuance of any grading permit, an erosion, siltation, and dust control plan shall be submitted, and shall be subject to the approval of the Building Department. 22. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, the design engineer shall verify that the discharge of surface runoff from development of any site will be performed in a manner so that increased peak flows from the site will not increase erosion immediately downstream of the system. As part of this review, the velocity of concentrated runoff from the project shall be evaluated, and erosive velocities controlled as part of the final project design. This report shall be reviewed by the Planning Department and approved by the Building Department. 23. Erosion control measures contained in the erosion siltation and dust control plan shall be implemented on any exposed slopes within 30 days after grading, or as otherwise directed by the Building Department. 24. Any existing on-site drainage facilities shall be improved as required, or updated concurrent with grading and development, to the satisfaction of the Public Works and Building Departments. Improvement plans shall be approved by the Public Works Department prior to issuance of a grading permit. 25. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant (or applicant's grading contractor) shall provide to the Building and Public Works Departments haul route plans that include a description of haul routes, access points to the sites, and watering and sweeping program designed to minimize impacts of the haul operation. These plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. Copies of the plans shall be submitted to the City's Planning Department. -14- I�� COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES A ........a '1A IAAC - ROLL CALL Au uJl L'7 �77J INL. 26. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall incorporate the following erosion control methods into grading plans and operations to the satisfaction of the Building Department. a. An approved material such as straw, wood chips, plastic or similar materials shall be used to stabilize graded areas prior to revegetation or construction. b. Airborne and vehicle borne sediment shall be controlled during construction by: the regular sprinkling of exposed soils and the moistening of vehicles loads. C. An approved material such as riprap (a ground cover of large, loose, angular stones) shall be used to stabilize any slopes with seepage problems to protect the topsoil in areas of concentrated runoff. i 27. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project geotechnical consultant and/or civil engineer shall develop a plan for the diversion of storm water away from any exposed slopes during grading and construction activities. The plan shall include the use of temporary right-of-way diversions (i.e., berms or swales) located at disturbed areas or graded right-of-ways. The plan will be approved by the Public Works and Building Departments, and implemented during grading and construction activities. 28. The applicant shall provide a temporary gravel entrance located at every construction site entrance. The location of this entrance shall be incorporated into grading plans prior to the issuance of grading permits. To reduce- or eliminate mud and sediment carried by vehicles or runoff onto public rights-of-way, the gravel shall cover the entire width of the entrance, and its length shall be no less than 50 feet. The entrance plans shall be reviewed and -15- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Amaid 24 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX approved by the Public Works and Building Departments con- current with review and approval of grading plans. 29. The applicant shall construct filter berms or other approved devise for the temporary gravel entrance. The berms shall consist of a ridge of gravel placed across graded right-of-ways to decrease and filter runoff levels while permitting construction traffic to continue. The location of berms shall be incorporated into grading plans prior to the issuance of grading permits. The plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works and Building Departments. 30. During grading and construction, the applicant shall provide a temporary sediment basin located at the point of greatest runoff from any construction area. The location of this basin shall be incorporated into grading plans. It shall consist of an embankment of compacted soils across a drainage. The basin shall not be located in an area where its failure would lead to loss of life or the loss of service of public utilities or roads. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Building Department. 31. Notice of Intent. Prior to the approval of a grading permit, the project sponsor shall submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the appropriate fees for coverage of the project under the General Construction Activity Storm Water Runoff Permit to the State Water Resources Control Board at least 30 days prior to initiation of construction activity at the site. The NOI shall include information about the project such as construction activities, material building/management practices, site characteristics, and receiving water information. As required by the General Construction Permit, the project shall develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), including inspection of storm water controls structures and pollution prevention measures. The SWPPP shall be -16- I�. COMMISSIONERS i CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES A,, + 7A 100C ROLL CALL INL. , implemented concurrent with the beginning of the construction activities, and the plan shall be kept on site. 32. Structural BMP Controls. Prior to the issuance of any Grading Permit, the project proponent shall ensure that the project includes implementation of appropriate structural Best Manage- ment Practices (BMPs) to reduce the extent of pollutants in storm water flows from the site. Said structural BMPs shall meet the approval of the Public Works Department. The following structural BMPs are suggested for consideration at the project site: • Grassed or landscaped swales • Reduction in the amount of directly connected impervious area (DCIA) • Inlet trash racks or bars • Filter strips. Maintenance of the selected structural BMPs will be required throughout the life of the project to ensure proper operation. 33. Non -Structural BMP Controls. Prior to the issuance of certificates of use and occupancy, the project proponent shall submit an operations plan that ensures that the project operation shall include non-structural BMPs, including the following: • Periodic cleaning (i.e., street sweeping) • Routinely cleaning on-site storm drain manholes and catch basins • Source control surveys of all on-site industrial facilities -17- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES 4rnnrnct 7d 1 QQS ROLL CALL INDEX • Controlling wash down of non -storm water discharges from project development facilities • Providing information to employees on disposal of waste oil, grease, and pesticide containers • Carefully controlling pesticide and fertilizer usage • Providing covered areas for trash receptacles, or enclosed features to prevent direct contact with precipitation • Efficient landscaping irrigation • Common area litter control • Housekeeping of loading docks. All non-structural BMPs shall meet the approval of the Public Works Department. 34. Water Quality Management Plan. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, consistent with the Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) prepared by the County of Orange for compliance with their municipal storm water NPDES permit requirement, the project proponent shall prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). Said WQMP shall meet the approval of the Public Works Department. The WQMP shall indicate the proposed structural and non-structural, permanent storm water quality control measure to be utilized for the project, shall identify the potential pollutant source on the project, and shall describe how the project implements the objectives outlined in the DAMP. 35. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the final plan of water, sew- er and storm drain facilities shall be approved by the Public Works Department. Any systems shown to be required by the review shall be the responsibility of the developer, unless -18- l�� COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Arnmiet 7d 1995 ROLL CALL INDL. otherwise provided for through an agreement with the property owner or serving agency. 36. Prior to approval of building permits, the project should contrib- ute, on a fair share basis, towards the cost of the improvement at the intersection of Jamboree Road/Bristol Street North. Said contributions shall meet with the approval of the Director of Public Works. 37. Standard dust control practices dictated by SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be followed. 38. The applicant shall specify the use of concrete, emulsified asphalt, or asphaltic cement, none of which produce significant quantities of VOC emissions. 39. Any rooftop or other mechanical equipment shall be sound attenuated in such a manner as to achieve a maximum sound level of 55 dBA at the property line. 40. Any mechanical equipment and emergency power generators shall be screened from view, and noise associated with said installations shall be sound attenuated so as not to exceed 55 dBA at the property line. The latter shall be based upon the recommendations of a licensed engineer practicing in acoustics, and shall be approved by the Planning Department. 41. Pursuant to the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Section 10.28.040, construction adjacent to existing residential development shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. Construction shall not be allowed outside of these hours Monday through Saturday or at any time on Sundays and federal holidays. Verification of this shall be provided to the Planning Department. -19- f �� COMMISSIONERS 0 ,moo CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Aiiouct 24 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX 42. Final project design will include measures to buffer the project from adjacent wetland areas, including the SJHTC mitigation site and the existing wetland adjacent to the southeast corner of the project. The final buffer design shall be approved by the California Department of Fish and Game and the California Coastal Commission. While a combination of landscaping and the presence of the Bayview extension may be considered adequate to buffer the project from the SJHTC mitigation site, additional measures will likely be required for the nearer existing wetland site. Design measures to be considered include a five foot high concrete block wall or equivalent barrier that will preclude human access from the project site and reduce the effects of human activity. 43. Impacts resulting from the use of non-native, invasive plant species will be mitigated by developing a landscape plan that avoids the use of non-native invasive plants. A landscape plan prepared with consideration of the following information must be approved by the City prior to the issuance of building permits: Prohibited Species All non-native plants that are potentially invasive via airborne seeds, or that are particularly difficult to control once escaped, will be prohibited from all parts of the project. Such species include, but are not limited to, the following: • Tree -of -heaven (Ailanthus spp.) • Giant reed (Arundo donax) • Garland chrysanthemum (Chrysanthemum coronarium) • Pampas grass (Cortaderia spp.) • Brooms (Cytisus spp.) • Bermuda buttercup (Oxalis pes-caprae) • Fountain/Kikuyu grass (Pennisetum spp.) • German ivy (Senecio mikanoides) -20- 101 COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Alimict'M 1995 ROLL CALL • Tamarisk (Tamarix spp.). Permitted Species Some invasive, exotic species are known to be controllable in well managed situations. Such species may be used in project landscaping if a City approved biologist approves the species and proposed use. For example, areas that are separated from existing wetland areas by a substantial area of paving could be planted with hybrid bermuda grass. Non-native, invasive species that could be used under these circumstances include, but are not limited to, the following: • Hottentot -fig (Carpobrotrus edulis)1 • Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon)2 • Myoporum (Myoporum laetum) • Pepper trees (Schinus spp.) • Cape Honeysuckle (Tecomaria capensis)l • Periwinkle (Vinca spp.). i' Should be prohibited in areas adjacent to natural open spaces. 2 Hybrid Bermuda grass, which is sterile or produces only sterile seed, should be permitted in landscaped areas, when surrounded by an appropriate hardscape buffer or an apron of non-invasive plant species (to prevent vegetative spread into natural areas). 44. The effects of night lighting on adjacent natural areas, including the SJHTC mitigation site, will be reduced by the design of lighting that is either low intensity or highly directional. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a lighting plan shall be approved by the City, demonstrating that appropriate lighting will be installed for the display area, parking lots and areas adjacent to wetlands to minimize spillage into the habitat areas. The plan will -21- 102/ COMMISSIONERS 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES e„n„er ')a 100'q ROLL CALL INDEX include, but not be limited to, lighting directed onto the project site, and the use of soft light intensity fixtures. Prior to the issuance of any certificate of use and occupancy, the project proponent shall provide evidence, meeting the approval of the City, that the installed lighting meets the objectives of the plan. If necessary, shields on the back of lights or other screening shall be placed to cut off light beyond project area. 45. Prior to the issuance of grading permits for the project, a detailed Interim Habitat Loss Mitigation Plan (IHLMP) shall be prepared by the City and submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) for approval. The purpose of these measures is to increase the amount and quality of scrub habitat that can be utilized by the California gnatcatcher and other species that require this habitat. This will both compensate for the project induced loss of potential breeding habitat and increase the potential for wildlife movement by increasing the size of important populations. The specific habitat replacement and exotic weed removal measures discussed below are to be incorporated into the detailed IHLMP, although they may be modified with the approval of the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The detailed IHLMP will include the following elements: • Overview/Objective • Plant Palettes and Planting Densities • Planting Methods and Timing • Site Preparation • Exotic Weed Removal • Irrigation • Maintenance • Performance Standards -22- 1 U3 COMMISSIONERS AO tic``��90\�� �9�s CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Arntrrnet 7d 10041 ROLL CALL SNL, • Monitoring • Remedial Measures. The implementation of these measures will occur at the first feasible opportunity, with consideration of site preparation and plant propagule collection requirements. 46. An approximately 3.5 acre portion of the City owned property in the Big Canyon area adjacent to Upper Newport Bay shall be restored/converted to coastal sage scrub habitat. It is estimated that the additional habitat to be created is sufficient to increase the California gnatcatcher population by at least one pair. 47. As part of the Big Canyon restoration effort, the City will implement a three year program for the removal of pampas grass and myoporum from City property in the mouth of Big Canyon (Figure 4.7.2). The first year will concentrate on initial removal at an appropriate time of year, i.e., prior to seed formation. The following two years will consist of spot removal of new seedlings or root sprouts. 48. City Council Policy K-5 outlines the City's requirements with respect to archaeological resources. The following specific measures are recommended in conformance with Policy K-5. A. A qualified archaeologist shall be present during pregrade meetings to inform the project sponsor and grading contractor of the results of any previous studies. In addition, an archaeologist shall be present during grading activities to inspect the underlying soil for cultural resources. If significant cultural resources are uncovered, the archaeologist shall have the authority to stop or temporarily divert construction activities for a period of 48 hours to assess the significance of the find. -23- COMMISSIONERS sO y F� 90?1 o9�s CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Anm,e+ 7d 100C ROLL CALL INDEX B. In the event that significant archaeological remains are uncovered during excavation and/or grading, all work shall stop in that area of subject property until an appropriate data recovery program can be developed and implemented. The cost of such a program shall be the responsibility of the project sponsor. C. Prior to issuance of any grading or demolition permits, the applicant shall waive the provisions of AB 952 related to City of Newport Beach responsibilities for the mitigation of archaeological impacts in a manner acceptable to the City Attorney. 49. Any sites uncovered shall be mitigated pursuant to Council Policy K-5. Where further testing or salvage is required, the applicant shall select a City approved, qualified archaeologist to excavate a sample of the site. All testing and salvage shall be conducted prior to issuance of grading permits or use of an area for recreational purposes. A written report summarizing the findings of the testing and data recovery program shall be submitted to the Planning Department within 90 days of the completed data recovery program. 50. The applicant shall donate all archaeological material, historic, or prehistoric, recovered during the project to a local institution that has the proper facilities for curation, display and study by qualified scholars. All material shall be transferred to the approved facility after laboratory analysis and a report have been completed. The appropriate local institution shall be approved by the Planning Department based on a recommendation from the qualified archaeologist. 51. A pre -grade reconnaissance of the area shall be made by a qualified paleontologist to assess whether any significant fossils currently are exposed. Any fossils observed and deemed significant shall be salvaged. -24- COMMISSIONERS off' �y9o:�o9s CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Aimid 24- 1995 ROLL CALL IND,_ 52. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to monitor and, if necessary, salvage scientifically significant fossil remains. 53. The paleontologist shall have the power to temporarily divert or direct grading efforts to allow the evaluation and any necessary salvage of exposed fossils. 54. Monitoring shall be on a full-time basis during grading in geologic units of high paleontologic sensitivity. 55. Spot-checking of low sensitivity sediments shall be conducted by a qualified paleontologist. Should significant fossils be observed during grading in these units, full-time monitoring may be required. 56. All collected fossils shall be donated to a museum approved by the City of Newport Beach Planning Department. 57. A final report summarizing findings, including an itemized inventory and contextual stratigraphic data, shall accompany the fossils to the designated repository; an additional copy shall be sent to the appropriate Lead Agency. 58. A landscape screen and/or equivalent barrier shall be constructed along the northeastern project boundary to screen service areas from view from the Jamboree Road southbound on-ramp and from the bicycle trail that will parallel the on-ramp. 59. Prior to approval of a grading permit, grading specifications for the project shall require the following to the satisfaction of the Building Department: a) All trash on the site shall be disposed of properly. -25- dab COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES August 24, 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX b) Hazardous materials residue in the vicinity of the five gallon solvent can and the tar residue identified on the wood debris and soils shall be removed and disposed of properly. After removal of the debris, soils in the vicinity of the contaminated sites shall be tested to ensure proper cleanup, per the recommendations of the environmental remediation engineer. c) Creosote treated power poles shall be removed and disposed of properly upon relocation, per the recommendations of the environmental remediation engineer. d) Any abandoned septic tanks systems encountered during grading shall be disposed of properly, per City of Newport Beach requirements. 60. Prior to the approval of a grading permit, the project proponent shall determine the appropriate method of wastewater disposal to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. 61. If disposal through a septic tank system is selected, the project proponent shall construct the system in compliance with "On -Site Sewage Absorption System Guidelines" prepared by the Orange County Health Care Agency. Consistency with said guidelines shall be determined by the Public Works Department prior to issuance of a grading permit for any septic tank facilities. The septic tank shall be operated in a manner to avoid pollution of local groundwater supplies. B. General Plan Amendment No. 95-1(D): Adopt Resolution No. 1400 recommending City Council approval of GPA 95-1(D). -26- COMMISSIONERS 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES August 24, 1995 ROLL CALL IND C Local Coastal Prokram Amendment No. 39: Adopt Resolution No. 1401 recommending City Council approval o Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 39. A Amendment No. 823: Adopt Resolution No. 1402 recommending City Council approval of Amendment No. 823. E. Traffic Study No. 108: Findings: 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the peak -hour traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Policy S-1. 2. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project -generated traffic will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic on any 'major,"primary-modified,' or'primary' street. 3. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project -generated traffic will be greater than one percent of the existing traffic during the 2.5 hour peak period on six of the nineteen study intersections and that the ICU analysis for five of those six intersections indicates that the resulting ICU is not made worse and is not considered a significant impact. Conditions: 1. That per the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) Analysis, no significant project impacts are identified. Currently scheduled and -27- Ex COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES August 24. 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX fully -funded projects will be completed prior to or at project occupancy to off -set any project impacts. 2. That in the General Plan buildout, the project contributes towards a significant impact at the intersection of Jamboree Road/Bristol Street North. That the project should contribute, on a fair share basis, towards the cost of the improvements identified at that project study area intersection. E Use Permit No. 3565, Approve the use permit, making the following findings and with the following conditions of approval. Findin s: 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. That adequate on-site parking is available for the existing and proposed uses. 3. That the proposed development will not have any significant environmental impact. 4. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. 5. That the Police Department has indicated that they do not contemplate any problems from the proposed operation. 6. That the proposed use of roof top parking will not, under the circumstances of this particular case, be detrimental to the health, -28- COMMISSIONERS A�d 90 \\2���9�O�F90\� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES August 24, 1995 ROLL CALL i safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the city. 7. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code. 8. That adequate provision for vehicular traffic circulation is being made for the auto sales facility. 9. The approval of Use Permit No. 3565 will not, under the circumstances of the case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and further that the proposed modification related to the proposed signing is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. Conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plan and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That the required on-site parking be provided consistent with the approved site plan. 3. That all signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.06 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Said signs shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer if located adjacent to the vehicular ingress and egress.. 4. That the project shall comply with State Disabled Access requirements. 5. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. -29- 1 Cf0 COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES August 24, 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX 6. That the on-site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. 7. That the intersection of the private drives at Bayview Way be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 50 miles per hour. Slopes, landscape, walls and other obstruction shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight fine shall not exceed twenty four inches in height. The sight distance requirement may be modified at non-critical locations, subject to approval of the Traffic Engineer. 8. That the applicant shall prepare a landscape plan to be approved prior to the issuance of Building Permits. Said plan shall be approved by the Public Works Department, Planning Department, and the General Services Department. 9. That asphalt or concrete access roads shall be provided to all public utilities, vaults, manholes, and junction structure locations, with width to be approved by the Public Works Department. 10. That all vehicular access rights to Jamboree Road be released and relinquished to the City of Newport Beach. 11. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 12. That the construction of the Bayview Way improvements be in accordance with the agreements between the City of Newport Beach and Fletcher Jones Motor Cars. That a sidewalk be constructed along the Jamboree Road frontage. All work within the public right- of-way shall be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 13. That street, drainage and utility improvements be shown on standard improvement plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer. -30- ��Z 1 COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES August 24, 1995 ROLL CALL INDL,. 14. That a drainage plan be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Public Works Department. Any modification or extensions to the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown to be required by the study shall be the responsibility of the developer. 15. That the Edison transformer serving the site be located outside the sight distance planes as described in City Standard 110-L. 16. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways, and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. A traffic control plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. There shall be no construction storage or delivery of materials within the Jamboree Road right-of-way. 17. That a fire protection system acceptable to the Fire Department be installed by the developer and tested by the Fire Department prior to storage of any combustible materials or start of any structural framing. 18. That the developer obtain permission from the Metropolitan Water District and Mesa Consolidated Water District to construct within their easements. 19. That the raised island nose at the entrance/exit shall be pulled back so that it is entirely on private property. 20. That the landscaping at the entrance shall conform to City sight Distance Standard No. 110-L 21. That HC (handicap) parking be shown on the parking plan and that adequate customer and employee parking be provided to current City -31- COMMISSIONERS Viso yc��F9�92� o �� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES August 24, 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX standards. All handicap parking shall be designated with a sign and pavement marking. 22. That the monument signs, slopes, walls and landscaping along the Jamboree Road frontage shall be considered in the site distance requirements. The Bayview Way and Jamboree Road intersection shall be designed to provide sight distance of 50 miles per hour. 23. That all unloading and loading of vehicles shall be done on-site. 24. That site access shall be provided for emergency access per City Fire/Marine and Public Works standards. 25. That on-site fire hydrants shall be provided as required in the Uniform Building Code and Fire/Marine standards. 26. That all buildings shall be fully sprinklered per NFPA 13 and Fire/Marine standards unless otherwise determined by the Fire Department and Building Department. 27. That the applicant shall provide fire protection equipment and devices associated with special hazards presented in design of the facility and protect those hazards as prescribed in the Uniform Building Code and nationally recognized standards as approved by the Fire/Marine Departments. 28. That all automobile servicing, repair, washing and detailing shall be conducted within the building. 29. That all wash water shall drain into the sanitary sewer system and that grease traps shall be provided in all drains where petroleum residues may enter the sewer system, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department and the Public Works Department. 30. That the illumination of any open automobile display area or roof top parking area shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to -32- 1 COMMISSIONERS �\F9� 0 c ' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES August 24, 1995 ROLL CALL IND=A eliminate direct light and glare on adjoining properties southerly and westerly of the site. A timing device shall turn off any light facing towards the residential properties or neighboring properties at 10:00 p.m. every night. Said design features shall be incorporated into a lighting plan prepared and signed by a Licensed Electrical Engineer, with a letter from the engineer stating that, in his opinion, that these requirements have been met. That the lighting and illumination plan for the roof top parking area shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Director. 31. That no outdoor loudspeaker or paging system shall be permitted in conjunction with the proposed operation unless otherwise approved the Planning Department. 32. That no windshield signs shall be permitted, and that all signs shall meet the requirements of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code. 33. That no banners, pennants, balloons, wind signs, moving signs, or flashing or animated electrical signs shall be displayed. 34. That a Use Permit shall be required for the establishment of A restaurant that is open to the general public, within the facility. 35. That the project comply with the Uniform Building Code, disabled access, and energy regulations. 36. Health Department approval is required for the food establishment located within the project. 37. That where grease may be introduced into the drainage systems, grease interceptors shall be installed on all fixtures as required by the Uniform Plumbing Code, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department and the Utilities Department. 38. That all employees shall park on-site. -33- I�J COMMISSIONERS �9�9ti05b CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES August 24, 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX 39. That the hours of operation shall be limited between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. daily. 40. That all trash areas shall be screened from adjoining properties and streets. 41. That the project shall be designed to eliminate light and glare spillage on adjacent uses. 42. That a washout area for refuse containers be provided in such a way as to allow direct drainage into the sewer system and not into the Bay or storm drains, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department and the Public Works Department. 43. That Coastal Commission approval shall be obtained prior to issuance of any grading or building permits unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department and the Planning Department. 44. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this Use Permit or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this Use Permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this Use Permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 45. That this Use Permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. G. Dcn,elopment A,-reement No. 6 (CIOSA): Adopt Resolution No. 1403 recommending City Council approval of Revisions to Development Agreement No. 6. -34- Icl� COMMISSIONERS '04F 9�9* O LL 0 .9 cf' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES August 24, 1995 ROLL CALL t IND A If Development Agreement No. 9: Adopt Resolution No. 1404 recommending City Council approval of Development Agreement No. 9. Motion was called for and MOTION CARRIED. SUBJECT: Commercial District Policy Review and discussion of draft. Staff in 'ated this item stating that the goal has been to involve the Planning mmission more before Public Hearing stage by reviewing drafts of mate ' is and having the opportunity for informal discussion. In this case, the Ci Council initiated a General Plan Amendment and sent it to the Plannin Commission. The City Council minutes and original version are inclu d in the packet. It has been subsequently reviewed by both the nomic Development Committee and Environmental Quality Affairs ommittee and their comments are included. However, since that time there have been ouple of studies done, Linda Congleton Retail Study and a variety of rec t recommendations from the Economic Development Committee and a 1 oint Plan put forth by the City Council appointed Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee. On this basis staff revised the original P Amendment to reflect these findings. The City Council has given a high priority to upgrading the co mercial districts which form the City's villages. To this end, the Land Us lan has guidelines to control the intensity, character and traffic of commer ' 1 development. -35- ACMENT N0. 3 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CERTIFYING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 155 FOR THE FLETCHER JONES MOTORCARS PROJECT WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach proposes to approve the Fletcher Jones Motorcars project, which includes the following discretionary actions: 1. General Plan Amendment No. 95-1 (D) 2. Local Coastal Plan Amendment No. 39 3. Amendment No. 823 4. Use Permit No. 3565 5. Traffic Study No. 108 6. Amendment to Development Agreement No. 6 7. Approval of Development Agreement No. 9 WHEREAS, in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code Sec. 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code of Regulations Sec. 15000 et seq.), Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) No. 155 has been prepared to address the environmental effects, mitigation measures, and project alternatives associated with the discretionary approvals necessary to implement the proposed project; and WHEREAS, the DEIR was circulated to the public for comment and review; and WI-IEREAS, written comments were received from the public during and after the review period; and WI-IEREAS, Final EIR No. 155 contains written responses to such comments as required by CEQA; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council of the City of Newport Beach conducted public hearings to receive public testimony with respect to the DEIR; and WI-IEREAS, Section 21081 of CEQA and Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines require that the City Council make one or more of the following Findings prior to the approval of a project for which an EIR has been completed, identifying one or more significant effects of the project, along with Statements of Facts supporting each Finding. FINDING 1: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the EIR. FINDING 2: Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the Finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. FINDING 3: Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR; and / WHEREAS, Section 15092 of the CEQA Guidelines provides that the City shall not decide to approve or carry out a project for which an EIR was prepared unless it has (A) , Eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible as shown in the findings under Section 15091, and (B) Determined that any remaining significant effects on the environment found to be unavoidable under Section 15091 are acceptable due to overriding concerns as described in Section 15093; and WHEREAS, Section 15093 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines requires the City Council to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project; and WHEREAS, Section 15093 (b) of the CEQA Guidelines requires, where the decision of the City Council allows the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the EIR but are not mitigated, the City must state in writing the reasons to support its action based on the EIR or other information in the record; and WHEREAS, Section 21031.6 of CEQA requires, where an EIR has been prepared for a project for which mitigation measures are adopted, that a mitigation monitoring or reporting program be adopted for the project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council has reviewed and considered Final Environmental Impact Report No. 155 for the Fletcher Jones Motorcars project and does hereby certify that the Final FIR is complete and adequate in that it addresses all known environmental effects of the proposed project and fully complies with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and the CEQA Guidelines. Final EIR No. 155 is comprised of the following elements: 1. Draft EIR No. 155 and Technical Appendices 2. Comments received on the DEIR and Responses to those Comments 3. Planning Commission Staff Reports 4. Planning Commission Minutes 5. Planning Commission Findings and Recommended Conditions for Approval 6. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 6 1911 All of the above information is on file with the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92659-1768, (714) 644-3225. BE IT FURTI-IER RESOLVED that the Final EIR contains a reasonable range of alternatives -that could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project, even when those alternatives might impede the attainment of other project objectives and might be more costly. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that although the Final EIR identifies certain significant environmental effects that could result if the proposed project is constructed, all feasible mitigation measures that could eliminate or substantially reduce those adverse effects have been included in the proposed project as described in the Final EIR. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council finds and determines that the proposed project should be approved. In making this determination, the City Council has balanced the benefits of the project against its environmental risks, as required by CEQA. Those alternatives and mitigation measures not incorporated into the project are rejected as infeasible, based upon specific economic, social and other considerations as set forth in the Statement of Findings and Facts, attached hereto as Exhibit A, and the Final EIR. The Fats listed in support of each Finding with respect to the significant impacts identified in the Final EIR are true and are based upon substantial evidence in the record. The unavoidable significant adverse impacts of the project, as identified in the Statement of Findings and Facts, that have not been reduced to a level of insignificance will be substantially reduced by the imposition of conditions and mitigation measures. The City Council further finds that the remaining unavoidable significant impacts are clearly outweighed by the economic, social and other benefits of the project, as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit B), incorporated herein by reference. The information contained in the Statement of Overriding Considerations is true and is supported by substantial evidence in the record. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the monitoring requirements of Public Resources Code Sec. 21081.6 (AB 3180 of 1988) will be met through the design of the project, required compliance with City building, grading and other codes and ordinances, and required compliance with the adopted mitigation measures and conditions of approval. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project is attached as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by reference. 3 BE 1T FURII IER RESOLVED that Final EIR No._, the Statement of Findings and Facts, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations, and all of the information contained therein accurately reflect the independent judgement of the City Council. ADOPTED TIilS _ day of, , 1995. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK Attachments: Exhibit A: Statement of Findings and Facts Exhibit B: Statement of Overriding Considerations Exhibit C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Zo1 EXHIBIT A STATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND FACTS FLETCHER JONES MOTORCARS SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT, FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO SAID EFFECTS, AND STATEMENTS OF FACT IN SUPPORT THEREOF, ALL WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED FLETCHER JONES MOTORCARS PROJECT LOCATED ON JAMBOREE ROAD AT BAYVIEW WAY IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CA INTRODUCTION The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") at Public Resources Code Section 21081 provides that: "(No) public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects on the environmental that would occur if the project is approved or carried out unless both of the following occur: (a) The public agency makes one or more of the following findings with respect to each significant impact: (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. (2) Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency. (3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. (b) With respect to significant effects which are subject to a finding under paragraph (3) of subdivision (a), the public agency finds that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment." In making the findings required by Section 21081, the public agency must base its findings on substantial evidence in the record. Final EIR No. 155, for the Fletcher Jones Motorcars project and related discretionary actions, identified significant environmental impacts prior to mitigation that may occur as a result of the project. Thus, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby adopts these findings as part of its action to certify Final EIR No. 155 and approve the Fletcher Jones Motorcars Project. A mitigation monitoring and reporting program has been prepared to monitor and report the implementation of the mitigation measures identified for the project. The mitigation monitoring and reporting program was developed in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and is contained in a separate document (Exhibit C). Findings regarding significant adverse environmental impacts are included below and addressed in more detail in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. H. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROTECT PROPOSED FOR APPROVAL Consistent with the intent of CEQA, CEQA Guidelines, and of relevant judicial interpretations of CEQA, the "project" addressed in the Fletcher Jones Motorcars EIR is defined to include development of 114,000 square feet of the dealership on an 8.7 acre site, including showrooms, offices, indoor storage, and automotive repair areas, as well as outdoor display areas, parking lots, and landscaping. The proposed dealership would be a multi-level structure cascading down the side of the hill from the Route 73 freeway towards Bayview Way. The project also includes paving the extension of Bayview Way for a distance of 700 feet, east of / jamboree Road along the project frontage, where the roadway would terminate, at least on an interim basis. Discretionary actions include a General Plan Amendment, local coastal plan amendment, zoning amendment, use permit, development agreement amendment and traffic study. III. FINDINGS ON SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROTECT A. LAND USE 1. IMPACT Loss of Open Space: The project will contribute to cumulative loss of open space in the region. FINDING: Regional efforts are under way to preserve open space in the vicinity of the project. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: The significant cumula- tive impact that will result from the loss of open space is partially mitigated through ongoing programs to preserve open space in the vicinity of the project. The cities of Newport Beach and Irvine, and the University of California at Irvine, have developed open space preservation programs. The City of Newport Beach has adopted the Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agre- ement, which preserves open space in the City. The City of Irvine has adopted the conservation and open space amendments to its General Plan (GPA -16), which call for the preservation of open spaces within its jurisdiction. The Long Range Development Plan for the University of California at Irvine also calls for the preservation of portions of the campus as an open space reserve. Notwithstanding the above, the development allowed under adopted General Plans of the City of Newport Beach, the City of Irvine and the University of California at Irvine will result in a cumulative loss of open space in the areas surrounding the project site. The significant cumulative environmental effect has been substantially reduced by virtue of the measures described above. The identified impact may not be reduced to a level that is not significant, however. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other considerations make infeasible mitigation measures identified in the EIR and/or project alternatives described in Chapter 5 of the EIR, in that: (a) The existing General Plan of the City of Newport Beach envisions development of the project site and consequent loss of open space. (The impact is not a new impact.) (b) Development of the project site, albeit with different land uses, was envisioned in the CIOSA agreement. (c) According to Chapter 6 of the EIR, no feasible alternative sites have been identified within the City of Newport Beach. (d) Development of the project on an alternative site outside the City of Newport Beach would result in economic harm 2' �3 to the City, i.e., the loss of an estimated $500,000 in annual revenue to the City. The remaining unavoidable adverse impacts are considered acceptable when compared to and balanced against the facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. B. EARTH RESOURCES 1. IMPACT Export of Material: Project site grading will require the export of approximately 160,000 cubic yards of material. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.2, of the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to export of material identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the grading contractor shall identify a spoils site for deposition of exported material. Such spoils site shall have obtained CEQA clearance in accordance with the requirements of the local jurisdiction where the site is located. IMPACT Compressible Soils: The project site contains compressible soils. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.2, of the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to compressible soils identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) As specified in the geotechnical report prepared for the site (Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc., May 1995), all loose, compressible natural soils and/or loose, compressible on- site fill soils should be removed from fill areas where exposed at final grade and replaced with compacted fills in accordance with the recommendations of the geotechnical engineer. All grading should be accomplished under the observation and testing of the project soils engineer and engineering geologist in accordance with the recom- mendations contained in the project geotechnical report, the current grading ordinance of the City of Newport Beach and earthwork specifications contained in Appendix F of the geotechnical report. The site preparation recommendations outlined in section 5.3 of the geotechnical report shall be followed. 3• IMPACT Ground Motion: Project structures are likely to be subject to ground motion during the life of the project. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and _ detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.2, of the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to ground motion identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant or successor in interest shall demonstrate to the City of Newport Beach Building Department that all facilities will be designed and constructed as specified in the City adopted version of the Uniform Building Code. 4. IMPACT Extent of Grading: The preliminary grading plan requires grading that could potentially result in unstable slopes. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.2, of the MR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to grading identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the MR: 1) Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. The application for grading permit shall be accompanied by a grading plan and specifications and supporting data consisting of soils engineering and engineering geology reports or other reports if required by the building official. IMPACT Grading: Project grading and operation may result in the production of silt, debris, and other water pollutants. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.2, of the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to grading identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measures listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) The grading plan shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 2) The grading plan shall include a description of haul routes, access points to the site, watering, and sweeping program designed to minimize impact of haul operations. 4 3) An erosion, siltation and dust control plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of grading permits and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. 4) The velocity of concentrated runoff from the project site shall be evaluated and erosive velocities controlled as part of the project design. 5) Grading operations and drainage requirements shall meet the standards set forth in the City's Building Code (Appendix Chapter 70 - Excavation and Grading, Sections 7001-7019) and the Building Department's General Grading Specifications. 6) The erosion control measures shall be completed on any exposed slopes within 30 days after grading, or as approved by the Building Department. 6. IMPACT • Emission of Fugitive Dust: Project grading may result in the emission of fugitive (lust. • FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.2, of the EIR. • FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to emission of fugitive dust identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation mea- sure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Fugitive dust emissions during construction shall be minimized by watering the site for dust control, containing excavated soil on site until it is hauled away, and periodically washing adjacent streets to remove accumulated materials. 7. IMPACT Comnatibilitv of Pronosed Foundations With On -Site Soils: Building foundations must be compatible with on-site soils. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.2, of the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to compatibility of proposed foundations with on- site soils identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Prior to the issuance of any building permits, a specific soils and foundation study shall be prepared and approved by the Building Department. 8. IMPACT Liquefaction: The preliminary soils report indicates potential for liquefaction. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project, or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.2, of the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to liquefaction identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Sites where the potential for liquefaction has been identified, or any other site where the potential for liquefaction may be encountered during subsequent investigations, shall be further evaluated by a geotechnical consultant to verify the low potential for liquefaction. The evaluation shall include subsurface investigation with standard penetration testing or other appropriate means of analysis for liquefaction potential. The project geotechnical consultant shall provide a statement concerning the potential for liquefaction and its possible impact on proposed development. If necessary, the geotechnical consultant shall provide mitigation measures that could include mechanical densification of liquefiable layers, dewatering, fill surcharging or other appropriate measures. The Geotechnical Consultant's report shall be signed by a Certified Engineering Geologist and a Registered Civil Engineer, and shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the Building Department prior to issuance of Grading Permit. Grading and building plans shall re- flect the recommenclations of the study to the satisfaction of the Building Department. 9. IMPACT Erosive Flow: Project construction could result in erosive flows. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.2, of the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to erosive flow identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Any necessary diversion devices, catchment devices, or velocity reducers shall be incorporated into the grading plan and approved by the Building Department prior to issuance of grading permits. Berms or other catchment devices shall be incorporated into the grading plans to divert sheet flow runoff away from areas that have been stripped of natural vegetation. Velocity reducers shall be incorporated into the design, especially where drainage devices exit to natural ground. 01 10. IMPACT Fill Slopes: The project will require the construction of fill slopes. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.2, of the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to fill slopes identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) All fill slopes shall be properly compacted during grading in conformance with the City Grading Code and verified by the project Geotechnical Consultant. Slopes shall be planted with vegetation upon completion of grading. Conformance with this measure shall be verified by the Building Department prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. 11. IMPACT Brow Ditches: The project may require the construction of brow ditches. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.2, of the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to brow ditches identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Berms and brow ditches shall be constructed to the satisfaction and approval of the Building Department. Water shall not be allowed to drain over any manufactured slope face. Top -of -slope soil berms shall be incorporated into grading plans to prevent surface runoff from draining over future fill slopes. Brow ditches shall be incorporated into grading plans to divert surficial runoff from ungraded natural areas around future cut slopes. The design of berms and brow ditches shall be approved by the Building Department prior to issuance of grading permits. 12. IMPACT Erosion in Landscaped Areas: Erosion could occur in landscaped areas prior to establishment of landscaping. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.2, of the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to erosion identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: M 1) Prior to the issuance of grading permits, appropriate artificial substances shall be recommended by the project landscape architect and approved by the Building Department for use in reducing surface erosion until permanent landscaping is well established. Upon com- pletion of grading, stripped areas shall be covered with artificial substances approved by the Building Department. 13. IMPACT Compressible/Collapsible Soils: Compressible/collapsible soils may be located on the site. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.2, of the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to compressible/collapsible soils identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Prior to the issuance of grading permits, written recom- mendations for the mitigation of compressible/collapsible soil potential for the project site shall be provided by the geotechnical consultant. Foundation recommendations shall be included. Recommendations shall be incorporat- ed as conditions of approval for the site specific tentative tract maps and grading plans to the satisfaction of the Building Department. Recommendations shall be based on surface and subsurface mapping, laboratory testing and analysis. Mitigation, if necessary, could include: removal and recompaction of identified compressible/collapsible zones, fill surcharging and settlement monitoring, compaction grouting, or foundation design that utilizes deep piles, or other recommended measures. The geo- technical consultant's site specific reports shall be signed by a Certified Engineering Geologist and Registered Civil Engineer, and shall be approved by the Building Department 14. IMPACT Foundation Foundation Design: Soil conditions may affect foundation design. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.2, of the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to foundation design identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Written recommendations for the mitigation of expansive and corrosive soil potential for each site shall be provided by the project corrosion consultant, geotechnical consultant and/or Civil Engineer. Foundation recommendations shall be included. Recommendations shall be based on surface and subsurface mapping, laboratory testing and analysis, and shall be incorporated into final building plans prior to issuance of building permits. The geotechnical consultant's site specific reports shall be signed by a Certified Engineering Geologist and Registered City Engineer, and shall be approved by the Building Department. 15. IMPACT Groundwater: Preliminary conclusions regarding groundwater need to be confirmed in the final geotechnical study. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.2, of the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to groundwater identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) The project geotechnical consultant and/or civil engineer shall prepare written, site specific reviews of the tentative tract maps and grading plans addressing all salient geotechnical issues, including groundwater. These reports shall provide findings, conclusions and recommendations regarding near surface groundwater and the potential for artificially induced groundwater as a result of future devel- opment, and the effects groundwater may have on bluffs, slopes and structures. The reports shall also address the potential for ground subsidence on the site and properties adjacent to the sites if dewatering is recommended. The geotechnical consultant and/or civil engineer's reports shall be signed by a Certified Engineering Geologist and Registered Civil engineer, and shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Building Department prior to issuance of a grading permit. C. WATER RESOURCES IMPACT Erosion. Siltation and Dust: The project may result in erosion, siltation and dust during construction. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.3, of the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to erosion, siltation and dust identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation mea- sure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Prior to issuance of any grading permit, an erosion, siltation, and dust control plan shall be submitted, and shall be subject to the approval of the Building Depart- ment. 2. IMPACT Erosion in Downstream Channels: The project may result in increased erosion potential in downstream channels. M r_1 FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.3, of the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to increased erosion potential in downstream channels identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, the design engineer shall verify that the discharge of surface runoff from development of any site will be performed in a manner so that increased peak flows from the site will not increase erosion immediately downstream of the system. As part of this review, the velocity of concentrated runoff from the project shall be evaluated, and erosive velocities controlled as part of the final project design. This report shall be reviewed by the Planning Department and approved by the Building Department. 3. IMPACT Erosion of Graded Slopes: Graded slopes may be subject to erosion. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.3, of the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to erosion of graded slopes identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation mea- sure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Erosion control measures contained in the erosion siltation and dust control plan shall be implemented on any exposed slopes within 30 days after grading, or as otherwise directed by the Building Department. 4. IMPACT On -Site Drainage: The project will require improvements to on- site drainage. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.3, of the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to on-site drainage identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Any existing on-site drainage facilities shall be improved as required, or updated concurrent with grading and development, to the satisfaction of the Public Works and Building Departments. Improvement plans shall be approved by the Public Works Department prior to issuance of a grading permit. 10 IMPACT Haul Roads: Project grading may require haul roads. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.3, of the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to haul roads identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant (or applicant's grading contractor) shall provide to the Building and Public Works Departments haul route plans that include a description of haul routes, access points to the sites, and watering and sweeping program designed to minimize Impacts of the haul operation. These plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Departinent. Copies of the plans shall be submitted to the City's Planning Department. 6. IMPACT Erosion During Construction/Operation: The project may result in erosion during construction and operation. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.3, of the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to erosion during construction/operation identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measures listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall incorporate the following erosion control methods into grading plans and operations to the satisfaction of the Building Department. a. An approved material such as straw, wood chips, plastic or similar materials shall be used to stabilize graded areas prior to revegetation or construction. b. Airborne and vehicle borne sediment shall be controlled during construction by the regular sprinkling of exposed soils and the moistening of vehicles loads. C. An approved material such as riprap (a ground cover of large, loose, angular stones) shall be used to stabilize any slopes with seepage problems to protect the topsoils in areas of concentrated runoff. 7. IMPACT Exposed Slopes During Construction: The project may result in exposed slopes subject to erosion during construction. 11 g) Z FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.3, of the EIR. FACTS INSUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts rela d to exposed slopes during construction identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the miti- gation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project geotechnical consultant and/or civil engineer shall develop a plan for the diversion of stormwater away from any exposed slopes during grading and construction activities. The plan shall include the use of temporary right-of-way diversions (i.e., berms or swales) located at disturbed areas or graded right-of-ways. The plan will be approved by the Public Works and Building Departments, and implemented during grading and construction activities. 8. IMPACT Unpaved Construction Entrances: Unpaved construction entrances may result in dust and erosion. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.3, of the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to unpaved construction entrances identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the miti- gation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) The applicant shall provide a temporary gravel entrance located at every construction site entrance. The location of this entrance shall be incorporated into grading plans prior to the issuance of grading permits. To reduce or eliminate mud and sediment carried by vehicles or runoff onto public rights-of-way, the gravel shall cover the entire width of the entrance, and its length shall be no less than 50 feet. The entrance plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works and Building Departments concurrent with review and approval of grading plans. 2) The applicant shall construct filter berms or other approved device for the temporary gravel entrance. The berms shall consist of a ridge of gravel placed across graded right-of-ways to decrease and filter runoff levels while permitting construction traffic to continue. The location of berms shall be incorporated into grading plans prior to the issuance of grading permits. The plans shall he reviewed and approved by the Public Works and Building Departments. 9. IMPACT Sediment During Construction: Erosion during construction may result in the production of sediment. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig - 12 3 nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.3, of the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to sediment during construction identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) During grading and construction, the applicant shall provide a temporary sediment basin located at the point of greatest runoff from any construction area. The location of this basin shall be incorporated into grading plans. It shall consist of an embankment of compacted soils across a drainage. The basin shall not be located in an area where its failure would lead to loss of life or the loss of service of public utilities or roads. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Building Department. 10. IMPACT Stormwater Runoff: Project grading will trigger requirements under the General Construction Activity Stormwater Runoff Permit. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.3, of the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to stormwater runoff identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Notice of Intent: Prior to the approval of a grading permit, the project sponsor shall submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the appropriate fees for coverage of the project under the General Construction Activity Storm Water Runoff Permit to the State Water Resources Control Board at least 30 clays prior to initiation of construction activity at the site. The NOI shall include information about the project such as construction activities, material building/ management practices, site characteristics, and receiving water information. As required by the General Construction Permit, the project shall develop and implement a Stormwater Pollu- tion Prevention Plan (SWPPP), including inspection of stormwater controls structures and pollution prevention measures. The SWPPI' shall be implemented concurrent with the beginning of the construction activities, and the plan shall be kept on site. 11. IMPACT Downstream Water Quality: Project operation could result in the degradation of downstream water quality. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.3, of the EIR. 13 H FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to downstream water duality identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation mea- sures listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Structural BMP Controls: Prior to the issuance of any Grading Permit, the project proponent shall ensure that the project includes implementation of appropriate structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce the extent of pollutants in stormwater Flows from the site. Said structural BMPs shall meet the approval of the Public Works Department. The following structural BMPs will be incorporated at the project site: • All automotive maintenance areas will be covered with a roof and will drain to the sewer system rather than the storm drain. • All trash enclosures will be covered. • Car wash areas will be covered and drain to the sewer system rather than the storm drain. • Parking lot and display area catch basins will be provided with grease and oil filters. Maintenance of the selected structural BMPs will be required throughout the life of the project to ensure proper operation. 2) Non -Structural BMP Controls: Prior to the issuance of certificates of use and occupancy, the project proponent shall submit an operations plan that ensures that the project operation shall include non-structural BMPs, including the following: • Periodic cleaning (i.e., street sweeping) • Routinely cleaning on-site storm drain manholes and catch basins • Source control surveys of all on-site industrial facilities • Controlling washdown of non-stormwater discharges from project development facilities • Providing information to employees on disposal of waste oil, grease, and pesticide containers • Carefully controlling pesticide and fertilizer usage • Providing covered areas for trash receptacles, or enclosed features to prevent direct contact with precipitation • Efficient landscaping irrigation • Common area litter control • Housekeeping of loading docks. All non-structural BMI's shall meet the approval of the Public Works Department. 3) Water Quality Management Plan: Prior to the issuance of any building permit, consistent with the Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) prepared by the County of Or- ange for compliance with their municipal storm water \ NPDES permit requirement, the project proponent shall prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). Said WQMP shall meet the approval of the Public Works Department. The WQMP shall indicate the proposed structural and non-structural, permanent stormwater quality control measure to be utilized for the project, shall identify the potential pollutant source on the project, and shall describe how the project implements the objectives outlined in the DAMP. 14 �Ll0 12. IMPACT • Construction of Water, Sewer, and Storm Drain Facilities: The project will require construction of mater, sewer, and storm drain facilities. • FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.3, of the EIR. • FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to construction of water, sewer, and storm drain facilities identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the final plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities shall be approved by the Public Works Department. Any systems shown to be required by the review shall be the responsibility of the developer, unless otherwise provided for through an agreement with the property owner or serving agency. D. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION 1. IMPACT Jamboree Road/Bristol Street Intersection: The project will contribute to General Plan level deficiencies at the intersection of Jamboree Road and Bristol Street North. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.4, of the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to the Jamboree RoadA3ristol Street intersection identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Prior to approval of building permits, the project will contribute, on a fair share basis, towards the cost of the improvement at the intersection of Jamboree Road/Bristol Street North. Said contributions shall meet with the approval of the Director of Public Works. E. AIR QUALITY 1. IMPACT Emission of Dust: Project construction will result in the emission of dust. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.5, of the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to emission of dust identified above can be 15 2)6 reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Standard dust control practices dictated by SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be followed. t 2. IMPACT VOC Emissions from Asphalt: Project paving may result in VOC emissions from asphalt. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.5, of the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to VOC emissions from asphalt identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) The applicant shall specify the use of concrete, emulsified asphalt, or asphaltic cement, none of which produce significant quantities of VOC emissions. IMPACT NOx Emissions: Construction export operations may result in NOx emissions that exceed SCAG's threshold of significance. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being imple- mented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.5, of the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potential significant impacts related to NOx emissions from construction export operations identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) To avoid exceedance of SCAG's threshold of significance for NOx emissions, construction export operations are limited to a maximum of ten hours per day, including one hour of clown time. F. NOISE 1. IMPACT Mechanical Noise: Rooftop mechanical equipment may result in noise that could be annoying to adjacent uses. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.6, of the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to mechanical noise identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 16 1) Any rooftop or other mechanical equipment shall be sound attenuated in such a manner as to achieve a maximum sound level of 55 dBA at the property line. IMPACT Mechanical Noise: Mechanical equipment may result in noise in excess of City standards. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.6, of the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to mechanical noise identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Any mechanical equipment and emergency power generators shall be screened from view, and noise associated with said installations shall be sound attenuated so as not to exceed 55 dBA at the property line. The latter shall be based upon the recommendations of a licensed engineer practicing in acoustics, and shall be approved by the Planning Department. 3. IMPACT Construction Noise: Construction noise may adversely affect adjacent land uses. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.6, of the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to construction noise identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Pursuant to the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Section 10.28.040, construction adjacent to existing residential development shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. Construction shall not be allowed outside of these hours Monday through Saturday or at any time on Sundays and federal holidays. Verification of this shall be provided to the Planning Department. G. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 1. IMPACT Wetlands: The project could adversely affect adjacent wetlands. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.7, of the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to wetlands identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Final project design will include measures to buffer the project from adjacent wetland areas, including the SJHTC mitigation site and the existing wetland adjacent to the southeast corner of the project. The final buffer design shall be approved by the California Department of Fish and Game and the California Coastal Commission. While a combination of landscaping and the presence of the Bay- view extension may be considered adequate to buffer the project from the SJHTC mitigation site, additional measures will likely be required for the nearer existing wetland site. Design measures to be considered include a five foot high concrete block wall or equivalent barrier that will preclude human access from the project site and reduce the effects of human activity. 2. IMPACT Non -Native Invasive Plants: Non-native, invasive land scape plants could invade adjacent wetland areas. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.7, of the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to non-native invasive plants identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation mea- sure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Impacts resulting from the use of non-native, invasive plant species will be mitigated by developing a landscape plan that avoids the use of non-native invasive plants. A landscape plan prepared with consideration of the following information must be approved by the City prior to the issuance of building permits: Prohibited Species All non-native plants that are potentially invasive via airborne seeds, or that are particularly difficult to control once escaped, will be prohibited from all parts of the project. Such species include, but are not limited to, the following: • Tree -of -heaven (Ailanthus spp.) • Giant reed (Arundo donax) • Garland chrysanthemum (Chrysanthemum coronariuin) • Pampas grass (Cortaderia spp.) • Brooms (Cytisus spp.) • Bermuda buttercup (Oxalis pes-caprae) • Fountain/Kikuyu grass (Pennisetum spp.) • German ivy (Senecio mikanoides) • Tamarisk (Tamarix spp.). PermiUed Species Some invasive, exotic species are known to be controllable in well managed situations. Such species may be used in project landscaping if a City approved biologist approves the species and proposed use. For example, areas that are separated from existing wetland areas by a substantial area of paving could be planted with hybrid bermuda grass. Non-native, invasive species that could be used under these circumstances include, but are not limited to, the fol- lowing: • IIottentot-fig (Caipobrotus edulis) • Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon) • Myoporum (Myoporuin lactum) • Pepper trees (Scbinus spp.) • Cape Honeysuckle (Tecomaria capensis)t • Periwinkle (Vinca spp.). 3. IMPACT Site Lighting: Site lighting could adversely affect adjacent wetland areas. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.7, of the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to site lighting identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) The effects of night lighting on adjacent natural areas, including the SJI ITC mitigation site, will be reduced by the design of lighting that is either low intensity or highly directional. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a lighting plan shall be approved by the City, demonstrating that appropriate lighting will be installed for the display area, parking lots and areas adjacent to wetlands to minimize spillage into the habitat areas. The plan will include, but not be limited to, lighting directed onto the project site, and the use of soft light intensity fixtures. Prior to the issuance of any certificate of use and occupancy, the project proponent shall provide evidence, meeting the approval of the City, that the installed lighting meets the objectives of the plan. If necessary, shields on the back of lights or other screening shall be placed to cut off light beyond project area. 4. IMPACT Removal of Coastal Scrub Habitat: The project will require the removal of approximately two acres of coastal scrub habitat. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.7, of the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to removal of coastal scrub habitat identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the miti- gation measures listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 19 X20 r ]) Prior to the issuance of grading permits for the project, a detailed Interim Habitat Loss Mitigation Plan (IHLMP), incorporating Mitigation Measures 7-5 and 7-6, shall be prepared by the City and submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) for approval. The purpose of these measures is to increase the amount and quality of scrub habitat that can be utilized by the California gnatcatcher and other species that require this habitat. This will both compensate for the project induced loss of potential breeding habitat and increase the potential for wildlife movement by increasing the size of important populations. The specific habitat replacement and exotic weed removal measures to be incorporated into the detailed IHLMP, including the actual acreage, may be modified with the approval of the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The detailed IHLMP will include the following elements: • Overview/Objective • Plant Palettes and Planting Densities • Planting Methods and Timing • Site Preparation • Exotic Weed Removal • Irrigation • Maintenance • Performance Standards • Monitoring • Remedial Measures. The implementation of these measures will occur at the first feasible opportunity, with consideration of site preparation and plant propagule collection requirements. 2) Prior to final design, the limit of the wetland area adjacent to the project will be staked in the field by a qualified person, and this limit will be surveyed and placed on the base map used to prepare the final plans. Prior to initiation of clearing and/or other construction activity, this limit will be clearly marked in the field with staking and ribbon, rope or fencing, and the contractor(s) will be advised by the City inspector that this area is not to be disturbed for any reason. This area will be monitored by the City during regular inspections to ensure that there is no encroachment. 3) M approximately 3.5 acre portion of the City owned property in the Big Canyon area adjacent to Upper Newport Bay shall be restored/converted to coastal sage scrub habitat. The goal of the additional habitat creation is to increase the California gnatcatcher population by at least one pair. 4) As part of. the Big Canyon restoration effort, the City will implement a three year program for the removal of pampas grass and myoporum from City property in the mouth of Big Canyon (Figure 4.7.2). The first year will concentrate on initial removal at an appropriate time of year, i.e., prior to seed formation. The following two years will consist of spot removal of new seedlings or root sprouts. 20 ;2� H. CULTURAL/SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES 1. IMPACT Unknown Archaeological Resources: The project may result in impacts to unknown archaeological resources. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.8, of the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to unknown archaeological resources identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measures listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) City Council Policy K-5 outlines the City's requirements with respect to archaeological resources. The following specific measures are recommended, in conformance with Policy K-5: A. A qualified archaeologist shall be present during pre -grade meetings to inform the project sponsor and grading contractor of the results of any previous studies. In addition, an archaeologist shall be present during grading activities to inspect the underlying soil for cultural resources. If significant cultural resources are uncovered, the ar- chaeologist shall have the authority to stop or temporarily divert construction activities for a period of 48 hours to assess the significance of the find. B. In the event that significant archaeological remains are uncovered during excavation and/or grading, all work shall stop in that area of subject property until an appropriate data recovery program can be developed and implemented. The cost of such a program shall be the responsibility of the project sponsor. C. Prior to issuance of any grading or demolition permits, the applicant shall waive the provisions of AB 952 related to City of Newport Beach responsibilities for the mitigation of archaeological impacts in a manner acceptable to the City Attorney. 2) Any sites uncovered shall be mitigated pursuant to Council Policy K-5. Where further testing or salvage is required, the applicant shall select a City approved, qualified archaeologist to excavate a sample of the site. All testing and salvage shall be conducted prior to issuance of grading permits or use of an area for recreational purposes. A written report summarizing the findings of the testing and data recovery program shall be submitted to the Planning Department within 90 days of the com- pleted data recovery program. 3) The applicant shall donate all archaeological material, historic, or prehistoric, recovered during the project to a local institution that has the proper facilities for curation, display and study by qualified scholars. All material shall be transferred to the approved facility after laboratory analysis and a report have been completed. The appropri- ate local institution shall be approved by the Planning De- partment based on a recommendation from the qualified archaeologist. / 2. IMPACT • Unknown Paleontological. Resources: The project may result in impacts to unknown paleontological resources. • FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig. nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.8, of the EIR. • FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to unknown paleontological resources identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measures listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) A pre -grade reconnaissance of the area shall be made by a qualified paleontologist to assess whether any significant fossils currently are exposed. Any fossils observed and deemed significant shall be salvaged. 2) A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to monitor and, if necessary, salvage scientifically significant fossil remains. 3) The paleontologist shall have the power to temporarily divert or direct grading efforts to allow the evaluation and any necessary salvage of exposed fossils. 4) Monitoring shall be on a full-time basis during grading in geologic units of high paleontologic sensitivity. 5) Spot-checking of low sensitivity sediments shall be conducted by a qualified paleontologist. Should significant fossils be observed during grading in these units, full-time monitoring may be required. 6) All collected fossils shall be donated to a museum approved by the City of Newport Beach Planning Department. 7) A final report summarizing findings, including an itemized inventory and contextual stratigraphic data, shall accompany the fossils to the designated repository; an additional copy shall be sent to the appropriate Lead Agency. I. AESTHETICS 1. IMPACT • Views from Bicycle Trail: The project may affect the views from the bicycle trail on the north edge of the property. • FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.9, of the EIR. 223 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to views from the bicycle trail identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation mea- sure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) A landscape screen and/or equivalent barrier shall be constructed along the northeastern project boundary to screen service areas from view from the Jamboree Road southbound on-ramp and from the bicycle trail that will parallel the on-ramp. J. HAZARDOUS WASTES AND MATERIALS 1. IMPACT Existing Trash and Spills: Trash and minor spills are located on the site. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.11, of the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to existing trash and spills identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation mea- sures listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Prior to approval of a grading permit, grading spec- ifications for the project shall require the following to the satisfaction of the Building Department: a) All trash on the site shall be disposed of properly. b) Hazardous materials residue in the vicinity of the five gallon solvent can and the tar residue identified on the wood debris and soils shall be removed and disposed of properly. After removal of the debris, soils in the vicinity of the contaminated sites shall be tested to ensure proper cleanup, per the recommendations of the environ- mental remediation engineer. C) Creosote treated power poles shall be removed and properly disposed of properly upon relocation, per the recommendations of the environmental remediation engineer. d) Any abandoned septic tanks systems encountered during grading shall be disposed of properly, per City of Newport Beach requirements. IG UTILITY AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 1. IMPACT Wastewater Disposal: The project will require wastewater disposal. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.13, of the EIR. 23 / FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to wastewater disposal identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation mea- sures listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Prior to the approval of a grading permit, the project proponent shall determine the appropriate method of wastewater disposal to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. 2) If disposal through a septic tank system is selected, the project proponent shall construct the system in compliance with "On -Site Sewage Absorption System Guidelines" prepared by the Orange County Health Care Agency. Consistency with said guidelines shall be deter- mined by the Public Works Department prior to issuance of a grading permit for any septic tank facilities. The septic tank shall be operated in a manner to avoid pollu- tion of local groundwater supplies. IV. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROTECT CEQA requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project and to evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. Section 15126(d)(d) of the CEQA Guidelines states that the "discussion of alternatives shall focus upon alternatives capable of eliminating any significant adverse environmental effects or reducing them to a level of insignificance..." The EIR, therefore, considers two classes of alternatives: Alternative uses on the proposed project site. Alternative locations for the proposed project. The analysis contained within the DEIR concludes that, after mitigation, the project will contribute to one cumulative impact in the area: a cumulative loss of open space. This loss is not considered significant at the project level but is considered significant when combined with other reasonably foreseeable projects in the vicinity. This impact (the cumulative loss of open space) has been previously acknowledged in the approvals of General Plans of the City of Newport Beach and the City of Irvine, and The Long Range Development Plan of the University of California at Irvine. Even though this impact had been previously acknowledged, the City has considered alternatives to potentially reduce such impacts. The following describes the alternatives considered and their impacts, as compared to the proposed project. ALTERNATIVE USES FOR THE PROTECT SITE A. NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE (Alternative A) Under the No Build Alternative, the project would not be built at the San Diego Creek North site nor at another location within the City of Newport Beach. In addition, no other land uses besides the existing open space, habitat preservation and transportation uses would be allowed at the San Diego Creek North site. 1. SUMMARY OF MAYOR ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS • The loss of open space associated with the project would not occur nor mould the project's contribution to the cumulative loss of open space. • landform modification associated with the project would not occur nor would the export of cut material. • Potential water quality impacts would not occur. • Traffic volumes accessing the site would not increase. • Air quality emissions associated with construction of the site and operations on the site would not occur. • Impacts to biological resources would be eliminated. • Potential impacts to unidentified cultural resources would also not occur. • Aesthetic impacts would be eliminated. 2. PROTECT OBTECTIVES Alternative A conflicts with the basic objective of the project to maintain the dealership within city, and would likely result in the probable relo- cation of the dealership outside of the corporate limits of the City of Newport Beach and in the consequent loss of sales tax revenues to the City. It should be noted that if the dealership were to choose to locate on other sites outside the city limits, many of the impacts identified at the present site would also occur with alternative sites in the surrounding cities; in particular, land use, traffic, noise, and air quality impacts would occur at potentially different levels at sites outside the City of Newport Beach. 3. FEASIBILITY Implementation of this Alternative A is feasible. 4. COMPARATIVE MERITS Consideration of the No Project Alternative is required by the California Environmental Quality Act. This Alternative is considered envi- ronmentally superior to the proposed project. 5. FINDINGS The No Project Alternative would not meet the basic project objective of identifying a feasible alternative relocation site for the dealership within the City of Newport Beach, and would result in consequent adverse economic effects on the City (loss of sales tax revenue). After mitigation, the remaining significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the proposed project are considered acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth the preceding Findings, and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. B. EXISTING GENERAL PLAN ALTERNATIVE (Alternative B) Under this alternative, the project site would be developed according to the City of Newport Beach General Plan and the local Coastal Plan, i.e., 112,000 square feet of commercial office space. 1. SUMMARY OF MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS • Loss of open space and open space impacts would remain the same as the proposed project. • Impacts to earth resources and water resources would be similar to the proposed project. 25 2Z • Peak hour traffic generation would increase as compared to the Preferred Alternative, while total trip generation on a daily basis would decrease. • Noise and air quality impacts would be similar to those of the Pre- ferred Alternative. • Impacts to biological resources would remain the same. • Impacts to cultural resources and aesthetics would be similar to those of the Preferred Alternative. 2. PROTECT OBJECTIVES Alternative B is inconsistent with a primary objective of the City with respect to the project, i.e., identification of an appropriate relocation site for the Fletcher Jones Motor Car dealership. Selection of this alternative would likely result in relocation of the dealership outside of the City with consequent adverse economic impacts to the City. 3. FEASIBILITY Implementation of Alternative B would require a zone change, an amend- ment to the CIOSA Agreement and a Coastal Development Permit. This alternative is compatible with the existing General Plan and Local Coastal Plan. This alternative may not be currently feasible, in that there is substantial undeveloped land zoned for office buildings in the immediately adjacent area, i.e., It -vine Business Complex, where office buildings are entitled and could be constructed. I lowever, such construction has not occurred due to apparent lack of current demand. Therefore, this alternative would likely result in the deferral of any development on the site. 4. COMPARATIVE MERITS This alternative has the same basic environmental impacts as the proposed project, generates more peak hour traffic, and does not reduce the cumulative loss of open space. Its only advantage is compatibility with the existing General Plan and local Coastal Plan. The proposed project is, therefore, considered environmentally superior to Alterna- tive B. 5. FINDINGS Alternative B, the Existing General Plan Alternative, would neither meet the objectives of the City nor result in a lesser degree of adverse impacts to the environment than the proposed project. After mitigation, the remaining significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the proposed project are considered acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth the preceding Findings, and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. C. EXISTING ZONING ALTERNATIVE (Alternative Q Under this alternative, the San Diego Creek North site would be developed consistent with the existing zoning, with public facilities on the portion of the site designated for development under CIOSA. For purposes of this analysis, it would be assumed that a 2.5 acre fire station and a 250 space park and ride would be developed on the site. 26 yZ� 1. SUMMARY OF NIATOR ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS As compared to the Preferred Alternative, this alternative has the following impacts: • Land use impacts would be the same as with the Preferred Alter- native because the site would be developed with urban uses. • landform modification would likely be similar. • Impacts to water resources would be reduced, due to the less intensive development of the site. • Peak hour traffic generation of the site would be similar to the Preferred Alternative due to the high peak hour demand asso- ciated with park and ride facilities. • Air quality and noise impacts resulting from increased traffic volumes would also be reduced. • Impacts to biological resources would be the same as with the proposed project. • Cultural resources impacts would he similar to those of the Pre- ferred Alternative, depending upon the extent of grading of the site. 2. PROTECT OBJECTIVES This alternative is fundamentally inconsistent with the objective of the City in selecting the Preferred Alternative, i.e., to identify an appropriate relocation site for the Fletcher Jones Motor Car dealership. This alternative would likely result in adverse economic impacts to the City resulting from potential relocation of the dealership outside of the City, with consequent adverse economic impacts. 3. FEASIBILITY This alternative is considered feasible from a planning perspective. However, the City has not identified sufficient funding to construct either the fire station or a park and ride lot. The anticipated loss of revenue that would occur should the dealership relocate outside the City would make funding a fire station and park and ride even more problematic. This alternative is compatible with the existing Zoning and CIOSA. 4. COMPARATIVE MERITS Alternative C has many of the same basic environmental impacts as the proposed project and does not reduce the cumulative loss of open space. Its only advantage is compatibility with the existing Zoning and the CIOSA Agreement. The proposed project is considered environmentally equivalent to Alternative C. 5. FINDINGS • Alternative C, the Existing Zoning Alternative, would neither meet the objectives of the City nor result in a lesser degree of adverse impacts to the environment than the proposed project. • After mitigation, the remaining significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the proposed project are considered acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth the preceding Findings, and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. 27 a7� ALTERNATIVE SITE LOCATIONS The following discusses alternatives that would relocate the dealership to other sites within the City of Newport Beach rather than to the proposed San Diego Creek North �- site. Each of these alternatives was determined to be infeasible for the reasons stated. Therefore, the environmental impacts are not described for these alternatives. D. SAN DIEGO CREEK SOUTH (Alternative D) The San Diego Creek South site is located across San Diego Creek from the proposed project site, and consists of 18.6 acres currently designated in the City's General Plan for 300 dwelling units. The project owner, The Irvine Company, has proceeded to obtain full entitlement for development of the site. The entitlement is protected under CIOSA. 1. FEASIBILITY This alternative is no longer under consideration for the following specific reasons: A change of zoning to provide for an automobile dealership on the site is not be feasible at this time without the approval of the property owner, which has stated its intention to build the site under the present entitlement. The site is located across the street from existing residential uses, and development of the site as an automobile dealership would create land use incompatibilities with existing uses. 2. PROTECT OBJECTIVES Alternative D would meet the City's project objectives with respect to the dealership, but would not meet the City s objectives with respect to the development of housing on the San Diego Creek South site, and would not meet the objectives and entitlements of the property owner of the San Diego Creek South site. 3. COMPARATIVE MERIT Assuming the proposed project site was maintained in open space, this alternative would result in a small incremental reduction in the cumulative loss of open space. It would, however, result in the introduction of potentially incompatible land uses within a residential area. 4. FINDINGS Alternative D, the San Diego Creek South Alternative, does not appear to he feasible based upon existing entitlements. Alternative D would create additional environmental impacts as compared to the preferred alternative, i.e., the creation of potentially incompatible land uses. After mitigation, the remaining significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the proposed project are acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth the preceding Findings, and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. E. BLOCK 800 OF NEWPORT CENTER (Alternative E) This 6.4 acre site is located in Block 800 of Newport Center and is currently proposed for 245 residential dwelling units. The Irvine Company is proceeding to develop the site under the current General Plan and CIOSA entitlement. 28 Z2 FEASIBILITY This location is no longer under consideration for the following specific reasons: At 6.4 acres, the site is considered smaller than desirable for the proposed project and does not meet the project objective of an approximately 8.0 acre site. The site is not located adjacent to existing or planned freeways and freeway access points, and is considered remote from the John Wayne Airport area. The property owner has existing entitlement to proceed with development of the site and proposes to develop the site under the current General Plan and CIOSA. 2. PROJECT OBJECTIVES This alternative would only partially meet the Citys project objectives with respect to the dealership, and would not meet the objectives of the property owner of the site. The site is too small and is remote from the freeway network and John Wayne Airport. COMPARATIVE MERIT Assuming the proposed project site was maintained in open space, this alternative would result in a small incremental reduction in the cumulative loss of open space. However, the site is too small for the proposed land use, and is too remote from the freeway network and John Wayne Airport. FINDINGS Alternative E, the Block 800 Alternative, does not appear to be feasible based upon the sire of the site, location of the site, and existing entitlements. After mitigation, the remaining significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the proposed project are acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth the preceding Findings, and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. F. NEWPORTER NORTH (Alternative F) This 30 acre site is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills Road, and is currently zoned for 212 residential dwelling units. The property is owned by The Irvine Company, which is proceeding to develop the site under its current entitlement. 1. FEASIBILITY This alternative is no longer under consideration by the City of Newport Beach for the following reasons: The site is inconsistent with the objective of locating the deal- ership adjacent to major freeways and near John Wayne Airport. Assuming that eight acres of the site were developed as an automobile dealership and the balance of the site were developed as residential, there is the potential for land use incompatibilities between residential and automobile dealership uses. 29 �3� The current property owner has stated its intent to develop the site under the current General Plan and CIOSA designation of residential uses. 2. PROTECT OBJECTIVES This alternative would only partially meet the Citys project objectives with respect to the dealership, and would not meet the objectives of the property owner of the site. The site's location is remote from the freeway network and the airport. 3. COMPARATIVE MERIT Assuming the proposed project site was maintained in open space, this alternative would result in a small incremental reduction in the cumulative loss of open space. However, the alternative site location is not considered viable for the proposed land use. 4. FINDINGS Alternative F, the Newporter North Alternative, does not appear to be feasible based upon the location of the site and existing entitlements. After mitigation, the remaining significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the proposed project are acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth the preceding Findings, and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. G. CORPORATE PLAZA WEST (Alternative G) This nine acre site is located near the intersection of Newport Center Drive and Coast Highway. Its current General Plan designation provides for 94,000 square feet of office space. FEASIBILITY This alternative is no longer under consideration by the Lead Agency for the following reasons: Development at this site is inconsistent with the objective of locating the project near a freeway access point and near John Wayne Airport. The landowner has indicated its intent to develop the site under the present zoning and CIOSA Agreement. PROJECT OBJECTIVES This alternative would only partially meet the City's project objectives with respect to the dealership, and would not meet the objectives of the property owner of the site. Given the site's remote location from the freeway network and the airport, the dealership does not consider the site to be economically viable. 3. COMPARATIVE MERIT \ Assuming the proposed project site was maintained in open space, this alternative would result in a small incremental reduction in the cumulative loss of open space. However, the site is considered infea- sible because its location is remote from the freeway network and the airport. 30 4. FINDINGS Alternative G, the Corporate Plaza West Alternative, does not appear to be feasible based upon location of the site and existing entitlements. After mitigation, the remaining significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the proposed project are acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth the preceding Findings, and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. H. FORMER NEWPORT IMPORTS SITE (Alternative H) This site is located near the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Newport Boulevard (Route 55), and is the four acre site of a former automobile dealership. This alternative was chosen for consideration because of its former use as an automobile dealership. 1. FEASIBILITY This alternative is no longer under current consideration for the following reasons: • The site is considered too small for the proposed project (seven to eight acre minimum size) and, therefore, does not meet the project objectives. • The site is not located near an existing freeway access point or near John Wayne Airport and, therefore, does not meet the project objectives. 2. PROJECT OBJECTIVES This alternative would only partially meet the City s project objectives with respect to the dealership. Given the site's small size and remote location from the freeway network, the dealership does not consider the site to be economically viable. 3. COMPARATIVE MERIT Assuming the proposed project site was maintained in open space, this alternative would result in a small incremental reduction in the cumulative loss of open space. However, the site is considered infea- sible because its size and because its location is remote from the freeway network. 4. FINDINGS Alternative I1, the Newport Imports Alternative, does not appear to be feasible based upon the size of the site and the location of the site. After mitigation, the remaining significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the proposed project are acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth the preceding Findings, and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. V. GENERAL FINDINGS 1. The plans for the project have been prepared and analyzed so as to provide for public involvement in the planning and CEQA process. 2. To the degree that any impacts described in the EIR have a significant effect on the environment, or such impacts are cumulative and have been acknowledged 31 i3 y r, by the approval of the existing City General Plan, any such significant effects are outweighed by the facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Comments regarding the Draft EIR received during the public review period have been adequately responded to in written Responses to Comments attached to the Final EIR. Any significant effects described in such comments were avoided or substantially lessened by the mitigation measures described in the Draft EIR or are outweighed by the facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. 32 EXHIBIT B STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FLETCHER JONES MOTORCARS The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a public agency to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. The proposed project consists of the development of a 114,000 square foot automotive dealership on a 8.7 acre site located on Jamboree lioad at Bayview Way in the City of Newport Beach. Analysis contained in the Environmental Impact Report for this project has concluded that the proposed project, when combined with other reasonably foreseeable projects in the vicinity, will contribute to one significant, cumulative impact that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. This impact is cumulative loss of open space as compared to the existing condition. Impacts, in all other cases, have been mitigated below a level of significance. All significant adverse impacts are identified in the L•IR and are addressed in Findings and Statements of Fact that accompany this Statement of Overriding Considera, tions. The City of Newport Beach has determined that the one residual adverse cumulative impact of the proposed project remaining after mitigation is acceptable and outweighed by specific social, economic and other benefits of the project. In making this determination, the following factors and public benefits were considered: 1. The residual, unavoidable adverse impact of the proposed project has already been acknowledged in the adoption of the General Plans of Newport Beach and Irvine, and the University of California at Irvine Long -Range Development Plan. 2. Existing policy entitlements on the project site permit the development of facilities that would generate equivalent environmental effects is the proposed project, including the loss of open space. 3. The proposed project represents a logical extension of existing development patterns in an established urban area where adequate infrastructure, facilities, and services are available, or will be provided with project implementation. 4. Through the Circulation Improvements and Open Space Agreement, the City has adopted an extensive open space preservation program. 5. The project will have a net positive cost/revenue ratio for the City. In addition to the estimated $500,000/year in sales tax revenue, the project will result in development fees and property tax revenues that will benefit the City, Newport Mesa Unified School District and the County of Orange. EXHIBIT C MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 155 FLETCHER JONES MOTOR CARS 1. OVERVIEW This mitigation monitoring program was prepared in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21086.6 (AB 3180 of 1988). It describes the requirements and procedures to be followed by the applicant and the City to ensure that all mitigation measures adopted as part of this project will be carried out. The attached table summarizes the adopted mitigation mea- sures, implementing actions, and verification procedures for this project. II. MITIGATION MONITORING PROCEDURES Mitigation measures can be implemented in three ways: (1) through project design, which is verified by plan check and inspection; (2) through compliance with various codes, ordinances, policies, standards, and conditions of approval which are satisfied prior to or during construc- tion and verified by plan check and/or inspection; and (3) through monitoring during, and reporting after, construction is completed. Compliance monitoring procedures for these three types of mitigation measures are summarized below: A- Mitigation measures implemented through project design. Upon project approval, a copy of the approved project design will be placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discre- tionary or ministerial permits, the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in conformance with the approved project design. Field inspections will verify that construction conforms to approved plans. B. Mitigation measures implemented through compliance with codes, ordi- nances, policies, standards, or conditions of approval. Upon project approval, a copy of the approved project description and condi- tions of.approval will be placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discretionary or ministerial permits, the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances, policies, standards and conditions of approval. Field inspec- tions will verify that construction conforms to all applicable standards and conditions. C. Mitigation measures implemented through construction monitoring. If any mitigation measures require verification and reporting during and/or after construction is completed, the City will maintain a log of these mitigation moni- toring and reporting requirements, and will review completed monitoring re- ports. Upon submittal, the City will approve the report, request additional information, or pursue enforcement remedies in the event of noncompliance. Final monitoring reports will be placed in the official file. �3� v v .. z}� v v �E�E �EE h ti a a F rn p4 C a z '� p z C 0. 0. p�p, v v aAmA aAmA c � O O u C 00C t% c to Tr m C c i° O�".� ., O oqy �.Nv. O ww opo oE`o o a. O G CL. G to z v w0 U. ma c mac= A c= 2 W �Cl c_ v ion c u G 0 u C u u z cc z 0•c 0 0 c 0 .Wa O c o oy"c o c v C v N1 o o c J$ v o Z g o c c 3 V 0_ c 0 t ,� p c' 0 y •:J p E'C r ay h v �o y 6J G y 'y N Ti •N v L', C 'pq C C N v C G f7 y G oo L C J O C v n "U v z" y o v- 0. 10- L y ° > t c o c °v° y c °c o ° .: r= •E 4: o i o E h H c o ° oo O O Z r, y O �' vC y •N •`• •y c _ U y �' V C C 0 vn V TJ pvp C C C O c 0 v N G= N v C O z E r, C v m L O c v G o0 ct (� y t v C d •� C v y C C O y 0 04 v E v u N N n y 'd ;3 L C E o v y E o c ... V c I.. is c L L y tC0 a v pU �, ��zga — o=y�vv�.=0VV��GE 7 u 0 Sj iN ,� ch c3 C y 4 *0 0 00 c �= Sr Ti IV 61 8 v a C V LL a N O. U O •C c v W y t C C C t u (_y y V E z A c C c� L C W 6 0 z C C a: c y c o V, C v v G u'� v u V) u�: v .d fA O O O •y N H .� O E 7 t: �• O 'G a N C Oq f1 v u To, u U C d0 o u v E v y .4-).c 3c z ZEG vUp ocr Eu0. ,ov �ha Wyo °o 0. a— GaGo c7 �3� R M _ GMG y O 6 r � C C C C c C u C C v u C C h o c rQa Zi v O GQ OA c E c E ._ t QO c E c E � ._ � b0 E DA c E c E ._ t GO c E c E ._ C Q4 E OA E V h c E c E'Eia t ._ C c e l:w C •p m c ea c ca v '� u c ca •o ca v '� C c4 p '� c v ,Q O :_ O u '� u sWhy PGfs/ �Ci�.5 3q0��' aLlp]Ll aAmA cCa g°� aAW❑ q°� 4c� aL1N❑ is uv aACGAVxcol �v v v v u C C cc c c c E C ccs C 0 may Lry OI� d N ( •0 N N N Vf V w b4 y 0 u y 0 � y o 0 r y zw >. >. ,_ >.._ >. '_ r, y c O M y c O cl y c E O R0 y c O co L C O c3 a 0 a o a o a o �' a o O cca cci n A� a a a a a c c c v u i> 0 U 0 U u U u U u V c� W C c cc C C c c C C W0 O 'c O 'c O 'c O 'c O 'c at • y N O V I'• C C N Cl r •�, •,. �yy LC• C4 M C V 'G 'C ' N c u E{ cl V L c .0 C y Cl .9 to I C C G y O e n C. C �_ 'v C O c C 7 a Lv U a ca ea V o 0` G v O L E a u 0 ca G to L L C cs c v u v z n, o cl o4 c o h u A h e c w o_ u cv u •V Z oo '�^ C N c y c v E V .h V u U bo c C 00 € Nc aro .v viz z' c� E u o� o cl E E U S O. C O h C. o Z •� Lj N N .t. .0 -0 c .0 0o E E •c Z v-$ r A >, to n c e v C c 0 v c e .E ca c 0 cn N N CO 'N M E •_ I.CL '0V. h m •V r CCs ar r O '3 M N � O W V v> CU c u t v s c— 0c'G y pq O y u 0 0. Zc o ° e u E _mo 0 OC .O 7 C C3 �0cCc C 3 L d0 Z •r OA m M C-0 a O •y•� u E d y O C _.O to .�SW1,S �• ° o E C 0 y c7 V Z . L 0Qj o' E Cl a o a, E n O r N A. Z n u c A n. A cs N Qi v M oo. o y n M 00 N W 11, b v v v v v y Z„ v v DoE DcE v DoE aoE to DcE DoE w O c c C ._ C e C ._ C c C c C ._ C c C vaWi pd� c `n..° cgay .G a P4Cti gni, a� �C] aGla00❑ a0o� a❑m❑ m� z c c o` !O O!•+" Do � O Do h Z F, Z7 C .^_ C 00 UC •G D,p v 'C pp v en L L DD E H Oo C C C W u C O C y v 04 om 10, r-, ry °a o ° aW� o c a. o n. ' `m n M D oWZ`G a O ao u a n A. z v w 0 C C C C C L VI Q�d a�. w a. o ac c o O M Dc to Dov Do ti c a :G 'C 'C •u v u 'C nTi W W�W � L c c• � � i VV Vu V V)VU V)u0. z C C C C C C C C C C z O O 'c .Z O 'C .Z O 'C O% .n WX o O o o rl a,c ycccc'c uC y O. E O n u p u V vv( 0 C, Z p v b y �_ O Z u G .0 J r, b J V c v v Di L o U v a s sc o vocvV E c i° , av E earc o_ �v L E G V c u o v 3 E ` C. DEc 4 L° 0 0.v DQ O O r Q� V C3> v C 0 N n Z C. v 'h Cul C n L U t4 N O-6 C� � x 'O C W 7 C O C t p 0 h E C_ C C N O w Z r v O L Z?�`a ON uu u CN `o u v vux E N sO ►� �. U V n �+ C O y N l L G v O O h kJ O\ h .v 0 �.. n• c G c^ c o v u^ c c o c m CL P„ 900 VrQ.nV F�`r c.Euah c.yh O N OD C\ r•i r+ 11, Vl% ),9) W V y V zv 00E oaEtoE _t _ __ C C MCIMCI. Co zQ _00 _� m d�orr I••� y O N TJ O fn _ 00 v O v o R € 0 C a o a o z w 0 O v U. o o i yC W o p Z u v Vccu u z 0 bo W O 'i. O 'C O O O sc 0 ucvo=E c v —E°uo N VE�u v0 u C u v c O O5NvaC vc E ' cco �c r - suuuCd c r C. 0 E C = ao c o tC vr o a h ao L c Z ac, 0 C c V �0 v ,,CCv n F- 0 0 c0 7 c •E n cVyy L CJ c 6v1 z� v �cc E E •- C. O�� y u W C. V C Z v v o o •V CCE O. v 'S yn v a �+ v O" v i., d V v V V O00 •._. c p v V O Z >. C C C y 0 7 C y h U •p v O 'C v •E is •� '� Ou •v c v c -, •_ Tv v u a. u u u v Z CC •= v L C W E L L •N v—+ u 0 O p• 0 o h `"� L •OCJ 7 H O h h 7 to •- tr L y ?� C o cl ' y U N v c C 7 CypL C y h E •ter' 4' O CC u vcyi ca N V = 't, 'G a 7 C C (ra v M c t+1 v > C y 0 o°° o (�VQ C. C L O crCJ L C p� n W 7�J Ok v -0 C 7 � y H 'C C C C O u v r N Ti _ C 'C .G C yq C! �' o N v o L a ,�? a u` o u s �: °D `' 2 C v O cs v c u i3 N v C z UN y v C c v Z c v u c m p c ei :; C p u u 0 v Z >, 7 C p, o v o C y �y v C y Sv cl S? C C C v y O 0 E 11 a r R U 0. G..Q Ga �O C Fr v z �; Vl% ),9) M ,Y 110 tl z� C DoE C QoE C bar. e c c 04is� �L] g4� q❑ g4� �❑ Z Q c c, 4 C oo a C C o0 c7 C 0 04 0 04 z 0Ic. 0 C€ ,,= o C a CL a O 0 (L oC. O d z b v v C v rU . a L A toO o �i W C C i� F" ��y yu 'C y 4• T' L G T' U V CSU zz w C c c c e c :" O 'C O 'C O 'C O C > U u U` 0 O W O 04u >G h 7 C- C uvs C G N �' Ti u _ 0 E cl cS C E tr N = 0 C N L O G 7 O c T+ uo h a> v L 4G1 u D C` V CC p C O a u tl u Z Z u V J C g N c> Z tl Z O G u C Z u .uCC Cj a EEa�nNL ESo�Q Cl N 0 c�4�y1°�v -' o E v z 3 o C O O u tl h u �' O c; t' & R C C h 4 O to u> b4 >. �+ u O yy pL '� v O U t cl o p .G C N C1 �_ N 4 t: C C Q = L a 'vC > U �, O 7 E O = •C N u W a Z cs W .G 4 rA R u u a v o= °' r o o� �_�C z a oa .0 �.. Z o r c C c 'C a o a E, 2 o u O. oo v Z C u N ca •a N cv u y u �� i u 3 ti T, V c o G °�o'�tlu u C '3_ 0 C c ,. p c VI vu .� _ _ o L E ,C _� O. ,. C u �, _ - = s w u WO yO 4 `' •p C' n O•P u N N `O F- 0 C O oA N E v O iy a C= !3 CL O >. = I O C- G L C= u u u C P C O 4 V tl O tl C7 110 9 n a N ^ zv C � C C �E �E Wa CG 0. � ❑ a � q D zv o CU v yp C c O •p N u N p v z �.= o c �.= o c a o �{ a o O rd A °' C Cc U w Qo ca c C t�� W �o�ct v a Ot O C �> C7V c V� z C c C c V. zQ O O W bi6C'C O o ii �0 OC V L O r v cs G N G n t7 C cs O E C u O L Q N G u C U 6j u C G C Z to y G� cGaoep N aEz�Gcc cA aEci'a$�u`cr z v ca�� Ezz o c °y'Z cs c o vL a y C v u •' N C V �' y 'ur_ 0 00 u v •N N p 04 N •� o c Vp E Ql •� c C �p WO �. y1S � Gj V1 7 EJ v OO n C c w mIx �Vy •C Cp C E> G y •C V -C ,E Ou N C V .... C �, W 7 . O O y O .0 fd Ti i. h C L•. C T+ y y e�' u.0 'C t: •pp E r C i.L y r oCCc u u cnEa N r 0 E C �z N r00L: y u p Q u oy'CC(t4 u Q. V ;!� y C Eoa°,Lc�u�o� VOC''vgo° y %°��c����0��s��' b U oEc 'v = 'M v v v Z E u n c v �_ n u e O y Q C M yo h h C Z '" v O V ami �E U u 'v u C �% y b c is U Ti cC0 C v v > 'v p 'c. ,.'c..0a C N v G h C N '.. :: v G Ny u m 'O 00 d c v C__ h ? 'c �.oU h V) a au �= cl N .r C C 'N L E n U Z C C E v h 'v n L -� G y N C 00 04 p 'h v C] z C o u u o u o o v WO n 7 E v u y E O u o C o C C v.S w v v S E a c a= c c° o'�'oz E ut c v �� v v Va L C f� OV C 'O c: �' E O u :+ V n C N C C c� G to t0 o f �i '= E aaa v o o. c v v v E v 9 E o a h h v �+ Ea�$EoSEh�E�' �c�_c� ?:0 E E� tpoo 'z O o E ca ' OV G Z o p N 7 y� Oy E o C '04 G u " T, O C y o Q G o G o L O t R •�i u a G t7 C � v (C QA G (S L. y G DA y 0 u C o U :�1 0 G V y�y w u t7 n MIN In zz P4 a d a W z ai W tA ON ON 7-4M H `YJ r\ M -W W y y H y /1 O _ E c � d �a ra' D z v O c oo � a ao c { O •' n Q N Z •p � 1 C�i r N voo N ° z >p p i L e R p u O to W = v 7 .v = ••t—, v O u C > 0 u 0 u u u z ba c o c 04 o•c �z 96 cO d i i i� 0 v� r� � z � '> c •p C CAC p E N C L C p vy U .v. v U 4 L L v v� O C Z t c C C] ca to p 7 00 Z .y o ,, Z= O O Oc E r r C y C p v v v v u W O. ry OA L Z v OA p c 'do N p v � = e C 0 N Co vi 7 L C cC v v O n. C C C 7 y N W h CS y u �> Z a 0 V ery moa cvyvazzv C C C C v C Yi v cZ•3 v y O 'p 'u CL V O u t C O yJ O d oA a O Cl E N v L Q v p c u o CL V t v ti GU n cG v c Z u A ovo c= V C _ L o,.. cv v ea v ca N Q v c, Q Z L cA E = v O H G v c c v CL �, • .0 L G= N C U v v COWM= N m v y C y n h a G. E L 'c Op v V r E c= v "4 v 'oA 'cD (y v y�a^7 Q,' �0 . 3 (y y 0 �I,,M� l0 .7�.. �i .0 v �j N OO 4 E LL �r a Cl N LU. v L'� y � � ,O G •N N E .4 N V '. M -W CN ON M F y �-q H N v v v v o v - v v o v O c E C E E E E E C c a c m G m c - a c m c Z m _, m a s 0. c m G m r m c 0. d..o d. �h P4 C4 ggn►� a. LlP�OA ca in C�]�c�� aAfACaO O up c C �, �, u c NO u c 00 Oci p m pq� G C c m e Z m e y�j Z C1 Q M V oC p Q p 04 z r :c c 04 E. Z >,.t .. t .. O m .0 m y y G d4� o cca O cca a o �i. S a m C] a o o Q. z c' O O R O = .V C1 LL. v LL cc•6 c=7 c= cc7 c—, c c CJJ ap 04 Q oo m oq m o 0 c v C U `aJ Ti �L�yy ' V 'G (T•i V '�. 'T�i V CSU Vic. V V C7U z c c c c c c c c z O O 'C O 'v O 'G ��••r F- O _ _ O v E p 0 c N Z c 0 c - .� s m •� `V' O v •61 N Z v % C' C c C C y O y0q�=D 70 G C✓ ,' 'LC V N 'CJ c :: 0 G Z O u v U y�� c�=7 61 m W u N E c E m a3 cs o d o Ny Ti v E y r> o U "0 v C V N o ,'2 u c 0 ., 7 t p c O c vv LA 6 C 0. z V v 7 p 7 t Z m� N y E oho L C ?� n c .. O° ap CC,- �" ' O m u q v C- m Q = m v O Z ° C ° V e Q °• r r c t4 N a h 6vi o m o p- = O v w° G 6=1 �uu E -0E � ac , w m= v •p t v v C Ort C O 'n V ,,. O m v> O y m v r G w w 9 7 N C 'a ? v m d 'o N /� p c° Hq r O p C V U a c w G Q 0 o0 E H E h o v �. o 41 e c$ E a 0 z Z w e fx N•v rvc c '0 L O " O •y O� m .� >` T' N V c •G 'C :G o° m OA pq �• c 64'1 >' Cl = m d m c 09 b v C 'C c V V y �yy" nG p n y v c p q w0 L y n C m 6y=1 G ((rra11 Z p t] p 5v s CL. A C 0 o �16 O C ti L C U � � � E �� � os a d o � cc ttl 'vr G�Gvzai a. v w w V N m m O 6 gay caamLrE�'OL d t7 �-q 1^ z 94 LCL+ Lri H d 1-4 a z w z w y 0 co v v o v OGa a'oC� coa00a z O v tjc w 0 to O C O A Ey a o a o z b 2 A! w 0A! Q .9'v �' z Ow t,�o ��o 5 t; cy V �r1 C�U� CSU z e c c c O 'O O 'O Car c _�c0 O U O qC u L t7 O y O Y- cc3 Q C C a E i, g v' .vC b y v o pow n �y y o�vn v o r E c cE m h �/ y N 0 o y �os� s � � �'� E•u c_ � NoC O r y C C N o S y O V N M u 2 c o n u c E v C ' 7 h `" Na O2 - O 7 C N O v G• .0 Ed ez `' y^ 04 .G C 00 'C C N 'y C L Lvo C4 — u, 75O C7 n Z v C h v O =: Oq Q O y ao u v c E G .E Z�y c 'G o a G �° n O c Q OAC O C L E C" > � LM R T, pp O > q N C l y 7 Oq C N fQ �''•�v n°NZ Eoc� aoOvv �CzEc3z •v .� "' Q b h u Z.0 y$ v v v Z L! C. QO t4 C +'„ C v t > v OCL y V D O tr N N rA C r� O c i° '- O s '-O- G cCt Oc O Z oo� O C•_ L U oocc.vvv a 0 d t7 M 0 r•, yy� 0 h Z� u o u ES E c 0 c E3 E c 6 `Ec o°°g� n V Wa Goa a00Aa0❑ mO66 rdQ o zc w v aco v a cuo PV'i •� ' 'r •r O� _ �., E.. AR E ty� O NO O NO ° OA S O c+ O L c C a 0 �. ci a o �' cl C a 0 zv V z w c v v qa o.. c �c% ° a c C �C% ° a c o W N �• N CSU —c V V C7 V C z z �b Q 'o C a O ° No o •c t O C C-3 S4 z o W v C y o V O C t N v h— C v ... c C O C 6C1 vi G u E V y E E '� v G .0 N/1 v oo y C u .0 C L : z (—I r N /yamM W V FM �1 Z U E a r O 0 zr occ€ c:S a 0 u Z z w ov = z c, �- a9 m� C6 v =V t4 ww �jr V LZ W O O y t 0 O v�GGU ..C. z w v o c E �z w p a r Om v €o • G Oto y =-0�0u2 E� �vo���y VO v C€ V •h Vv C. VO Cj a0 V.� V W cl z to ♦V h W C y •� G •5 v 6 C4 O v U G O C 0 C •00.... O .. _ > C C V A q CO V) 7 V h E vo o 0 j e0 cS 0 u G O �+ Z v •., C p 7 y i c n"�2'�"_"" L 7= 7 d EU EU —' u e 2" c v y u o v� c v O 0 U y O C y r d.z 0 C C 2 y L v 'C C7 cJ 0.vau 'c��Ee = = �. O yv�0 •y •;; '• u cat U•o r y W �•' CL v W v T, O 5 o �+ y = C• m Z o o A V ,� v � a •C y v G y U Ej W= C C � V E V Z U k67 O a' r ole v G �= z �y^uu���c'u € O h y61€ c Ct �S z z rs v E O L. E'R c � 0.n.Smo C%M V r N G\ CN ,1 N M N V) M W V H ^ C C Ov 5 ��_ t u taA .G . C. C C4fs� a°iG]aLl zou c eo 0� ° n z v w Oz Q r C 0. C C Cl Tr V N 0 V � (7 z C C Z s -,=p o �c a .y � -- v •� v c y v ac U E N v CL 7 7V1 v p, r02 p C1 OLJ Z Z C •� L � � O N �/i fd •� � v C � � N � 61 C O" �• n• h VO O U U -- L C V £S C V G u C 6J L 7 L r0 u v a € h C- Z �' G c�B y c - u y W a v o r E E o vv� N p e �, v u E o CLE O CL y4 •° u H ; Cs o c oq a u v t �C fQ N W E c y E m 7: y ro '� t �� L C a v N c. 0. o uz n in N M c� c� r -i M H rA C7 d rW r r-. Nr r, )�qU u Z v S E a � a R z 3 ° U w 0 N -, 8 4 v r O M t v G O w 7 z ° h w 0 v 0 Q U O O R w Vo`� v N O V S c� z r. w c c z s '� 0vt o 0 t O C v i •V •� L L� Ir y y •.�+ a C M� c7O ° v 'u C N u y O suNU CVv1 r.E c czN c p _ 9"" C•c p :tyvy uu L. oucN0 t vnOLC E C Z a C- E L. h p CG v OO nO 7 p u u0 C. ' n O p z v C N .N O O O Z L v C cv C v C L C !S C � C L Ou Z7 E O. d 7 v NpG Z OG aE yj C ci O Ccl U O C7 E L' O• ao c N C •C vvi c E E ° v �, y y (� o y c Uv iac C� ° �� l+ y . phc�0c V N v , G c Z u •C 011 ,°c_°_°o .0 u u w O y cC Ca t 0 C O u v v pC u i C p�q u >. C fl C v d W 04 O 7 C `' C, E.Ov cy C'' C V v u .� p- !a y c V .� W v T' N 04 •L C v •� E y o d O v Z V `�j E d O C G 0.' t3 O cn � O y V Z G �.., h O V o G 7 G v E G L•1 O O V 5 O k7 2 O.c N in cu— N u G C p u z - v , is 'O �� 0 O z v m a 7 a G Nr r, )�qU z a F d A, z w z W V1 G\ ri M F Ln , ,. Y z y C 3 E C 3 E 3 E L 0 t U 040CC. af� ° a❑� p e c c 00 o c w �a ._ C, o.. .. O 'p O zw L�•- Lc•- o ro Lc. O�is v a p d C p 04� v �� '3i6 C7V cam. z C c c c c c 'k" O 'c O 'c O •c O O C c C LO O L h fn `c c LA O L" V v > O o O OL M C Z L" `o CJ n 6�1 6L1 -` G O c v " O .0 p s � 7 CS G V$ as "fit a U o Ot u C Q E Q o E° c s v o Gt v a Quo E v" oo m.0 E o L c '� v o v v 4,J U � v L L G 0 u v a L O v n , 7 0 o L 'u v° �n v o v" �, Ti t r" u uG L v" E t L E GG� Am e� E °�y .h n c c EL u >> r 0 �U r v M C E t$ O z v �_ c .tn• — 'c Q r p4 L o v��a'�v�'vo�2;v•�z �Ev'SSoo Q � '�s�co 7 y ii C y a W O U �. L C v v 04 �, a G �_ u u oEo s r C E ccu, c r U ro c N NE c� to .• .L+ " h V '� L• �u z L 0 t 0. Z v v ro s v o c R u N c d R :? E c Q E'v v _v o c v v o>z O z :: c u q a 5 a v cR >+ v Q� 2 a 0 u 0 U L 2 C a y a O4 ��'� m y v a z 3 i ea 3 A" G h c y c L a o E h a E tA A w g/5v C C C C C C C C C C 47 H Z� v v eoE °o6 v v tOE to v v UE v v E UE v v eoE aoE O ° C c t ° C e t t c t t E- C C vai a c ° c ° c `q°aq� ° a a p4a q�q°r� yay n�.G]a�0❑ qaq� gn� wG1o0g0 4a a0o00� aC�aOiC a❑a°o� 0 0 c c_ ro c °s c_ a 5 C� c c O ,�{ N N N ,ON u y O O 0 OV O a 2 ii i 0 � O .� O t � u C N 0 C �r a 0 �i a 0 n a o Q. a 0 a 0 0 c _ z� C c_ CC W O v C U. to O u H O C C ca 0 Q ° s� C � G ra rvo Oki c -z V— c�=— V— Va s a v v vn v cci z ��1 �> C7V aiL Vvciir air a h z W c C C v C c c c c c C c VS 0 '� •te�a++ a � � •a ,vat _� ��_+ ��_ v v a v v 0 p v a ti c H Z ti 'C 0. M pi u o c c 00 "' v v u 2 o c o0 c a c G -0 OL v�3 C v v O C h 'O 0 e: a s d" p s C 0 E G c h v u y O t 3 000 u Z 7 0 E y C 0 c 6 tl v O N� 0 v d v C y O C C Z Z .r C U U C>Q C O v ui' �ZW G �''v> vrW uv"°va G u 0 v E E y G u C O O 0 v v ,:° vaj 0 o u r v, a c `= E E v o o-0� y F p Z c' c u E 0 c c y 3 c eca c G O C o C v 0-0 �= E o v v v v Cl a fi o�z0 w °ooE EEn� E=C Oo z O a.3 E a c ocn •� o E o Z0v E cv$° ON c cd7 i�•' �••i N Kl W r: N g/5v I u 5b, E r a5) o v v� �• z"y� v v v r- 0 ° c E E c E o E c E= c E a F (z� C ego 5 c ro z eta chi f° ,0 E Z 7 v 'M v y M p C eCo � v O4 CL a L1 c Ca CC L1 U C� U Uu a Z2 CF O c ._ E �, R CO z C C z O fe�� v c E .. c .. C7 M p C o4 b Z w C C L O ca O ca O ca nc. O oho i o a o �. z u w 0 T. v G v Q _ c C u c 2 O T+ O W42G .0 v C 'F v y u v c v n. L U C c c C U C: C7000 u z C C C c C C z O'v O'CO'v O O tip �O c oc �� V v L C v v� v �y oo� L. cl L < n mei 12 J` to 7 C C t L L D O C D N c h _ C O C C O L. O V m t U 0 h�( v 7U >, c+S n v L h 2 Z v a C C •y v U Z L L v p C U 7 v y G cs n v v .� 'E C C. , v cl oo > O C Vu p p c m G y v Z �_ a E z t. C O �U- L 7 C E v v ;; G v v C C O G cs 'V' 0 a* G O C O C r G 6�rJ U c 0 7 C C c... U v V c v v L =� 'v v> �1 E C v .L tv7 �' v 5 O 0 L O C U o M O �', v a .a O L C G n a „ ... z -o gyp cn z vii c v Ty `Cl c_ 0 E>> tYt,J� c .o u c v C g �' C% y0. cvf O G `'. G C Z O O p W U U E C v G' O c7 v O. v p a u c E v _ .- 7 C .+ Z d yrs L ec o o acs E Ez Ecl •7 � T� � cl - Ecl W E E � O >, h O p " V Z O .0 v G t W� Lv. v 1] vovKo,�°tq v C v uzhv>LO°E'"�-D°av Syy°Ev t v Z a y a o C CO c p __ r � .. o �p v vv�1 d ry c O 4 a L D O h 7 O p v „ v E '� O G a :? co v v O o G cl v r. �j v •y t O. _ c v> 4 c cl � u 7 kd c c E l " E t7 0 o s v E GE o X3 c o c c c o v A h h V c c o v v Z 12 Z :2o v t Q y o°. cn cEd c cn > a1 CLE ° h ccs r P r a5) z w O O z M, z or4 a w rz d C7 v � E 0" o G � O v O n L ' Ouuc C u 'u .0 k m t h e 61 C. •C lu m V V L .V. •u ScC 6J O N h' c k� S a>" g u h =XX c V V il:-°EOcc to Go 3 yo°Ja°cZcr;Eao o O C C C eEC. •t O v O v E" G �.. O z u V Y W Vl YJ 31 v u u v� jV7� r u h •N C •O Z CS V � l m C C O •`� •V ,cC3 C O c 7 O v V N W e-� �/9Y r N y6 3 PA H h ^ Z E E C C c z O L U to a c L V �, M c ° C. N O V 7 N ? O J V zM y °� ° € oEv �� a 0 t a o u z z W O O� v c`' v cc. a C O� o4n ° W c u C LOU u n vu n Loo v :aU C: Val :.JU z c c O'C c c O'% O .n O O Cl Lo_o .. �, fi C " Z O C d a Z c rca� W�v _= Cl 4n cl yttv•,C ��� €0 ola�oa us 6aavv N a E a u y r u r ZS N V^ c y u �E C L O O� n �+ d a. c c o o v y .N E e v c c `- Qct V o o a -�i� C U U C C6 b y T' C L L Z 67 CJJ .. �' v 'J •CC v O to i. v N v 7�: �•E C •� C cCIO O O. WO W QAJ E u e uhu S Loo Y2 C c 0 up '4c.yvZ 0 = O ° vCl �u o y t n ° pC O- vv v u u y 7 Z m a V c°1. e� Sc a h o c E r L E c o ;� •v O O C GD r n C oo .. z v 7 Z V U �. .� OV m L L s G ccs 'a o e w u Lo_a r Ti d N h O. N C R a o E :... N O, F+ N M r N y6 3 F ,• 0 N W • c o E _v uu� 0 v C C C t U tWaA C4a C 9qO�. Z� qCq��..0 aGlwvvi❑ii z v c to � 0� t7 000 z o 0 CL. o �O 0 a Al O E L C O n x> z e c w O 'C 0 a 0 ii h 0. n O O ,. O y `0 c v t c s� 2:,9 0 es 2 C a E o v o rGyN t7 7Z20 v' O E NC L W a c V r O ,�CvC M t" 0O '� 6JU L O r u 'O h ( 7 SsA v 0 a to v 'E v O .� O ca c a C C c y o cCs s '� V v y cs 0 p c c v .0 O C O v 0 C E O E ZG 4 v L F3 v C d H u 0 N IN r. N Oa w N � O� a a O w � O �M o p w z E a O a M � d E n s a v v Z V v E n C� V T WIn C •v •� 6J � V � V Cy � IJP' � �• � C � E O �E °A u u c ai O t� a0i G v 0 v " E E c 'GE r n O L E u L v 0 E C V) to O C C 0V K .h cd v C O U a L C.C C n p C M C X f! 3 O C. W V v H 0 M !E i 1E u S 0. C G '-' u� y€ CO OL G v C C C O u O s .... C V) v ca C7 O �aa.in�iaix a v O v E v c 5V= �O� •" � _v n . C. .h � v C � U h'� ho zo. v � cl 0 E . a C7 r. N ME N N zyyv., �E�E �E �E a F c c. = n. a�M� e Cl a C. Z C v u w O d P+ 7 7 O cab to O C7 O o�o.F C� O a0 a o o a o �. ec o w0 O z v `o `o Q o v h O L c +• k, C a w C c c z c c c c c c Z tr O .L O 'C s 5 0 v a T=c .� 04.- _ 0 '� V O C v Z O_ O N O O C L u C O C C q Z A y hj V L c7 r v O 'C O O L o i O C v C .� y m CT c� C O C a o O u C u ea n c: G O O h p c V L O - E o v O C vi 7u v C h v G v v C O y u� v 0.o a u y o - a v° vc o CV v o w Eo° LE. V C ra o c LyC_ Zv vO • • o� LH,q U Cloo_r" t; 41 rC E O a 40 o_ '- E t�.. •C, C o c- u C �v4 lu- O c C OOE 0 v O CQ 0 0. O.0 0, V y o t v7 V Ki ° U g V >' E >, a o 0 'C " T tv. oo v 6� q ct v M aD c ti c Z r v v c E a t n E ct V c o U i7 v h y` C! C O p '� C� 0 7 u ^ v r X C p y�y G v w (A V O y m O L (7 C. .O 'G Z L. AL3 v .t] OL C w ,, E O O • L L. D i c E E -a y U c„� u Gv a� c$ v Ear L,o_ v v 12 .0BOj ° Vu M. G..0 cs a °c c < c Z v " E a E h h V a .^ d Ch N N a x a A N as O d z W W H A c� c� r -i M F M N U b y v E c v c E v c E �i Wh P� 6w c v c v C v 0 Po aG1 a0 aG�� z L O u v wd N 'o a Ti N o G O �v O O�Ov o c o o h a 0 va a o o. a 0 L L oow 0 •- c •- V 0 o a o �' c E o 0 G, �_`C C- x > C7 V) V vii'w .va < 0 z c c c c c c :9 z o c o c o c w p o o o C •� Lp v C = C_ Y Z h p O Z OU C N C .`� � 7 O 'Cs0 • � U � .= - vcC', •cl 0 O> a EU ;U3 .0Eo c cs O v 6 UO es _WU .0 u c Ou O c u .s t.y 7 c c > e3 :. L E O in L E 0 C. c yr� U �a% i] ,C y fY pp Q1 V L Q f7 pQ 0U QO •y UCIS V V •- e1 E' L O v L V hy� r '- Qa. Q. N N , 0 q v p y h .. � 7> y 6J C 0 t7 O E v L V i' a� ct y L ,, m C O L Oq O Z CO a O V C v c v ��, to u L i� E '� p Les C C p c aLi a d .121 �C O EvQ to c c v N o_n v r w C v v ,. > L O •[7 U v to L .`'. '�' h 7 h > v> O .a N 'y C C O ice. C v o C C u v OU L .O i7 W o 0 0 in v L 1Vr Qf C v r U " s> %` v H a ca a et c� v M y pq v C C o0 c��0Eor a 7 L on v u LEcyL�cu�'Q v n v v N h oW v es aDU � yyV o' h E W E C.O c O L. h P4 a$ oho •OS V U R v 0 eC r a v CL v p v v ruc c —I u C e� v E Co. b L L a v c r ay d a g a h N vi v L v v s r O a �+ E y c v L to y Z €c v N u L L ecs u o E C es L W V ` X v O 0 V il n a < tl Ci Cd7 � r~ M N UIA VIA z C4 a H U a HI w z �r W 11' N ).-6g C C C C C x� E E E c E 0 E v o C C eca C 00 C tca C a C 0( 0C4 o00,5 0 0 t M1 y C y C y c 2 c y C W P> u a 0 n u cc. o C u a o n u a o n u a o n z cl es cl ti W ���0+++ 0 N O N N N cl Vf cl O v a •a v O � .E � .E �- O v v w Ct V s C s L V L C L, U L C "� Gr Z 'V Z Ti V Z Z 'V Z L 'V Z •G 'V Z �V) V) V) U. v(nLL. c� z w e c c c c c c c c e z O 'c p 'v O 'C p ' c O •c 'Z �y 0 a O rp 'C O 'C h O 'C n O 'C O y o o c .vClaoE v C o s� g'o o �Nohoo`v� 7 �• GZ y v �_ C. t y > C G l: 7 QO `.- O s ci �. f1 a v O v E L y p c o= d o �' 0 d u °° y C v y c o °° a v C c u c E z •y h v a y m y .. E u �0 h C L, s� u 0 'v O r � ti 6 u `� �; c to pEp L.�m �zn�`v—� >, vcy vo•c E V h p ° U L C Oy n p v v> j� c t c: O c�. Z h y L H > t a W> v O. p :J p O V N c h O V O y- = h a0 t L V d0 0 C L y t .y kG =� 'M t O r C Vf ro> h; p g° Z7 �- >, U O O a G E V v c°" p v " v V y :: .. v ao p v Q°e° c n= s >, E s c o c Vf c E> W o z y v o? m o' v o = � a o E< a 'c c e c .= w v u° _v c E c. $ vC y 'L' y U v •L., v y M y C V Vf G 11 U C >' C C, c 7 v V Lu—, C C .� 71 y u -r, Q° QO 'N C Q C C ;: L& 0 y0 .� E 0 c G' 60 L .y.. E 'ry L G i. C 0 q�q o v v moi' r o o v y� v c c r c c p v c c v v? c U d N 11' N ).-6g 6 B W V y y z� cE�E cE cE O r C t C4 W a❑ a❑ a� aA C C Or- 00 C 04 A C to ca C C 04 c7 C 0 !••' vOi D vi z y z vi .12zV' !"�rr O OA v O aD � O 04 Ost : .E ��. O ca C O td C C O NL. : C 0 Cl€ a0i� a0n ao O'� Cl Cl z W OO O V) O V c n" O v v 0 V vi =� 0 u = v a .2 UU M L OA L ML tw L c U c b 'u' z z "u •� z •� •c °v •� •c �Wy w ) u i V av-. L7 V)i it ia. C7 W C C C C C C C C z O 'C O 'G O •OO •O W 0 O O O 'c h o 'c CL L E °° 'e yo _� • C T� N E o C �' "' C .0 f7 N C OQ •_ .y 2 • 'S L c� N� S ti E n V v G Z 'n 'a v fC G 7 h t• O 2 h v =' °Ac o c c u v n. E 04 t4 U .0 O c , '� v Uy L c v v p y C n 04 �GS E C � oL � S vtz 0 0 c 00� o �2 v :y n Z oEo Z c s h CL U Z y C — .� O m O y O C tr O O L y Cl E 'y " o �- E o v w! E C = 0 >. �"' L �� v E 10- N v G O bo �� u.0 C O cs � .0 u • v c` chi E a ti c Go h AT r ovZ vv O io O c$ 0 Q Clc QP cd7 ad aC N �b0 ■+ H ^ Z v C V E C p6� O eco P O ^ 0 zM o "' Ra. rO y a. O O. F+ z wO 3w O o- Z A t3 & o O u O. WW c V O z W O 'C O a • � O o 0 �es0 o -• 'c v L a c v H a to v C t rl cl es E o r F" u C m a v G O Q C u C O O L� C O p eC7 to G EE Ey O s C v 0 0 h O U C C ��O+ O O a 0 V pC .V W z Wy V vVi O •n ra N N n OG v GC. r. N �b0 r N �br W H V N � z� U OqE C z O ba 8 OP oa.° m E 0o oa z o a o E. z v w O Q 0. c c �u y0k, Ch z c c W O 'v O a O � ez1 L W O h •"' O v W 0 � O v i+ E L o v c u •S .y . c v o h L O O G u - c 0 u L O S sC v _. O C y N— n L a r v E A c v i� q v v E c o n v O a1 v c a o Q v C- E v c O ,L y c z Ti c .0 4- 'E .o O L O a �..• E o 'n c v c L O O L V iJ V a S v E C h V v v E v"n -Q n z v s 'o V h d L L ., G n C E o c -0 r 'C C�y `� L? p� C C C p c O p ie 61 u v v O E Z � H Q: v ` yp 'c ` o p E v 0 p G u a c 0 5 o v$ E E c o S v o o S ,G, c a n. _ �'- T1 L V Ou C. v U r u < CJ tWh � U z a r N �br �6� H O $ E $ E C � C o404 u pk O�d C.'o z`02x ca ., •-' E , c 0 U °;°��� zr 1-4 V' o eca o �+ v V 0. O G. 4 0 G. h z z u w O A z ru c u � V 0 u � z c c c c O cl � •o o v p� O U v v G a v a v N T y r y v o �, h O- O y G o o c c E o c Y v O c u N V u a H c C -1a °, E< cvn z E 9 E 04 C C v y v OvA C .� C7 Vtz. !3 •- C y io o Z Q c G 00 v N v C y L h C�rJ h Vo. ' u >, .� O .. � Q N � fn o O •� A p 7 Ct C. NCO y N_ Q v c x r y V h U c c c a Z C 1�y a EO S! . W Q 9 $ n' v& c v a0 u o z A 0 0 u Z 'p E•� u c a c A t.- c$ V a E o h o *n N �6� EXHIBIT A STATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND FACTS FLETCHER JONES MOTORCARS SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT, FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO SAID EFFECTS, AND STATEMENTS OF FACT IN SUPPORT THEREOF, ALL WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED FLETCHER JONES MOTORCARS PROJECT LOCATED ON JAMBOREE ROAD AT BAYVIEW WAY IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CA INTRODUCTION The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") at Public Resources Code Section 21081 provides that: "(No) public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects on the environmental that would occur if the project is approved or carried out unless both of the following occur: (a) The public agency makes one or more of the following findings with respect to each significant impact: (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. (2) Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency. (3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. (b) With respect to significant effects which are subject to a finding under paragraph (3) of subdivision (a), the public agency finds that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment." In making the findings required by Section 21081, the public agency must base its findings on substantial evidence in the record. Final EIR No. 155, for the Fletcher Jones Motorcars project and related discretionary actions, identified significant environmental impacts prior to mitigation that may occur as a result of the project. Thus, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby adopts these Findings as part of its action to certify Final EIR No. 155 and approve the Fletcher Jones Motorcars Project. A mitigation monitoring and reporting program has been prepared to monitor and report the implementation of the mitigation measures identified for the project. The mitigation monitoring and reporting program was developed in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and is contained in a separate document (Exhibit C). Findings regarding significant adverse environmental impacts are included below and addressed in more detail in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROTECT PROPOSED FOR APPROVAL Consistent with the intent of CEQA, CEQA Guidelines, and of relevant judicial interpretations of CEQA, the "project" addressed in the Fletcher Jones Motorcars EIR is defined to include development of 114,000 square feet of the dealership on an 8.7 acre site, including showrooms, offices, indoor storage, and automotive repair areas, as well as outdoor display areas, parking lots, and landscaping. The proposed dealership would be a multi-level structure cascading down the side of the hill from the Route 73 freeway towards Bayview Way. The project also includes paving the extension of Bayview Way for a distance of 700 feet, east of / Jamboree Road along the project frontage, where the roadway would terminate, at least on an interim basis. Discretionary actions include a General Plan Amendment, local coastal plan amendment, zoning amendment, use permit, development agreement amendment and traffic study. III. FINDINGS ON SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROTECT A. LAND USE IMPACT Loss of Open Space: of Ogen Space: The project will contribute to cumulative loss of open space in the region. FINDING: Regional efforts are under way to preserve open space in the vicinity of the project. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: The significant cumula- tive impact that will result from the loss of open space is partially mitigated through ongoing programs to preserve open space in the vicinity of the project. The cities of Newport Beach and Irvine, and the University of California at Irvine, have developed open space preservation programs. The City of Newport Beach has adopted the Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agre- ement, which preserves open space in the City. The City of Irvine has adopted the conservation and open space amendments to its General Plan (GPA -16), which call for the preservation of open spaces within its jurisdiction. The Long Range Development Plan for the University of California at Irvine also calls for the preservation of portions of the campus as an open space reserve. Notwithstanding the above, the development allowed under adopted General Plans of the City of Newport Beach, the City of Irvine and the University of California at Irvine will result in a cumulative loss of open space in the areas surrounding the project site. The significant cumulative environmental effect has been substantially reduced by virtue of the measures described above. The identified impact may not be reduced to a level that is not significant, however. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other considerations make infeasible mitigation measures identified in the EIR and/or project alternatives described in Chapter 5 of the EIR, in that: (a) The existing General Plan of the City of Newport Beach envisions development of the project site and consequent loss of open space. (The impact is not a new impact.) i (b) Development of the project site, albeit with different land uses, was envisioned in the CIOSA agreement. (c) According to Chapter 6 of the EIR, no feasible alternative sites have been identified within the City of Newport Beach. (d) Development of the project on an alternative site outside the City of Newport Beach would result in economic harm 2' M to the City, i.e., the loss of an estimated $500,000 in annual revenue to the City. The remaining unavoidable adverse impacts are considered acceptable when compared to and balanced against the facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. B. EARTH RESOURCES 1. IMPACT Export of Material: Project site grading will require the export of approximately 160,000 cubic yards of material. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.2, of the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to export of material identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the grading contractor shall identify a spoils site for deposition of exported material. Such spoils site shall have obtained CEQA clearance in accordance with the requirements of the local jurisdiction where the site is located. 2. IMPACT Compressible Soils: The project site contains compressible soils FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.2, of the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to compressible soils identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) As specified in the geotechnical report prepared for the site (Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc., May 1995), all loose, compressible natural soils and/or loose, compressible on- site fill soils should be removed from fill areas where exposed at final grade and replaced with compacted fills in accordance with the recommendations of the geotechnical engineer. All grading should be accomplished under the observation and testing of the project soils engineer and engineering geologist in accordance with the recom- mendations contained in the project geotechnical report, the current grading ordinance of the City of Newport Beach and earthwork specifications contained in Appendix F of the geotechnical report. The site preparation recommendations outlined in section 5.3 of the geotechnical report shall be followed. 3• IMPACT Ground Motion: Project structures are likely to be subject to ground motion during the life of the project. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.2, of the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to ground motion identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant or successor in interest shall demonstrate to the City of Newport Beach Building Department that all facilities will be designed and constructed as specified in the City adopted version of the Uniform Building Code. 4. IMPACT Extent of Grading: The preliminary grading plan requires grading that could potentially result in unstable slopes. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.2, of the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to grading identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. The application for grading permit shall be accompanied by a grading plan and specifications and supporting data consisting of soils engineering and engineering geology reports or other reports if required by the building official. 5. IMPACT Gradine: Project grading and operation may result in the production of silt, debris, and other water pollutants. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.2, of the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to grading identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measures listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) The grading plan shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 2) The grading plan shall include a description of haul routes, access points to the site, watering, and sweeping program designed to minimize impact of haul operations. 4 96 3) An erosion, siltation and dust control plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of grading permits and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. 4) The velocity of concentrated runoff from the project site shall be evaluated and erosive velocities controlled as part of the project design. 5) Grading operations and drainage requirements shall meet the standards set forth in the City's Building Code (Appendix Chapter 70 - Excavation and Grading, Sections 7001-7019) and the Building Department's General Grading Specifications. 6) The erosion control measures shall be completed on any exposed slopes within 30 days after grading, or as approved by the Building Department. 6. IMPACT Emission of Fugitive Dust: Project grading may result in the emission of fugitive (lust. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.2, of the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to emission of fugitive dust identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation mea- sure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Fugitive dust emissions during construction shall be minimized by watering the site for dust control, containing excavated soil on site until it is hauled away, and periodically washing adjacent streets to remove accumulated materials. 7. IMPACT Compatibility of Proposed Foundations With On -Site Soils: Building foundations must be compatible with on-site soils. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.2, of the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to compatibility of proposed foundations with on- site soils identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Prior to the issuance of any building permits, a specific soils and foundation study shall be prepared and approved by the Building Department. 8. IMPACT Liquefaction: The preliminary soils report indicates potential for liquefaction. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project, or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.2, of the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to liquefaction identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Sites where the potential for liquefaction has been identified, or any other site where the potential for liquefaction may be encountered during subsequent investigations, shall be further evaluated by a geotechnical consultant to verify the low potential for liquefaction. The evaluation shall include subsurface investigation with standard penetration testing or other appropriate means of analysis for liquefaction potential. The project geotechnical consultant shall provide a statement concerning the potential for liquefaction and its possible impact on proposed development. If necessary, the geotechnical consultant shall provide mitigation measures that could include mechanical densification of liquefiable layers, dewatering, fill surcharging or other appropriate measures. The Geotechnical Consultant's report shall be signed by a Certified Engineering Geologist and a Registered Civil Engineer, and shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the Building Department prior to issuance of Grading Permit. Grading and building plans shall re- flect the recommendations of the study to the satisfaction of the Building Department. 9. IMPACT Erosive Flow: Project construction could result in erosive flows. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.2, of the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to erosive flow identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Any necessary diversion devices, catchment devices, or velocity reducers shall be incorporated into the grading plan and approved by the Building Department prior to issuance of grading permits. Berms or other catchment devices shall be incorporated into the grading plans to divert sheet flow runoff away from areas that have been stripped of natural vegetation. Velocity reducers shall be incorporated into the design, especially where drainage devices exit to natural ground. >01 10. IMPACT Fill Slopes: The project will require the construction of fill slopes. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.2, of the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to fill slopes identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) All fill slopes shall be properly compacted during grading in conformance with the City Grading Code and verified by the project Geotechnical Consultant. Slopes shall be planted with vegetation upon completion of grading. Conformance with this measure shall be verified by the Building Department prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. 11. IMPACT Brow Ditches: The project may require the construction of brow ditches. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.2, of the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to brow ditches identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Berms and brow ditches shall be constructed to the satisfaction and approval of the Building Department. Water shall not be allowed to drain over any manufactured slope face. Top -of -slope soil berms shall be incorporated into grading plans to prevent surface runoff from draining over future fill slopes. Brow ditches shall be incorporated into grading plans to divert surficial runoff from ungraded natural areas around future cut slopes. The design of berms and brow ditches shall be approved by the Building Department prior to issuance of grading permits. 12. IMPACT Erosion in Landscaped Areas: Erosion could occur in landscaped areas prior to establishment of landscaping. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.2, of the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to erosion identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Prior to the issuance of grading permits, appropriate artificial substances shall be recommended by the project landscape architect and approved by the Building Department for use in reducing surface erosion until permanent landscaping is well established. Upon com- pletion of grading, stripped areas shall be covered with artificial substances approved by the Building Department. 13. IMPACT Compressible/Collapsible Soils: Compressible/collapsible soils may be located on the site. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.2, of the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to compressible/collapsible soils identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Prior to the issuance of grading permits, written recom- mendations for the mitigation of compressible/collapsible soil potential for the project site shall be provided by the geotechnical consultant. Foundation recommendations shall be included. Recommendations shall be incorporat- ed as conditions of approval for the site specific tentative tract maps and grading plans to the satisfaction of the Building Department. Recommendations shall be based on surface and subsurface mapping, laboratory testing and analysis. Mitigation, if necessary, could include: removal and recompaction of identified compressible/collapsible zones, fill surcharging and settlement monitoring, compaction grouting, or foundation design that utilizes deep piles, or other recommended measures. The geo- technical consultant's site specific reports shall be signed by a Certified Engineering Geologist and Registered Civil Engineer, and shall be approved by the Building Department 14. IMPACT Foundation Desien: Soil conditions may affect foundation design. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.2, of the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to foundation design identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Written recommendations for the mitigation of expansive and corrosive soil potential for each site shall be provided by the project corrosion consultant, geotechnical consultant and/or Civil Engineer. Foundation recommendations shall be included. Recommendations shall be based on surface and subsurface mapping, laboratory testing and analysis, and shall be incorporated into final building plans prior to issuance of building permits. The geotechnical consultant's site specific reports shall be signed by a Certified Engineering Geologist and Registered City Engineer, and shall be approved by the Building Department. 15. IMPACT Groundwater: Preliminary conclusions regarding groundwater need to be confirmed in the final geotechnical study. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.2, of the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to groundwater identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) The project geotechnical consultant and/or civil engineer shall prepare written, site specific reviews of the tentative tract maps and grading plans addressing all salient geotechnical issues, including groundwater. These reports shall provide findings, conclusions and recommendations regarding near surface groundwater and the potential for artificially induced groundwater as a result of future devel- opment, and the effects groundwater may have on bluffs, slopes and structures. The reports shall also address the potential for ground subsidence on the site and properties adjacent to the sites if dewatering is recommended. The geotechnical consultant and/or civil engineer's reports shall be signed by a Certified Engineering Geologist and Registered Civil engineer, and shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Building Department prior to issuance of a grading permit. C. WATER RESOURCES 1. IMPACT Erosion, Siltation and Dust: The project may result in erosion, siltation and dust during construction. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.3, of the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to erosion, siltation and dust identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation mea- sure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Prior to issuance of any grading permit, an erosion, siltation, and dust control plan shall be submitted, and shall be subject to the approval of the Building Depart- ment. IMPACT Erosion in Downstream Channels: The project may result in increased erosion potential in downstream channels. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.3, of the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to increased erosion potential in downstream channels identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, the design engineer shall verify that the discharge of surface runoff from development of any site will be performed in a manner so that increased peak flows from the site will not increase erosion immediately downstream of the system. As part of this review, the velocity of concentrated runoff from the project shall be evaluated, and erosive velocities controlled as part of the final project design. This report shall be reviewed by the Planning Department and approved by the Building Department. IMPACT Erosion of Graded Slopes: Graded slopes may be subject to erosion. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.3, of the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to erosion of graded slopes identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation mea- sure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Erosion control measures contained in the erosion siltation and dust control plan shall be implemented on any exposed slopes within 30 days after grading, or as otherwise directed by the Building Department. 4. IMPACT On -Site Drainage: The project will require improvements to on- site drainage. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.3, of the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to on-site drainage identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Any existing on-site drainage facilities shall be improved as required, or updated concurrent with grading and development, to the satisfaction of the Public Works and Building Departments. Improvement plans shall be approved by the Public Works Department prior to issuance of a grading permit. 5. IMPACT Haul Roads: Project grading may require haul roads. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.3, of the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to haul roads identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant (or applicant's grading connector) shall provide to the Building and Public Works Departments haul route plans that include a description of haul routes, access points to the sites, and watering and sweeping program designed to minimize Impacts of the haul operation. These plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. Copies of the plans shall be submitted to the City's Planning Department. 6. IMPACT Erosion During Construction/Operation: The project may result in erosion during construction and operation. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.3, of the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to erosion during construction/operation identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measures listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall incorporate the following erosion control methods into grading plans and operations to the satisfaction of the Building Department. a. An approved material such as straw, wood chips, plastic or similar materials shall be used to stabilize graded areas prior to revegetation or construction. b. Airborne and vehicle borne sediment shall be controlled during construction by the regular sprinkling of exposed soils and the moistening of vehicles loads. C. An approved material such as riprap (a ground cover of large, loose, angular stones) shall be used to stabilize any slopes with seepage problems to protect the topsoils in areas of concentrated runoff. 7. IMPACT Exposed Slopes During Construction: The project may result in exposed slopes subject to erosion during construction. 11 g)Z FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.3, of the EIR. FACTS INSUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts relat6d to exposed slopes during construction identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the miti- gation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project geotechnical consultant and/or civil engineer shall develop a plan for the diversion of stormwater away from any exposed slopes during grading and construction activities. The plan shall include the use of temporary right-of-way diversions (i.e., berms or swales) located at disturbed areas or graded right-of-ways. The plan will be approved by the Public Works and Building Departments, and implemented during grading and construction activities. 8. IMPACT Unpaved Construction Entrances: Unpaved construction entrances may result in dust and erosion. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, :as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.3, of the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to unpaved construction entrances identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the miti- gation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) The applicant shall provide a temporary gravel entrance located at every construction site entrance. The location of this entrance shall be incorporated into grading plans prior to the issuance of grading permits. To reduce or eliminate mud and sediment carried by vehicles or runoff onto public rights-of-way, the gravel shall cover the entire width of the entrance, and its length shall be no less than 50 feet. The entrance plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works and Building Departments concurrent with review and approval of grading plans. 2) The applicant shall construct filter berms or other approved device for the temporary gravel entrance. The berms shall consist of a ridge of gravel placed across graded right-of-ways to decrease and filter runoff levels while permitting construction traffic to continue. The location of berms shall be incorporated into grading plans prior to the issuance of grading permits. The plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works and Building Departments. 9. IMPACT Sediment During Construction: Erosion during construction may result in the production of sediment. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig - 12 3 nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.3, of the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to sediment during construction identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) During grading and construction, the applicant shall provide a temporary sediment basin located at the point of greatest runoff from any construction area. The location of this basin shall be incorporated into grading plans. It shall consist of an embankment of compacted soils across a drainage. The basin shall not be located in an area where its failure would lead to loss of life or the loss of service of public utilities or roads. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Building Department. 10. IMPACT Stormwater Runoff: Project grading will trigger requirements under the General Construction Activity Stormwater Runoff Permit. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.3, of the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to stormwater runoff identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Notice of Intent: Prior to the approval of a grading permit, the project sponsor shalt submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the appropriate fees for coverage of the project under the General Construction Activity Storm Water Runoff Permit to the State Water Resources Control Board at leatit 30 days prior to initiation of construction activity at the site. The NOI shall include information about the project such as construction activities, material building/ management practices, site characteristics, and receiving water information. As required by the General Construction Permit, the project shall develop and implement a Stormwater Pollu- tion Prevention Plan (SWPPP), including inspection of stormwater controls structures and pollution prevention measures. The SWPPP shall be implemented concurrent with the beginning of the construction activities, and the plan shall be kept on site. 11. IMPACT Downstream Water Quality: Project operation could result in the degradation of downstream water quality. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.3, of the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to downstream water quality identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation mea- sures listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Structural BMP Controls: Prior to the issuance of any Grading Permit, the project proponent shall ensure that the project includes implementation of appropriate structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce the extent of pollutants in stormwater flows from the site. Said structural BMPs shall meet the approval of the Public Works Department. The following structural BMPs will be incorporated at the project site: • All automotive maintenance areas will be covered with a roof and will drain to the sewer system rather than the storm drain. • All trash enclosures will be covered. • Car wash areas will be covered and drain to the sewer system rather than the storm drain. • Parking lot and display area catch basins will be provided with grease and oil filters. Maintenance of the selected structural BMPs will be required throughout the life of the project to ensure proper operation. 2) Non -Structural BMP Controls: Prior to the issuance of certificates of use and occupancy, the project proponent shall submit an operations plan that ensures that the project operation shall include non-structural BMPs, including the following: • Periodic cleaning (i.e., street sweeping) • Routinely cleaning on-site storm drain manholes and catch basins • Source control surveys of all on-site industrial facilities • Controlling washciown of non-stormwater discharges from project development facilities • Providing information to employees on disposal of waste oil, grease, and pesticide containers • Carefully controlling pesticide and fertilizer usage • Providing covered areas for trash receptacles, or enclosed features to prevent direct contact with precipitation • Efficient landscaping irrigation • Common area litter control • Housekeeping of loading clocks. All non-structural BMI's shall meet the approval of the Public Works Department. 3) Water Quality Management Plan: Prior to the issuance of any building permit, consistent with the Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) prepared by the County of Or- ange for compliance with their municipal storm water NPDES permit requirement, the project proponent shall prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). Said WQMP shall meet the approval of the Public Works Department. The WQMP shall indicate the proposed structural and non-structural, permanent stormwater quality control measure to be utilized for the project, shall identify the potential pollutant source on the project, and shall describe how the project implements the objectives outlined in the DAMP. 14 aLl 1�2 12. IMPACT • Construction of Water, Sewer, and Storm Drain Facilities: The project will require construction of water, sewer, and storm drain facilities. • FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.3, of the EIR. • FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to construction of water, sewer, and storm drain facilities identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the final plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities shall be approved by the Public Works Department. Any systems shown to be required by the review shall be the responsibility of the developer, unless otherwise provided for through an agreement with the property owner or serving agency. D. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION 1. IMPACT Jamboree Road/Bristol Street Intersection: The project will contribute to General Plan level deficiencies at the intersection of Jamboree Road and Bristol Street North. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.4, of the HIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to the Jamboree Road/Bristol Street intersection identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Prior to approval of building permits, the project will contribute, on a fair share basis, towards the cost of the improvement at the intersection of Jamboree Road/Bristol Street North. Said contributions shall meet with the approval of the Director of Public Works. E. AIR QUALITY 1. IMPACT Emission of Dust: Project construction will result in the emission of dust. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.5, of the HIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to emission of dust identified above can be 15 Z)b reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and is contained in the EIR: l) Standard dust control practices dictated by SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be followed. IMPACT VOC Emissions from Asnlialt: Project paving may result in VOC emissions from asphalt. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.5, of the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to VOC emissions from asphalt identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) The applicant shall specify the use of concrete, emulsified asphalt, or asphaltic cement, none of which produce significant quantities of VOC emissions. IMPACT NOx Emissions: Construction export operations may result in NOx emissions that exceed SCAG's threshold of significance. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being imple- mented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.5, of the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potential significant impacts related to NOx emissions from construction export operations identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) To avoid exceedance of SCAG's threshold of significance for NOx emissions, construction export operations are limited to a maximum of ten hours per day, including one hour of down time. F. NOISE 1. IMPACT Mechanical Noise: Rooftop mechanical equipment may result in noise that could be annoying to adjacent uses. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being \, implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.6, of the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to mechanical noise identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 16 1) Any rooftop or other mechanical equipment shall be sound attenuated in such a manner as to achieve a maximum sound level of 55 dBA at the property line. IMPACT Mechanical Noise: Mechanical equipment may result in noise in excess of City standards. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.6, of the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to mechanical noise identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Any mechanical equipment and emergency power generators shall be screened from view, and noise associated with said installations shall be sound attenuated so as not to exceed 55 dBA at the property line. The latter shall be based upon the recommendations of a licensed engineer practicing in acoustics, and shall be approved by the Planning Department. 3. IMPACT Construction Noise: Construction noise may adversely affect adjacent land uses. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.6, of the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to construction noise identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Pursuant to the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Section 10.28.040, construction adjacent to existing residential development shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. Construction shall not be allowed outside of these hours Monday through Saturday or at any time on Sundays and federal holidays. Verification of this shall be provided to the Planning Department. G. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 1. IMPACT Wetlands: The project could adversely affect adjacent wetlands. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.7, of the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to wetlands identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Final project design will include measures to buffer the project from adjacent wetland areas, including the SJHTC mitigation site and the existing wetland adjacent to the southeast corner of the project. The final buffer design shall be approved by the California Department of Fish and Game and the California Coastal Commission. While a combination of landscaping and the presence of the Bay- view extension may be considered adequate to buffer the project from the SJI-ITC mitigation site, additional measures will likely be required for the nearer existing wetland site. Design measures to be considered include a five foot high concrete block wall or equivalent barrier that will preclude human access from the project site and reduce the effects of human activity. 2. IMPACT Non -Native Invasive Plants: Non-native, invasive landscape plants could invade adjacent wetland areas. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.7, of the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to non-native invasive plants identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation mea- sure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Impacts resulting from the use of non-native, invasive plant species will be mitigated by developing a landscape plan that avoids the use of non-native invasive plants. A landscape plan prepared with consideration of the following information must be approved by the City prior to the issuance of building permits: Prohibited Species All non-native plants that are potentially invasive via airborne seeds, or that are particularly difficult to control once escaped, will be prohibited from all parts of the project. Such species include, but are not limited to, the following: • Tree -of -heaven (Ailanthus spp.) • Giant reed (Arundo donax) • Garland chrysanthemum (Chrysanthemum coronarlum) • Pampas grass (Cortaderia spp.) • Brooms (C),tisus spp.) • Bermuda buttercup (Oxalis pes-caprae) • Fountain/Kikuyu grass (Pennisetum spp.) • German ivy (Senecio mikanoides) • Tamarisk (Tamarix spp.). Permitted Species Some invasive, exotic species are known to be controllable in well managed situations. Such species may be used in project landscaping if a City approved biologist approves the species and proposed use. For example, areas that are separated from existing wetland areas by a substantial area of paving could be planted with hybrid bermuda grass. Non-native, invasive species that could be used under these circumstances include, but are not limited to, the fol- lowing: • I Iottentot-fig (Caipobrotus edulis) • Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon) • Myoporum (Myoporum laetum) • Pepper trees (Scbinus spp.) • Cape Honeysuckle (Tecoynaria capensis)r • Periwinkle (Vinca spp.). 3. IMPACT Site Lighting: Site lighting could adversely affect adjacent wetland areas. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.7, of the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to site lighting identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) The effects of night lighting on adjacent natural areas, including the SJI ITC mitigation site, will be reduced by the design of lighting that is either low intensity or highly directional. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a lighting plan shall be approved by the City, demonstrating that appropriate lighting will be installed for the display area, parking lots and areas adjacent to wetlands to minimize spillage into the habitat areas. The plan will include, but not be limited to, lighting directed onto the project site, and the use of soft light intensity fixtures. Prior to the issuance of any certificate of use and occupancy, the project proponent shall provide evidence, meeting the approval of the City, that the installed lighting meets the objectives of the plan. If necessary, shields on the back of lights or other screening shall be placed to cut off light beyond project area. 4. IMPACT Removal of Coastal Scrub Habitat: The project will require the removal of approximately two acres of coastal scrub habitat. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.7, of the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to removal of coastal scrub habitat identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the miti- gation measures listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 19 X2-0 l) Prior to the issuance of grading permits for the project, a detailed Interim habitat Loss Mitigation Plan (IHLMP), incorporating Mitigation Measures 7-5 and 7-6, shall be prepared by the City and submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) for approval. The purpose of these measures is to increase the amount and quality of scrub habitat that can be utilized by the California gnatcatcher and other species that require this habitat. This will both compensate for the project induced loss of potential breeding habitat and increase the potential for wildlife movement by increasing the size of important populations. The specific habitat replacement and exotic weed removal measures to be incorporated into the detailed IHLMP, including the actual acreage, may be modified with the approval of the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The detailed IHLMP will include the following elements: • Overview/Objective • Plant Palettes and Planting Densities • Planting Methods and Timing • Site Preparation • Exotic Weed Removal • Irrigation • Maintenance • Performance Standards • Monitoring • Remedial Measures. The implementation of these measures will occur at the first feasible opportunity, with consideration of site preparation and plant propagule collection requirements. 2) Prior to final design, the limit of the wetland area adjacent to the project will be staked in the field by a qualified person, and this limit will be surveyed and placed on the base map used to prepare the final plans. Prior to initiation of clearing and/or other construction activity, this limit will be clearly marked in the field with staking and ribbon, rope or fencing, and the contractor(s) will be advised by the City inspector that this area is not to be disturbed for any reason. This area will be monitored by the City during regular inspections to ensure that there is no encroachment. 3) M approximately 3.5 acre portion of the City owned property in the Big Canyon area adjacent to Upper Newport Bay shall be restored/converted to coastal sage scrub habitat. The goal of the additional habitat creation is to increase the California gnatcatcher population by at least one pair. 4) As part of.the Big Canyon restoration effort, the City will implement a three year program for the removal of \ pampas grass and myoporum from City property in the mouth of Big Canyon (Figure 4.7.2). The first year will concentrate on initial removal at an appropriate time of year, i.e., prior to seed formation. The following two years will consist of spot removal of new seedlings or root sprouts. 20 22� H. CULTURAL/SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES 1. IMPACT Unknown Archaeoloeical Resources: The project may result in impacts to unknown archaeological resources. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.8, of the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to unknown archaeological resources identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measures listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) City Council Policy K-5 outlines the City's requirements with respect to archaeological resources. The following specific measures are recommended, in conformance with Policy K-5: A. A qualified archaeologist shall be present during pre -grade meetings to inform the project sponsor and grading contractor of the results of any previous studies. In addition, an archaeologist shall be present during grading activities to inspect the underlying soil for cultural resources. If significant cultural resources are uncovered, the ar- chaeologist shall have the authority to stop or temporarily divert construction activities for a period of 48 hours to assess the significance of the find. B. In the event that significant archaeological remains are uncovered during excavation and/or grading, all work shall stop in that area of subject property until an appropriate data recovery program can be developed and implemented. The cost of such a program shall be the responsibility of the project sponsor. C. Prior to issuance of any grading or demolition permits, the applicant shall waive the provisions of All 952 related to City of Newport Beach responsibilities for the mitigation of archaeological impacts in a manner acceptable to the City Attorney. 2) Any sites uncovered shall be mitigated pursuant to Council Policy K-5. Where further testing or salvage is required, the applicant shall select a City approved, qualified archaeologist to excavate a sample of the site. All testing and salvage shall be conducted prior to issuance of grading permits or use of an area for recreational purposes. A written report summarizing the findings of the testing and data recovery program shall be submitted to the Planning Department within 90 days of the com- pleted data recovery program. 3) The applicant shall donate all archaeological material, historic, or prehistoric, recovered during the project to a local institution that has the proper facilities for curation, display and study by qualified scholars. All material shall be transferred to the approved facility after laboratory analysis and a report have been completed. The appropri- ate local institution shall be approved by the Planning De- partment based on a recommendation from the qualified archaeologist. 2. IMPACT • Unknown Paleontological Resources: The project may result in impacts to unknown paleontological resources. • FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.8, of the EIR. • FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to unknown paleontological resources identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measures listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) A pre -grade reconnaissance of the area shall be made by a qualified paleontologist to assess whether any significant fossils currently are exposed. Any fossils observed and deemed significant shall be salvaged. 2) A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to monitor and, if necessary, salvage scientifically significant fossil remains. 3) The paleontologist shall have the power to temporarily divert or direct grading efforts to allow the evaluation and any necessary salvage of exposed fossils. 4) Monitoring shall be on a full-time basis during grading in geologic units of high paleontologic sensitivity. 5) Spot-checking of low sensitivity sediments shall be conducted by a qualified paleontologist. Should significant fossils be observed (luring grading in these units, full-time monitoring may be required. 6) All collected fossils shall be donated to a museum approved by the City of Newport Beach Planning Department. 7) A final report summarizing findings, including an itemized inventory and contextual stratigraphic data, shall accompany the fossils to the designated repository; an additional copy shall be sent to the appropriate Lead Agency. I. AESTHETICS 1. IMPACT • Views from from Biacle Trail: The project may affect the views from the bicycle trail on the north edge of the property. • FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.9, of the EIR. 223 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to views from the bicycle trail identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation mea- sure listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) A landscape screen and/or equivalent barrier shall be constructed along the northeastern project boundary to screen service areas from view from the Jamboree Road southbound on-ramp and from the bicycle trail that will parallel the on-ramp. J. HAZARDOUS WASTES AND MATERIALS 1. IMPACT Existing Trash and Spills: Trash and minor spills are located on the site. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.11, of the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to existing trash and spills identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation mea- sures listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Prior to approval of a grading permit, grading spec- ifications for the project shall require the following to the satisfaction of the Building Department: a) All trash on the site shall be disposed of properly. b) Hazardous materials residue in the vicinity of the five gallon solvent can and the tar residue identified on the wood debris and soils shall be removed and disposed of properly. After removal of the debris, soils in the vicinity of the contaminated sites shall be tested to ensure proper cleanup, per the recommendations of the environ- mental remediation engineer. C) Creosote treated power poles shall be removed and properly disposed of properly upon relocation, per the recommendations of the environmental remediation engineer. d) Any abandoned septic tanks systems encountered during grading shall be disposed of properly, per City of Newport Beach requirements. IG UTILITY AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 1. IMPACT Wastewater Disposal: The project will require wastewater disposal. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project or are otherwise being implemented that will substantially mitigate or avoid the sig- nificant effects on the environment, as summarized above and detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.13, of the EIR. 23 Hyl FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to wastewater disposal identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation mea- sures listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Prior to the approval of a grading permit, the project proponent shall determine the appropriate method of wastewater disposal to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. 2) If disposal through a septic tank system is selected, the project proponent shall construct the system in compliance with "On -Site Sewage Absorption System Guidelines' prepared by the Orange County Health Care Agency. Consistency with said guidelines shall be deter- mined by the Public Works Department prior to issuance of a grading permit for any septic tank facilities. The septic tank shall be operated in a manner to avoid pollu- tion of local groundwater supplies. IV. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROTECT CEQA requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project and to evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. Section 15126(d)(d) of the CEQA Guidelines states that the "discussion of alternatives shall focus upon alternatives capable of eliminating any significant adverse environmental effects or reducing them to a level of insignificance..." The EIR, therefore, considers two classes of alternatives: 1. Alternative uses on the proposed project site. 2. Alternative locations for the proposed project. The analysis contained within the DEIR concludes that, after mitigation, the project will contribute to one cumulative impact in the area: a cumulative loss of open space. This loss is not considered significant at the project level but is considered significant when combined with other reasonably foreseeable projects in the vicinity. This impact (the cumulative loss of open space) has been previously acknowledged in the approvals of General Plans of the City of Newport Beach and the City of Irvine, and The Long Range Development Plan of the University of California at Irvine. Even though this impact had been previously acknowledged, the City has considered alternatives to potentially reduce such impacts. The following describes the alternatives considered and their impacts, as compared to the proposed project. ALTERNATIVE USES FOR THE PROJECT SITE A. NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE (Alternative A) Under the No Build Alternative, the project would not be built at the San Diego Creek North site nor at another location within the City of Newport Beach. In addition, no other land uses besides the existing open space, habitat preservation and transportation uses would be allowed at the San Diego Creek North site. 1. SUMMARY OF MATOR ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS The loss of open space associated with the project would not occur nor would the project's contribution to the cumulative loss of open space. landform modification associated with the project would not occur nor would the export of cut material. 24 2,2 • Potential water quality impacts would not occur. • Traffic volumes accessing the site would not increase. • Air quality emissions associated with construction of the site and operations on the site would not occur. • Impacts to biological resources would be eliminated. • Potential impacts to unidentified cultural resources would also not occur. • Aesthetic impacts would be eliminated. 2. PROJECT OBJECTIVES Alternative A conflicts with the basic objective of the project to maintain the dealership within city, and would likely result in the probable relo- cation of the dealership outside of the corporate limits of the City of Newport Beach and in the consequent loss of sales tax revenues to the City. It should be noted that if the dealership were to choose to locate on other sites outside the city litnits, many of the impacts identified at the present site would also occur with alternative sites in the surrounding cities; in particular, land use, traffic, noise, and air quality impacts would occur at potentially different levels at sites outside the City of Newport Beach. 3. FEASIBILITY Implementation of this Alternative A is fe.tsible. 4. COMPARATIVE MERITS Consideration of the No Project Alternative is required by the California Environmental Quality Act. This Alternative is considered envi- ronmentally superior to the proposed project. 5. FINDINGS The No Project Alternative would not meet the basic project objective of identifying a feasible alternative relocation site for the dealership within the City of Newport Beach, and would result in consequent adverse economic effects on the City (loss of sales tax revenue). After mitigation, the remaining significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the proposed project are considered acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth the preceding Findings, and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. B. EXISTING GENERAL PLAN ALTERNATIVE (Alternative B) Under this alternative, the project site would be developed according to the City of Newport Beach General Plan and the local Coastal Plan, i.e., 112,000 square feet of commercial office space. 1. SUMMARY OF MAYOR ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS Loss of open space and open space impacts would remain the same as the proposed project. Impacts to earth resources and water resources would be similar to the proposed project. 25 �Z • Peak hour traffic generation would increase as compared to the Preferred Alternative, while total trip generation on a daily basis would decrease. • Noise and air quality impacts would be similar to those of the Pre- ferred Alternative. • Impacts to biological resources would remain the same. • Impacts to cultural resources and aesthetics would be similar to those of the Preferred Alternative. 2. PROTECT OBJECTIVES Alternative B is inconsistent with a primary objective of the City with respect to the project, i.e., identification of an appropriate relocation site for the Fletcher Jones Motor Car dealership. Selection of this alternative would likely result in relocation of the dealership outside of the City with consequent adverse economic impacts to the City. FEASIBILITY Implementation of Alternative B would require a zone change, an amend- ment to the CIOSA Agreement and a Coastal Development Permit. This alternative is compatible with the existing General Plan and Local Coastal Plan. This alternative may not he currently feasible, in that there is substantial undeveloped land zoned for office buildings in the immediately adjacent area, i.e., Irvine Business Complex, where office buildings are entitled and could be constructed. However, such construction has not occurred due to apparent lack of current demand. 'Therefore, this alternative would likely result in the deferral of any development on the site. 4. COMPARATIVE MERITS This alternative has the same basic environmental impacts as the proposed project, generates more peak hour traffic, and does not reduce the cumulative loss of open space. Its only advantage is compatibility with the existing General Plan and Local Coastal Plan. The proposed project is, therefore, considered environmentally superior to Alterna- tive B. 5. FINDINGS Alternative B, the Existing General Plan Alternative, would neither meet the objectives of the City nor result in a lesser degree of adverse impacts to the environment than the proposed project. After mitigation, the remaining significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the proposed project are considered acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth the preceding Findings, and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. C. EXISTING ZONING ALTERNATIVE (Alternative C) Under this alternative, the San Diego Creek North site would be developed consistent with the existing zoning, with public facilities on the portion of the site designated for development under CIOSA. For purposes of this analysis, it would be assumed that a 2.5 acre fire station and a 250 space park and ride would be developed on the site. 26 yz1 1. SUMMARY OF MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS As compared to the Preferred Alternative, this alternative has the following impacts: • Land use impacts would be the same as with the Preferred Alter- native because the site would be developed with urban uses.. • Landform modification would likely be similar. • Impacts to water resources would be reduced, due to the less intensive development of the site. • Peak hour traffic generation of the site would be similar to the Preferred Alternative due to the high peak hour demand asso- ciated with park and ride facilities. • Air quality and noise impacts resulting from increased traffic volumes would also be reduced. • Impacts to biological resources would be the same as with the proposed project. • Cultural resources impacts would be similar to those of the Pre- ferred Alternative, depending upon the extent of grading of the site. 2. PROJECT OBJECTIVES This alternative is fundamentally inconsistent with the objective of the City in selecting the Preferred Alternative, i.e., to identify an appropriate relocation site for the Fletcher Jones Motor Car dealership. This alternative would likely result in adverse economic impacts to the City resulting from potential relocation of the dealership outside of the City, with consequent adverse economic impacts. 3. FEASIBILITY This alternative is considered feasible from a planning perspective. However, the City has not identified sufficient funding to construct either the fire station or a park and ride lot. The anticipated loss of revenue that would occur should the dealership relocate outside the City would make funding a fire station and park and ride even more problematic. This alternative is compatible with the existing Zoning and CIOSA. 4. COMPARATIVE MERITS Alternative C has many of the same basic environmental impacts as the proposed project and does not reduce the cumulative loss of open space. Its only advantage is compatibility with the existing Zoning and the CIOSA Agreement. The proposed project is considered environmentally equivalent to Alternative C. 5. FINDINGS • Alternative C, the Existing Zoning Alternative, would neither meet the objectives of the City nor result in a lesser degree of adverse impacts to the environment than the proposed project. • After mitigation, the remaining significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the proposed project are considered acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth the preceding Findings, and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. 27 a7- ALTERNATIVE SITE LOCATIONS The following discusses alternatives that would relocate the dealership to other sites within the City of Newport Beach rather than to the proposed San Diego Creek North / site. Each of these alternatives was determine[[ to be infeasible for the reasons stated. Therefore, the environmental impacts are not described for these alternatives. D. SAN DIEGO CREEK SOUTH (Alternative D) The San Diego Creek South site is located across San Diego Creek from the proposed project site, and consists of 18.6 acres currently designated in the City's General Plan for 300 dwelling units. The project owner, The Irvine Company, has proceeded to obtain full entitlement for development of the site. The entitlement is protected under CIOSA. 1. FEASIBILITY This alternative is no longer under consideration for the following specific reasons: A change of zoning to provide for an automobile dealership on the site is not be feasible at this time without the approval of the property owner, which has stated its intention to build the site under the present entitlement. The site is located across the street from existing residential uses, and development of the site as an automobile dealership would create land use incompatibilities with existing uses. PROTECT OBTECTIVES Alternative D would meet the City's project objectives with respect to the dealership, but would not meet the City's objectives with respect to the development of housing on the San Diego Creek South site, and would not meet the objectives and entitlements of the property owner of the San Diego Creek South site. COMPARATIVE MERIT Assuming the proposed project site was maintained in open space, this alternative would result in a small incremental reduction in the cumulative loss of open space. It would, however, result in the introduction of potentially incompatible land uses within a residential area. 4. FINDINGS Alternative D, the San Diego Creek South Alternative, does not appear to he feasible based upon existing entitlements. Alternative D would create additional environmental impacts as compared to the preferred alternative, i.e., the creation of potentially incompatible land uses. After mitigation, the remaining significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the proposed project are acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth the preceding Findings, and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. E. BLOCK 800 OF NEWPORT CENTER (Alternative E) This 6.4 acre site is located in Block 800 of Newport Center and is currently proposed for 245 residential dwelling units. The Irvine Company is proceeding to develop the site under the current General Plan and CIOSA entitlement. 28 �y� 1. FEASIBILITY This location is no longer under consideration for the following specific reasons: At 6.4 acres, the site is considered smaller than desirable for the proposed project and does not meet the project objective of an approximately 8.0 acre site. The site is not located adjacent to existing or planned freeways and freeway access points, and is considered remote from the John Wayne Airport area. The property owner has existing entitlement to proceed with development of the site and proposes to develop the site under the current General Plan and CIOSA. 2. PROTECT OBJECTIVES This alternative would only partially meet the City's project objectives with respect to the dealership, and would not meet the objectives of the property owner of the site. The site is too small and is remote from the freeway network and John Wayne Airport. 3. COMPARATIVE MERIT Assuming the proposed project site was maintained in open space, this alternative would result in a small incremental reduction in the cumulative loss of open space. However, the site is too small for the proposed land use, and is too remote from the freeway network and John Wayne Airport. FINDINGS Alternative L', the Block 800 Alternative, does not appear to be feasible based upon the size of the site, location of the site, and existing entitlements. After mitigation, the remaining significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the proposed project are acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth the preceding Findings, and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. F. NEWPORTER NORTH (Alternative F) This 30 acre site is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills Road, and is currently zoned for 212 residential dwelling units. The property is owned by The Irvine Company, which is proceeding to develop the site under its current entitlement. FEASIBILITY This alternative is no longer under consideration by the City of Newport Beach for the following reasons: The site is inconsistent with the objective of locating the deal- ership adjacent to major freeways and near John Wayne Airport. Assuming that eight acres of the site were developed as an automobile dealership and the balance of the site were developed as residential, there is the potential for land use incompatibilities between residential and automobile dealership uses. The current property owner has stated its intent to develop the site under the current General Plan and CIOSA designation of residential uses. 2. PROTECT OBJECTIVES This alternative would only partially meet the City's project objectives with respect to the dealership, and would not meet the objectives of the property owner of the site. The site's location is remote from the freeway network and the airport. 3. COMPARATIVE MERIT Assuming the proposed project site was maintained in open space, this alternative would result in a small incremental reduction in the cumulative loss of open space. However, the alternative site location is not considered viable for the proposed land use. 4. FINDINGS Alternative F, the Newporter North Alternative, does not appear to be feasible based upon the location of the site and existing entitlements. After mitigation, the remaining significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the proposed project are acceptable when balanced against the facets set forth the preceding Findings, and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. G. CORPORATE PLAZA WEST (Alternative G) This nine acre site is located near the intersection of Newport Center Drive and Coast Highway. Its current General Plan designation provides for 94,000 square feet of office space. 1. FEASIBILITY This alternative is no longer under consideration by the Lead Agency for the following reasons: • Development at this site is inconsistent with the objective of locating the project near a freeway access point and near John Wayne Airport. • The landowner has indicated its intent to develop the site under the present zoning and CIOSA Agreement. PROJECT OBTECTIVES This alternative would only partially meet the City's project objectives with respect to the dealership, and would not meet the objectives of the property owner of the site. Given the site's remote location from the freeway network and the airport, the dealership does not consider the site to be economically viable. COMPARATIVE MERIT Assuming the proposed project site was maintained in open space, this alternative would result in a small incremental reduction in the cumulative loss of open space. However, the site is considered infea- sible because its location is remote from the freeway network and the airport. 30 Z3 � 4. FINDINGS • Alternative G, the Corporate Plaza West Alternative, does not appear to be feasible based upon location of the site and existing entitlements. • After mitigation, the remaining significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the proposed project are acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth the preceding Findings, and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. H. FORMER NEWPORT IMPORTS SITE (Alternative H) This site is located near the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Newport Boulevard (Route 55), and is the four acre site of a former automobile dealership. This alternative was chosen for consideration because of its former use as an automobile dealership. 1. FEASIBILITY This alternative is no longer under current consideration for the following reasons: • The site is considered too small for the proposed project (seven to eight acre minimum size) and, therefore, does not meet the project objectives. • The site is not located near an existing freeway access point or near John Wayne Airport and, therefore, does not meet the project objectives. 2. PROTECT OBJECTIVES This alternative would only partially meet the City's project objectives with respect to the dealership. Given the site's small size and remote location from the freeway network, the dealership does not consider the site to be economically viable. 3. COMPARATIVE MERIT Assuming the proposed project site was maintained in open space, this alternative would result in a small incremental reduction in the cumulative loss of open space. However, the site is considered infea- sible because its size and because its location is remote from the freeway network. 4. FINDINGS • Alternative II, the Newport Imports Alternative, does not appear to be feasible based upon the size of the site and the location of the site. • After mitigation, the remaining significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the proposed project are acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth the preceding Findings, and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. V. GENERAL FINDINGS 1. The plans for the project have been prepared and analyzed so as to provide for public involvement in the planning and CEQA process. 2. To the degree that any impacts described in the EIR have a significant effect on the environment, or such impacts are cumulative and have been acknowledged 31 Z3 y by the approval of the existing City General Plan, any such significant effects are outweighed by the facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Comments regarding the Draft EIR received during the public review period have j - been adequately responded to in written Responses to Comments attached to the Final EIR. Any significant effects described in such comments were avoided or substantially lessened by the mitigation measures described in the Draft EIR or are outweighed by the facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. 32 �� 3 EXHIBIT B STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FLETCHER JONES MOTORCARS The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a public agency to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. The proposed project consists of the development of a 114,000 square foot automotive dealership on a 8.7 acre site located on Jamboree Road at Bayview Way in the City of Newport Beach. Analysis contained in the Environmental Impact Report for this project has concluded that the proposed project, when combined with other reasonably foreseeable projects in the vicinity, will contribute to one significant, cumulative impact that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. This impact is cumulative loss of open space as compared to the existing condition. Impacts, in all other cases, have been mitigated below a level of significance. All significant adverse impacts are identified in the EIR and are addressed in Findings and Statements of Fact that accompany this Statement of Overriding Considerations. The City of Newport Beach has determined that the one residual adverse cumulative impact of the proposed project remaining after mitigation is acceptable and outweighed by specific social, economic and other benefits of the project. In making this determination, the following factors and public benefits were considered: 1. The residual, unavoidable adverse impact of the proposed project has already been acknowledged in the adoption of the General Flans of Newport Beach and Irvine, and the University of California at Irvine long -Range Development Plan. 2. Existing policy entitlements on the project site permit the development of facilities that would generate equivalent environmental effects as the proposed project, including the loss of open space. 3. The proposed project represents a logical extension of existing development patterns in an established urban area where adequate infrastructure, facilities, and services are available, or will be provided with project implementation. 4. Through the Circulation Improvements and Open Space Agreement, the City has adopted an extensive open space preservation program. 5. The project will have a net positive cost/revenue ratio for the City. In addition to the estimated $500,000/year in sales tax revenue, the project will result in development fees and property tax revenues that will benefit the City, Newport Mesa Unified School District and the County of Orange. ��a EXHIBIT C MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 155 FLETCHER JONES MOTOR CARS 1. OVERVIEW This mitigation monitoring program was prepared in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21086.6 (AB 3180 of 1988). It describes the requirements and procedures to be followed by the applicant and the City to ensure that all mitigation measures adopted as part of this project will be carried out. The attached table summarizes the adopted mitigation mea- sures, implementing actions, and verification procedures for this project. II. MITIGATION MONITORING PROCEDURES Mitigation measures can be implemented in three ways: (1) through project design, which is verified by plan check and inspection; (2) through compliance with various codes, ordinances, policies, standards, and conditions of approval which are satisfied prior to or during construc- tion and verified by plan check and/or inspection; and (3) through monitoring during, and reporting after, construction is completed. Compliance monitoring procedures for these three types of mitigation measures are summarized below: A. Mitigation measures implemented through project design. Upon project approval, a copy of the approved project design will be placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discre- tionary or ministerial permits, the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in conformance with the approved project design. Field inspections will verify that construction conforms to approved plans. B. Mitigation measures implemented through compliance with codes, ordi- nances, policies, standards, or conditions of approval. Upon project approval, a copy of the approved project description and condi- tions of.approval will be placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discretionary or ministerial permits, the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances, policies, standards and conditions of approval. Field inspec- tions will verify that construction conforms to all applicable standards and conditions. C. Mitigation measures implemented through construction monitoring. If any mitigation measures require verification and reporting during and/or after construction is completed, the City will maintain a log of these mitigation moni- toring and reporting requirements, and will review completed monitoring re- ports. Upon submittal, the City will approve the report, request additional information, or pursue enforcement remedies in the event of noncompliance. Final monitoring reports will be placed in the official file. Ew v N ;30 v v v .. zyvy.� v �E 04E °qE b4 C hC h apF� ha �C C aCago aL1n� u c v of e �r0+ 0 ,., O � 00 o 0404 N ►kyy" L C L C C E G O ca y z z w 0 v �, Q U ao •- c r u 00 ° •- c i v w i'.0 t7V VU z v w i zO'v �' c c c c p'C a O °= p o ac v O ° CJ G C y C •v �' v C jp E •C r. f7 v 04 L C- v vt. y Zv v t C C C y c ca ° v a � z r i3 u `� v°i z v o bo 3 c pq CC C O v n t` n v 0 C. y" �= O p C y C O v C.•. v t 3J C _ OL v Z o0 0 v' 7 °y v �s C 10 ° L A 0 c c o C- �p v v QL a u a E G eci � rs v C p y C y z v u v G L y y L y E C E t O v z Q t L t Z ° 4 �4 v L N L Qi r- u fi E y 1� v t C °! E t:h v ° ca u 00 p U O GC. O _Cp .dQve��6y1 ' 'uWcuW cOOq =Vc1 E c�' Zv"v. ?E; y7ov cd p C v u O y'� Cc 0 cl C v T=c y oaG � •=L yGac �n � L T 1-0 E uo�Cy y o Vr� o Cc� 0. : °V 0 p O ryavvo ; yE n. cs 0 vO c ' vOz d z 0. , O P V a N N ;30 94 I• tA In 0zz f•� d a w z ifr W W ),31 �M tr 0 G �•„ c c c c c c e c c c� 0•°7 h Z v v v °oE oc E C v v ao E oo E C v v aoE to E C v v tOE u E C v v !R C7 aoE aoE c O c �._� e�v� C C._C E�Z� c �._� C C._C C �._� c� e cMo�a,Q0-�o a c ' °' c C. r- a cevZee e o. r- aq� c�av�, c ._ c c :_ a �s ev Wvs OG a, ga aC7fAL1 aAgo aAgo ga gay o�❑fA❑ a0o°ODUaO'm° C Z o cca c_ eta c_ a c_ ccs c_ a c_ L N •• y RI 0 c °. 0 lc7 00 Rc 00 Cc7 c°. fe3 Wa 0 ° o o C4 h q d a a n a a (J c c c c e v v v v v C7V 0U u (7U u w c c c c c c c c c c :8 Z O •CO •c O 'v O •C O a w 0 o � o cl O � o � o p o •.. �' S c N cs .G c � •E G Z v i v •G c c on cs 0 ap = o f 0 o J C° a r_ `" ° a u L� eCs ° Z 75 c cca R C U rO C aA L v p y Z O v 0 ct Z o0 q Cu v G V OA � h G C u f: G U v c �+ Ll pU Q :n �' c G� y^ E o v C. v u C u. D o c ycj v '7 h 7 'O o0 Z v u 'E p v .0 " °'c G Z ;o v '� c E �p E c v o f o n tl O h M w E 4: .N c �' U eGG° °04 v �., 6 h C n' 0_ v c W o O v `) v •v 'E v L. C U G C= ct r d 7 Z 5 E 7 v c C Z v�. G i° cs eo agOC u .a c c e v p V c• e E Z °s O G �n CC h 5 N v cl y Z U. p= -- �. =$ E cry ° v O v 0 �- v f0 N pr N C .d 0 0 O. c° v p 0 ona�n�oapo v h°E Mgc CL COO 3 M0 c C v 0 cC CS pvq C C, C_ & N OQ O v O. �_ V) 'C CG v v o v C v 00 C :C a 0 'v o C h °E c' C C C. -C p ° v cs V a C oco Z O i. �; E G = v v O E O v h u� o E v$ a o E u E a°, cv o a V,, z n D G D ca V) v v cC- W ),31 r-1 C C C C C C C C Z� °q5 baE °AE to toE °AE 045 �E O ° C C C C E C C s C E C `w a C c33a�� c eiiar� C o o cyyan� Z C c C Z 0 � 0 P4a ,a�lm❑ aC]a�0❑ �� a❑m� m❑ o c O W cca c 0 cl c 7 — M 'o c 7 0. 'G c 91 v W v `�� y M Z u d0 C c C E O G v p to . p ao .y oa E p z W L C _ O �s L C" o co C u L 'G C7 s_ � :_ a � L� E 2 o 04 -C c 'G 0 �o�z1 w O a o v n D c a O v a= > CL ci cca w .00 z v w0 c q"�'r C o z 04 04 •VC. cl 'G 3� WWv i 0 u t7 V C7 cn V U � cn � z c c c c c c c c c c Z.2 'C•. 0 •r. 0 •C 0 •c 0 'C •n W 0 •p,.i'c'c'c 0 0 0 o .�'c'c O C cl U p v L v NC •p ` ^' O G L CL O y b y 5 c :: p v eL E z 0 v y c a n au c o u "Z 0 E a v r p p_ 4 v L E" �zc7c $ O C"'_vu T'J Qi o. a = y c 4 C L c a 04 O v �_ h- v c c, Ov C E C 2 L C U> Q y v G v o0 L 'y n cl C C L C L7 •C b L k C Z t c W 7 c c b C C c o J C n L E C r O C c y c y. 0 y Z C 00 C �0 L v 0 0 Z p.0 .� v L y a; u Oc 0 C 0.1 u z v a y� Ccs c 0 v O O L r N cl v pCL Z r C v o v 04 c cc v c O N u :� 'c v 0 0 > C. '" Z E U n o E U G L = oq 'c c Ti U o a �'. E° cv ea t h e Fri'! r4 06 I^ z 94 a F d a 0-4H W z W r� 1^ ON .-i M F v7 d M&I yy V V V zv t4 c c 00E �E a e C C v a�a o'aC� a. aac� 0 v v 00 c zWM Oqv o O 00v i, .t O >r o € i a o c eC% a o c' z O0 �+ u v M w 0 0 W z z wc ec z Q '� o d � � yv O ,C 2 QO c a"1 0 o O v '� E o v v r sc n E 0!3 a �- O v o G o E N;= c N v v p c a c ovoZ v c v v c E c o o 0 c N n G c c E n ti °�' G V cr L' z v o v c 0 c t v c V v> >,.c > N� o n c av N h o v°'�'�" c C =L G =o Z = _ EL a o ° °' c u ° v N a ca o c E z a cv1 Z a c° ado E h r >> h y c v c 'u- s p O C7 E C v A O u m .O .. 0 C 00 O Tri n •- v •' E° `c� O 'C _. c v v s �„ L tl ,QE 'o y C O2 C7 _ �.. iJ N r G v O oo c G coo U c� o �c c c `i"y •rvO7 C CW U u C v O T t4v. 71 0 � yi7. •;; O •y �y v (d7 v c t= c E v oc v v Z r7 v V� L L V •CW ;=� o 'V 0 04 (off G ° CC > •G. ]Q^5 ..LG] �... fd •v 7 v •� •O •.7 tao a c•3 •N ,�, O n L •G C G W N v GM y C O ClCZ Q�„ O V (T/i fr m v U N •� yN t�. > 'r O C ory r E o o c o u s o"@ �' c y o c c o v° C ° II 00 G .� Z ... o 7 L a c�a� z ci �.. v 'O C O .a u N C C C C O ° v v- s _- L. .G " 'DA n G •C v �' a O 0 V N v O E L 3 !E f7 Z >, -Z� u �.' u m �+ C u c u N J 6! in _c u N o ao u 00 3 m c7 c c N 6> G^ C7 M&I L f, IY l ��U W z� V O � .° � n. •° �vayi P4 RL gay 0�0 L] q C� gb°►, 00 Ll z u C c v c e W 0 c a o0 rr 0 !+ v N y Z N H p r!yi p o 00 o QO n z OcCa O A >+ pv O ccl C G. a 0. a RG. O 0 O G. z ° v v e v wO a9 ClO X0.0 h O C. M O xO y ,cl u WW 'C y C3. � T� 6uJ G u � 'C 6u1 � V CSU c� w C c C c Cc x o c 0 I o c O coc c cc •C 'cl�' G aq v N 'r V L E c7 V L L y 7 vi h G U 'c 7J 0A 7 C G c y E v `� n o f— 3 y o s c C a u V Zvo00 o O> z°�rh�N` a- ani°roc V to v Z+ C u u 0 cs y N a v C p C p c G tl 0 a C v Z r� V ° .0 cl c> € m z o a J r c v r a.c v-- H cz o °� o a o c E u a,.uc. y c tl E h E H C O m 'p .8 N ° n c 0 y E E a yh t C— u 7 .0 t K y C v L 0 Q C Ov yj CQ p O c5 0 t7 r 00 N d �: C S's V C 6! Z U 7 E O .4 C C C � G r L C y u o 0 Q t p _. G 7� .G (Ty' t4 G' r p �.. � .� QO G G O s C C C C C. .0 L C .U. V (�•� O ��a�vF'oueSi L O U O v N C% •� h CS sv�v�E U'O a� �=���°vs� U „=��z=-� 'C.} .'7 > CS u t v v C o n a GW .U. L O cca c v v€ c J H y 0.Z o > c o a E C a z cr p y c `c ° E= °= v o E O G C Z v` C n O t^ 0 �a.�o�U U tl U u'�,C�vo tl co�E °tcaG,vvt LLcl G N �.. h r. 00 a s G ��U VIA CN ON r, T"1 M H n 7'q I x��r eon �E o4E F-� c C C C C it.P4f�. �G] aLlq� O w 7 Z 0 An C7 �r p o4 � O •G w W ••• •- V V C C O R C: M w O w s 0 c �b a a=_ _ x Wy Oo C L y yvy p�p O G (7 U C: V C z w c C C C O'% W O O'C 04 O O N 7 y An O c U V L tVi O= V 7 C U V •S c7 O= V •� C Q N m h G d G y= U iGxC V C C v Z y a *0,' a o o CD v z L V `A $ c p u v o �, c E C c u_ V N a H Z ate, to E o$ 00 .': '� tl o h g° •CJ o E 0 p Ti b.. V 7 O �E( 'C"i (� i i yCy/ �' r Q1 C '"' 7 O 7i 00 V ys V TJ WO .� N C N c 7 V U w M y C u C? V 'C v_ ,C n E. .. pV L. C yN C V 7 8 °�y a Ti > �L E V L. p v0 c�j V C bo�s oq g, C �r c V L N P- aE E C 1B N r o � c. •N V ;? o h C V W f3 :+ ... E r p C c G u O O G O 00 o O a y C C '�+ O U G [� � h OVo N Oo V :` t�? o p V .d E �i V V G N o 00 V `° n >, V to V C O .G t O h �G V N C CV^r :+ C G V V= V` CO V V_ — .G L c TJ y V O >• " V �.. � L vh C V h E N C h M Z 'V Oo O c v c c7 p V Z G O t4 fd c — C 7 C V � V V N N f7 0• V ro c G c s � .y E E 1� Z c E h 'v r v= G c to o 'h u m W h u G E s o �., ccs E c E C u Cd GG •V E v u c c c— N z v t C� z z V ►7 b .G 0 O •r y N G v C O ca V y C...3 y C O Gp •CS v N e a C y W V 0 .y >, m E Oe Z R ca % y o f �+ E to v ° L n. E C c. v v v E Z C c V= V.0 ... E $+ c oo > �Ea. .Eo°ENo�Ev'c�c`=�� ar,$�oo �vorvvaLi.°ac"v�o°ov�v `'c0ovscoy€$va 0 N Z CG .8 W G cC �. tr o0 O V V L•1 cl G V �. N C G. ro �r N CD H C\ N n 7'q I a x rA A 1-4 co O d z w roTV� W M�•1 zA N K-1 ,�_q 2 W y y ~ c to c E Oz c h � co a aaC� m A z0 v v O gd W cv c to e e Am 0 U a V_5, o oa o cca C o A. w rrp O W V N Z > (�VC70 CSU z :9 z c c g 'c 00 o cc 0 ° .w a o coo O v� .0 � M t _ .!� •> C Z� V Z C .: .� c ti v O A S V_ y h a v v e p iJ C O OA �+ C y; v O -0 O c0 cv3 04 y O v a r V N_ C7 W L`. y 0 C tr (6 V �. C°+ v u w° u C 'po h OV) to C C C � N =� O t '� ° LL �j •� pq V` C , C fCd C C G fUY L cY L .O >, 0 Cl C v c V :: C cf u °: "u C d p cs v h CO O W ,� Ov t O' 00 7� �O E" y v� L° v° CL v 7 0 OG C d es d` r v T, GU G.G ] C T' y ►7V L , O �.. WO A G V v C N C° C LOy q N C ttss77 0 °: h L N° Z c° C a E u v v E CL o c v oaE� ��6:°�cEce�t �� ZO v cs �(�y ° $ v �4 > O $ t4 o° 7� h �+ Oo 4 E W �r L (p •N Lvi N 0 B G •N N E N V ri K-1 ,�_q 2 d �-Y� A .. v0v v v0v to bo r O ° C c c C ° C 0 t ° C t w y C ca G C G G Z cl G G a= a Gd G C ca Z ca:r ct C G Q..0M P4 ?. CL Ll C� Ca u CO 7 V M V cm G C� QJ 7 L O 7J a L1 fA 0 G is zc CJ C Z z t7 °W� u `^L'v00E 00°� Ti G o04 O R O f0 fTi O cd o N 3 a C� a o ac. o �. a.. oa z o z �, b v u. 0c c C U. c tc. Q rd 04 G oa ao C CO O W L 'v Z Ls L C L C C7 U G (� y L. V V - C7 U z C C C C C C C C :8 z.2 Oc 0 I oc w0 a� �;$ °qc �,g r°Ee= ng ;S °qc 0_-°c °��� -- o �°°r O c 0 pEj C j G O n 0 G rcy v 0 �S y� U N Cl— cl L 41 C Zv C :1 G> C O C GZ G O _ U t —V clE O v N C O E E C V L C C3 E O ti'1 r N E e? '� 0 €roc o c v u G E e `-' H G p 7 N �... U U E E E[ O L E _ 'r Z .a C C N r Z h m 2� L 04 o v %. CL E s i' n. v N vc G o 3 a o bo cca v V L •.� v° • O t o pNp ° ED (n/ v CY T M �'". V G t7 E 'n, Z H C o Q c t y N*c 5 c c u 0 CJ N on N o h u 0r c C O '7 2 0 `• G V 61 Lr' N 4 6J c p O �7 y G `^ a� p� �. , " ao E o cl Ti O0 `'. 7 � E u "c v r C �.. CS C 6J .r t 7J 61 C L L C c0 N v 00 E 00 O v ` p ti r 'e .0 E 4, ' N c .a � E v y° c Z c� oo ° o$ c 00 E°° v v L.L. � :, ,_ �C°p Ev�G v ?:�rE°'Z1 v c 'cr-.0 °0 W cE •� i v C` Ir f6 v •> 0 (J •y +, 0 Ir V `" :6 •5 'ti � V C V Qiy _ E y 0_ O C' a '� 0 a N u Z O O - n, p v .� = t't p, m C vG E u n s h v o v W a y N y V f7 N C Q C E Z v V N Ir p C G a ._ G U 0 p 'p',q E C v G E C h G o h v o O .rs >. L a. C G O �, ° N O G= N v C L c �1 v N yy L1. L W E C 6� °V N Cl W 'N a O G v G° `L co CCl r L E t H �-Y� LM W V Y H Z .. E$ E .n a�a .r'ac� noa'o Z 07 u u w 7 C 0 19 O0 Cdr PWG O ba C O cl O a o o. i 04 z °v z w O v �v h AP d a C c c c c O U w O.Cl 0 c �Z co c y u 0u CSU E ch z C c c to W .2 'c O 'c O a O 'h O �i o �r n o Loz a C- a E 8 z° s ;A Q° r ao v E 0z a �' a u o c� n aN r 0 v N h v s o N N�o-• �� o E s c o y c s E .v vii 0 5 r o y o c o c c n v n o �, u •c V c o t�ppssv::�Q°)0 o v C C D O r' c o o c v G cca a �y L' E cys °: v h M ai a N ca u ,�, Tom. ; T ° oA O o n .r Qi C cl v 0 y ob i o C In V 't'•J 0 O c ..L�r E ._ k� �- OJ E N G C O c o u Qi N 4 °y ob y y C o a�°o �° o0 o c E 'coo c u o ao a y Z o o c o v co H °u 0 v °v O e a is 5 o E o o ar' c a$ V0> v r e c oho u 'o(; 'ry v cl 0 0 E z 0°m O O v ,.;;hoaL�a ° a 0 a�. H C: ci C CJ .0 c xE ,Cv v G v a 71 F C a d O Is1 yy6 H y v y o u v o v v � O S t ° C u t t vWa, pdG ° n n ° c n ° n. C4 is. �Aw� COADaO opCO O °a c cc+ c c c p QOM p W p �� zM ,, . ,, o�ca€ oma€ o°a� C: o �. cw o a o �. z a w 0 v e'w v cis v ❑ iF. 0 a c c a r c a r c Ow St'u c•�� e,�� � C7V 0u 0u w NO c c c c c zoc 0 o'c p 'e .c �•-' tv.. c U O C �. C •+ L C N v q � C G Cl C C G Cl C v N Ec c C a E u c Z° c a° v c o` G a v c h r °° S s o _ v p v �. c c� v M c i y a Q p �v a �, O p p. > oo O t O v z u C v O O v G W ❑ F> z c v r o c Ec a3 R Q C °a u Q : on m ° N v c y v O y e h v O T •p .O y i. �t v t: O y! •v�- ,p E O O �y vcr g' y° q v" u z o cu: cm Lc-LL4L I Z °a v c m v c ao " r a cr ° c O C 0 c g c E Yy c Ti '�� N �+ V M y O C Z V U v � eobE� c3 mc --t. uv�v `�E_�`c°�°3=u y t] p Z u �SS C r W p o Q y y 0 u 0 n N�C ti v h v v c r -.n v u o c C v Q. u o r-•Q c 0 ea v 'c0 0 C 4 0 E a L `� = v H cc+ v N E C W vP R � O W u y .G 00 C y G c '� y N p E y° '� t4 G C u e v T v E u u 4 w ca c W c v Z c c° p a v nc'..d y Q n. o .; > C6 C OV ac'. > N .G c. o Q c ao v ° W •O ° •� yy 14 .y td: V .y 0 A O .G v V •G E t .Q C _N, E - O Q. m C± C. O Ik„" V yy6 a � H z� e v �E z o r C� ao n, •,cd- � e z °�.. �2 p C y s A. O u Z wO 0'a cZ ALL. o�a� C%r v � g_o�a CSU O inaaU�E z v ° o E w 0 r� m (yam/U� Ca. d + t V] V C op C 'y C c O O y C a.. V 2� C nF h E « G C U y C v tq C U C C U .y'L .Lv. O c 'F .0 C C �! O '„ C ZG ,.. c7 < p a c c uca O C�yd _ a C C NW .r v�C ° E E o o �o ' .0 v• - 'a c r p v 5 o c u z C. v o n 'o,2 $ = v " C $ ? ° u n� y�c�2.y �' vEcEE2 - v �' oro t/1 c u v E G L c 'v f7 C O, o O F C N « v p, (j p? C U p p a p o V y cp `i C •O vi �p V C - bG O C v c C v W v v y c° v C Y Z ° u v CS .k+ Z j� O€ Z I!� V G � 7.� M i .q l co .r A - ►M Z c• L. c cE3 E aCL 0. �a' 3 � v aaG�aO zv tl c 0 ba z w >, OL 0 E o z w O c �• q a e p Ow c •C V v N C7U C z C c fy O O 'r; O h E CU Oy a c C C O O W u V C... W p C1 LU v C v cCs c2 d p. O 7u tl v v O u f'3 v Q d.2 U C 7 2av0.€v0v v N o a a Epp u u u E o � r v L.. � 'oEv°' E � .c o u oM.04C 0. o C e ? a �ros� o" ,ENcr u °= o h v -N E8 mcc c v Cl z`o Do O v u d E U y � o. o c c E.c Q E .!- v a do i° 0 c iC ? v v 2EvZv 08 co Nt.NE • • • • 6. c �uV'! N M i .q l ON ON r, ri M H tA 00 m � z" S E n Wa 0 O � y z .. p b a O u 7 0o ry a U. Q e o A c O U c7 z w c c zs 'C o = o a °,° E C o O C v C pN G G L 7J t u y a C 7 v U�+ v .0 N O n r p c c v v V L v ,C y u v C L h G o c G vy L L y h C E y L L C O V v t CL. oy o a "c C. Co .0C� Gp ' v rCC v •y-y.�coc0o hyvEo .vS pC O r �p QOC y a 0 to y O a, r u o C •O p 9 u p a v O p v v Q OO Y c_ u y 7 .c+ .Eo 0 0o v O C c. a O u v, N p y U'G n. � h@ o V L C z r- v L� c-uj O O V -'' y H L c y O u O p•us•0 v c � c7 .. � Ki r �,y6 t,, V V 04 w" a❑ aG1 a°.❑G� z u ce coo o� C% to o h =s o. a.._ a 0 a 0 a cl O �. c u w O O P °�' =Cl 9 v �. A O ° E C+ a o u+ D oC. c v v 3a 0v z to O 'C to O 'v to O 'v O Q 0 91. W L. •b h v L h fn G' ly O N TJ L V W v ° Q C G v cL C! L v ca a 0 :: v '1. OO G - 7 W N °'o L v 7 C 5 ° v C n a d OL c V o 0 r v� v c 0 0 u v o E t' u O° h v E c � c C OC. C v v $ Q y o. aU,v Cl u Z v o eE vO yooCu r ZN -C -0 0.L0 es N Wv, c '3 rv 0 uuL v0 ss c.S C V) 0. BVI O -.av�W v.Cn Eo�E�m °:CSG v v �'- v a? ,,,Ev•SCroo L D .� Es='cg C N c O v � � � U •� 7 ca W N Q w r7 o v C E C C d v L E O L yr v C Z O aEpp� ESV u C° o�� 6yJ1 C v Ov- n u Z C. A o c C Z u v ea s v o C m i, =, ° � e V m °= E o° d E E v v_ v to 'o A4 c v v Z�rvz,E, w ° v �cozo v �v0 C� a O 0 .+ %� C° 4 0 P C cl c p, v 2 3 L c% i a z a 3 L1 N C N o.., c. iG� L c (d9 zz 1-49 a F 0.4 d a W z W o N H h U U U U L L L L L L Z °qE tfE o4E baE 10 tOE 'QE 04E °QE E 0 E C 5 C ° C E- C 5 C 5 C C E C S C E COw c 0. ° og�. c c. ° c e c `gay c ° pV�5 PG� a�p�0❑ wC��C� aCav0.�1❑ 3a a❑m❑ Sgn. qoy�, a❑m❑ u v v v o u o m e cca c cc+ c m 5 a 5 (r0 0! N L 0� N TJ c N —r' O c N —�' .Q s .V .O z s Q may./ Q Q �y./ Q o C o€ o R o c E o" c U.aJ a o n a o 4 v n o u n o u n a�. G n z z o C o o D 0 c w � c o h dc u z W L eCs 61 V 61 ccl u two C h ��y v) u. a it c m c7 C c u C c C c C c c c z o c E O o c O o o o c o .� �= o �= o == e0 pa F; 00 oa oo v u v z v o p v u a h m .C: d to v Z Q uclv v 3 yQ Zc o c c° u E uC. C.Z C L G C V r 'G O Z u C C. ° t h"dd c o E 000�g� "L c•� ` v'S az c'oa. E o r u m n c b ti v �3 u c -" Vdd'Cc EEo - �° Z v E C U � v O U :: � t� u�i C% ino v c° u v� N v Qu E E y v c o y r =_ 0 0 �+ �, :_ c e c E E z o".0 y e y c r y 0. u� yF o f a m E o° °z y3 a I.Q C v Q .0 Ocl E t 12 Z "0 v C R v 0� z o w 0L.z v Cl� E= C E E h E ,co z E o Oi c v o a v s z vcl E Duo c n r m 0 r� N WIN tA O F O a F d a z w z w �,i r a6) 0"6 E zv U C V r� to c v e E c E c E E E c E= c E a� e� CL c ccl.0 0.ciao ho E 'R Oc c C4 v LL 4 acicc0u 0�UU a� z 0 v - v '- u c u c O cCa 0 ece eCa v`o�. .fig, A0.. p 'o 0o C p oo v p J� �C9. z L C c G O R 0 L C- O R E L C- O ,� O a 0 R a 0 a0. to .0 O Oz z w0 °' °' Q w r 0 O O O 2 •� c � �Cy v c v C6 ,,F z v C- y v C. VUUU V > VUc z c c c c c c O t O a= O v 0 0 a L r V L r C v v r Doti L r L r a C t Co Z r •� =� 7 C •q C t4 7 'O C O C C •= C h 61 v 0 'L ``- H C C C t Cl O L 'C �;, t L o C° j •� 0 u v �+ r h t U yN u •v L r Z- v T D C v •N :: L V C v C 7 v y v 0 n C R C- V O t G p O O w h c v v O V C v Z r n E E v C �i y a �� > C p Z p Z y V R C C° C- 'N 0 C C t° U y' cT'i v C _ er v U C t u v C •� t v v v> R ' r T+ E°° N by 6J c- u° L V L E p o nu v z E v.� _ v o� o Q �d7 x ' h"0 t% C N 0. 0 C C v h ti C V E y C V y v C z2h0000�' w ���'nvE'cvEU.v��Rr voo��c c v v E-6 a a v s n >. L v 7 E E S '_ h E z 0 0 v E E E '� r s T r r v� °= t c U c E c ° �- Ec- 0 v u c - N U o o" o > > N 0 (n �. v E oo '0 0 C S v '� c u 0 a o W° c v "o'er G R W p= � a R c 0'a O0 v :3 u cl �� z c CL E v r rve a0 t v r 0 cy L a 0 '- OL C C C t V v u E 'h 0 aro:: �- •� O 0 v ° �i ti p o W L o a O 0° o v .. :' oD u o e u r v > a c C p E s h '" E V 0 r-` � cNa v cl C O •0 O 'm 4= C v 0 p v cd Z fi C L �, r v a V v .O 6i L 7 C o v v t .— V e a r �-0 v R v r N O u c E o 'v u 0 c 'o ° a C v v v cl z ° a m e E a v� c� R c v) > Q w i% a E y w m r. m S E a i- S E E c a 0 0 14 M Li �•+ N r a6) z O 94 O od OJ rm ;6y Elowa T G Cp N L i V v QO,EC O L >OcOL �s Z A U y v C � L N a o 4 N Y C T+ C > U • v C u NC.y �yyy •C •CJ h 'G yCJ fy3 . v N C G 2 v '� E o0 H oo C ZC 8. r. c C v O a- O O � U v O w G V V N N N a s o s C v G to Z Q C> r E Z C v2 Z c a �° ° cc%_C3 ?� E OJ rm ;6y - N y6 3 G7 F.I H z� E � E S C C G4 W' a0 aL1 O v H o� v o �b ot`'cl i 0 a 0 u A. Z 'C W O v v h O M " 0 " P4 .L v G •= v n. � � ,�o_n U � •°a° V e V �c cc z 'C O 'C W0 • h O .� r0 rl i b j 04 •C C C, •C V •O Z V V N 1 C C ,� �, U •. v v C S C c v y v � t TJ •� •„C. y � C t C � L v �y ^ c C 0 v 0 C v C u L o A Lr E oz v moo' a V ='r h aL u N Z r �, L G E v .O V O Q ZS a 0 .y v L v 0 v� Tr y L C L O �d E` d C C OO C C Z C �y" Oy. C U j JLoo OL 0 •v �-+ N '� ��.r 7 .r`•. 'E L .0 O c C. O WO W v E j�, u .0 oq q �° v" S' O 0 ao 0 2 0 3 Loozr 0 a v "s o o h o� ;,. 0 �•v c cvi�° cs v0i v 0. o O G �'C x p v `` y h v 0 .E0 C- Z aJ L U c r a ti o c r E c o C Q G C Q a c �' v V C T V v Z avo v s L� �� h .G c G L � •� Z V O • • • • • • C L Z G L C C .0 C. h •O. O C C. .L V v OA Z E �•� a N f7 N c �s c. 0 N C C7 - N y6 3 d Y 0 N �� 1 � W . o 0 o E zv � E•ov Eb •� cOa ,cv, °a Wa g�� q�� z 0 z v 0'�@ O` �O ocl CIS C z z c c O a O c' v a n 0 `o�- 0 y 0 O '.• t c V dx�Ly�,ECC.LLuvG h cl 2 y z o E W •U W 0. C ,C � U V tU. 'C+ O ea a,ZO c i E V a0 12 S N G c 4. C C V) ,.., O Ocs aZ V y y ._ C C C fs. C .0 ccs = m V vu H h O E t C W oG E E v v h •cu G c v E v C C v V y O C .0 '� T' .G E a E O S u a C E r z. 0~ •�- Oy 4..a U 4) y L Z d V y C. d a 04 0 N �� 1 d Y N fA w O� a �a z w o� r o0 A Ww z O a � d E cL v v 3 n v avvHz OCE O v OC C C O •L O Ti � c C V 71 � C 5�n �� c c c" h vui c E no. � F' y o u 6z v' E v� C o 0 ; °' �° o a c v .� ao n .� a; v �n a0bE v v& m o v�ooc o v' ;, v, H o c c E nn u u a c� o ac Og h a. E o Cl O W P4 y cuC v y u L .o C Li, C C u a. v€ C o T, v C. c C 0 C uvp civ cCi O A. P. a v O v �= v C V) a. i a c .n o � n.�•.G- o �°' ESL', z v u C. -0 v u r� F� rr N in in 0 H 94 La P4 H d a z w z WE i N N ��b zv UE �E toE E w c c c c ate, aG, O Ir a a y7 0 0. WO R c vl c i-. N 00 ^ z� o'v c� a.. o c o a 0 c c. z wz ° w O 0��� z v = �. _ A O G u U v h O 0 0 C ► Wy ►y p ?: U q C O G C G <�atc < < z c c c c c c z o c o c c c � V 0 v T = L c v �.s o vo00 v v z �� ca c, `O So C V c 7 u o s o c'c o c v _ o o u= E v �_ h r E �' o c> l7 u b E '0 .2 7 V-- L O C � v� � C 2 C v _. C v b h Ou c7 -� v v C Ti Q = v 4; c y� O v r W cL7+ y v -C o 2 V C V v a. E W sv v a' O c t y c a C T' °° E 61 o a a= y o 5 v °acs h o f Q' a, o Ez�r ° a'o. c �e 00 L �E� a� :7 Y _' O .0 V C o,: � O O C G 0 2 0 Z E v 3 m Z >, c o. c' iL� u c o c o. ° :0: u C w O. �. O c 2' oo u v c r. �. '� V .0 °° C% C C 0 h ° E o c v W 0o : E C C 0 �` `" w o c >. V C M to - v V a 'q' V v �` �+ T c C Z W O t O O V eCa 0A v h v L v c y �+ � d t cCa V C O04 U p .� O c' 0 c �` v.. 'O fr.ca a oA W o O c° 0 o b y o v o v E g°c oEn•0�' v v c Osco v tE�r�,o°�' Z L. o �, _ c y V c o r r v .c h .S v c. a.o- r a o 0 c c. E o Z a 3 Z L �' o v n E U M.0 vui .E .5 N C�7 N N ��b WN C\ rI ri M F N .W, M N W � � Nr. Z E E t E 0 t C v0 u O u 0 m C_ Q C eCa C �r+ w P H b p_ d 'Q h '0 V V cl = z 04 v .0 h O y O pp vi v iyii ~ >, O M y€ >� L C L C p WW + a a 0 n a O n cl a 0 P� n C c w0 0 y° a°c° v;0 K V Q o E �Oyw �< ) V) U. z c c c c c c z O '% o 'L O 'C w 0 a '� O 'c O 'c O &.=c d i _� i L i r� C ppL C df Y� 0 L "- 'v C •C O o O U y L cl C C C V O p> L N p V O u C C L u u 1N .� u E p u v C p 0 a C '� R O O> v a �.. O� E u C M g v p C V v �i �+ o z' L ti p v c o .� `= 0 C p p• Clp v< E 'S c G `o Q` E E O 7 G' v y y C 4 M V C G C s oq `° v o v C C ..r C o .0 a ca p oD '� u oC 6 v � a Ero^c� u2� 'C tiono� u o v h o „_ ., i .E > h c ° C�'v c, o E v E G U ob yy C h C� Z t4 O ADO V>� 71 L O ` L O 0 a aj .0 O pp >, L V r u ' p cY C N L _. 0 c E o o to o 0 O E u $ C;> h C ou Yi. 7 eat o z v u D D C C .+ �, •U h .p t1 C r t.. p O •0 u L L O 'CJ v 'r, U V i. t L 7 h �. h Q. Cl h C v p 0 y u u ' u u d V �.-_.. g a p `" O a �y �a G y 0 E C% �i Z L L, U G •t; v °-. 61 H pq a c -. O2 y w o O L w 0 y 0 ao 04 S� — 'C Q1 h cLa s v n n' C M c7 E v� C u EJ a n a c h H vi u�' QJE s o c. r C oq ,C=� v0, 6�J F .�. L a W E Oyj u O �t v o 9 U a a < C] U M N tA CN r-+ M F LZ lb, W L z��E E F vaWi c `n c C a C q a a qor. tic_ 0 e_ m C_ c_ c to °a c_ }}yyO O•I '� y 1+ N TJ f'/l TJ iv1 •� •' f/f O O 04� O O to M�.I � L C O ca L C O R L i•. � 0(7 A. o �. a O a o O ld o o O R a o � ` h z iL �0 Q !� f/1 O Y N h C Y N c�c'S C Y N crc4 C Y V! R C Y .� W C tl C LV-, U C Lu-, U C Vi z r. i e c e c coO c c e c c z 'O O 'CO 'C O •c: O 'v Ap.O C C C C ti 0 � i i 0 i 0 W _ O ti v W u ° a o �' E .0 c Z c c c c a N co E '° h Z v° C v v Ot c v a c n L °— O c O O Z C C G C C h .y •O O t: v E G O t; y t E% C ° ° v W E .n. :J Ti r -- v C y V 4� Yj W O 9 r a r" e o " c a o0 a u ti O E n 0 r L v c O v 5 o m n. oc 00 G o�,aC�.a�o A4 v�1VLvL. EID •� E E ivy •_' . 30�, M L E U tO C °a° r u y 'v �, E C r E Les L v T' v 0 'r o n L N a. ovp & y O v o vC. `= a, c y v °% C y ° G v > v y O O y •y r N i7 W i v n• O O V 0 V raj, n LV n V O pN iJ ° i �' Qi E Z w i C v ,vim ,O• v m> y C c� 7 O u t G' m s '_ •0 O H .. -, y •O cry C O .0 �y N 'l7 u r0 U V •� C7 C v •C > v L .Cv. Z Lu .D v tv7 LFA Emu c t7 t o 0 H c c v cl o e u ° a C �' f0 '�v1 C h Z A a 0 V►7 S O 4 C O. bo c •Cr V O C v C �c;: •C ft7cl � Z u to �i c c. �•� y v y c'7 G y h L M Gc C ti u b oov v_ t. C y L C O t � L to � S Gu C >,c cl c z a.CL cc yr E v° h y e cr_ t v cz E v 0 •a r r= a c o a ccscee -07 a' 51b, •, 6J 0" c EE- E c E c E t C C t z Uv C op c 04 v a ap v c aD ro f WAn a N d J Vhf TyJ2 N TJ cl N TJ Z z o o O f7 C O m a o a o c. O m€ a o O cl a o c ti z M.0 v 9 0 y � p -Y c Ci y C as Q� 0� a .. v a •., v a .,, v �. ° v c� �U w C�7 C7 av- t7 vGi-. av-, z Z e c 'C c C c O •O c c c �Z 6 O O O v Op N c z v E cCs C v cl cl �zr E pN v.= C C °� Opt 'N h .p •s t OO 7 C C y O -C H v yt� 61 vi 0�0 .7 p L V Z Tr G h E c v c v G •- ca v04 c uo'Cu u� ao��U E h C c .,Q ?pva E pO C. o a v •v •a Z C G Z v e O y C CY O o h` 0 3 •R L cl O N �'• C a �( E u $' .0 ., o c.0 o v N ci C h o •C � V) O Op .y v E `O C C C .G O � C> C o 0 c7 ? v o04 p O O C C O G ` Op IA C. o'h 7 C a r Z v Q C 00 cl R w t� W G� •, 6J In r-� O H O a F d a F W z a w rY Im � C H •• ZfA en E O eCe � P O ° z6 0� >• �y O CC% v O v a �cj W C t7 z c c O 'C .wa p a o ro 'c 0 oz� o n c v v 'Clcl tZt!! v v o r F O y u 7� � O O e O 7 Z C e+o o ° ° P ` ° PG H y�voo z y °yo a v7 CK �° cv y O g V a v u z [^ C y v �° _ 0 f`c�� W <° y h CL P Im 5hi n N X61 �+ � ^ 0 C v e E �aa ooC� z p eo 0 .. O v z ° a. o z V w O U.v °'co Ow W Z u v N C7 z :9 O '� w O ►a O n0 � r TO G ° a Wp v° > o v c> ° v N L V, Or E L s - 0 L,c y v v O O c 0 L a `'r V v CL z c u o E E c r H e c 5 o f u h v V c L 0•4 v O v u c v o 0 v v r- E c �' C c 'y L ° •y O E _ C; c N l7 L C T+ .0h v L L v O Z u U V � t y cl $ N 'c N v L v �' E c H L Z n v E V v l q E G o e ° h `" Lv v v �' v v ° z w r> o o u°°° ��°o:=oo�n° E :? G o E 0. ' o°u° hc° 5 o CL v v x C E E c L L ° o S Q, v u V Z o'S L v �'- cl � v z as O a z a n N X61 `vJ i �b� H Z 3 E $ E a " h v t 04a n°❑ n°A V p 0 w �1 00 c U S. aL g v O L R n 4 n C p o € on€'ate W iu CL. 0 G. a 0 G. ai z L v w O r Q M 4 L C O Q. ark C c c v �z ui c c c c 91, O o o v o� v 0 U v v G v L Z LL � F C •� E U y L C h T .O v h C a V v _ G 7 ` U O N O C o V C v c O C E H y v a a `o ° L a cvaz E 3 E 04 n y V ny04 c C •Q' �{iLyj jn •y •R 5 7 O `G (� y 00 v U O h L h W V pC C ny O v O a 5 CO 'O O u ie r N pc v �, u •• v C w 0L p A ° r = o o r a�.v A z d V) o.� N_ v c o v o L c x" V o y E a $ o n y W n v n o av z 0 � 04 0 0 :o 'o' E v c m 'o, c r 9 ,a, a.. C. 0= a u C� a E `o h Cd7 A � N i �b� ttachment No. 4 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN TO REDESIGNATE THE SAN DIEGO CREEK NORTH SITE TO RETAIL AND SERVICE COMMERCIAL AND ESTABLISH THE DEVELOPMENT LIMITATION (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 95-1(D)] WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the Newport Beach General Plan the Land Use Element has been prepared; and WHEREAS, the Land Use Element sets forth objectives, supporting policies and limitations for development in the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, the Land Use Element designates the general distribution and general location and extent of the uses of land and building intensities in a number of ways, including residential land use categories and population projections, commercial floor area limitations, and the floor area ratio ordinances; and WHEREAS, the Land Use and Circulation Elements are correlated as required by California planning law; and WHEREAS, the provisions and policies of the Land Use and Circulation Elements are further implemented by the traffic analysis procedures of the Traffic Phasi•,g Ordinance and the implementation programs of that Ordinance and the Fair Share Traffic Contribution Fee Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing and has recommended City Council approval of the proposed amendment, and WHEREAS, the City Council has held a public hearing to consider the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, Final Environmental Impact Report No. 155 has been prepared and certified for the proposed project consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's Implementation Procedures for CEQA (Council Policy K-3 and the Final EIR have been reviewed and considered prior to approval of the project). X63 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach that General Plan Amendment 95-1(D), is hereby approved, as follows: Land Use Element: Page 73 Saar Diego Creek North This site is located on Jamboree Road easterly of the Bayview Planned Community. The site is designated for Adn�inist-Fative-, PFafessienal-and Finanei 3ereial Retail wid Service Commercial(RSC) land use and is allocated a floor area ratio of 0.5/0.75. 112,000 square feet. -A Fire Station reseFV"•ien of 2.5 aeres is also desi , ated4n-this-a� fea- ADOPTED THIS day of 1995. MAYOR ATTEST CITY CLERK C\aindo%Ns`pla ming`japh`g a95dD.doc chment No. 5 RESOLUTION NO. 95 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING LOCAL COASTAL PROGRADE AMENDMENT NO. 39 FOR THE SAN DIEGO CREEK NORTH SITE WHEREAS, the Coastal Act of 1976 requires the City of Newport Beach to prepare a local coastal program, and WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the Coastal Act, a Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan has been prepared, and WHEREAS, said Land Use Plan sets forth objectives and supporting policies which serve as a guide for future development in coastal areas of the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a duly noticed public hearing to consider a certain amendment to the Land Use Plan of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program; and WHEREAS, the City Council has held a duly noticed public hearing to consider a certain amendment to the Land Use Plan of the Local Coastal Program; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Quality Act an Environmental Impact has been prepared for the proposed project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach that an amendment to the Land Use Plan of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program is approved, as follows: Page 68: 3. Sall Diego Creek North This site is located on Jamboree Road easterly of the Bayview Planned Community. The site is designated for ads ifli Rti:� Iessienal ara� �a ncial��n33nereial Retail and Service Commercial(RSCJ land use and is allocated a floor area ratio of 0.5/0.75. :1' ^O� . " tion nese, ion of 2.5 aer s alse desig�his-afea- BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council has read and considered the information contained in the draft Environmental Impact Report, and determines that it is adequate to serve as the environmental documentation for the project. �6� ADOPTED this day of 1995. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK E\%%indows`plar inejni�pMLCP39.doc _hment No. 6 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE THE PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS FOR THE SAN DIEGO CREEK NORTH AND JAMBOREE/ MACARTHUR PLANNED COMMUNITY (PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENT NO. 823) WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the Newport Beach General Plan the Land Use Element has been prepared; and WHEREAS, the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides specific procedures for the implementation of Planned Community zoning for properties within the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, the proposed revisions to the Planned Community District Regulations are consistent with the Newport Beach General Plan, as proposed by the accompanying General Plan Amendment No. 95-1 (D); and WHEREAS, the proposed project meets the criteria of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach does hereby approve an amendment to the San Diego Creek North and Jamboree/MacArthur Planned Community District Regulations as attached hereon as Exhibit 1. ADOPTED this day of 11995. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK Attachment: Exhibit 1 CN%,in&,s`phuu nejn`ph\Rcs-A823.doc EXHIBIT 1 AMENDMENT NO. 823 SAN DIEGO CREEK NORTH AND JAMBOREE/MACARTHUR PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS Prepared for: City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Prepared by: The Irvine Company 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92658-8904 SAP Adopted Ordinance No. Amendment No. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. Introduction 1 Section I General Notes 4 Section II Permitted Uses 5 List of Figures Figure I General Site Location 2 Figure II Land Use Plan 3 Figure III Statistical Analysis 7 INTRODUCTION PURPOSE AND INTENT The San Diego Creek North and Jamboree/MacArthur Planned Community (P -C) Districts Regulations have been developed in compliance with the City of Newport Beach General Plan. This P -C has also been developed pursuant to Chapter 20.51 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The intent of these District Regulations is to provide for the retention of the sites as open space and public facilities areas with selected permitted uses; and the establishment of an area for an automobile dealership facility with sales and repair; support retail and food uses. 0 t'L i ,....,� u "UMMUN/ do MACARLHUR NOT TO SCgLF DISMICT _ 2 4p� SAN DIEGO CREEK CHANNEL MA 0 RETAIL 4 -SERVICE COMMERCIAL OPEN SPACE/PUBLIC FACILITIES NATURAL OPEN SPACE -N- LAND USE PLAN 2 SAN DIEGO CREEK NJJAMBOREE MAC ARTHUR NOT TO SCAL PI -A NNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT SECTION I GENERAL NOTES 1. WATER SERVICE Water within the Planned Community will be furnished by the City of Newport Beach. 2. GRADING AND EROSION Grading and erosion control shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the City of Newport Beach Grading Ordinance and shall be subject to permits issued by the Building and Planning Departments. 4 SECTION II PERMITTED USES The following are permitted uses within the natural open space area (Area 1): 1. Preservation and restoration of existing habitat and wetlands. 2. Habitat and wetland creation and enhancement. 3. Ecological and agricultural research. 4. Utilities 5. Equestrian, pedestrian and bicycle trails. The following are permitted uses within the open space/public facilities area (Area 2): 1. Preservation and restoration of existing habitat and wetlands. 2. Passive and active public recreation facilities such as hiking, biking, scenic outlooks, picnicking and equestrian trails. 3. Biotic gardens. 4. Other uses that the Planning Commission finds compatible with the natural amenities of this parcel. 5. Transportation corridors, appurtenant facilities, arterial highways and vehicular access to the other permitted uses. 6. Utilities and water tanks. 7. Fuel modifications zones. 5 -1-98. Drainage and flood control facilities. 11.9. Any grading necessary for the permitted uses. }2-10. Off-site directional sign. 1311. Enhanced landscaped corner. The following are permitted uses within the open space/public facilities area (Area 3): 1. Preservation and restoration of existing habitat and wetlands. 2. Passive public recreation uses. 3. Biotic gardens. 4. Other uses that the Planning Commission finds compatible with the natural amenities of this parcel. 5. Transportation corridors, appurtenant facilities, arterial highways and vehicular access to the other permitted uses. 6. Utilities and water tanks. 7. Fuel modifications zones. 8. Drainage and flood control facilities. 9. Any grading necessary for the permitted uses. 10. Off-site directional signs. 11. Enhanced landscaped corner. y�S The following are permitted uses within the retail service commercial area (Area 4): 1. Accessory support retail 2 Specialty Food Establishments in accordance with Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 3 Signs in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 4 Preservation and restoration of existing habitat and watt antic S Passive and active public recreation facilities such as hiking, biking, scenic outlooks, picnicking and equestrian trails. 6. Biotic Gardens. 7 Other uses that the Planning Commission finds compatible with the natural amenities of this parcel. 8 Transportation corridors, appurtenant facilities, arterial hiahways and vehicular access to the other permitted uses. 9. Utilities and water tanks. 10. Fuel modifications zones. 11. Drainage and flood control facilities. 12. Any grading necessary for the permitted uses. 13. Off-site directional signs. 14. Enhanced landscaped corner. THE FOLLOWING ARE PERMITTED USES SUBJECT TO THE SECURING OF A USE PERMIT: 7 1 Automobile sales facilities, subject to the securing of a use permit. 2 Automobile repair facilities only in conjunction with new or used cars sales facilities as the primary use, subject to the securing of a use permit. 3 Restaurants, subject to the securing of a use permit. dfv FIGURE III STATISTICAL ANALYSIS San Diego Creek North and Jamboree/MacArthur Type Open Space Open Space/Public Facilities San Total Open Space Retail and Service Commercial Jamboree a -e t43�� Acreage Area (Net) 1 2.0 2 12.:7 3.07 14.7 3 4 San Diego Creek North & Jamboree/MacArthur TOTAL :\...,PC' EX,\PCSDCN.892 4.7 9.63 19.4 9 SECTION I. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Block 500 1. Project Area Net Acreage 19.66 2. Percentage of Site Covera a. Building Footprint 20% maximum b. Landscape 30% minimum 3. Maximum building floor area will not exceed 397,046 square feet. 4. The square footage of individual building sites are subject to adjustment as long as the limitations on total development are not violated. Any adjustment in the square footages for each building site shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. rCT-,- ao 3 A.g,.t Is. 19"n :q1 l7� Lo SECTION I. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Block 500 1. ProTiect Area Net Acreage 2. Percentage of Site Coverage a. Building Footprint b. Landscape 19.66 20% maximum 30% minimum 3. Maximum building floor area will not exceed 398,112 square feet. 4. The square footage of individual building sites are subject to adjustment as long as the limitations on total development are not violated. Any adjustment in the square footages for each building site shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. rcr`x1-= 3 � •. 199s ent No. 7 ORDINANCE N0. 95-L2 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING THE FIRST AMEDNMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AND THE IRVINE COMPANY, INC. WITH RESPECT TO THE CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENT AND OPEN SPACE AGREEMENT (CIOSA) (DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 6) The City Council of the City of Newport Beach DOES ORDAIN as follows: SECTION I. The City Council finds and declares that: a. The State Legislature and the City Council have determined that the lack of certainty in the approval of development projects can result in a waste of resources, escalate the cost of housing and other development to the consumer, and discourage investment in and commitment to comprehensive planning which would make maximum efficient utilization of resources at the least economic cost to the public; and b. Assurance t;.at an applicant may proceed with a project in accordance with existing policies, Hiles and regulations, and subject to conditions of approval, will strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning and reduce the economic costs of development; and C. California Government Code Section 65864 et seq. authorizes cities to enter into development agreements with any person having a legal or equitable interest in real property for the development of the property; and d. Chapter 15.45 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides requirements and procedures for the a nendment of development agreements; and e. The Fust Amendment to Development Agreement No. 6 has been prepared in compiiance Stith state law .-r d the Newport Beach Municipal Code; and E in compliance with state law and city ordinance, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council to consider First Amendment to Development Agreement No. 6; and yp Z g. The City Council finds that Fust Amendment to Development Agreement No. 6 is in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and Guidelines promulgated thereunder, and h. The City Council finds that said Fust Amendment to Development Agreement No. 6 is in conformance with the Newport Beach General Plan. SECTION 2. Fust Amendment to Development Agreement No. 6 (Ordinance No. is hereby adopted and made a part hereof by this reference. SECTION 3. Copies of said Development Agreement are on file in the offices of the City Clerk and Planning Department of the City of Newport Beach. SECTION 4. This Ordinance shall be published once in the official newspaper of the City, and the same shall be effective thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption. This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Cou of the City of Newport Beach held on the day of 1995, and was adopted on the day of 1995, by the following vote, to wit: ATTEST CITY CLERK C:\\SSOMCL'kWU 'ORDICMPA\DA6AORD.DOC AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT COUNCIL WIMERS MAYOR 2 �Q>3 EXEMPT RECORDING REQUEST PER GOVERNMENT CODE 1 6103 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: City Clerk City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663-3884 FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENT AND OPEN SPACE AGREEMENT (Pursuant to Government Code Sections 65864-65869.5) This FIRST AMENDMENT (" Amendment "} to the CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENT AND OPEN SPACE AGREEMENT (the " CIOSA ")is entered into this _day of , 1995, by and between the charter city ("City") and The Irvine Company, a Michigan corporation, ("Company"). City and Company are sometimes collectively referred to herein as the "Parties." RECITALS A. On June 30th, 1993, City and Company entered into the CIOSA, an agreement authorized pursuant to Government Code section 65867 and Chapter 15.45 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The CIOSA was recorded as Document No. 93-0479122 of the Official Records of Orange County, California. The CIOSA was entered into pursuant to Government Code section 65867 and Chapter 15.45 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. B. Along with other property owned by Company and described therein, the CIOSA applies to that area of City known as San Diego Creek North (-SDC North" ). The CIOSA restricts use of SDC North to open space/ public facilities, consistent with City's Ordinance No. 92-39. C. City and Company are now in agreement that SDC North should be made available for use as the possible future site of an automobile dealership, consistent with the standards and requirements set forth in Exhibit "A" hereto, to the extent that SDC North is not required for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. Accordingly, City and Company desire to enter into this Amendment amending the CIOSA to permit development of SDC North with an automobile dealership. 1 AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration received by each part from the other, City and Company agree as follows: 1. Exhibit " D " to the CIOSA is hereby amended by changing the "DEVELOPMENT" column for SDC North from ,Open Space" to "Open Space/ Automobile Dealership," and the "DEVELOPMENT AREA (ACRES)" column for SDC North from --0-" to —9.6.11 2. Exhibit —E: to the CIOSA is hereby amended by changing the "OPEN SPACE ACRES TO BE DEDICATED" column for SDC North from —4.711 to —0-,-11 with an added footnote indicating dedication for commercial purposes. 3. Exhibit "I" to the CIOSA is hereby amended changing the Category 2 site limitations and related constraints map for San Diego Creek North. WHEREFORE, this Amendment is entered into effective the date first ' written above. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a Municipal corporation By: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Robert H. Burnham City Attorney THE IRVINE COMPANY, a Michigan corporation By: By: 2 Gary H. Hunt Executive Vice President Peter D. Zeughauser Vice President & General Counsel lw,40.119.1wu CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENT AND OPEN SPACE AGREEMENT DEVELOPMENT AREA DATE: 11/24/92 # PROPERTY 1. SAN DIEGO CREEK SOUTH DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT AREA (ACRES) Residential - 300 D.U. 18.4 SAN DIEGO CREEK NORTH Open-Spac-e Retail and Service Commercial -0- 9.6 2. 3. JAMBOREE/MAC ARTHUR Open Space -0- UPPER CASTAWAYS Residential - 151 D.U. 26.0 4. AND 3 TIEW LING Restaurant - 10,000 S.F. or Health Club - 40,000 S.F. or Senior Residential - 120 D.U. 5.0 5. 6. NEWPORTER NORTH Residential - 212 D.U. 30.0 7. BLOCK 800 Residential - 245 D.U. 6.4 8. CORPORATE PLAZA WEST Office - 94,000 S.F. 9.0 FREEWAY RESERVATION North Area South Area Residential - 36 D.U. Residential - 12. D.U. 7 5 3.5 9. 10. NEWPORTER KNOLL Open Space -0- NEWPORTER RESORT Hotel - Additional 68 Rooms onsite 11. 12. NEWPORT VILLAGE from library to San Miguel) Open Space -0- TOTAL 115.4 EXHIBIT "E" CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENT AND OPEN SPACE AGREEMENT OPEN SPACE DEDICATION DATE: 11/24/92 # PROPERTY OPEN SPACE ACRES TO BE DECICATED (4) TMNG OF DEDICATION 1. SAN DIEGO CREEK SOUTH 2.4 (3) 2. SAN DIEGO CREEK NORTH -0- (5) 3. JAMBOREE/MAC ARTHUR 4.7 (3) 4. UPPER CASTAWAYS 30.6 (2) 5. BAYVIEW LANDING 11.1 (1) 6. NEWPORTER NORTH 47.2 (2) 7. j BLOCK 800 -0- N/A 8. 1 CORPORATE PLAZA WEST -0- N/A 9. FREEWAY RESERVATION North Area South Area 17.3 -0- (2) N/A 10. NEWPORTER KNOLL 12.0 (1) 11. NEWPORTER RESORT -0- N/A 12. NEWPORT VILLAGE from library to San Miguel) 12.8 (4) TOTAL 138.1 (1) Open Space to be dedicated upon Effective Date of Agreement. (2) Open Space to be dedicated upon issuance of first building permit. (3) Open Space shall be offered for dedication upon issuance of last building permit of all projects contained in this Agreement. The Company may elect to waive this condition. (4) Open Space area to be dedicated upon issuance of first building permits for both Upper Castaways and Newporter North. (5) 8.6 acres will be dedicated to the City for commercial land use. CATEGORY 2 Definition. Category 2 sites have either a range of principal permitted uses or no specific delineation of a "development envelope" and "maximum extent of grading for non-public uses." (F through H) Sites included in this category are: F. Jamboree/MacArthur G. San Diego Creek North H. Newporter Resort Future Discretionary Review: All uses on Jamboree/MacArthur and San Diego Creek Nert would be subject to future CEQA/Coastal Development Permit review. Thus, for purposes of future Coastal Act and LCP review of Jamboree/MacArthur and San Diego Creek North, approval of the Development Agreement and Development Agreement Addendum provides the following: Deletion of office uses allowed by the approved Newport Beach LUP; Other public facility uses identified for each site in the Development Agreement PC text as found to be within the scope of the approved Newport Beach LUP but, due to absence of analysis of potential impacts and absence of development envelope/maximum grading maps, such uses are subject to full future discretionary review; No encroachment or loss of wetlands is approved and not other habitat - related findings are made other than that the habitat protection/restoration designation for the San Diego Creek north area bordering San Diego Creek is consistent with and in furtherance of Coastal Act Sections 30231 and 302233. The Impacts of the additional hotel rooms on the Newporter Resort would be subject to future CEQA/Coastal Development Permit requirements with full discretionary review. The impact of commercial development on the San Diego Creek North site will be subject to future CEQA/Coastal Development Permit requirements with full discretionary review. 1 N C 1 Y Y Y V LIJ 22 av `o+° 1 of Wi >> Qu N Q< nc`c� e b p INZf _ m b l�Si r p wa I.W. , u R J Qo z Q o c o dE o Q F -N z°cc u 0 0 ►- i t li srr fes Za: 1 .......... _ r ` i 1� < Cl - J< m cc z CL *--4 z4r ccUjOf .\ \�\��` •j O to ... I rr �; \\ 2 E'r y!tlC • f\ _ •\�\ U i�44jy{dd{ yy8t 1\ •.� OI�r�i'Il \ e / 1 Ai ent No. 8 ORDINANCE N0. 95-4 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AND FLETCHER JONES MOTOR CPRS, INC. WITH RESPECT TO THE FLETCHER JONES MOTORCARS- MERCEDES DEALERSHIP PROJECT AGr NO. 9) The City Council of the City of Newport Beach DOES ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council finds and declares that: a. The State Legislature and the City Council have determined that the lack of certainty in the approval of development projects can result in a waste of resources, escalate the cost of housing and other development to the consumer, and discourage investment in and commitment to comprehensive planning which would make maximum efficient utilization of resources at the least economic cost to the public; and b. Assurance that an applicant may proceed with a project in accordance with existing policies, rules and regulations, and subject to conditions of approval, will strengthen the public plug process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning and reduce the economic costs of development; and C. California Government Code Section 65864 et seq. authorizes cities to enter into development agreements with any person having a legal or equitable interest in real property for the development of the property,, and d. Chapter 15.45 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code pro\ides requirements and procedures for the amendment of development agreements; and e. Development Agreement No. 9 has been prepared in compliance with state law and the N`mvport Beach Municipal Code; and f In compliance with state law and city ordinance, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council to consider Development Agreement No. 9; and g. The City Council finds that Development Agreement No. 9 is in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and Guidelines promulgated thereunder, and �� I 1 IL .. e City Council finds that said Development 11 nent No. 9 is in conformance with the Newport Beach General Plan SECTION 2. Development Agreement No. 9 (Ordinance No. _� is hereby adopted and made a part hereof by this reference. SECTION 3. Copies of said Development Agreement are on file in the offices of the City Clerk ani Planning Department of the City of Newport Beach SECTION 4. This Ordinance shall be published once in the official newspaper of the City, and the same shall be effective thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption. This Ordinance was u)troduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held on the day of 1995, and was adopted on the day of 1995, by the following vote, to wit: ATTEST CITY CLERK PLT:..C:V.ISOFFICMW INWORD�CMPA%DA9-0RD.DOC AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS MAYOR 2 THE TEXT OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 9 WILL BE DELIVERED TO THE CITY COUNCIL PRIOR TO THE SEPTEMBER 11, 1995 PUBLIC HEARING �,q MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING: INTRODUCTION: Attachment 'Wo. 9 This memorandum expresses an understanding between and among the City of Newport Beach ("CITY"), The Irvine Company ("TIC"), and Fletcher Jones Motor Cars ("JONES") regarding a series of transfers and actions designed to facilitate the development of an auto dealership on property commonly known as San Diego Creek North (the "PROPERTY"). The understanding of the parties is premised on the following: A. JONES currently owns and operates an automobile dealership on real property located at 1301 Quail Street in CITY The dealership has been successful but is hampered, to some extent, by the absence of any significant frontage on a major arterial. Moreover, JONES existing lease expires in December, 1996 and JONES has received offers to relocate his business outside of Newport Beach. CITY would experience 'significant long term reductions in total tax revenues of approximately $500,000 per'year in the event JONES relocates the dealership to another jurisdiction. B. CITY and JONES have determined that the PROPERTY is the only large vacant parcel in the CITY to which the automobile dealership could be relocated. However, the parcel is an extremely difficult one to develop because of the topography, lack of access, the need to accommodate major water and electrical utilities, the need to adapt the site plan for a roadway flyover easement, and the 1 need to acquire adjacent property from at least one other public agency. CITY is in a unique position to work with public agencies and utilities to resolve these constraints and has a strong and unique financial incentive to do so. C. Development of the PROPERTY as an automobile dealership will require amendments to the Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement ("CIOSA") - a development agreement between TIC and CITY. The key provisions of CIOSA contemplate a vesting of development entitlement on all vacant parcels owned by TIC, the dedication of all or a portion of many of those parcels for open space or public facility purposes and a loan from TIC (the CIOSA Advance) to the CITY for improvements related to traffic circulation. TIC is obligated to dedicate the PROPERTY pursuant to CIOSA but only for open space or public facility purposes with the dedication deferred until building permits have been issued for all CIOSA parcels. The development of an auto dealership on the PROPERTY, and certain other commitments of the CITY relative to that project, will require -amendments of CIOSA. CITY has determined these amendments will work to the long term advantage of the residents of Newport Beach by preserving approximately $500,000 in annual sales tax revenue (which funds police, fire, and other essential services) without imposing fees or charges on current residents and businesses. D. The transfers of the PROPERTY from TIC to CITY and from CITY to JONES will be supported by consideration other than cash payments. The CITY is committing to administer the construction 2 y� and improvement of the E1 Paseo Storm Drain system - a project that must be completed before TIC is permitted to develop certain entitlement in Newport Center/Fashion Island. The E1 Paseo Storm Drain system improvements, which would be funded by CIOSA Financing District bonds with assessments or special taxes paid by TIC, its tenants, or successors, are necessary to accommodate flows generated by development in its service area and failure to increase the size of the system could result in closing or damage to streets and highways in. the area, The transfer from the CITY to JONES is accompanied by the latter's commitment to incur development costs substantially in excess of those normally associated with the development of an automobile dealership (due to the difficult nature of the PROPERTY and the high quality construction required by CITY and Mercedes Benz) and to accept the assessments specified in this Agreement (Section II. D.) which will be used to fund major public improvements related to the project. E. Development of the PROPERTY is a complex process during which each of the parties wilt'invest substantial time, effort and money. This memorandum serves as blueprint for more detailed and binding documentation necessary to ultimately implement the transfer of the PROPERTY and to ensure that the parties are aware of the significant commitments that each is undertaking to accomplish their mutual objective. In light of the foregoing, the parties wish to express their understanding of the responsibilities of each prior to, and the probable terms and conditions of, the ultimate transfer of the site to JONES. 3 �,q 6 I. GENERAL CONDITIONS A. This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) shall be in effect for 120 days to permit the parties to negotiate formal agreements and may be extended upon the mutual consent of the parties. B. The parties agree to use their best efforts to quickly and completely implement the terms of this MOU. II. CONDITIONS TO TIC/CITY TRANSFER: A. TIC will dedicate the PROLPERTY to CITY at such time as the conditions specified in subparagraphs B through F are satisfied. B. The documents implementing the transfer of the parcel from TIC to CITY shall designate an automobile dealership as a permitted use but TIC may impose special land use restrictions commonly incorporated into TIC's other property transfers, including architectural review of the site and development plans. The documents conveying title shall also authorize JONES to convert the PROPERTY from an automobile "dealership to specific land uses to which the parties agree in the event JONES is prohibited from using the PROPERTY as an automobile dealership by any public agency having jurisdiction of this site or JONES is unable to receive or sell enough Mercedes Benz automobiles to successfully support operation of the dealership and JONES is unable, with diligent efforts, to economically operate the dealership with other vehicle lines, provided, however, CITY shall not have the right to convert the PROPERTY to a use other than automobile dealership until 4 �,q q twenty-four (24) months (which may be reduced with agreement by the parties) after JONES ceased using the PROPERTY as an automobile dealership. The land uses to which the property may be converted shall be at densities and intensities consistent with the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. TIC shall retain the right of architectural review and approval of the site and development plans in the event of any conversion. Provisions relative to the conversion of the PROPERTY to a use other than an automobile dealership shall take into account the following: 1. The costs incurred by JONES in the initial development of the site as an automobile dealership, the costs of redeveloping the site for another use, and any outstanding indebtedness secured by any interest in the PROPERTY or i improvements. 2. TIC's concerns relative to the physical and/or economic impact of conversion on any PROPERTY owned by TIC or any agreement relating to real PROPERTY and to which TIC is a party as well as TIC's entitlement to consideration in the event the conversion increases the value of the PROPERTY. 3. The need for CITY to preserve its sales tax base as a primary vehicle for providing essential services to residents and businesses in Newport Beach. C. TIC shall convey the parcel as raw land in its current condition. Documents transferring title from TIC to CITY shall contain provisions consistent with other TIC transfers of property regarding TIC's representation that no toxic or hazardous material 5 -I has been used, stored or disposed of on the PROPERTY. TIC will cooperate with CITY and JONES, at no direct cost to TIC, in the preparation, filing and processing of documentation necessary to secure land use entitlements and the plans to construct all on-site and off-site improvements necessary to prepare the site as an automobile dealership. D. In consideration of TIC's agreement to modify permitted uses of the PROPERTY and to transfer the PROPERTY to CITY with no direct cash consideration to TIC, CITY will form a CIOSA Financing District. The PROPERTY shall be excluded from the CIOSA Financing District, but shall pay an annual assessment to the CITY of $80,000 per year for five (5) years, totaling $400,000. Further, the CITY shall reduce the total CIOSA District funding obligation by $400,000, and agree to construct the extension of Bayview Drive along the frontage of the PROPERTY without CIOSA District funds. This annual assessment on the PROPERTY shall not become effective until ninety days subsequent to the date on which PROPERTY is first used as an automobile dealership . In addition, 50% of the Fair Share Fees (one time payment) shall be used to reimburse TIC pursuant to the reimbursement provisions of CIOSA. E. The proposed improvements to the El Paseo Storm Drain System should, in light of the potential circulation system impacts that would result from failure of the system, be funded through the CIOSA Financing District or through a CIOSA cash advance by TIC. The cost of the E1 Paseo Storm Drain Improvements shall be applied to reduce the amount of the CIOSA advance and shall be subject to A c� {1 y the reimbursement provisions of CIOSA. Construction of the storm drain improvements shall commence with issuance of the first TIC property building permit causing an incremental increase in flows to the storm drain system. CITY shall not deny entitlement or permits on any of TIC property, the development of which is conditioned, in whole or in part, on the construction of some or all of the E1 Paseo Storm Drain System Improvement Project. F. CITY shall initiate, and approve if appropriate, amendments to the planned community: text for block 500 in Newport Center which declare that the current parking supply satisfies the zoning code requirements for the existing office development on site. G. TIC shall cooperate with CITY, at no direct cost to TIC, in the CITY's efforts to obtain ownership or constructive use of property adjacent to Jamboree that TIC dedicated in fee to the Transportation Corridor Agency (TCA). In the event CITY is unable to obtain constructive use of the PROPERTY adjacent to.Jamboree and the TCA agrees to reconvey tli2-PROPERTY to TIC, TIC shall convey the property to CITY and CITY shall grant an easement to.the TCA necessary to accommodate the FLYOVER, with the remainder of the property leased to JONES for one dollar per year and for a term of f if ty years for use in conjunction with the automobile dealership. H. TIC, CITY and JONES shall attempt to reach agreement relative to granting TIC a right of first refusal to purchase the PROPERTY in the event of any transfer from CITY or JONES to a successor, provided, however, TIC shall have no right of first 7 3b� refusal with respect to the transfers described in Section III (K). I. TIC, CITY and JONES shall attempt to reach agreement regarding a reservation of TIC's right to preserve the off-site directional sign currently located at the corner of Jamboree and Bristol. III. CITY/JONES COMMITMENTS A. CITY shall acquire the PROPERTY from TIC subject to the land use restrictions and conditions specified above, and other non -monetary conditions, restrictions, and exceptions that would not preclude use of the site as an automobile dealership or significantly increase the cost of public or private improvements depicted in the preliminary site plan submitted to TIC and the CITY by JONES (and attached as "Exhibit All). CITY shall transfer the PROPERTY to JONES subject to agreement regarding the payment of the annual assessment and the one time payment of Fair Share Fees pursuant to Section II. D.. B. CITY will initiate General Plan and Zoning amendments consistent with the preliminary site plan and the public improvements described in this MOU (to the extent those improvements are owned or controlled by CITY). C. CITY and JONES will' cooperate with one another in the processing of permits and licenses necessary to entitle the PROPERTY and/or construct the improvements necessary to complete the development plan. JONES and CITY shall each use their respective best efforts to promptly file and diligently pursue to approval, all necessary applications for permits or licenses from 0 V 1 1 other governmental entities required to implement the development plan. JONES and CITY have identified certain tasks necessary to entitle the PROPERTY, have estimated the costs associated with completion of each task and have agreed to share costs on a equitable basis as specified in Exhibit B to this MOU, provided, however, CITY shall not incur any expense in excess of the estimated costs without prior City Council approval. Subject to the consultant contracts to be approved by the City Council on February 13, 1995, JONES shall have. the right to seek other bids for the performance of the tasks identified in Exhibit B. JONES shall have the right to review and comment on all documents prepared by the CITY or its consultants relative to bids, cost estimates and scopes of work and CITY and JONES shall cooperate with one another in minimizing the costs incurred in performing the task identified in Exhibit B and other tasks related to development of the project. Other entitlement costs associated with tasks not identified on Exhibit B shall be divided equally between CITY and JONES unless the parties agre`(�i otherwise. CITY and JONES shall agree on the terms and conditions pursuant to which some or all of CITY's costs in this section are to be reimbursed by JONES if, within five years after the automobile dealership commences operation, JONES has failed to generate gross annual sales of at least eighty million dollars from the operation of the dealership. JONES shall have no obligation to reimburse the CITY for.any of the costs identified in Exhibit B if the failure to achieve the required tax revenue threshold results from JONES' inability to 0 30)- obtain Mercedes Benz automobiles due to strike, plant closure, alterations in the formula for distribution or calculation of sales tax revenues or any other reason beyond JONES' control. D. JONES shall pay the entire cost of designing and constructing all on-site and off-site improvements normally associated with an automobile dealership including water, sewer, electrical, gas, telephone and internal access. JONES acknowledges that the site is encumbered with major public utility facilities that will or may have to be relocatecl at significant cost to JONES. CITY shall assist in obtaining the approvals from all public utilities necessary to relocate existing, or construct new, facilities. E. CITY shall fund and construct an extension of Bayview Drive from Jamboree Road to a point approximately 600 feet easterly of Jamboree Road. The Bayview Drive improvements will be funded through the annual assessment to be paid by JONES pursuant to Section II. D. F. JONES and CITY acknowledge that the Transportation Corridor Agency (TCA) proposes to construct a transition road ("FLYOVER") from northbound Jamboree Road to access the northbound lanes of State Route 73. JONES and CITY also acknowledge that the TCA may be unable to fund the entire cost of, or complete, the FLYOVER prior to the date on which JONES is prepared to commence construction or operations and that construction of the FLYOVER, subsequent to that date will impair access to, and operation of, the automobile dealership. CITY will use its best efforts to seek 10 funding from the TCA, OCTA or other public agencies to construct the flyover. JONES shall not be responsible for any costs associated with the construction of the FLYOVER above, rather than at, grade on the PROPERTY. G. CITY and JONES shall use their best efforts. to acquire the 1.1 acre parcel of surplus right of way owned by Caltrans and located on the north side of the PROPERTY. CITY shall transfer the PROPERTY acquired from Caltrans to JONES upon payment by JONES of all costs CITY has incurred in acquiring the PROPERTY from Caltrans. H. CITY shall prepare and process an EIR evaluating development of the site and the construction of all related off- site improvements and mitigation measures required by various resource agencies. JONES shall cooperate in the preparation of the EIR. JONES will pay all fees charged by governmental agencies for processing permit and license applications, and that portion of the EIR, directly related to the development of the automobile dealership (see Exhibit B):' CITY shall waive all planning, building, water, sewer and other processing fees CITY normally charges applicants for licenses, permits or entitlements. CITY shall also pay the costs of the EIR related to analysis of off-site improvements. I. JONES shall pay all required TCA fees, the one time Fair Share Fee, and the annual assessment specified in Section II. D.. J. CITY shall convey the PROPERTY to JONES with restrictions that require development as a Mercedes Benz automobile dealership 11 0 owned and operated personally by Fletcher Jones, Jr. or a successor approved by the CITY and Mercedes Benz. The PROPERTY, including any liens and improvements shall revert to the CITY if JONES fails to operate a Mercedes Benz dealership on the PROPERTY for at least 20 years provided, however, should JONES be unable to receive and sell enough Mercedes Benz automobiles to successfully support operation of the dealership, JONES shall have the right to continue the operation of the dealership with any other vehicle line available and, provided further, JONES shall have the right to convert the PROPERTY to any other uses subject to the terms and conditions specified in Section II (B). K. In the event of any transfer from JONES to a successor within 20 years after the dealership commences operation, CITY and JONES shall each receive 500 of the net profit of the sale price, provided, however, the provisions of this section shall not apply to any transfer of title to the land from JONES to any member of his family by sale, inheritance, gift or otherwise, or to any transfer of title to any firm,' corporation, partnership, trust or entity at least 510 of which is owned by JONES. Net profit on the sale shall be defined to mean the sale price less all of JONES' land development cost including, the expenses incurred in obtaining entitlements, grading cost, the cost of relocating utilities, Fair Share Fees and assessments, and the cost of constructing any on site improvement, and all costs associated with the transfer of the PROPERTY. L. JONES shall diligently pursue construction of, all "on 12 / 3qs V site" improvements necessary to commence operation as an automobile dealership unless JONES is prevented or delayed due to acts of God, strikes, labor or material shortages, or for any other reason beyond JONES control. Documents conveying title from CITY to JONES shall contain provisions which require the PROPERTY to revert to the CITY if JONES fails to promptly commence construction or fails to diligently pursue construction to completion. M. The obligation of JONES to acquire the PROPERTY and construct the automobile dealership- shall be contingent upon the ability of JONES to obtain suitable financing. JONES shall diligently apply for financing upon execution of this Agreement. N. CITY and JONES shall use their best efforts to ensure that the design and construction of the Jamboree Road Fly -over does l not adversely impact the aesthetics of the PROPERTY or JONES ability to use excess right of way in conjunction with the operation of the dealership. 0. JONES shall not be required to accept title to the property unless City and TCA have agreed, in writing, to a bridge structure sof fet profile of the Jamboree Road flyover (JR5) for the area between Bayview Way and Bristol Street which provides a minimum 18 foot clearance above grade at the centerline of Bayview. This soffet profile will also provide for a minimum 20 foot clearance above the easterly top of curb elevation on Jamboree Road northerly of Bayview way to Bristol Street. The profile will be provided to JONES and will allow their designers to provide site grades to maximize the views of the automobile dealership from 13 3pb Jamboree Road. Thomas 0. Redwi z The Irvine Com 117 Fletcher Jones, Fletcher Jones Mo cars ev Murp City Manager City of Newport Beach cnbticfj.13 3-9-95 14 U. 3l� EXHIBIT B COST SHARING FLETCHER JONES/CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TASK DESCRIPTION SITE SHARE BAYVIEW WAY TOTAL (Fletcher Jones) SHARE (CNB) Composite Site Plan $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $3,000.00 Graphics EIR for Bayview Way $47,000.00 $47,000.00 $94,000.00 (Jamboree to MacArthur) and Auto Dealership Site Topographical $12,000.00 $12,000.00 $24,000.00 Mapping and Boundary Surveying Engineering for Street $35,000.00 $35,000.00 $70,000.00 and Site Grading; Street Improvements & Utility Infrastructure Geotechnical Field $6,750.00 $6,750.00 $13,500.00 Investigation and Written Report Level 1 $1,750.00 $1,750.00 $3,500.00 Environmental Analysis for Hazardous Materials Permit Processing with $8,000.00 $8,000.00 $16,000.00 Federal & State Agencies Proiect Management $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $60,000.00 SUBTOTALS $142,000.00 $142,000.00 $284,000.00 Real Estate Appraisal $21,000.00 0 $21,000.00 (Caltrans Appraisal) Title Report $2,000.00 0 $2,000.00 TOTAL $165,000.00 $142,000.00 $307,000.00 2/7/95 V .9-K AMENDMENT NO. 1 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AND FLETCHER JONES MOTORCARS Exhibit B is hereby amended to include the following items: SITE SHARE TASK DESCRIPTION (FLETCHER JONES) Excavation for M.W.D. $ 1,810.00 and M.C.W.D. mains Percolation Feasibility $ 6,492.00 Study Reproduction $ 500.00 Previous Total $165,000.00 New Total $173, 802.00 APPROVED: Fletcher Jones Motorcars City f ANeach BAYVIEW WAY SHARE (C.N.B.) TOTAL $ 1,810.00 $ 3,620.00 _0_ $ 6,492.00 $ 500.00 $ 1,000.00 $142,000.00 $144,310.00 0 $307,000.00 $318,112.00 I ORDINANCE NO. 95-42 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING THE FIRST AMEDNMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AND THE IRVINE COMPANY, INC. WITH RESPECT TO THE CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENT AND OPEN SPACE AGREEMENT (CIOSA) (DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 6) The City Council of the City of Newport Beach DOES ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council finds and declares that: a. The State Legislature and the City Council have determined that the lack of certainty in the approval of development projects can result in a waste of resources, escalate the cost of housing and other development to the consumer, and discourage investment in and commitment to comprehensive planning which would make maximum efficient utilization of resources at the least economic cost to the public; and b. Assurance that an applicant may proceed with a project in accordance with existing policies, rules and regulations, and subject to conditions of approval, will strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning, and reduce the economic costs of development; and C. California Government Code Section 65864 et seq. authorizes cities to enter into development agreements with any person having a legal or equitable interest in real property for the development of the property; and d. Chapter 15.45 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides requirements and procedures for the amendment of development agreements; and e. The First Amendment to Development Agreement No. 6 has been prepared in compliance with state law and the Newport Beach Municipal Code; and f. In compliance with state law and city ordinance, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council to consider First Amendment to Development Agreement No. 6; and 1 g. The City Council finds that First Amendment to Development Agreement No. 6 is in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and Guidelines promulgated thereunder, and h. The City Council finds that said First Amendment to Development Agreement No. 6 is in conformance with the Newport Beach General Plan SECTION 2. First Amendment to Development Agreement No. 6 (Ordinance No. 95-42is hereby adopted and made a part hereof by this reference. SECTION 3. Copies of said Development Agreement are on file in the offices of the City Clerk and Planning Department of the City of Newport Beach. SECTION 4. This Ordinance shall be published once in the official newspaper of the City, and the same shall be effective thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption- This doption This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held on the 28th day of August , 1995, and was adopted on the 11th day ofSept , 1995, by the following vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS EDWARDS, WATT DEBAY, HEDGES, COX, GLOVER, O'NEIL NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NONE ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS NONE —J MAYOR ATTEST 01.A^.Q, CITY CLERK C,qL/ FC7V_ C:\i\fSOFFICE\WINWORD\CC\GPA\DA6A-ORD. DOC 2 ORDINANCE NO. 95-43 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AND FLETCHER JONES MOTOR CARS, INC. WITH RESPECT TO THE FLETCHER JONES MOTORCARS- MERCEDES BENZ DEALERSHIP PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 9) The City Council of the City of Newport Beach DOES ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council finds and declares that: a. The State Legislature and the City Council have determined that the lack of certainty in the approval of development projects can result in a waste of resources, escalate the cost of housing and other development to the consumer, and discourage investment in and commitment to comprehensive planning which would make maximum efficient utilization of resources at the least economic cost to the public; and b. Assurance that an applicant may proceed with a project in accordance with existing policies, rules and regulations, and subject to conditions of approval, will strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning, and reduce the economic costs of development; and C. California Government Code Section 65864 et seq. authorizes cities to enter into development agreements with any person having a legal or equitable interest in real property for the development of the property, and d. Chapter 15.45 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides requirements and procedures for the amendment of development agreements; and e. Development Agreement No. 9 has been prepared in compliance with state law and the Newport Beach Municipal Code; and f. In compliance with state law and city ordinance, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council to consider Development Agreement No. 9; and g. The City Council finds that Development Agreement No. 9 is in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and Guidelines promulgated thereunder, and h. The City Council finds that said Development Agreement No. 9 is in conformance with the Newport Beach General Plan. SECTION 2. Development Agreement No. 9 (Ordinance No. 95_43) is hereby adopted and made a part hereof by this reference. SECTION 3. Copies of said Development Agreement are on file in the offices of the City Clerk and Planning Department of the City of Newport Beach. SECTION 4. This Ordinance shall be published once in the official newspaper of the City, and the same shall be effective thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption. This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held on the 28th day of August , 1995, and was adopted on the I I th da of Sept., . y , 1995, by the following vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS EDWARDS WATT ATTEST CrITry CLERK DEBAY HEDGES COX GLOVER W NEIL NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NONE ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS NONE MAYOR ZI PLT:..C:\MSOFFICE\WDD WORD1CC\GPA\DA9-0RD.DpC kj RESOLUTION NO. 95-102 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CERTIFYING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 155 FOR THE FLETCHER JONES MOTORCARS PROJECT WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach proposes to approve the Fletcher Jones Motorcars project, which includes the following discretionary actions: 1. General Plan Amendment No. 95-1 (D) 2. Local Coastal Plan Amendment No. 39 3. Amendment No. 823 4. Use Permit No. 3565 5. Traffic Study No. 108 6. Amendment to Development Agreement No. 6 7. Approval of Development Agreement No. 9 WHEREAS, in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code Sec. 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code of Regulations Sec. 15000 et seq.), Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) No. 155 has been prepared to address the environmental effects, mitigation measures, and project alternatives associated with the discretionary approvals necessary to implement the proposed project; and WHEREAS, the DEIR was circulated to the public for comment and review; and WHEREAS, written comments were received from the public during and after the review period; and WHEREAS, Final EIR No. 155 contains written responses to such comments as required by CEQA; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council of the City of Newport Beach conducted public hearings to receive public testimony with respect to the DEIR; and WHEREAS, Section 21081 of CEQA and Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines require that the City Council make one or more of the following Findings prior to the approval of a project for which an EIR has been completed, identifying one or more significant effects of the project, along with Statements of Facts supporting each Finding. FINDING 1: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the EIR. FINDING 2: Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the Finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. FINDING 3: Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR; and WHEREAS, Section 15092 of the CEQA Guidelines provides that the City shall not decide to approve or carry out a project for which an EIR was prepared unless it has (A) Eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible as shown in the findings under Section 15091, and (B) Determined that any remaining significant effects on the environment found to be unavoidable under Section 15091 are acceptable due to overriding concerns as described in Section 15093; and WHEREAS, Section 15093 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines requires the City Council to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project; and WHEREAS, Section 15093 (b) of the CEQA Guidelines requires, where the decision of the City Council allows the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the EIR but are not mitigated, the City must state in writing the reasons to support its action based on the EIR or other information in the record; and WHEREAS, Section 21081.6 of CEQA requires, where an EIR has been prepared for a project for which mitigation measures are adopted, that a mitigation monitoring or reporting program be adopted for the project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council has reviewed and considered Final Environmental Impact Report No. 155 for the Fletcher Jones Motorcars project and does hereby certify that the Final EIR is complete and adequate in that it addresses all known environmental effects of the proposed project and fully complies with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and the CEQA Guidelines. Final EIR No. 155 is comprised of the following elements: 1. Draft EIR No. 155 and Technical Appendices 2. Comments received on the DEIR and Responses to those Comments 3. Planning Commission Staff Reports 4. Planning Commission Minutes 5. Planning Commission Findings and Recommended Conditions for Approval 6. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program K All of the above information is on file with the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92659-1768, (714) 644-3225. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Final EIR contains a reasonable range of alternatives that could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project, even when those alternatives might impede the attainment of other project objectives and might be more costly. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that although the Final EIR identifies certain significant environmental effects that could result if the proposed project is constructed, all feasible mitigation measures that could eliminate or substantially reduce those adverse effects have been included in the proposed project as described in the Final EIR. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council finds and determines that the proposed project should be approved. In making this determination, the City Council has balanced the benefits of the project against its environmental risks, as required by CEQA. Those alternatives and mitigation measures not incorporated into the project are rejected as infeasible, based upon specific economic, social and other considerations as set forth in the Statement of Findings and Facts, attached hereto as Exhibit A, and the Final EIR. The facts listed in support of each Finding with respect to the significant impacts identified in the Final EIR are true and are based upon substantial evidence in the record. The unavoidable significant adverse impacts of the project, as identified in the Statement of Findings and Facts, that have not been reduced to a level of insignificance will be substantially reduced by the imposition of conditions and mitigation measures. The City Council further finds that the remaining unavoidable significant impacts are clearly outweighed by the economic, social and other benefits of the project, as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit B), incorporated herein by reference. The information contained in the Statement of Overriding Considerations is true and is supported by substantial evidence in the record. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the monitoring requirements of Public Resources Code Sec. 21081.6 (AB 3180 of 1988) will be met through the design of the project, required compliance with City building, grading and other codes and ordinances, and required compliance with the adopted mitigation measures and conditions of approval. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project is attached as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by reference. G, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Final EIR No. 155 , the Statement of Findings and Facts, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations, and all of the information contained therein accurately reflect the independent judgement of the City Council. ADOPTED THIS 11thday of, September, 1995. MAYOR E w ATTEST: CITY CLERK r'LIF0 Attachments: Exhibit A: Statement of Findings and Facts Exhibit B: Statement of Overriding Considerations Exhibit C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4 RESOLUTION NO. 95-103 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN TO REDESIGNATE THE SAN DIEGO CREEK NORTH SITE TO RETAIL AND SERVICE COMMERCIAL AND ESTABLISH THE DEVELOPMENT LIMITATION [GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 95-1(D)] WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the Newport Beach General Plan the Land Use Element has been prepared; and WHEREAS, the Land Use Element sets forth objectives, supporting policies and limitations for development in the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, the Land Use Element designates the general distribution and general location and extent of the uses of land and building intensities in a number of ways, including residential land use categories and population projections, commercial floor area limitations, and the floor area ratio ordinances; and WHEREAS, the Land Use and Circulation Elements are correlated as required by California planning law, and WHEREAS, the provisions and policies of the Land Use and Circulation Elements are further implemented by the traffic analysis procedures of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance and the implementation programs of that Ordinance and the Fair Share Traffic Contribution Fee Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing and has recommended City Council approval of the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, the City Council has held a public hearing to consider the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, Final Environmental Impact Report No. 155 has been prepared and certified for the proposed project consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's Implementation Procedures for CEQA (Council Policy K-3 and the Final EIR have been reviewed and considered prior to approval of the project). 1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach that General Plan Amendment 95-1(D), is hereby approved, as follows: Land Use Element: Page 73 3. San Diego Creek North This site is located on Jamboree Road easterly of the Bayview Planned Community. The site is designated for ^ a. inistfati ,o Dr -^f ssien ' and Finaneial Cemm Retail and Service Comnzercial[RSCj land use and is allocated -a floor area ratio of 0.5/0.75. 112,000 Station r-eser-vatien of 2.5 aer-es is also designated in this ar- ADOPTED THIS 11th day of Sept . , 1995. MAYOR ATTEST C 'iti CITY CLERK r� Ali. f:\windows\pla miing\jm\plt\gpD5-1D.doc Cq� . 2 RESOLUTION NO. 95 - 104 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 39 FOR THE SAN DIEGO CREEK NORTH SITE WHEREAS, the Coastal Act of 1976 requires the City of Newport Beach to prepare a local coastal program, and WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the Coastal Act, a Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan has been prepared; and WHEREAS, said Land Use Plan sets forth objectives and supporting policies which serve as a guide for future development in coastal areas of the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a duly noticed public hearing to consider a certain amendment to the Land Use Plan of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program, and WHEREAS, the City Council has held a duly noticed public hearing to consider a certain amendment to the Land Use Plan of the Local Coastal Program; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Quality Act an Environmental Impact has been prepared for the proposed project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach that an amendment to the Land Use Plan of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program is approved, as follows: Page 68: 3. San Diego Creek North This site is located on Jamboree Road easterly of the Bayview Planned Community. The site is designated for Administrative, Pr -e essie al and Finaneial Cee nen-ria Retail and Service Conamercial(RSCJ land use and is allocated a floor area ratio of 0.5/0.75. 112,0000 square feet. AnTFe Station r-eseFvatien of 2.5 aeres—ice apse area- BEdesignated in tNs IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council has read and considered the information contained in the draft Environmental Impact Report, and determines that it is adequate to serve as the environmental documentation for the project. ADOPTED this 11th day of September 1995. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK r `` ', ` ,• [,�, f\windows\planting\jm\plt\L.CP39.doc RESOLUTION NO. 95-105 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS FOR THE SAN DIEGO CREEK NORTH AND JAMBOREE/ MACARTHUR PLANNED COMMUNITY (PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENT NO. 823) WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the Newport Beach General Plan the Land Use Element has been prepared; and WHEREAS, the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides specific procedures for the implementation of Planned Community zoning for properties within the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, the proposed revisions to the Planned Community District Regulations are consistent with the Newport Beach General Plan, as proposed by the accompanying General Plan Amendment No. 95-1 (D); and and WHEREAS, the proposed project meets the criteria of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach does hereby approve an amendment to the San Diego Creek North and Jamboree/MacArthur Planned Community District Regulations as attached hereon as Exhibit 1. ADOPTED this 11th day of September 1995. MAYOR ATTEST: EXHIBIT 1 AMENDMENT NO. 823 SAN DIEGO CREEK NORTH AND JAMBOREE/MACARTHUR PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS Prepared for: City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Prepared by: The Irvine Company 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92658-8904 Adopted Ordinance No. Amendment No. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. Introduction 1 Section I General Notes 4 Section II Permitted Uses 5 List of Figures Figure I General Site Location 2 Figure II Land Use Plan 3 Figure III Statistical Analysis 7 INTRODUCTION PURPOSE AND INTENT The San Diego Creek North and Jamboree/MacArthur Planned Community (P -C) Districts Regulations have been developed in compliance with the City of Newport Beach General Plan. This P -C has also been developed pursuant to Chapter 20.51 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The intent of these District Regulations is to provide for the retention of the sites as open space and public facilities areas with selected permitted uses; and the establishment of an area for an automobile dealership facility with sales and repair; support retail and food uses. V PL MMUNITYDIS7- MACARTHUR NOT Tosc,� RICT 2 m 9tis �° s O eq Y��F ' �y y 0 �w 0 9p jc?:• T -fes r •y .�ly �•+.:,'ri-.'. �.rl�,,•,ti �%;.��'�: ��Zi:.. _•'1..-� } ;moi �•�, SAN DIEGO CREEK CHANNEL QL .00 ® RETAIL +SERVICE COMMERCIAL Fv-.3 OPEN SPACE/PUBLIC FACILITIES NATURAL OPEN SPACE -N- LAND USE PLAN ��� 0 SAN DIEGO CREEK NJJAMBOREE MAC ARTHUR NOT TO SCAL PLA I'IVED COMMUNITY DISTRICT SECTION I GENERAL NOTES 1. WATER SERVICE Water within the Planned Community will be furnished by the City of Newport Beach. 2. GRADING AND EROSION Grading and erosion control shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the City of Newport Beach Grading Ordinance and shall be subject to permits issued by the Building and Planning Departments. SECTION II PERMITTED USES The following are permitted uses within the natural open space area (Area 1): 1. Preservation and restoration of existing habitat and wetlands. 2. Habitat and wetland creation and enhancement. 3. Ecological and agricultural research. 4. Utilities S. Equestrian, pedestrian and bicycle trails. The following are permitted uses within the open space/public facilities area (Area 2): 1. Preservation and restoration of existing habitat and wetlands. 2. Passive and active public recreation facilities such as hiking, biking, scenic outlooks, picnicking and equestrian trails. 3. Biotic gardens. 4. Other uses that the Planning Commission finds compatible with the natural amenities of this parcel. 5. Transportation corridors, appurtenant facilities, arterial highways and vehicular access to the other permitted uses. 6. Utilities and water tanks. 7. Fuel modifications zones. 5 �J X08. Drainage and flood control facilities. 449. Any grading necessary for the permitted uses. 4410. Off-site directional sign. X311. Enhanced landscaped corner. The following are permitted uses within the open space/public facilities area (Area 3): 1. Preservation and restoration of existing habitat and wetlands. 2. Passive public recreation uses. 3. Biotic gardens. 4. Other uses that the Planning Commission finds compatible with the natural amenities of this parcel. 5. Transportation corridors, appurtenant facilities, arterial highways and vehicular access to the other permitted uses. 6. Utilities and water tanks. 7. Fuel modifications zones. 8. Drainage and flood control facilities. 9. Any grading necessary for the permitted uses. 10. Off-site directional signs. 11. Enhanced landscaped corner. 6 z�s The following are permitted uses within the retail service r-nmmarrial area (Area 4): 1. Accessory support retail 2 Specialty Food Establishments in accordance with Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 3 Signs in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 4 Preservation and restoration of existing habitat and wetlands. S. Passive and active public recreation facilities such as hiking, biking, scenic outlooks, picnicking and equestrian trails. 6. Biotic gardens. 7 Other uses that the Planning Commission finds compatible with the natural amenities of this parcel. 8 Transportation corridors, appurtenant facilities, arterial highways and vehicular access to the other permitted uses. 9. Utilities and water tanks. 10. Fuel modifications zones. 11. Drainage and flood control facilities. 12 Any grading necessary for the permitted uses. 13. Off-site directional signs. 14. Enhanced landscaped corner. THE FOLLOWING ARE PERMITTED USES SUBJECT TO THE SECURING OF A USE PERMIT: 1 Automobile sales facilities, subject to the securing of a use permit. 2 Automobile repair facilities only in conjunction with new or used cars sales facilities as the primary use, subject to the securing of a use permit. 3 Restaurants, subject to the securing of a use permit. 8 l FIGURE III STATISTICAL ANALYSIS San Diego Creek North and Jamboree/MacArthur Acreage Type Area (Net) Open Space 1 2.0 Open Space/Public Facilities 2 12.!; 3.07 San o-tal Open Space 3 4.7 Retail and Service Commercial 4 9.03 damborieeTi'jaeAa'thu-=vizorl 4� San Diego Creek North & Jamboree/MacArthur TOTAL 19.4 : \ ... ', PC: EX: \PCSDC;1.992 9 SECTION I. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Block 500 1. Prgject Area Net Acreage 19.66 2. Percentage of Site Coverage a. Building Footprint 20% maximum b. Landscape 30% minimum 3. Maximum building floor area will not exceed 397,046 square feet. 4. The square footage of individual building sites are subject to adjustment as long as the limitations on total development are not violated. Any adjustment in the square footages for each building site shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. !'CTutJ00 AuWut 13, 1993 3 SECTION I. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Block 500 1. PrQj t Area Net Acreage 2. Percentage of Site Coverage a. Building Footprint b. Landscape 19.66 20% maximum 30% minimum 3. Maximum building floor area will not exceed 398,112 square feet. 4. The square footage of individual building sites are subject to adjustment as long as the limitations on total development are not violated. Any adjustment in the square footages for each building site shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. rcrw.soo 3 kwtii9n E O'l NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of Fletcher Jones, Jr, to allow the establishment of an automobile dealership on the San Diego Creek North Site (3300 Jamboree Road). In order to approve this project the following applications will be considered: General Plan Amendment No. 95-10 and Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 39 to designate the property for Retail and Service Commercial use and establish the permitted intensity of development; Amendment No. 823 to amend the San Diego Creek Nortb/Jamboree MacArthur Planned Community District Regulations; Use Permit No. 3565 to allow the establishment of an automobile dealership on the property, Traffic Study No. 108; an amenchnent to Development Agreement No. 6 (CIOSA); proposed ORDINANCE NO. 95- 42 and approval of Development Agreement No. 9; and the acceptance of an Environmental Impact Report, proposed ORDINANCE NO. 95-43 . An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared in connection with the application noted above, and it is the present intention of the City to accept the Environmental Impact Report and supporting documents. The City encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this documentation. Copies of the Environmental Impact Report and supporting documents are available for public review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92659-1768 (714) 644-3225. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on the 11th day of _September 1995, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. For information call (714) 644-3200. rItgu U4l V' ._ •it JVs S�ygb,..a:�; P "�Z' 7���'e; IRENE BUTLER, ASSISTANT CITY CLERK CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Authorized to Publish Advertisements of all kinds ii ing public notices by Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County, Cai,iornia. Number A-6214, September 29, 1961, and A-24831 June 11, 1963. PROOF OF PUBLICATION! STATE OF CALIFORNIA) SS. County of Orange ) I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE OF' PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application Of Fletcher Jones, Jr. to allow the establishment ofI an automobile dealership the a e of .eiC7hteen ears and nota a to g g Y / p rty on the San Diego Creek North Site (3300 Jamboree Road). In or interested in the below entitled matter, I order to approve this project the following applications will be consid- am a principal clerk of the NEWPORT ered: General Plan Amendment BEACH-COSTA MESA DAILY PILOT, a No. 95-1(D) and Local Coastal Program Amend- newspaper of general circulation, printed and ment No. 39 to designate the property for Retail and - published In the Ci of Costa Mesa Count `J . / y Service Commercial use and establish the permitted intensity development; of- Orange State of California and that of Amendment No. 823 to amend the San Diego i / attached Notice is a true and complete copy Creek North/Jamboree MacArthur Planned Com- as was printed and published on the munity District Regulations; Use Permit No. 3565 to following dates: allow the establishment of an automobile dealership on the property; Traffic Study No. 108; an amend- ment to Development greement No. 6 (CIOSA); proposed ORDINANCE NO. 95-42 and approval of De- velopment Agreement No. 9; and the acceptance of an Environmental Impact Report, proposed ORDI. NANCE NO. 95.43. An Environmental Impact August 31, 1995 Report has been prepared lin connection with the ap- plication noted above, and it is the present intention of the City to accept the Envi- ronmental Impact Report and supporting documents. The City encourages mem- bers of the general public to review and comment on this documentation. Copies of the Environmental Im- pact Report and supporting documents are available for public review and in- declare, under penalty of perjury, that the spection at the Planning Department, City of New- foregoing is true and correct. port Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92659.1768 (714) 644-3225. NOTICE IS HEREBY FUR- THER GIVEN that said pub- August 31 Executed on g 5 lic hearing will be held on day f Septur 1199 at Costa Mesa, California. j995,1th ber p.m. In the Council Cham- bers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time /vi and place any and all per. .� LILL sons interested may ap- pear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this Sign tureproject in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or some. one else raised at the pub- lic hearing described in this notice or in written cor- respondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. For infor- mation call (714) 644-3200. IRENE BUTLER, AS. SISTANT CITY CLERK, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Published Newport Beach -Costa Mesa Daily, Pilot August 31, 1995. Th984 Authorized to Publish Advertisements of all kinds it 'ng public notices by Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County, Ca,. _,nia. Number A•6214, September 29, 1961, and A-24831 June 11, 1963. PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ) ss. County of Orange I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of .eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the below entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the NEWPORT BEACH -COSTA MESA DAILY PILOT, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City. of Costa Mesa, County of- Orange, State of California, and that attached Notice is a true and complete copy as was printed and published on the following dates: August 31, 1995 declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on August 31 1 199 5 at Costa Mesa, California. Signature PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of Fletcher Jones, Jr. to allow the establishment of I an automobile dealership on the San Diego Creek North Site (3300 Jamboree Road). In order to approve this project the following applications will be consid- ered: General Plan Amendment No. 95-1(D) and Local Coastal Program Amend- ment No. 39 to designate the property for Retail and Service Commercial use I and establish the permitted intensity of development; Amendment No. 823 to amend the San Diego Creek North/Jamboree MacArthur Planned Com- munity District Regulations; Use Permit No. 3565 to allow the establishment of an automobile dealership on the property; Traffic Study No. 108; an amend- ment to Development Agreement No. 6 (CIOSA); proposed ORDINANCE NO. 95.42 and approval of De- velopment Agreement No. 9; and the acceptance of an Environmental Impact Report, proposed ORDI- NANCE NO. 95.43. An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared in connection with the ap. plication noted above, and it Is the present intention of the City to accept the Envi- ronmental Impact Report and supporting documents. The City encourages mem- bers of the general public to review and comment on this documentation. Copies of the Environmental Im- pact Report and supporting documents are available for public review and in- spection at the Planning Department, City of New- port Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92659-1768 (714) 644-3225. NOTICE IS HEREBY FUR- THER GIVEN that said pub- lic hearing will be held on the 11th day of September 1995, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. in the Council Cham- bers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all per- sons interested may ap- pear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or some- one else raised at the pub- lic hearing described in this notice or in written cor- respondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. For infor- mation call (714) 644-3200. IRENE BUTLER, AS- SISTANT CITY CLERK, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Published Newport Beach -Costa Mesa Daily Pilot August 31, 1995. Th984 427 241 10 427 242 02 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DIVISI STATE OF CALIFORNIA DIV O 440 142 18 440 142 35 STATE OF CALIFORN�A— ------ STATE OF CAUFOTZ&IA 442 071 06 STATE OF CALIF0_RNIA 442 071 12 SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSP 345 Clinton St Costa Mesa CA 92626 442 281 08 BAYVIEW 1 1601 Dove St #190 Newport Beach CA 92660 442 282 09 DOWNEY S & L ASSN 3501 Jamboree Rd Newport Beach CA 92660 442 071 10 SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSP 345 Clinton St Costa Mesa CA 92626 442 071 13 IRVINE CO 550 Newpo nter Dr Nee v rt Beach CA 92660 442 282 01 PAINEWEBBER INCOME PROP 265 Franklin St Boston MA 02110 427 242 03 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DIV O 442 071 04 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 442 071 11 IRVINE CO 550 Newport Center Dr Newport Beach CA 92660 442 281 06 COUNTY OF ORANGE PO Box 4106 Santa Ana CA 92702 442 282 02 PAINEWEBBER INCOME PROP 265 Franklin St Boston MA 02110 POR r, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 Cq</Fp RN P NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of Fletcher Jones, Jr, to allow the establishment of an automobile dealership on the San Diego Creek North Site (3300 Jamboree Road). In order to approve this project the following applications will be considered: General Plan Amendment No. 95-1(D) and Local Coastal Program Amendment No 39 to designate the property for Retail and Service Commercial use and establish the permitted intensity of development; Amendment No. 823 to amend the San Diego Creek NortWamboree MacArthur Planned Community District Regulations; Use Permit No. 3565 to allow the establishment of an automobile dealership on the property, Traffic Study No. 108; an amendment to Development Agreement No. 6 (CIOSA); approval of Development Agreement No. 9. and the acceptance of an Environmental Impact Report. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared in connection with the application noted above. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Environmental Impact Report and supporting documents. The City encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this documentation. Copies of the Environmental Impact Report and supporting documents are available for public review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92659-1768 (714) 6443225. Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the 24th day of August 1995 at the hour of 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. For information call (714) 644-3200. Michael Kranzley, Secretary, Planning Commission, City of Newport Beach SCH No.: 95041038 Screencheck Submitted: May 12,-1995 Preliminary Draft: Tune 14, 1995 Draft EIR: Tune 19, 1995 Response to Comments: August 18, 1995 Final EIR: September 1, 1995 BY THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF NEWPORT. BEACH RESPONSE TO COMMENTS SAN DIEGO CREEK NORTH AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP September 1, 1995 Prepared for: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768 Contact Person: Patricia Temple (714) 644-3225 Project Sponsor: Fletcher Jones Motor Cars 1301 Quail Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 Prepared by: LSA Associates, Inc. 1 Park Plaza, Suite 500 Irvine, California 92714 (714) 553-0666 Project Manager: Lyn Calerdine LSA Project #CNB501 LIST OF COMMENTORS ISA Associates, Inc. PAGE INTRODUCTION TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT .. 1 GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH (OPR) ........ 2 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CT) ............ 3 CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION (CCC) ..................... 5 CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD (RWQCB)......................................... 21 METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN (MWD) CALIFORNIA ............................................ 25 ORANGE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY (EMA)............................................ 28 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (SCAG) .. 34 TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES (TCA) ................. 35 CITY OF COSTA MESA (CM) ................................ 37 CITY OF IRVINE (IRV) ........... 38 STOP POLLUTING OUR NEWPORT (SPON) ..................... 44 ATTACHMENTS 1 - ORIGINAL COMMENT LETTERS 2 - ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES LETTER 09/01/95(1: --•CNB501 ••.RTC.DOC) 11 LSA Associates, Inc. INTRODUCTION TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT This following document comprises the Response to Comments for the San Diego Creek North Automobile Dealership located in the City of Newport Beach on the parcel bounded by Jamboree Road, the San Joaquin Hills Trans- portation Corridor (SJHTC), and the proposed extension of Bayview Way. The purpose of the Response to Comments is to respond to all comments of environmental significance received by the City of Newport Beach relative to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), State Clearinghouse No. 95041038, and to incorporate changes into the document based upon public and agency comment. CEQA Guidelines §15088 provides that an agency should carefully and thor- oughly evaluate the comments presented on a Draft EIR and provide a writ- ten response. In some cases factual information has been provided to better explain the data in the EIR and provide a detailed response. The City be- lieves that such information, where added, assists in the understanding of the project, and is not significant new information requiring recirculation of the EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15088-5. PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS The DEIR was distributed to various public agencies, citizens groups and interested individuals for a period of 45 days. The Notice of Completion of the DEIR was filed on June 19, 1995, with the State Clearinghouse, Office of Planning and Research. All interested parties who originally received an NOP received either a DEIR or a Notice of Availability, indicating where the DEIR was available for review. In accordance with Section 15132 of the State CEQA Guidelines, a list of the persons, organizations and public agencies making comments is set forth in the Table of Contents of this document. Comments and responses have been correspondingly numbered. Copies of all DEIR comments received as of August 11, 1995, are contained in this report. The comments have been retyped in this document and the responses to the comments follow each comment. Originals of the comment letters are provided in Attachment 1. 09/01/95(1: •.CNB501 ••.RTC.DOC) OPR-1 Comment Response ISA Associates, Inc. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES - GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH (OPR) , f ' SAN DIEGO CREEK NORTH AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP SCH #: 95041038 The State Clearinghouse has submitted the above named draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to selected state agencies for review. The review period is now closed and the comments from the responding agency(ies) is(are) en closed. On the enclosed Notice of Completion form you will note that the Clearinghouse has checked the agencies that have commented. Please review the Notice of Completion to ensure that your comment package is complete. If the comment package is not in order, please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Remember to refer to the project's eight -digit State Clearing- house number so that we may respond promptly. Please note that Section 21104 of the California Public Resources Code re- quired that: "a responsible agency or other public agency shall only make substan- tive comments regarding those activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are required to be carried out or approved by the agency." Commenting agencies are also required by this section to support their com ments with specific documentation. These comments are forwarded for your use in preparing your final EIR. Should you need more information or clarification, we recommend that you contact the commenting agency(ies). This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearing- house review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact Mark Goss at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. Comment noted. 09/01/95(1:',CNB501'••RTC.DOC) 2 k ' CT -1 Comment Response CT -2 Comment Response CT -3 Comment ISA Associates, Inc. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES - CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CT) Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Envi- ronmental Impact Report for the San Diego Creek North Automobile Dealer- ship. Caltrans District 12 status is a responsible agency for this project. Any project that goes over, under or in any way encroaches on Caltrans Right of Way will need an Encroachment Permit. Caltrans has the following com- ments for your consideration. 1. The ownership and maintenance of a proposed bike trail along Ramp JR -4 needs to be resolved between the Transportation Corridor Agen- cy and the City of Newport Beach. Caltrans' comment is noted by the City. The Transportation Corridor Agen- cies and the City are in the process of resolving issues of ownership and maintenance of the proposed bicycle trail. This issue does not affect the analysis of the project under CEQA. 2. Nothing in this document or process shall commit Caltrans to the sale of the lane without the approval of the California Transportation Commission. Nothing in the document commits Caltrans to sale without all appropriate approvals. 3. The Highway Capacity Manual should be used to determine traffic analysis as opposed to using the Intersection Capacity Utilization method (ICU). 09/01/95(I: ••.CNB501,-RTC.D0C) 3 Response CT -4 Comment Response r' LSA Associates, Inc. The City of Newport Beach respectfully disagrees with this comment. The City consistently utilizes the ICU methodology for its TPO and General Plan analyses. The ICU method is also specified in the Orange County Congestion Management Plan (CMP). The comment does not specify why Caltrans pre- fers one method over another. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this document. If you have any questions concerning these comments or would like to speak to some- one please call Aileen Kennedy on (714) 724-2239. Comment noted. 09/01/95(I:••.CNB501 .RTC.DOC) 4 i ' CCC -1 Comment Response CCC -2 Comment Response CCC -3 Comment LSA Associates, Inc. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES - CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION (CCC) Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above referenced Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed construction of the relocated Fletcher Jones Motor Cars automotive dealership. The proposed project would be 114,000 square feet in size on a site containing 8.7 acres. The site is located at the intersection of Jamboree Road and Bayview Way near the southern end of the Route 73 freeway. Comment noted. As stated in the EIR, the Coastal Commission has coastal development permit review authority over the proposed project. Since the City of Newport Beach does not have a fully certified local coastal program, the standard of review of a coastal development permit application is consistency with the Chapter Three policies of the Coastal Act. The comments address the environmental impacts and mitigation measures described in the DEIR as they relate to the Chapter Three policies of the Coastal Act. The comments also address the consistency of the project with the Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement (CIOSA or development agreement) between the City of Newport Beach and The Irvine Company approved by the Coastal Commission on June 10, 1993. Comment noted. The following comments represent the opinions and judgments of Coastal Commission staff only. They should not be construed to be the opinions and judgments of the Coastal Commission itself, nor predict the action which 09/01/95(1: ••.CNB501 ••.RTC.DOC) 5 RESPONSE CCC -4 Comment Response ISA Associates, Inc. the Coastal Commission may take on a coastal development permit or devel- opment agreement amendment application concerning the proposed project. Comment noted. Coastal Act Issues 1. Ownership of Project Site Page 3-1 of the DEIR states that the project site, comprising 8.7 acres, is currently under multiple ownership divided between The Irvine Company, Caltrans, and the Transportation Corridor Agency. The DEIR states that the City proposed to acquire these parcels, combine them into the project site, and then sell or lease the project site to the project applicant which is listed as Fletcher Jones Motorcars on Page 2-6 of the DEIR. The project site currently is not owned by the project applicant. Section 30601.5 of the Coastal Act provides in part that if an applicant for a coastal development permit is not the owner of a fee interest in the property on which a proposed development is to be located but can demonstrate a legal interest, right, or entitlement to use the property, all other holders of interest in the property must be notified of the proposed project and give their permission for the applicant to apply for a coastal development permit. Also, the applicant must demonstrate, prior to issuance of a coastal development permit, the authority to comply with all conditions of approval. Therefore, the coastal development permit application should address the issue of ownership of the project site. The site is currently owned by The Irvine Company, the TCA and Caltrans. The City will provide the Coastal Commission with the requested letters from the current property owners giving their approval for the City to apply for the coastal development permit. This issue does not affect the analysis of environmental impacts under CEQA. 09/01/95(1:'•.CNB501 •-.RTC.DOC) 6 CCC -5 Comment Response CCC -6 Comment ISA Associates, Inc. In addition, the portion of the project site owned by The Irvine Company is subject to the requirements of the CIOSA entered into by the City and The Irvine Company. The project site is part of a larger 14.7 acre parcel called San Diego Creek North in the CIOSA. Pursuant to the CIOSA, 8.6 acres of San Diego Creek North is to be dedicated to the City for open space/public facilities. If the 8.76 acre project site were developed with the proposed project, only 6.0 acres of the, 14.7 total acres of San Diego Creek North would remain. Additionally, the proposed private auto dealership use does not appear to be consistent with the public facilities land use of the CIOSA. Therefore, the City and The Irvine Company would have to jointly apply to the Coastal Commission for an amendment to the CIOSA if the proposed project is to be pursued. The project proposes to change the CIOSA public facilities designation on the site to commercial. This will require an amendment to the CIOSA Exhib- it. This technical refinement to the CIOSA will be added to the list of discre- tionary actions in the Final EIR. This change does not affect any conclusions in the Draft EIR because it is the General Plan and Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan that dictates permitted land uses, and not the CIOSA. Biological Resources a. Scrub/Gnatcatcher Habitat Section 30240 of the Coastal Act states the environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHA) shall be protected against the disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on the ESHA shall be allowed in the ESHA. Further, Section 30240 requires that development adjacent to an ESHA be sited and designed to prevent impacts on the ESHA. The DEIR states on Page 4.7-11 that the proposed project would result in impacts to approximately 2.1 acres of scrub habitat consisting of 1.46 acres of saltbush scrub, 0.48 acres of coastal sage scrub, and 0.08 acres of mulefat scrub. Table 4.7.A and Figure 4.7.1 (Vegetation Map) do not list the 0.48 acres of coastal sage scrub. Please clarify how the figure of 0.48 acres of coastal sage scrub is derived. 09/01/95(1:--.CNB501 RTC.DOC) 7 Response ISA Associates, Inc. The only area on or near the project site that qualifies as an ESHA is the wetland near the southeast portion of the site (refer to Response to Com- ment CCC -12). The scrub habitat on the site should not be considered an ESHA. This issue should be considered on two levels: 1) whether coastal sage scrub in general should be considered an ESHA; and 2) whether the habitat on the site is particularly valuable. General Coastal Sage Scrub Values ESHAs are usually limited in distribution. The California gnatcatcher might be considered rare, because of federal listing as a threatened species. How- ever, this listing is based as much or more on the potential threat of develop- ment in this relatively urbanized area than it is on the biological status of the species. Coastal sage scrub habitat is fairly widely distributed in the coastal zone and inland, and is not particularly rare or valuable when compared with resources such as estuaries, riparian corridors, maritime chaparral, Monterey pine forest, etc. For example, the Local Coastal Plan for the Irvine Coast Planned Community (currently marketed as the Newport Coast Planned Community) allows resi- dential and other non -resource dependent development on hundreds of acres of coastal sage scrub habitat. ESHAs in the Irvine Coast Planned Com- munity are limited to drainage courses and coastal waters. While this LCP was developed and approved prior to the listing of the California gnatcatcher, it seems improbable that a similar plan would not be approved under current circumstances. Site Specific Coastal Sage Scrub Values While coastal sage scrub per se should not automatically be considered an ESHA, there may be situations where certain coastal sage scrub habitat may be considered especially valuable and, therefore, an ESHA. For example, the coastal sage scrub habitat in some portions of Crystal Cove State Park that are seaward of Pacific Coast Highway supports an exceptionally high density of California gnatcatchers and is considered a potential "source" population of gnatcatchers for other portions of the San Joaquin Hills. As described in the DEIR, habitat on site is highly disturbed and a fragment- ed remnant of habitat that probably occurred in the area prior to extensive development. It is not currently occupied by the California gnatcatcher and does not support any other sensitive species. The value of this habitat is best evaluated in the context of the state planning program and federal regulatory mechanism (Natural Communities Conservation Planning [NCCP] Program and Endangered Species Act Section 4(d) special rule, respectively), which i -. 09/01/95(I:'••CNB501'••RTC.DOC) 8 CCC -7 Comment Response LSA Associates, Inc. are designed to address the threat of impacts to the California gnatcatcher and other sensitive coastal sage scrub species on a regional basis. The loss of the habitat on the project site is consistent with the habitat loss guidelines during the interim planning period for the NCCP. In summary, the habitat loss is minor and, when combined with other losses, does not reach the interim planning ceiling of five percent loss for the NCCP subregion. The site is not part of the "Reserve" identified as the core area for maintenance of the species. The site is adjacent to, but not part of, the San Diego Creek corridor, which helps to link Upper Newport Bay with more inland areas. The CDFG and USFWS personnel with firsthand responsibility for implement- ing the NCCP program and 4(d) rule have considered the loss of this particu- lar habitat. While they believe that the existing habitat could enhance the effectiveness of the San Diego Creek corridor, they have agreed that the loss of the habitat is acceptable provided that there is mitigation in Upper New- port Bay that will strengthen the gnatcatcher population there. Therefore, the habitat on site is neither critical to the survival of the species nor especially valuable, and should not be considered an ESHA. Clarification of Classification and Acreage The sagebrush -buckwheat scrub described in the text is a sub -type of coastal sage scrub, as defined by the Orange County Habitat Classification System. The area of 0.48 acres described on page 4.7-11 is a preliminary calculation based on an error in scale, that was not updated. The total amount of scrub habitat impact remains at 2.1 acre, when rounded to the nearest 0.1 acre. The incorrect number will be revised in the Final EIR. The DEIR further states on Page 4.7-11 that all three of these types of scrub habitat should be considered potential habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher. Under the Coastal Act definition of an ESHA (Section 30107.5), gnatcatcher habitat is considered on ESHA. The proposed project would be located within the ESHA, thus impacting all 2.1 acres of scrub habitat. The proposed automobile dealership is not a use dependent on scrub habitat and thus is inconsistent with Section 30240 of the Coastal Act. This inconsistency should be specifically addressed. Alternative sites not listed in Section 6.4 of the DEIR should be explored. Refer to Response to Comment CCC -6. 09/01/95(I:••.CNB501 RTC.DOC) 9 CCC -8 Comment Response LSA Associates, Inc. The restoration/conversion of 3.5 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat at an off- site location in Big Canyon is being provided, as described in Mitigation Measure 7-5. If the project continues to be pursued, Mitigation Measure 7-5 must clearly define how much of the proposed restoration/conversion is creation of scrub habitat and how much is enhancement of currently existing scrub habitat. Further, the proposed mitigation must be developed in con- junction with the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In addition, Mitigation Measure 7-5 should ensure that the proposed mitigation site is not already reserved for mitigation for other projects, and also ensure that the mitigation site will be permanently protect- ed from impacts from other projects via a conservation easement. Further, the DEIR should demonstrate that there are no other feasible, less environ- mentally damaging alternatives, and that mitigation measures will minimize all adverse impacts to the scrub habitat to the maximum extent feasible. The mitigation was developed based on initial consultation among the City of Newport Beach, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). The specific goal developed through this consultation was to create habitat in Upper Newport Bay that would increase the carrying capacity for California gnatcatchers by at least one pair. The potential mitigation site discussed in the DEIR was identified in the field by an LSA team that included a restoration specialist and a California gnatcatcher expert. Although there are some minor elements of coastal sage scrub habitat scattered through the proposed mitigation area, these elements do not occur frequently enough to consider this anything but a ruderal (weedy) or non-native grassland habitat. Existing patches of valuable vegeta- tion will not be included in the acreage calculation for the specific mitigation design. Consequently, the entire 3.5 acre mitigation area contemplated in Mitigation Measure 7-5 is considered creation of coastal sage scrub habitat. As described in Mitigation Measure 7-4, the specific elements or any revisions to the mitigation plan must be approved by the USFWS and CDFG. Concur- rence with these mitigation measures has been verbally obtained from CDFG and must formally be obtained from both CDFG and USFWS as part of the local authorization of the loss of the habitat on the project site, in accor- dance with the 4(d) rule. The proposed mitigation area is for this project only, and is not and will not be committed to any other project. It is not clear whether the last sentence in the comment is referring to pro- ject alternatives or mitigation alternatives. Refer to Chapter 6.0 regarding project alternatives. The mitigation measures are an environmental benefit, and mitigate the project impacts to a level less than significant. 09/01/95(1: -•.CNB501 %RTC.DOC) 10 r-, CCC -9 Comment Response CCC -10 Comment Response ISA Associates, Inc. Mitigation Measure 7-9 provides for the preparation of a landscape plan that avoids the use of non-native invasive plants in order to minimize impacts on native plants resulting from invasive exotics. Coastal Commission staff would strongly urge that the landscape plan use primarily native plants in addition to avoiding use of invasive non-native plants, especially in the areas of the subject site closest to the adjacent wetlands. The landscape plan shall be submitted as part of the coastal development permit application. Comment noted. Preliminary discussions with the Coastal Commission staff have clarified a transition approach using natives near the wetland area, and gradually changing to exotics and ornamentals at the Jamboree Road front- age. b. Wetland Resources Section 30233 of the Coastal Act limits the filling of wetlands to certain specific uses where the least environmentally damaging alternative is chosen, and where mitigation for the fill has been provided. Fill for the purpose of supporting an auto dealership is not one of the allowable uses. Further, the CIOSA approved by the Coastal Commission states in part that "no encroach- ment or loss of wetlands is approved ..." (see Exhibit A). The mulefat scrub areas do not represent meaningful wetlands (refer to Response to Comment CCC -11), and their loss would not be significant. The proposed project, as analyzed in the DEIR, does not require the filling of the wetland area adjacent to the site. Final design and construction of the pro- ject will be done so that this does not occur. The Final EIR will include the following mitigation measure to ensure that this avoidance occurs: Prior to final design, the limit of the wetland area adjacent to the project will be staked in the field by a qualified person, and this limit will be surveyed and placed on the base map used to prepare the final plans. Prior to initiation of clearing and/or other construction activity, this limit will be clearly marked in the field with staking and 09/01/95(1: ••.CNB501 ••.RTC.DOC) 11 CCC -11 Comment Response F-, ISA Associates, Inc. ribbon, rope or fencing, and the contractor(s) will be advised by the City inspector that this area is not to be disturbed for any reason. This area will be monitored by the City during regular inspections to ensure that it is not encroached upon. The DEIR vegetation map shows three areas of mulefat scrub on the project site. On page 4.7-23, the DEIR states that while mulefat scrub is usually r considered a riparian community, its primary function on the project site is as a component of the more prevalent upland scrub types. Clarification of why mulefat scrub is not considered a riparian or wetland community on this f site should be provided. Further, the DEIR should address wetlands fill in light of Section 30233 of the Coastal Act. In a less precise habitat mapping scheme (e.g., a minimum polygon size of 0.1 acre), which is usually considered adequate for most project analyses, the mulefat would be considered part of the upland habitat and not separately delineated. Due to the small size of the project in this case, a more discrete mapping effort was utilized to describe the existing resources in as much detail as possible. Mulefat is considered a facultative wetland species in the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands (USFWS, 1988), i.e., it occasionally occurs in upland. This is consistent with the experience of the project biolo- gists, who note that it is not uncommon for this species to occur on slopes that are dominated by upland vegetation. On the project site, mulefat occurs in very small pockets of highly disturbed areas that are generally dominated by upland vegetation. The mulefat areas were probably caused by man-made changes on the site which permitted the accumulation of moisture. There are no clear indicators of hydric soils in any of the three areas. One of the areas exhibits signs of ponded water, while the other two do not. Soils in these areas appear to be fairly well drained, but previous dumping impounds water in very localized areas. While portions of one or two of these small patches may technically meet wetlands criteria, these areas are biologically insignificant as wetlands, and function ecologically more as part of the upland scrub habitat described in the DEIR. The patches of mulefat are not functionally connected with the wetland immediately adjacent to the southeast portion of the site or other portions of the San Diego Creek wetlands or any other riparian system. The mulefat is clearly a result of past site disturbance, including clearing and dumping, which has caused rainfall to be retained in these areas long 09/01/95(I: -•.CNB501 ••.RTC.DOC) 12 1 M CCC -12 Comment Response LSA Associates, Inc. enough to germinate and support the mulefat vegetation. The small size and disturbed, artificial condition of these patches prevent them from fulfilling any function that is normally ascribed to wetlands. These areas are not subject to CDFG jurisdiction under §1600 et seq. of the Fish and Game Code of California. The Corps is not likely to be concerned with these areas. They could potentially assert jurisdiction over portions of these areas as isolated waters, but only if an interstate commerce connection were identified. In this case, filling of these areas would be authorized under Corps Nationwide Permit No. 26, without any notification to the Corps, as long as all other conditions of the nationwide permit program are complied with. The proposed project would have impacts on the adjacent wetlands, includ- ing Upper Newport Bay which is designated by the Coastal Act for special protection, resulting from runoff contaminated through construction impacts, parked vehicles, and other factors. The DEIR should further address the adequacy of a design which places paved roads adjacent to wetlands and provides for a man-made wall as a buffer, rather than a strip of natural buffer area, between the proposed development and the adjacent wetlands. Wet- land buffer measures will be reviewed for their adequacy in protecting the adjacent wetland resources as part of the coastal development permit applica- tion. The purpose of wetland buffers is to eliminate indirect project impacts to wetlands or reduce them to a level less than significant. This can be accom- plished in a variety of ways, ranging from a strip of natural land with no other buffering elements to a more structured buffer system that also accom- plishes reductions in noise, pollutants, and other indirect human effects. The Hellman Property wetland restoration and residential project in Seal Beach is an example of a major project, with very narrow structural buffers, that was approved by the Coastal Commission. These buffers were given careful consideration by both CDFG and the Commission. For any given project, the uses must be considered with respect to both the need for, and specific design of, the buffer. For example, a residential devel- opment has different types of impacts, e.g., children and pets, than a com- mercial project. In some cases, a wall could actually have more of a buffer- ing effect than a wider strip of native vegetation. For the proposed project, there is little likelihood that site users would venture into the adjacent wetland, as they might from a residential development. The potential distur- 09/01/95(I:--.CNB501 %RTC.DOC) 13 CCC -13 Response ISA Associates, Inc. bance from the site is expected to be related to low speed automobile traffic and noise from the service area. In this case, a wall will effectively protect i the wetlands from on-site project activities. The placement of the road next to the wall will actually enhance the buffering effect, by providing additional space between the on-site activities and the wall. Potential impacts from runoff/erosion during construction will be controlled through standard erosion control measures and will be only temporary. Refer to Responses to Comments CCC -13 and CCC -19 for additional discus- sion. As noted in the comment, this issue will be further evaluated as part of the CDP application. 3. Water Resources Section 30231 of the Coastal Act provides that the quality of coastal waters be maintained and, where feasible, restored through such means as control- ling runoff and maintaining natural vegetation buffer areas that protect ripari- an habitats. Section 30233 of the Coastal Act also calls out Upper Newport Bay as one of 19 coastal wetlands identified for special protection. The proposed project would have impacts to the adjacent wetlands and also San Diego Creek and Upper Newport Bay from runoff contaminated through construction impacts, parked vehicles, and other factors, as stated in the DEIR. The DEIR contains mitigation measures which would minimize im- pacts during construction, as well as the provision of Best Management Practices when the proposed project is operational. As part of the coastal development permit application, plans for the mitigation program shall be submitted. The Draft EIR requires the project to utilize "Best Management Practices" (BMPs) for both construction and operation of the site to reduce water quality impacts. Please refer to Mitigation Measures 3-5 through 3-15. The City has subsequently refined its proposal for BMPs as described in Response to Comment RWQCB-2. Implementation of these measures will reduce the project's impacts to water quality to below a level of significance. 09/01/95(1:'%CNB501••.RTC.DOC) 14 k J CCC -14 Comment Response CCC -15 Comment ISA Associates, Inc. 4. Earth Resources The Coastal Act issues raised by the project in regards to earth resources involve landform alteration and geologic hazards. Section 30251 of the Coastal Act requires in part that landform alteration be minimized. Section 30253 of the Coastal Act provides in part that new development shall mini- mize risks to life and property in areas of high geologic, flood, and fire hazard, and assure stability and structural integrity, and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability. In addition, the CIOSA limits development to areas demonstrated to be geologically feasible to accommodate it. Regarding landform alteration, Coastal Commission staff will review the 160,000 cubic yards of proposed grading (export) for the proposed project described on page 4.2-4 of the DEIR, along with the grading plans, for the project for consistency with Section 30251 of the Coastal Act. The analysis in the DEIR indicates that development of the site will not create any new risks to life and property so long as the mitigation measures listed in Sections 4.2 and 4.3 are implemented. The development is geologically feasible on the site. Were the 160,000 cubic yards of material not exported, the site would have a much more massive appearance than is achieved under the proposed plan. 5. Cultural/Scientific Resources Section 30244 of the Coastal Act requires that impacts to paleontological and archaeological resources must be adequately mitigated. The DEIR states on page 4.8-5 that site CA -ORA -57(77)H is within the project area. The DEIR should clarify whether CA -ORA -57(77)H is actually within the 8.7 acre project site, or whether it is nearby. While the DEIR concludes that no further ar- chaeological testing is required prior to ground disturbance activities, it does acknowledge that the potential remains for unknown resources to be uncov- ered during grading activities. 09/01/95(I:.CNB501 -•.RTC.DOC) 15 Response CCC -16 Comment Response ISA Associates, Inc. Any grading in the area has the potential to uncover unknown resources. Please refer to Response to Comment CCC -16. Although test excavations were conducted at the site in 1989 as part of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor project which yielded little re- r search information, a subsurface survey of cultural resources should be conducted on-site. Mitigation Measure 8-1 requires an archaeologist to be present during grading activities. The mitigation measure gives the archaeol- ogist authority to stop or temporarily divert construction activities for 48 hours if cultural resources are uncovered. However, the project site's cultural resources should be assessed prior to the commencement of grading activities. A full assessment conducted prior to project construction would ensure that adequate time is available to prepare a mitigation plan for any cultural resources which may be on-site, as well as minimize construction delays. The Office of Historic Preservation of the state Department of Parks and Recreation, and the state Native American Heritage Commission should also be consulted in the preparation of the subsurface survey and mitigation plan. Please refer to the letter from Deborah McLean, Project Archaeologist, con- tained in Attachment 2 regarding the cultural resource status of the site. The City respectfully disagrees with the suggestion that new subsurface investiga- tions be conducted at this time. Investigation of the known site has been completed to meet all requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act; no other sites have been identified on the property. Based upon the results of these investigations, no further work is indicated, and all cultural resource investigations that can be accomplished before clearing or grading the site have been completed. Even with this extensive search, no additional resources have been discovered. Unlike a heavily vegetated site, the surface is easy to inspect in this case, so reliance on the walkover results is reason- able. However, clearing and grading of the site could uncover unknown resources at unspecified locations. Since such resources are, by definition, at unknown locations, it is impossible to determine where to conduct such investigations other than by clearing and grading the site. Clearing and grading cannot be initiated until the project approvals are granted. The Office of Historic Preservation and Native American Heritage Commission will be consulted if and when unknown resources are discovered. 09/01/95(I: •••CNB501 %RTC.DOC) 16 � CCC -17 Comment Response LSA Associates, Inc. 6. Recreation Section 30222 of the Coastal Act gives priority to visitor -serving commercial recreational facilities over private residential, general industrial, or general commercial development. Section 30223 of the Coastal Act states that up- land areas necessary to support coastal recreational uses shall be reserved for such uses, where feasible. As stated in the DEIR on page 4.10-2, an adverse impact to recreation would be an impact that adversely affects an existing recreational facility or planned recreational facility. While no recreational facilities currently exist on-site, nor does the Certified Land Use Plan map designate the site for recreational facilities, the DEIR does conclude that the proposed project would preclude the development of active recreational uses along the site, or passive recre- ational uses such as hiking. The DEIR concludes that the proposed project would not result in adverse impacts to recreation, and no mitigation measures are therefore required. However, the CIOSA provides for the dedication of 8.6 acres for open space/ public facilities on the San Diego Creek North site. The proposed project would result in the loss of this amount of open space and thus would be inconsistent with the Agreement as approved. Therefore, the City and The Irvine Company must apply for an amendment to the CIOSA prior to or concurrently with consideration of a coastal development permit application. The potential loss of "open space" must be viewed in two contexts: As compared to relevant planning by the Local Coastal Plan and the City. 2. As compared to undeveloped existing site conditions. Both the Local Coastal Plan (LCP) and the City's General Plan both indicate that the site will be developed, albeit with professional and financial com- mercial rather than an automotive dealership. The current LCP and the City's General Plan, therefore, acknowledge that this site will ultimately be developed, with the consequent loss of existing open space. The proposed project does not change the LCP or the General Plan in this regard; only the type of development is changed. The DEIR takes the conservative approach of again acknowledging the loss of open space that will occur when this site is developed. This approach was 09/01/95(1: CNB501 RTC.DOC) 17 CCC -18 Comment Response LSA Associates, Inc. taken so that all potential impacts would be disclosed to the public. How- ever, this loss has been previously acknowledged as part of the environmen- tal analyses for the LCP and the General Plan and does not represent a new impact. There is no additional loss of open space from the point of view of the LCP or the General Plan. The comment notes that the CIOSA proposes 8.6 acres of open space/public facilities on the site. All the proposed open space (the wetlands) is pre- served with the proposed project; only the public facilities designation has changed. Again, the CIOSA does not dictate, and did not change, the land uses adopted in the General Plan or LCP/Land Use Plan. The CIOSA only states an intended possible use at the time, and does not restrict other uses. The DEIR concludes that the site is probably inappropriate for use as a neighborhood, community, or urban level park because of its location. As part of the CIOSA amendment application, an analysis of whether the subject site should be used for other public open space uses, such as public parking and other public facilities for access to the planned equestrian/hiking/bike trails adjacent to the subject site must be submitted. An analysis of alterna- tive locations within the coastal zone to replace the potential loss of the 8.6 acres of open space and public facilities which would result if the proposed project is pursued should also be submitted as part of the CIOSA amendment application. Please also refer to Response to Comment CCC -17. None of the open space identified as open space under CIOSA will be changed with this project; there is no need to replace the open space because no open space will be lost. (Note that the LCP designates the site as professional/financial commer- cial.) At the time of CIOSA approval, the City was considering the use of the site for two types of public facilities: a fire station and/or a park and ride facility. These uses were considered in the Alternatives Section of the DEIR (Section 6.3), but rejected because they failed to meet the City's fundamental objectives of identifying a suitable relocation site for the dealership. While a fire station is a public facility, public access is more limited than access to an auto dealership. A park and ride facility, or other type of parking lot (i.e., parking for trail usage), would be a feasible use for the public facility portion of the site. However, the City does not have funds to develop such a facility. The City believes that a revenue generating use is more appropriate for the site than a use that would require City capital funds to construct and operat- ing funds to maintain. It should be noted that the balance of the site will be maintained in public facilities and open space (i.e., freshwater wetland, 09/01/95(I: ••.CNB501 ••.RTC.DOC) 18 r, CCC -19 Comment Response LSA Associates, Inc. roadway, bicycle trail and riding/hiking trail). In addition, a public parking area and trail staging area are proposed across Jamboree Road from the pro- ject site as part of the Upper Newport Bay Regional Park. 7. Visual Impacts Section 30251 of the Coastal Act provides in part that permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to be visually compatible with the character of surround- ing areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visual- ly degraded areas. The DEIR states on Page 4-9.2 that the proposed project would result in a small increase in light and glare due to project site lighting. The DEIR should also address the issue of light and glare potentially generated from reflections off the glass and metal surfaces of the automobiles which would be on display outdoors. The DEIR should also address the issue of whether the proposed project would impact views in the area to and along San Diego Creek or views of Upper Newport Bay. Coastal Commission staff strongly supports Mitigation Measure 7-3 regarding the use of low -intensity or highly directional lighting to minimize impacts on adjacent wetland areas. Light reflected off of glass and metal surfaces is not considered a significant impact for the following reasons: The intensity of light from a point source is reduced by the square of the distance from the source to the receptor. In the case of reflected light, the light must travel the distance from the source (a directional light standard) to the car, and be reflected off site. In general this would be at least double the distance from the light to the car result- ing in only one fourth the light reaching the receptor. 2. The intensity of the light is further reduced depending on the color of the car. Darker colored cars would reflect only a small portion of the incident light. 3• Only a portion of the site would be covered with parked cars. The balance of the site (parking aisles, and landscape) would not reflect light to a significant degree. 09/01/95(I: ••.CNB501 ••.RTC.DOC) 19 ISA Associates, Inc. 4. The site is already affected by glare from nearby structures, including the CB building and the Marriott Suites Hotel. The issue of views from San Diego Creek is addressed in Response to Com- ment SPON-9• The project is generally not visible from the bay itself because Jamboree Road breaks most of the line of site from the bay surface to the site. Upon completion of the SJHTC, the limited views of the site from the bay will be surrounded by urban forms (the freeway and existing office development), and the loss of this highly limited view of the partially graded site is not considered significant. FI r 09/01/95(1: -•. CNB501 •-.RTC.DOC) 20 l RWQCB-1 Comment Response LSA Associates, Inc. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES - CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD (RWQCB) We have reviewed the above -referenced DEIR, dated June 19, 1995. The proposed project is located in southwestern Orange County in the City of Newport Beach. Based on our review of this DEIR, we conclude that the City of Newport Beach has not adequately evaluated the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. The absence of any surface hydrology analyses in the DEIR, including the analysis of the potential for adverse impacts to surface water, supports this conclusion. The inclusion of future drainage studies to assess project generated runoff as mitigation measure #3-15 is inappropriate. These analyses should have been done in advance and the analyses included in the DEIR. The inclusion of such analyses for review is one of the purposes of CEQA (Title 14, Div. 6, Ch. 3, Art. 20, Sec. 15002 of The California Code of Regulations). The City of Newport Beach has completed a Preliminary Hydrology Study for the project. This study, which was prepared by K.W. Lawler Associates, Inc, of Tustin, California, is on file at City of Newport Beach Public Works Depart- ment (Contact: Emmet Berkery). The study confirms the conclusions of the Draft EIR with respect to hydraulic water flows. Pre -development flows from the site are estimated at 16 cubic feet per second (cfs) (Q25). Post -develop- ment flows are estimated at 28 to 30 cfs. According to the hydraulic engi- neer, this increase in flows will not have any measurable impact on down- stream waters in San Diego Creek or Upper Newport Bay (please refer to Response to Comment RWQCB-2 for discussion of water quality issues). The referenced Mitigation Measure 3-15 is a standard City requirement for the preparation of a drainage plan at the final design level. The final design plan would specify the precise location of any drain pipes and their sizes. This level of detail is not required to conduct the CEQA level analysis. Based upon its experience with similar projects, the City has found that preparation of such final drainage plans does not result in any adverse impacts. 09/01/95(I:'-.CNB501'••RTC.D0C) 21 RWQCB-2 Comment Response LSA Associates, Inc. The DEIR also has not addressed the comments regarding Best Management Practices contained in the response from the County of Orange Environmen- tal Management Agency, dated June 1, 1995, to the Notice of Preparation. Mitigation Measures 3-5, 3-6, 3-7, 3-8, 3-9, 3-10, 3-11, 3-12, 3-13, and 3-14 all address various aspects of the water quality associated with runoff from the site. In particular, the mitigation measures include adoption of best manage- ment practices (BMPs) for structural BMP controls, and non-structural BMP controls. The City of Newport Beach specifically disagreed with the County's Notice of Preparation (NOP) comment that special BMPs be implemented for this site, and the County has not requested consideration of such special conditions in its comment letter on the Draft EIR. Given its comments on the NOP, the City takes the County's lack of comments on the DEIR's discus- sion of this issue as concurrence with the City's analysis. Subsequent to circulation of the Draft EIR, the City worked with the project architect and hydraulic engineer to finalize the structural BMPs that will be implemented with this project. Mitigation Measure 3-12 in the Draft EIR called out a list of general structural BMPs that could be utilized on the site. The general BMP list contained in the Draft EIR will be replaced in the Final EIR with the following BMPs specific to the project: • All automotive maintenance areas will be covered with a roof and will drain to the sewer system rather than the storm drain. • All trash enclosures will be covered. • Car wash areas will be covered and drain to the sewer system rather than the storm drain. • Parking lot and display area catch basins will be provided with grease and oil filters. Implementation of the above BMPs will ensure that the most potentially polluted flows (i.e., from the maintenance and car wash areas) are directed to the sewer system, and that any oil and grease contained in flows from the parking lots and display areas are filtered to remove such oil and grease prior to entering the storm drains. These measures, when combined with the other water quality mitigation measures listed in the DEIR, will reduce project impacts to water quality to below a level of significance. 09/01/95(I: CNB501 RTC.DOC) 22 RWQCB 3 Comment Response RWQCB-4 Comment Response RWQCB-S Comment LSA Associates, Inc. Additionally, if the stormwater from the proposed project directly discharges into the tide influenced portion of San Diego Creek or Newport Bay, the discharge is subject to waste discharge fees in compliance with California Water Code Sec. 2236 (Bay Protection and Toxic Cleanup Program). The fees are based on the threat and complexity of the discharge and the water quality status of the receiving waters. The proposed project will not drain directly in San Diego Creek or Newport Bay. Therefore, the fees will not apply. Specific comments regarding the contents of the DEIR text are as follows: Page 4.3-5, Water Quality The general discussion about the potential impacts to water quality cannot be verified unless the previously mentioned analyses are conducted and evaluated. Please refer to Response to Comment RWQCB-2. Page 4.3-5, Section 4.3-5 The third paragraph incorrectly states that there will not be a cumulative impact due to the increase in storm runoff due to an increase in impervious surfaces. This statement cannot be made unless the analyses mentioned previously are conducted. 09/01/95(I: ••.CNB501 •-.RTC.DOC) 23 Response ISA Associates, Inc. Please refer to Response to Comment RWQCB-1. 09/01/95(1:••.CNB501•••RTC.DOC) 24 l ' fr�I Comment Response Comment LSA Associates, Inc. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES - METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA (MWD) We have received the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the San Diego Creek North Automobile Dealership. Fletcher Jones Motor Cars pro- poses to relocate its automobile dealership to an 8.7 -acre site within the City of Newport Beach. The comments herein represent the Metropolitan Water District's (Metropolitan) response as an affected public agency. Metropolitan's 36 -inch Orange County Feeder Extension is located within a 15 -foot -wide permanent easement which runs through the middle of the proposed project site. In our response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft EIR dated May 12, 1995 (attached), Metropolitan expressed concern regarding accessibility to our pipeline and facilities for inspection, mainte- nance and repair and requested that the Draft EIR address this concern. However, the DEIR does not discuss Metropolitan's additional easement requirements, and we request that this issue be addressed in the Final EIR. The City of Newport Beach and/or Fletcher Jones Motorcars will grant an easement to Metropolitan Water District for access to the existing 36 inch pipeline, as indicated on the attached Figure 1. This easement will be shared (i.e., joint use) with Mesa Consolidated Water District, Southern California Edison, Pacific Bell and possibly Caltrans. A multiple locking system will be installed so that all utilities owning facilities within the site will be able to access those facilities at any time. We also request that preliminary prints of all improvement plans for any activity in the area of Metropolitan's pipelines and rights-of-way be submitted for our review and written acceptance. Loading and cover restrictions may be necessary within our rights-of-way. You may obtain detailed prints of drawings of Metropolitan's Substructures Section at (213) 217-7474. A copy 09/01/95(I: ••.CNB501 ,•.RTC.DOC) 25 Response LSA Associates, Inc. of our "Guidelines for Development in the Area of Facilities, Fee Properties, and/or Easements of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California" was submitted in response to the NOP for your information. Improvement plans will be submitted to Metropolitan Water District as re- quested, along with pertinent supporting data (survey information, structural calculations, etc.) for district review and approval. Fletcher Jones Motorcars will also apply for an easement, permit and/or license agreement from Metro- politan Water District for surface use(s) within the pipeline easement. 09/01/95(1: ••.CNB501 ••.RTC.DOC) 27 FMA -1 Comment Response EMA-2 Comment Response ISA Associates, Inc. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES - ORANGE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY (EMA) The above referenced item is a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the City of Newport Beach. The proposed project would relocate the exist- ing Fletcher Jones Motorcars dealership to a new site located east of Jambo- ree Road, south and west of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC) and north of the proposed extension of Bayview Way. The County of Orange has reviewed the DEIR resulting in the following comments: Comment noted. CULTURAL/HISTORICAL The Cultural Resource Section of the DEIR for this project looks adequate. It does not, however, include the reports from the archaeologist and paleontol- ogist, nor does it mention them by name or whether a site survey and update was conducted or just a literature and records search. This information should precede Section 4.8.1. The County's comment that the Cultural Resources Section is adequate is noted. At the request of the County, the following additional information will be added in the Final EIR in the introduction of Section 4.8 to clarify the information in the Draft EIR. This information does not change any conclu- sions in the Draft EIR. LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) conducted an archaeological and paleontol- ogical records search and literature review for this EIR. The staff archaeologist was Deborah McLean, an Orange County certified ar- chaeologist. The staff paleontologist was Steve Conkling, an Orange County certified paleontologist. The archaeological archival research indicated that the project area had been surveyed numerous times; 09/01/95(1:I.CNB501•••RTC.DOC) 28 i ' s_, EMA 3 Comment ISA Associates, Inc. one site with both a prehistoric and historic component, CA -ORA - 57(77)/H, was recorded within the project boundaries; and data re- covery had been conducted on the site. LSA determined that addi- tional survey was not warranted. A separate archaeological technical report was not prepared. The presence of extremely significant fossil resources along the boun- daries of the site indicate that rocks within the project are of highest paleontological significance. LSA determined that the results of an assessment survey would not be sufficient to alter the recommended mitigation program. A paleontological technical report was not prepared. The following information describes the archaeological and paleontol- ogical setting of the site, the potential project impacts and recom- mended mitigation measures. [End of text to be added to the Final EIR] Note that the actual location of cultural resource sites is not shown to pro- tect resources from unauthorized collection. Please also refer to the letter from Deborah McLean, Project Archaeologist, contained in Attachment 2. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Although the subject document contains a mitigation measure that restricts use of non-native, invasive plant species (Mitigation Measure 7-2), the list of prohibited species should be expanded. The attached California Exotic Pest Plant list proposed by the California Exotic Pest Plant Council, October, 1993 (Updated on May 5, 1995), contains additional plant species that should be considered as prohibited species for the landscape plan. In addition, the mitigation measure allows for certain non-native, invasive plants. We would request that all non-native, invasive species be prohibited in areas adjacent to natural open spaces, including riparian/wetland areas, not just Hottentot -fig (Carpobrotus edulis) and Cape Honeysuckle (Tecomaria capensis) as identi- fied in Mitigation Measure 7-2. 09/01/95(I: CNB501 RTC.DOC) �9 Response LSA Associates, Inc. As stated in the DEIR, the list of invasive exotic plants was not intended to be exhaustive. Instead, it give examples to guide the preparation of and approv- al of the landscape plans. The current list proposed by the California Exotic Pest Plant Council is also useful for this purpose, and is hereby incorporated into this EIR. However, this list does not distinguish between plants that spread via highly dispersive seeds and those that spread vegetatively from the parent plant. Therefore, discretion with regard to the use of any plant mate- f rial is still required. The following clarification is provided: • Contrary to the statement in the comment, plants such as Hottentot - fig and cape honeysuckle are not prohibited entirely, but may be used in the project landscaping if they are adequately separated from adja- cent natural open spaces by hardscape or other project features. • Any plants that proliferate by seed that is airborne or otherwise highly dispersive (e.g., by birds or rodents), or that are particularly difficult to control should be prohibited from all parts of the project. • All invasive exotic plants, including those listed in the DEIR and the California Exotic Pest Plant List, should be prohibited from portions of the project that are immediately adjacent to natural open spaces. 0 09/01/95(1: •.CNB501 •••RTC.DOC) 30 1- ATTACHMENT 1 ISA Associates, Inc. California Exotic Pest Plant List Proposed by the California Exotic Pest Plant Council October 1993 (Updated on May 5, 1995) Wildland Exotic Pest Plants (Weeds) of Primary Importance: Scientific Name Ammophila arenaria Arundo donax Bromus tectorum Carpobrotus edulis and C. chilensiis Centaurea solstitialis Cortaderia selloana and C. Jubata Cynara cardunculus Genista monspessulana (=Cytisus monspessulana) Cytisus scoparius Eucalyptus globulus Pennisetum cetaceum Rubus dicolor (=R. procerus) Tamarix chinesis spp. Common Name European Beach Grass Giant Reed Cheat Grass Freeway Iceplant Yellow Star Thistle Sella Pampas Grass or Jubata Grass Artichoke Thistle French Broom Scotch Broom Tasmanian Blue Gum Fountain Grass Himalayaberry Tamarisk or Salt Cedar Wildland Exotic Pest Plants (Weeds) of Secondary Importance: Scientific Name Acacia baileyana Acacia decurrens Ageratina adenophora (=Eupatorium adenophorum) Ailanthus altissima Albizia lophantba Amaranthus albus Aptenia cordifolia Arctotbeca calendula Atrtplex semibiccata Avena fatua Brassica nigra Bromus diandrus Bromus mollis Cardaria chalapense Common Name Cootamundra Wattle Green Wattle Eupatory Tree of Heaven Plume acacia Tumbleweed Red Apple Capeweed Australian Saltbush Wild Oat Black Mustard Ripgut Brome Soft Chess Lens -Podded White -Top 09/01/95(1: •.CNB501 %RTC.DOC) 31 09/01/95(I: •-.CNB501•-.RTC.DOC) 32 i i_ r, ISA Associates, Inc. Cardaria draba Hoary -Cress; White -Top Carduus acanthoides Giant Plumeless Thistle Carduus pycnocephalus Italian Thistle Centaurea calcitrapa Purple Star Thistle Centranthus ruber Red Valerian Chrysanthemum coronarfum Garland chrysanthemum Cirsium arvense Canada Thistle Cirsium vulgare Bull Thistle Conicosia pugioniformis Narrow -Leaved Iceplant Conium maculatum Poison Hemlock Coprosma repens Mirror Plant Corpobrotus edulis Hottentot -fig r Cordyline australis New Zealand Cabbage Tree Cotoneaster spp. Cotoneaster Cotula coronopifolia Brass Buttons Cynodon dactylon Bermuda Grass Datura spp. Jimson Weed Digitalis purpurea Foxglove Dipsacus spp. Fuller's Teasel Echium pininana Pride of Teneriffe Eichhornia crassipes Water Hyacinth Erechtities spp. Australian Fireweed Ehrharta spp. Veldt Grass Eucalyptus spp. Eucalyptus Ficus carica Edible Fig Foeniculum vulgare Wild Fennel or Anise Gunnera tinctoria Gunnera Hedera helix English Ivy Hordeum spp. Wild Barley Hypericum perforatum Klamath Weed Ilex aquifolium Perennial Pepperweed Lupinus arboreus Bush Lupine Marrubium vulgare Horehound Melilotus alba White Sweet Clover Mentha pulegium Pennyroyal Mesembryanthemum crystalinum Crytalline Iceplant Mesembryanthemum nodiflorum Small -Flowered Iceplant Myoporum laetum Myoporum Nicotiana glauca Tree tobacco ` Oryzopsis miliacea Smilo Grass Oxalis per-caprae Bermuda Buttercup Parentucellia viscosa Pennisetum clandestinum Kikuyu Grass Phalaris aquatics Harding Grass Phoenix canariensis Canary Island Date Palm Phyla nodiflora Lippia (=Lippia nodiflora) Pinus radiata Monterey Pine Pyracantha spp. Pyracantha 09/01/95(I: •-.CNB501•-.RTC.DOC) 32 i i_ Raphanus spp. Ricinis communis Robinia pseudoacacia Rumex crispus Salvia aethiopis Salsola soda Salsola tragus (=S. kali) Schinus Molle Senecio elegans Senecio jacobaea Senecio mikanoides Silybum marianum Spartina alternifolia Spartium junceum Tanacetum vulgare Ulex europaeus Vinca major Watsonia bulbillifera Xantium spp. Zantedeschia aethiopien ISA Associates, Inc. Radish Castor Bean Black Locust Curly -dock Mediterranean Sage Glasswort Russian Thistle or Tumbleweed California Pepper Purple Ragwort Tansy Ragwort German Ivy Milk Thistle Eastern Cordgrass Spanish Broom Tansy Gorse Periwinkle Cocklebur Calla Lilly 09/01/95(1: •.CNB501--•RTC.DOC) 33 SCAG-1 Comment Response ISA Associates, Inc. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (SCAG) r, We have reviewed the above referenced document and determined that it is not regionally significant per Areawide Clearinghouse criteria. Therefore, the project does not warrant clearinghouse comments at this time. Should there be a change in the scope of the project, we would appreciate the opportunity to review and comment at that time. A description of the project will be published in the July 1, 1995 Intergovern- mental Review Report for public review and comment. The project title and SCAG Clearinghouse number should be used in all correspondence with SCAG concerning this project. Correspondence should be sent to the attention of the Clearinghouse Coordinator. If you have questions, please contact Dan Akins at (213) 236-1972. Comment noted. 09/01/95(I: •-.CNB501-%RTC.DOC) 34 TCA -1 Comment Response ISA Associates, Inc. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES - TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES (TCA) The Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA) appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on the subject EIR. TCA has previously commented on the NOP for this project and incorporates our letter of May 15, 1995, by reference. As noted in our May correspondence TCA and the City of New- port Beach are developing two Memoranda of Understanding regarding the proposed Fletcher Jones Motorcars project, the SJHTC, future JR -5 flyover and University Drive North. The TCA anticipates several issues related to right-of-way and future use of the project site will be resolved in the context of the two MOUS. TCA staff has reviewed the Draft EIR and provides the following comments for your consideration. 1. Biological Resources. Wildlife Movement. Page 4.7-27. The SJHTC wetland mitigation site is part of a mitigation program for several SJHTC permits including the coastal development permit, Sec tion 7, Biological Opinion, 404 Permit and 1601 Agreement. As such it is very important that the site be successful in meeting its perfor- mance criteria, and function as a part of the San Diego Creek wildlife movement corridor. The Draft EIR states that excessive night lighting and human activity may impact the SJHTC wetland mitigation site and its function as part of the San Diego Creek wildlife movement corridor. Mitigation Mea- sure 7-1 requiring wetland buffer measures and Mitigation Measure 7-3 regarding a lighting plan are proposed as mitigation for the above impact. Due to the mitigation site's importance within the overall SJHTC mitigation program, the TCA respectfully requests the opportu- nity to review and comment on all plans/specifications and docu- ments submitted by the applicant to comply with Mitigation Measures 7-1 and 7-3. Light emanating from the project site could potentially affect the wetland areas adjacent to the site. The lighting plan required in Mitigation Measure 7-3 will ensure that any site lighting "is low intensity or highly directional..." and that such lighting "... will minimize spillage into the wetlands areas." This mitigation will reduce any impacts below a level of significance. The TCA will be provided the plans/specifications and documents regarding implementation of these mitigation measures. 09/01/95(1: ••. CNB501 ••.RTC.DOC) 35 TCA -2 Comment Response r, ISA Associates, Inc. f Should you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Laura Coley Eisenberg of my staff at (714) 513-3482. Comment noted. r L, 09/01/95(I:••.CNB501'•.RTC.DOC) 36 � ' CM -1 i�11 "171 1M, Response LSA Associates, Inc. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES - CITY OF COSTA MESA (CM) The City of Costa Mesa Planning and Transportation Services Divisions have reviewed the Draft EIR for the Fletcher Jones Motor Cars dealership consist- ing of the construction of 114,000 square feet of building area located at Jamboree Road and Bayview Way. The City has no comments on the EIR but thanks you for the opportunity to review the document. Comment noted. 09/01/95(1: ••.CNB501 ••.RTC.DOC) 37 IRV--1 Comment Response IRV-2 Comment Response LSA Associates, Inc. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES - CITY OF IRVINE (IRV) The City of Irvine appreciates the opportunity to review the Draft Environ- mental Impact Report for the San Diego Creek North Automotive Dealership. Staff has reviewed this document and has the following comments at this time: TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS: 1. Based on our review, the current DEIR analysis does not address previous City of Irvine NOP comments. Thus, we are requesting written explanation for this issue. A copy of our previous comments is attached for your reference. The City of Irvine's comments on the NOP were addressed in the text of the Draft EIR. Please refer to Response to Comment IRV-4 through IRV-8 for discussion of where each NOP comment was addressed. The City of Irvine does not cite any specific inadequacy in the DEIR that can be responded to; therefore, no further information can be given. 2. Provide written clarification of the square footage used to determine the traffic impacts. The project description references 114,000 square feet of auto uses and the traffic study refers to 204,100 square feet. The reference to 114,000 square feet of auto uses in the project description on page 3-4 of the DEIR San Diego North Creek Site (June, 1995) includes only the occupiable building area and does not include approximately 90,000 square feet for the on-site parking deck and garage, which are included in the 204,100 square foot project size identified on page 4.4-1 of the Traffic and Circulation Section of the DEIR. It should be noted, however, that trip generation used to determine project impacts is based on a City approved "Expanded Site Area" trip generation 09/01/95(I '--CNB501 RTC.DOC) 38 V-1 F , IRV--3 Comment Response ISA Associates, Inc. methodology. This method uses total site acreage, not building square footage, to generate peak hour and daily trips, and accounts for trips gener- ated by the multi-level nature of the development. The project description will be clarified in the Final EIR to include a discus- sion of the garage and parking deck square footage. The City of Irvine looks forward to receiving the Final Draft EIR when it becomes available. If you have any questions regarding our response, please do not hesitate to contact Ed Stang, Associate Planner, at (714) 724-6394. The City will be provided with a copy of the Final EIR. [CITY OF IRVINE NOTICE OF PREPARATION COMMENTS] IRV-4 Comment Response The City of Irvine appreciates the opportunity to review the Notice of Prepa- ration for an EIR for the San Diego Creek North Automotive Dealership. Staff has reviewed this document and has the following comments at this time: COMMENTS: The project study area shall include analysis of University Drive from Culver Drive to MacArthur Boulevard. The NOP comment is addressed on page 4.4-13 of the DEIR San Diego North Creek Site (June 1995), as follows: University Drive between MacArthur Boulevard and Culver Drive is a Major six lane arterial with a daily traffic capacity of 54,000 vehicles per day. As identified in the General Plan 09/01/95(I: ••.CNB501 •-.RTC.DOC) 39 IRV-S Comment Response LSA Associates, Inc. build out condition, the project traffic contribution along University Drive east of MacArthur Boulevard is negligible. Under near-term conditions, the project contributes approxi- mately 130 daily trips, or 0.2 percent of the arterial capacity. Based on the City of Irvine performance criteria, the project's contribution along University Drive is significantly less than 2 percent and is not considered significant. r, No additional comments beyond those identified in the response to the NOP are provided in the DEIR comments letter. 2. The project analysis within the City of Irvine shall use the Irvine Tran- sportation Analysis Model (ITAM) output, ITAM trip rates, and perfor- mance criteria. The performance criteria are attached for your reference. The City of Newport Beach respectfully disagrees with the City of Irvine regarding the use of the Irvine Transportation Analysis Model (ITAM) for analysis of the impacts of projects located within the City of Newport Beach. The reasoning of the City of Newport Beach is as follows: The transportation analysis contained in Section 4.4 of the Draft EIR is composed of two components. The near-term or Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) analysis focuses on project opening day. This analy- sis is prepared by adding the project generated traffic to existing plus committed projects traffic. No computerized traffic model forecasting is involved. The City of Newport Beach uses the Newport Beach Traffic Analysis Model (NBTAM) as its long-range forecasting tool for analyzing the build out of the General Plan. The City is very confident in the traffic forecasts provided by the NBTAM model for all streets and intersec- tions located fully or partially within the City of Newport Beach, including Jamboree Road south of Campus Drive, MacArthur Boule- vard within the City of Newport Beach, and Bristol Street north and south of Campus Drive. The traffic analysis indicates that the traffic generated by this project will represent one percent or less of vol- umes on all streets beyond this study area, including all areas fully within the City of Irvine. Therefore, no additional analysis of these areas is required with either the NBTAM or ITAM model. 09/01/95(1: ••.CNB501 %.RTC.DOC) 40 t IRV--6 Comment Response IRV-7 Comment Response LSA Associates, Inc. 3• The project shall analyze cumulative impacts with projects currently under review. These projects are as follows: Planning Area 22 Gen- eral Plan Amendment, Planning Area 25 Zone Change, and Planning Area 26 Zone Change. The NOP comment is addressed on page 4.4-4 of the DEIR San Diego North Creek Site (June, 1995), as follows: NBTAM includes trip generation assumptions for the Planning Area 22 General Plan Amendment, Planning Area 25 Zone Change, and Planning Area 26 Zone Change that are consistent with the Irvine Transportation Analysis Model (ITAM). Table A on the following page contains a comparison of NBTAM and ITAM a.m. peak hour, p.m. peak hour, and daily generation rates for the three planning areas. In all cases, the NBTAM a.m. and p.m. peak hour trip genera- tion forecasts are greater than the ITAM volumes. The NBTAM daily trip generation is approximately 6.5 percent lower than ITAM. This difference is not considered significant because a) the difference is small and b) the peak hour volumes are utilized to assess significance of impacts. No additional comments beyond those identified in the response to the NOP are provided in the DEIR comments letter. 4. Design and configuration of the future MacArthur Boulevard and Bayview Way intersection shall be addressed as part of the environ- mental documentation. The City of Newport Beach respectfully disagrees with the City of Irvine's conclusion that the project should provide for the design and configuration of the future MacArthur Boulevard and Bayview Way intersection. This pro- ject does not propose to construct this intersection, which is fully located within the City of Irvine. The City of Newport Beach has no near-term plans to implement the extension of Bayview Way to MacArthur Boulevard. It is 09/01/95(I: CNB501••.RTC.DOC) 41 Source: i 1. NBTAM Trip Generation from Ktys Saldivar, Austin -Foust Associates, Inc., (AFA) June 1995:1 Post -2010 (IBC) Land Use and Trip Generation, NBTAA1 Zones 21 4 for PA -92, 228 for PA28, and Zones 240, 242, 246-251 Jor PA 26. 2. ITAM Trip Generation from Peter Andersen, City Q111 -vine, Arrg. 1995: Shady Canyon (PA22) Proposed Project Land Use and Trip Generation Summary. Planning Area 25 Project Area Land Use and Trip Generation Stnnmat•y. Post -2010 PA26 (Neu, Baseline) Zonal Land Use and Trip Generation, 17AM Zones 304-313. 8/11/95(MODELS.XLS) F, LSA Associates, Inc. Table A - NBTAM versus ITAM Model Trip Generation Planning Area AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ADT r, 22 399 497 4,970 25 1,724 2,011 13,443 r ' 26 2,689 3,742 39,274 F NBTAM Total 4,812 6,250 57,687 Planning Area AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour r ADT 22 375 515 6,218 25 1,081 1,055 14,052 r 26 2,199 3,217 41,334 ITAM Total 61,604 3,655 4,787 Planning Area AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ADT 1 22 24 (18) (1,248) 25 643 956 (609) 26 490 525 (2,060) NBTAM- ITAM Totals (3,917) 1,157 1,463 Source: i 1. NBTAM Trip Generation from Ktys Saldivar, Austin -Foust Associates, Inc., (AFA) June 1995:1 Post -2010 (IBC) Land Use and Trip Generation, NBTAA1 Zones 21 4 for PA -92, 228 for PA28, and Zones 240, 242, 246-251 Jor PA 26. 2. ITAM Trip Generation from Peter Andersen, City Q111 -vine, Arrg. 1995: Shady Canyon (PA22) Proposed Project Land Use and Trip Generation Summary. Planning Area 25 Project Area Land Use and Trip Generation Stnnmat•y. Post -2010 PA26 (Neu, Baseline) Zonal Land Use and Trip Generation, 17AM Zones 304-313. 8/11/95(MODELS.XLS) IRV-8 Comment Response LSA Associates, Inc. the City's understanding that the only foreseeable projects that would precip- itate the requirement for the extension of Bayview Way would -be the imple- mentation of the proposed high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane drop ramps from the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor to Bayview Way (Univer- sity Drive North). According to our discussions with the Transportation Corridor Agency, these ramps are likely to be more than ten years away, and no current traffic forecasts are available for their usage. Furthermore, we understand that the City of Irvine is considering deleting the further east- ward extension of Bayview Way (University Drive North), east of MacArthur Boulevard. Until such time as traffic forecasts are prepared for the HOV lane drop ramps, it would be very premature to establish a layout for this inter- section. The basic location of the intersection is, of course, set by the design of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor and is not affected by the San Diego Creek North automotive dealership project. Given the uncertainty associated with the traffic volumes at this intersection and the uncertainty associated with the timing of its implementation, it would be premature to provide the City with a design for this intersection. The City of Irvine looks forward to reviewing the Draft EIR when in becomes available. If you have any questions regarding our response, please do not hesitate to contact Charlene Gallina, Senior Planner, at (714) 724-6385. The Draft EIR was provided to the City for review. 09/01/95(1: ••.CNB501 ••.RTC.DOC) 43 SPON-1 Comment LSA Associates, Inc. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES - STOP POLLUTING OUR NEWPORT (SPON) On behalf of SPON, the steering committee has authorized me to submit the following comments. Although SPON does not believe the proposed land use to be inappropriate for the site, certain mitigation measures need to be strengthened. Additionally there are several items that should be clarified in order for the City to make an informed decision on the project. ' Response r SPON-2 Comment Response SPON-3 Comment Comment noted; please refer to Response to Comments SPON-2 through SPON-9. For your convenience I have structured my comments in the order in which material appears in the draft EIR, but I would like to emphasize that the major concern of SPON is loss of habitat. A portion of the tela of Mitigation Measure 11.1 was lost from page 1-38. We are concerned because this could affect water quality, which is such an im- portant item for this site. The City apologizes for the error in printing. The entire tent of Mitigation Measure 11-1 is shown on page 4.11-3 of the Draft EIR and will be included in the mitigation summary in the Final EIR. It is difficult to assess the size and scope of the project from the project description. The overall square footage of the site should be broken down into the proposed areas for office, vehicle repair and outdoor display. 09/01/95(I:••.CNB501•••RTC.D0C) 44 L ' W Response SPON-4 Comment Response ISA Associates, Inc. The following provides the overall square footage breakdown for the buildings: The rendering in Figure 3.6 is a view from the Bayview extension, not from Jamboree as stated. This rendering shows a relatively flat site, and is mis- leading about the visual impact of the project. The view in Figure 3-6 is from Bayview near Jamboree. The location descrip- tion will be changed in the Final EIR. The rendering is designed to show how the site will look after completion of the project and not to show how the view of the site will change from existing conditions. There was no attempt to be misleading. 09/01/95(I: CNB501••.RTC.D0C) 45 Area (in Square Feet) Interior Areas: Sales Area 14,704 Office/Administration 12,558 Service Office 5,018 Service Garage 44,952 Body Shop Office 1,478 Body Shop Garage 50,015 Parts Office/Storage 14,773 Cafe 1,900 Balconies 924 Canopies: New Car Display 10,815 New Car Delivery 1,440 Service Advisors 9,374 Parts Delivery 1,800 The rendering in Figure 3.6 is a view from the Bayview extension, not from Jamboree as stated. This rendering shows a relatively flat site, and is mis- leading about the visual impact of the project. The view in Figure 3-6 is from Bayview near Jamboree. The location descrip- tion will be changed in the Final EIR. The rendering is designed to show how the site will look after completion of the project and not to show how the view of the site will change from existing conditions. There was no attempt to be misleading. 09/01/95(I: CNB501••.RTC.D0C) 45 SPON-S Comment Response SPON-G Comment Response ISA Associates, Inc. The bike trail along the northerly edge of the site should also be included in order for the reader to understand the project impacts. The bicycle trail along the northerly edge of the site is not a part of the pro- posed project. It will be constructed as part of the San Joaquin Hills Trans- portation Corridor project currently under construction, and will be part of the existing condition when the site is developed. It is, therefore, not includ- ed as part of the project description, but is discussed as part of the commu- nity planning context. One of the operational characteristics of automobile dealerships is that autos in outdoor display areas must be frequently cleaned. If these autos are washed often in a display area that discharges to the storm drain, pollution of surface waters will result. The impact over the life of the project would be significant, and there must be mitigation for this impact. Automobiles in outdoor display areas do require frequent washing. There are two forms of washing proposed on the site. The first is a daily rinse of the cars on display. The system proposed by the project proponent utilizes a hand spray of deionized water of approximately one gallon per car. Deion- ized water is utilized so that the water will evaporate without forming spots on the vehicles. Since most of the water evaporates, it will not enter into the drainage system. The second project site will also include two drive through car wash stations. These stations will recycle almost all the water associated with them using a recirculating water system. According to the project archi- tect, the water lost through this system will be far less than the amount of water generated by the sanitary sewer on the site. These project components mitigate the impacts of car washes. 09/01/95(1:••.CNB501 •RTC.DOC) 46 SPON-7 Comment Response SPON-8 Comment Response ISA Associates, Inc. Page 4.5-7 states that 90,000 cubic yards of earth will be moved in grading. However, page 4.2.4 states the total will be 160,000 cubic yards -- nearly twice as great a volume. If the latter is the correct figure, it would appear that the project might exceed the NOx emissions threshold. The correct figure is 160,000 cubic yards. The City apologizes for the error. The air quality analysis utilized an earlier estimate for the grading, and the correct figure will be utilized in the Final EIR. Without mitigation, this cor- rected estimate of export would cause the level of NO. emissions shown in Table 4.5.A to increase from 52.4 to 56.3 lbs./day and thereby slightly exceed SCAG's significance threshold of 55 lbs./day. In order to reduce emissions below SCAG's threshold of significance, a new mitigation measure will be added in the Final EIR, limiting the export operations to a maximum of ten hours per day, including one hour of down time. This will reduce daily NOx emissions to levels below the SCAG threshold. The project proposes to mitigate loss of habitat by replacing it in the mouth of Big Canyon. Unfortunately, habitat creation is an art that is still in the formative stage. The strategy of "habitat replacement" is so often unsuccess- ful that it has been cited as a cause of species loss. SPON does not believe that even a small parcel of the City's remaining natural habitat should be come the subject of an experiment. Even the supposedly biologically insig- nificant open area surrounding the saltbush scrub, mulefat scrub and sage- brush -buckwheat scrub performs an important biological function as a buffer. Therefore we firmly believe the proposed mitigation should be extended to a wider area. The habitat to be lose (2.1 acres) should be replaced at a ratio of three to one. The enhancement of 3.5 acres, particularly in an area that is subject to depredation by domestic animals, is not appropriate to replace lost natural area adjacent to San Diego Creek. A total of 6.3 acres should be improved -- either in the vicinity of the proposed habitat enhancement area, or on an additional site. The commentor does not provide specific citations of hailed habitat replace- ment projects or the consequences in terms of species lost. Therefore, the 09/01/95(I: •-.CNB501 •••RTC.DOC) 47 SPON-9 Comment Response ISA Associates, Inc. reasons for the described failures cannot be specifically addressed. Most restoration ecologists would agree that restoration is an "art" as well as a science. However, many, if not most, failed restoration projects have been the result of insufficient follow-up, in terms of monitoring, maintenance or remedial measures to ensure achievement of the performance standards. The detailed Interim Habitat Loss Mitigation Plan required for this project will f provide mechanisms to ensure that the required follow-up takes place. The USFWS and CDFG, which have primary responsibility for ensuring the adequacy of mitigation measures in connection with coastal sage scrub im- pacts, routinely accept habitat restoration/creation as an acceptable measure. Furthermore, the project biologist has relatively extensive experience with coastal sage scrub restoration. While many of the projects with which LSA has been involved have not been under way long enough to be considered an unqualified success, none can be considered failures. The first coastal sage scrub restoration project that LSA designed and monitored (Enclave 7 in the City of Irvine, initially implemented in 1991) supported successful nest- ing by California gnatcatchers in 1995. This six acre project was in condi- tions that are similar to, but less favorable than, those proposed for the sub- ject project mitigation effort. The extent of mitigation was not based on an acreage ratio but on seeking to provide sufficient habitat to support one pair of gnatcatchers. While no gnatcatchers have been recently observed on the site, the City's consulting biologists and representatives of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service both agree that the San Diego Creek North site's current habitat could support, at most, one pair of gnatcatchers. Therefore, the mitigation program was designed to provide enough high quality habitat to support one pair of gnatcatchers. The discussion of aesthetics does not address the view of the project from the existing public bike trail along the south side of San Diego creek which would be affected by the project. Currently this open vista forms a compa- rable background for the open space along the creek corridor. The dealer- ship will be highly visible from this area. We believe mitigation should occur in the form of a landscape buffer similar to the plantings between Bayview and the bay just west of Jamboree. Such plantings would also serve to screen night lighting that would otherwise spill over into the wetlands area. The site is visible from the San Diego Creek Bicycle Trail. However, views of the site are surrounded by urban elements, including the Marriott Suites Hotel, the CB office building, the SJHTC construction and other office build- 09/01/95(I:'•.CNB501••.RTC.DOC) 48 L ' LSA Associates, Inc. ings in the distance. The site represents only a small part of the view as seen from the trail. Its change from a partially graded slope to developed will not change the overall character of views. It should also be noted that an open space/landscape buffer is being con- structed between the bicycle trail and the project site. As mitigation for construction of the SJHTC, the TCA is constructing a saltwater marsh in the area between Bayview Way and San Diego Creek, which is between the bi- cycle trail and the project site. This mitigation area will include upland species on the slope leading up to Bayview Way. This mitigation site will soften the views of the project site by providing a visual buffer, as suggested in the comment. 09/01/95(1: -%CNB501 ••.RTC.DOC) 49 ISA Associates, Inc. ATTACHMENT 1 ORIGINAL COMMENT LETTERS 09/01/95(1: '-.CNB50i ••.RTC.DOC) STATE OF CALIFORNIA PETE WILSON, Govemor GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH 1400 TENTH STREET SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 August 3, 1995 JOHN DOUGLAS CITY OF NEWPORT BRACH 3300 NEWPORT BLVD. P.O. BOX 1768 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 93659-1768 icc:6P__ uY PLANNING DEPARTMENT ";ITY OF NEWPORT BEAGE' AM AUG' 7 '1995 PM 71819110111 1121112131415 i 6 f Subject: SAN DIEGO CREEK NORTH AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP SCH #: 95041038 Dear JOHN DOUGLAS: The State Clearinghouse has submitted the above named draft Environmental Impact Report (SIR) to selected state agencies for review. The review period is now closed and the comments from the responding agency(ies) is(are) enclosed. On the enclosed Notice of Completion form you will note that the Clearinghouse has checked the agencies that have commented. Please review the Notice of Completion to ensure that your comment package is complete. If the comment package is not in order, please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Remember to refer to the project's eight -digit State Clearinghouse number so that we may respond promptly. Please note that Section 21104 of the California Public Resources Code required that: "a responsible agency or other public agency shall only make substantive comments regarding those activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are required to be carried out or approved by the agency." Commenting agencies are also required by this section to support their comments with specific documentation. These comments are forwarded for your use in preparing your final SIR. Should you need more information or clarification, we recommend that you contact the commenting agency(ies). This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact Mark Goss at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. Sincerely, ANTERO A. RIVASPLATA Chief, State Clearinghouse Enclosures CC: Resources Agency STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY PETE WILSON, Govemor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 12 •~„ 2501 PULLMAN STREET July 25, 1995 SANTA ANA, CA 92705 Ms. Patricia Temple File: IGR/CEQA City of Newport Beach SCH # 95041038 Planning Department P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, Ca. 92659-1768 'PLANNING DEPARTMENT — Y OF NEWPOPT HEAL. , Subject: San Diego Creek North Automobile Dealership AUG' 7 1S"95 AN PM Dear Ms. Temple: 7,$i9i141li2i'IzI 3141516 Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Environfriental Impact Report for the San Diego Creek North Automobile Dealership. Caltrans District 12 status is a responsible agency for this project. Any project that goes over, under or in any way encroaches on Caltrans Right of Way will need an Encroachment Permit. Caltrans has the following comments for your consideration. 1. The ownership and maintenance of a proposed bike trail along Ramp JR -4 needs to be resolved between the Transportation Corridor Agency and the City of Newport Beach. 2. Nothing in this document or process shall commit Caltrans to the sale of the land without the approval of the California Transportation Commission. 3. The Highway Capacity Manual should be used to determine traffic analysis as opposed to using the Intersection Capacity Utilization method (ICU). We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this document. If you have any questions concerning these comments or would like to speak to someone please call Aileen Kennedy on (714) 724-2239. Sincerely, �1 r Robert F. J seph, Chi f Advance Planning Branch cc: Tom Loftus, OPR Ron Helgeson, HDQTRS Planning Tom Persons, HDQTRS Traffic Operations Pat 011ervides, Traffic Operations i, Roger Kao, Toll Roads Agnes Villaneava, Project Development 1, STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON, Governor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SOUTH COAST AREA 245 W. BROADWAY, STE. 380 P.O. BOX 1450 LONG BEACH, CA 90802-4416 (310) 590.5071 RECEIVED ,NIC ! AUG 14 1995 August 3, 1995 PL.ANNIN , DEPARTMENT CITY OF N WPORT BEACH ASI AUG 7 1995 PM John Douglas 910 ll 1212 3 4 City of Newport Beach X181 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1516 Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768 SUBJECT: Coastal Commission Staff Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report for the San Diego Creek North Automobile Dealership; SCH No.: 95041038 Dear Mr. Douglas: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above referenced Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed construction of the relocated Fletcher Jones Motor Cars automotive dealership. The proposed project would be 114,000 square feet in size on a site containing 8.7 acres. The site is located at the intersection of Jamboree Road and Bayview Way near the southern end of the Route 73 freeway. As stated in the EIR, the Coastal Commission has coastal development permit review authority over the proposed project. Since the City of Newport Beach does not have a fully certified local coastal program, the standard of review of a coastal development permit application is consistency with the Chapter Three policies of the Coastal Act. The comments address the environmental impacts and mitigation measures described in the DEIR as they relate to the Chapter Three policies of the Coastal Act. The comments also address the consistency of the project with the Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement (CIOSA or development agreement) between the City of Newport Beach and the Irvine Company approved by the Coastal Commission on June 10, 1993. The following comments represent the opinions and judgments of Coastal Commission staff only. They should not be construed to be the opinions and judgments of the Coastal Commission itself, nor predict the action which the Coastal Commission may take on a coastal development permit or development agreement amendment application concerning the proposed project. Coastal Act Issues 1. Ownership of Project Site Page 3-1 of the DEIR states that the project site, comprising 8.7 acres, is currently under multiple ownership divided between the Irvine Company, Caltrans, and the Transportation Corridor Agency. The DEIR states that the City proposes to acquire these parcels, combine them into the project site, and then sell or lease the project site to the project applicant which is listed as Fletcher Jones Motorcars on Page 2-6 of the DEIR. r John Douglas DEIR Comments; SCH No. 95041038 August 3, 1995; Page 2 The project site currently is not owned by the project applicant. Section 30601.5 of the Coastal Act provides in part that if an applicant for a coastal development permit is not the owner of a fee interest in the property on which a proposed development is to be located but can demonstrate a legal interest, right, or entitlement to use the property, all other holders of interest in the property must be notified of the proposed project and give their permission for the applicant to apply for a coastal development permit. Also, the applicant must demonstrate, prior to issuance of a coastal development permit, the authority to comply with all conditions of approval. Therefore, the coastal development permit application should address the issue of ownership of the project site. In addition, the portion of the project site owned by the Irvine Company is subject to the requirements of the CIOSA entered into by the City and the Irvine Company. The project site is part of a larger 14.7 acre parcel called San Diego Creek North in the CIOSA. Pursuant to the CIOSA, 8.6 acres of San Diego Creek North is to be dedicated to the City for open space/public facilities. If the 8.7 acre project site were developed with the proposed project, only 6.0 acres of the 14.7 total acres of San Diego Creek North would remain. Additionally, the proposed private auto dealership use does not appear to be consistent with the public facilities land use of the CIOSA. Therefore, the City and the Irvine Company would have to jointly apply to the Coastal Commission for an amendment to the CIOSA if the proposed project is to be pursued. Biological Resources a. Scrub/Gnatcatcher Habitat Section 30240 of the Coastal Act states that environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHA) shall be protected against the disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on the ESHA shall be allowed in the ESHA. Further, Section 30240 requires that development adjacent to an ESHA be sited and designed to prevent impacts on the ESHA. The DEIR states on Page 4.7-11 that the proposed project would result in impacts to approximately 2.1 acres of scrub habitat.consisting of 1.46 acres of saltbush scrub, 0.48 acres of coastal sage scrub, and 0.08 acres of mulefat scrub. Table 4.7.A and Figure 4.7.1 (Vegetation Map) do not list the 0.48 acres of coastal sage scrub. Please clarify how the figure of 0.48 acres of coastal sage scrub is derived. The DEIR further states on Page 4.7-11 that all three of these types of scrub habitat should be considered potential habitat for the coastal California . gnatcatcher. Under the Coastal Act definition of an ESHA (Section 30107.5), gnatcatcher habitat is considered an ESHA. The proposed project would be located within the ESHA, thus impacting all 2.1 acres of scrub habitat. The proposed automobile dealership is not a use dependent on scrub habitat and thus is inconsistent with Section 30240 of the Coastal Act. This inconsistency should be specifically addressed. Alternate sites not listed in Section 6.4 of the DEIR should be explored. John Douglas DEIR Comments; SCH No. 95041038 August 3, 1995; Page 3 The restoration/conversion of 3.5 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat at an off-site location in Big Canyon is being provided, as described in Mitigation Measure 7-5. If the project continues to be pursued, Mitigation Measure 7-5 must clearly define how much of the proposed restoration/conversion is creation of scrub habitat and how much is enhancement of currently existing scrub habitat. Further, the proposed mitigation must be developed in conjunction with the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In addition, Mitigation Measure 7-5 should ensure that the proposed mitigation site is not already reserved for mitigation for other projects, and also ensure that the mitigation site will be permanently protected from impacts from other projects via a conservation easement. Further, the DEIR should demonstrate that there are no other feasible, less environmentally damaging alternatives, and that mitigation measures will minimize all adverse impacts to the scrub habitat to the maximum extent feasible. Mitigation Measure 7-2 provides for the preparation of a landscape plan that avoids the use of non-native invasive plants in order to minimize impacts on native plants resulting from invasive exotics. Coastal Commission staff would strongly urge that the landscape plan use primarily native plants in addition to avoiding use of invasive non-native plants, especially in the areas of the subject site closest to the adjacent wetlands. The landscape plan shall be submitted as part of the coastal development permit application. b. Wetland Resources Section 30233 of the Coastal Act limits the filling of wetlands to certain specific uses where the least environmentally damaging alternative is chosen, and where mitigation for the fill has been provided. Fill for the purpose of supporting an auto dealership is not one of the allowable uses. Further, the CIOSA approved by the Coastal Commission states in part that "no encroachment or loss of wetlands is approved . . (see Exhibit A). The DEIR vegetation map shows three areas of mulefat scrub on the project site. On page 4.7-23, the DEIR states that while mulefat scrub is usually considered a riparian community, its primary function on the project site is as a component of the more prevalent upland scrub types. Clarification of why mulefat scrub is not considered a riparian or wetland community on this site should be provided. Further, the DEIR should address wetlands fill in light of Section 30233 of the Coastal Act. The proposed project would have impacts on the adjacent wetlands, including Upper Newport Bay which is designated by the Coastal Act for special protection, resulting from runoff contaminated through construction impacts, parked vehicles, and other factors. The DEIR should further address the adequacy of a design which places paved roads adjacent to wetlands and provides for a man-made wall as a buffer, rather than a strip of natural buffer area, between the proposed development and the adjacent wetlands. Wetland buffer measures will be reviewed for their adequacy in protecting the adjacent wetland resources as part of the coastal development permit application. John Douglas DEIR Comments; SCH No. 95041038 August 3, 1995; Page 4 3. Water Resources Section 30231 of the Coastal Act provides that the quality of coastal waters be maintained and, where feasible, restored through such means as controlling runoff and maintaining natural vegetation buffer areas that protect riparian habitats. Section 30233 of the Coastal Act also calls out Upper Newport Bay as one of 19 coastal wetlands identified for special protection. The proposed project would have impacts to the adjacent wetlands and also San Diego Creek and Upper Newport Bay from runoff contaminated through construction impacts, parked vehicles, and other factors, as stated in the DEIR. The DEIR contains mitigation measures which would minimize impacts during construction, as well as the provision of Best Management Practices when the proposed project is operational. As part of the coastal development permit application, plans for the mitigation program shall be submitted. 4. Earth Resources The Coastal Act issues raised by the project in regards to earth resources involve landform alteration and geologic hazards. Section 30251 of the Coastal Act requires in part that landform alteration be minimized. Section 30253 of the Coastal Act provides in part that new development shall minimize risks to life and property in areas of high geologic, flood, and fire hazard, and assure stability and structural integrity, and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, and geologic instability. In addition, the CIOSA limits development to areas demonstrated to be geologically feasible to accommodate it. Regarding landform alteration, Coastal Commission staff will review the 160,000 cubic yards of proposed grading (export) for the proposed project described on page 4.2-4 of the DEIR, along with the grading plans, for the project for consistency with Section 30251 of the Coastal Act. 5. Cultural/Scientific Resources Section 30244 of the Coastal Act requires that impacts to paleontological and archaeological resources must be adequately mitigated. The DEIR states on page 4.8-5 that site CA -ORA -57(77)H is within the project area. The DEIR should clarify whether CA -ORA -57(77)H is actually within the 8.7 acre project site, or whether it is nearby. While the DEIR concludes that no further archaeological testing is required prior to ground disturbance activities, it does acknowledge that the potential remains for unknown resources to be uncovered during grading activities. Although test excavations were conducted at the site in 1989 as part of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor project which yielded little research information, a subsurface survey of cultural resources should be conducted on-site. Mitigation Measure 8-1 requires an archaeologist to be present during grading activities. The mitigation measure gives the archaeologist authority to stop or temporarily divert construction activities for 48 hours if cultural resources are uncovered. John Douglas DEIR Comments; SCH No. 95041038 August 3, 1995; Page 5 However, the project site's cultural resources should be assessed prior to commencement of grading activities. A full assessment conducted prior to project construction would ensure that adequate time is available to prepare a mitigation plan for any cultural resources which may be on-site, as well as minimize construction delays. The Office of Historic Preservation of the state Department of Parks and Recreation, and the state Native American Heritage Commission should also be consulted in the preparation of the subsurface survey and mitigation plan. 6. Recreation Section 30222 of the Coastal Act gives priority to visitor -serving commercial recreational facilities over private residential, general industrial, or general commercial development. Section 30223 of the Coastal Act states that upland areas necessary to support coastal recreational uses shall be reserved for such uses, where feasible. As stated in the DEIR on page 4.10-2, an adverse impact to recreation would be an impact that adversely affects an existing recreational facility or.planned recreational facility. While no recreational facilities currently exist on-site, nor does the Certified Land Use Plan map designate the site for recreational facilities, the DEIR does conclude that the proposed project would preclude the development of active recreational uses along the site, or passive recreational uses such as hiking. The DEIR concludes that the proposed project would not result in adverse impacts to recreation, and no mitigation measures are therefore required. However, the CIOSA provides for the dedication of 8.6 acres for open space/public facilities on the San Diego Creek North site. The proposed project would result in the loss of this amount of open space and thus would be inconsistent with the Agreement as approved. Therefore, the City and the Irvine Company must apply for an amendment to the CIOSA prior to or concurrently with consideration of a coastal development permit application. The DEIR concludes that the site is probably inappropriate for use as a neighborhood, community, or urban level park because of its location. As part of the CIOSA amendment application, an analysis of whether the subject site should be used for other public open space uses, such as public parking and other public facilities for access to the planned equestrian/hiking/bike trails adjacent to the subject site must be submitted. An analysis of alternative locations within the coastal zone to replace the potential loss of the 8.6 acres of open space and public facilities which would result if the proposed project is pursued should also be submitted as part of the CIOSA amendment application. 7. Visual Impacts Section 30251 of the Coastal Act provides in part that permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. John Douglas DEIR Comments; SCH No. 95041038 August 3, 1995; Page 6 The DEIR states on Page 4-9.2 that the proposed project would result in a small increase in light and glare due to project site lighting. The DEIR should also address the issue of light and glare potentially generated from reflections off the glass and metal surfaces of the automobiles which would be on display outdoors. The DEIR should also address the issue of whether the proposed project would impact views in the area to and along San Diego Creek or views of Upper Newport Bay. Coastal Commission staff strongly supports Mitigation Measure 7-3 regarding the use of low -intensity or highly directional lighting to minimize impacts on adjacent wetland areas. Conclusion Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this DEIR and address the environmental impacts of the proposed project in the context of Coastal Act issues. We look forward to receiving the Final Environmental Impact Report. Please feel free to contact me at (310) 590-5071 if you have any questions regarding the Coastal Commission staff concerns. Sincerely, John T. Auyong Staff Analyst 4926F:jta F- L, E OF CALIFORNIA—CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY PETE WILSON, Governor CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD SANTA ANA REGION 2010 IOWA AVENUE, SUITE 100 RIVERSIDE, CA 92507-2409 PHONE: (909) 782-4130 kEVEi iyY 0 FAX: (909) 781-6288 PLANNING DEPARTMENT '^.ITY OF NEWPORT 6EAW July 10, 1995 John Douglas City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 Planning Department Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768 AM JUL 18 1995 pN 71819110i1h12i11213AA 6 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (DEIR) FOR THE SAN DIEGO CREEK NORTH AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP, SCH # 95041038 Dear Mr. Douglas: We have reviewed the above -referenced DEIR, dated June 19, 1995. The proposed project is located in southwestern Orange County in the City of Newport Beach. Based on our review of this DEIR, we conclude that the City of Newport Beach has not adequately evaluated the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. The absence of any surface hydrology analyses in the DEIR, including the analysis of the potential for adverse impacts to surface water, supports this conclusion. The inclusion of future drainage studies to assess project generated runoff as mitigation measure #3-15 is inappropriate. These analyses should have been done in advance and the analyses included in the DEIR. The inclusion of such analyses for review is one of the purposes of CEQA (Title 14, Div. 6, Ch. 3, Art 20, Sec. 15002 of The California Code of Regulations). The DEIR also has not addressed the comments regarding Best Management Practices contained in the response from the County of Orange Environmental Management Agency, dated June 1, 1995, to the Notice of Preparation. Additionally, if the stormwater from the proposed project directly discharges into the tide influenced portion of San Diego Creek or Newport Bay, the discharge is subject to waste discharge fees in compliance with California Water Code SPc, 2236 (Bay Protection and Toxic; Cleanup Program). The fees are based on the threat and complexity of the discharge and the water quality status of the receiving waters. Specific comments regarding the contents of the DEIR text are as follows: Page 4.3-5, Water Quality The general discussion about the potential impacts to water quality cannot be verified unless the previously mentioned analyses are conducted and evaluated. Page 4.3-5, Section 4.3-5 The third paragraph incorrectly states that there will not be a cumulative impact due to the John Douglas City of Newport Beach Page 2 of 2 July 10, 1995 increase in storm runoff due to an increase in impervious surfaces. This statement cannot be made unless the analyses mentioned previously are conducted. If you have any questions, please call me at (909) 782-4241. Sincerely, Scott A. Dawson Environmental Specialist Planning Section cc: Mark Goss - State Clearinghouse George Britton - County of Orange Environmental Management Agency Planning Division MWD METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Mr. John Douglas City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 92659-1768 Dear Mr. Douglas: rcr.�— o PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AM AU u 41995 FM 718,9110,11,12111213141516 i August 3, 1995 Draft Environmental Impact Report for the San Diego Creek North Automobile Dealership We have received the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the San Diego Creek North Automobile Dealership. Fletcher Jones Motor Cars proposes to relocate its automotive dealership to an 8.7 -acre site within the City of Newport Beach. The comments herein represent the Metropolitan Water District's (Metropolitan) response as an affected public agency. Metropolitan's 36 -inch Orange County Feeder Extension is located within a 15 -foot -wide permanent easement which runs through the middle of the proposed project site. In our response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft EIR dated May 12, 1995 (attached), Metropolitan expressed concern regarding accessibility to our pipeline and facilities for inspection, maintenance and repair and requested that the Draft EIR address this concern. However, the DEIR does not discuss Metropolitan's additional easement requirements, and we request that this issue be addressed in the Final EIR. We also request that preliminary prints of all improvement plans for any activity in the area of Metropolitan's pipelines and rights-of-way be submitted for our review and written acceptance. Loading and cover restrictions may be necessary within our rights-of-way. You may obtain detailed prints of drawings of Metropolitan's pipelines and rights-of-way by calling Mr. Kieran Callanan of Metropolitan's Substructures Section at (213) 217-7474. A copy of our "Guidelines for Development in the Area of Facilities, Fee Properties, and/or Easements of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California" was submitted in response to the NOP for your information. THE METROPOL/TAN WATER 0/STH/CT OF SOOTHEHN CALIFORNIA Mr. John Douglas -2- August 3, 1995 We appreciate the opportunity to provide input to your planning process. If we can be of further assistance, please contact me at (213) 217-6242. Very truly yours, cr ' Laura J. Simonek Senior Environmental Specialist AMR Attachments cc: Mr. John Carlson Mesa Consolidated Water District P.O. Box 5008 Costa Mesa, California 92628-5008 RtVC. - dY PLANNING DEPARTMENT MICHAELRUANE V TY O F CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DIRECTOR, EMA THOMAS B. MATHEWS E JUL 21 1995 PDIRECTOR OF PLANNING RANG AY 1p1111121112i21415i6 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT A � PLANNING i 300 N. F OWEROST. THIRD FLOOR SANTA ANA, CA John Douglas City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard P. O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768 JUL 1 91995 MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 4048 SANTA ANA, CA 92702-4048 NCL 95-47 TELEPHONE: (714)834-4643 FAX #: 834-2771 DPC: 834-4772 SUBJECT: DEIR for San Diego Creek North/Fletcher Jones Automobile Dealership Dear Mr. Douglas: The above referenced item is a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the City of Newport Beach. The proposed project would relocate the existing Fletcher Jones Motorcars dealership to a new site located east of Jamboree Road, south and west of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC) and north of the proposed extension of Bayview Way. The County of Orange has reviewed the DEIR resulting in the following comments: CULTURAL/HISTORICAL The Cultural Resource Section of the DEIR for this project looks adequate. It does not, however, include the reports from the archaeologist and paleontologist, nor does it mention them by name or whether a site survey and update was conducted or just a literature and records search. This information should precede section 4.8.1. Mr. J. Douglas Page 2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES r• Although the subject document contains a mitigation measure that restricts use of non-native, invasive plant species (Mitigation Measure 7-2), the list of prohibited species should be expanded. The attached California Exotic Pest Plant List proposed by the California Exotic Pest Plant Council, October, 1993 (Updated on May 5, 1995), contains additional plant species that should be considered as prohibited species for the landscape plan. In addition, the mitigation measure allows for certain non-native, invasive plants. We would request that all non-native, invasive species be prohibited in areas adjacent to natural open spaces, including riparian/wetland areas, not just Hottentot -fig (Carpobrotus edulis) and Cape Honeysuckle (Tecomaria capensis) as identified in r Mitigation Measure 7-2. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the DEIR. If you have any questions, please call Charlotte Harryman at (714) 834-2522. Very truly yours, CA� George Britton, Manager Environmental/Project Planning Division Attachment CH:sf (5198)5071715491954 California Exotic Pest Plant List Proposed by the California Exotic Pest Plant Council October 1993 (Updated on May 5, 1995) Wildland Exotic Pest Plants (Weeds) of Primary Importance: Scientific Name Common Name Ammophila arenaria European Beach Grass Arundo donax Giant Reed Bromus tectorum Cheat Grass Carpobrotus edulis Freeway Iceplant and C. chilensiis Centaurea solstitialis Yellow Star Thistle Cortaderia selloana Sella Pampas Grass or Jubata Grass and C. jubata Cynara cardunculus Artichoke Thistle Genista monspessulana French Broom (=Cytisus monspessulana) Cytisus scoparius Scotch Broom Eucalyptus globulus Tasmanian Blue Gum Pennisetum setaceum Fountain Grass Rubus dicolor (=R. procerus) Himalayaberry Tamarix chinesis spp. Tamarisk or Salt Cedar Wildland Exotic Pest Plants (Weeds) of Secondary Importance: Scientific Name Acacia baileyana Acacia decurrens Ageratina adenophora (=Eupatorium adenophorum) Ailanthus altissima Albizia lophantha Amaranthus albus Aptenia cordifolia Arctotheca calendula Atriplex semibiccata Avena fatua Brassica nigra Bromus diandrus Bromus mollis Cardaria chalapense Cardaria draba Carduus acanthoides Carduus pycnocephalus Centaurea calcitrapa Centranthus ruber Chrysanthemum coronarium Cirsium arvense Cirsium vulgare Common Name Cootamundra Wattle Green Wattle Eupatory Tree of Heaven Plume acacia Tumbleweed Red Apple Capeweed Australian Saltbush Wild Oat Black Musturd Ripgut Brome Soft Chess Lens -Podded White -Top Hoary -Cress; White -Top Giant Plumeless Thistle Italian Thistle Purple Star Thistle Red Valerian Garland chrysanthemum Canada Thistle Bull Thistle Page 1 of 3 ATTACHMENT 1 Conicosia pugioniformis Conium maculatum Coprosma repens Corpobrotus edulis Cordyline australis Cotoneaster spp. Cotula coronopifolia Cynodon dactylon Datura spp. Digitalis purpurea Dipsacus spp. Echium pininana Eichhornia crassipes Erechtities spp. Ehrharta spp. Eucalyptus spp. Ficus carica Foeniculum vulgare Gunnera tinctoria Hedera helix Hordeum spp. Hypericum perforatum Ilex aquifolium Lupinus arboreus Marrubium vulgare Melilotus alba Mentha pulegium Mesembryanthemum crystalinum Mesembryanthemum nodiflorum Myoporum laetum Nicotiana glauca Oryzopsis miliacea Oxalis per-caprae Parentucellia viscosa Pennisetum clandestinum Phalaris aquatica Phoenix canariensis Phyla nodiflora (=Lippia nodiflora) Pinus radiata Pyracantha spp. Raphanus spp. Ricinis communis Robinia pseudoacacia Rumex crispus Salvia aethiopis Salsola soda Salsola tragus (=S. kali) Schinus Molle Senecio elegans Narrow -Leaved Iceplant Poison Hemlock Mirror Plant Hottentot -fig New Zealand Cabbage Tree Cotoneaster Brass Buttons Bermuda Grass Jimson Weed Foxglove Fuller's Teasel Pride of Teneriffe Water Hyacinth Australian Fireweed Veldt Grass Eucalyptus Edible Fig Wild Fennel or Anise Gunnera English Ivy Wild Barley Klamath Weed Perennial Pepperweed Bush Lupine Horehound White Sweet Clover Pennyroyal Crytalline Iceplant Small -Flowered Iceplant Myoporum Tree tobacco Smilo Grass Bermuda Buttercup Kikuyu Grass Harding Grass Canary Island Date Palm Lippia Monterey Pine Pyracantha Radish Castor Bean Black Locust Curly -dock Mediterranean Sage Glasswort Russian Thistle or Tumbleweed California Pepper Purple Ragwort Page 2 of 3 ATTACHMENT 1 E, f L_ Senecio jacobaea Senecio mikanoides Silybum marianum Spartina alternifolia Spartium junceum Tanacetum vulgare Ulex europaeus Vinca major Watsonia bulbillifera Xantium spp. Zantedeschia aethiopien Tansy Ragwort German Ivy Milk Thistle Eastern Cordgrass Spanish Broom Tansy Gorse Periwinkle Cockelbur Calla Lilly Page 3 of 3 ATTACMONT 1 Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Report; San Diego Creek North Automobile Dealership Dear Mr. Douglas: The Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA) appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on the subject EIR. TCA has previously commented on the NOP for this project and incorporates our letter of May 15, 1995 by reference. As noted in our May correspondence TCA and the City of Newport Beach are developing two Memoranda of Understanding regarding the proposed Fletcher Jones Motorcars project, the SJHTC, future JR -5 flyover and University Drive North. The TCA anticipates several issues related to right-of-way and future use of the project site will be resolved in the context of the two MOU's. TCA staff has reviewed the Draft EIR and provides the following comments for your consideration: Biological Resources. Wildlife Movement. Page 4.7-27. The SJHTC wetland mitigation site is part of a mitigation program for several SJHTC permits including the coastal development permit, Section 7 biological opinion, 404 permit and 1601 agreement. As such it is very important that the site be successful in meeting its performance criteria, and function as a part of the San Diego Creek wildlife movement corridor. The Draft EIR states that excessive night lighting and human activity may impact the SJHTC wetland mitigation site and its function as part of the San Diego Creek wildlife movement corridor. Mitigation measure 7-1 requiring wetland buffer measures and mitigation measure 7-3 regarding a lighting plan are proposed as 201 E. SANDPOINTE AVE., SUITE 200, P.O. BOX 28870, SANTA ANA, CA 92799-8870 714/436-9800 FAX 714/436-9848 Members: Anaheim • Costa Mesa • County of Orange • Dana Point • Irvine • Lake Forest • Laguna Hills • Laguna Niguel Mission Viejo • Orange • Newport Beach • Santa Ana • San Clemente • San Juan Capistrano • Tustin • Vorbo Linda ® Recycled Paper William Woollett, Jr. Chief Executive Officer San Joaquin Hills Foothill/Eastern Walter n Corridor Agency Corridor Agency P ice President Executive Vice Chairman: Chairman: Finance &Administration Patricia Bates Scott Diehl Gregory G. Henk Laguna Niguel San Clemente TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES Executive Vice President Design & Construction July 27, 1995 PLAPINNG CITY Ur w1EACW Mr. John Douglas Principal Planner/Environmental Coordinator JUL City of Newport Beach AM PM Planning Department 3300 Newport Beach 1 P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768 Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Report; San Diego Creek North Automobile Dealership Dear Mr. Douglas: The Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA) appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on the subject EIR. TCA has previously commented on the NOP for this project and incorporates our letter of May 15, 1995 by reference. As noted in our May correspondence TCA and the City of Newport Beach are developing two Memoranda of Understanding regarding the proposed Fletcher Jones Motorcars project, the SJHTC, future JR -5 flyover and University Drive North. The TCA anticipates several issues related to right-of-way and future use of the project site will be resolved in the context of the two MOU's. TCA staff has reviewed the Draft EIR and provides the following comments for your consideration: Biological Resources. Wildlife Movement. Page 4.7-27. The SJHTC wetland mitigation site is part of a mitigation program for several SJHTC permits including the coastal development permit, Section 7 biological opinion, 404 permit and 1601 agreement. As such it is very important that the site be successful in meeting its performance criteria, and function as a part of the San Diego Creek wildlife movement corridor. The Draft EIR states that excessive night lighting and human activity may impact the SJHTC wetland mitigation site and its function as part of the San Diego Creek wildlife movement corridor. Mitigation measure 7-1 requiring wetland buffer measures and mitigation measure 7-3 regarding a lighting plan are proposed as 201 E. SANDPOINTE AVE., SUITE 200, P.O. BOX 28870, SANTA ANA, CA 92799-8870 714/436-9800 FAX 714/436-9848 Members: Anaheim • Costa Mesa • County of Orange • Dana Point • Irvine • Lake Forest • Laguna Hills • Laguna Niguel Mission Viejo • Orange • Newport Beach • Santa Ana • San Clemente • San Juan Capistrano • Tustin • Vorbo Linda ® Recycled Paper Mr. John Douglas July 27, 1995 Page 2 mitigation for the above impact. Due to the mitigation sites' importance within the overall SJHTC mitigation program, the TCA respectfully requests the opportunity to review and comment on all plans/specifications and documents submitted by the applicant to comply with mitigation measures 7-1 and 7-3. Should you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Laura Coley Eisenberg of my staff at (714) 513-3482. 0 Director Services Department /OUTNERn COUFORMA VERnMEnU 818 West Seventh Street,12th Floor • Los Angeles, California 90017-3435 ❑ (213) 236-1800 en FAOF X(13) 236-1825 June 21, 1995 Mr. John Douglas City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 RE: SCAG Clearinghouse #: I9500261 Project Title: SAN DIEGO CREEK NORTH AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP -- DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Dear Mr. Douglas: We have reviewed the above referenced document and determined that it is not regionally significant per Areawide Clearinghouse criteria. Therefore, the project does not warrant clearinghouse comments at this time. Should there be a change in the scope of the project, we would appreciate the opportunity to review and comment at that time. A description of the project will be published in the July 1, 1995 Intergovernmental Review Report for public review and comment. The project title and SCAG Clearinghouse number should be used in all correspondence with SCAG concerning this project. Correspondence should be sent to the attention of the Clearinghouse Coordinator. If you have any questions, please contact Dan Akins at (213) 236- 1972. Sincerely, 0� �- y - Ott, ERIC H. ROTH Manager, Intergovernmental Review hL PLANNING DEPARTMENT "1'fl' OF W141PORT BEACH JUN 23 1995 q� PM 7091100102i1121314A6 al Stella Mendoza City of Brawley-President, Ed Edelman Los Angeles County -First Vice President, Dick Kell ' of Palmdale -Second Vice President, Gaddi Vasquez Orange County- Past President, • Richard Alarcon City of Los Angeles, Richard Alatorre City of Los Angeles, Robert Bartlett City of Monrovia, a Bass City of Bell, Ron Bates City of Los Alamitos, George Battey, Jr. City of Burbank, Hal Bernson City of Los Angeles, Walter Bowman City of Cypress, Marvin Braude City of Los Angeles, Susan Brooks City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Art Brown City of Buena Park, Yvonne Brathwaite- Burke Los Angeles County, Jim Busby, Jr. City of Victorville, Bob Buster Riverside County, Laura Chick City of Los Angeles, John Cox City of Newport Beach, Cynthia Crothers City of Moreno Valley, Hal Croyyts City of Lomita, Richard Dixon City of Lake Forest, Doug Drummond City of Long Beach, Lillian Eaton City of Yucaipa, Joseph Esquivel City of Lakewood, John Ferraro City of Los Angeles, Karyn Fole City of Calabasas, John Flynn Ventura County, Ruth Galanter City of Los Angeles, Sandra Genis City of Costa Mesa, Jackie Goldberg Cny of Los Angeles, Candace Haggard City of San Clemente, Garland Hardeman Cityy of Inglewood, Mike Hernandez City of Los Angeles, Nate Holden City of Los An eles, Robert Jamison City of Artesia, Jeff Kellog Ciry of Long Beach, Abbe Land City of West Hollywood, John LongvBle City of Rialto, Ron Loveridge City of Riverside, John Melton City of Santa Paula, Barbara Messina City of Alhambra, Judy Mikels City of Simi Valley, David Myers Ciry of Palmdale, Kathryn Nack City of Pasadena, Bev Perry City of Brea, Gwenn Norton -Perry City of Chino Hills, Ron Parks City of Temecula, Iry Pickier City of Anaheim, Michael Plisky City of Oxnard, Beatrice Proo City of Pico Rivera. Larry Rhinehart City of Montclair, Richard Riordan City of Los Angeles, Mark Ridley-Thomas City of Los Angeles, Albert Robles City of South Gate, Sam Sharp Imperial County, Marcine Shaw City of Compton, Rudy Svorinich City of Los Angeles, Tom Sykes City of Walnut, Laurie Tully -Payne City of Highland, Joel Wachs City of l os Angeles, Rita Walters City of Los Angeles, Judy Wright City of Claremont, Zev Yaroslaysky City of Los Angeles • I CITY OF COSTA MESA CALIFORNIA 92628-1200 P.O. BOX 1200 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT REr; EI -"N !;y PLANNING NEWPOR DEPARTMENT AN JUL 17 1995 PM '7�8�9t1p�u�12�1�2�3�4�5 is July 11, 1995 John H. Douglas Principal Planner City of Newport Beach Post Office Box 1768, Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768 RE: DRAFT EIR FOR SAN DIEGO CREEK NORTH AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP Dear Mr. Douglas: The City of Costa Mesa Planning and Transportation Services Divisions have reviewed the Draft EIR for the Fletcher Jones Motor Cars dealership consisting of the construction of 114,000 square feet of building no ted at on the Jamboree but othanks yoad and u iew for wthe The City has opportunity to review the document. Sincerely, KRISTEN CASPERS PETROS Associate Planner 77 FAIR DRIVE Building Division (714) 754-5273 Code Enforcement (714) 754-5623 • Planning Division (714) 754-5245 FAX (714) 556.7508 TDD (714) 754-5244 I -1 OF t'i J, L' . ',a_� �� i� lb Ca:.o l�_ Q?�t -1, 77� 600C C PLANNING DEPARTMENT July 20, 1995 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH JUL 2 6 1995 Mr. John H. Douglas AM PM Environmental Coordinator 71819i10Al2i11213A5i6 City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768 SUBJECT: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH - DEIR FOR THE SAN DIEGO CREEK NORTH AUTOMOTIVE DEALERSHIP Dear Mr. Douglas: The City of Irvine appreciates the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the San Diego Creek North Automotive Dealership. Staff has reviewed this document and has the following comments at this time: TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS: 1. Based on our review, the current DEIR analysis does not address previous City of Irvine NOP comments. Thus, we are requesting written explanation for this issue. A copy of our previous comments is attached for your reference. 2. Provide written clarification of the square footage used to determine the traffic impacts. The project description references 114,000 square feet of auto uses and the traffic study refers to 204,100 square feet. The City of Irvine looks forward to receiving the Final Draft EIR when it becomes available. If you have any questions regarding our response, please do not hesitate to contact Ed Stang, Associate Planner, at (714) 724-6394. Sincerely, L SLIE ARANDA, PRINCIPAL Advance Planning LA/ES:deirsdcnad May 15, 1995 Citmr v� Dere,cc�—e- Deoa--^ ef'. Mr. John H. Douglas Environmental Coordinator City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768 SUBJECT: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH - NOP FOR AN EIR FOR THE SAN DIEGO CREEK NORTH AUTOMOTIVE DEALERSHIP Dear MAG-u�glas: The City of Irvine appreciates the opportunity to review the Notice of Preparation for an EIR for the San Diego Creek North Automotive Dealership. Staff has reviewed this document and has the following comments at this time: COMMENTS: 1. The project study area shall include analysis of University Drive from Culver Drive to MacArthur Boulevard. 2. The project analysis within the City of Irvine shall use the Irvine Transportation Analysis Model (ITAM) output, ITAM trip rates, and performance criteria. The performance criteria are attached for your reference. 3. The project shall analyze cumulative impacts with projects currently under review. These projects are as follows: Planning Area 22 General Plan Amendment, Planning Area 25 Zone Change, and Planning Area 26 Zone Change. 4. Design and configuration of the future MacArthur Boulevard and Bayview Way intersection shall be addressed as part of the environmental documentation. The City of Irvine looks forward to reviewing the Draft EIR when it becomes available. If you have any questions regarding our response, please do not hesitate to contact Charlene Gallina, Senior Planner, at (714) 724-6385. S ncerel , SHERI VANDER DUSSEN Manager of Planning & Development Services John H. Douglas July 20, 1995 Page -2- c: Timor Rafiq, Principal Transportation Analyst Kia Mortazavi, Principal Transportation Analyst Rick Sandzimier, Senior Transportation Analyst Elizabeth Mogster, Associate Transportation Analyst Ed Stang, Associate Planner File: Non -City Lead Notebooks WPFILE: corspndnce_newportbeach 0 w P.O. BOX 102 BALBOA August 3, 1995 to ISLAND,' CALIFORNIA 92662 i i r.'ity of Newport Beach Attn: John_ Douglas, Environmental Coordinator FAX Transmission SUB�BCi : COMMENTS ON TRE gIR FOR TRP, PROPOSED AUTO D.EA,ERSHI1 SOUTHEASTAT THE CORNER OF JAMBOREE ROAD AND STAT); FcOJTy 73 Dear Mr. Douglas: ter: bchalr �_ SPO�1, the steering COMITuttee -klas autizox izel tAt �o �ubTT,i' the- -o{ :o'w i ng Commerits _ although SPON does not bel_eve ne ~Yc posed :.c -a to he be inaPPIcpriatc or the Fite, certain m�.tigation measures gthened_ Add -tonally here are several items that should be clarified in order £or the City -he project. Kp make an informed decision ori For your convenience 1 have structured my commen�E i�l tele ord�P ili which ma:eriai appears in the draft EIR, b'Lt i would !ire to emphasize that the major Concern of SPOLti i$ loss of- habitat. A portion of she text of 1•litigatior., measure 1-.1 was lest from page =-38. We are concerned because this Could affect water quality, which is suoh an important item for this site. - it is difficult to assess til& size -nd scope of the;;�c,ject. Fr_o�n the project descriprlor.. `Phe overa" square ioGtagC >r L.t1C j,'~� srl..�u'd oe broken do -,,m .41 Q the proposed areas fo: - �`L%ice , Vehicle ej;ai r .and outdoor dis'n;.a • . hie rer_derin -ja is i view troia the 3ayview e:ctenslon, riot from jam>Joree as staled. This rendering shows a relatively flat zi.te, and is misleading about the visual impact of the pzoj ect . The bike trail along the northerly edge of the site should also be included iri order for the reader to understand the project impacts. One cf the operationa= characteristics of automcbiiE deal erS;.,ipa is that autos in outdoor display areas must be frequenti.y cleaned. If these autos are washed often in a display area that discharges to the storm drain, pollution of surface waters will xeSUlt . The impact over the life or the prof eCt would be significant, and there must be mitigation for this impuct_ Mr. John Douglas August 3, 1995 Page 2 Page 4-5-'/ states that 90,000 cubic yards of earth will be ;roved in grading _ However, page 4.2.4 states the total will be 160, no cubiC yards -- nearly twiCe as great a volume. If the IatLer is the correct f igure, it would appear that the project might exceed the NOx emissions threshold. The project proposes to mitigate loss of kiah'LaL .try rzp1aci11Q iC in the mouth of Big Canyon_ Unfortunately, hahitat creation in an art that is still in the formative stage. The strategy o- 1 -"habitat replacement" is so often unsuccessful that it has been cited as a cause of species loss. SPOIL does not believe that even a small parcel of the City's remaining natural habitat should become the subject of an experiment. Even the supposedly bi'olog'ically insignificant opens area surrounding the saltbush scrub, mulefat scrub and sagebrush -buckwheat scrub performs an important biological function as a buffer_ Therefure we iirmii- believe the rroposed mitigation. should be ­ wt-ar,AFr1 tri T. area_ The habitat to be lost .1 acres) should be rei:;iac_d aL a raLiGof tb..r _ to o.xP , The erhancemen-t of 3.5 acres, particularly i„ an area that is subject to depredation b -v domestic an:iivals, is not appropriate to replace lost natul ai area as j acent to San Diego Cm -eek. A total of E _ 3 acres should be improved --either in the vicinity of the proposed habitat enhancement area, or on an additional site. The discussion of aesthetics does not address the view of the project fvm the existing public bike trail along the south side of San Diego Creek which would be affected by the px,D1E!ct. Cuirently this open vista forms a compatible background for the open space along the creek corridor. The dealership will be highly visible from this area_ We believe mitigation should occur in the from of a landscape buffer similar Lo the plantings between Bayview and the bay just west of Jarciboree. Such plantings would also serve to screen night lighting that would othex-wise spill over into the wetlands arca. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed project. Sincerely, enni M. Winn co-Pz iding Officer, SPON Spon-autodlr «<' NU4*' LSA Associates, Inc. ATTACHMENT 2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES LETTER 09/01/95(I: CNB501 RTC.DOC) Principals Rob Balen Lindon Calerdine Les Card Stene Granhobn Roger Harris Art Horm-rghausen Lar 1, Kennings George Kurilko Carollpn Lobell Bill Alaver Rob A1cCama Rob .Schonholtz ,ilalcolm J Sproul ,Associates Deborah Baer-Ilialker Connie Calica Gar: Dotes Ke -"in Fincber Richarzl Harlacber Micbele Huddleston Gina Durick Clint Kelbrcr Karen Kirtland Benson Lee Sabrina Nicholls AntbonY Petros Jill 11Wson LSA August 17, 1995 To: Lyn Calerdine From: Deborah McLean LSA Associates, Inc. Environmental AnalYsis Transportation Engineering Resource Management Commtn:itY Planning Ecological Restoration Resource Economics Subject: Status of Archaeological Resource Review of The San Diego Creek North Site Per your request, this memo summarizes the status of the archaeological re- source review of the San Diego Creek North site, proposed for development as an automobile dealership by the City of Newport Beach. The location is specifically described in the Draft EIR As discussed in the Draft EIR, the site has been extensively reviewed for the presence of cultural resources. As part of its review for this current project, LSA reviewed records from the South Central Coastal Information Center located at the University of California, Los Angeles. The records search re- vealed that one site is located on the property. It has been mitigated, and no further work is required. As with any archaeological site, there is the possibility of uncovering new resources when the site is cleared, grubbed, or graded. Therefore, as a standard condition for all grading in this area, the DEIR contains a mitigation measure requiring that an archaeological resources monitor be present when clearing and grading occurs. The purpose of such monitoring is to identify any resources that are uncovered by clearing and grading operations, and to make recommendations for mitigation. Such mitigation, as discussed in the Draft EIR, would reduce impacts to unknown cultural resources below a level of significance. 08/17/95(1: ••.CNB501-•.SDCREEK.MEM) One Park Plaza, Suite 500 Telephone 714 553-0666 Irvine, California 92714 Facsimile 714553-8076 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - SAN DIEGO CREEK - NORTH SITE SEPTEMBER 1995 SCH No.: 95041038 Screencheck Submitted: May 12, 1995 Preliminary Draft: lune 14, 1995 Draft EIR: lune 19, 1995 Final EIR: September 1 1995 BY THE CITY C�!J It fL OF NEWPORT 6EACH SEP 1 1 1995 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SAN DIEGO CREEK NORTH AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP VOLUME I September 1, 1995 Prepared for: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768 Contact Person: Patricia Temple (714) 644-3225 Project Sponsor: Fletcher Jones Motor Cars 1301 Quail Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 Prepared by: LSA Associates, Inc. 1 Park Plaza, Suite 500 Irvine, California 92714 (714) 553-0666 Project Manager: Lyn Calerdine LSA Project #CNB501 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2.0 ISA Associates, Inc. PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................ 1-1 INTRODUCTION ..................................... 2-1 BACKGROUND......................................2-1 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES ........................ 2-2 NOTICE OF PREPARATION ............................. 2-2 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY ............................. 2-3 ISSUES TO BE DECIDED .............................. 2-3 EIR FORMAT AND ORGANIZATION ....................... 2-4 EIR CERTIFICATION PROCESS .......................... 2-5 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW .................... 2-5 PROJECT SPONSORS AND CONTACT PERSONS ............. 2-6 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................... 3-1 3.1 PROJECT LOCATION ............................ 3-1 3.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES ........................... 3-4 3.3 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS ...................... 3-4 3.4 FUTURE PROJECTS AFFECTING THE SITE ........... 3-10 3.5 ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY ....................... 3-11 4.0 EXISTING SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES . 4.0-1 4.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING ..................... 4.1-1 4.2 EARTH RESOURCES ........................... 4.2-1 4.3 WATER RESOURCES .......................... 4.3-1 4.4 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION .................... 4.4-1 4.5 AIR QUALITY ............................... 4.5-1 4.6 NOISE ..................................... 4.6-1 4.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ...................... 4.7-1 4.8 CULTURAUSCIENTIFIC RESOURCES .............. 4.8-1 4.9 AESTHETICS ................................ 4-9.1 4.10 RECREATION ............................... 4.10-1 4.11 HAZARDOUS WASTES AND MATERIALS ........... 4.11-1 4.12 PUBLIC SERVICES ........................... 4.12-1 4.13 UTILITY AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ................ 4.13-1 5.0 LONG-TERM IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT .... 5-1 5.1 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES THAT WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED .................... 5-1 5.2 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS .................... 5-1 09/05/95(1:'•.CNB501 •-.TITLE.TOC) ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LSA Associates, Inc. PAGE 6.0 ALTERNATIVES......................................6-1 6.1 NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE ......................... 6-1 6.2 EXISTING GENERAL PLAN ALTERNATIVE ............. 6-2 6.3 EXISTING ZONING ALTERNATIVE .................. 6-2 6.4 ALTERNATIVE SITE LOCATIONS ................... 6-3 6.5 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE ........ 6-6 7.0 SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS ........................ 7-1 8.0 REFERENCES.......................................8-1 9.0 LIST OF PREPARERS .................................. 9-1 APPENDICES A - NOTICE OF PREPARATION/INITIAL STUDY B - RESPONSES TO NOP C - PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL REPORT D - TRAFFIC STUDY E - PLANT AND ANIMAL SPECIES OBSERVED F - PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SI'T'E ASSESSMENT 09/05/95(1: ••.CNB501 ••.TTIU.TCrC) W LIST OF FIGURES LSA Associates, Inc. PAGE 1.1 - Regional Location .............................. 1-2 1.2 - Project Vicinity ................................ 1-3 3.1 - Regional Location ............................. 3-2 3.2 - Project Vicinity ................................ 3-3 3.3 - Proposed Site Plan .............................. 3-5 3.4 - Preliminary Grading Plan ......................... 3-6 3.5 - Preliminary Landscape Plan ....................... 3-7 3.6 - Elevations of the Site ............................ 3-8 4.1.1 - Existing Land Uses ............................ 4.1-2 4.1.2 - General Plan Land Uses ........................ 4.1-4 4.4.1 - Existing 1994 ADT Traffic Volumes ............... 4.4-2 4.4.2 - Intersection Study Locations .................... 4.4-7 4.4.3 - Project Trip Distribution ....................... 4.4-9 4.4.4 - Project Peak Hour Trip Assignment .............. 4.4-11 4.4.5 - General Plan Without Project ADT Volumes ........ 4.4-14 4.4.6 - General Plan With Project ADT Volumes .......... 4.4-15 4.6.1 - Construction Equipment Noise .................. 4.6-7 4.7.1 - Vegetation Types ............................ 4.7-3 4.7.2 - Restoration Area ............................ 4.7-33 4.8.1 - Cultural Chronology of Southern California ......... 4.8-3 E 09/05/95(1:,.CNB501 ••.TTI7.E.TCwC) iv , L, LIST OF TABLES 1.A - 4.4.A - 4.4.13 - 4.4.0 - 4.4.D - 4.5.A - 4.5.13 - 4.6.A - 4.6.B - 4.7.A - 4.7.13 - LSA Associates, Inc. PAGE Summary of Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Level of Significance ................................... 1-5 Existing Intersection LOS ....................... 4.4-3 Project Trip Generation ........................ 4.4-8 Near -Term TPO Analysis LOS Summary ........... 4.4-12 General Plan Intersection LOS Summary .......... 4.4-16 Air Pollution Emissions Associated with Heavy Equipment, Workers Commuting, and Materials Delivery ........ 4.5-6 Operational Emissions Produced from the Project .... 4.5-9 Existing Noise Levels Produced from Local Traffic .... 4.6-3 Cumulative Year 2010 Noise Levels Produce from Local Traffic .................................... 4.6-10 Summary of Existing Vegetation Types ............. 4.7-2 Sensitive Species ............................. 4.7-7 09/05/95(1: •CNB501•••TITLE.TOC) `, r-, LSA Associates, lnc. Note: Changes from the Draft EIR are noted in fe.-d ine andstr-ikeou . t. 06/15/95(1: ••. CNB501 ••.Sr -CT l -0. HI R) 1_ . LSA Associates, Ina 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY What Project is Fletcher Jones Motor Cars (FJMC) is proposing to relocate its Being Considered? existing automobile dealership to an undeveloped 8.7 acre parcel bounded by Jamboree Road, the Route 73 Freeway/San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, and the planned extension of Bayview Way east of Jamboree Road. The regional location of the project is shown in Figure 1-1; the project vicinity is shown in Figure 1-2. Why is the Project In the opinion of FJMC, the present dealership site at the Proposed? intersection of Quail Street and Dove Street suffers from poor access, poor visibility, and inadequate size. Therefore, FJMC is seeking relocation to a larger, more visible, and more accessible site while staying in the vicinity of John Wayne Airport. The City of Newport Beach seeks to keep the dealership within the City limits because of the sales tax revenue generated by the dealership. The proposed relocation site meets the objectives of FJMC and the City. What Governmen- The City of Newport Beach is considering a General Plan tal Actions are Amendment and Zone Change to accommodate the proposed Being Considered dealership. The City will also consider approval of a tentative tract to Implement the map and site plan for the project. Project? The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Transportation Corridor Agency (TCA) will consider the sale/transfer of surplus and unused property to the City of Newport Beach to implement the project. The California Coastal Commission will consider a Local Coastal Plan Amendment to accommodate the project, as well as a determination that the project is consistent with the Coastal Plan. What are the The project will result in the loss of 8.7 acres of existing Significant undeveloped open space near San Diego Creek and Upper Environmental Newport Bay. Effects of the Project? The project will also result in the loss of approximately 2.0 acres of coastal sage scrub (CSS) habitat. CSS is considered sensitive because it potentially supports the California gnatcatcher, which has been designated as threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The project will preclude the development of the site as a fire station. 06/15/95(1:'%CN13501 %SECTI-0.EI11) 1-1 San Bernardino County Riverside 91 County t 1 1 ♦ Cleveland / A / ♦♦ National 1 1 ♦� Forest 73 J, zlTcl 33 PROJECT ♦ �, SITE � 1 1 1 5 1 74 ::»........:.. >: 1 5/2/95(CNB501) 4? N LSA0Scale in Miles 5 San Diego County Figure 1-1 Regional Location Ar 4.0 �f�/ter !, ta,.• ��� + _ \ tH, OX + ^• ;'�=� -. is '• Q G� / ♦ Q � '1 / :;� � - �. C. 79 Daofl 10 a r9•� 0 • •TiVf /i �+� \ / �► i:; O tl CKmr.PID N O S 4c \ (",�' �✓ PROJECT JBi�'�'l�W I '�� �i ��l • \ �// / SITE 'ern DIGS. -r' �y +:i• J— ,\:�8w�� [JNNERSITX DR V , \' 4 NN Evaporators�\1�' -- = �'WR ACH -`IE ! :�i i �y Yate U% VEgsITY OF CAd �1� ;y 1 _ Pit ., Tank .r i IRVINE DR - 00, QC // �. / .. c -V� 7i%• - � ' `t• ,� to - /zi�. � : �. \�;`-y ' �- r . �/ �' -• 1r.'E 0 ♦ 1. r a - �� r ,5.�� • • _ +� s` I „ :� e a SAN JOA UINHII.LS �,ws'•;f --= \ �`.��J�s!/i is 0J ,� 8 / �1 ` � TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR .%~r J'�—�: `' ' • .- -• ;F- , ' ' �O�r AV 1 (Under Constriction) 'al `l r C i 030_ \• . /I\Corona del �!a•'G' / `` � ' •-.,y 'Hir.h SC Y y ,• < .� L• � l�>^ � �• � - sPulwa.r Et�� . ��J ..� ���'�> _�� .: Big`. Rese gDY 1,2 o "1 • �r%� /-�nTl, \ -Its', •� F� ' - .1. �\ /--\.J �—�`...P �+! • r` ,` Source: USGS 7-T Quads - Newport Beach & Tustin, Ca. 5/11/95(00501) Figure 1-2 N LSA Scale in Feet O - 1000 2000 Project Vicinity ISA Associates, Inc. What Mitigation A detailed summary of impacts and mitigation measures is Measures are contained in Table 1-A, which begins on Page 1-5. Proposed to Lessen the Environmental Impacts of the Project? What Alternatives The City is also considering 1) a No Project Alternative, which are Being would leave the site in "as is' condition, 2) development of the site Considered? with a fire station and local park, consistent with the current General Plan designation, and 3) development of the project on alternatives sites. What are the Op- The Draft EIR is being circulated for public review for a period for portunities for 45 days. Written comments regarding the Draft EIR are encouraged Public Input? and should be submitted to the City of Newport Beach prior to the close of comment date as shown on the cover of this document. Who Will Respond The City will prepare written responses to all comments received to the Public Com- and prepare a Final EIR that incorporates the public comments. ments? Who Will Approve The City Council of the City of Newport Beach will make a the Final EIR and determination that the Final EIR does or does not adequately Make the Final address the environmental impacts of the proposed project. Decisions Regard- ing the Project? If the City Council determines that the EIR is adequate, they can then approve or disapprove the proposed project. When Will the City The Council is anticipated to review the EIR and project in Council Decide? September, 1995. 06/15/95(1: ,.CNB501-,SECT1.0.EIR) 1-4 yH V �y0 YY�wI a u .ti v � •� p •� p IG is �i � Q� v E 0 •pOq O O p .-, � v O u v u a cd p d 0 V �' v .ti c., •b c� v q O .0 O D U cd �. 0 -- y G—-�wX 0,v th . ywp p' � cd b ; y OQ ,� 0 U-3 G cd O A � � Q O v n O u cd Cd v .� WS s 0 v 0 0 v v b bAc� c6 0 vL. u C .b O m `~ a 0 ° `" v O 0 .. a• w_ Q h v u v p0 4 vv �� 0"0 v v V U O F"' W "- o cd �' 4 A •tom S. 4x .� L. CD ~ v oU p O v p ,, .G .05 °'E o a �u u > u aw z CAI) U v w O v 4. a •� 0 0 a v 04 v O~, v 0 v 0 y Otrl o i, v as v O 0 z U v u °: W v H Ln 0 n 2 O p v v o a 0 v OSA � pip vo °n. ° CJ Vi O a y Q O u U 'Ci Q1 a v 'd „[ ° x v V ° v y u W - v ,S] - v iL A � Vh p.4 M°°C•u� v•o°�� -,w oo- +' +� L.cd 0 O v y oA 0 O 'ti .� E v 4. u 0 o. M cd 'v, cru v 17 y _. Q +� v� v 0 �' 0 c� w O h v v v v 0 v CJ ... O C 0 cd U 0 p U O 0 0 cd 0 oA Q+ G1 C u ur. . CUJ ° z. 3 O p oA v 0 �. v v v -� b y oA v v G m h u ,Q 1? t4, �v p Q G w 42 O b O� oA OA v U V O O. 0. 0 q C� Q G O w v Ll ... v m U v'ao � o U 41 v o 3 v v ob IR .p v O •5 w u O v v w � 4J a � a� o� Lo G U O E p n. U p U v v Pv 0 0 0 0 ow a` w IR .p ►p w 0 u v b y t4 cOCO O b w �`� m O O v O— Cd, 04 4 u Cd Cd a Q p" 100 O 'L. a a p �v O on v 0 v C 0, 0 .0 O 'ti n c, cd L. �2, y O G -0 O i� O M Cd ul �+ w (d OOA 00 y h v to '4 cd 0 ti bA cd r. 0 to O 0 O a f '0 G4 r. C. ;ti( yr 0 L. o=o,oacdM o fid. a G v v ° a� E a b;° 0 v to c�" ` .y q ,� WD O. 4M `" .vC OSA 0 p v' O cd *L. O �4� 0 Huo.Ev H -o4 04 0.0 U N N Md A E C � � 0 h O O O v 0 4� baa 0 I N N f 0 m z U 0 0 r 4 y� CC O O � O v v fd td •'•" C N w 0 u v b y t4 cOCO O b w �`� m O O v O— Cd, 04 4 u Cd Cd a Q p" 100 O 'L. a a p �v O on v 0 v C 0, 0 .0 O 'ti n c, cd L. �2, y O G -0 O i� O M Cd ul �+ w (d OOA 00 y h v to '4 cd 0 ti bA cd r. 0 to O 0 O a f '0 G4 r. C. ;ti( yr 0 L. o=o,oacdM o fid. a G v v ° a� E a b;° 0 v to c�" ` .y q ,� WD O. 4M `" .vC OSA 0 p v' O cd *L. O �4� 0 Huo.Ev H -o4 04 0.0 U N N Md A E C � � 0 h O O O v 0 4� baa 0 I N N f 0 m z U 0 0 r O 0 ^fl u ^n u b�10 � 010 •�10 �' OA bA G b �� >.ti ovn� o �c7 a a o v a bb vv �� Noce onu��'�'� a a Cd U Wo �. mo=o v 'd y� to X40 o v °� oav v v'o c o O V own A a cZ �; a 'Qv C.acd �c�vvo °orb �o vas vc�on O v '`� � pOjp � .c b oq Aon � O � c� � v •v ao � 'v � � � � ,� 'b x > v� :ti•�°a:c'tiu va�� nv}�uv Baa Olel lel N N N N N 00 G1 ci Y c� c o •� •a � 00 T, ►D a O U o a c. •� v > > E'er., u � � �'�i, '� 0. � � � � t0 v � � � w � ,� p" U u O U � �, v �, a+ bQ a� v O u. •� bA � v v � p 0. w c0 >, p, •� b +U' 0 `O" 0 cd "d �' ,��, Cq b v 'b 0 b 0 w iii cd O 4 v b 0. G p O O v C Q v 'Ai v cd pa L� � 0 Q O w G G G Oo O u Ou 'v b u .0 r b 0, O U v •O a2.+ i. O 04 +y 0. U (� 'C ( j c� 'bA `n � � ��. v u •��, .� cd u '~ 0, c . u. y v up 0 u y t., > 'b w L cC q i. ... cd v 0 0 Q v .� v >, cd .0 Q O O Q w E h h v 10 Q1 cdr 'ti. . p '4� rte+ Lei 0 w w y w v v v 0 U bl 0b v, � Q ,� O fd � �; O fd O 4" � � (� O � O � � bA O �' •� 'OA � � � O bA 4J '�+ bA � a.. v •,., �+ y LL ' 0 � v .a v W •+"' � � ,� O��. aU+ c v 0 G y G 0 0 0 v 0 w G v v v 0..., 0 u O v E- W m N L, A r PO O 0 9 4J y 41 0 0 v .caj u u v u a �o 0 L 4... u cc V) u b oio .n b onvXa u b v�'.�vmAv E 41U GJu G .y..0 u �+ p b p ti 04 0 v Q O to U O v '- 0 u b a L y� o ,; C j C. O. u 5 r - E. �vv € �ocz) qua .0—E 0 u_"aaEv,ti 00 u °nom w='"ate ,'ccate°E r7 N N Q a+ y 41 a. U `~ u a �o 0 L 4... u cc O a � a Q0 O v.o u y 0 d � h y a a u o u O 17 r" .M w O v U ,: 0 A O v ' tiF0- a� v a, aovc0 dnu v a o y vA "0'v v v ns ao� ob ti to `y�oa�aoyb���,� o��vcvo°u'a0, Umv�O oto �Q v > L4 0 o 00 .a c ° �' 0 �.n v �;'ti a 41 'v °0i° w 8 O O p ti E" pA 4 � a >c.o a,o v��0 oao��'o� Baa c�'3 �.� �b.0 a 2 T" L- b v a c� w u o 4Z ux •O �`" u �.. cti "' Ln L- 0 t. m a 0 Q) v t 00 17 N c� h a n~(U, N GL v a= -0 vA u to v ~ L' 00.� C OOA O Q U � � � 0 U .. ppO h f-"0 0 _ bp... a V5 to m o o .� '� E ao v u w u0 m 0 0 O aUU+ W b U CO L. w O U w b 0 O 00 .� .0 O, v CL .. N E w O. H (AU .5 'o0 0ccc�° � CL +� O 0 o c eUR U 0'v != U v U O •� h 0 �'' > �" T} m y -c �"U� o E n O O u O bA 0 h m 'u c v w O a E b v (U ti (U v � O n~(U, N GL v a= -0 vA u to v ~ L' 00.� C OOA O Q U � � � 0 U .. ppO h f-"0 0 _ bp... a V5 to m o o .� '� E ao v u w u0 m 0 0 O aUU+ W b U CO L. w O U w b 0 O 00 .� .0 O, v CL .. N E w O. H (AU .5 h r. E w f, O v � � v vo�GGov-d .- -d o .0 " spmo. h u n. G V aG,00.'d�oEu4``��'o° N G 0 •;r cC .b G � 0 O t v � � i" 0 Lr\ A, •„ z q U [, 4w 7 o cn b $ L_ 0 0 v x 14. 0 0 V � CJ «t � o a O a� b u v v; v 4 o +r v wctvS o�A 0 O h v Ou1D • V ycl,fAv v tC rn b y G fl.v .G u b c� h F" Q 4 Q C 0 m� a a cv. b rG. G v Lb "G 'G 41 G o 4--; h c� to �; a v a, OCn to cd G u GrA .4 .G w v Cl y C O v 4 a ti E =� C v G o y u 'ti u_°�`�aU0.o o�_on��a:b ovGva E.u O v� w -fl u G m 41 cC H�a°�M ons v cd �;u° wU Qon aCda A 0 N N ~ eft G � G O z. 0 O y G 'b G 00 V u C 0 G a� uz O G Lr z a co.- Pk 0 4 � Z CZ 0 v b .Q -d G � v O v CZ O� u'u 0 .b O s. v a v 0 v a c. v w c O O U- �; O ova o �'o u o 0 t 0 0 rA � �" v U U O Ob oUAcU. bUuA v ao th M y o'o'hs v u'� v a b o. a ,U. n, A .. EOwvvv�vvoA �o� >a��04 c� O p 0. • M O O 4' v O .b c o py o u A E U v o v� o g a o v41 �° v °'�� orb 41 M oA�, c a� >� r M M M v E O CJ u 0 c v v V t1 y h aoG vO ao � F v v C7 v E••. o. 0 r ►) 3 r. o h bA v i. v p 0 x h ►' ° 0 C. u 'n. °„ ;,, a v on a 0 'M 4. o v O v ao'v ° a.g N Avg u c o az y3° bA O c� t 0 cn 0 v.0 U v p cd p cC +� �. c° a :� bA O G s. o cd + G1 oauao�'va.tiQv oa.�on'� � v cl P. 4Z 0 m o 'Uv '> [v, Q at bioLA ci m M C: c 0 0 0 0 4 .Ci (Um, 0 •a+ � v � U � � v 3 r. o h bA v i. v p 0 x h ►' ° 0 C. u 'n. °„ ;,, a v on a 0 'M 4. o v O v ao'v ° a.g N Avg u c o az y3° bA O c� t 0 cn 0 v.0 U v p cd p cC +� �. c° a :� bA O G s. o cd + G1 oauao�'va.tiQv oa.�on'� � v cl P. 4Z 0 m o 'Uv '> [v, Q at bioLA ci m M IC C: c 0 0 [ 0 v 4 .Ci (Um, 0 •a+ � C a � � � o � � v C � � DA U O .� 4J IC r yH V ►p 0 w i NO w y , v, 't1 U= b u v C1 .fl C 41 � Itpu O v � '� ,� � � � ,� LL v a� v �vva�vaa��°•.QEa, uoF"i��vc���� z A V � O-C) �' ca b �x o u� a o V `" aov Dna a.Q v Dano= o m'�H vA 4., o v n. :n a°'0�''d o�o,�aa gab vwa=a =m G '---ob�.d u o CO w a o y U o .v o,o v p to q cd q in > G 1Z 0 S1 u v 4J U ++ H +to+C2 co wo c� a H by n CA bA w bA v u to H O v h m m u 0O u M fCd G cry ►� v O C Cd H U cd �+ Vi v u y G S3 0 O v G 0 `� �U w v a cod 14. O G a 0 a' a 0 T, 4 A [ F h a v oGA O v ar Cd w 'ti v m —Cd 0 to 'b C) b 0 G G b a � b o�G`%�'bUa� y v .0 o � 0ooDaNHvv F 0 ,r U av Vuo rl=0 a A�5tom.5°oa poa O M w O t .i 0 w w c. 0 0 G �' 0 pv v cd v� _ v G G 0 0 0 0 cd L� Vi U C)a+ cd 44 u a a, Z v„ U cd U by > U u +. cd GO a v, G 40 y u O a h G0 U p +� O cd . 3 G O v +j C z , v v a. m 4. G d b —' O +0-' U 4 ++ a0 v cd ni p z a 0 y a ub.n U v 45 o a s U'V .� zo o ava.V. c.v oll r7 r" r, t 0 0 y V V 0 0 cs, 0 'O 0 .. vO,•r 4 G b v m U 0 aui v 0 'y L u a c. 0 0 i� 0 +j N ti M 0 m z U Lrl 0 0 v +� O 0 0 G v :ti 0 h v 0 V 5 h ,ti U v�v °C) 4 a p u 0 v 0 O c� 44 ? u va M a.v'c$ q. E o — .ti v v v" v0 v v 0 0.a .0 > '0 0 0 y V V 0 0 cs, 0 'O 0 .. vO,•r 4 G b v m U 0 aui v 0 'y L u a c. 0 0 i� 0 +j N ti M 0 m z U Lrl 0 0 T- ►] a • O •� .j L b L. � 0 O. O_ G1. Vi � v •� .� Cl. 4Z h 'd a�-°�'ooaa, v� CL 0�W v �u°On,v v _ � c a a.0 on 0 u 2 Ij 1.2 m M w cv. v ,� w w p,� a •� O w a � O 'ti Ll, 44 u O h G z O v 41 0 U v a 0 y ti U° ate+ 'b .., O C O v cd c. v to v C. C to c O fl. v a+ O cn L. u U U cK : O L. v �. v u v p id a b w0 i >L. c O -� v b0r0 G h U° N U v •0 m M 5 0 a aqui .- p� 'M w 'ti 4 °J C. v E u A �vo o�,c 'oo voUav'EEo � . a rA rx b cn n V o La a v o u V m a �; O. w V x y3 u u O p R" .CC O N N 00 tj M w 0 v v m o ° O v 6. C v v -0 w O. v 0 0 '> w t, 0 UOIIIMU55a4�yv �°'•�°off,-��on 0 V, 17 M G 0 u O c 1 h G b 0 E 4 v O 4 fd f 0 O cu T- a u v 0 a O 0 A4 0 O 0 O O O aG u b O b G rG •� ,c, '� � bfJ `0 -C o �� o cn v 3 �� v � •n C. O O GJ v v O 4 V v NO z �v� w ao u �, ��O O U b� vv� a 4- v v 0 ��> s .c � u U O,ob 0Q� >p Q�Q�`"� h v a y� cava O u MU o c 00 4� h � .� � m cis -0 F O u oA v 4-1 � a; O a v_ v 0 ;c u o 41 c a vizi o ,� O v MvuM c o o O u `n n O O 0 LrIm z v o� ON 0 0 Cl r - ►D 0 O 0 vi N v � cd cd cd O O O u u u v u 1 u D 96 v oA � oA oA c. � , O a0 cd .b c� G y h 0 O to >O fl. C.4 'v Vr � cd Tj Lf) v 41 0 p cd b b V G1 v cs J G Z G cd O cd w bA v G a b H v O u c� w O d d C. C cd 0 '� v Q b Q, on a b o v v v cn u a, o w r v gU c� o a a. v u o. vo uO oo10n, ��c�voa G a v, G G Cly p G 0. p, y m v O G G "o �' O °; 0 a0i v 'ti b y ou a '` o' c�•u�_ n-d.vG a u y tib 41 M 4i 0 .� G S0 0 =� G° O v 0° ,� 0 0 s. u . b A m cm a a Z u ca a. rti N M 116 Ilb \10 c� vi > VJ U vV G ' w vvi v v u O U v u w C p V a 0 m z v a OR 0 0 4.1A v 0 U. C v (� C (v a+ (u U v�� v, v O 0 O p h v 't1 � q- r. v b c� C q c� >- � u U G O m M 'cn 0 .c1 V bA � '� � p v G s� .0 +� E O O n � �' av=�uOov 4 u a �c z,� o a v to v� v` v a v •� w v w w (% Iv. a u Ori 'C c� u,; O p c`� C� O b, v v O v M u y v o °aov.�v.o�.>.v Q) �ru��=v(u q. Q FV. v .��^ ti .[ 0 ,� m a ... v '40, v v 0 U° lull y •� a +� v O ++ .0 w m�a0�QVu�..���2.L7.- OE CC(Am v 14 - if h d G W 0 > CJ rb 'o a A� W 0 a 0 � O o ° : O C '�' O. 04 U a� v > ;a c..aD v ov 0 00 N n G O v r•d � G ab G. t4J. cC t4 LL ,� � y � o 4 o v fl. � p o0.`��va�v v o o �n.o o o y� CL v� �aob�. E off.. �. u�v-��a �.; o 6t.v��a'��.� a •u t v U w .0 +�+ ti 41 v "" u p w v •�; w O cd 7,, p C. C �. v .� y a ti o vx N �,.� ° Zn 4-1 ut u �a���,•o� o �o0. v 0 a..a Z �' b x a V w 0 p U. a,�v4. von,�'tiy'b�v v!. v, Q. 0. M pv M 0 u • • • • • • O .a v a 4-1 u �b `" � b a 0-4 � b O 04 'G b 7 id a p 0 0 Lw O� v i. 1.+ 0 .+ N 00 N n v u w A 4-40 U ►D Nt r 0 u w 0 t. O M v E v y+ Q "' Q F v` n, a -d VJ �, a v ooth � c � v � `:;�..�. >', c c• w x � a`�.. � c °�' � •� ani � o �v '� Q � v, a rA��Q�baQ�;�� -a G v .0 G O o o � v o G U p c = r O �; pA 1. u w:::> p G O .., u oA u v c� .O uOw V � ' r N t(1 A4 S: R.• w y V M E5 rT T - t -D N 00 M 00 4. G O � v •OA c� a v U v U � c 'A 00 0 O v 4 bA •" b O Q n u `� cGa p 10 a b v GO O t 0 'C O 'L7.0 U V U U CC 7, .ti to G G G ? G = G �xk °uG'G �-dZ a� a c U a c~d b r. O O ?, a U bA U y U y w U c w b t b n vi v� Q 4 OA O U u w to a, v v G �, o oA G p= o. d 0A o d H u G -d 0. V) c 'in CO 4 ¢ E z 00 00 00 00 M q 0 v O 00 00 c'n ►� .ti v -o o .0-o'.0 0 O 4� 4 O o 4Z CC � o m avi h O 00 00 c'n ►� f-� O� M r -i i O � v cd � u v .tu r i" b O v O v cd ,b 'z v v -. U C, U: G p o G a o v ° v~ 2 'o on v = a v v a v v w v u r a v v o o. v . v v Cl .0 O 0 v x 'a0 .ti °" O p v� O ° +- O O >� � O �' cd h O w o Gv�v�s'CL v O. v �v° C M o o �� o -o o 0 0 �.d o. o u o U Q. °,, � a �' 0' v � b �" � � � v o =, 4 0 r. 0 v° ab x �bcm, Mu u0b�°� O cd a W h (1) s u � I OA ti 0 � Obi t � � � z v CIN , 4 v LrI 0 b >; 0 .0 v i. E bi0v� 0 00 ��.a v�0 0 pA cd 'b u (A .r u 0 401 w p 00 `��' �o• w a� n,nv'a a a a vxti p i A G °• ovn °A p., M o c. o °.°z ao v m v °.ti<b� o m u `� a v v tis vo v � �•��j � � si,xb ° •c•� v a °� a-° °"�.� ova 04.r 2 bA y 0 0 p 0 a 0 0 v v v o u= C7 V U b D oA cF�. � r7 N M M 0 LSA Associates, Inc. 2.0 INTRODUCTION This Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) has been prepared to analyze the environmental impacts that would result from the development of an eight acre automotive dealership on the San Diego Creek - North (SDCN) site. The City of Newport Beach is the Lead Agency for this project and will make the decisions as to whether to proceed with the project. This EIR is prepared at a "construction level' of detail and, if certified as complete by the Newport Beach City Council, will provide sufficient environmental clear- ance to allow for construction of the project. This EIR addresses the following discretionary actions for the project: • General Plan Amendment establishing the type and level of commer- cial entitlement. • Amendment of Zoning to allow use of the site for an automotive deal- ership. • Approval of Tentative Tract Map and Use Permit. • Acquisition of land for the project. • Adoption of Local Coastal Plan Amendment. • Approval of Coastal Development Permit. These actions are discussed in detail in Section 3.0, Project Description. BACKGROUND The project is a result of a cooperative effort among the City of Newport Beach (City), Fletcher Jones Motorcars (FJMC), and The Irvine Company (TIC). Consideration of the project was initiated when FJMC indicated to the City that it was seeking to relocate its dealership, currently located at the corner of Quail Street and Dove Street in the City. In the opinion of FJMC, the current site, located on two low volume streets, suffers from a number of disadvantages: The site does not have good visibility from major arterial streets. Access to the site is circuitous because of the layout of the local street system. The size of the site is too small. The general location of the proposed project, in the John Wayne Airport commercial business area, is considered an asset of the site. The current site is also close to the Route 73 Freeway, although access to and from the free- way is highly circuitous because of the layout of the local street system. Two previous automobile dealerships have been located on the current site, but have failed, as did a dealership that was located across Dove Street. 06/15/95(I:',CNB501 %-SECT2-0.EIR) 2-1 ISA Associates, Inc. f' FJMC has held preliminary discussions with property owners in adjacent jurisdictions regarding potential relocation sites. The City of Newport Beach would like to keep the dealership within the City because the dealership sales result in approximately $500,000 in annual revenue to the City. Upon learning that FJMC was considering relocation, the City and FJMC have f worked cooperatively to identify a suitable relocation site within the City and to undertake actions necessary to develop the site. The City and FJMC worked cooperatively with TIC, a major landowner in the City, to seek out appropriate sites within the City. Various sites were con- sidered. The process leading to the selection of the SDCN site is described in Section 6.0, Alternatives. In summary, the SDCN site is the only viable relocation site that has been identified within the City of Newport Beach. ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES This document is prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) as amended (Public Resources Code, Section 21000, et seq.), the State Guidelines for the implementation of CEQA, and the City of Newport Beach Environmental Guidelines. The purpose of this document is to provide the public, the City and other Responsible Agencies with environmental information necessary to answer the following questions: 1. What is proposed? 2. What are the existing environmental characteristics (setting) of the site that is proposed for development? 3. What are the environmental impacts of the proposed project? 4. What mitigation measures can be taken to reduce the environmental impacts of the proposed project? 5. Will the impacts of the project still be significant after the mitigation measures are implemented? 6. Will the project result in additional significant environmental impacts when combined with other past, planned or reasonably foreseeable projects? 7. Are there feasible alternatives to the project that would reduce the project's environmental impacts while still meeting the basic project objectives? This document provides the City's decision makers, Responsible Agencies and members of the public with answers to these questions that can be utilized in the review of the project. NOTICE OF PREPARATION In March, 1995, the City determined that an EIR would be required for this project and circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the EIR. The NOP 06/15/95(I: ••.CNB501 ••.SECT2-0.EIR) 2-2 is ISA Associates, Inc. was circulated on April 12, 1995, and is contained in Appendix A. The City received written comments on the NOP, which are contained in Appendix B. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY Based upon the analysis contained in this document, as well as comments received by the City on the NOP, the following are areas of controversy regarding the project: • Impacts to water quality • Impacts to traffic • Impacts to biological resources Mitigation measures are proposed to reduce the impacts below a level of significance. ISSUES TO BE DECIDED The following are the issues to be decided by the Lead Agency, the Newport Beach City Council: 1. Does this EIR adequately describe the environmental impacts of the project? 2. Should additional mitigation measures be applied to the project, or should the recommended mitigation measures be changed? 3. Should the City approve the General Plan Amendment for the project? 4. Should the City approve the zone change for the project? 5. Should the City approve the tentative map and use permit for the project? The following issue is to be decided by the California Department of Trans- portation (Caltrans): 1. Should Caltrans approve the sale of surplus freeway right-of-way to the City of Newport Beach? The following issue is to be decided by the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Agency (TCA): 1. Should the TCA transfer title to property reserved for a future Jam- boree Road on-ramp to the Route 73 Freeway to the City of Newport Beach while reserving the right to construct the ramp on an aerial structure at some future date? The following issues are to be decided by the California Coastal Commission: 06/15/95(1: ••.CNB501 •••SECT2-0.EIR) 2-3 r, ISA Associates, Inc. f 1. Shall the Local Coastal Plan (LCP) be amended to designate the site for commercial development? 2. Shall a coastal development permit be issued for the project? r' EIR FORMAT AND ORGANIZATION This document is organized in the following way to facilitate a basic under- standing of the project, its impacts and alternatives: Section Contents 1: Executive Summary • Summary of the project description, impacts and issues • Summary table of impacts, mitigation measures, and level of significance of remaining impacts. 2: Introduction • Describes the purpose of the EIR • Environmental procedures to be followed • Areas of controversy related to the project • Issues to be decided • Summary of the EIR organization and technical studies • EIR certification process • Project Sponsors and Contact Persons. 3: Project Description • Project Location • Project Objectives • Project Characteristics • Related Projects • Alternatives Summary 4: Setting, Impacts, For each environmental topic, this section describes: and Mitigation • Environmental setting of the project site Measures • The City's criteria for determining whether an environmental impact is significant • Project impacts that are clearly not significant • Project impacts that may be significant • Mitigation measures to reduce the extent of potentially significant impacts • Impacts that remain significant after implementation of the mitigation measures. 5: Cumulative Impacts • Describes the impacts of the project when combined with impacts resulting from past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects in the vicinity. 6: Alternatives • Describes the alternatives currently under consideration by the City, as well as other alternatives considered by the City and the reasons for their rejection. • Determination of the Environmentally Superior Alternative c., 06/15/95(1: ••.CNB501 ---SEM-011R) 2-4 ISA Associates, Inc. Section Contents 7: Conclusions • Summary of Impacts that will result from the project that cannot be mitigated • Summary of advantages and disadvantages of the project and alternatives under consideration. Technical Studies This EIR is based in part on the following technical studies, which are con- tained in the Appendix volume: 1. Traffic Study (ISA Associates, Inc., April, 1995) 2. Air Quality Assessment (LSA Associates, Inc., May, 1995) 3. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (for Hazardous Materials/Wastes), (Pacific Soils Environmental, March, 1995) 4. Geotechnical Report for Rough Grading (Pacific Soils Engineering, May, 1995). EIR CERTIFICATION PROCESS This Draft EIR is being circulated for public review for a period of 45 days. Interested agencies and members of the public are invited to provide written comments on the Draft EIR to the address shown on the cover of this docu- ment. On completion of the 45 day review period, the City of Newport Beach will review all written comments received and prepare written re- sponses for each comment. A Final EIR will then be prepared incorporating all the comments received, responses to the comments and any changes to the Draft EIR that result from the comments received. This Final EIR will then be presented to the Newport Beach City Council for potential certifi- cation as the environmental document for the project. All persons who commented on the Draft EIR will be notified of the availability of the Final EIR and the date of the public hearing before the Newport Beach City Council. PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The SDCN project site was previously considered in the Circulation Improve- ment and Open Space Agreement EIR (CIOSA EIR, SCH #91041017), which was certified by the City of Newport Beach in 1992. The CIOSA EIR ad- dressed 11 sites within the City, inclusive of the SDCN site. That EIR result- ed in changing the zoning on the SDCN site to a designation of Open Space/Public Facilities. The General Plan and Local Coastal Plan designation of 112,000 square feet of office space remained unchanged. The CIOSA EIR contained baseline surveys of the environmental resources of the SDCN site. In many cases, the environmental setting of the site has not changed since 06/15/95(1: ••.CNB501-,SECT2-0.E1R) 2-5 f- I LSA Associates, Inc the CIOSA EIR was prepared, and that information is incorporated by refer- ence in this document. Where such incorporation by reference is utilized, the previous information is summarized. The CIOSA EIR is available at City of Newport Beach Planning Department, Contact: Patricia Temple 644-3225. r' PROJECT SPONSORS AND CONTACT PERSONS The City of Newport Beach is the Lead Agency for this project and has super- vised the preparation of the EIR. The project applicant is Fletcher Jones Motor Cars. Responsible Agencies include: • Caltrans • Transportation Corridor Agencies • California Coastal Commission Caltrans and the Transportation Corridor Agencies are Responsible Agencies because they will need to approve the property sales and easements associat- ed with the project. The Coastal Commission will need to approve the Coastal Development Permit and Local Coastal Plan Amendment. The environmental consultant to the City is LSA Associates, Inc. of Irvine. Key contact persons are as follows: Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Ms. Patricia Temple Advance Planning Manager Coordinator 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1786 Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768 (714) 644-3225 Project Applicant: Fletcher Jones Motorcars Fletcher Jones Motorcars 1301 Quail Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 Contact: Fletcher Jones, Jr. Architect: Harris Pettett and Kent Harris Pettett and Kent 2120 Main Street, Suite 230 Huntington Beach, CA 92641 ; Contact: Jim Harris (714) 536-0300 i 06/15/95(1: ••.CNB501 %SECTZ-O.EIR) 2-6 l_.. Landscape Architect LSA Associates, Inc. Stephen J. Malefyt Stephen J. Malefyt 3434 Via Lido, Suite 250 Newport Beach, CA 92663 (714) 675-2154 Environmental Consultant: LSA Associates, Inc. Mr. Lyn Calerdine Principal 1 Park Plaza Suite 500 Irvine, CA 92714 (714) 553-0666 06/15/95(1: 1-CNB501-%SEM-O.EIR) 2-7 LSA Associates, Inc. 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project sponsor, Fletcher Jones Motorcars (FJMC), is seeking to relocate its existing Mercedes Benz dealership to a new site within the City of New- port Beach. The dealership is currently located at the corner of Quail Street and Dove Street in the City of Newport Beach, in the interior of a commer- cial neighborhood. Two previous auto dealerships on the site have failed, as did the auto dealership located immediately across the street. In the opinion of the project sponsor, the existing site is less than desirable because it lacks good commercial visibility and access, which are generally considered two key determinants of the success of a commercial venture. The City of New- port Beach is also interested in maintaining the dealership within the City due in part to the large sales tax revenue (typically more than $500,000 per year) generated by the dealership. 3.1 PROJECT LOCATION The proposed project site (known as San Diego Creek North or SDCN) is located east of Jamboree Road, south and west of the Route 73 Freeway/San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC), and north of the proposed extension of Bayview Way, approximately 500 feet north of the San Diego Creek Channel. The site is located within the City of Newport Beach. The regional location is shown in Figure 3.1. The project vicinity is shown in Figure 3.2. Ownership and Easements The project site is currently under multiple ownership. The Irvine Company owns approximately 5.1 acres. The Transportation Corridor Agency owns approximately 2.8 acres adjacent to Jamboree Road for a proposed future on- ramp (see following discussion of ramp JR -5). Caltrans owns approximately 1.1 acres, which was originally acquired for the Route 73 Freeway, but is not now needed for the current design of the SJHTC. The City proposes to acquire all three of these parcels and combine them into a developable site that would then be leased and/or sold to the dealerships. The site is currently crossed by a 42 inch Mesa Consolidated Water District water line, a 36 inch Metropolitan Water District Line, a 78 inch Caltrans storm drain, and Southern California Edison 66 kV overhead electrical lines. Some of the property is undevelopable; therefore, the project site is approximately 8.7 net acres. 09/05/95(1: ••.CNB501 ••.SECT3-0.EIR) 3-1 1 1 1 1 I ♦ — ♦ Cleveland � A ♦ National WI 1 ♦ Forest 4ra� t?>'a 8 ffi/ N� Y San Diego County 5/2/95(CNB501) Figure 3-1 411� N LSAScale in Miles o 5 Regional Location 1 �: '^ i % 1/% • :•�-- \lam'/ • \ `' ` \ - t1 _ •� . _�IID�ri %' / ` �/, \V j ' .•i^ - Gam.\\ t/�� =/ . ,�? 4` ♦ \ is . `.. 73 `/���1� ta••� ��,� t tom\ �• �♦ `'� .�, - ; - r i `:.�.�`s�, ' A Aoff' / • �'� ;:� 3 ,. ��? / a an \ •• :/y,�?'1� "�CIuC Vis.. �...` _ `� `/� � N • � i a v �i ;� • \� �.. / y � ;�_ / act dI �„ , • - ��::—'—\� . Y. y, \ \'\RNN I. —' ' b" ~ /ti ��' I '.,• • `� S ems\ i� •� �!��^\. ,� ' �' .ori ' PROJECT y: i. SITE yen —San Nif .:t bl.4VERSITY DR 10 NE /, `--•—� l``\,V ► ,'O .- �t_—� `_�r� �.v a_z_a sa=dae aL•?/ ��` ^wat e _UNIVEUITY of 64 r, _ `Pita •Tank v • 1 I R't' I K E t .1Jo— a I, 1' 1 •�'�.:::: •.•:' �' :,ice / 1 . J (/' /�/ p '> '1 _ • .�libJf� x I .:�• .�` '� t I Wil.: "\ 4 ; lu loa • �� �•y I i -SIAN JOA UIN XM IZ TR.ANSPORTA ION CORRIDOR ' (UnderConswiction) :i1 ri 1'J t. �s • ' �r -�' I\ ON A� \' o �� o� •C - U . �� , . a obi• �.__�, •� � n:� ! .. f' n � .1 . ;- • .. v. Corona del %Wt `` ` _ _ n /,%.• �* _ _�•* mich Sch�.p `?- {'. •/ ' •.��'�'• `C. l�A^ `'� SP/LLwA`r"ELE Big 'tJ , —�••�" e 0, 2 =i Rese7ir' ' C..12 --�� �� rcl ��i+ •,� :fir ;. Source: USGS 7S Quads - Newport Beach & Tustin, Ca. 5/11/95(CM501) • *?- N LSA Scale in Feet MMM%Mmll� 0 - 1000 2000 Figure 3-2 Project Vicinity ISA Associates, Inc. 3.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES In concert with the project sponsor, the City of Newport Beach has devel- oped the following project objectives: 1. Maintain the dealership within the City 2. Provide a relocation site for the dealership meeting the following criteria: a) Site of approximately eight acres. b) Good access to the freeway system and arterial highway sys- tem. C) Good visibility from adjacent highways. d) Close proximity to the John Wayne Airport. 3. Develop the site while maintaining the City's traffic performance standards. 4. Minimize impacts from development of the site on San Diego Creek and Upper Newport Bay. As discussed in Section 6.0, Alternatives, no other available sites have been identified within the City of Newport Beach that meet the criteria cited above and that can be developed as an automobile dealership. Most of the City of Newport Beach is already developed, and development of the automobile dealership on alternative sites would require removal of existing uses. 3.3 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS The proposed site is approximately 8.7 acres in size. The automobile dealer- ship is proposed to include 114,000 square feet of the dealership, including showrooms, offices, indoor storage, and automotive repair areas, as well as outdoor display areas, parking lots, and landscaping. ''Ss aro7C icest The proposed dealership would be a multi-level structure cascading down the side of the hill from the Route 73 freeway towards Bayview Way. The proposed site plan is shown in Figure 3.3. The preliminary grading plan is shown in Figure 3.4, the preliminary landscape plan is shown in Figure 3.5 and elevations of the site as seen from} F l 4-mbe�ee�-are shown in Figure 3.6. The project also includes paving the extension of Bayview Way for a distance of 700 feet, east of Jamboree Road along the project frontage, where the roadway would terminate, at least on an interim basis. (Regarding the poten- 09/05/95(1:'••CNB501 -•SECT3-0.E1R) 3-4 Source: Harris, Pettett & Kent. 6/1 S/95(CNB501) GN LSA Scale in Feet (� 7-0 - 140 Figure 3-3 Proposed Site Plan Source: Harris, Pettett & Kent. 6/15/95(CNB501) GN LSA Scale in Feet 70 140 Figure 3-4 Preliminary Grading Plan \ SC3 7lr•ction•1 319n•9e by the lrvin. Co.wnr wee 3Q3\`—r'°le ULANT1NG LEGEND hunW .• M(q4 M.d9e SHADED AUTO COURT n....nl• d•etyllt•r•..at. rel. •• Mi911 al.ct vinyl Coated CANOPY PALM ENTRY Cn•inllni yenta Clot^." rich and ACCENT PALM rlowrin9 vine- r.•n lnycanl• rwu•t—P—tCie r•. pal. `""'YD`"' ""`9""' EUCALYPTUS HEDGEROW Nc•lyptu. •ld•rory lm •ao«.%..lint irona.rt \ 6' HIGH VISUAL SCREEN •• 3i9n .e•al. )Maw .u.eeo1-3v«t YL«• EitPIAYEE PI.AZ?. outdoor Tole end cn.rrt ACCENT TREE tuc•lypeus flc.1 to11...3ro-►1o.wrin9 td•. •• Mi9n Maw—cy Sound 1 SHADE TREE \ Tlpren• tlw..Tiw Trw Jr... 3.m for SECURITY EDGE Aeeea. !n Mont cx' Mio 51—ILV1n71Cwted Cn•1n11K ranee CloLn.d rl tl• A—.9 vin« vign 1• ct—r...•lood Trumpet Vlne b..9inr111•• •pect« el,::tor c•Ill•cegiof dos..vlol.e Trumpet Vine a"`o SECURITY EDGE M.L.. Source: Harris, Pettett & Kent. 6/15/95(CNB501) GN LSAScale in Feet 0 70 140 ENRICHED PAVING TURF NATURAL PRESERVE GROUNDCOVER and SHRUB AREAS C..notnua .peel.. Lehlue t••Cnwe...rr Lde O[ lYdter• tmc.11oni• orq•nl.w la.."'.l lone. . .o.pelnrlll•• •peel.. C1.tw •peri«.. Loctrn.. .o.•erinu. olticlwll•...oee..ry lv..r lncryrltoll... L.on.d. 4erry OtQ3000VFR3 bolters t.P—ic. • M.11i.na'..j.p.n..• Moncyuctl• lyoporus p.rvltollu. V aenl• .pecle Figure 3-5 Preliminary Landscape Plan Source: Harris, Pettett & Kent. 6/15/95(CNB501) L SA Figure 3-6 Conceptual Project Rendering ISA Associates, Inc. tial future further extension of Bayview Way, please refer to Section 3.4, be- low.) Discretionary Actions The project includes the following discretionary actions: Action General Plan Amendment Zone Change Tentative Tract Map Use Permit Land Acquisition Local Coastal Plan (LCP) Amendment Coastal Development Permit Responsible Agency City of Newport Beach City of Newport Beach City of Newport Beach City of Newport Beach Caltrans, Transportation Corridor Agency, City of Newport Beach City of Newport Beach/ California Coastal Commission California Coastal Commission The project proposes acquisition of surplus Caltrans parcels originally acquir- ed for the Route 73 Freeway and of land purchased by the TCA for a future on-ramp. The project will impact approximately two acres of sagebrush and saltbush scrub habitat potentially occupied by the California gnatcatcher, which has been designated a threatened species by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The project will, therefore, require review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser- vice and the California Department of Fish and Game. A local agency interim loss approval by the City of Newport Beach consistent with the Interim Loss Criteria of Conservation Guidelines of the Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP) will be required to assure consistency with regional planning to protect the gnatcatcher. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game will review and comment on the City's Interim Loss Approval. These agencies may, in part, rely on information contained in this EIR in reaching their conclusions. 09/05/95(I: --.CNB501-•.SECT3-O. EIR) 3_9 V, ISA Associates, Inc. The project also includes relocation of the existing Edison overhead lines, which transect the site, to a new overhead alignment along the northerly and easterly site boundary, as shown on the site plan. The exact alignment will be determined by Southern California Edison. 3.4 FUTURE PROJECTS AFFECTING THE SITE Two future transportation improvement projects directly affect the site. It is anticipated that these projects would be completed from 3 to 25 years after the completion of the automobile dealership; no precise schedule has been set for either of these projects. These projects are not addressed by this project's environmental review, but are treated as cumulative projects. Be- cause of their special relationship to the site, decisions regarding the project that affect these future transportation improvements are highlighted in the cumulative impact analysis. Jamboree Road Northbound Direct On Ramp to Route 73 The City of Newport Beach, Caltrans, and the Transportation Corridor Agen- cies are considering a project to replace the existing loop on-ramp from northbound Jamboree Road to northbound Route 73 freeway with a direct flyover on-ramp that would start near the intersection of University Drive with Jamboree Road, cross over the extension of Bayview Way, the project site, and the freeway, and then connect to the freeway north of Jamboree Road. This ramp is known as "JR -5." This project obtained general environ- mental clearance through the EIR/EIS for the SJHTC, but has not yet been funded. Construction is anticipated to be three to ten years away. Originally the ramp was planned to be built on elevated fill through the site. The City and TCA have agreed that the ramp can be built on a bridge structure instead of fill, so that the area under the bridge could be utilized by the automobile dealership for vehicle display and storage purposes. The TCA would retain the right to construct the future bridge structure. Any use by the dealership under the bridge structure will require approval by Caltrans. The site plan for the project accommodates the future construction of this ramp, and it is shown on all project plans. Extension of Bayview Way Both the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways and the City of Newport Beach Master Plan of Arterial Highways envision the future eastward extension of Bayview Way from Jamboree Road to MacArthur Boulevard. The plans for the SJHTC, currently under construction, also accommodate this future roadway. The long-range plans for the SJHTC also envision a high occupancy vehicle connection between the SJHTC and Bayview Way (also known as University Drive North). The general alignment for Bayview Way has been established by the adoption of the Master Plan of Arterial Highways 09/05/95(1:'••CNB501 %SEC73-0.EIR) 3-10 (__, LSA Associates, Inc. and the approval of plans for the SJHTC. The approval of the current pro- posed project would effectively establish the precise alignment of Bayview Way east of the project site, because other alignments through the site would become infeasible. Construction of the Bayview Way extension would re- quire additional environmental review. However, it is considered in the cumulative impact analyses for this project. 3•5 ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY The following alternatives are considered in Section 6.0, Alternatives. No Project/No Build Per the requirements of CEQA a no development/no build alternative is considered. In this alternative, the project site would remain as is. Development of Office Buildings Consistent with the existing General Plan, this alternative would develop 112,000 square feet of general office on the site. Development of Fire Station/Park and Ride Facility Consistent with the current zoning, a fire station and park and ride facility would be developed on the site. Alternative Site Locations During the development of the project, the City of Newport Beach consid- ered a number of alternative sites for the project, including the following: 1. San Diego Creek - South parcel located south of San Diego Creek and east of jamboree Road. 2. Block 500 of Newport Center. 3. Corporate Plaza West in Newport Center. 4. The Newporter North site, located at the southwest corner of jambo- ree Road and San Diego Creek north. 5. The former automobile dealership site located near the corner of Coast Highway and Bayside Drive. 09/05/95(I:'••CNB501 ••.SEC13-0.EIR) 3-11 LSA Associates, Inc. The City has rejected further consideration of these sites for the reasons discussed in detail in the Section 6.0, Alternatives, of this EIR. In general, the sites do not meet one or more of the project objectives, including proximity to the freeway and John Wayne Airport and/or size of the site. In addition, many of the sites are committed to alternative land uses. No feasible off-site alternative locations in the City of Newport Beach have been identified for the project. 09/05/95(1: ••.CNB501 '•.SECTS-0.EIR) f-, 3-12 , L LSA Associates, Inc - 4.0 EXISTING SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES The following sections describe the existing environmental setting of the project site, the potential impacts of the project, and mitigation measures to reduce the extent of such impacts. The discussion in Sections 4.1 through 4.13 focuses on impacts that were determined to be potentially significant in the Initial Study contained in Appendix A. 4.0.1 IMPACTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT The Initial Study, contained in Appendix A, determined that the following environmental topic had no impact or less than significant impacts. Population/Housing Will the project cumulatively exceed official regional or local popula- tion projections? The project will not result in any population increase and, therefore, will not exceed official regional or local population projections. Accordingly, there is no impact to population. Will the project induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or exten. sion of major infrastructure)? The project itself (8.7 acres of commercial auto dealership) is not considered substantial growth, and will not open additional areas for development. The project is surrounded by existing development and committed open space. Project related infrastructure (extension of Bayview Way) will not serve any additional developable parcels. Therefore, the project will not induce sub- stantial growth. Will the project displace existing housing, especially affordable hous- ing? There is no housing on the site; therefore, there is no impact. 06/15/95(1: ••.CNB501 ••.SECT4-0.NM 4.0-1 LSA Associates, Inc. 4.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING 4.1.1 INTRODUCTION The land use and planning analysis focuses on the following issues: 1. How will the project change land uses in the area? 2. Does the proposed project create conflicts with adjacent land uses? 3• Is the proposed project consistent with applicable City General Plan, zoning and other regulations? 4. Is the proposed project consistent with applicable land use regula- tions of other agencies with jurisdiction over the site (e.g., California Coastal Commission)? The analysis is based on surveys of existing land use at or near the proposed project site. The Newport Beach City General Plan, Local Coastal Plan and Zoning documents were also reviewed, along with applicable Irvine City documents. The Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement EIR (CIOSA) was also utilized. 4.1.2 SETTING Existing Land Uses The project is proposed to be located on a vacant 8.7 acre portion of the San Diego Creek North site, bounded on the north and east by Route 73 (the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor [SJHTC]), on the south by the pro- posed extension of Bayview Way, and on the west by existing Jamboree Road. Existing and surrounding land uses are shown in Figure 4.1.1. The site is presently vacant, although it is used as an access route for SJHTC construction. Two main water distribution lines cross under the site, as well as overhead electric transmission lines. Please refer to the Utilities Section (Section 4.14) for further discussion of these facilities. A 1.25 acre riparian wetland area is located immediately southeast of the site. This wetland, which has been created as the result of the outfall from a Route 73 storm drain, extends across the planned future extension of Bay- view Way into San Diego Creek. The SJHTC is currently being constructed to the northeast of the site, where the existing Route 73 freeway terminates onto MacArthur Boulevard. The SJHTC is proposed to be completed in early 1997, and will connect the existing Route 73 along a 17 mile corridor to I-5 near San Juan Capistrano. The area northeast of the site include on -ramps and off -ramps for Jamboree 06/15/95([:,-CNB501 I-SECr4-LEIR) 4.1-1 lot, iport z JOHN `�♦, \ WAYNF, �V' ?, < 93A ♦ i rT'/� �f ` AIRPORe���`' 0.-: i c� `� �`�y.f e S p Ana % Q�),��, ♦ ♦ fS,O Club I ' Z b5; '• "� ` 63 9y `. • ..ani \ A''% r• -: PROJECT _,o. a SITE ' �n ( �� % a�\ \� \ 'b .V � o 4.9 w �+ 5,y (Proposed i rel Residential . V = :�� i ♦ �'^ I +. 'f{`[, w✓ -T Salt \ `\ Ui \�j9i� Evaporators UNl WITY OF -CA - _ P,0 A l/ 6 (Proposed- - - T1 - P :�.... io\Y�? - wi i - 'Office//odustrial) ; ' 1, . IR V I N E e nB... �I \ t•. u 4 . n �.' . ' " • - ;' . �� � rSO �� \ zl . �F -' � rte~' Sy.�-. 101 ' J . 5� rad '...�`SA.N:J Qf `'H[ l _ ooNSp,RTAFI (under -Co - claon 6 LEGEND R. AT Commercial �-4l'61 .5I ,� �` a -� Industrial Vacant : cPrr�rosed� `\^� Corona del Mar /, Loral Site l est e/rriid - _ Office - Commercial li6h Sel�. — - _ \ (Proposed �. ,;�, . _ c i I�h ResidendaO �� Office Industrial Mixed Use SeJLLVVAm 15 .zoa ;� 1,1� ozo Residential Institutional Open Space 2 !-q'� xlc, _ `- 7 Wetland i 6/13/95(CNB501) N LSAScale in Feet � 1000 2000 Figure 4. 1.1 Surrounding Land Uses - Existing LSA Associates, Inc. Road and University Drive. A long-range component of the SJHTC project is replacement of the existing northbound Jamboree Road to northbound Route 73 loop connector with a flyover connector that would pass over the site on the west side of the property, adjacent to Jamboree Road. As a part of the SJHTC project, a Class I, off-street bicycle trail is being con- structed along the northeast edge of the project site within Caltrans' right- of-way. In addition, a saltwater marsh is currently being constructed by the Transportation Corridor Agencies between Bayview Way and San Diego Creek as a mitigation measure for the SJHTC project. Existing office buildings and the Marriott Suites Hotel are located across Jamboree Road from the project site. MacArthur Boulevard and a riparian area are located across Route 73 from the project site. San Diego Creek is located south of the saltwater marsh area that is currently being constructed. Residential uses are planned between San Diego Creek and University Drive on the parcel known as San Diego Creek South. Land Use Designations The City of Newport Beach's General Plan designation of the project site is Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial, with a designation of 112,000 square feet of office development and a fire station reservation. The current zoning for the site was set as part of the Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement EIR, approved in 1992, which calls for open space and public facilities. General Plan land use designations are shown in Figure 4.1.2. The surround- ing land uses are generally consistent with the General Plan designations and zoning. The site lies within the coastal zone as is established by the Coastal Act of 1976. The Local Coastal Program (LCP) of the City of Newport Beach desig- nates the site for 112,000 square feet of administrative/office, consistent with the City's General Plan. Agencies With Jurisdiction Over the Site In addition to the City of Newport Beach, the following agencies have juris- diction over the site: California Coastal Commission The California Coastal Commission has land use authority over the site because the site is located within the California Coastal Zone established by 06/15/95(1: ',CNB501 •+SECT4-1.EIR) 4.1-3 Source: City of Newport Beach 5/10/95(CNB501) i. N LSA GENERAL ,idential Single Family Detached Single Family Attached Two ---Family Residential Multi—Family Residential Mixed Single Family Attached 8c Recreational Marine Commercial WMixed Multi—Family Residential & Administrative, Professional & Financial Commercial istrial INGeneral Industry nmercial �. Administrative, Professional & Financial Commercial ERetail & Service Commercial Governmental, Educational & Institutional Facilities Recreational Marine Commercial Mixed Recreational Marine Commercial & Multi---Fomily Residential Mixed Retail & Service Commercial & Industrial Mixed Administrative, Professional & Financial Commercial & Industrial Space Recreational & Environmental Open Space Water City Boundary Figure 4.1.2 Scale �000Miles 1/2 General Plan Land Uses LSA Associates, Inc. the 1976 Coastal Act. The Commissions' policies, goals and objectives are generally contained in the City's LCP. The City's Coastal Land Use Plan has been certified by the Coastal Commission, but the City does not yet have a certified Local Coastal Program. Therefore, approval of a Coastal Develop- ment Permit by the Coastal Commission is required. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service The project site contains the habitat of the California gnatcatcher, a songbird that has been designated as threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). This designation places certain limitations on any modifications that can be made to this habitat. These limitations are discussed in Section 4.8, Biological Resources. U.S. Army Corp of Engineers The riparian wetland adjacent to the southeast corner of the project site is considered part of the "Waters of the United States." Any modifications to these resources also require review and approval of the Corp of Engineers, which has a policy of protecting wetlands. These policies are discussed in Section 4.8, Biological Resources. The Corp consults with the USFWS prior to approval of wetland modifications. (Note: no wetland modifications are currently proposed). 4.1.3 CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the project would nor- mally have a significant effect on the environment in the area of land use if it will: Conflict with adopted plans and goals of the community where it is located. Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established commu- nity Convert prime agriculture land to non -agriculture use, or impact the agricultural productivity of prime agricultural land. The City would consider a project as having a significant adverse impact if it has inherent conflicts with surrounding land uses. In addition, a loss of large blocks of open space would be considered a significant effect. 06/15/95(1:'•.CNB501 %SECT4-LEIR) 4.1-5 LSA Associates, Inc. 4.1.4 IMPACTS DETERMINED LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT According to the Initial Study contained in Appendix A, the project will have no impact or less than significant impacts on the following land use and planning issues: r, • There are no farmlands currently located on the site; therefore, there is no impact to farmlands f • There are no established communities on the site, including low in- come and minority communities; therefore, there is no impact to existing communities. 4.1.5 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS The Initial Study identified the following land use and planning issues as potentially significant: • Conflicts with General Plan or Zoning • Conflicts with existing or adjacent land uses in the vicinity. • Conflicts with applicable plans and policies of agencies with jurisdic- tion over the site. Each of these potential impacts is discussed below. General Plan/Zoning/Local Coastal Plan The proposed use, an automobile dealership, is in conflict with the current General Plan, Zoning and Local Coastal Plan Designation of the site. Howev- er, the project includes a General Plan Amendment, Zoning Code Amend- ment, and Local Coastal Plan Amendment that designate the site for commer- cial purposes. Adoption of these amendments is part of the project, and no further mitigation is required. The change in General Plan and Local Coastal Program designation from office to commercial will not have a significant impact adverse impact on the City's mix of land uses. Currently, there is an excess supply of office space in the vicinity. This is demonstrated by the office vacancy rate in the Airport area, which is currently estimated at 15 to 20 percent (source: The Irvine Company). In addition, the City of Irvine has entitled several major office projects along the Jamboree Road corridor that have not been built due to lack of current demand (i.e., Trammel Crow property, Lakeshore Towers - Phase II, Koll Center Irvine). 06/15/95(1:'••CNB501••.SECT4-1.EIR) 4.1-6 L, LSA Associates, Inc. Loss of Open Space The project will result in the conversion of 8.7 acres of open space with urban uses. The open space value of the property is based upon the fact that it is undeveloped property within and adjacent to an urbanized area. The property is not currently utilized as a park, and the general public is preclud- ed from using the privately owned portion of the site. The site is heavily impacted by adjacent highways. There is no current public access to the site or on-site parking. There are no unique or significant landforms or views associated with the site. There are also other open spaces in the vicinity of the project: Upper Newport Bay, San Diego Creek Channel, Bonita Creek Park, Bonita Canyon Channel, UCI properties, and the Irvine Company's properties between MacArthur Boulevard and UCI all currently provide open space in the vicinity. With the exception of portions of the UCI and Irvine Company properties, these adjacent open spaces are anticipated to remain open. Given that there is nothing unique associated with the open space on the site and the extent of remaining open space, the loss of open space is not considered significant at the project level. (Please also refer to the cumu- lative impacts discussion of this issue). Change in Zoning The site is currently zoned for transportation, open space, and institutional uses. The City has been considering constructing a fire station on the site, which would occupy two to three acres. The TCA owned property comprises approximately 2.6 acres of the site, and Caltrans owns 1.1 acres. If the City were to maintain the existing open space institutional zoning, only 0.8 to 1.8 acres of the site would remain for this purpose. Given that the open space would be surrounded on the west by the Jamboree freeway ramp and on the north and east by the SJHTC and its ramps, preservation of the balance of the site as open space would have limited utility. Compatibility with Existing Land Uses The proposed project is partially consistent with the existing and planned adjacent land uses. The project is similar in character to much of the sur- rounding area (i.e., the Irvine Business Complex and Koll Center Newport business park area). The proposed use is consistent with the adjacent San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, Jamboree Road, and the extension of Bayview Way. An agreement is being finalized between the City and the TCA to allow the future ramp to be constructed on an elevated structure across the site in order to create useable area under the ramp. No inconsistencies with this ramp are anticipated. When the ramp is constructed, the City and/or the dealership will need to negotiate an agreement with Caltrans to use the space underneath. As part of the SJHTC project, the TCA is constructing an 06/15/95(I:',CNB501 %SECT4-LEIR) 4.1-7 r-, LSA Associates, Inc. off-street bicycle trail along the southwesterly edge of the corridor right-of- way from the corner of Bristol Street south and Jamboree Road to MacArthur Boulevard, including a segment adjacent to the project site. Given that the bicycle trail will be immediately adjacent to the Route 73 freeway and other urbanized projects in the area, the proposed project will not conflict with the planned bicycle trail. The project could potentially conflict with two other adjacent land uses unless mitigated. The dealership could potentially conflict with the existing riparian area located to the southeast of the project site. In addition, the project could conflict with the saltwater marsh currently under construction across Bayview Way. The potential incompatibilities are related to the biolog- ical resources in these habitat preserves, and the potential inconsistencies are therefore discussed in the Biological Resources section (Section 4.7), along with mitigation measures to reduce the potential conflicts. No additional mitigation is required. Plans and Policies of Agencies with jurisdiction Over the Site Agencies with jurisdiction over the site include the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, and the California Coastal Commis- sion. The jurisdiction of the Corp and the USFWS are related to the biologi- cal resources on the site; these issues are therefore discussed in Biological Resources, Section 4.7. California Coastal Commission objectives include preservation of coastal resources and provision of coastal access. The proposed project does not further the attainment of these goals, nor does it hinder their achievement. With the exception of the biological resources discussed in Section 4.8, no coastal resources have been identified on the site. The site is located 4.5 miles from the Pacific Ocean, and is separated from Upper Newport Bay by Jamboree Road. The coastal visual resources in the vicinity of the site have already been significantly affected by the grading and channelization of San Diego Creek, along with the construction of Route 73, the SJHTC, Jamboree Road, and grading for Bayview Way. Therefore, no coastal views have been identified that would be impacted by the project. In summary, the develop- ment of the site would not adversely affect coastal resources under the juris- diction of the Coastal Commission. 4.1.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Potential cumulative impacts of the project may result from the cumulative loss of open space in the area, when combined with other committed, planned and reasonably foreseeable projects in the vicinity. In addition to the proposed project's conversion of open space to commercial uses, the following additional projects in the vicinity would result in the conversion of existing open space to urban uses: 06/15/95(1:•••CNB501••.SECT4-1.EIR) 4.1-8 i_ N LSA Associates, Inc. • Construction of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor • Implementation of the University of California at Irvine Long -Range Development Plan • Development of the San Diego Creek South residential site • Development of the UCl/Irvine Company research parcel east of Mac- Arthur Boulevard • Development of Bonita Canyon Village (the area bounded by Mac- Arthur Boulevard, the SJHTC, and Old Ford Road.) Each of these projects listed above, including the proposed project, would reduce the extent of open space in the vicinity and would further intensify the urban character of the area. 4.1.7 MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation measure are required for project specific impacts to land use. Mitigation Programs in Place for Cumulative Impacts The City of Newport Beach, the City of Irvine, and the University of Califor- nia at Irvine all have developed programs to ensure long-range preservation of open space. The City of Newport Beach, through its Circulation Improve- ment, and Open Space Agreement Program, and other open space activities, is ensuring the preservation of open space in exchange for development rights on other currently open parcels. The City of Irvine has developed a similar program whereby new development by The Irvine Company is al- lowed to develop certain properties only in exchange for permanent preser- vation of other open space, primarily in the City's northern and southern foothills. These programs allow for the preservation of open space without the cities having to condemn or acquire such open space through a purchase agreement. UCI has also committed a significant portion of its campus to open space preservation. 4.1.8 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION At the project level, the project will not contribute to significant adverse impacts on land use and planning. While both cities and UCI have programs in place to ensure the long-range preservation of substantial open space systems, the public will perceive a change in character in the surrounding vicinity, as planned and approved development proceeds. In particular, much of the existing large open space 06/15/95(1:'••CNB501,,SECT4-1.EIR) 4.1-9 !SA Associates, Ina that currently separates southwest Irvine from northeast Newport Beach will become developed over the next 20 years. This is considered a significant loss of existing open space, and the project contributes to this adverse effect. While both the cities and UCI have developed programs (i.e., the Conserva- tion and Open Space Agreement and the City of Irvine Open Space Plan) that reduce the extent of such loss to the extent feasible, the cumulative impact will remain significant after such mitigation. 06/15/95(1: ••.CNB501',SECT4-1.EIR) 4.1-10 1 4.2 EARTH RESOURCES 4.2.1 SETTING Topography Soils LSA Associates, Inc. The topography of the project site consists of gently sloping land, sloping towards the south. Elevations on the project site range between 4 and 40 feet in the southern portion of the site, and between 13 to 55 feet in the northern portions. On-site drainage is to the southwest to a low area adja- cent to San Diego Creek. Soils and subsurface materials at the project site consist of fill, alluvium (unconsolidated sand), colluvium (unconsolidated silt), terrace deposits, and back bay deposits. The following specific soil types and stratigraphy are located on-site: The Monterey Formation: This formation is characterized by thinly bedded siltstones, sandstones, diatomacheous siltstones, and clay - stones. Newport Back Bay Deposits: These estuarine deposits are associat- ed with the hydrology of the Upper Newport Bay and are character- ized by clays and silty clays that are soft to stiff in structure, plastic (or malleable), and moist. These deposits range from a few feet to over 60 feet in depth. Marine Terrace Deposits: These deposits were deposited on plat- forms that were cut by former ocean wave action. The deposits are characterized by friable (loose and breakable) fine to course -grained sands with thin layers of silt interbeded, and range from at thickness of 15 to over 50 feet. Alluvium: Alluvium is present in the southern portion of the site and is characterized by loose and moist silty/clayey fine grained sands. Colluvium: This surficial deposit is found on the gently sloping sur- faces overlaying the terrace deposits in the northeastern portion of the site. These deposits are characterized by silty/sandy clays and clayey sands and range in depth from 10 to 15 feet. Artificial Fill: Artificial fill has been placed on the site in conjunction with various construction activities in the area. These fills consist of piles of sands, silts, and clays that range from 0 to 13 feet. 06/15/95(1: ••.CNB501 %SECr4-2.EIR) 4.2-1 LSA Associates, Inc. Bedrock is not exposed on-site, nor was it encountered during the subsur- face investigation performed by Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc. (May 5, 1995). Groundwater seismic The depth to groundwater below the project site ranges from 16 to 53 feet below the ground surface (elevations of +9 to -3 feet mean sea level), within the marine terrace deposits. According to the geotechnical engineer, the groundwater is perched within the terrace deposits above the Back Bay deposits of low permeability. Southern California is subject to seismic hazards of varying degree depending on the proximity, magnitude and degree of activity of nearby faults. These hazards include: 1) surface rupturing of rock and soil materials along fault traces; 2) damage to foundations and structures caused by seismically induced ground shaking; and 3) secondary seismic hazards induced by ground shaking. The closest active fault is the Camp Pendleton Fault located approximately six kilometers offshore in a southwesterly direction. The Camp Pendleton Fault is the off -shore extension of the Newport -Inglewood Fault Zone. The New- port -Inglewood Fault Zone consists of a series of northwest trending fault segments that extend from Beverly Hills southeast to Newport Beach, where it continues offshore. The maximum probable (design) earthquake for a given fault is one that is likely to occur within a defined period of time, generally a 100 year period. The maximum credible earthquake is the largest earthquake that a given fault is considered capable of producing, regardless of its frequency of occurrence. The expected maximum peak horizontal movement and maximum peak vertical movement for the area are 0.45g and 0.438, respectively, from a magnitude 7.0 earthquake along the offshore Camp Pendleton Fault at a distance of 6 kilometers from the study area. Due to the proximity of the fault, the vertical acceleration is an important consid- eration for design purposes. A mean random horizontal acceleration of 0.21g has been computed for the site, which has a UBC consistent 10 percent chance of being exceeded in 50 years. For additional seismic parameters, see Appendix C. The site response (groundshaking) will be most severe in areas underlain by alluvium. Known regional faults capable of producing significant groundshaking at the site include the San Andreas, San Jacinto, Whittier -Elsinore, Newport - Inglewood, and the Sierra Madre Faults. The location of these faults relative to the project area is shown on Figure 4.3.1. The offshore segment of the Newport -Inglewood Fault Zone would likely produce the strongest seismic shaking in the project area, and would be considered the controlling fault for the purposes of building design and slope stability analyses. 06/15/95(1: •••CNB501,-SECr4-2.E1R) 4.2-2 V, LSA Associates, Inc. Secondary Seismic Hazards Secondary effects associated with groundshaking from a regional earthquake include liquefaction, lateral spreading, ground lurching, seismically induced settlement, and tsunamis and Seiches. Liquefaction. Liquefaction is defined as the transformation of a granular materials from the solid state into the liquified state as a consequence of in- creased pore water pressure. Groundshaking resulting from an earthquake is capable of providing the mechanism for liquefaction, usually in saturated, loose, medium to fine grained sands, silty sands, and certain types of clay soils. The potential for liquefaction is greatest in areas of shallow groundwa- ter, such as those found on the project site. Seismically Induced Settlement. Seismically induced settlement generally is associated with high intensities of loose, sandy soils or alluvial deposits. Much of the of the site is underlain by dense units which would decrease the likelihood of settlement. Tsunamis and Seiches. Tsunamis are seismically generated sea waves. Their estimated elevation is approximately five to seven feet above mean sea level along the shoreline. Seiches are oscillations in a body of water that is situat- ed in an enclosed or semi -enclosed basin. Seiches usually range from a few centimeters to a few meters in height, and can occur as a result of seismically induced ground shaking. 4.2.2 CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project will normally have a significant effect on the environment if it will: Cause substantial flooding, erosion, or siltation; Expose people or structures to major geologic hazards. For purposes of this EIk major (i.e., significant) geological hazards are considered geologic conditions that cannot be overcome by design using reasonable construction and/or maintenance practices. Significant landform alterations are considered to be cuts in excess of 50 feet or removal/ alteration of unique landforms. 4.2.3 IMPACTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT According to the Initial Study in Appendix A, the following potential impacts to earth resources have been determined to be less than significant: 06/15/95(1:',CNB501'•.SECr4-2.EIR) 4.2-3 r LSA Associates, Inc. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving fault rupture? The site is not anticipated to suffer from future fault rupture, although the potential for fault rupture anywhere in Southern California cannot be com- pletely discounted. Given the remote prospect of fault rupture, this is con- r ' sidered a less than significant impact. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts r involving seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? According to the Soils Report contained in Appendix C, the site is highly un- i likely to be affected by a tsunami due to its distance from the ocean. The possibility of seiches is also considered remote. Volcanic activity is not anticipated in this part of Southern California. f Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving landslides or mudflows? The potential for landslides and mudflows on the site is considered low. The site will be required to comply with standard City grading codes, which will reduce any potential affects below a level of significance. Would the proposal result in modifications involving unique geologic or physical features? No unique geological or physical features have been identified on the site; therefore, there is no impact. 4.2.4 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS Topography Grading for the project will require alteration of the site's topography and the subsequent export of approximately 160,000 cubic yards of earth materi- al. This material would be transported off-site to be used for construction on the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor or another project which has previously been granted environmental clearance. After development of the site, on-site elevations would range from 45 feet in the north west corner, to 25 feet in the northeast corner and a low of 19 feet at the southern edge along Bayview Drive. The site topography would gener- ally slope to the south, with on-site drainage generally flowing towards the south with the exception of a few areas draining to localized catch basins. Because the site will be fully developed and runoff from the site will be conveyed to the storm drain system, no permanent increases in erosion are expected to occur. The alterations in the site's topography as proposed are less than 50 feet in height will not represent significant impacts. 06/15/95(1:--.CNB501 %SECT4-2.EIR) 4.2-4 l Soils LSA Associates, Inc. Differential settlement of compressible soils can cause severe damage to foundations of structures due to non-homogenous subsurface conditions. Highly compressible materials are found on site, including colluvium, alluvi- um, and the Back Bay deposits. The potential impacts associated with the compressible and expansive soils are considered significant prior to mitiga- tion. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure 2-2 and 2-18 will re- duce the impacts to below a significant level. The on-site soils have been identified as having an expansion potential rang- ing from low to very high, and a corrosive potential ranging from moderate to severe. Because geologic conditions vary widely, it is difficult to general- ize about expansive soil potential. Grading operations required to bring con- struction sites to design grade can result in the presence of both expansive and nonexpansive soils on a single lot unless selective grading procedures are utilized. Expansive soils compacted to a higher degree of compaction than natural uncompacted conditions will have a tendency to expand with the addition of irrigation or runoff water. If compacted expansive soils are allowed to dry out, shrinkage would occur which could also affect structures. Structures placed on undetected expansive soils could experience distress if the soils are subjected to increased moisture content. The corrosive soils on site can attack metal foundations, footings, utility conduit, and other metal improvement elements which come into contact with the soil. The project is expected to result in significant impacts related to both expansive and corro- sive soil conditions. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 2-19, however, will reduce the potential impacts less than significant levels. Groundwater Seismic The shallow groundwater located below the site should not impact rough grading at the site. However, any deep pile foundations could encounter groundwater. Excess irrigation of landscaped areas could cause a rapid artificial rise in the local water table. Permanent increases in groundwater levels could adversely affect the property through persistent near surface water and/or soil saturation and the penetration of moisture into the interior of buildings. Shallow groundwater is not expected to have a significant effect with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 2-20. Based on the maximum probable earthquake magnitudes and distances to the site from the faults, the most significant seismic event likely to affect any of the site would be an earthquake of magnitude 6.7 in the active Newport - Inglewood Fault Zone. An earthquake of magnitude 6.7 is capable of gener- ating a peak horizontal ground acceleration of 0.438 and a repeatable high 06/15/95(1:'••CNB501 ••.SECT4-2.E1R) 4.2-5 LSA Associates, Inc. ground acceleration of 0.28g. The unit "g" refers to the force of gravity per unit mass as any given point. . Significant ground shaking from local earthquakes can be expected during the life of the project. During an earthquake, ground shaking due to hori- zontal ground accelerations could cause damage ranging from slight non- structural cracking and facing failures to major structural damage in inade- quately designed buildings. These seismic hazards are considered a poten- tially significant adverse impact, but are present in most of Southern Califor- nia. Based on previous studies and the recent Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc. study, faults are not known to exist along or cross the site. The probability of surface rupture or deformation at the site is, therefore, considered very low. Liquefaction Potential Liquefaction is the phenomenon in which generally cohesionless saturated soils (silts and sands) become fluid during an earthquake. Vibration of saturated silts and sands during an earthquake causes densification of the deposit and an increase in pore pressure (water between the grains) result- ing in a loss of shear strength and failure of the overlying ground. The potential for liquefaction has been identified for the San Diego Creek North site due to the shallow groundwater conditions. However, the lique- faction potential of the project site is considered to be low due to the dense and/or cohesive nature of the terrace deposits underlying the site (Pacific Soils Engineering, May 1995). 4.2.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Impacts to the project site along with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects related to faulting/seismicity, collapsible soil, expansive/corrosive soil, and near surface groundwater potential are consid- ered insignificant. 4.2.6 MITIGATION MEASURES The following mitigation measures are included to reduce the extent of potentially significant impacts to earth resources. 2-1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the grading contractor shall identify a spoils site for deposition of exported material. Such spoils site shall have obtained CEQA clearance in accordance with the re- quirements of the local jurisdiction where the site is located. 06/15/95(L •••CNB501 ••.SECT4-2.EIR) 4.2-6 � LSA Associates, Inc. 2-2 As specified in the geotechnical report prepared for the site (Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc., May 1995), all loose, compressible natural soils and/or loose, compressible on-site fill soils should be removed from fill areas where exposed at final grade and replaced with com- pacted fills in accordance with the recommendations of the geotechn- ical engineer. All grading should be accomplished under the observa- tion and testing of the project soils engineer and engineering geolo- gist in accordance with the recommendations contained in the project geotechnical report, the current grading ordinance of the City of Newport Beach and earthwork specifications contained in Appendix F of the geotechnical report. The site preparation recommendations outlined in section 5.3 of the geotechnical report shall be followed. 2-3 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant or successor in interest shall demonstrate to the City of Newport Beach Building Department that all facilities will be designed and constructed as specified in the City adopted version of the Uniform Building Code. 2-4 Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. The application for grading permit shall be accompanied by a grading plan and speci- fications and supporting data consisting of soils engineering and engineering geology reports or other reports if required by the build- ing official. 2-5 The grading plan shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 2-6 The grading plan shall include a description of haul routes, access points to the site, watering, and sweeping program designed to mini- mize impact of haul operations. 2-7 An erosion, siltation and dust control plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of grading permits and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. 2-8 The velocity of concentrated run-off from the project site shall be evaluated and erosive velocities controlled as part of the project de- sign. 2-9 Grading operations and drainage requirements shall meet the stan- dards set forth in the City's Building Code (Appendix Chapter 70 - Excavation and Grading, Sections 7001-7019) and the Building De- partment's General Grading Specifications. 06/15/95(1: •.CNB501I.SECr4-2.EIR) 4.2-7 ISA Associates, Inc. 2-10 The erosion control measures shall be completed on any exposed slopes within thirty days after grading, or as approved by the Building Department. 2-11 Fugitive dust emissions during construction shall be minimized by watering the site for dust control, containing excavated soil on-site until it is hauled away, and periodically washing adjacent streets to remove accumulated materials. 2-12 Prior to the issuance of any building permits a specific soils and foun- dation study shall be prepared and approved by the Building Depart- ment. Liquefaction 2-13 Sites where the potential for liquefaction has been identified, or any other site where the potential for liquefaction may be encountered during subsequent investigations, shall be further evaluated by a geotechnical consultant to verify the low potential for liquefaction. The evaluation shall include subsurface investigation with standard penetration testing or other appropriate means of analysis for lique- faction potential. The project geotechnical consultant shall provide a statement concerning the potential for liquefaction and its possible impact on proposed development. If necessary, the geotechnical consultant shall provide mitigation measures which could include mechanical densification of liquefiable layers, dewatering, fill sur- charging or other appropriate measures. The Geotechnical Consulta- nt's report shall be signed by a Certified Engineering Geologist and a Registered Civil Engineer and shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the Building Department prior to issuance of Grading Permit. Grad- ing and building plans shall reflect the recommendations of the study to the satisfaction of the Building Department. Erosion 2-14 Any necessary diversion devices, catchment devices, or velocity reduc- ers shall be incorporated into the grading plan and approved by the Building Department prior to issuance of grading permits. Berms or other catchment devices shall be incorporated into the grading plans to divert sheet flow runoff away from areas which have been stripped of natural vegetation. Velocity reducers shall be incorporated into the design, especially where drainage devices exit to natural ground. 2-15 All fill slopes shall be properly compacted during grading in confor- mance with the City Grading Code and verified by the project Geo- technical Consultant. Slopes shall be planted with vegetation upon completion of grading. Conformance with this measure shall be 06/15/95(I:'••CNB501-,SECT4-2.EIR) 4.2-8 l 9 LSA Associates, Inc. verified by the Building Department prior to the issuance of occu- pancy permits. 2-16 Berms and brow ditches shall be constructed to the satisfaction and approval of the Building Department. Water shall not be allowed to drain over any manufactured slope face. Top -of -slope soil berms shall be incorporated into grading plans to prevent surface runoff from draining over future fill slopes. Brow ditches shall be incorporated into grading plans to divert surficial runoff from ungraded natural areas around future cut slopes. The design of berms and brow ditch- es shall be approved by the Building Department prior to issuance of grading permits. 2-17 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, appropriate artificial sub- stances shall be recommended by the project landscape architect and approved by the Building Department for use in reducing surface erosion until permanent landscaping is well established. Upon com- pletion of grading, stripped areas shall be covered with artificial sub- stances approved by the Building Department. Compressible/Collapsible Soil 2-18 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, written recommendations for the mitigation of compressible/collapsible soil potential for the pro- ject site shall be provided by the geotechnical consultant. Foundation recommendations shall be included. Recommendations shall be in- corporated as conditions of approval for the site-specific tentative tract maps and grading plans to the satisfaction of the Building De- partment. Recommendations shall be based on surface and subsur- face mapping, laboratory testing and analysis. Mitigation, if necessary, could include: removal and recompaction of identified compress- ible/collapsible zones, fill surcharging and settlement monitoring, compaction grouting, or foundation design which utilizes deep piles, or other recommended measures. The geotechnical consultant's site- specific reports shall be signed by a Certified Engineering Geologist and Registered Civil Engineer, and shall be approved by the Building Department. Expansive/Corrosive Soil 2-19 Written recommendations for the mitigation of expansive and corro- sive soil potential for each site, shall be provided by the project cor- rosion consultant, geotechnical consultant and/or Civil engineer. Foundation recommendations shall be included. Recommendations shall be based on surface and subsurface mapping, laboratory testing and analysis and shall be incorporated into final building plans prior to issuance of building permits. The geotechnical consultant's site - 06/15/95(1: ••.CNB501 ••.SECT4-2.EIR) 4.2-9 LSA Associates, Inc. specific reports shall be signed by a Certified Engineering Geologist and Registered City Engineer, and shall be approved by the Building Department. Near Surface Groundwater 2-20 The project geotechnical consultant and/or civil engineer shall pre- pare written site-specific reviews of the tentative tract maps and grad- r ing plans addressing all salient geotechnical issues, including ground- water. These reports shall provide findings, conclusions and recom- mendations regarding near -surface groundwater and the potential for artificially induced groundwater as a result of future development, and the effects groundwater may have on bluffs, slopes and struc- tures. The reports shall also address the potential for ground subsi- dence on the site and properties adjacent to the sites if dewatering is recommended. The geotechnical consultant and/or civil engineer's reports shall be signed by a Certified Engineering Geologist and Reg- istered Civil engineer and shall be completed to the satisfaction of the r Building Department prior to issuance of a grading permit. 4.2.7 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Implementation of the above mitigation measures will reduce potential im- pacts to topography, soils and seismic conditions below a level of signifi- cance. 06/15/95(1:--.CNB501••SECr4-2.E1R) 4.2-10 L LSA Associates, Inc. 4.3 WATER RESOURCES 4.3.1 SETTING Site Drainage The project site lies within the San Diego Creek drainage area. There are no natural or man-made water courses on the site, although a Caltrans drain from the existing Route 73 Freeway empties into and creates the wetland area at the southeast corner of the site. The site itself drains into San Diego Creek, which is located 250 feet south, across the extension of Bayview Way and the saltwater marsh currently under construction by the Transportation Corridor Agency. According to the Flood Insurance Rate Maps prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the site is not located in a 100 year floodplain. Water Quality Water quality is a major concern in the area. The discharge of pollutants from urban areas and agricultural operations into San Diego Creek and Upper Newport Bay has degraded the water quality in the Creek and the Bay. Local and regional efforts to improve the water quality in the Creek and the Bay are described below. Siltation is also a major concern in Upper Newport Bay. Natural erosion and erosion caused by man's activities can cause a large amount of silt to flow down San Diego Creek and other tributaries to Upper Newport Bay. The eroded silt deposits into the bay. The existing wetland located at the southeast corner of the project site is also considered sensitive to man-made pollutants from water flowing onto the site. It should be noted that this wetland already receives flows from the segment of the existing Route 73 Freeway between the Jamboree Road and Birch Street overcrossings. These existing flows are anticipated to contain automobile related pollutants such as oil, rubber, and brake lining residues. The saltwater marsh currently under construction to the south of the site is also anticipated to be sensitive to any pollutants that are carried onto the site by water flows. Upper Newport Bay The following discussion of water quality improvement activities is taken from the Circulation Improvement and Open Space EIR. 08/31/95(1: ••.CNB501 ••.SECT4-3.EIR) 4.3-1 F, ISA Associates, Inc. The principal pollutants currently affecting the water quality in Newport Bay have been siltation (from erosion within the watershed, agricultural uses, and urban construction activities); high nutrient levels of runoff (primarily from agricultural fertilization); and potential effects from high levels of pesticides (from irrigation runoff). The site drains directly into San Diego Creek, which drains into Upper Newport Bay. The City of Newport Beach is a participating member of the "Comprehensive Sedimentation Control Plan - Newport Bay Watershed, Phase II 208 Plan Amendment" (1983). This plan proposed a seven part program for sediment control in all areas draining into Upper Newport Bay, which includes the parcel under review in this EIR. This 208 Plan involved the City of Newport Beach and The Irvine Company (which owns most of the developable up- stream property) in every phase of the implementation program. Between the time of the adoption of the plan and the present, each component of the 208 Plan for protecting Upper Newport Bay has been implemented. In April, 1984, an In -Bay Sediment Control Agreement was signed, and in September, 1985, an In -Channel (San Diego Creek) Sediment Control Agreement was signed. An "early action plan" and Units I and 11 of the in -Bay basins were completed by the end of the 1986 at a cost of over $10 million, a significant portion of which was funded by the City of Newport Beach and The Irvine Company. The 1986 Newport Beach EIR for the Upper Newport Bay Enhancement/ Sediment Management Project summarized the environmental benefits of the program for Upper Newport Bay as follows': 1. Increase the tidal prism by approximately 236 acre feet. 2. Improve tidal flushing and circulation. 3. Help to stabilize the salt marshes by facilitating the passage of sedi- ment laden flood flows below the elevation of the marsh plain. 4. Encourage tidal scour and wind -wave action to maintain lower inter- tidal elevations above the Narrows. 5. Expand subtidal habitat by approximately 40 acres. 6. Localize sediment deposition within the Upper Bay to facilitate re- moval. 7. Facilitate maintenance dredging by providing equipment access. These efforts act to reduce the flow of silt into the bay, but individual projects must also take steps to control erosion and runoff. 08/31/95(I:%CNB501I.SECT43.EIR) 4.3-2 L ISA Associates, Inc. 8. Protect Newport Harbor from sedimentation by arresting and localiz- ing sediment infill in the Upper Newport Bay. 9. Improve water quality in Newport Harbor by introducing greater tidal flushing in the Upper Newport Bay. Surface and Groundwater Existing surface waters in the vicinity, and within the project site, include San Diego and Bonita Creeks, and Upper and Lower Newport Bay. The site is not located over a usable groundwater basin. The City of Newport Beach provides potable water to the area, drawn from Metropolitan Water District supplies. 4.3.2 CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project will normally have a significant effect on the environment if it will: • Substantially degrade water quality; • Substantially degrade or deplete groundwater resources; • Interfere substantially with groundwater recharge; • Cause substantial flooding, erosion or siltation. For the purposes of this EIR, the potential for significant adverse effects would occur if the project would cause, or expose people and property to, substantial flooding and/or substantial degradation of water quality (i.e., if water quality standards set by the State Water Resources Control Board [SWRCB] were violated). 4.3.3 IMPACTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT According to the Initial Study in Appendix A and the discussion above, the following potential impacts to water quality are determined to have no im- pact or less than significant impact: Would the project result in changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoffl The project will result in the over covering of soil on the site with structures and parking areas, which will result in incremental changes in drainage and absorption rates, and the amount of surface runoff. The site is immediately adjacent to San Diego Creek and Upper Newport Bay, and the site will drain directly into the creek and bay, which have the capability of receiving in- creased storm flows. 08/31/95(1: ••.CNB501-,SECT4-3.EIR) 4.3-3 r LSA Associates, Inc. r, Would the project result in exposure of people or property water related hazards such as flooding? The site is located in an area determined by the Federal Emergency Manage- ment Agency (FEMA) to be outside the 100 year floodplain. Therefore, no significant, on-site flooding is expected to occur. Would the project result in changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? Due to the change in absorption rates, the project will result in an incremen- tal increase in the amount of surface water in San Diego Creek and Upper Newport Bay. Given that these facilities have the capability of accepting increased flows, this will not be a significant impact. Would the project result in changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? The project will not result in changes in currents or the course or direction of water movements. Therefore, there will be no impact. Would the project result in substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? The project will not draw down on existing groundwater supplies and, there- fore, will not affect the amount of groundwater otherwise available. Will the project result in a change in the quantity of groundwaters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through intercep- tion of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? The project cuts will not affect groundwater perched under the site as grad- ing will occur 35 to 75 feet above the groundwater table. Will the project result in altered direction or rate of flow of ground- water? Project grading will not affect groundwater (see above response). 08/31/95(Ir•CNB501 %SECT4-311R) 4.3-4 1 L, LSA Associates, Inc. 4.3.4 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS The following topic was determined to be potentially significant: • Water quality of discharges into surface waters and groundwaters. Water Quality Grading on the site could cause a temporary increase in construction related sediment erosion and impact San Diego Creek and Upper Newport Bay and groundwater below the site. Increased erosion due to grading activities is considered a short-term construction related impact, and with mitigation measures can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. The conversion of presently vacant land to an automobile dealership may result in minor impacts to water quality associated with surface runoff con- taining oil, gasoline, metals or other substances commonly found on such surfaces as roads, pavement, sidewalks, rooftops, or landscaped areas. Pollut- ants associated with the proposed repair facility are a particular concern. Such pollutants could potentially wash from the site and into the riparian area at the southeast corner of the site, into the saltwater marsh being con- structed across Bayview Way from the site, or into San Diego Creek and Upper Newport Bay or be flushed into groundwater below the site. These potential impacts are addressed through the measures identified below as well as mitigation measures contained in the Biological Resources Section (4.7). 4.3.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS This project, in association with other past, present, and reasonably foresee- able future projects, will have a short-term impact on the water quality in Newport Bay as a result of an increase in sediment runoff. The long-term impacts of the project and cumulative projects on water quali- ty include an increase in urban pollutants to the Newport Bay from such pollutants as oil, grease and heavy metal from asphalt and roads, and pesti- cides and fertilizers from landscaped areas. The project will have no cumulative impacts related to an increase in storm runoff due to the increase in impervious surfaces. As the site is not located in a 100 year floodplain, flooding impacts are not anticipated. The minor incremental increase in runoff will not contribute to, or cause, a hazardous flooding condition. On a cumulative level, the site is not located over a usable groundwater basin, and none will directly discharge or withdraw from such a basin; there- fore, no such basins will be impacted. 08/31/95(1:'•.CNB501 ••.SECT4-3.EIR) 4.3-5 LSA Associates, Inc. Finally, as the amount of sediment that is likely to enter on-site, adjacent, and local streams, creeks, and bays is incrementally minimal, there will be no impact to the currents, flow, or direction of these bodies of water on a cu- mulative basis. 4.3.6 MITIGATION MEASURES Existing City Policies and Requirements 3-1 Prior to issuance of any grading permit, an erosion, siltation, and dust control plan shall be submitted, and shall be subject to the approval of the Building Department. 3-2 Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, the design engineer shall verify that the discharge of surface runoff from development of any site will be performed in a manner so that increased peak flows from the site will not increase erosion immediately downstream of the system. As part of this review, the velocity of concentrated runoff from the project shall be evaluated, and erosive velocities controlled as part of the final project design. This report shall be reviewed by the Planning Department and approved by the Building Department. 3-3 Erosion control measures contained in the erosion siltation and dust control plan shall be implemented on any exposed slopes within 30 days after grading, or as otherwise directed by the Building Depart- ment. 3-4 Any existing on-site drainage facilities shall be improved as required, or updated concurrent with grading and development, to the satisfac- tion of the Public Works and Building Departments. Improvement plans shall be approved by the Public Works Department prior to issuance of a grading permit. Project Level Mitigation Measures Water Quality Construction Impacts 3-5 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant (or applicant's grading contractor) shall provide to the Building and Public Works Departments haul route plans that include a description of haul routes, access points to the sites, and watering and sweeping program designed to minimize impacts of the haul operation. These plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. Copies of the plans shall be submitted to the City's Planning Depart- ment. I 08/31/95(1:-.CNB501••.SECT4-3.EIR) 4.3-6 i LSA Associates, Inc. 3-6 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall incorpo- rate the following erosion control methods into grading plans and operations to the satisfaction of the Building Department. a. An approved material such as straw, wood chips, plastic or similar materials shall be used to stabilize graded areas prior to revegetation or construction. b. Airborne and vehicle borne sediment shall be controlled dur- ing construction by: the regular sprinkling of exposed soils and the moistening of vehicles loads. C. An approved material such as riprap (a ground cover of large, loose, angular stones) shall be used to stabilize any slopes with seepage problems to protect the topsoils in areas of con- centrated runoff. 3-7 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project geotechnical consultant and/or civil engineer shall develop a plan for the diversion of stormwater away from any exposed slopes during grading and construction activities. The plan shall include the use of temporary right-of-way diversions (i.e., berms or swales) located at disturbed areas or graded right-of-ways. The plan will be approved by the Pub- lic Works and Building Departments, and implemented during grad- ing and construction activities. 3-8 The applicant shall provide a temporary gravel entrance located at every construction site entrance. The location of this entrance shall be incorporated into grading plans prior to the issuance of grading permits. To reduce or eliminate mud and sediment carried by vehi- cles or runoff onto public rights-of-way, the gravel shall cover the entire width of the entrance, and its length shall be no less than 50 feet. The entrance plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Pub- lic Works and Building Departments concurrent with review and approval of grading plans. 3-9 The applicant shall construct filter berms or other approved devise for the temporary gravel entrance. The berms shall consist of a ridge of gravel placed across graded right-of-ways to decrease and filter runoff levels while permitting construction traffic to continue. The location of berms shall be incorporated into grading plans prior to the issuance of grading permits. The plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works and Building Departments. 3-10 During grading and construction, the applicant shall provide a tempo- rary sediment basin located at the point of greatest runoff from any construction area. The location of this basin shall be incorporated into grading plans. It shall consist of an embankment of compacted soils across a drainage. The basin shall not be located in an area 08/31/95(1:'•.CNB501 ••.SECT4-3.EIR) 4.3-7 LSA Associates, Inc. where its failure would lead to loss of life or the loss of service of public utilities or roads. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Building Department. 3-11 Notice of Intent. Prior to the approval of a grading permit, the pro- ject sponsor shall submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the appropri- ate fees for coverage of the project under the General Construction Activity Storm Water Runoff.Permit to the State Water Resources Con- trol Board at least 30 days prior to initiation of construction activity at the site. The NOI shall include information about the project such as construction activities, material building/management practices, site characteristics, and receiving water information. As required by the General Construction Permit, the project shall develop and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), including inspection of stormwater controls structures and pollution prevention measures. The SWPPP shall be implemented concurrent with the beginning of the construction activities, and the plan shall be kept on site. Operational Impacts 3-12 Structural BMP Controls. Prior to the issuance of any Grading Permit, the project proponent shall ensure that the project includes imple- mentation of appropriate structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce the extent of pollutants in stormwater flows from the site. Said structural BMPs shall meet the approval of the Public Works Department. The following structural BMPs tdEORS' on at the project site: Maintenance of the selected structural BMPs will be required through- out the life of the project to ensure proper operation. 08/31/95(1:'••CNB501 .SECT4-311R) 4.3-8 1_, LSA Associates, Inc. 3-13 Non -Structural BMP Controls. Prior to the issuance of certificates of use and occupancy, the project proponent shall submit an operations plan that ensures that the project operation shall include non-struc- tural BMPs, including the following: • Periodic cleaning (i.e., street sweeping) • Routinely cleaning on-site storm drain manholes and catch basins • Source control surveys of all on-site industrial facilities • Controlling washdown of non-stormwater discharges from project development facilities • Providing information to employees on disposal of waste oil, grease, and pesticide containers • Carefully controlling pesticide and fertilizer usage • Providing covered areas for trash receptacles, or enclosed fea- tures to prevent direct contact with precipitation • Efficient landscaping irrigation • Common area litter control • Housekeeping of loading docks. All non-structural BMPs shall meet the approval of the Public Works Depart- ment. 3-14 Water Quality Management Plan. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, consistent with the Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) prepared by the County of Orange for compliance with their munici- pal storm water NPDES permit requirement, the project proponent shall prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). Said WQMP shall meet the approval of the Public Works Department. The WQMP shall indicate the proposed structural and non-structural, permanent stormwater quality control measure to be utilized for the project, shall identify the potential pollutant source on the project, and shall describe how the project implements the objectives outlined in the DAMP. Drainage Patterns 3-15 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the final plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities shall be approved by the Public Works De- partment. Any systems shown to be required by the review shall be the responsibility of the developer, unless otherwise provided for through an agreement with the property owner or serving agency. 08/31/95(L'•.CNB501'•.SECT4-3.EIR) 4.3-9 LSA Associates, Inc. 4.3.7 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Project Level Impacts After implementation of the above mitigation measures, the project will not have a significant adverse impact on water resources. 08/31/95(1: --.CNB501'+SECT4-3.E1R) 4.3-10 ' LSA Associates, Inc. 4.4 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION The following provides a summary of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) analysis and General Plan Amendment analysis for the proposed project. This section of the EIR is based on the Fletcherjones Auto Dealership Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by LSA (April 25, 1995), and presented in its entirety in Appendix D. 4.4.1 SETTING The project is located at the San Diego Creek north site, along Jamboree Road, north of San Diego Creek. Jamboree Road is a six lane, divided, major arterial in the City of Newport Beach, and provides access between the San Diego Freeway (1-405) and Pacific Coast Highway (Route 1). Figure 4.4.1 presents the existing 1994 average daily traffic (ADT) flow map for the project study area. Jamboree Road in the project vicinity currently carries 46,000 average daily trips (ADT). Table 4.4.A presents the existing levels of service (LOS) at 19 study area inter- sections. As indicated, the majority of the intersections in the project vicinity currently operate at LOS D or better. The project site is approximately 8.7 acres, with a total building area of 204,100 square feet providing a sales showroom and office, service area and office, parts area, parking deck and garage, and body shop. The project takes access off the proposed extension of Bayview Way east of Jamboree Road. Bicycle Routes Three bicycle routes shown on the Master Plan of Countywide Bikeways are located in the vicinity of the project. Route 61: A Class I (off-road, paved) bikeway along the existing south bank of San Diego Creek. Route 65: A Class I bikeway along Jamboree Road (existing). Route 66: A Class I bikeway along the south right-of-way of the SJHTC (Route 73) adjacent to the project site. This trail is being constructed as part of the SJHTC project. 4.4.2 CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE The traffic impact analysis for the proposed project is based on a near-term Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) analysis and a long-range General Plan 06/15/95 (I: ,.CNB501 ••.SECT4-4. EIR) 4.4-1 4� w� O HJT JJ c�'O s, G 21 ry9 22 J) IS PROJECT 3 LOCATION o�- �v0 < S ti9- 8 OHO FORM I� 44 4� ppCIF1C COAS7-& Sl a 40 y SAN JOAQUII a?S IV LEGEND: XX - Average Daily Traffic (In Thousands) 0/13/95(00501) 4? - N LSA NoScale OST rogsTDR �ft Figure 4.4.1 Existing Average Daily Traffic LSA Associates, Inc. Table 4.4.A - Existing Intersection Level of Service Summary INTERSECTION A.M. Peak Hour ICU LOS P.M. Peak Hour ICU LOS 1. Jamboree Rd./Campus Dr. 0.66 B 0.61 B 2. Jamboree Rd./Bristol St. North 0.41 A 0.63 B 3. Jamboree Rd./Bristol St. South 0.74 C 0.70 C 4. Jamboree Rd./Bayview Way 0.52 A 0.50 A 5. Jamboree Rd./University Dr. 0.57 A 0.55 A 6. Jamboree Rd./Bison Ave 0.55 A 0.60 B 7. Jamboree Rd./Ford Rd 0.55 A 0.65 B 8. Jamboree Rd./SJ Hills Rd. 0.65 B 0.55 A 9. Jamboree Rd./Coast Highway 0.63 B 0.60 B 10. MacArthur Blvd./Campus Dr. 0.69 B 0.70 C 11. MacArthur Blvd./Jamboree Rd. 0.58 A 0.83 D 12. MacArthur Blvd.BisonAve. 0.52 A 0.52 A 13. Macarthur Blvd./Ford Rd. 0.78 C 0.68 B 14. MacArthur Blvd./SJ Hills Rd. 0.73 C 0.75 C 15. MacArthur Blvd./Coast Highway 0.50 A 0.57 A 16. Campus Dr./Bristol St. North 0.54 A 0.93 E 17. Campus-Irvine/Bristol St. South 0.98 E 0.61 B 18. Birch St./Bristol St. North 0.58 A 0.95 E 19• Birch St./Bristol St. South 0.54 A 0.60 B ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization LOS - Level of Service 915195 (I:\00501\TPOIEXICU.XLS) ISA Associates, Inc. Amendment (GPA) analysis. The analyses determine project impacts at study area intersections for the existing circulation network and the proposed General Plan build out circulation network. Tra,, w" Phasing Ordinance (TPO) As outlined in the Administrative Procedure for Implementing the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, Resolution No. 86-20, the analysis consists of a series of comparisons between one percent of the baseline approach traffic volume at each leg of an intersection and the project's peak period trip assignment at that location. For those critical intersections where, on any approach leg, project traffic is anticipated to be greater than one percent of the projected peak period traffic volume, an intersection capacity utilization (ICU) analysis is required. The methodology for calculating the ICU is described in Appendix D. Per the TPO implementation guidelines, critical intersections, where project volumes exceed the one percent test volumes, will be considered significant and will require mitigation if the project causes an intersection to exceed an ICU of 0.90 or makes worse an intersection that already exceeds the 0.90 threshold. The baseline condition presented in this analysis is for 1997, one year after occupancy of the proposed project. The baseline condition is defined as the existing traffic plus regional growth plus approved project traffic. General Plan Analysis The General Plan level traffic analysis examines the impacts of the proposed project on the City of Newport Beach's General Plan Circulation Element. The analysis examines changes in arterial daily traffic volumes and intersec- tion levels of service on the local circulation system based on the City of Newport Beach Traffic Analysis Model (NBTAM) with and without the pro- ject. For purposes of this analysis, the City's General Plan Circulation Element was updated to include the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC); the Jamboree Road "flyover" on-ramp (JR -5), and the extension of Bayview Way east of jamboree Road. The General Plan land uses in NBTAM were also updated to include recently entitled projects and projects currently under consideration, including Newport Pavilion, Loral Aeronautics site, Fashion Island expansion, and Sheraton Properties, as well as the Planning Area 22 General Plan Amendment, Planning Area 25 zone change, and Planning Area 26 zone change, consistent with the Irvine Transportation Analysis Model (ITAM). 06/15/95(1:'•.CNB501,.SECT44.EIR) 4.4-4 ISA Associates, Inc. For purposes of the General Plan intersection capacity analysis, a one percent peak hour test was conducted to identify intersections where the project contributes more than one percent of the General Plan total peak hour approach volume. For those critical intersections, a General Plan ICU analysis with and without the proposed project was prepared. The following defines a significant impact: 1. A project impact is considered significant if the intersection exceeds the requirements of the TPO analysis, i.e., if the project causes an intersection to exceed an ICU of 0.90 or makes worse an intersection that already exceeds the 0.90 threshold during the a.m. or p.m. peak hour. 2. A project impact is considered significant if the project contributes 0.01 ICU or more at an intersection forecast to operate above LOS D in the General Plan condition. 4.4.3 IMPACTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT According to the Initial Study in Appendix A, the following potential impacts to transportation and circulation were determined to be less than significant. Would the project result in hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment? The project will be designed to Newport Beach City design standards. No hazards to safety from the design features have been identified. Therefore, there is no impact to safety. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? The project is not located on an emergency access route, and will have ade- quate emergency access via Bayview Way. The project will not affect emer- gency access to nearby uses. Therefore, there is no impact. Would the project result in insufficient parking capacity on site or off site? The project will be required to meet City parking codes, and will have suffi- cient on-site parking. Therefore, there is no impact. 06/15/95(1: ••.CNB501 %SECT44EIR) 4.4-5 LSA Associates, Inc. Would the project result in hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? t' The project will not result in any effects to pedestrians or bicyclists. A proposed bicycle trail is located parallel to the north side of the property, but would not be affected. Therefore, there is no impact. Would the project result in conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? The project will have no effect on adopted policies supporting alternative transportation modes. Therefore, there is no impact. Would the project result in rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? There are no rail, waterborne, or air traffic routes that will be affected by the project; therefore, there is no impact. 4.4.4 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS Consistent with City of Newport Beach Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) guide- lines, project trips are generated, distributed and assigned to the 19 study area intersections presented in Figure 4.4.2. These intersections were select- ed because they are anticipated to be influenced by traffic generated by the proposed project. The list of intersections was reviewed and approved by the City's Traffic Engineer. Trip Generation Table 4.4.13 presents the approved trip generation rates and trip generation for the proposed project. Project trips are generated using a City approved "Expanded Site Area" trip generation methodology. While typical auto dealer- ships are composed of one level of development, the proposed project will be developed on three levels to provide space for the body shop, parts area, and parking deck/garage. The trip generation methodology used to generate peak hour and daily trips for the project takes into account the potential for additional trips generated by the multi-level nature of the development. Trip Distribution and Assignment Figure 4.4.3 presents the City approved, near-term project trip distribution for the proposed project. The arterial circulation network assumes existing conditions prior to completion of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corri- dor (SJHTC). 06/15/95(I:-•.CNB501••.SECT44.EIR) 4.4-6 1 , 104. 04" °C 1 16 �~4G AGs d� 17 18 19 2 11 3 LOCOATION �¢ $ 4 5 50 6 12 '00 �bgSTDR 7 13 FORD R9 8 O4 PAC3pIC COASTk� 14 �4 <DN 9 SAN JOAQUIN HILI.Sko �R 15 6/13/95(CNB501) N LSA No.Sale Figure 4.4.2 Intersection Location Map LSA Associates, Inc. Table 4.4.13 - Project Trip Generation Size Trip Generation Rates (Per Acre)' Daily A.M. In A.M. Out A.M. Total P.M. In P.M. Out P.M. Total PEAK PERIOD A.M. Li FZetcherJonesAuto Dealership 230.0 17.20 13.80 31.00 15.20 21.80 37.00 PEAK HOUR P.M. Total Fletcherjones Auto Dealership 230.0 8.60 6.90 15.50 7.60 10.90 18.50 Size Units Daily A.M. Li A.M. Out Trip Generation A.M. Total P.M. In P.M. Out P.M. Total Baseline Site Area' 8.7 Acres 2,000 150 120 270 132 190 322 Expanded Site Area3 2.7 Acres 620 46 37 83 41 59 100 Total Peak Period Trip Generation 2,620 196 157 353 173 249 422 Baseline Site Area 8.7 Acres 2,000 75 60 135 66 95 161 Expanded Site Area 2.7 Acres 620 23 19 42 21 29 50 Total Peak Hour Trip Generation 2,620 98 79 177 87 124 211 Notes: 'Trip generation rates are based on an average of the City of Neuport Beach Traffic Model (NBTAM) April, 1992 rates and trip rates from Traffic Generators, San Diego Association of Governments, October, 1993. 'Baseline site area includes the showroom, sales office, service area, canopy, and parts area. 3 Extended site area includes the upper level floor area of the body shop and parking deck & garage totalling 117,900 sf converted to acres using a conversion factor of 43,560 sf =1 Acre. 9/5/95 (I: \CNB501 \TPO\TGEN.XLS) 20% 10% 15% `rT O� `rT �ti4G�� O�AG�Q PROJECT �3 LOCATION 0% 5% 4�Q 04� 6/13/95(0 ,M501) 4? N TS-A No Scale 5% CbASr�R FORD Vp— SAN JOAQUIN HI I VJZO Figure 4.4.3 Project Trip Distribution LSA Associates, Inc. Peak period and peak hour trips generated by the proposed project are assigned to the local roadway network based on the distribution pattern illustrated in Figure 4.4.3. These distributions are used to identify project impacts using the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) analysis methodolo- gy. Figure 4.4.4 presents the peak hour project trip assignment at the study area intersections for the near-term condition. Long-term project trip distributions and project impacts are based on NBTAM. Near -Term Project Impacts Table 4.4.0 presents a summary of the ICU analysis for the existing plus cumulative and existing plus cumulative plus project conditions, i.e., baseline with and without project conditions. Table 4.4.0 indicates that, of the 12 intersections forecast to exceed the one percent test volumes, only 4 intersections will exceed the 0.90 ICU threshold value for the cumulative and project conditions. These critical intersections are located at Jamboree Road/Bristol Street South; MacArthur Boulevard/ Jamboree Road; MacArthur Boulevard/San Joaquin Hills Road; and Campus- IrvineBristol Street South. At the MacArthur Boulevard/jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard/San Joaquin Hills Road intersections, the project does not make worse the inter- sections' ICUs and is not considered a significant project impact. The project does make worse by 0.01 or greater the ICU at the Jamboree Road/Bristol Street South and the Campus-Irvine/Bristol Street South intersections. Programmed Improvements The TPO guidelines provide that any reasonably foreseeable improvement projects that may affect the study area intersections be included in the TPO analysis. There are currently three programmed improvements in the City of Newport Beach that will have a direct benefit in reducing project impacts at the two intersections identified above. These improvements are fully funded, and are scheduled for completion prior to and at approximately the same time as project occupancy. The Birch Street -Mesa Drive improvement will provide an alternate route between Bristol Street and Irvine Avenue. This improvement will reduce project contribution at the Campus-Irvine/Bristol Street South intersection. The construction of the SR -55 northbound off -ramp to SR -73 southbound (Connector "D") will reduce peak hour traffic demand at the Campus - 06/15/95 (I: %CNB501 ••.SECT4-4. EIR) 4.4-10 y191 yti N�\ry �� t r 10j9 ryN h\ 4 S/4 0117-4 6/13/95(CNB501) 41- N L S—A No$cale Q4 4S� v,`` NFk 9STDR -- �5144/6 -► FORD RD I �4 4j6 bac �y �a S h �10AQUIN HELLS RD Figure 4.4.4 Project Peak Hour Trip Assignment tih O� `rT �O OBJ 'Lh\�ry �\1q� a ,yh�tiry � r a� PROJECT oo SITE g 'k^ 4-43/68 � 36✓56 BAYVIEW rn o v� �Q e e 1-514 t UNIVERSITY DR h yti N�\ry �� t r 10j9 ryN h\ 4 S/4 0117-4 6/13/95(CNB501) 41- N L S—A No$cale Q4 4S� v,`` NFk 9STDR -- �5144/6 -► FORD RD I �4 4j6 bac �y �a S h �10AQUIN HELLS RD Figure 4.4.4 Project Peak Hour Trip Assignment 71 w a 'e CJ V n V^ r n O r r O V1 GN r� � a + x 0 d w csa W V U g U Q d Q w ca � a N V�, N Vr G1 0� - w 0 � ►y�+ 0 V w a1 V U p U V w d w U v � a U -F w R x 0 d w Q1 m a1 U Q U g d p w a O r d Vr \0 O N a N V G� 00 � V Irl C'\ \0 v � oo � oo u\ co •-� 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o N F it h x � a r 0J p" M O O V1 O V1 V1O M N w\ r. ac I� V1 V1 Vr Vr V1 \0 00 V1 f- \ a O O O O c 0 0 0 0 pq c a o v a v `C N I� V1 V1 V1 M Op N M 00 'r V., V1 Vr �D V1 'A O O O O O O O O O O O O r V_ a s o �b z 0x zcn c o H v w o o.� V oz ° V t6 it o C i � � � 4 � � rn U b b b '� •D V EW., � Z a a a z a a a a m as as 5 p v N O r L v> 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 Q�y O O y •i .0 .fl E E E E E .O E E E V N ti ti ti ti ti ti ti h ro cC a U V V ISA Associates, Inc. IrvineBristol Street South intersection by diverting existing and future near- term through trips along Bristol Street South to the parallel SR -73 freeway. r' The combination of these two programmed and funded improvements is sufficient to reduce the project contribution at the intersection to a level below the "one -percent" threshold, and to offset any project contribution to the overall ICU value, thereby negating any project impacts at this intersec- tion. As part of the construction of the SJHTC, scheduled to occur at approximate- ly the same time as project occupancy, improvements at the Jamboree Road/Bristol Street South intersection are programmed. The improvements at this intersection include re -striping the eastbound approach to provide one exclusive left turn lane, a shared through -left turn lane, a through lane, and dual right turn lanes. With this improvement, the intersection will operate at 0.83 ICU during the a.m. peak hour and 0.85 ICU during the p.m. peak hour. Long Range General Plan Impacts Figure 4.4.5 presents the average daily traffic (ADT) volumes for the 2010 General Plan build out without the proposed project. Figure 4.4.6 presents the average daily traffic (ADT) volumes for the 2010 General Plan build out with the proposed project. The project's daily traffic contribution along Jamboree Road north of Bayview Way is approximately four percent of the 2010 General Plan traffic volume. Table 4.4.13 presents a summary of the intersection capacity analysis for the General Plan build out condition with and without the proposed project. As indicated, 6 of the 19 intersections examined are triggered by the pro- posed project. Of those six intersections, five are forecast to exceed the 0.90 ICU threshold during the a.m. or p.m. peak hour in the General Plan build out. The project's contribution at four of these five intersections does not make worse the resulting ICU, and is not considered a significant impact. At the intersection of Jamboree Road/Bristol Street North, the project contributes 0.01 ICU during the a.m. peak hour and 0.02 ICU during the p.m. peak hour. University Drive University Drive between MacArthur Boulevard and Culver Drive is a Major six lane arterial with a daily traffic capacity of 54,000. As identified in the General Plan build out condition, the project traffic contribution along Uni- versity Drive east of MacArthur Boulevard is negligible. Under near-term 06/15/95 (1: ,. CNB501 ••.SECT4-4. EIR) 4.4-13 ►7 � U � O L=. s 3 a� a� F, �Q C7 Q ►7 11C U �f U a � s 3 � a a Q L7 Q a 0 U Q a o 0 a w 0 � x p w w A U w W. u v a aA ��roov,0, 0 N O\ 00 ON O y 3 a; 0 q w L � � u p w a1 A GA A A n. x v c v a •� 00 Oo m 11, \-o r- 0 \0 o\0X\0wm X \0 w m �00000 v `o c M v p x w w A U w w � c Q "i11 4% L O N 00 00 O\ O a� N �o� o wx0 waaUcGAA y a u vA r-ooc��r\0r- U o ar v 00 00 0 C O O O C ` a a� L U a 0 N C .0 F Z ch w n Q O O .� � � •F w O � 0 C C C (Cd cGd cGa cGa V u r l LSA Associates, Inc. conditions, the project contributes approximately 130 daily trips, or 0.2 percent of the arterial capacity. Based on the City of Irvine performance criteria, the project's contribution along University Drive is less than 2 per- cent, and is not considered significant. Long Range Project Improvements The addition of traffic generated by the proposed project to the current r General Plan entitlement is insignificant from a General Plan level analysis. The project does not create any significant traffic impacts at the intersections in the General Plan build out. r The project does contribute towards an unacceptable level of service at the intersection of Jamboree Road/Bristol Street North. This intersection oper- ates at 1.08 ICU (LOS F) during the a.m. peak hour and 1.11 ICU (LOS F) during the p.m. peak hour. As a result of the planned elimination of the existing Birch Street off -ramp at Route 73, traffic from SJHTC is concentrated at the new off -ramp at jamboree Road, which forms the westbound leg of the intersection. The project's contribution at this intersection is approximately 1.2 percent of the total peak hour approach volumes. Per City of Newport Beach Traffic Impact Analysis guidelines, this is considered a significant impact. A recommended improvement to offset the project ICU contribution at this intersection is to provide an additional, i.e., fourth, westbound approach lane at the SJHTC off -ramp. With two through lanes, a shared through/right turn lane, and an exclusive right turn lane, the intersection is forecast to operate at 0.98 ICU (LOS E) during the a.m. peak hour and 1.00 ICU (LOS E) during the p.m. peak hour. With this improvement, the intersection will operate at a better LOS than without the project. Bicycle Routes The project will not affect the existing bicycle routes along San Diego Creek and Jamboree Road. The project is also designed to coordinate with the TCA's plans for a bicycle route along the north edge of the project. 4.4.5 MITIGATION MEASURES 4.4.1 Prior to approval of building permits, the project should contribute, on a fair share basis, towards the cost of the improvement at the intersection of Jamboree Road/Bristol Street North. Said contribu- tions shall meet with the approval of the Director of Public Works. 06/15/95(1:-..CNB501%SECT AXIR) 4.4-17 ISA Associates, Inc. 4.4.6 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION After implementation of the above mitigation measures, the project will not have a significant adverse impact on traffic circulation. 06/15/95(I:'••CNB501 ••.SECI'4-4.EIR) 4.4-18 LSA Associates, Inc. 4.5 AIR QUALITY 4.5.1 SETTING Meteorology/Climate The San Diego Creek North site is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which includes Los Angeles and Orange County as well as portions of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. The local climate is dominated by the strength and position of the semi-permanent high pressure center over the Pacific Ocean near Hawaii. This high pressure center results in cool summers, mild winters, and infrequent rainfall. It also drives the cool, day- time breezes, maintaining comfortable humidities and ample sunshine. However, the same atmospheric processes that create a desirable living cli- mate restrict the dispersion of air pollution. Coastal areas, such as Newport Beach, however, typically experience very little unhealthful air quality often found in other parts of the air basin. Temperatures in the coastal portions of Orange County average 61° F with average summer temperatures of approximately 68 to 71° F and average winter temperatures of approximately 51 to 53° F. Rainfall averages around 12 inches per year in the coastal areas. In contrast to a very steady pattern of temperature, rainfall is seasonally and annually highly variable, with most rain falling from November through April. Light onshore winds across the south coastal region are from a westerly and southwesterly direction during the day; easterly or northeasterly breezes predominate at night. In January, nighttime light to moderate winds blow from the northeast to the south, southwest more than three-quarters of the time. This pattern is reversed during the day, and the wind blows predomi- nantly from a southwesterly direction. Light winds blow from an eastern or southeastern direction at night during the month of July. This trend reverses during the day, when winds blow predominantly from the southwest. Periods of air stagnation may occur, both in the morning and evening hours between the periods of dominant air flow. These periods of stagnation are one of the critical determinants of air quality conditions on any given day. Surface high pressure systems over the great basin, combined with other meteorological conditions, can result in very strong, downslope Santa Ana winds during the winter and fall months. These winds normally last for a few days before predominant meteorological conditions are reestablished. Within the SCAB, two types of inversions occur. Radiational inversions are produced by offshore descending air flows and nighttime radiational cooling. For the most part, these inversions are dry because of the continental origin of the air masses involved. However, with high surface humidity there can be patchy late night and early morning fog, or widespread dense fog lasting through several days. Marine/subsidence inversions serve to cap the surface marine layer and serve as a barrier to vertical mixing because air that pushes 08/31/95(1:••.CNB501 %SECT4-5.EIR) 4.5-1 LSA Associates, Inc. through the inversion base is heavier than the air in the inversion and re- turns to equilibrium by sinking below the base. The combination of winds and inversions, coupled with their seasonality, leads to the degraded air quality in summer and the generally good air quality in the winter, in the project area. Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) were established under the Clean Air Act Amendment of 1971. States could adopt these standards as promulgated but retained the option to adopt more stringent standards and/or to include other pollution species. California already had standards in existence before federal AAQS was established. Because of unique meteo- rological problems in the State and differences of opinion by medical panels established by the California Air Resources Board and the EPA on pollutant levels that protect susceptible members of the population from adverse health impacts with an adequate degree of safety, there is considerable diver- sity between State and federal standards currently in effect in California. Existing levels of air quality near the project area are best characterized from ambient air quality measurements conducted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) at its Costa Mesa and Newport monitoring stations. While the Costa Mesa station monitors for gaseous pollutants, the Newport station monitors only particulate matter. SCAQMD data obtained at these two stations from 1991 through 1993 show that ozone levels continue to exceed both the State and federal air quality standards during portions of the year, but the number of violations is on the decline. The State eight hour carbon monoxide standard was exceeded once during this period in 1992 while the State PM10 particulate standard was exceeded on a regular basis. Air Quality Planning The proposed project will be located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), and is jurisdictionally governed by the California Air Resources Board (CARR). In 1976, the California legislature adopted the Lewis Air Quality Management Act, which created the SCAQMD. This agency was charged with developing uniform plans and programs for the region to attain federal standards by the dates specified in the federal law, and provides technical and monitoring support, as well as enforcement of rules and regu- lations. The district was also mandated to meet State standards by the earli- est date achievable using reasonably available measures. In accordance with the State Lewis -Presley Air Quality Act (1987) and the Federal Clean Air Act Amendment (1970), a revised Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) was adopted by the governing boards of the SCAQMD and the . Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) in March of 1989. 08/31/95(1:'•.CNB501 -•.SECr4-5.E1R) 4.5-2 LSA Associates, Ina The plan, governed by State and federal laws, was to achieve healthful levels of air quality. The overall goal was to improve air quality by five percent per year and attain all Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) by the year 2007. Realizing that the goals of the 1989 AQMP would be unattainable in the refer- enced time frame, a new AQMP was adopted on July 12, 1991. The goal of the 1991 plan is to reach federal attainment for CO, NOD PMIo, and ozone in the years 2000, 2000, 2006, and 2010, respectively, through the use of clean fuels, conservation measures, and reductions in vehicle use. The State standards for attainment differ from the federal standards. For these standards, the anticipated attainment for CO and NOZ are by the years 2005 and 2000, respectively. The State standards for PMIo and ozone will not be met until beyond the year 2010. The AQMP was again revised in 1994. In this revision, emission control inno- vations in the form of market based approaches are explicitly encouraged by the federal Clean Air Act (CAA). Other federal requirements addressed in the revision include tracking plan implementation, milestone compliance for ozone and carbon monoxide, and the requirement for public hearings on many of the required elements in the State implementation plan submittals before considering them officially submitted. In addition to the above, the CAA requires the SCAQMD to develop an ozone attainment demonstration, a post -1996 rate of progress demonstration, and a PM10 State implementation plan, which incorporates best available control measures for fugitive sources. In addition to federal requirements, the 1994 revision meets California Clean Air Act (CCAA) requirements. According to the CCAA, districts must design their air quality attainment plan to achieve a reduction in basinwide emis- sions of 5 percent or more per year (or 15 percent or more in a 3 year peri- od) for each nonattainment pollutant or its precursors. Additionally, the plan includes an assessment of the cost effectiveness of available and proposed measures, and a list of the measures ranked from the least cost effective to the most cost effective. Other factors including techno- logical feasibility, emissions reduction potential, rate of reduction, public acceptability, and enforceability are also addressed. Because of their im- portance, efficiency, equity, and legal authority have also been included in the plan for prioritization. 08/31/95(I:'•.CNB501 %SECT4-5.EIR) 4.5-3 LSA Associates, Inc. M 4.5.2 CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE Significance Criteria The significance of such impacts will be determined according to the criteria based on federal, State and local pollutant standards/regulations. Impacts are considered potentially significant if any of the following criteria are met: • During construction phases, project emissions exceed the following SCAQMD suggested threshold criteria: r • During operational phases, project emissions exceed the following SCAQMD suggested threshold criteria: Daily Quarterly Pollutant Criteria Criteria ROG 751bs/day 2.5 tons/qtr. CO 550 lbs/day 24.75 tons/qtr. PM10 150 lbs/day 6.75 tons/qtr. NOx 100 lbs/day 2.5 tons/qtr. r • During operational phases, project emissions exceed the following SCAQMD suggested threshold criteria: • Project emissions cause or measurably contribute to violations of the NAAQS or CAAQS. 4.5.3 IMPACTS FOUND TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT According to the Initial Study contained in Appendix A, following is a discus- ` sion of potential impacts that have been determined to have no effect or to be less than significant. Will the project expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? No sensitive receptors have been identified in the immediate vicinity of the project that would be affected by an increase in pollutants; therefore, there is no impact. i 08/31/95(1: I.CNB501-•.SGCT4-5. GIR) 4.5-4 Daily f Pollutant Criteria ROG 55 lbs/day CO 550 lbs/day PMIo 150 lbs/day NOx 55 lbs/day • Project emissions cause or measurably contribute to violations of the NAAQS or CAAQS. 4.5.3 IMPACTS FOUND TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT According to the Initial Study contained in Appendix A, following is a discus- ` sion of potential impacts that have been determined to have no effect or to be less than significant. Will the project expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? No sensitive receptors have been identified in the immediate vicinity of the project that would be affected by an increase in pollutants; therefore, there is no impact. i 08/31/95(1: I.CNB501-•.SGCT4-5. GIR) 4.5-4 LSA Associates, Inc Will the project alter air movement, or temperature or cause any change in climate? The project is small at a regional level, and will not have a significant effect on regional air movement, moisture, temperature, or climate. Will the project create objectionable odors? The nature of the project does not involve the creation of objectionable odors; therefore, there is no impact. 4.5.4 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS According to the Initial Study in Appendix A, the following project impacts have been determined to be potentially significant. The project could potentially contribute to the violation of an air quality standard or an existing or projected air quality violation. Air quality impacts can be divided into short-term and long-term. Short-term impacts are usually associated with construction and grading activities. Long-term impacts are typically associated with build out conditions. Although most long-term emissions are due to increased automotive use, nominal emissions are also associated with the on-site combustion of natural gas involved in both space and water heating and the off-site generation of electrical power used on site. Reactive organic emissions are also associated with the storage and dispensation of fuel used in the operation of project related vehicles. Construction Impacts Exhaust Emissions Project completion may take as long as 12 months, with 2.5 to 3 months for site preparation and 8.5 to 9 months for construction. Emissions would be produced in the greatest quantities during the initial grading and site prepa- ration phase, when heavy equipment is used to the greatest extent. Later stages, including construction, would use equipment such as cranes and generators, but fewer pieces would be used; also, these pieces typically use smaller engines, are more efficient in their use of power, and have smaller load factors. Therefore, this analysis will focus on site grading and prepara- tion. This analysis is based on five pieces of heavy equipment, each working an assumed 11 hours per day with 1 hour of down time. Because the exact type of equipment is unknown at this time, and will ultimately vary with the contractor performing the work, an average of those pieces of heavy, diesel powered equipment listed in AP -42, "Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors" (USEPA, 1985), was prepared and used for this analysis. Equipment emissions are shown in Table 4.5.A. 08/31/95(1:'•.CNB501 ••.SECT4-5.EIR) 4.5-5 0 z 0 z 0 z 0 z Ed Vi o 0 > Ow 0 1 ,4 COS J4 Ia. Ld -14 to 00 to n, cr aw a 0 a _0 Cd to CC C E 0 cd 0i O 1:0 cf) ID 44 16. U 0 0 u o 0 u Z a ch a LSA Associates, Inc. The exhaust produced by worker commutes and haul trucks would be addi- tive to that produced by this heavy equipment. Worker trips are based on 50 workers each traveling 22.2 miles per day. Table 4.5.A presents the emis- sions associated with this scenario. Haul trucks would also be necessary for the delivery of construction materials and removal of cut material. As much as6jt0�:,'.f);�000 cubic yards of mate- rial would be removed from the site. Assuming ad' e q load capacity d ck, as many as; =tZOV==pT�rurday4;SA�truck could be required over the 2.5 to 3 month grading period. It is projected that this material would be used in the construction of the San Joaquin Transportation Corridor, or another local project; a round trip distance of ten miles was used in this analysis. Furthermore, seven trucks were assumed to make ten trips each. The emis- sions for trucking activities are shown in Table 4.5.A. Note that this level of activity is projected only during the grading period and not over the entire 12 month construction period. After site grading, both heavy equipment and trucking activities would be greatly reduced. As shown in Table 4-5A#d I''t+C'`€tttC?' exhaust emissions :.1 :::::.:::::::::::::.:::::::►� are is not projected to exceed daily threshold criteria, and will not present a significant impact. ..:.:;hlt ::::;;::.::i.....t' Fugitive Dust In addition to exhaust emissions, site grading and equipment travel on un- paved surfaces will create fugitive dust during construction. Based on the construction schedule, as much as three acres will be graded on a monthly basis. In the absence of dust control, this grading would produce 108 pounds of PMIo per day. This value would be reduced by 50 percent for dust control measures, and daily PMIo production is projected at 54 pounds per day. This value would be added to the 5.6 pounds per day predicted for exhaust emissions; the resultant value of 60.6 pounds per day would not exceed the 150 pounds per day SCAQMD threshold level, and no significant impact is projected. Even if PMIo emissions resulting from other construc- tion activities are added, the threshold criteria are not exceeded. In addition to degradation of the air quality, this dust creates a soiling nui- sance as it settles out on parked cars, landscaping, and other horizontal surfaces. Regular watering and adherence to SCAQMD Rules 402, (Nuisance) and 403 and other dust abatement procedures, to be implemented as a normal part of construction activity, will aid in the control this nuisance; any dust settlement will result in an adverse, but not significant, air quality im- pact. 08/31/95(1: ••.CNB501 ••.SECT4.5.EIR) 4.5-7 ISA Associates, Inc. Operational Impacts As mentioned above, operational emissions impacts stem mainly from the use I of motor vehicles; nominal emissions are also associated with on-site combustion involved in space and water heating, and the off-site generation of electrical power used on site. Reactive organic emissions will also be associated with the storage and dispensation of fuel used in the operation of the proposed car dealership. Estimated emissions associated with operation of the proposed project are illustrated in Table 4.5.B. Mobile Emissions To determine the emissions produced by the use of project related vehicles, the total number of miles traveled on a daily basis was estimated. Based on the traffic data approximately 2,350 trips and 15,059 miles will be generated on a daily basis. Emissions estimates for these trips are shown in Table 4.5.B. It must be realized that although these miles are associated with the occu- pancy of the site, the actual number of miles traveled in the South Coast Air Basin will not be increased by this value. If the project were not construct- ed, trips related to vehicle service (and to an extent, showroom sales and employment) would be to another local dealership or service center. Off -Site Electricity Generation Emissions Based on an area of 108,400 square feet (including showroom, sales office, service area, service office, parts area, and body shop) and methodology presented in the Handbook, the project will consume 1,138,200 kilowatt- hours per year or 3,118 kilowatt-hours per day. Emissions for this usage are shown in Table 4.5.B. On -Site Gas Combustion Emissions Based on 108,400 square feet and methodology presented in the Handbook, natural gas use is calculated at 216,800 cubic feet per month or 7,227 cubic feet per day. Emissions for this combustion are shown in Table 4.5.B. Total Emissions for Project Occupancy Table 4.5.B presents the total operational emissions. All emissions are less than the threshold levels identified, and no significant impacts will be pro- duced from project operations. 0"1/950: *,CNB501 %SECT4-5.E1R) 4.5-8 1. z z z z z � V Gra 0 u 0 CI 0 7 4 w 0 o z z z �? I�q � "T O M W O O z �o M O rn M 14 M N C .+ N M `T PaG N z -1 N O � � 0 O O u v .+ N M `T PaG LSA Associates, Inc. Local Impacts r - As mentioned above, air quality impacts are considered significant if project generated emissions cause an exceedance of any ambient air quality stan- dards promulgated at the State and the federal levels. Project traffic is split among the various routes that access the site. The maximum volume of project generated traffic is during the peak p.m. hour along Jamboree Road, immediately west of the site. When both northbound and southbound pro- ject generated traffic is considered, the project will add 70 trips during the r peak hour. This volume would, a be added to the 5,870 vehicles already using the link, and represents less than 1.2 percent of the total traffic vol- ume. This value is sufficiently low such that the project is not projected to contribute significantly to any CO hotspots that may be generated along this road. As the distance from the site increases, the project's contribution to each roadway decreases, and the project would not be anticipated to signifi- cantly contribute to any CO hotspots. Consistency with the AQMP CEQA requires that projects be consistent with the AQMP. A consistency determination plays an essential role in local agency project review by linking local planning and unique individual projects to the AQMP in the following ways. It fulfills the CEQA goal of fully informing local agency decision mak- ers of the environmental costs of the project under consideration at a stage early enough to ensure that air quality concerns are fully addressed. Only new or amended General Plan elements, Specific Plans, and significantly unique projects need to undergo a consistency review. The reason for this is that the AQMP strategy is based on projections from local General Plans. Therefore, projects that are consistent with the local General Plan are consid- ered consistent with the air quality related regional plan. Because the pro- posed project includes a General Plan Amendment, a consistency analysis is necessary. Various things to be considered in the consistency analysis in- clude the jobs/housing balance, reduction in trip generation, and significance of the air quality impact. Project implementation will require a General Plan Amendment redesignating the site from 112,000 square feet of general office to commercial. The auto center would generate fewer jobs than the office space designation. In an area that is jobs rich and housing poor, this change would have a neutral or possibly beneficial effect on the job/housing balance, and is therefore consis- tent with the AQMP. The second indicator of consistency relates to a reduction in trip generation. In accordance with the ITE Trip Generation Manual, the office space envi- sioned in the current General Plan would create 1,529 average daily trips, and 11,825 miles per day. Therefore, on a daily basis the project would add 821 trips (54 percent) and 3,234 miles (27 percent) over that for the prop- osed office use. This could be considered inconsistent with the goals of the 08/31/95(I:,,CNB501,.SECr4-5.EIR) 4.5-10 LSA Associates, Inc. AQMP. However, placement of office uses on site would generate 209 and 202 trips during the critical a.m. and p.m. peak hours, respectively, while the automobile dealership would generate only 159 and 189 trips during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, respectively. Because trips generated during these critical periods create roadway congestion, shift vehicles to slower operating speeds, and ultimately create more emissions per vehicle mile traveled, the increase in vehicle miles associated with the auto center is not considered as an inconsistency with the AQMP. The third indicator of consistency is that the project does not create signifi- cant air emissions. As shown in Table 4.5.13, all emissions associated with the project are less than criteria thresholds, and no significant impacts are pro- jected. 4.5.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS In accordance with SCAQMD methodology, if a project does not produce significant impacts or is mitigated to a level that is less than significant, it is not considered to contribute significantly to a cumulative impact. 4.5.6 MITIGATION MEASURES Construction 5-1 With the implementation of standard dust control practices dictated by SCAQMD Rule 403, significant construction impacts are limited to VOC emissions produced by the application of asphalt. 5-2 The applicant shall specify the use of concrete, emulsified asphalt, or asphaltic cement, none of which produce significant quantities of VOC emissions. 4.5.7 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION With the implementation of the above mitigation measure, any potential impacts would be reduced to a level that is less than significant. 08/31/95(1: ••.CNB501'•.SEC74-5.0R) 4.5-11 LSA Associates, Inc. 4.6 NOISE 4.6.1 SETTING Noise Definitions Sound may be described in terms of loudness or amplitude (measured in decibels), frequency or pitch (measured in Hertz or cycles per second), and duration (measured in seconds or minutes). The standard unit of measure- ment of the loudness of sound is the decibel (dB). Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies, a special frequency depen- dent rating scale is usually used to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A weighted decibel scale (dBA) performs this compensation by discriminating against frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear. Noise is defined as unwanted sound, and is known to have several adverse effects on people, including hearing loss, speech interference, sleep inter- ference, physiological responses, and annoyance. Based on these known adverse effects of noise, the federal government and the State of California have established criteria to protect public health and safety and to prevent disruption of certain human activities. Noise Assessment Criteria Several rating scales (or "noise metrics") exist to analyze adverse effects of noise, including traffic generated noise, on a community. These scales in- clude the Equivalent Noise Level (Leq), Day -Night Average Noise Level (Ldn), and the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). Leq is a sound energy level averaged over a specified time period (usually one hour), expressed as a single numerical value. For example, a one hour Leq noise level measurement would represent the average amount of energy contained in all of the noise that occurred in that one hour. Leq is an effec- tive noise descriptor because of its ability to assess the total time varying effects of noise on sensitive receptors. Unlike the Leq metric, the Ldn and CNEL noise metrics are based on 24 hours of measurement. Ldn and CNEL also differ from Leq because they apply a time weighted factor designed to emphasize noise events that occur during the evening and nighttime hours (when sleep disturbance is a con- cern). "Time weighted" refers to the fact that Ldn and CNEL penalize noise that occurs during certain sensitive time periods. In the case of CNEL, noise occurring during the daytime period (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.) receives no penalty. Noise during the evening time period (7:00 to 10:00 p.m.) is penal- ized by five dBA, while nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) noise is penalized by ten dBA. Ldn differs from CNEL in that no weighting is applied to the hours between 7:00 and 10:00 p.m. Ldn, and CNEL are the predominant 06/15/95(1: 4.6-1 LSA Associates, Inc. criteria used to measure roadway noise affecting residential receptors, while Leq is generally used to measure noise affecting sensitive receptors where noise is not a concern during the evening and nighttime periods (e.g., schools, office buildings, etc). The City of Newport Beach uses CNEL to assess the compatibility of residen- tial land uses with the noise environment. It requires that the exterior living areas (i.e., yards and patios) for residential uses not exceed 65 dBA CNEL. In addition, for multifamily residential projects, the California Noise Insula- tion Standard (California Administrative Code, Title 25, Chapter 1, Subarticle 1, Article 4) requires that the indoor noise levels in a multifamily residential development not exceed 45 dBA CNEL. City of Newport Beach indoor noise standards are consistent with the State standards, but require that both single family and multifamily developments achieve an indoor noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL. Noise Sources in Project Vicinity Noise in the project area is due primarily to motor vehicles. The noise pro- duced by traffic in the site vicinity is based on FHWA model runs contained in the Circulation Improvement & Open Space Agreement Draft Program Environmental Impact Report prepared by ASB Planning Inc. and STA Plan- ning Inc. (1992), and is tabulated in Table 4.6.A. (Note that these noise levels are based on 1990 data. Traffic counts obtained in the summer of 1993 and 1994 and the winter of 1994 show similar and, more often than not, slightly reduced traffic volumes. Therefore, the 1990 volumes were used in this analysis.) These noise contour estimates do not take into account the effect of topography or existing noise barriers that may affect ambient noise levels. Based on the proximity to Route 73, Jamboree Road, and University Drive, on-site noise is projected at approximately 70 dBA CNEL. 4.6.2 CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE According to CEQA guidelines, a significant noise impact is one that substan- tially increases the ambient noise levels for adjoining or nearby sensitive receptors. For purposes of community noise assessment, changes in noise levels of three dBA or greater are typically identified as discernable to the human ear, while changes less than one dBA are not discernable. In the one to three dBA range, residents sensitive to noise may perceive a slight change. i_ 06/15/95(1:••.CNB501%SECT" NEW) 4.6-2 LSA Associates, Inc. Table 4.6.A - Existing Noise Levels Produced From Local Traffics Roadway Distance To CNEL Contour From Centerline Of Roadway (Feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA CNEL CNEL CNEL Jamboree Road Dupont to Campus 98 211 455 Campus to Birch 86 185 400 Birch to MacArthur 80 172 371 MacArthur to Bristol 88 190 409 Bristol to University 137 294 634 University to Bison 123 266 572 Bison to Ford 123 266 572 Ford to San Joaquin Hills 132 284 612 San Joaquin Hills to Santa 109 235 507 Barbara Santa Barbara to Pacific 104 223 481 Coast Highway MacArthur Boulevard North of Campus 72 155 334 Campus to Birch 59 127 274 Birch to Von Karman ROW2 103 222 Von Karman to Jamboree 53 114 245 Jamboree to University 156 335 722 University to Bison 154 332 715 Bison to Ford 146 315 679 Ford to San Joaquin Hills 132 284 612 s Table taken from Circulation Improvement & Open Space Agreement Draft Program Environmental Impact Report, 1992. Note: these estimates do not take into account the effect of existing noise barriers or topography. 2 ROW - Noise contour falls within the right-of-way of the road. 06/15/95(1: '-.CNB501 ••.SECr4.6.N M 4.6-3 LSA Associates, Inc. Roadway Distance To CNEL Contour From Centerline Of Roadway (Feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA CNEL CNEL CNEL San Joaquin Hills to Santa 106 227 490 Barbara Santa Barbara to Pacific 96 207 446 Coast Highway Irvine Avenue Route 73 to Mesa 69 149 321 Mesa to University 70 152 327 University 22nd 70 152 327 22nd to 19th 72 155 334 19th to 17th 62 133 288 Route 73 Newport Blvd to Irvine 256 551 1,187 Irvine to Jamboree 192 413 891 Campus Drive Route 73 to MacArthur 60 130 281 MacArthur to Von Karman ROW 88 189 Von Karman to Jamboree ROW 69 149 Jamboree to University 55 118 254 East of University 53 114 245 Birch Street Bristol to MacArthur ROW 82 176 MacArthur to Von Karman ROW 55 119 Von Karman to Jamboree ROW 55 119 University Drive Jamboree to MacArthur ROW 62 135 MacArthur to California 85 184 396 California to Campus 75 162 350 East of Campus 59 127 273 06/15/95(1:,.CNB501 ••.SECT".NEVO 4.6-4 LSA Associated Inc. Roadway Distance To CNEL Contour From Centerline Of Roadway (Feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA CNEL CNEL CNEL Eastbluff Drive South of Jamboree ROW 62 135 Bison Avenue Jamboree to MacArthur ROW 76 163 Ford Road Jamboree to MacArthur ROW 74 160 MacArthur to San Miguel ROW 90 194 San Joaquin Hills Road Jamboree to Santa Cruz 69 148 319 Santa Cruz to MacArthur 57 122 264 MacArthur to San Miguel 52 111 240 San Miguel to Marguerite ROW 105 227 Pacific Coast Highway Dover to Bayside 92 199 428 Bayside to Jamboree 99 214 462 Jamboree to Newport 84 180 389 Center Newport Center to 54 116 249 MacArthur MacArthur to Marguerite 59 126 272 06/15/95(I: ••.CNB501'•.SECT".NM 4.6-5 r LSA Associates, Inc. Transportation related noise standards have been established for noise sensi- tive land use areas (e.g., residences of all types). In the City of Newport Beach, the noise criterion of 65 dBA CNEL has been established for exterior living spaces (e.g., backyard patios). Furthermore, the City requires that both single and multi -family residential developments achieve an indoor noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL for habitable rooms. Based on these requirements, a noise impact is considered potentially signifi- cant if the project results in a noise level increase of three dBA, and if that increase, causes the City noise standard of 65 dBA CNEL to be exceeded. 4.6.3 IMPACTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT According to the Initial Study in Appendix A, the following impact was deter- mined to be less than significant. Will the project result in exposure of people to severe noise levels? The project will not result in the creation of any severe noise levels, and the site is already adversely affected by noise levels from Route 73 and Jamboree Road. Therefore, there will be no impacts. Note: Noise resulting from operation of the site (i.e., air conditioners, noise from repair operations) is addressed through compliance with standard City policies and requirements, specified in Mitigation Measures 6-1 through 6-3. 4.6.4 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS The following discussion identifies potential noise impacts associated with the proposed project. These impacts are broken into two categories: short- term construction noise impacts, and long-term future noise impacts. Short -Term (Construction) Noise Noise disturbances in the areas adjacent to the project site are expected during project construction. These disturbances will be due to site prepara- tion and construction of the proposed project. As with most construction projects, construction will require the use of a number of pieces of heavy equipment, such as bulldozers, backhoes, loaders, concrete mixers, etc. In addition, trucks, both heavy and light, will be required to haul away excavat- ed material and to deliver gravel and other materials. Figure 4.6.1 presents noise levels typical of common construction equipment as experienced from a distance of 50 feet. The operation of such equipment will result in the generation of both steady and episodic noise significantly above the ambient levels currently experi- 06/15/95(1: -..CNB501 -,SECT4-6.NM 4.6-6 1 ' czI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................................................... o........... .... .... .... .... .... .... ........... ...................................... .... ........... ..... ..... .... .... .... .... ........... .... .... .... ........... .... .... ........... ........... ......... . ............................................. ............................... ........................ = I ................................................................................................................................. NO 0. -w > -E cz cr 180 U cc (U cl .0 iz CZ cc cc 0 o o w 0 0 U U U U U a 0 u F) tai Gq O O tai LSA Associates, Inc. enced near the noise sensitive areas closest to the project site. Noise levels decrease at a rate of approximately 6 dBA per doubling of distance. There- fore, at 100 feet the noise levels will be about 6 dBA less than those reported in Figure 4.6.1. Similarly, at 200 feet the noise levels would be 12 dBA less than indicated in the figure. Intervening structures or topography will act as a noise barrier, and will reduce noise levels further. The nearest existing noise sensitive land uses in the study area are the Marri- ott Suites Hotel across Jamboree Road from the project site. At a minimum distance of about 100 feet from the project site, peak construction noise levels could briefly reach into the 80s dBA. Noise level would be partially marked by existing roadway noise and proposed residences on the San Diego Creek South site. Nevertheless, there is the potential for disruption of near- by noise sensitive receptors if steps are not taken to limit the intensity and duration of their noise exposure. Compliance with the City's Noise Ordi- nance, which limits construction hours, and implementation of the measure outlined below, will reduce potential construction noise impacts to below the level of significance. Exterior Noise Levels The project is expected to add 2,350 vehicles per day to the existing system of local roadways. This traffic would enter and leave the site at the intersec- tion of Jamboree Road north and Bayview Drive. This represents about four percent of the traffic at this point, and would increase the CNEL noise level by less than 0.2 dBA. This increase in noise levels would be indiscernible and, because no sensitive receptors are located at this location, no significant impacts would be produced. Sensitive residential units back up to jamboree Road, University to Bison and Bison to Ford. In 1990, jamboree Road had an average daily traffic volume of 49,000 vehicle between University and Bison and 48,000 between Bison and Ford. According to the traffic analysis in Section 4.5, the project will add 940 daily trips to the link between Univer- sity and Bison and 823 daily trips between Bison and Ford. This represents 1.9 and 1.7 percent of the traffic along each stretch, respectively. This addi- tional volume of traffic will add less than 0.1 dBA to the ambient noise, and will not be discernable above the existing noise level. The remainder of the project generated traffic will be divided up among the many other routes used for site access. This volume will comprise less than two percent (and typically less than one percent) of the projected traffic volume along these routes, and will not be discernable above the existing noise level. This impact is not considered significant. 4.6.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS A cumulative analysis was performed based for projected year 2010 traffic volumes for the General Plan both without and with project implementation. 06/15/95(1:-•.CNB501 %SECT4.6.NEW) 4.6-8 LSA Associates; Inc r, Table 4.63 shows the increase in CNEL from 1990 to 2010 for year 2010 traffic both without and with project implementation. As demonstrated in Table 4.6.B, Route 73, Campus Drive east of University Drive, Bison Avenue between Jamboree and MacArthur and Ford Road bet- ween MacArthur and San Miguel will all increase by at least three dBA, and will present a significant cumulative impact from future development in the City. However, in each of these cases the project's contribution is unmea- surable (less than 0.1 dB); therefore, the project does not contribute to this cumulative effect, and mitigation is not required. 4.6.6 MITIGATION MEASURES Existing City Policies and Requirements 6-1 Any rooftop or other mechanical equipment shall be sound attenuat- ed in such a manner as to achieve a maximum sound level of 55 dBA at the property line. 6-2 Any mechanical equipment and emergency power generators shall be screened from view, and noise associated with said installations shall be sound attenuated so as not to exceed 55 dBA at the property line. The latter shall be based upon the recommendations of a licensed engineer practicing in acoustics, and shall be approved by the Plan- ning Department. 6-3 Pursuant to the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Section 10.28.040, construction adjacent to existing residential development shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. Con- struction shall not be allowed outside of these hours Monday through Saturday or at any time on Sundays and federal holidays. Verification of this shall be provided to the Planning Department. With the inclusion of City policies and requirements, no additional mitigation is warranted. 4.6.7 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION After implementation of the above mitigation measures, the project will not have a significant adverse impact on noise levels. 06/15/95(1:,.CNB501*%SECT4-6.NM 4.6-9 LSA Associates, Inc. Table 4.6.13 - Cumulative Year 2010 Noise Levels Produced From Local Traffics Roadway Difference from 1990 Conditions (dBA CNEL) Without Project With Project Change Implementation Implementation with Project Jamboree Road Dupont to Campus 1.9 1.9 0.0 Campus to Birch 2.1 2.1 0.0 Birch to California 2.6 2.7 0.1 California to MacArthur 1.7 1.7 0.0 MacArthur to Bristol 2.1 2.2 0.1 Bristol to University 1.0 1.1 0.1 University to Bison 0.8 0.8 0.0 Bison to Ford 1.1 1.1 0.0 Ford to San Joaquin Hills 1.2 1.2 0.0 San Joaquin Hills to 1.5 1.5 0.0 Santa Barbara Santa Barbara to 1.1 1.1 0.0 Pacific Coast Highway MacArthur Boulevard North of Campus 1.8 1.8 0.0 Campus to Birch 2.4 2.4 0.0 Birch to Von Karman 2.7 2.8 0.0 Von Karman to Jamboree 2.6 2.6 0.0 Jamboree to 2.3 2.3 0.0 New Alignment New Alignment to -2.1 -2.0 0.1 University University to SJHTC -1.4 -1.4 0.0 SJHTC to Bison -0.2 -0.2 0.0 Bison to Ford 0.1 0.1 0.0 Ford to San Joaquin Hills 0.6 0.6 0.0 s Table based on existing noise levels contained in Circulation Improve- ment & Open Space Agreement Draft Program Environmental Impact Report, 1992. 06/15/95(1:I.CNB501 ••.SECT4-6.NEW) 4.6-10 s-� LSA Assodates, Inc r� 1 Indicates cumulative increase of 3.0 decibels or greater. 06/15/95(I:',CNB501 ••.SECT".NM 4.6-11 l_ ' Difference from 1990 Conditions (dBA CNEL) f , Without Project With Project Change Roadway Implementation Implementation with Project San Joaquin Hills to 0.0 0.0 0.0 f Santa Barbara Santa Barbara to -0.7 -0.7 0.0 Pacific Coast Highway Irvine Avenue Route 73 to Mesa 0.7 0.7 0.0 f Mesa to University 0.1 0.1 0.0 University to 22nd -0.7 -0.7 0.0 f 22nd to 19th -1.6 -1.6 0.0 19th to 17th -2.2 -2.2 0.0 r Route 73 Newport Blvd to Irvine 3.41 3.41 0.0 Irvine to Jamboree 5.11 5.11 0.0 Campus Drive Route 73 to MacArthur 1.6 1.6 0.0 MacArthur to Von Karman 2.3 2.3 0.0 Von Karman to Jamboree 2.3 2.3 0.0 Jamboree to University 2.4 2.4 0.0 East of University 3.31 3.31 0.0 Birch Street t Bristol to MacArthur 1.4 1.4 0.0 MacArthur to Von Karman 1.5 1.5 0.0 Von Karman to Jamboree 1.5 1.5 0.0 University Drive MacArthur to California -1.3 -13 0.0 California to Campus 0.9 0.9 0.0 East of Campus 0.8 0.8 0.0 Eastbluff Drive South of Jamboree 1.0 1.0 0.0 1 Indicates cumulative increase of 3.0 decibels or greater. 06/15/95(I:',CNB501 ••.SECT".NM 4.6-11 l_ ' LSA Associates, Inc Roadway Difference from 1990 Conditions (dBA CNEL) Without Project With Project Change Implementation Implementation with Project Bison Avenue Jamboree to MacArthur 3.01 3.01 0.0 Ford Road Jamboree to MacArthur 1.6 1.6 0.0 MacArthur to San Miguel 3.21 3.21 0.0 San Joaquin Hills Road Jamboree to Santa Cruz 0.0 0.0 0.0 Santa Cruz to Santa Rosa -1.3 -1.3 0.0 Santa Rosa to MacArthur 0.0 0.0 0.0 MacArthur to San Miguel -0.3 -0.3 0.0 San Miguel to Marguerite 1.2 1.2 0.0 Pacific Coast Highway Dover to Bayside 0.9 0.9 0.0 Bayside to Jamboree 1.4 1.4 0.0 Jamboree to Newport 0.8 0.8 0.0 Center Newport Center to 0.4 0.4 0.0 MacArthur MacArthur to Marguerite -0.6 -0.6 0.0 1 Indicates cumulative noise increase of 3.0 decibels or greater. 06/15/95(1: ••.CNB501 ••.SECT4-6.N EW) 4.6-12 LSA Associates, Inc. 4.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 4.7.1 PREVIOUS STUDIES S. Glen Nelson first surveyed the proposed project area as part of the studies for the Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement EIR (CIOSA) prepared by the City of Newport Beach. At that time, the San Diego Creek North project site was one of 11 in this general area of Newport Beach for which a biological assessment was prepared. The assessment included a review of the existing literature for sensitive biological resources, a walkover survey of the site, and the preparation of the biological report. The report included the methods used, an assessment of the impacts to biological re- sources, and the identification of mitigation measure for those impacts. The conclusions of the report were that impacts to the biological resources of San Diego North site could be mitigated through on-site protection and replacement of habitat. The cumulative impacts of the 11 sites currently studied could only be partially mitigated. In addition to the site specific studies, biological information related to the Orange County Feeder Exten- sion Protection Project was reviewed. This was a joint project in a nearby portion of San Diego Creek, conducted by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and the Mesa Consolidated Water District. CURRENT STUDIES LSA has since conducted additional work on the site. The additional work included a general biological survey and a focused California gnatcatcher survey. Lists of all species observed are included in Appendix E. In addition to the fieldwork, ISA updated the available information on sensitive biologi- cal resources. ISA research included a data request from the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) and a search through the available literature for sensitive biological resources potentially present on site. 4.7.2 SETTING Topograpby The proposed project site is approximately 8.7 acres. It is located in the northern portion of the larger San Diego Creek North area, which is 14.7 acres in size. The overall area is characterized by an irregular topography. At the time of the Nelson study, most of the site had been graded, and the topography had been altered. The extreme southeastern corner of the study area extends down to the San Diego Creek channel. The remaining area of the southern half of the San Diego Creek North site is relatively flat, probably as a result of previous grading. The northern half of the site was hilly, but has since been somewhat flattened by borrow site operations and grading. 08/31/95(1:'•.CNB501 ••.SECT4.7.NM 4.7-1 r LSA Associates, Inc. Plant Communities Nelson found that most of the area was dominated by ruderal vegetation. Approximately 0.72 acre in the southeastern corner was dominated by fresh- water marsh vegetation. The plant communities on site have been more thoroughly defined by ISA since the work done by Nelson. The communities were mapped on a sheet of acetate overlaid upon a recent (March, 1995) 1"=40' scale aerial photo- r graph of the site. The project site boundaries were verified in the field, as shown in Figure 4.7.1. The definition of vegetation types (= plant com- munities) conforms to the Orange County Habitat Classification System (May, 1992) (Table 4.7.A). Table 4.7.A - Summary of Existing Vegetation Types f Category No.i Vegetation Typesi Acreages r 2.3.1 Sagebrush -Buckwheat Scrub 0.53 2.7 Chenopod (Saltbush) Scrub 1.46 r 4.1 Annual Grassland 4.86 4.92 Alkali Grassland 0.07 7.3 Mulefat Scrub 0.08 15.5 Ornamental Landscaping 0.21 16.1 Disturbed 1.49 TOTAL 8.70 2.3.1 Sagebrush -Buckwheat Scrub (0.53 ac.) Sagebrush -buckwheat scrub forms a relatively small portion of the habitat on the project site. This scrub is found primarily on a small bluff face in the south central portion of the project site. At one time, this habitat was probably more extensive on the site but has since been reduced due to disturbance. 1 Categories/vegetation types conform to the Orange County Habitat Classification System (May, 1992) unless otherwise noted. 2 Not a standard Orange County habitat classification type; it most accurately characterizes this particular plant community present on site. 08/31/95(I:'••CNB501 ••.SECT4-7.NEVC) 4.7-2 L m "p O � w C 3 'a Y 3 Q cd r p � U Q q M to LO r aN N -' .4 (C n P.: r CC fGJ ,' ,' � j • �l ice" fGJ LSA Associates, Inc. This vegetation type is dominated by California sagebrush (Artemisia californica). Other common species present on site include California buck- wheat (EHogonum fasciculatum), prickly pear (Opuntia sp.), California encelia (Encelia californica), cudweed (Gnaphalium spp.), black mustard (Brassica nigra), and annual non-native grasses. 2.7 Cbenopod (Saltbusb) Scrub (1.46 ac.) Chenopod scrub is found in more saline soils that the sagebrush -buckwheat scrub. The scrub is found predominately in the eastern portion of the site. This vegetation type is dominated by big saltbush (Atriplex lentiformis spp. lentiformis). Other species present include horehound (Marrubium vulgare) and black mustard. Clumps of hottentot-fig (Carpobrotus edulis), giant reed (Arundo donax), and annual non-native grasses also occur in this plant com- munity. 4.1 Annual Grassland (4.86 ac.) Annual grassland is the largest plant community on the project site. It ex- tends over most of the upland areas of the site. The annual grassland is dominated by annual grasses, although herbaceous species also occur. This plant community is typical of sites that have undergone occasional distur- bances such as grading or discing. This vegetation type is dominated by annual grasses, including wild oats (Av- ena spp.), brome grasses (Bromus spp.), black mustard, and red -stemmed filaree (Erodium cicutarlum). Other common species present include yellow sweetclover (Melilotus indica), common fiddleneck (Amsinckia menziesii var. intermedia), common cryptantha (Cryptantba intermedia), short -pod- ded mustard (Hirscbfeldia incana), and artichoke thistle (Cynara carduncul- us) . 4.9 Alkali Grassland (0.07 ac.) Alkali grassland is extremely limited on site, forming two small areas totalling less than 0.1 acres of the total site. It is dominated by weedy species and native species tolerant of disturbance. These two small patches are in shal- low depressions that are probably artifacts of the previous site disturbance. This classification, not a standard Orange County Habitat Classification Sys- tem category, is dominated by herbaceous species that have slightly different soil and moisture requirements than the species found in the site's other grassland type. The classification is similar to 5.2 Alkali Meadow, but does not appear to satisfy federal wetland criteria, particularly the hydrological and vegetation parameters. The species present are predominantly faculta- 08/31/95(1:',CNB501 %SECT4-7.NM 4.7-4 LSA Associates, Inc. M tive, and no obligate wetland species were found during ISA's surveys. The dominant species is curly dock (Rumex crispus). Other common species include pygmy-stonecrop (Crassula connata), California burclover (Medicago polymorpba), red maids (Calandrinia ciliata), common chickweed (Stellaria media), and scarlet pimpernel (Anagallis arvensis). Other less common species include field mustard (Brassica rapa), coastal goldfields (Lastbenia californica), prickly sow -thistle (Soncbus asper ssp. asper), and wild oat. A small population of common henbit (Lamium amplexicaule) was observed during the spring survey. 7.3 Mulefat Scrub (0.08 ac.) Mulefat scrub is another plant community that is extremely limited on site, being found only in one patch less than 0.1 acre in size. This small patch is found along the lower edge of the site, in more mesic conditions than the other scrub habitats. This vegetation type is dominated by mulefat (Baccbaris salicifolia), found in dense thickets on the property. Other species present were limited to Douglas' nightshade (Solanum douglasii) and one individual arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis). The understory is very sparse, and is characterized as monotypic. 15.5 Ornamental Landscaping (0.21 ac.) The ornamental landscaping on site is limited to individual plantings of culti- vated species, rather than being a formal landscaped area. Species observed include a clump of Sydney's golden wattle (Acacia longifolia), two blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus), two Peruvian pepper trees (Scbinus molle), and one European olive (Olea europaea). 16.1 Disturbed (1.49 ac.) The disturbed habitat type is second in size to the annual grassland. This plant community is the direct result of disturbance from grading and other activities. It occurs wherever recent surface disturbance has taken place. This habitat type is characterized by large areas of mostly bare ground with very sparse vegetation. The dominant plant species, when present, include ` sweet fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), Bermuda buttercup (Oxalis pes-caprae), cheeseweed (Malva parvifZora), common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), common sow -thistle (Soncbus oleraceus), and annual non-native grasses. - This section of the property has been heavily impacted by human use. Exist- ing disturbances include dirt roads, buildings/structures, trash dumping/ debris, and graded areas. 08/31/95(1: ••.CNB501 • SECT4-7.NM 4.7-5 Wildlife LSA Associates, Ina Wildlife species currently inhabiting the project site are primarily generalists, species able to use a wide variety of habitats. Although California gnatcatch- ers and California thrasher, two species generally requiring well developed scrub habitat, were previously noted on site, no animal species closely associ- ated with coastal sage scrub were found in the latest surveys. The presence of species such as common yellowthroat and song sparrow attest to the ready availability of water. Sensitive Biological Resources Sensitive Species Sensitive species are those plants and animals occurring, or potentially occur- ring, on the project site that are endangered or rare as those terms are used by CEQA and its guidelines, or are of current local, regional, or State con- cern. Species are considered to be of local, regional, or State concern and, therefore, "sensitive" if they are rare, local, or declining in a significant por- tion of their range. The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), local agencies, and special interest groups such as the California Native Plant Society (CNPS), publish watch -lists of declining species. These lists often describe the general nature and per- ceived severity of the decline. In addition, recently published findings and preliminary results of ongoing research provide a basis for consideration of species that are candidates for State and/or federal listing. Legal protection for these species varies widely, from the comprehensive protection extended to listed threatened/endangered species to no legal status at present. Inclusion in the sensitive species analysis for this project is based on one of the following criteria: 1) direct observation of the species on the property during one of the biological surveys conducted for this report; 2) sighting by other qualified observers; 3) record reported by the CNDDB; or 4) property contains appropriate habitat and is within the known range of a given spe- cies. Sensitive species are broken down into those that are listed as endan- gered/threatened by the State and/or federal governments and those that are not listed as such. Plant communities/habitats of concern are considered separately, following the discussions of sensitive species. Table 4.7.8 summa- rizes the status of sensitive species potentially occurring on the project site, whether confirmed as present on site or not. Additional sensitive species were considered for this site but were not locat- ed during surveys. The project site either lacks suitable habitat for or lies 08/31/95(1:.CNB501'-.SECT4-7.NE"W) 4.7-6 LSA Associates, Ina Table 4.7.B - Sensitive Species I Status Observed Species On Site Federal State CNPS Listed/Proposed Species f• American peregrine falcon FE SE -- Falco peregrinus anatum Coastal California gnatcatcher X FT CSC - r Polioptila californica californica Pacific pocket mouse FE CSC -- Perognatbus longimembris pacificus , Non -Listed species Mesa spike moss _ _ 4 � Selaginella cinerascens Southern tarplant C2 - 1B Hemizonia parryi ssp. australis Coulter's goldfields C2 - 1C Lastbenia glabrata ssp. coulter! r Small flowered microseris Microseris douglasii var. platycarpha California groundsel - - 2 Senecio apbanactis Gracefultarplant C2 - 4 Holocarpbt virgata ssp. elongates Palmer's grapplinghook C2 - 2 Harpagonella palmeri Robinson's peppergrass - - 1B Lepidium virginicum var. robinsonii Aphanisma C2 - 1B Apbanisma blitoides Coulter's saltbush - - 1B Atriplex coulter! Western dichondra C3C - 4 Dicbondra occidentalis Blochman's dudleya C2 - 1B Dudleya blocbmaniae var. blochmaniae Many -stemmed dudleya C2 - 1B Dudleya multicaulis Catalina mariposa lily - - 4 Calocbortus catalinae t, Foothill mariposa lily C2 - 1B Calochortus weedii var. intermedius Western spadefoot C2 CSC - Scopbiopus bammondii i 08/31/95(1:••.CNB501 4.7-7 L LSA Associates, Ina 08/31/95(1: ••.CNB501,.SECT4-7.NM 4.7-8 Status Observed Species On Site Federal State CNPS Southwestern pond turtle C2 CSC - Clemmys marmorata pallida San Diego horned lizard C2 CSC - Pbrynosoma coronatum blainvillei Orange -throated whiptail C2 CSC - Cnemidopborous byperytbrus Coastal western whiptail C2 - - Cnemidopborus tigris multiscutatus Northern red diamond rattlesnake C2 CSC - Crotalus ruber ruber White-tailed kite - CSA - Elanus leucurus Northern harrier X - CSC - Circus cyaneus Sharp -shinned hawk X - CSC - Accipiter striatus Cooper's hawk X - CSC - Accipiter cooperii Merlin - CSC - Falco columbarius Western burrowing owl C2 CSC - Speotyto cunicularia bypugea Loggerhead shrike - CSC - Lanius ludoaicianus California yellow warbler - CSC - Dendroica petecbia brewsteri So. California rufous -crowned sparrow C2 CSC - Aimopbila ruficeps canescens Tricolored blackbird C2 CSC - Agelaius tricolor Yuma myotis C2 - - Myotis yumanensis Small -footed myotis C2 - - Myotis ciliolabrum California mastiff bat C2 CSC - Eumops perotis californicus San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit C2 CSC — Lepus californicus bennettii Northwestern San Diego pocket mouse C2 CSC - Cbaetodipus fallax fallax San Diego desert woodrat C2 CSC - Neotoma lepida intermedia 08/31/95(1: ••.CNB501,.SECT4-7.NM 4.7-8 LSA Associates, Inc. CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY LISTING 1B California Native Plant Society list of plants which are con- sidered by CNPS to be rare or endangered in California and elsewhere. 2 California Native Plant Society list of plants which are con- sidered by CNPS to be rare or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere 3 California Native Plant Society review list of plants suggested for consideration as endangered but about which more information is needed 4 California Native Plant Society watch list of plants of limited distribution, whose status should be monitored 08/31/95(1: 1-CNB501`-SECT4-7.NM 4.7-9 I Legend: Table 4.7.11 FEDERAL STATUS r FE Federally listed as endangered. FT Federally listed as threatened. PE Federally proposed as endangered. r C1 Federal Candidate for listing for which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service presently has substantial information on hand to support the biological appropriateness of proposing r to list as endangered or threatened. C2 Federal Candidate for listing for which information now in possession of the Service indicates that proposing to list as endangered or threatened is possibly appropriate, but for which conclusive data on biological vulnerability and threat are not currently available. C3B Former federal candidate for listing as endangered or threatened, but which is not believed by the Service to rep- resent a distinct taxa meeting the Endangered Species Act's definition of a "species" C3C Former federal candidate for listing as endangered or threatened, but which has been judged by the Service to be too widespread or not threatened at this time I STATE STATUS SE State listed as endangered. ST State listed as threatened. SCE i State candidate for endangered listing. CSC California Species of Special Concern. These are taxa with populations declining seriously or otherwise highly vulnera- ble to human developments. CSA California Special Animal. This is a broad term used to refer to all animals that are of concern to the California Natural Diversity Data Base, regardless of legal or protective status. CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY LISTING 1B California Native Plant Society list of plants which are con- sidered by CNPS to be rare or endangered in California and elsewhere. 2 California Native Plant Society list of plants which are con- sidered by CNPS to be rare or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere 3 California Native Plant Society review list of plants suggested for consideration as endangered but about which more information is needed 4 California Native Plant Society watch list of plants of limited distribution, whose status should be monitored 08/31/95(1: 1-CNB501`-SECT4-7.NM 4.7-9 I LSA Associates, Inc. beyond the normal (current) range of these plant and animal species. A few are considered extirpated from the region. Therefore, the following sensitive species are not included in the following discussions or in Table 4.7.B: • Los Angeles sunflower (Heliantbus nuttallii ssp. parisbii) • Crownbeard (Verbesina dissita) • South coast saltscale (Atriplex pacifica) • Parish's brittlescale (Atriplex parisbii) • Santa Barbara morning-glory (Calystegia sepium ssp. bingbaniae) • Laguna Beach dudleya (Dudleya stolonifera) • Cliff spurge (Eupborbia misera) • Braunton's milkvetch (Astragalus brauntonii) • Mud nama (Nama stenocarpum) • Coast wooly -heads (Nemacaulis denudata var. denudata) • Salt marsh bird's -beak (Cordylanibus maritimus ssp. maritimus) • Silvery legless lizard (Anniela pulcbra pulcbra) • San Diego mountain kingsnake (Lampropeltis zonata pulcbra) • South coast garter snake (Thamnopbis sirtalis ssp.) • Two -striped garter snake (Tbamnopbis bummondii) • Coastal rosy boa (Licbanura trivirgata roseofusca) • San Bernardino ring-necked snake (Diadopbis puncialus modestus) • Coast patch -nosed snake (Salvadora bexalepis virgultea) • Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis) • Golden eagle (Aquila cbrysaetos) • Prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus) • Light-footed clapper rail (Rallus longirostris levipes) • California least tern (Sterna antillarum browni) • Willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii brewsteri and Et. extimus) • California horned lark (Eremopbila alpestris actia) • Coastal cactus wren (Campylorbyncbus brunneicapillus) • Least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) • Yellow -breasted chat (Icteria virgins) • Bell's sage sparrow (Ampbispizo belli belli) • Pallid bat (Antrozous pallida) • Southern California grasshopper mouse (Onycbomys torridus ramona). Listed/Proposed Species The following species are listed, or proposed for listing, as threatened or endangered by either the State or federal government. American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) The North American race of this nearly cosmopolitan species is listed as endangered by both the federal and State governments due to reduced popu- lations across the nation. Rigorous recovery efforts in recent years have resulted in significant population increases in many regions. These birds 08/31/95(I:'•.CNB501 ••.SECT4-7.NEVO 41.7-10 r !SA Associates, Inc. r ' forage over extensive areas and can be expected to occur almost anywhere in California, especially along the coast. Foraging is generally concentrated in marine or aquatic environments. However, very infrequent use of the project site is expected. No individuals of this species have been reported on this site. Coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) This California Species of Special Concern is listed as threatened by the federal government. It is also one of the three "target species" of the Natural Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP) process developed by the State. The coastal California gnatcatcher formerly occupied coastal sage scrub and coastal bluff scrub communities from Ventura County south to northwestern Baja California. It is now absent from much of its former range. Three types of scrub are found on the site, and all should be considered potential habitat for gnatcatchers. Of the total 7.81 acres on site,7 acres are currently scrub (1.46 acres saltbush scrub, 2 3048 acres coastal sage scrub dominated by California sagebrush, and 0.08 acre mulefat scrub). Although ISA found no California gnatcatchers during the most recent sur- veys (three morning surveys in March, 1995, using tape recordings), a nesting pair was recorded in the remnant coastal sage scrub on site in 1994 (Theresa Bruckenstein pers. comm.). In addition, this pair, or other birds, were found in saltbush scrub nearby through at least August, 1994 (LSA, unpublished data). Since then, substantial areas of saltbush scrub have been cleared on adjacent properties, including the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC) right-of-way and the Baypoint development site, just across San Diego Creek. On March 24, 1995, ISA conducted a brief survey of these nearby areas. No California gnatcatchers were found on the Baypoint site; the scrub habitat to the east, along University Avenue, was not adequately surveyed to make a definitive determination, but no gnatcatchers were observed. Because of the small and isolated nature of the site, ISA cannot adequately determine whether gnatcatchers would again nest there in the absence of further disturbance. If the habitat remains and nearby areas are revegetated with suitable habitat, it is possible that nesting may occur over time. Pacific pocket mouse (Perognatbus longimembris pacificus) This California Species of Special Concern was recently designated as endan- gered by the USFWS. It is found in loose soils in dry areas of low elevation coastal sage scrub, river alluvium, and coastal strand associations. Its historic range is from Los Angeles County to extreme southwestern San Diego Coun- ty. Small numbers trapped at the Dana Point Headlands in 1993 were the 08/31/950:-,CNB501 ••.SECT4-7.NM 4.7-11 LSA Associates, Inc. first observed anywhere in over 20 years. In the general project vicinity, this species was found in small numbers in the Spyglass Hill area of Newport Beach between 1968 and 1971, before the area was developed (M'Closkey 1972, Meserve 1976). Since 1990, over 8,200 trap nights of effort at 15 locations in coastal Orange County have been directed toward this species (LSA unpublished data). Given the negative results of these trapping efforts, especially the 1,575 trap nights in relatively favorable habitat on Pelican Hill, it is unlikely that the species occurs in the less favorable habitat on the project site. No site specif- ic trapping has been done. Non -Listed Species The following species are not listed as threatened or endangered, but are considered to be "sensitive" based on the criteria discussed previously. Mesa spike moss (Selaginella cinerascens) The CNPS has placed mesa spike moss on its List 4, a watch list of plants of limited distribution, whose status should be monitored. This small, incon- spicuous plant grows in tight colonies on dry slopes and mesas in coastal sage scrub and chaparral plant communities from Orange County to Baja California. The species is "fertile" during March (Skinner and Pavlik 1994) and should be detectable throughout most of the year. This species was not observed during LSA's surveys and is not expected to occur on the project site. Southern tarplant (Hemizonia parryi ssp. australis) This spiny annual plant is a Category 2 candidate for federal listing, and is on CNPS List 1B. This tarplant grows in vernally mesic, disturbed alkaline soils near the coast, blooming from June to November. The plants' height varies from 10 to 70 centimeters. Its range extends from Santa Barbara County to Baja California. Populations of southern tarplant are known from several locations near the project site, including Bonita Reservoir and Upper New- port Bay. The more common San Diego tarweed (Hemizonia paniculata) was observed on site during the surveys, but southern tarplant was not encoun- tered. Furthermore, the southern tarplant would have been readily detect- able during LSA's surveys. Therefore, this sensitive species is not believed to occur on the site. 08/31/95(1: •••CNB501 •••SECT4-7.NM 4.7-12 LSA Associates, Inc. Graceful tarplant (Holocarpba virgata ssp. elongata) This glandular annual plant is a Category 2 candidate for federal listing, and is on CNPS List 4. Graceful tarplant blooms from August to November, and grows in oak woodland, grassland, coastal sage scrub, and possibly chaparral habitats in Orange, western Riverside, and San Diego Counties. This species was not observed during LSA's surveys, and no CNPS or CNDDB records exist for this species in the vicinity of the project site. Consequently, this species is not expected to occur on site. Coulter's goldfields (Lastbenia glabrata ssp. coulteH) This annual wildflower is a Category 2 candidate for federal listing, and is on CNPS List 1B. Coulter's goldfields grow in coastal salt marshes, vernal pools, and damp alkaline areas near the coast in Central and Southern California, and in Baja California. It blooms from February to June. This sensitive plant species was not observed during LSA's surveys. The damp alkali grassland areas were carefully and intensely inspected for this and other sensitive species that could potentially occur in these habitats, but none were discovered. Consequently, this species is not expected to occur on site. Small -flowered microseris (Microseris douglasii ssp. platycarpba) This small annual wildflower is a CNPS List 4 species. It blooms from March to May, and grows in grasslands on heavy clay soils from Los Angeles County to Baja California. The small -flowered microseris was not observed during the site surveys, which were conducted during the local flowering period for this species. Consequently, this species is not expected to occur on site. California groundsel (Senecio apbanactis) This slender annual plant is on CNPS List 2, referring to plants that the CNPS considers rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but which are more common elsewhere. This plant blooms from January to April, and grows in dry openings in coastal sage scrub and chaparral habitats from Central Cali- fornia to Baja California. California groundsel would have been in flower during LSA's site surveys, and the potential habitat suitable for this species is quite limited on site, and was carefully and thoroughly sought. As a result, the California groundsel is not expected to be present on the site. 08/31/950: -, CNB501 ••.SECT4-7.N M 4.7-13 LSA Associates, Inc. Palmer's grapplinghook (Harpagonella palmeri) Palmer's grapplinghook is a Category 2 candidate for federal listing, and is on CNPS List 2, referring to plants that the CNPS considers rare, threatened or endangered in California, but which are more common elsewhere. This inconspicuous annual plant blooms from March to April, and grows on dry slopes in coastal sage scrub and chaparral habitats below 1,500 feet from Los Angeles County to Baja California. Although Palmer's grapplinghook is quite inconspicuous, the potential habi- tat suitable for this species is very limited on site. The limited habitat that is present was carefully and thoroughly inspected during the flowering period. In addition, there are no CNPS or CNDDB records for this species in the vicinity of the project site. Palmer's grapplinghook was not observed during surveys for this project, and it is not expected to occur on site. Robinson's peppergrass (Lepidium virginicum var. robinsonii) Robinson's peppergrass, a white -flowered annual, is a CNPS List 1B plant that is found in coastal sage scrub and chaparral communities from Los Angeles County to Baja California. It blooms from January to July. The potential habitat suitable for this species is very limited on site. The limited habitat was carefully and thoroughly inspected during the flowering period for this species. Robinson's peppergrass was not found during LSA's surveys, and this species is not expected to be present on site. Aphanisma (Aphanisma blitoides) This inconspicuous annual is a federal Category 2 candidate plant species, and is included on CNPS List 1B. It is known from Santa Barbara County and the Channel Islands, south to Baja California. Aphanisma is a succulent annual associated with coastal bluff scrub and coastal sage scrub, typically on bluffs on the immediate coast. It has not been found in Orange County since 1932, although adequate habitat apparently remains at Upper Newport Bay and elsewhere (Roberts, 1990). Aphanisma was not observed on the project site and is very unlikely to be present. Coulter's saltbush (Atriplex coulter!) This spreading perennial is a CNPS List 1B plant that is found in somewhat alkaline soils in grassland, coastal sage scrub, and chaparral communities in 08/31/95(1: ••.CNB501 ••.SECT4-7.NM 4.7-14 LSA Associates, Inc. Southern California and Baja California. Coulter's saltbush blooms from March to October, and is known to occur in the San Joaquin Hills. Coulter's saltbush was not found during LSA's surveys. Although this species is relatively small and inhabits a variety of plant communities, it is unlikely that this species is present on such a disturbed site. Western dichondra (Dicbondra occidentalis) This species is on CNPS List 4, and is a Category 3C candidate for federal listing. It inhabits coastal brush and woodland areas from Santa Barbara County to northern Baja California, including several of the Channel Islands. This species is known to exist in the San Joaquin Hills. This conspicuous perennial was not observed during the spring surveys conducted by ISA biologists. Furthermore, the potential habitat suitable for this species is very limited on site, and was carefully and thoroughly inspected. Therefore, this species is not expected to occur on the project site. Blochman's dudleya (Dudleya blocbmaniae ssp. blocbmaniae) This small succulent, known from fewer than 25 localities (Skinner and Pavlik 1994), is a Category 2 candidate for federal listing, and is placed on CNPS List 1B. This dudleya is found in rocky, often clay or serpentine soils in upland scrub and grassland habitats below 1,500 feet elevation near the coast from San Luis Obispo County to Baja California. It blooms from April to June. This species was not found during spring surveys, and is unlikely to be present. Many -stemmed dudleya (Dudleya multicaulis) This species is a federal Category 2 candidate, and is on CNPS List 1B. Many - stemmed dudleya is found in several counties in southwestern California, usually on poor soils at the margins of rock outcrops in coastal sage scrub and grassland communities. It blooms from May to July. This species was not found during LSA's surveys, and is very unlikely to be present on site. 08/31/95(1: -..CNB501'••sECT4-7.NEW) 4.7-15 LSA Associates, Inc. Catalina mariposa lily (Calochortus catalinae) This conspicuous lily is on the CNPS List 4. Catalina mariposa lilies bloom from February to May, and grow in heavy soils in grasslands and openings in coastal sage scrub and chaparral. ISA biologists did not observe any Catalina mariposa lilies on site, and none are expected to occur. Foothill mariposa lily (Calochortus weedii var. intermedius) This lily is a Category 2 candidate for federal listing, and is on CNPS list 1B. The foothill mariposa lily blooms from May to July, and occurs on open, dry ridges and hillsides in coastal sage scrub and chaparral communities below approximately 2,000 feet. The range includes Los Angeles, Orange and west- ern Riverside counties. Typical habitat associated with this species is quite limited on site. This conspicuous species was not seen during LSA's surveys, and is not expected to be present on the project site. Western spadefoot (Scaphiopus hammondii) This small toad is a Category 2 candidate for federal listing and a California Species of Special Concern. The USFWS is increasingly interested in the western spadefoot since it is frequently associated with vernal pools, a declin- ing habitat. The western spadefoot formerly ranged throughout cismontane California (areas on the coastal side of the coastal ranges) south to north- western Baja California, but has been eliminated from much of its range in Southern California. Habitat loss and predation by introduced African clawed frogs and bullfrogs appear to be primary causes of this species' regional decline. Grasslands and other open habitats in the lowlands provide this toad's primary habitat, but it also ranges into foothills and mountains. Western spadefoot was reported as present in the project vicinity in a report prepared for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California's Orange County Feeder Extension Pipeline Project, Newport Back Bay in fall, 1994. No further details are provided, and the presence of several other very un- likely species in the same report causes concern about its validity. Based upon extensive sampling for this species in Orange County in early 1995, (LSA unpublished data) and specific sampling of temporary pools in the immediate project vicinity in March, 1995 (only African clawed frogs were found), it is very unlikely this species is present on the project site. 08/31/95(1:',CNB501 ••.SECT4-7.NM 4.7-16 r-, LSA Associates, Inc. Southwestern pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata pallida) This turtle is a federal Category 2 candidate and California Species of Special Concern. Acting on a petition to list this turtle, the USFWS conducted a status review and recently determined that listing was not warranted. This species ranges from San Francisco Bay to northern Baja California, but is now absent from many former localities and is particularly reduced in South- ern California. This species occurs in a wide range of permanent and intermittent aquatic habitats. Eggs are deposited in sandy banks or open fields, mostly within 15 to 190 meters of water sources (Storer 1930, Rathbun, et al. 1992). Southwestern pond turtles were found in San Diego Creek adjacent to the project site in the mid 1980s (R.N. Fisher pers. comm.), and may have histori- cally used the project site to a limited degree for nesting or other activities. In light of all the disturbance now concentrated in the project area, it is unlikely the project site is currently of any value to this species. San Diego horned lizard (Pbrynosoma coronatum blainvillei) This lizard is a federal Category 2 Candidate and a California Species of Special Concern. It is found in southwestern California and northwestern Baja California. Sandy washes and other open, sandy areas in coastal sage scrub are this species' favored habitat. Low bushes are required for cover, open spaces are needed for sunning, and relatively flat patches of fine, loose soil are needed for burrowing. Their primary food is harvester ants. No sightings of this species have been recorded on the project site; the small and isolated nature of the site makes it unlikely that horned lizards are present. Orange -throated whiptail (Cnemidopborus byperytbrus) This lizard is a federal Category 2 Candidate species and a California Species of Special Concern. Orange -throated whiptails are restricted to southwestern California and Baja California, where they frequent dry, often rocky, hillsides, ridges, sandy washes, and valleys supporting broken coastal sage scrub habi- tat. This is considered a target species for the purpose of conservation plan- ning within the current framework of the NCCP. This elusive species has not been recorded on the project site, and is unlikely to be present given the small amount of habitat available. 08/31/95(I:,.CNB501 %SECT4-7.NEV) 4.7-17 LSA Associates, Inc. Coastal western whiptail (Cnemidopborus tigris multiscutatus) This active lizard is a federal Category 2 Candidate. The coastal western whiptail ranges from southwestern California to central Baja California. It usually occurs where plants are sparse and there is room for running. In addition to invertebrates, it eats other lizards. This species has been found throughout the San Joaquin Hills but none were observed on the project site. Because the habitat on site is small and isolated, the coastal western whiptail is not expected to be present. Northern red diamond rattlesnake (Crotalis Tuber Tuber) This snake is a Category 2 candidate for federal listing and a California Spe- cies of Special Concern. It inhabits a wide range of habitats from the vicinity of San Gorgonio Pass, east of Riverside, south to central Baja California. This relatively mild mannered snake feeds on ground squirrels, rabbits, and birds. Red diamond rattlesnakes were not observed on site during our surveys, and are unlikely to occupy the limited amount of habitat available on site. White-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) This year-round resident is a State fully protected species. Populations fluc- tuate widely, and Orange County populations are currently increasing. White-tailed kites nest in well developed riparian woodlands and forage pri- marily in grasslands. Kites have not been observed on the immediate project site, but occasional foraging over the open areas is possible. Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus) This hawk is a California Species of Special Concern that forages over a wide range of open habitats. Although the species occurs throughout the temperate zone of the northern hemisphere, it is uncommon and declining in Orange County, with very few confirmed nesting records. Harriers forage over wide areas and thus are expected to visit the project site occasionally. Sharp -shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus) This small hawk, a California Species of Special Concern, is a winter visitor and migrant to coastal Southern California. Birds make up the vast majority of its prey, with rodents and insects also being taken. During the winter 08/31/'95(1: '-.CNB501 %SECT4-7.NM 4.7-18 LSA Associates, Inc. months, sharp -shinned hawks forage over a variety of habitats, and occasion- al use of the project site is expected. Cooper's hawk (Accipter coopetli) This medium-sized hawk is a California Species of Special Concern. This is a very rare breeding species in Orange County, generally utilizing riparian habitats for nesting. Foraging occurs over a much wider range of habitats, especially in winter, when occasional birds may be expected on the project site. Merlin (Falco columbarius) Due primarily to reproductive failure in parts of its breeding range (which is outside of California) and the taking of birds for falconry, this species is a California Species of Special Concern. This small falcon is a rare fall migrant and winter visitor in Orange County, frequenting a number of habitats in- cluding coastal sage scrub and annual grassland. Merlins have not been found on the project site, but occasional birds have been seen in the project vicinity. They are expected to use the site only infrequently. Western burrowing owl (Speotyto cunicularla hypugea) The western burrowing owl is a federal Category 2 candidate and California Species of Special Concern. This small owl lives in grasslands and range- lands, usually occupying ground squirrel burrows. The burrowing owl was widespread and fairly common in Orange County during most of this centu- ry, prior to widespread losses of habitat and destruction of ground squirrel colonies. It is now rare in Orange County, with small populations known from only a few scattered locations. No burrowing owls were found during LSA's surveys; the habitat is considered marginal. Occasional use of the site is possible, however. Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) This California Species of Special Concern is widespread in North America from southern Canada to southern Mexico, but has declined in many areas. Loggerhead shrikes inhabit open country, where they feed primarily on large insects and occasionally small vertebrate prey. This species has been ob- served regularly in the project vicinity, so occasional use of the project site is likely. 08/31/95(1: I.CNB501%-SECT4-7.NM 4.7-19 i ' L, ISA Associates, Inc. California yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia brewsteri) This small bird is a California Species of Special Concern because the breed- ing population has declined markedly in California. Riparian areas are exclu- sively used for nesting in the lowlands, but migrants are widespread and common. Yellow warblers (including this subspecies and others) are expect- ed to use the project site during migration. Southern California rufous -crowned sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps canescens) This bird is a federal Category 2 Candidate and California Species of Special Concern. It is a resident of coastal sage scrub and chaparral, generally along the Pacific slope, from Santa Barbara to northwestern Baja California. This species is widespread in the San Joaquin Hills, but was not observed on the project site and is unlikely to occupy so small and isolated patch of habitat. Tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor) This Category 2 candidate for federal listing and California Species of Special Concern is almost endemic to cismontane California, with outlying popula- tions in Oregon and northwestern Baja California. Tricolored blackbirds fre- quent open country throughout the year, nesting in dense patches of cat -tails or brambles; their preference for nesting in dense colonies makes the species especially vulnerable at that stage of their life cycle. No tricolored blackbirds were observed on the project site, but occasional wandering birds may visit the site. Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis) This small bat is a federal Category 2 candidate. It occurs statewide from April to September, occupying a variety of habitats that are usually close to open water. It feeds late at night, skimming low over water to catch small insects. This bat winters primarily outside of California. Bat surveys were not conducted, and this species was not observed during surveys. Some use of the site for foraging is possible, however. Small -footed myotis (Myotis ciliolabrum) This small bat is a federal Category 2 candidate. It occurs throughout much of California, roosting in buildings, caves and rock crevices. This bat is 08/31/95(1:',CNB501 ••.SECT4-7.NM 4.7-20 ISA Associates, Inc. known to hibernate in caves during the winter months. It feeds low among trees or over brush. Bat surveys were not conducted, and this species was not observed on the site. Small -footed myotis potentially forages on the project site, however. California mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus) This free -tailed bat (family Molossidae) is a federal Category 2 candidate and a California Species of Special Concern. This species, the largest of all North American bats, is known historically from north -central California south to northern Baja California, eastward across the southwestern United States and northwestern Mexico to west Texas and Coahuila. In California, most re- cords are from rocky areas at low elevations where roosting occurs primarily in crevices. The only published Orange County records are from Santa Ana (Williams 1986), although recent observations have come from the San Joaquin Hills, Anaheim Hills and Tustin. The California population has un- dergone a significant decline in recent years. There is no roosting habitat available, but foraging over the site is possible. San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus bennettii) This animal is a federal Category 2 candidate and a California Species of Special Concern. This species' range is restricted to the Pacific slope from about Santa Barbara south to northwestern Baja California. Jackrabbits inhabit a variety of habitats but are most common in relatively open situa- tions; they are largely nocturnal. These animals are known to frequent the San Joaquin Hills, but are unlikely to occupy the small and isolated patch of habitat on the project site. Northwestern San Diego pocket mouse (Perognatbus fallax fallax) This federal Category 2 Candidate and California Species of Special Concern is found in southwestern California from about San Bernardino south to central Baja California. San Diego pocket mice generally frequent rather open, and lands. Although they have been reported as close as Buck Gully (M'Closkey 1972, Meserve 1976), this species was unrecorded in over 6,200 trap nights of effort in the San Joaquin Hills since 1990 (LSA unpublished data). This species is unlikely to be present on the project site. San Diego desert woodrat (Neotoma lepida intermedia) This small woodrat, a federal Category 2 Candidate and California Species of Special Concern, is found along the Pacific slope from about San Luis Obispo to northwestern Baja California. Desert woodrats frequent poorly vegetated 08/31/95(1:'•.CNB501 ••.SECT4-7.NEW) 4.7-21 I LSA Associates, Inc. and lands, and are especially associated with cactus patches. This species has been trapped widely in the San Joaquin Hills, but is unlikely to occupy the small and isolated patch of habitat on the project site. Sensitive Plant Communities As indicated previously, plant communities are considered to be sensitive biological resources based on 1) federal, State or local laws regulating their development, 2) limited distributions, and/or 3) the habitat requirements of sensitive plants or animals occurring on the site. Upland Scrub In recent decades, urban and agricultural development have fragmented and greatly reduced the extent of coastal sage scrub in Southern California, with concomitant reductions in the populations of numerous plant and animal species associated with this community. Biologists now generally agree that a coordinated, regional planning and conservation effort is required in order 1) to preserve the biological integrity of Southern California's upland scrub ecosystems, and 2) to ensure the survival of the coastal California gnatcatcher, a species listed as threatened by the federal government. On March 25, 1993, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Interior listed the California gnatcatcher as a "threatened" species and adopted a special rule in accordance with Section 4(d) of the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) that authorized landowners and local jurisdictions to voluntarily par- ticipate in the State of California Natural Community Conservation Planning Act of 1992. In response to this, the County of Orange enrolled in the NCCP program as a landowner and local jurisdiction to participate in the program. In addition, the County, in conjunction with the State and federal resource agencies, other local jurisdictions, and major private landowners, is in the process of preparing a number of subregional NCCP programs/plans aimed at ensuring the long-term survival of the California gnatcatcher and other sensi- tive, sage scrub dependent, plant and animal species through the identifica- tion, preservation, and long-term management of core reserve habitat areas and associated connections to other core reserve habitat areas. The project is within the coastal subarea of the Central/Coastal Subregion of Orange County's NCCP planning jurisdiction, which includes several thou- sand acres of natural open space in the San Joaquin Hills that contain dense, relatively undisturbed, scrub habitat. The development of the NCCP subregional programs is occurring in two planning phases, an interim phase and implementation phase, in conformance with the provisions of the NCCP Process Guidelines adopted by the State Resources Agency on November 10, 1993. 08/31/95(1:'•.CNB501 %-SECT4-7.NEW) 4.7-22 LSA Associates, Inc. The interim phase is the period of time between the March 25, 1993, listing date and the approval of the individual subregional NCCP program by the USFWS. This phase is anticipated to be completed by late 1995. During the interim phase the local agency, with concurrence of the USFWS and CDFG, may approve incidental loss of coastal sage scrub resources associated with development, provided the loss does not exceed the five percent cumulative maximum established for each individual subregion or subarea. At the completion of the interim phase, the implementation phase will be initiated. This phase will include monitoring by the USFWS to ensure the success of the implementation programs contained in the various subregional NCCP programs. Implementation could involve revisions to resource policies and to General Plans. Should there be significant delays in implementing the NCCP, the USFWS may prescribe more stringent requirements than those found in the approved individual subregional NCCP program. EIRs/EISs associated with the individual subregional NCCP programs are in the process of being prepared. The following mandatory findings, as specified in the NCCP Process Guidelines, must be made in the CEQA Resolution as well as resolutions associated with the adoption of any project involving the loss of CSS resources or affecting the County's NCCP program: 1) The proposed habitat loss is consistent with the interim loss criteria in the Conservation Guidelines. a) The habitat loss does not cumulatively exceed the five percent guideline for loss of CSS within a subregion. b) The habitat loss will not preclude connectivity between areas of high habitat values. C) The habitat loss will not preclude or prevent the preparation of the subregional NCCP. d) The habitat loss has been minimized and mitigated to the maximum extent practicable, in accordance to the Interim Mitigation criteria of the NCCP Process Guidelines. 2) The habitat loss will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of listed species in the wild. 3) The habitat loss is incidental to otherwise lawful activity. The project will impact upland scrub communities totalling approximately 2.1 acres. These include 1.46 acres of saltbush scrub, 0.53 acres of sagebrush -buckwheat scrub, and 0.08 acres of mulefat scrub. While mulefat scrub is usually considered a riparian community, its primary function on the project site is as a component of the more prevalent upland scrub types. As 08/31/95(1: ••.CNB501 ••.SECT4-7.N EVA 4.7-23 LSA Associates, Inc. noted under the sensitive species discussions, these community types provide potential habitat for the California gnatcatcher and other sensitive CSS species. Wildlife Movement Wildlife movement through the project vicinity is an important biological issue for this development. As noted in the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Conservation Plan for California Gnatcatcher and Cactus Wren (LSA, 1993): Because of existing and planned development in Costa Mesa, Irvine and Newport Beach, the long-term viability of wildlife movement to and from Upper Newport Bay has become tenuous for many species. Maintenance of coyote access to the bay was a major factor in design- ing SJHTC mitigation measures along lower Bonita Creek. Coyotes limit population levels of non-native red fox (Vulpes vulpes), which in turn prey heavily upon two endangered waterbirds of the bay: light- footed clapper rail (Rallus longirostris levipes) and California least tern (Sterna antillarum browni). Efforts to maintain access to the bay for California gnatcatchers and other coastal sage scrub species can build upon the base provided by coyote mitigation. A similar emphasis was given to this matter by Dick Zembal, in his prelimi- nary summary of a coyote study in this area (Zembal, 1990). The effort to maintain this movement corridor has also been apparent in other projects. The Bonita Creek and San Diego Creek corridors were included in the NCCP Preliminary Reserve design as special linkage areas (Proposed Reserve Design). For the Baypoint residential development, a buffer zone of approximately 2.4 acres of scrub habitat is required (Newport Beach, 1994). Coyote use continues despite all the recent construction activity in the pro- ject vicinity. Evidence of use includes numerous tracks and sign, and one individual seen in the wetland between San Diego Creek and the project site during LSA's March 16, 1995, survey. Coyote movement through the project area is undoubtedly centered on the San Diego Creek channel. The project site is removed from this major drainage, and therefore development of the site would probably have little effect on free coyote movement. It is harder to predict whether effective movement of California gnatcatchers through this area will occur. The project site is somewhat out of the way for the most efficient movement through the area, but efficiency is probably not a significant influence on wandering birds. The same Factors affecting poten- tial nesting in the area will influence potential movement. While nesting would greatly enhance the effectiveness of such movement, movement through the area could still occur and is more likely than nesting. Similarly, the health of nearby populations (e.g., Upper Newport Bay and the vicinity of Bonita Reservoir) and the ultimate land use of larger nearby properties are 08/31/95(1: ••. CNB501 %-SECC4-7.NEV() 4.7-24 r, ISA Associates, Inc. f probably more influential on gnatcatcher movement in this area than is the maintenance of scrub habitat on the project site. 4.7.3 CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE Under Appendix G of CEQA (Significant Effects), the effects of a project on biological resources are normally considered to be significant if the project will: Substantially affect a rare or endangered species of animal or plant or the habitat of the species Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species Substantially diminish habitat for fish, wildlife, or plants. 4.7.4 IMPACTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT The following impacts have been determined to be less than significant: Would the proposal result in impacts to locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? There is no locally designated species that have been identified on the site. Therefore, there is no impact. 4.7.5 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT PROJECT IMPACTS Direct Project Impacts Plant Communities The proposed project is a car dealership. Project impacts include site grad- ing to level the existing hilly portions of the site and the removal of all on- site vegetation. The proposed action will require the removal of all plant communities and wildlife habitat on site. With the exception of the sensitive scrub communities discussed below, the on-site habitats have low biological values, and the loss of these habitats is not considered to be significant. Wildlife Loss of the on-site plant community will result in the displacement or loss of habitat for wildlife species. As a result of construction, the more mobile 08/31/95(1:'•.CNB501 ••.SECr4-7.NEW) 4.7-25 i LSA Associates, Inc. species of wildlife will probably disperse into adjacent habitats. To the extent that wildlife populations in these adjacent habitats are at or in excess of carrying capacity, the increase of wildlife from the project site will result in crowding and competition for resources. The net result will be a decrease in the total numbers of wildlife in the vicinity of the project. Because the affected wildlife are generally common and are not sensitive, this impact is not considered to be significant. Sensitive Biological Resources The potential on-site habitat for most of the sensitive species is limited, and use by these species is expected to be limited to foraging on or movement through the site. Upland Scrub Habitat and Associated Species For the coastal California gnatcatcher, development of the project along with the Baypoint site and construction of the extension of Bayview Drive adjacent to the project site will have an adverse impact on the potential for future nesting of the gnatcatcher. Scrub vegetation will be planted as part of the Baypoint landscaping, the nearby SJHTC wetland mitigation site, and on graded areas adjacent to the Corridor. In addition, the ultimate fate of nearby properties such as the former landfill site (on UCI property east of MacArthur Boulevard) will also have a strong influence on potential gnatcatcher use of the project vicinity. The replacement of scrub vegetation in these areas is likely to somewhat balance the negative effects, but the overall impact to the 2.1 acres of upland scrub communities is considered adverse and significant for this project. Raptor Foraging Foraging opportunities for sensitive raptor species are limited on the project site, due mainly to the relatively small size of the site, lack of ground cover, and resulting limited prey base. Most foraging activity probably occurs along San Diego Creek. Because this project will not impact San Diego Creek, no significant impacts to raptor foraging are expected to occur. Wildlife Movement Some wildlife species, such as the coyote, use the San Diego Creek channel and adjacent lands for movement without requiring the presence of a partic- ular plant community for cover. Without mitigation, the project may have a significant adverse effect on the movement of these important wildlife species due to increased human presence in the area, including potential light pollution at night. At present, the SJHTC mitigation site will act as a buffer 08/31/95(1: ,.CNB501,.SECT4-7.NEW) 4.7-26 LSA Associates, Inc. f. between the project site and San Diego Creek. The Bayview extension will further buffer the on-site activity from the mitigation site. However, there may be some remaining impact on the SJHTC wetland mitigation and the immediately adjacent wetland area due to excessive night lighting and human activity. Therefore, this impact remains potentially significant without mitigation. For species such as the California gnatcatcher that require the existence of scrub habitat for movement routes, the removal of 2.1 acres of scrub vegetation will have a significant impact by decreasing the potential movement through scrub habitat in the vicinity of the project. This impact includes both movement and possibly nesting of this species in the project area, particularly when this loss is considered with the scrub impacts of other nearby projects, i.e., the SJHTC and the Baypoint residential development. Landscaping and buffers with native scrub habitat, which are required of the SJHTC and Baypoint projects, will offset this overall impact to some extent. Although preservation of the project site and restoration with additional scrub habitat would further enhance the movement potential through this area, such enhancement is probably not necessary to maintain some degree of movement function. Off-site mitigation, such as restoration of scrub in nearby portions of the San Diego Creek corridor or in Upper Newport Bay, would also have a positive effect on gnatcatcher movement through this area. Indirect Project Impacts Potential indirect project impacts include the following: • Off-site siltation and erosion • Downstream effects • Noise • Fire incidents • Light • Human disturbance • Non-native, invasive plant species. Off-site siltation and erosion from construction are potential impacts for this project because of the proximity of the site to the San Diego Creek channel. Siltation of the San Diego Creek channel and Upper Newport Bay results in turbid waters, and affects the use and distribution of aquatic wildlife in the bay. However, with standard erosion control practice, erosion and downstream siltation during construction (and as specified in Section 4.4, Water Resources) are not expected to reach the Creek; therefore, this impact is not considered to be significant. Because the project is a proposed car dealership, most of which will be situated on asphalt concrete, off-site erosion after project completion is expected to be minimal, and will not be significant. 08/31/95(I:'•.CNB501••.SECT4-7.NEW) 4.7-27 L ' LSA Associates, Ina Downstream effects include hazardous and toxic waste runoff in addition to erosion and siltation. There is a potential for hazardous and toxic waste runoff as a result of project construction. In addition to these temporary impacts, the proposed use of the site as a car dealership (with a repair shop and cleaning operation) may result in additional hazardous and toxic waste runoff into San Diego Creek and from there into Upper Newport Bay. This is a particular problem with such operations as car dealerships. Automobile repair shops provide more concentrated sources of hazardous and toxic materials than residential or commercial development. The potential problems associated with hazardous and toxic runoff include pollution of surface and deep water resources, with an associated reduction in wildlife use. However, because the site will be separated from the San Diego Creek by the Bayview extension and practices for the control of these materials will be implemented as specified in Section 4.4, Water Resources, runoff of hazardous and toxic materials is not expected to reach the Creek at high levels of concentration. Therefore, this impact is not considered to be significant There will be an increase in noise levels associated with the project. The existing surrounding noise level is fairly high, especially near the boundary with Jamboree Road. Therefore, this impact is not considered to be signifi- cant by itself. However, it is one aspect of the potential effects of overall human presence on wildlife movement. Fire incidents are expected to be infrequent, since the project will be sur- rounded by development for the most part and because the fuel load on the project and in the project vicinity is low. This impact is not considered to be significant. The project will result in increased light pollution, particularly if the dealer- ship will be open at night. Existing light levels are moderate due to sur- rounding development and traffic on Jamboree Road. The additional light created by the proposed project near the planned wetland restoration site is potentially significant because of its contribution to potential effects on wildlife movement in these areas. Human use of the site will increase as a result of the project. This impact is greater if the dealership will be open through dusk and early night, which are times of the most active movement of wildlife. Because of the Bayview Extension and because the project is set back 500 feet from the Creek, the effect on San Diego Creek is not significant. However, this is another contribution to the overall project effects on potential wildlife movement. In addition, human activity will potentially affect the use of the small wetland area adjacent to the southeast corner of the site. Because the bulk of the project area will be covered with asphalt concrete, the potential for introduction of non-native, invasive plant species is low. However, if landscaping is proposed the project applicant, or agents and as - 08/31/95(1: ••.CNB501 ••.SECT4-7.NEW) 4.7-28 LSA Associates, Inc. r, r' signs, should prepare a landscape plan wherein use of non-native, invasive plants should be controlled, as described in the Mitigation Section. F' 4.7.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The loss of plant communities and associated wildlife habitat will contribute incrementally to the significant cumulative impacts to these resources in the southwestern Orange County region. The loss of the scrub communities and associated coastal California gnatcatcher habitat contributes to the significant ongoing cumulative loss of this habitat in the southwestern Orange County region. 4.7.7 MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation is required for the following project impacts: • Loss of plant communities (except for the scrub communities) • Loss of wildlife habitat (except for the scrub habitat) • Raptor foraging • Off-site siltation and erosion • Downstream effects • Fire incidents. Mitigation measures for the project are divided into two categories: 1) on- site mitigation for the reduction of human related disturbance; and 2) off-site habitat compensation. On -Site Mitigation Measures Wetland Buffer 7-1 Final project design will include measures to buffer the project from adjacent wetland areas, including the SJHTC mitigation site and the existing wetland adjacent to the southeast corner of the project. The final buffer design shall be approved by the California Department of Fish and Game and the California Coastal Commission. While a combination of landscaping and the presence of the Bayview extension may be considered adequate to buffer the project from the SJHTC mitigation site, additional measures will likely be required for the nearer existing wetland site. Design measures to be considered include a five foot high concrete block wall or equivalent barrier that will preclude human access from the project site and reduce the effects of human activity. 08/31/95(I:'••CNB501 ••.SEC'I'4-7.NEVC>) 4.7-29 LSA Associates, Inc. Restriction on Landscape Plants 7-2 Impacts resulting from the use of non-native, invasive plant species will be mitigated by developing a landscape plan that avoids the use of non-native invasive plants. A landscape plan prepared with consideration of the following information must be approved by the City prior to the issuance of building permits: Prohibited Species All non-native plants that are potentially invasive via airborne seeds, or that are particularly difficult to control once escaped, will be prohibited from all parts of the project. Such species include, but are not limited to, the following: • Tree -of -heaven (Ailanthus spp.) • Giant reed (Arundo donax) • Garland chrysanthemum (Chrysanthemum coronarium) • Pampas grass (Cortaderia spp.) • Brooms (Cytisus spp.) • Bermuda buttercup (Oxalis pes-caprae) • Fountain/Kikuyu grass (Pennisetum spp.) • German ivy (Senecio mikanoides) • Tamarisk (Tamarix spp.). Permitted Species Some invasive, exotic species are known to be controllable in well managed situations. Such species may be used in project landscaping if a City approved biologist approves the species and proposed use. For example, areas that are separated from existing wetland areas by a substantial area of paving could be planted with hybrid bermuda grass. Non-native, invasive species that could be used under these circumstances include, but are not limited to, the following: • Hottentot -fig (Carpobrotus edulis)1 • Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon)Z • Myoporum (Myoporum laetum) • Pepper trees (Scbinus spp.) Should be prohibited in areas adjacent to natural open spaces. 2 Hybrid Bermuda grass, which is sterile or produces only sterile seed, should be permitted in landscaped areas, when surrounded by an appropriate hardscape buffer or an apron of non-invasive plant species (to prevent vegetative spread into natural areas). 08/31/95(1: ••.CNB501-,SECT4-7.N M 4.7-30 ISA Associates, Inc. Cape Honeysuckle (Tecomaria capensis)1 Periwinkle (Vinca spp.). Restriction on Night Lighting 7-3 The effects of night lighting on adjacent natural areas, including the SJHTC mitigation site, will be reduced by the design of lighting that is either low intensity or highly directional. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a lighting plan shall be approved by the City, demonstrating that appropriate lighting will be installed for the display area, parking lots and areas adjacent to wetlands to minimize spillage into the habitat areas. The plan will in- clude, but not be limited to, lighting directed onto the project site, and the use of soft light intensity fixtures. Prior to the issuance of any certificate of use and occupancy, the project proponent shall provide evidence, meeting the approval of the City, that the installed lighting meets the objectives of the plan. If necessary, shields on the back of lights or other screening shall be placed to cut off light beyond project area. Off-site Mitigation Measures 7-4 Prior to the issuance of grading permits for the project, a detailed Interim Habitat Loss Mitigation Plan (IHLMP)'rlCx`pttt3 ti tot: MirasureS'shall be prepared by the City and submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) an California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) for approval. The purpose of these measures is to increase the amount and quality of scrub habitat that can be utilized by the California gnatcatcher and other species that require this habitat. This will both compensate for the project induced loss of potential breeding habitat and increase the potential for wildlife movement by increasing the size of important populations. The specific habitat replacement and exotic weed removal measures to be incorporated into the detailed IHLMP, It>ha p .. .:::;:.:..::::.:::::.:....:.............:: >:.;; enrage may be modified with the approval of the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The detailed IHLMP will include the following elements: • Overview/Objective • Plant Palettes and Planting Densities • Planting Methods and Timing • Site Preparation • Exotic Weed Removal 08/31/95(I: •••CNB501,.SECT4-7.NM 4.7-31 LSA Associates, Inc. • Irrigation • Maintenance • Performance Standards • Monitoring • Remedial Measures. The implementation of these measures will occur at the first feasible opportunity, with consideration of site preparation and plant propagule collection requirements. Habitat Replacement 7-6 An approximately 3.5 acre portion of the City owned property in the Big Canyon area adjacent to Upper Newport Bay shall be ................................ restored/converted to coastal sage scrub habitat. T'h�cal f<the additional habitat:eceatinis to increase the California gnatcatcher population by at least one pair. Ap t *64 restoration area is shown :..........:.:.....:.::...:::. in Figure 4.7.2. Reduction of Invasive Exotic Plants in Upper Newport Bay 7 As part of the Big Canyon restoration effort, the City will implement a three year program for the removal of pampas grass and myoporum from City property in the mouth of Big Canyon (Figure 4.7.2). The first year will concentrate on initial removal at an appropriate time of year, i.e., prior to seed formation. The following two years will consist of spot removal of new seedlings or root sprouts. Mitigation for Cumulative Impacts Mitigation for cumulative impacts to coastal sage scrub is provided by the NCCP and the specific measures required of projects through the 4 (d) rule process. Mitigation for impacts to biological resources afforded by the NCCP subregional planning effort will take the form of ensuring that functional and well managed reserves are created. The NCCP has specifically considered the coastal California gnatcatcher (and other species) within the overall context 08/31/95(1: ••.CNB501 ••SECT4-7.NEl) 4.7-32 LAM 'W`Ili�zl- Or 0, P33-, ts - r � . jy ell v4 N�- 4 -• �;. t 1, 4p AL Liz- LSA Associates, Inc. of the coastal sage scrub community. A finding must be made that imple- mentation of the NCCP/HCP will satisfy the minimization and non -jeopardy (i.e., no net loss of long-term habitat value) requirements of Section 10a of the federal Endangered Species Act to allow incidental take as defined in Section 10 of FESA. The EIR/EIS prepared for the NCCP will review CEQA/NEPA mitigation within the statutory framework of CEQA and the NCCP/FESA, and make findings that all feasible mitigations have been provided, and/or describe why certain mitigation measures are not feasible. The City will continue its participation in the NCCP program. 4.7 7 NCCP FINDINGS Cumulative Loss The project will not result in cumulative exceedance of the five percent guideline for the loss of coastal sage scrub in the Coastal/Central Subregion. When added to the total loss approved to date (subsequent to the March, 1993, listing of the gnatcatcher) of 601.66 acres, the maximum loss of 2.1 acres of scrub habitat associated with this project will bring the total loss to 603.76 acres, which is 1.6 percent of the 36,614 acres of coastal sage scrub in the Coastal/Central NCCP Subregion. Connectivity Most of the contiguous patches of coastal sage scrub habitat in the Coastal Subregion are in the San Joaquin Hills, and occur to the southeast of the project. However, a wildlife connection between the San Joaquin Hills and Upper Newport Bay has generally been considered to be important by biolo- gists in the area for a number of years. The primary importance of the connection is to maintain access to Upper Newport Bay by coyotes, which principally inhabit the San Joaquin Hills. Coyotes are important for the control of mesopredators (smaller predators) that can adversely affect the ecological relationships in Upper Newport Bay. In addition, Upper Newport Bay supports a relatively isolated population of California gnatcatchers, and it is desirable to maintain a potential link between the populations of Upper Newport Bay and the San Joaquin Hills. Therefore, the Bonita Creek and San Diego Creek corridors are currently included in the NCCP Preliminary Reserve design and special linkage areas. The project is immediately adjacent to the San Diego Creek corridor. Without mitigation, the project could potentially adversely affect the utility of this connection for wildlife in general and the California gnatcatcher in particular. 08/31/95(1: ••.CNB501 ••.SECT4-7.NEV) 4.7-34 Isa associates, Inc. Effect on NCCP Planning r' The project specific mitigation measures will minimize the project effects on adjacent portions of the NCCP reserve and enhance habitat in non -reserve open space that is adjacent to the Upper Newport Bay portion of the reserve. Thus, these measures will contribute to permanent implementation of ' portions of the NCCP through the connectivity and open space conservation measures. The project does not adversely affect the preparation of the subregional NCCP. The project does not impact currently planned regionally important open spaces. The project area is not included in the proposed reserve design currently being reviewed. The adjacent creek area is an integral part of the habitat linkage system that is included as part of the , current reserve design. Therefore, the development of the project does not compromise reserve design. Effect on Survival and Recovery of the Species The habitat loss will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of listed species in the wild. It is fully anticipated that implementa- tion of the NCCP program will adequately provide for the survival of the California gnatcatcher, such that the threat to this species will be removed. As noted above, the project, with mitigation measures, does not preclude connectivity, or preclude or prevent the preparation of the subregional NCCP. The proposed mitigation measures will enhance the survival of the species with respect to the NCCP program. Incidental Habitat Loss The purpose of the project is to develop a commercial area. The loss of scrub habitats is a necessary, incidental effect of the project. 4.7.9 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Impacts to biotic resources, including scrub habitat and the California gnatcatcher, will be mitigated by the proposed off-site mitigation measures requiring restoration of scrub, as well as the on-site measures that will reduce the amount of human disturbance. Implementation of the project mitigation measures would reduce all impacts to biological resources to a level less than significant. 08/31/95(1:',CNB501 •+SECT4-7.NM 4.7-35 l LSA Associates, Inc. 4.8 CULTU LAI,/SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES 4.8.1 SETTING ARCHEOLOGICAL SETTING Prebistory Newport Bay and the nearby western San Joaquin Hills constitute the region- al study area. Prehistorically, this region was an abundantly productive envi- ronment, providing aboriginal hunters and gatherers with numerous food and tool resources (Koerper 1981). Southern California researchers have divided regional prehistory into a four stage chronology describing either changing artifact assemblages or evolving ecological adaptations. Two principal chronologies are employed locally, one proposed by William Wallace (1955; 1978) and one by Claude Warren (1968). These have been slightly revised by Henry Koerper (1981; Koerper and Drover 1983). The chronologies divide the region's prehistory by major cultural changes; however, as Southern California cultural developments occur gradually and have long-term stability, specifically applying a chro- nology is often difficult. 08/31/95(1: ••.CNB501-,SECT4-8.NM 4.8-1 LSA Associates, Inc. Wallace published Southern California's first culture history sequence. In 1955, he established several broad cultural horizons based upon changing tool and ornament styles. Wallace defined four cultural horizons for coastal Southern California. These horizons are discussed below (Figure 4.8.1). The Early Horizon covers the period from man's arrival in Southern Califor- nia until the establishment of post -glacial environments. Orange County's Early Horizon is documented by a female skeleton, "Laguna Woman," which apparently dates to this Horizon. Radiocarbon dating places the skeleton to 17,150 Before Present (B.P.). No artifacts were associated with the find, and the dates were obtained from bone collagen; as a result, some researchers question the validity of these dates. Early Horizon artifacts have seldom been identified in Orange County. Near Newport Bay, at ORA -195 and at ORA -64, the presence of crescent shaped flaked artifacts and other tools indicates an Early Horizon occupation. Other ORA -64 material included shellfish from Newport Bay. Drover et al. (1983) concluded that the Early Horizon in Orange County represented an economy with greater emphasis on fishing and shellfish collecting. The Early Horizon is followed by the Milling Stone Horizon. Sites represent- ing this time period (after 5500 B.C.) typically produce numerous ground - stone pieces such as metates, manos, discoidals (disc shaped artifacts), soap- stone objects, and cogged stones. Wallace suggests that Milling Stone Hori- zon people generally were hunter -gatherers who used small game but also spent much time collecting and processing wild grass seeds. Around 3000 B.C., coastal populations begin showing greater reliance on marine resources. Near shore and deep sea fish appear more often in site refuse. Inland, acorn processing technology, signaled by increased stone mortar and pestle use, developed. A major prehistoric subsistence change began. People leached tannic acid from acorns, and then prepared flour. The dry flour stored easily, and a more stable diet was achieved. This tech- nologic and economic change initiates Wallace's Intermediate Horizon, the mortar and pestle being the "type fossil" defining this Horizon. Smaller pro- jectile points representing technological refinements in hunting also appear. Orange County researchers have had difficulty identifying the Intermediate Horizon, as tool categories, even the mortar and pestle, overlap both earlier and later periods. As a result, few Orange County sites have been placed in this Horizon. The few known sites often are dated by radiocarbon or obsidi- an hydration methods, which have isolated the Intermediate Horizon materi- als. At present at least two Intermediate Horizon site components have been identified at Newport Bay, ORA -121 (Crownover et al. 1989) and ORA -287 (Clevenger 1986). Closer to the study area are two field camps, ORA -221/222 and ORA -226; both apparently have small Intermediate Horizon components (Rosenthal and Padon 1986; Mason et al. 1987). 08/31/95(1:'••CNB501 ••.SECr4.8.NM 4.8-2 700 A.D. 5500 B.C. 6/13/95(CNB501) LSA . Mission Period AGE 1769 A.D. Influx of ceramic smolang pipes 1000 A.D. and rizon brownware pottery Late Prehistoric Horizon Small arrow points, soapstone bowls, steatite effigies and cremation of dead 500 A.D. ----------------------------- - 0 A.D. Intermediate Horizon Projjectileints. mortar and pestle use (aom processing). Burial of the dead and cremation. Milling Stone Horizon Metates, manus, discoidals, soapstone objects and cogged stones. Burial of the dead Early Man Horizon Dart points, scrapers, hamme stones, crescentics — 3000 B.C. Figure 4.8.1 Generalized Cultural Chronology of Southern California Etbnobistory LSA Associates, Inc. The Late Prehistoric Horizon begins between A.D. 500 and A.D. 700 (Bean and Smith 1978). At this time, artifact changes or new cultural practices occur. In Orange County sites, this horizon is characterized by projectile points, soapstone bowls, steatite effigies and cremation. These artifacts and practices have been linked to a proposed Shoshonean (Takic) immigration to Los Angeles and Orange counties. By A.D. 1000, smoking pipes and Tizon brownware pottery of possible Colorado Desert origin occur locally. Such artifacts surface sporadically; therefore, site dating also depends on other fac- tors, such as the increased frequency of imported Salton Sea (Obsidian Buttes) obsidian and Grimes Canyon (Ventura County) fused shale (Hall 1988; Demcak 1981). The Late Prehistoric Horizon ended abruptly when Franciscan friars and Spanish soldiers began establishing mission outposts along the California coast. At that time, the San Joaquin Hills were occupied by the Gabrielino Indians. Gabrielino refers to the Shoshonean (Takic) speaking Native Ameri- cans who lived throughout Los Angeles and northern Orange counties and who were historically affiliated with Mission San Gabriel Archangel. These Shoshonean people, however, called themselves Tong-va (Johnson 1962). The Gabrielino were intensive hunter -gatherers who used both inland and coastal food resources. They caught or collected seasonally occurring food resources, and evolved a semi -sedentary lifestyle, living in either permanent or semi-permanent villages along major inland watercourses or at coastal estuaries. These villages took advantage of the multiple resources available at such locales. Seasonally, as their preferred foods ripened, the Gabrielino moved to temporary gathering camps and collected plant foods such as acorns, buckwheat, chia, berries, or fruits. They also periodically established camps when gathering shellfish and hunting waterfowl along the coast or at estuaries (Hudson 1971). Gabrielinos living near the coast were marine oriented, and had an economy similar to the coastal Chumash. Their economy combined shellfish collect- ing, kelp bed and offshore fishing, and sea mammal hunting, as well as land mammal hunting and plant collecting. They processed acorn meal and exten- sively used the foothill vegetation near their coastal villages (Hudson 1971). The Gabrielino lived in small, semi-permanent villages, which were the focus of family life. Patrilineally linked extended families lived within each village (Kroeber 1925; Johnson 1962; Bean and Smith 1978). These kin groups were affiliated with several village clans. Both the clans and the villages were apparently exogamous, as mission records suggest that after her marriage a woman resided at her husband's village. Gabrielino villages were politically independent, even when marriage ties existed. The village was administered by a headman who inherited his posi- 08/31M(1: %CNB501 %-SECr4-8.NM 4.8-4 History F LSA Associates, Inc. tion from his father. Shamans guided religious and medical activities, and group hunting or fishing was supervised by individual male specialists. An active and elaborate Gabrielino ritual system was present when the Span- ish padres arrived to establish Mission San Gabriel and Mission San Juan Capistrano. Rituals included individual rites of passage, village rites and participation in the widespread Chingichngish cult. The cult of the culture hero, Chingichngish, was observed by Franciscan Friar Geronimo Boscana while he resided at Missions San Juan Capistrano and San Luis Rey (Hanna 1978; Harrington 1933). At Spanish contact, the Gabrielino suffered an initial population reduction from disease; a second disaster occurred during the mid -19th century, when epidemics struck the Los Angeles area and many Indians died. Intermarriage with other regional groups and with Spanish immigrants also occurred. When anthropologist A. L. Kroeber sought Gabrielino descendants during the 1920s, he was unable to locate a group claiming Gabrielino heritage. Today, therefore, the federal government does not recognize a local tribe or band, although there are individual spokespeople who have Gabrielino ancestors (Rosenthal, et al. 1991). Historically, the project area was the site of the San Joaquin Gun Club. It was located just south of the intersection of Jamboree Road and Old Palisades Road (Bristol), and was used for hunting and trap -shooting. Orga- nized by Count Jaro Von Schmidt in 1890, the gun club was one of the first of its kind in Orange County. It was an important social meeting place for early settlers and prominent members of Orange County society. The origi- nal building was a green clapboard, which was moved to the gun club site in 1892. It had been used as a hardware store in Santa Ana by M. Bindy and J. McFadden. The latter was an early member of the San Joaquin Gun Club, as were other prominent Orange County citizens such as James Harvey Irvine, Sr. and Von Schmidt. The gun club closed its doors in 1945, and in 1965 the building was demolished. Sometime after 1945, considerable dumping took place in the area (Macko and Weil 1986). Previous Site Surveys, Excavations and Conclusions An archaeological and historical records search and literature review was conducted through the South Central Coastal Information Center located at the University of California, Los Angeles. The Information Center's records provided documentation on surveys that have been completed within the project area and excavations at site CA -ORA -57(77)/H, which is within the project area. 08/31/95(1: ••.CNB501-,SECT4-8.NM 4.8-5 LSA Associates, Inc. In April, 1949, Briggs recorded ORA -57, describing the site as a shell mound. In November, 1949, Eberhart visited the site and rerecorded it. He described the site as a shell midden and mentioned "a house and a shed or two." For unknown reasons, Eberhart's site record was not considered an update, but was given a new site number: ORA -77. One prehistoric site now had two numbers assigned to it. He also briefly discussed the excavations that were conducted by Winterbourne and a Works Projects Administration crew in 1938. He made reference to three burials that Winterbourne excavated, and he listed artifacts that were unearthed, but he did not discuss site type or significance. More recently, the site was surveyed by Macko in 1985. His updated site record describes the site as a shell midden. He also makes the first official reference to the San Joaquin Gun Club, in that he mentions the presence of slab foundations, a dump, and an octagonal water tank foundation for the club. It is probably at this point that the "H" was added to the trinomial. Macko also suggests that sites ORA -56, -57, -77 and -192 all refer to one complex site, each appearing to be a separate site due to construction distur- bances. Macko conducted a series of surface scrapes on the site. He collect- ed a large quantity of shell, primarily, Pecten sp., Chione sp., Ostrea sp. and Donax sp. He also collected a small number of flakes, fire affected rock, and a few historic artifacts. In 1989 de Barros conducted test excavations at ORA -57(77)/H in conjunc- tion with the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. Ten 1x1 m test units were excavated. They produced very little research information. The portion of the site that Winterbourne excavated in 1938 produced a signifi- cant number of important artifacts, but that portion of the site was de- stroyed. De Barros concluded that the remaining portion of ORA -57(77)/H offers little, if any, research potential, and therefore is not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. In 1993, McKenna updated the site record for the historic portion of the site. McKenna noted that of the original eight structures, none were still present. It was also reported that although the duck ponds remain, they have been altered from their original configuration. PALEONTOLOGICAL SETTING The project area has been above and below sea level throughout local geo- logic history. In the area, geological units are derived from a series of Pleis- tocene terraces, both marine and terrestrial sediments of Quaternary and Miocene age. Formations within the project area range from the middle Miocene to Holo- cene. According to the Pacific Soils Report (1995), the Monterey Formation underlies the site. These deposits are of Middle to Late Miocene age, and are characterized by thinly bedded siltstones, sandstones and claystones. Surfi- 08/31/95(1: ••.CNB501 ••.SECT4-8.NEW) 4.8-6 LSA Associates, Inc. cial deposits within the project area are of Pleistocene Newport Back Bay, Marine Terrace deposits, and Quaternary Alluvium and Colluvium. The Back Bay deposits are characterized as dark gray to gray blue clays and silt. Throughout the Pleistocene, sea level fluctuated greatly. This variation caused terraces to form at different elevations or stands. Deposits from Bonita Creek and Pleistocene Terraces from the Newport Back Bay are found within the project area. The following soil formations have been identified on the site. Monterey Formation (TW) The Monterey Formation is middle to late Miocene (Luisiana and Mohnian) in the upper section, possibly slightly older in the lower section (Morton, 1974), marine, white to yellowish gray diatomaceous, siliceous, tuffaceous and cherty shales and siltstones. It contains interbeds of calcareous sand- stone and sandy limestone. Just south of the Orange/San Diego County line, Ehlig (1979) reports that the basal Monterey consists of conglomerates and coarse grained sandstones derived from the underlying San Onofre Breccia. In Orange County, travertine -limestone occurs locally near the base (Morton, 1974). Sandstone interbeds contain quartzo-feldspathic subangular grains with glauc-amphibole and quartzite lithics. Diatomite, tuff and montmorillo- nite are common in the siltstone, mudstone and shale beds. Sandstone and siltstone are thinly to massively bedded. The shale contains very thin well developed bedding that is locally rhythmic. Along the coastline, the Monterey Formation is about 1,200 feet, and thins to 300 feet as it moves inland (Smith, 1960). It unconformably overlies the Sespe, Vaqueros, San Onofre Breccia, and Topanga Formation. Locally, how- ever, it has a gradational and interfingering contact with the San Onofre Breccia. It has gradational contact with the overlying Capistrano Formation east of Oso Creek; elsewhere, it is unconformably overlain by the Niguel Formation and marine terrace deposits. It is widespread in the southern coastal ranges of California, but in Orange County only in the southern area. It correlates with the parts of the Puente Formation in the central to north- ern Santa Ana Mountains and Puente Hills of Orange County, and the Mod- elo Formation of Los Angeles County. Vedder, et al. (1957) have made an arbitrary boundary between the Monterey and correlative members of the Puente. East of the Cristianitos fault, Oso Creek is the boundary; west of the Cristianitos fault, a general east -west line from near Lambert Reservoir to the Cristianitos fault is the boundary. Several significant invertebrate and verte- brate localities are recorded from the South County area. These include: fossils of crocodilians, fish, shark, ray, whale, dolphin, seal lion, sea cow, des- mostylan, bivalves, gastropods, barnacles, bryozoan and sand dollars. Many of the invertebrates are found in the "Pecten Reef' located near the base of the Monterey. In 1994, collections of additional marine mollusks and echi- noderms (specifically a sand dollar Merriamaster sp.) were made from a locality in Wood Canyon. 08/31/95(1:-,CNB501 %-SECT4-8.NM 4•8-7 LSA Associates, Inc. Marine Terrace Deposits (Qtm) The Quaternary (800,000 to 1,230,000 years before the present [Barrie, et al. 1992]) Marine Terrace Deposits consist of light brown, orange brown, and yellow brown to gray mixtures of sands, gravels and pebbles with some minor silt. The sand grains tend to be subangular to subrounded, while the gravels and pebbles are generally subrounded to rounded, with occasional angular clasts derived from the underlying formation. Bedding is usually poor; however, lenticular beds and cross bedding do occur. The deposits tend to be friable to weakly indurated. Sand grains are predominately quartz and feldspar, while the gravels are quite variable: plutonics, volcanics, meta- morphics and fragments of the underlying, or nearby, bedrock formations Vedder (1976) states that some of the Marine Terrace Deposits can be as thick as 125 feet; however, Barrie et al. (1992) encountered only terrace deposits up to 59 feet thick; geologic work done prior to construction of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor encountered terrace deposits up to 85 feet thick before drilling was ended (Geofon and Zeiser, 1989) These deposits unconformably overly Pliocene and Miocene formations in all areas, and are unconformably overlain by Quaternary to recent colluvial deposits. To date, seven marine terraces have been identified within the San Joaquin Hills (Barrie et al. 1992). Terrace number 6, the second oldest, is the one exposed at the landfill. Barrie (1992) gives a approximate age of 1,050,000 years for this terrace. Extensive deposits of pleistocene vertebrate fossils were encountered at the intersection of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor and MacArthur Boulevard, immediately east of the project area. Elsewhere in Orange County, Marine Terrace Deposits have been found to contain invertebrate and vertebrate fossils (e.g., bivalves, gastropods, echino- derms, sharks, fish, sea lions, whales, horse, camel, bison, mammoth and mastodon). Alluvium and Colluvium (Qac) These deposits, which consist of sands and silt, crop out along various drain- ages. Fossils are known in similar deposits from pit excavations for roads, housing developments, and quarries in the Los Angeles Basin (Miller, 1971). Remains of Rancholabrean type animals such as elephants, horses, bison, saber tooth cats, deer, and sloths are known from these activities. There is a potential for these types of fossils in all alluvial deposits. 08/31/95(1:,.CNB501 %.SEC r".NM 4.8-8 4.8.2 CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE Arcbaeology LSA Associates, Inc. The San Diego Creek North Project must comply with the California Environ- mental Quality Act (CEQA). Any site within the project area must be evaluat- ed to determine whether it is an "important archaeological resource." For purposes of CEQA, an important archaeological resource is one which: A. Is associated with an event or person of: Paleontology 1. Recognized significance in California or American history, or 2. Recognized scientific importance in prehistory. B. Can provide information that is both of demonstrable public interest and useful in addressing scientifically consequential and reasonable or archaeological research questions; C. Has a special or particular quality, such as oldest, best example, larg- est, or last surviving example of its kind; D. Is at least 100 years old, and possesses substantial stratigraphic inte- grity; or E. Involves important research questions that historical research has shown can be answered only with archaeological methods. According to Appendix K of CEQA, activities that disrupt or adversely affect paleontological sites are considered significant adverse impacts. According to paleontological guidelines published by the Society of Verte- brate Paleontology (1991), all fossils are significant, non-renewable resources that should be afforded protection by federal, State, and local environmental laws and guidelines. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Orange County Board of Supervisor Resolutions, County Standard Condi- tions of Approval, and local planning guidelines mandate mitigation and recovery of all significant fossil remains. Currently, there is much discussion among paleontologists as to the proper system of assigning paleontological sensitivities to rock units. Previously, units were evaluated in four categories: high, medium, low, and no paleontological sensitivity. Units were assigned to these classifications based on four criteria: 1. Fossil producing history of the formation regionally. 08/31/95(L'••CNB501'SECT" NEW) 0 LSA Associates, Inc. 2. Fossil producing history of formation around and in subject property. 3. Extent of undeveloped exposure outside study area. 4. Significance of known fossil remains in the study area as compared to the regional paleontologic knowledge. These criteria relied heavily on the interests, background and regional biases of the reviewer in assigning stratigraphic priorities. In 1988, the San Bernar- dino County Museum paleontologist Robert Reynolds, along with profes- sional paleontologists from Orange, Riverside, and Los Angeles counties, proposed the following system: • Formations would be assigned to one of three categories, namely: Low, High, and Unknown. Assignments to these classes would be established as follows: Low Sensitivity - rock types that characteristically do not pro- duce fossils, i.e., metamorphic and igneous rocks. High Sensitivity - rocks that have previously been known to produce fossils, particularly sedimentary rocks. Unknown Sensitivity - all sedimentary rocks that to date have not produced recognizable fossil remains. Once fossil remains are found from Unknown Sensitivity units, they are upgraded to High Sensitivity. This system took out much of the subjectivity of the previous classification system. It also is the most conservative approach, and supports the belief that fossils are unrenewable resources that must be protected. Finally, this system is the one currently supported by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontol- ogy. It will, therefore, be utilized in this analysis. Within the project area the Monterey Formation, Back Bay Deposits, Marine Terrace Deposits, and Alluvium are considered to be of High Paleontological Significance. The Colluvium and Artificial Fill are of Low Sensitivity. 4.8.3 IMPACTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT According to the Initial Study in Appendix A, the following potential impacts to cultural resource have been determined to be less than significant: will the project affect historical resources? No historical resources determined eligible for listing on the National Regis- ter of Historical Places have been identified on the project site. Considering 08/31/95(1:'+CNB501 •SECT".NM 4.8-10 LSA Associates, Inc. the vacant nature of the site, such resources are not anticipated. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. Does the project have the potential to cause a physical change the would affect unique ethnic cultural values? No unique ethnic cultural values have been identified that are associated with the site; therefore, there is no potential for impact to occur. Would the project restrict existing religious or sacred uses with the potential impact area? No existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area have been identified; therefore, the project will not affect such uses. 4.8.4 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS Archaeology Paleontology The project will result in grading of the site. Based on previous excavations at ORA -57(77)/H, and conclusions drawn by de Barros, the following is rec- ommended: no further archaeological testing is required prior to ground disturbance activities. However, the potential remains for unknown resourc- es to be uncovered during grading activities. Therefore an Orange County certified archaeological monitor should be present during ground distur- bance activities in the event previously unknown buried archaeological re- mains are unearthed. Please refer to the mitigation measures listed below. Based on a review of the study area's geology, there is a high potential for impact on the region's paleontology from project grading. 4.8.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Archeological Resources Because the extent of the potential loss of archaeological resources is un- known at this time, the incremental loss in conjunction with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects may result in a significant cumula- tive impact on archaeological resources. However, implementation of the existing City policies and requirements and recommended mitigation mea- sures, will mitigate any potential cumulative impacts to a level of insignifi- cance. 08/31/95(1:'•.CNB501 ••.SECT4-8.NEV) 4.8-11 I ISA Associates, Inc. Paleontological Resources Implementation of the project will contribute to a cumulative loss of paleont- ological resources in the regional, subregional, and local areas of the project. 4.8.6 MITIGATION MEASURES Existing City Policies and Requirements 8-1 City Council Policy K-5 outlines the City's requirements with respect to archaeological resources. The following specific measures are recommended in conformance with Policy K-5. A. A qualified archaeologist shall be present during pregrade meetings to inform the project sponsor and grading contrac- tor of the results of any previous studies. In addition, an archaeologist shall be present during grading activities to in- spect the underlying soil for cultural resources. If significant cultural resources are uncovered, the archaeologist shall have the authority to stop or temporarily divert construction activi- ties for a period of 48 hours to assess the significance of the find. B. In the event that significant archaeological remains are uncov- ered during excavation and/or grading, all work shall stop in that area of subject property until an appropriate data recov- ery program can be developed and implemented. The cost of such a program shall be the responsibility of the project spon- sor. C. Prior to issuance of any grading or demolition permits, the applicant shall waive the provisions of AB 952 related to City of Newport Beach responsibilities for the mitigation of archae- ological impacts in a manner acceptable to the City Attorney. 8-2 Any sites uncovered shall be mitigated pursuant to Council Policy K-5. Where further testing or salvage is required, the applicant shall select a City approved, qualified archaeologist to excavate a sample of the site. All testing and salvage shall be conducted prior to issuance of grading permits or use of an area for recreational purposes. A writ- ten report summarizing the findings of the testing and data recovery program shall be submitted to the Planning Department within 90 days of the completed data recovery program. 8-3 The applicant shall donate all archaeological material, historic, or prehistoric, recovered during the project to a local institution that has the proper facilities for curation, display and study by qualified schol- 08/31/95(1:',CNB501 %SECT4.8.N M 4.8-12 Paleontology a LSA Associates, Inc. ars. All material shall be transferred to the approved facility after laboratory analysis and a report have been completed. The appropri- ate local institution shall be approved by the Planning Department based on a recommendation from the qualified archaeologist. 8-4 A pre -grade reconnaissance of the area shall be made by a qualified paleontologist to assess whether any significant fossils currently are exposed. Any fossils observed and deemed significant shall be sal- vaged. 8-5 A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to monitor and, if neces- sary, salvage scientifically significant fossil remains. 8-6 The paleontologist shall have the power to temporarily divert or direct grading efforts to allow the evaluation and any necessary sal- vage of exposed fossils. 8-7 Monitoring shall be on a full-time basis during grading in geologic units of high paleontologic sensitivity. 8-8 Spot-checking of low sensitivity sediments shall be conducted by a qualified paleontologist. Should significant fossils be observed during grading in these units, full-time monitoring may be required. 8-9 All collected fossils shall be donated to a museum approved by the City of Newport Beach Planning Department. 8-10 A final report summarizing findings, including an itemized inventory and contextual stratigraphic data, shall accompany the fossils to the designated repository; an additional copy shall be sent to the appro- priate Lead Agency. 4.8.7 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION After implementation of the above mitigation measures, no project impacts to historic, archaeological or paleontological resources are expected to occur as a result of project implementation. The proposed project along with other past, present, and reasonable foresee- able future projects will result in a cumulative loss in paleontological re- sources. This impact is mitigated to a level of insignificance. 08/31/95(1: --.CNB501 •••SECT4-8.NM 4.8-13 1 LSA Associates, Inc. 4.9 AESTHETICS 4.9.1 SETTING The project site is located within a developed area; urban views dominate the horizon. The Downey Savings buildings, the Marriott Suites Hotel, and the Brinderson Office Towers in the City of Irvine are all multi -story buildings in the immediate vicinity of the site. These major structures establish the aes- thetic character of the vicinity. The Route 73/SJHTC interchanges with Uni- versity Drive, Jamboree Road, and MacArthur Boulevard, currently under construction, immediately adjacent to the site, also add to the urbanized character. The San Diego Creek Flood Control Channel, while providing some relief from urban views, is an improved channel with graded side slopes. Views of the site from the Upper Newport Bay are broken by Jam- boree Road. The most prominent view of the project site is for motorists traveling north- bound on Jamboree Road between Camelback Drive and University Drive. Along this segment of Jamboree, the site is clearly visible. Existing urban development in the John Wayne Airport area forms the background of the view, and San Diego Creek forms the foreground. Currently, there is exten- sive construction activity visible related to the saltwater marsh site currently under construction by the TCA, along with construction of the SJHTC itself. Existing views of the site are of vacant land with a gradient sloping from the Route 73/Jamboree Road bridge down to the lower part of the site. There are no unique or distinguishing landforms on the site, such as bluffs or rock outcroppings. Scattered vegetation can be seen on a portion of the site. The site is also visible from across Jamboree Road from the Marriott Suites Hotel/Downey Savings site. Limited views of the site can be seen from north- bound MacArthur Boulevard. The site is visible from the San Diego Creek bicycle trail, and will also be visible to northbound motorists on the SJHTC. 4.9.2 CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project will normally be considered to have a significant aesthetic impact if it negatively affects a scenic vista or scenic highway, creates significant amounts of new light and glare, or has a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. For purposes of this analysis the City would consider a significant adverse impact to be loss of a scenic vista, loss or modification of significant landform, or creation of a visually unattractive view plane. 06/15/95(1:'%CNB501 ••.SECT9-13.NM 4-9.1 r1 LSA Associates, Inc. f 4.9.3 IMPACTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT According to the Initial Study in Appendix A, the following discusses poten- tial aesthetic impacts that have been determined to be less than significant. Would the proposal have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? The project is anticipated to be architecturally similar to other structures in the vicinity, and is surrounded by highways on two sides. It will be consis- tent with its surroundings and, therefore, will not have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. Would the proposal create light or glare? The project will result in a small increase in the amount of light and glare due to project site lighting. Given the already existing lighting in the vicinity, this is not anticipated to be a significant effect. This item is discussed further below. 4.9.4 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS The potential aesthetic impacts of the project relate to the change in views of the site from adjacent roadways and other viewpoints. The primary view of the site visible to members of the public is for northbound motorists along Jamboree Road. Views of the site from northbound Jamboree will change as the existing undeveloped slope face is replaced by the structure of the dealer- ship as it cascades down the hill. This new view will be consistent with the existing urban background view from Jamboree Road. The loss of the view of the slope Face and its replacement by the view of the dealership is not considered a significant adverse impact because: The slope face does not contain any unique characteristics that would define it as a scenic vista. 2. The new developed view of the site from Jamboree Road is consistent with the existing urban background view. The architectural design of the structure is designed to be similar to other buildings in the vicinity. The side of the facility visible from jamboree Road will be the automobile display area. Service areas are confined to the back of the site, and will not be visible from jamboree Road. Service areas could, however, be visible from the jamboree Road on-ramp to southbound Route 73 and the bicycle trail that will parallel this on-ramp. Mitigation in the form of landscape or equivalent screening along the ramp and trail is recommend- ed. 06/15/95(I: ••.CNB501 ••.SECTS-13.NM 4-9.2 L Signage LSA Associates, Inc. Site lighting could adversely affect the adjacent riparian areas unless parking lot lights are confined to the site. Therefore, all site lighting is proposed to be directed on site. These issues are also addressed in Section 4.7, Biological Resources. Views from the Downey Savings/Marriott Suites site, MacArthur Boulevard, and the San Diego Creek trail will change in manner similar to views from Jamboree Road. Views of the site from MacArthur Boulevard will be limited in the future by the completed SJHTC. In its comments on the NOP, the County of Orange requested consideration of an urban edge treatment between the project and Upper Bay Regional Park. Such a buffer is not required because 1) the project is separated from the park by existing arterial highways and 2) the project is surrounded by existing urban uses. The signage for the site has not been finalized. Proposed signage will be subject to future review by the City. The project will be required to conform to the City of Newport Beach Sign Ordinance. 4.9.5 MITIGATION MEASURES The following mitigation measures will be applied to the project to reduce the level of impacts to aesthetics: 9-1 A landscape screen and/or equivalent barrier shall be constructed along the northeastern project boundary to screen service areas from view from the Jamboree Road southbound on-ramp and from the bicycle trail that will parallel the on-ramp. 4.9.6 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Implementation of the above mitigation measures will reduce aesthetic im- pacts of the project below a level of significance. 06/15/95(I:,.CNB501 ••.SECT9-13.NEV) 4-9.3 LSA Associates, Inc. 4.10 RECREATION 4.10.1 SETTING There are no current recreational facilities located on the site; the site is cur- rently closed to public usage. The existing zoning of the site would, how- ever, allow for the development of active and passive recreation uses on the site. The use of the site for active recreational purposes is restricted by several factors: The triangular site is bounded on one side by a major freeway and on another by a major arterial highway, with consequent high noise levels throughout the site. Unless the City were able to acquire the Caltrans property and TCA property (which is considered unlikely for non -revenue generating purposes), the size of the remaining site, approximately five acres, is not conducive to a major recreational facility. 3. The location of the site is fairly remote from existing and planned residential uses in the City and would, therefore, not be able to serve as a neighborhood park. The site is also relatively remote from most of the businesses surrounding the site, thereby restricting its viability as an "urban park." The small net size of the site makes its uses as a community level park (i.e., for community level facilities such as soc- cer fields and baseball diamonds) also highly problematic. 4. The slope of the site also makes its use for ballfields or other field type sports impractical. While active and passive open space and park uses are allowed by the exist- ing zoning, the City has never actively considered such use of the site. The project areas is designated in the zoning for public facilities/open space, and would also allow for a broad palette of public facility uses, such as parking and a fire station. Riding/Hiking Trails The Orange County Master Plan of Riding and Hiking Trails calls for the development of an equestrian/hiking trail along the north bank of San Diego Creek near the project site. 06/15/95(1: ••.CNB501,.SEC19-13.NM 4.10-1 LSA Associates, Ina 4.10.2 CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE For purposes of this analysis, an adverse impact to recreation would be an impact that adversely affected an existing recreational facility or a planned recreational facility. 4.10.3 IMPACTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT The Initial Study contained in Appendix A determined that the following potential impact to recreation would be less than significant: Would the proposal increase the demand for neighborhood or region- al parks or other recreational facilities? The project does not contain residential uses and, therefore, is not anticipat- ed to increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. Therefore, there is no impact. 4.10.4 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS The proposed project would preclude the development of active recreational uses along the site, or passive recreational uses such as hiking. Given that the site is probably inappropriate for use as a neighborhood, community, or urban level park, this impact is not considered significant. The project is separated from existing and planned parks (i.e., Bonita Creek Park and Upper Bay Regional Park) by existing and planned urban buffers such as Jamboree Road and Bayview Way. Therefore, no additional buffering is required. The project will not affect the potential development of an equestrian/hiking trail along the north bank of San Diego Creek. 4.10.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The project will not contribute to any identified cumulative impact to recreation. 4.10.6 MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation measures are required. r° F R k N 06/15/95(1:',CNB501••SEC19-13.NM 4.10-2 l J 1_I LSA Associates, Inc - 4.10.7 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE The project will not have a significant impact on recreation. 06/15/95(1:,.CNB501 •+SECI'9-13.NM 4.10-3 LSA Associates, Inc. 4.11 HAZARDOUS WASTES AND MATERIALS This section focuses on potential impacts from hazardous substances and materials that could result from development of the site. 4.11.1 SETTING The City of Newport Beach has conducted a Phase I Environmental Assess- ment of the site. This assessment, which is contained in its entirety in Ap- pendix F, reviewed the historic uses of the site, assessed current uses, and evaluated the potential for site contamination from adjacent properties. Trash and debris are present on the site. The assessment determined that two small sites on the property have been contaminated by improper dispos- al of such trash. A five gallon can of solvents has been disposed of on the site, and was observed to be leaking contaminants into the soil. Wood debris was observed to be affected by tar residue. Existing power poles that trans- verse the site are creosote treated, and would require proper disposal if removed. The site was previously used as a gun club, and there is a potential for an abandoned septic tank system to be buried on site. The assessment determined that the site is not likely to have been contami- nated from adjacent properties. 4.11.2 CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a significant hazardous waste or materials impact is one that involves the use, production, or dispos- al of materials that pose a hazard to people, plant, or animal populations in the area affected. 4.11.3 IMPACTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT Would the proposal involve a risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? The project would result in the use of gasoline, oils, paint, and other poten- tially hazardous materials normally associated with an automobile dealership. These will be handled in accordance with applicable federal, State, County, _ and City regulations. No additional site specific requirements for special mitigation measures have been identified. Compliance with existing laws and regulations will reduce impacts below a level of significance. 06/15/95(1:.CNB501 ••.SECT9-13.NM 4.11-1 r1 LSA Associates, Inc. Would the project result in possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? The project is not located on an emergency evacuation route and will not affect any emergency response plan; therefore, there is no impact. Will the project result in he creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? r No potential health hazard has been identified with respect to the project; therefore, there is no impact. Would the project result in increased fire hazard in areas with flam- mable brush, grass, or trees? The project will not result in increased fire hazard, in that surrounding areas either are developed or are wetland areas that are not prone to fires. There- fore, there is no impact. 4.11.4 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS Development of the project as proposed will result in the removal of existing trash and debris on the site, grading of the two small contamination sites, and relocation of overhead power poles that have been treated with creo- sote. In addition, there is a potential to uncover an abandoned septic tank system. 4.11.5 MITIGATION MEASURES 11-1 Prior to approval of a grading permit, grading specifications for the project shall require the following to the satisfaction of the Building Department: a) All trash on the site shall be disposed of properly. b) Hazardous materials residue in the vicinity of the five gallon solvent can and the tar residue identified on the wood debris and soils shall be removed and disposed of properly. After removal of the debris, soils in the vicinity of the contaminated sites shall be tested to ensure proper cleanup, per the recom- mendations of the environmental remediation engineer. , c) Creosote treated power poles shall be removed and properly disposed of properly upon relocation, per the recommenda- tions of the environmental remediation engineer. 06/15/95(1: *,CNB501-%SECT9-13.NM 4.11-2 1 W LSA Associates, Inc. d) Any abandoned septic tanks systems encountered during grad- ing shall be disposed of properly, per City of Newport Beach requirements. 4.11.6 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Implementation of the above mitigation measures will reduce any impacts from hazardous wastes and materials to below a level of significance. 06/15/95(I:-,CNB501-,SECT9-13.NM 4.11-3 ISA Associates, Inc. 4.12 PUBLIC SERVICES 4.12.1 SETTING Fire Protection The City of Newport Beach Fire Department currently serves the project site. The fire department provides emergency fire protection, non -emergency service calls, emergency medical paramedics, fire inspections, and fire hy- drant inspections. The Santa Barbara Drive Fire Station, which serves this site, is located 2.5 miles south of the project, with a response time of approx- imately 7 minutes. This station number currently houses one 3 person fire engine, one 4 person truck company, one 2 person paramedic unit, and one battalion chief with driver. According to the City Fire Department, there is a deficiency in the number and/or location of fire stations serving the north City area, including the project site. The project site and all areas of the City located to the north of the project site are outside the desired five minute response time from the Santa Barbara Station. The City is considering several options to address the greater than desired response times in the north portion of the City: A. Development of a new fire station or relocation of an existing station in the following locations: 1. Santa Ana Heights (if annexed to the City) 2. Camelback Avenue 3. The project site. B. Contracting for additional service from Orange County Fire Station No. 27 at John Wayne Airport. Implementation of any of the above options in the short term is restricted by current fiscal limitations and will not be resolved in the time frame of the decision on this project. Law Enforcement The City of Newport Beach Police Department provides all levels of law enforcement to the project site. Current service to the site is minimal be- cause most of the land is undeveloped. The police department for Newport Beach is located at 870 Santa Barbara Drive in Newport Center. The station generally operates on a priority response system of five to ten minutes. The majority of calls are handled under five minutes. 06/15/95(1: %CNB501'+SECr9-13.NM 4.12-1 Schools ISA Associates, Inc. The site is located within the Newport -Mesa Unified School District. No students currently are generated from the site due to the lack of residential uses. Public Facilities and Roads Maintenance of most public facilities in the vicinity is provided by the City of Newport Beach. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) provides maintenance for Route 73 facilities. The City of Newport Beach provides for most other governmental facilities with the County of Orange, providing countywide health and welfare services. 4.12.2 CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE According to Appendix G of the CEQA guidelines, a project will normally have a significant effect on the environment if it will interfere with emergen- cy response plans or emergency evacuation plans. Additionally, for purposes of this EIR, required expansion of existing facilities due to project demand would constitute a significant impact when the provider anticipates great difficulty in providing increased services. 4.12.3 IMPACTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT According to the Initial Study in Appendix A, the following potential impacts of the project to public services were determined to be less than significant. Would the proposal have an effect upon or result in the need for new or altered government services for fire protection? The project will be served by the Newport Beach Fire Department, which has indicated that it has adequate resources to serve the project. The project is, however, located outside the desired five minute response time (see discus- sion below). Would the proposal have an effect upon or result in the need for al- tered police protection services? The project will be served by the Newport Beach Police Department, which has indicated that it has sufficient resources to address the project; therefore, there is no impact. 06/15/95(1:',CNB501'•.SEM-13.NM 4.12-2 1 1 LSA Associates, Inc. Would the proposal have an effect upon or result in the need for new or altered schools? The project will not generate any new students; therefore, there will be no need for new schools, and there is no impact. Would the proposal have an effect upon or result in the need for new or altered governmental services for the maintenance of public service facilities including roads? The project creates a small increase in the need for maintenance of roadway facilities consistent with projects of this size. Given the small size of the site, this is not considered a significant impact. Also, given the positive revenue stream to the City resulting from the project, the project will have a benefi- cial effect in this area. Would the proposal have an e,,(j''ect upon or result in the need for new or altered other governmental services that might be required for the site? No additional governmental services have been identified that would be adversely affected by this project. 4.12.4 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS The project would not adversely affect response times in the area. Although the project is located beyond the desirable five minute response time for fire service, fire protection can be provided at a level consistent with protection of other properties in the airport area. Development of the project would preclude the implementation of a fire station of the project site. This is not considered an adverse impact because other sites (Camelback and Santa Ana Heights) will remain available. 4.12.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The project, in conjunction with other past, present and reasonably foresee- able future projects, will create an increased demand for: fire protection, law enforcement, maintenance, and general government services. Each of these impacts contributes to an incremental cumulative impact on its type of public services. These incremental cumulative impacts are considered insignificant. 4.12.6 MITIGATION MEASURES 12-1 No mitigation measures are required. 06/15/95(1: --.CNB501 %SEM-13.NM 4.12-3 LSA Associates, Inc. 4.12.7 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION The project will not have a significant adverse impact on public services. 06/15/95(1:',CNB501 %-SECT9-13.NEW) 4.12-4 r1 rm 1, 4.13 UTILITY AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 4.13.1 SETTING Water Wastewater Electricity Natural Gas LSA Associates, Inc Water service to the site will be provided by the City of Newport Beach, which has procured its current and projected potable water supplies from two primary sources. The first source is the Metropolitan Water District (MWD), which imports water from Northern California and the Colorado River system and treats it to potable standards. The Orange County coastal plain groundwater basin is the second source of potable water. The Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD), currently provides sanitary sewer systems to projects in the vicinity of the proposed project site; however, there are no gravity sewer lines in the immediate vicinity of the project. Any development on the project site would require pumping of sewage to the nearest IRWD service point, if the project were connected to an IRWD sewer. Sewer facilities are currently available in Bayview Way across Jamboree Road, approximately 200 feet from the project site. Electrical power in the vicinity of the project site is provided by Southern California Edison. Natural gas in the vicinity of the project is provided by Southern California Gas Company. Solid Waste Disposal Telephone Solid waste disposal services are provided by contract with the City of New- port Beach. The project site is within Pacific Bell's jurisdiction for telephone services. Local telephone facilities have not been developed to serve the site, although existing facilities are located near the project site. 06/15/95(1:'•.CNB501'•.SECT9-13.NM 4.13-1 LSA Associates, Inc. Regional Water Distribution Facilities The site is currently traversed by two regional water distribution facilities. The MWD has a 36 inch buried transmission line that generally parallels the Caltrans right-of-way line. Similarly, the Mesa Consolidated Water District also has a buried 42 inch transmission line that traverses the site. Neither of these two utilities has plans to relocate these facilities. Southern California Edison has overhead transmission lines that traverse the site. 4.13.2 CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines a project will normally have a significant impact on the environment if it will: Breach a published national, State or local standard relating to solid waste or litter control; Use fuel, water or energy in a wasteful manner; and Extend sewer trunk lines with capacity to new development. Additionally, for purposes of this EII , expansion of existing facilities due to project demand would constitute a significant impact when the provider anticipates great difficulty in providing increased services. 4.13.3 IMPACTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT According to the Initial Study in Appendix A, the following potential impacts to utilities and service systems were determined to be less than significant. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the need for power or natural gas systems, communication systems, local or regional water treatment or distribu- tion facilities, local or regional water supplies, or solid waste dis- posal? The project will be served by Southern California Edison, Southern California Gas, Pacific Telephone, and the City of Newport Beach (for potable water and solid waste disposal). It is anticipated that, given the small size of the project, the incremental increase in demand for power, natural gas, tele- phone service, and potable water can be accommodated. The project will require the relocation of an existing overhead power line that currently traverses the site to the northerly boundary of the site. Coordination with Southern California Edison to relocate the power line will be required. 06/15/95(I:',CNB501'+SECT9-13.NM 4.13-2 A L, LSA Associates, Inc. Would the proposal result in the need for new systems or supplies for a new system of stormwater drainage? Stormwater drainage into San Diego Creek will be provided as part of the project. Please refer to the discussion in the Water Resources Section for a discussion of required water quality measures. 4.13.4 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS The project will result in a need for disposal of waste water. Currently, there are no available IRWD gravity driven sewer lines that could service the site, because the site is located at an elevation below nearby IRWD trunk lines. Therefore, two potential methods are available for handling of wastewater: 1. Project wastewater could be pumped from the project site to the nearest available IRWD sewer lines in Bayview Way, east of the project site. A pumping station would be installed underground near the northeast corner of Jamboree Road and Bayview Way on the project site. 2. A septic tank system could be installed on the project site, and no connection with IRWD facilities would be required. A septic tank system would need to be operated in such a manner as to avoid any adverse impacts on groundwater flows into San Diego Creek and Upper Newport Bay. The County of Orange Health Care Agency has established guidelines for on-site sewage absorption systems. 4.13.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The project, in conjunction with other past, present and reasonably foresee- able future projects, will create an increased demand for water, electricity, natural gas, and telephone. Each of these impacts contributes to an incre- mental cumulative impact public services/utilities. These incremental cumu- lative impacts are considered insignificant. 4.13.6 MITIGATION MEASURES 13-1 Prior to the approval of a grading permit, the project proponent shall determine the appropriate method of wastewater disposal to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. 13-2 If disposal through a septic tank system is selected, the project propo- nent shall construct the system in compliance with "On -Site Sewage Absorption System Guidelines" prepared by the Orange County Health Care Agency. Consistency with said guidelines shall be determined by 06/15/95(I:'•.CNB501'•.SEM-13.NM 4.13-3 II ISA Associates, Inc. the Public Works Department prior to issuance of a permit for the installation of a septic tank system. The septic tank system shall be operated in a manner to avoid pollution of local groundwater sup- plies. 4.13.7 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Implementation of the above mitigation measure will reduce potential signifi- cant impacts, resulting from wastewater disposal, to below a level of signifi- cance. 06/15/95(1:••.CNB501,-SECT9-13.NM 4.13-4 1_. LSA Associates, Inc. 5.0 LONG-TERM IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT This Chapter has been prepared in response to Sections 15126(e), (f) and (g) of the CEQA Guidelines, which require EIRs to address long-term effects of a project. 5.1 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES THAT WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED The environmental changes produced by the implementation of the project will occur mainly as a result of alterations to the physical environment. Construction of the project will result in an irreversible commitment of building materials, public services, and open space to urban uses. Landform will be modified by grading to create the building pad. Grading will remove biological resources. Visual characteristics will change from open space to developed. It is probable that once development occurs on the site, the land will not be returned to its current status. Implementation of the project will result in increased vehicular traffic and associated air pollutant emissions. Increased traffic and urban activity will also result in increased noise in the area. This EIR has identified cumulative open space loss the only significant unavoidable adverse impact of the project. 5.2 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS CEQA defines a project as growth inducing if the project or infrastructure associated with the project will increase the likelihood that other properties in the vicinity, currently undeveloped, will develop as a result. Development of an automobile dealership on the San Diego Creek North site is not considered growth inducing for the following reasons: 1. Surrounding properties are developed or committed to other land uses. The site is bounded by roadways on all sides. The property across Bayview Way is committed to preservation as a salt water marsh. The site across Jamboree Road is already developed as a hotel/office complex. Sites across Route 73 are too remote from the project site to be affected by its development. 2. The only project related infrastructure that could serve other develop- ment is the extension of Bayview way easterly of Jamboree Road to serve the project. This extension does not serve any additional devel- opable parcels. In summary, neither the development of the site or its associated infrastruc- ture will result in the inducement or facilitation of additional growth. 06/15/95(1: 1-CNB501'%SECT5-0.EIR) 5-1 LSA Associates, Inc. 6.0 ALTERNATIVES _ The following section describes the alternatives considered by the City of Newport Beach in evaluating the preferred project alternative at the San Diego Creek North site. Alternative land uses for the site are discussed first, followed by alternative site locations. 6.1 NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE Under the No Build Alternative, the project would not be built at the San Diego Creek North site nor at another location within the City of Newport Beach. In addition, no other land uses besides the existing open space habitat preservation and transportation uses would be allowed at the San Diego Creek North site. This alternative would eliminate all of the significant, potentially significant, and less than significant impacts of the Preferred Alternative, including: 1. The loss of open space associated with the project would not occur nor would the project's contribution to the cumulative loss of open space. 2. Landform modification associated with the project would not occur nor would the export of cut material. 3. Potential water quality impacts would not occur. 4. Traffic volumes accessing the site would not increase. 5. Air quality emissions associated with construction of the site and operations on the site would not occur. 6. Impacts to biological resources would be eliminated. 7. Potential impacts to unidentified cultural resources would also not occur. 8. Aesthetic impacts would be eliminated. This alternative would have an adverse economic impact due to the probable relocation of the dealership outside of the corporate limits of the City of Newport Beach and consequent loss of sales tax revenues to the City. It should be noted that if the dealership were to choose to locate on other sites outside the city limits, many of the impacts identified at the present site would also occur with alternative sites in the surrounding cities; in particu- lar, land use, traffic, noise, and air quality impacts would occur at potentially different levels at sites outside the City of Newport Beach. 06/15/95(I:,.CNB501,.SECT6-0.EIR) 6-1 A LSA Associates, Inc. 6.2 EXISTING GENERAL PLAN ALTERNATIVE Under this alternative, the project site would be developed according to the City of Newport Beach General Plan, i.e., 112,000 square feet of commercial office space. As compared to the Preferred Alternative, the following impacts would result: 1. Loss of open space and open space impacts would remain the same. 2. Total employment in the City would increase as compared to the Preferred Alternative, assuming the office space was 100 percent occu- pied. 3. Impacts to earth resources and water resources would be similar to the proposed project. 4. Peak hour traffic generation would increase as compared to the Pre- ferred Alternative, while total trip generation on a daily basis would decrease. 5. Noise and air quality impacts would be similar to those of the Pre- ferred Alternative. 6. Impacts to biological resources would remain the same. 7. Impacts to cultural resources and aesthetics would be similar to those of the Preferred Alternative. It should be noted that this alternative may not be currently feasible, in that there is substantial undeveloped land zoned for office buildings in the imme- diately adjacent area, i.e., Irvine Business Complex, where office buildings are entitled and could be constructed. However, such construction has not oc- curred due to apparent lack of current demand. Therefore, this alternative would likely result in the deferral of any development on the site. This alternative is also inconsistent with a primary objective of the City with respect to the project, i.e., identification of an appropriate relocation site for the Fletcher Jones Motor Car dealership. Selection of this alternative would likely result in relocation of the dealership outside of the City with conse- quent adverse economic impacts to the City. 6.3 EXISTING ZONING ALTERNATIVE Under this alternative, the San Diego Creek North site would be developed consistent with the existing zoning, which would allow for development of committed transportation uses (SJHTC and Bayview Way) and of institutional uses on the balance of the site. For purposes of this analysis, it would be 06/15/95(1: ••.CNB501,-SECT".E1R) 6-2 1_ L, LSA Associates, Inc. assumed that a 2.5 acre fire station and a 250 space acre park and ride would be developed on the balance of the site. As compared to the Preferred Alternative, this alternative has the following impacts: 1. Land use impacts would be the same as with the Preferred Alternative because the site would be developed with urban uses. 2. Landform modification would likely be similar. 3. Impacts to water resources would be reduced, due to the less inten- sive development of the site. 4. Peak hour traffic generation of the site would be similar to the Pre- ferred Alternative due to the high peak hour demand associated with park and ride facilities. 5. Air quality and noise impacts resulting from increased traffic volumes would also be reduced. 6. Impacts to biological resources would be the same as with the pro- posed project. 7. Cultural resources impacts would be similar to those of the Preferred Alternative, depending upon the extent of grading of the site. This alternative is fundamentally inconsistent with the objective of the City in selecting the Preferred Alternative, i.e., to identify an appropriate relocation site for the Fletcher Jones Motor Car dealership. This alternative would likely result in adverse economic impacts to the City resulting from potential relocation of the dealership outside of the City, with consequent adverse economic impacts. 6.4 ALTERNATIVE SITE LOCATIONS The following discusses alternatives that would relocate the dealership to other sites within the City of Newport Beach rather than to the proposed San Diego Creek North site. The alternatives are then compared as to their environmental impacts and evaluated as to how they meet the project objec- tives. San Diego Creek South The San Diego Creek South site is located across San Diego Creek from proposed project site, and consists of 18.6 acres currently designated in the City's General Plan for 300 dwelling units. The project owner, The Irvine 06/15/95(I:'••CNB501 %SECT".EIR) 6-3 M !SA Associates, Inc. Company, has proceeded to obtain entitlement for development of the site, and a change of zoning to provide for an automobile dealership on the site may not be feasible at this time without the approval of The Irvine Company. This alternative is no longer under consideration for the following specific reasons: 1. The site is located across the street from existing residential uses, and development of the site as an automobile dealership would create land use incompatibilities with existing uses. 2. This alternative would not eliminate any of the significant adverse impacts associated with development of the Preferred Alternative, i.e., traffic generation would remain the same and would have similar impacts to the surrounding street system. Cumulative loss of open space would remain similar to the Preferred Alternative. 3. The landowner's objective is to develop the property as currently shown in the General Plan. Block 800 of Newport Center This 6.4 acre site is located in Block 800 of Newport Center and is currently proposed for 245 residential dwelling units. The Irvine Company is proceed- ing to develop the site under the current General Plan and entitlement. This location is no longer under consideration for the following specific reasons: 1. At 6.4 acres, the site is considered smaller than desirable for the pro- posed project and does not meet the project objective of an approxi- mately 8 acre site. 2. The site is not located adjacent to existing or planned freeways and freeway access points, and is considered remote from the John Wayne Airport area. 3. The property owner has existing entitlement to proceed with devel- opment of the site and proposes to develop the site under the cur- rent General Plan. Newporter North This 30 acre site is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills Road, and is currently zoned for 212 residential dwelling units. The property is owned by The Irvine Company, which is proceeding to develop the site under its current entitlement. 06/15/95(1:••.CNB501%SECT".EIR) 6-4 'k- ' LSA Associates, Inc. This alternative is no longer under consideration by the City of Newport Beach for the following reasons: 1. The site is inconsistent with the objective of locating the dealership adjacent to major freeway access and near John Wayne Airport. 2. Assuming that eight acres of the site were developed as an automo- bile dealership and the balance of the site was developed as residen- tial, there is the potential for land use incompatibilities between resi- dential and automobile dealership uses. 3. The current property owner has stated its intent to develop the site under the current General Plan designation of residential uses. Corporate Plaza West This nine acre site is located near the intersection of Newport Center Drive and Coast Highway. Its current General Plan designation provides for 94,000 square feet of office space. This alternative is no longer under consideration by the Lead Agency for the following reasons: 1. Development at this site is inconsistent with the objective of locating the project near a freeway access point and near John Wayne Airport. 2. The landowner has indicated its intent to develop the site under the present zoning. Former Newport Imports Site This site is located near the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and New- port Boulevard (Route 55), and is the four acre site of a former automobile dealership. This alternative was chosen for consideration because of its former use as an automobile dealership. This alternative is no longer under current consideration for the following reasons: 1. The site is considered too small for the proposed seven to eight acre minimum size, and therefore does not meet the project objectives. 2. The site is not located near an existing freeway access point or near John Wayne Airport, and therefore does not meet the project objec- tives. 06/15/95(L'•.CNB501 ••.SECT".EIR) 6-5 V ISA Associates, Inc. 6.5 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE CEQA requires a Lead Agency to identify the environmentally superior alter- native and, if the No Project (No Build) Alternative is considered the environ- mentally superior alternative, to identify which other alternatives could be considered environmentally superior to the proposed project. The following discussion addresses this requirement. The No Build Alternative is considered environmentally superior to the pro- posed project since it would eliminate all of the significant, potentially signif- icant, and less than significant impacts associated with the proposed project, including cumulative open space loss, habitat loss, and traffic volume increas- es. The City has not identified the No Project Alternative as the Preferred Alternative because of the economic advantage to the City of the Preferred Alternative. The development of the site under the existing zoning, i.e., fire station and park and ride, has environmental impacts similar to the proposed project. However, the City has specifically rejected this alternative because it is incompatible with the basic objective of the project, i.e., to identify a feasible relocation site for the Fletcher Jones Motor Car dealership in the City and to avoid the adverse economic impacts resulting from relocation of the dealership outside of the City. 06/15/95(1: •.CNB501 ••.SECT".E1R) 6-6 LSA Associates, Ina 7.0 SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS The project will contribute to the cumulatively significant loss of open space in the area. When combined with the planned, committed, and reasonably foreseeable projects in the vicinity of the site, there will be significant adverse loss of open space in the area of southwest Irvine/northeast Newport Beach. 06/15/95(I:-,CNB501-,SECT7&9.EIR) 7-1 LSA Associates, Inc. 8.0 REFERENCES _ Barrie, D., T. Totnall, and E. Gath. 1992. Neotectonic Uplift and Ages of Pleistocene Marine Terraces, San Joaquin Hills, Orange County, California. in Heath, E.G., W.L. Lewis, eds., 1992, The Regressive Pleistocene Shoreline, Coastal Southern California, South Coast Geological Society, Annual Field Trip Guidebook Number 20. Bean, Lowell John and C.R. Smith. 1978. Gabrielino. In R.F. Heizer, editor, Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, California. pp 538-549. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Bontrager, D.R., R.A. Erickson, and R.A. Hamilton. in press. Impacts of the October, 1993 Laguna fire on California gnatcatchers and cactus wrens. in J.E. Keeley and T.A. Scott (editors). Brushfires in California Wildlands: Ecology and Resource Management. Southern California Academy of Sciences, Los Angeles. Briggs. 1948. State of California Site Record Form for Site CA -ORA -57. On file Archaeological Information Center, University of California, Los Angeles. City of Newport Beach Public Works Department, Administrative Procedure for Implementing the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, Resolution No. 86- 20. City of Newport Beach Public Works Department, Traffic Study Format. City of Newport Beach, 1993-1994 Intersection Count Data. City of Newport Beach, Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement Newport Beach, California Draft Program Environmental Impact Report, June 1, 1992. City of Newport Beach, Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement Newport Beach, Traffic Study, April, 1992. City of Newport Beach Planning Department, Noise Element City of Newport Beach General Plan, Resolution No. 83-66, October, 1974. Clevenger, J.M. 1986. Archaeological Investigations at CA -ORA -287: A Multicomponent Site on Newport Bay. WESTEC Services, Courtesy of the Author. Crownover, S., B. Investigations University of Center. Padon and J. Rosenthal. 1989. Archaeological at CA --121, Orange County, California. On file California, Los Angeles Archaeological Information 06/15/95(1:1-CNB501 ••.SEM-0.EIR) 8-1 LSA Associates, Inc. De Barros, Philip. 1991. State of California Site Record Form for Site CA - ORA -57(77)/H. On file Archaeological Information Center, University of California, Los Angeles. Demcak, C.R. 1981. Fused Shale As Time Marker in Southern California: Re- view and Hypothesis. Master's Thesis. California State University, Long Beach. Drover, C.E., H.C. Koerper and P. Langenwalter II. 1983. Early Holocene r Human Adaptation on the Southern California Coast: A Summary Report of Investigations at the Irvine Site (CA --64), Newport Bay, Orange County, California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society ¢ Quarterly 19, 3 & 4: 1-84. Eberhart, Hal. 1949. State of California Site Record Form for Site CA-ORA- 77. A-ORA77. On file Archaeological Information Center, University of California, Los Angeles. Ehlig, P. L. 1979. Miocene Stratigraphy and Depositional Environments of the San Onofre Area and Their Tectonic Significance, in Stewart, C. J., ed., A Guidebook to Miocene Lithofacies and Depositional Environ- ments, Coastal Southern California and Northwestern Baja Cali- fornia, Pacific Section, Society of Economic Paleontologists and Min- eralogists, published for the 1979 annual meeting of the Geological Society of America, pages 43-51. Gallagher, S. 1993. Draft manuscript: Orange County Breeding Bird Atlas. Geofon and Zeiser. 1989. Preliminary Geotechnical/Geological Project Report, San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, Orange County California. Prepared by Geofon Inc. and Zieser Geotechnical Inc. Geofon Project number 88-363.06, Geofon Document number 36306002. Hall, M.C. 1988. For the Record: Notes and Comments on Obsidian Ex- change in Prehistoric Orange County." Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 24, 4: 34-48. Hanna, P.T. 1978. Chinigchinich by Geronimo Boscana, Fine Arts Press, Santa Ana. Reprint, Malki Museum Press, Banning, 1978. Harrington, J.P. 1933. Annotations. In P.T. Hanna, Chinigchinich by Geronimo Boscana, Fine Arts Press, Santa Ana. Reprint, Malki Muse- um Press, Banning, 1978. Hudson, D.T. 1971. Proto-Gabrielino Patterns of Territorial Organization in Southern Coastal California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 7, 2: 449-476. 06/15/95 (1:'%CNB501,.SECT8-0. E1R) 8-2 LSA Associates, Inc. Johnson, B.E. 1962. California's Gabrielino Indians. Frederick Ward Hodge Anniversary Fund Publication #8, Southwest Museum, Los Angeles. Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc. 1993. Methods used to survey the vegeta- tion of Orange County parks and open space areas and the Irvine Company property. Unpublished report prepared for the County of Orange Environmental Management Agency. Santa Ana, California. Koerper, H.C. 1981. Prehistoric Subsistence and Settlement in the Newport Bay Area and Environs, Orange County, California. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of California, Riverside. Koerper, H.C. and C.E. Drover. 1983. Chronology Building for Coastal Orange County, The Case from CA --119-A. Pacific Coast Archaeologi- cal Society Quarterly, 19, 2: 1-34. Kroeber, A.L. 1925. Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin, No. 78. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Reprint, Dover Publications, New York, 1976. Lilburn Corporation. 1994. Orange -throated whiptail survey of the Irvine Company lands, Orange County, California. unpublished report pre- pared for The Irvine Company, Newport Beach, California. LSA Associates, Inc. 1993. San Joaquin Hills Trnasportation corridor Con- servation Plan for California Gnatcatcher and Cactus Wren. unpub- lished report prepared for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corri- dor. LSA Associates, Inc. 1994. Biology Assessment, Newport Coast Drive Exten- sion. unpublished report prepared for the County of Orange, Santa Ana, California. Macko, Michael. 1985. State of California Site Record Form for Site CA -ORA - 57(77)/H. On file Arcjaeological Information Center, University of California, Los Angeles. Macko. Michael and Edward B. Weil. 1986. Archaeological Survey Report Results of Cultural Resources Stage I Investigations for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. On file Orange County Environmental Management Agency. Marsh, K.G., F.M. Roberts, Jr., J.A. Lubina, and G.A. Marsh. 1983. Laguna Beach Biological Resources Inventory. unpublished report prepared for the City of Laguna Beach, California. 06/15/95(1: -•.CNB501 ••.SECT8-0.E1R) 8-3 a LSA Associates, Inc. Mason, R.D., N.A. Whitney -Desautels and M.L. Peterson (SRS). 1987. Test Plan for National Register Evaluation of Archaeological Sites on the Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill Property, Orange County, California. On file Orange County Integrated Waste Management Department. McKenna, Jeanette. 1993. State of California Site Record Form for Site CA- r ORA -57(77)/H. On file Arcjaeological Information Center, University of California, Los Angeles. M'Closkey, R.T. 1972. Temporal changes in populations and species diversity in a California rodent community. Journal of Mammalogy 53:657-676. Meserve, P.L. 1976. Food relationships of a rodent fauna in a California coastal sage scrub community. Journal of Mammalogy 57:300-319. Miller, W. E. 1971. Pleistocene Vertebrates of the Los Angeles Basin and Vicinity (Exclusive of Rancho La Brea), Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Science: No. 10. Morton, P. K. 1974. Geology and Engineering Aspects of the South Half of the Canada Gobernardora Quadrangle, Orange County California, California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Report 111. Newport Beach, 1994. San Diego Creek South (Baypoint) NCCP 4(d) Rule Findings. Letter from Patricia Temple (Advance Planning Manager, City of Newport Beach) to Linda Dawes (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser- vice) dated December 9, 1994 Pacific Soils Engineering. 1995. Preliminary Geotechnical Report for Rough Grading, San Diego Creek North Site, Newport Beach, County of Orange, California, report prepared for the City of Newport Beach Public Works. Rathbun, G.B., N. Siepel and D. Holland. 1992. Nesting Behavior and Move- ments of Western Pond Turtles (Clemmys marmorata). Southwest. Nat. 37:319-324. Rea, A.M. and K.L. Weaver. 1990. The taxonomy, distribution, and status of coastal California cactus wrens. Western Birds 21:81-126. Roberts, F.M., Jr. 1990. Rare and endangered plants of Orange County. Crossosoma 16(2):3-12. Rosenthal, J., P. Jertberg, S. Williams and S. Colby. 1991. CA --236, Coyote Canyon Cave Data Recovery Investigations, Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill, Orange County, California. On file University of California, Los Angeles Archaeological Information Center. 06/15/95(I:'••CNB501,,SECT8-0.E1R) 8-4 L_' LSA Associates, Inc. Rosenthal, J. and B. Padon. 1986. Archaeological Research Proposal for CA -- 123 and 221/222. On file LSA Library and Caltrans District 7. San Diego Association of Governments, Traffic Generators, October, 1993. Skinner, M.W. and Pavlik, B.M. 1994. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. California Native Plant Society Special Publication No. 1, 5th edition. Smith, P. B. 1960. Foraminifera of the Monterey shale and Puente Formation, Santa Ana Mountains and San Juan Capistrano Area, California, U.S. Geologic Survey, Professional Paper 294-M, pages 463-495. Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. 1991. Standard Measures for Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Nonrenewable Paleontologic Resources, News Bulletin, No. 152. Storer, T.I. 1930. Notes on the Range and Life -History of the Pacific Fresh- water Turtle, Clemmys marmorata. Univ. Calif. Publ. Zool. 32:429- 441. U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Bolt, Beranek, and Newman. Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances, December 31, 1971. Vedder J. G., R. F. Yerkes, J. E. Schoellhamer. 1957. Geologic Map of the San Joaquin Hills Area, San Juan Capistrano area, Orange County, California, U. S. Geologic Survey Oil and Gas Investigation Map OM - 193, Map Scale 1:24,000. Wallace, W.J. 1955. A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11, 3. Wallace, W J. 1978. Post Pleistocene Archaeology 9000-2000 B.C. In R. F. Heizer, editor, Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, Cali- fornia. pp. 25-36. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D. C. Warren, C.N. 1968. Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern California Coast. Eastern New Mexico University Contribu- tions in Anthropology 1, 3: 1-4. Williams, D.F. 1986. Mammalian species of special concern in California. California Dept. of Fish & Game, Sacramento. 112 pp. Zembal, D. 1990. The Coyotes of Upper Neuport Bay and Environs, Activi- ties as of October 12, 1990. Unpublished report, 5 pp. 06/15/95(1: 1-CNB501••.SECr8-0.EIR) 8-5 LSA Associates, Inc. 9.0 LIST OF PREPARERS City of Newport Beacb Emmett Berkery Public Works Department John Douglas Planning Department LSA Associates, Inc. Lyndon Calerdine Project Manager Carollyn Lobell Principal in Charge Todd Brody, Deborah Baer Air Quality, Noise Ramzi Ammari, Les Card Traffic Art Homrighausen, Karen Kirtland Biological Resources John Staight Staff 06/15/95(1:'•.CNB501 ••.SEC17&9.EIR) 9-1 Source: Harris, Pettett & Kent. 6/15/95(CNB501) �N LSA Scale in Feet 0 70 140 I i. till it i . t r 1M\ ' 1111. MV - i Q \ ` ..�je / Figure 3-3 Proposed Site Plan i IL � � \� I III I' I: V I I I I � ► h� �,+�__-, ,�� �.., \ I Ili I I •.' t^' 1 I c IC�.� is uu mn atllwrinu- ��� > -� /- ��'. �, :'y"" atl • � c ul\c\_.\ 3 � %` � ':ni— Yrrf{ uriL I. E f 91_1 A '� 1lr •"" '}�� to _ -- —YI OOL L[Y[L i. i.) _4L0_ [Y[L i.►. t i La s loty_ •� tiN _ 1 � � Itf W I j IN 14, � +�%♦•. +mow;+ . � ' � _ o__ 9 � ♦ i 11. Y N \I• \ \ \ lM ttl � t T v rry � tuu fu. 1. u..Yr i� � t) )tll• ItYtt +t111Y Source: Harris, Pettett & Kent. 6/15/95(CNB501) �N LSA Scale in Feet OMMMMM� 0 70 140 Figure 3-4 Preliminary Grading Plan Source: Harris, Pettett & Kent. 6/15/95(CNB501) GN LSAScale in Feet MM=ta_ 0 70 140 � Yucal yptu. raOq.rw P(ANTIN�LEG�END� Intl cpaw " _ SHADED AUTO COURT elocnw .len y�l pn.»nl, emctYllt.r ..u. t. f•1. I 1) CANOPY PALM ENTRY I and ACCENT PALM Ih..ninyconl. Coaumc...Milcmn len rel. Pacer pole EUCALYPTUS HEDGEROW Lur lyptum .leeco,yloo •ro•e-'..Pink Icone•rt i 6' HIGH VISUAL SCREEN hakee rivn h -•t. il.a« •u...ol.....sm..e wk«' ACCENT TREE . tuc-lyptue ticitall- boo-Ilo.r.ring fame SHADE TREE Tlpu.« ttw..riw Tcea -------- SECURITY EDGE •• rlgn at—IL a«tae Chaialma rancm c1otA.d with rlo rinq Vlnae ■ignonla ct -ra...koai TTump.t Vine •ougi—lll...p—i— clycomto« call i.tgiola.a.. Violet Trumpet Vlne SECURITY EDGE ""me .ue..ol.ir.. r•eet Mae. / ENRICHED PAVING TURF NATURAL PRESERVE '..,.' GROUNDCOVER and SHRUB AREAS ce.notnua p..lea Media— k.allonl- .euq.in.11l.a •paclem clec« paciee..kactroe. •o.«rinu• of [leln.11e ..roeem.ry IraW lnc.ycl[o1l...L.eon.a. harry . tigllOCOVtll3 \ Lonlcare ).ponic. •ifmlli.n.•..J-W^-•- N Y.uckl• Mopora, parvlcoltum •pecl.- Figure 3-5 Preliminary Landscape Plan Source: Harris, Pettett & Kent. 6/15/95(CNB501) LSA Figure 3-6 Conceptual Project Rendering A z Cw7 Eivou 33808INVr rt c� y I 5/10/95(CNB501) N Residential L_I Single Family Detached \ Single Family Attached Two --Family Residential Multi—Family Residential Mixed Single Family Attached & Recreational Marine Commercial RX Mixed Multi—Family Residential & Administrative, Professional & Financial Commercial IndUStrial General Industry Commercial Administrative, Professional & Financial Commercial Retail & Service Commercial Governmental, Educational & Institutional Facilities ,vr � Recreational Marine Commercial Mixed Recreational Marine Commercial & Muni—Family Residential Mixed Retail & Service Commercial & Industrial Mixed Administrative, Professional & Financial Commercial & Industrial Open Space Recreational & Environmental Open Space .>`_> ., Water e''�`. --- • City Boundary Figure 4.1.2 L S-A Scale in Miles —r J 0 1/2 General Plan Land Uses • AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING On 5Y / C I posted on the property A Notice of Public Hearing regarding: 41 ct4- Clew ae.7' 33 0 0 Date'of Hearing: �� �� 0 ay NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of die City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of Fletcher Jones. Jr. to allow the establishment of an automobile dealership on the San Diego Creek North Site (3300 Jamboree Road). In order to approve this project the following applications will be considered: General Plan Amendment No. 95 -1(D) and Local Coastal Protmem Amendment No. 39 to designate the property for Retail and Service Commercial use and establish the permitted intensity of development Amendment No. 823 to amend the San Diego Creek North/Jamboree MacArthur Planned Community District Regulations; Use Permit No. 3565 to allow the establishment of an automobile dealership on the property; Traffic Study No. 108; an amendment to Development Agreement No. 6 (CIOSA); proposed ORDINANCE NO. 95-42 and approval of Development Aemement No. 9; and the acceplancc of an Environmental Impact Report, proposed ORDINANCE NO. 95L3 . An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared in connection with the application noted above, and it is the present intention of the City to accept the Environmental Impact Report and supporting documents. The City encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this documentation. Copies of the Environmental Impact Report and supporting documents are available for public review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92659 - 1768 (714) 644 -3225. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on the 11th day of September 1995, at the hour of 7_O0 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place arty and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only dim issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. For information call (714) 644 -3200. City C,iSrit DINtrts}utlon: l.s cal, Adv. P1 Fil i r'i' and d IRENE BUTLER, ASSISTANT CITY CLERK CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Authored to Publish Ad.rrsisements of all kinds i,ing public notices by Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County, Camornia. Number A -6214, September 29, 1961, and A -24831 June 11, 1963- PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA) SS. County of Orange ) I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid• I am over PuBLI_ C "ONCE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City or Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application Of Fletcher Jones, Jr. to allow the establishment of 1 an automobile ile dealership public hearing. For / the age of -eighteen years / and not a party to on the San Diego Creek North Site (3300 Jamboree Road). In to approve malion call (714) 644, IRENE BUTLER, or interested in the below entitled matter. I order project the following SISTANT CITY CL CITY OF NEWP am a principal clerk of the NEWPORT applications will be consitl- app eGeneral Plan Amendment BEACH Published New BEACH -COSTA MESA DAILY PILOT, a No. 95 -1(D) and Local Coastal Program Amend- Beach -Costa Mesa I Pilot August 31, 1995. newspaper of general circulation, printed and them op ty to Retail and the property for Retell and' The City encourages mem. published in the City.of Costa Mesa / County Service Commercial use and establish the permitted Intensity development: to review and comment on of-Orange State of California and that of Amendment No. 823 so amend the San Diego attached Notice is a true and complete copy Creek North/Jamboree MacArthur Planned Com- Com- pact Report and supporting as was printed and published on the Use rmit District Regulations; Use Permit No. 35 to following dates: allow the establishmen t of an automobile dealership Department, City Planning New- on the p ro perty; Traffic California. 82658 -1768 Study No. 108: an amentl- amend- ment menl to Develoomenf 9; and the acceptance of an Environmental Impact Report, proposed ORDI. p NANCE NO. 9543, An Environmental Impact AUg u s t 31, 1995 Report has been prepared in connection with the ap. plication noted above, and it is the present Intention of the City to accept the Envi- ronmental Impact Report and supporting documents. The City encourages mem. bers of the general public to review and comment on this documentation. Copies of the Environmental Im. pact Report and supporting documents are available for public review and in. I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the Department, City Planning New- foregoing is true and correct. port oulevard, Newport Beach, California. 82658 -1768 Executed on August 31 / 199 5 the 11th gay of Septet 7995, at the hour of at Costa Mesa California. p.m. In the Council CI / hero of the Newport B City Hall, 3300 Nov BOUlevard, Newport Be California, at which and place any and all sons Interested may pear antl be heard that If you challenge this Sign tune project in court, you may be limited to raising only those IsaUea you or som& one else raised at the pub. lic hearing described in his notice w in written cor• the City al, or prior to, that S-T 70 Authorized to Publish Advertisements of all kinds irng notices by 1, public Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County, Ca.. nia, Number A -6214, September 29, 1961, and A•24831 )une 11, 1963. An Environmental Impact PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA) PUBLIC NOTICE in connection with the ap• SS. NOTICE OF County of Orange ) PUBLIC HEARING GIVNOTICEIhBCitHEREBY I am a Citizen of the United States and a of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application resident of the County aforesaid; I am over of Fletcher Jones, Jr. to allow the establishment of the age of -eighteen years, and not a party to an automobile dealership on the San Diego Creek pu or interested in the below entitled matter. I North m: Road)SIneorderOto approve SI am a principal clerk of the NEWPORT this project the following applications will be consid• BI BEACH -COSTA MESA DAILY PILOT, a erect: General plan Amendment newspaper of general circulation, printed and No. 95.1(0) and Local Coastal Program Amend- No. 39 to Castgnate Be Pit published in the City.of Costa Mesa, / ment the Property for Relail and Service Commercial use of Orange, State of California, and that antles establish the development; intensity d es of t ev permitted meet; I declare, under penalty of perjury, attached Notice is a true and complete copy Amendment No. 823 to amend the San Diego foregoing is true and correct. as was printed and published on the P p Creek North/Jamboree Cpm- Com, MacArthur ict Regulations; District Regulations; following dates: munity Use Permit No. 3565 to allow the establishment of an automobile dealership on the property; Traffic Executed on August 31 199 5 Study No. 108; an amend- ment to Development at Costa Mesa California. Mesa, Agreement No. 6 (CIOSA); ,roposed ORDINANCE NO. antl approval of tent Agreement I the acceplanc August 31, 1995 1, NANCE NO. 95-43. An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared in connection with the ap• plication noted above, and it Is the present intention or the City to accept the Envi- ronmental Impact Report and supporting documents. The City encourages mem- bers of the general public to review and comment on this documentation. Copies of the Environmental im- pact Report and supporting I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the documents are available for public review and In. foregoing is true and correct. spectlon Department, at the Planning Depament, of New- port Beach, 33030 0 Newport Boulevard, -each, California, 92 92659 -1768 (714) 644 -3225. Executed on August 31 199 5 THER GIV N IS that HEREBY aid pub- lic hearing will be held on at Costa Mesa California. Mesa, the 111h day of September 1995, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. in the Council Cham- /] n bers of the Newport Beach City Ha11, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, �-• and place any and all per 1 / sons interested may ap- Slgnature oar and be heard thereon. Pf you challenge this project In court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or some- one else raised at the pub- lic hearing described in this notice or in written cor- respondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the Fitt hearing. For mfor lion Call (714) 644 -3200. RENE BUTLER, AS. iTANT CITY CLERK, rY OF NEWPORT ACH Publishetl Newport lch -Costa Mesa Dally 4 August 31, 1995. Th984 11 .I 427 241 10 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DIVISI _i 427 242 02 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DIV O 44014218 440142 35 STATE OF CALIFORNI STAT�CAL-IFO t1"NIA 442 07106 STATE OF CALIFO � 442 071 12 SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSP 345 Clinton St Costa Mesa CA 92626 442 281 08 BAYVIEW 1 1601 Dove St #190 Newport Beach CA 92660 442 282 09 DOWNEY S & L ASSN 3501 Jamboree Rd Newport Beach CA 92660 442071 10 SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSP 345 Clinton St Costa Mesa CA 92626 442 071 13 IRVINE CO 550 New er Dr .� rt Beach CA 92660 442 282 01 PAINEWEBBER INCOME PROP 265 Franklin St Boston MA 02110 0 427 242 03 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DIV O 442 071 04 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 442071 11 IRVINE CO 550 Newport Center Dr Newport Beach CA 92660 442 28106 COUNTY OF ORANGE PO Box 4106 Santa Ana CA 92702 442 282 02 PAINEWEBBER INCOME PROP 265 Franklin St Boston MA 02110 6 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 -8915 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of Fletcher Jones, Jr. to allow the establishment of an automobile dealership on the San Diego Creek North Site (3300 Jamboree Road). In order to approve this project the following applications will be considered: General Plan Amendment No. 95 -1(D) and Local Coastal Proeram Amendment No. 39 to designate the property for Retail and Service Commercial use and establish the permitted intensity of development; Amendment No. 823 to amend the San Diego Creek NorMamboree MacArthur Planned Community District Regulations; Use Permit No. 3565 to allow the establishment of an automobile dealership on the property, Traffic Study No. 108 an amendment to Development Agreement No. 6 (CIOSA); approval of Development Agreement No. 9: and the acceptance of an Environmental Impact Report. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER G1YEN that an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared in connection with the application noted above. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Environmental Impact Report and supporting documents. The City encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this documentation Copies of the Environmental Impact Report and supporting documents are available for public review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beack California, 92659 -1768 (714) 6443225. Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the 24t1 day of August 1995 at the hour of 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be lirnited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. For information call (714) 6443200. Michael Kraruley, Secretary, Planning Commission, City of Newport Beach.