Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout87-29 - Newport Place Tower Project Final Environmental Impact ReportRESOLUTION NO. 87 -29 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CERTIFYING AS COMPLETE AND ADEQUATE THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE NEWPORT PLACE TOWER PROJECT AND, IN APPROVING SAID PROJECT, • MAKE FINDINGS AND STATEMENTS IN REGARDS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental Impact Report provided environmental impact assessment for the Zoning Amendment and Traffic Study for the Newport Place Tower Project; and 0 WHEREAS, the DEIR was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State EIR Guidelines and City Council Policy K -3; and WHEREAS, the DEIR was circulated to the public for comment and review; and WHEREAS, the DEIR was reviewed by the Quality of Life Advisory Committee (QLAC); and WHEREAS, written comments were received from the public and QLAC during and after the public review period; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach conducted public hearings to receive all public testimony with respect to the DEIR; and WHEREAS, such comments and testimony were responded to through Response to Comments (Attachments No. 1 and 2 to the DEIR) and staff reports submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council; and WHEREAS, such comments and testimony were fully and adequately responded to in the manner set forth in California Administrative Code Section 15146(b); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach has reviewed all environmental documentation comprising the EIR and has found that the EIR considers all environmental impacts of the proposed amendment, and is complete and adequate and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines; and 0 WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed all environmental documenta- tion prepared to evaluate the proposed project, including all elements of the Final EIR and the recommendation of the Planning Commission; WHEREAS, all measures necessary to mitigate the environmental impacts associated with the project have been incorporated into the project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach that: 1. The City Council makes the Findings contained in the Statement of Facts with respect to significant impacts identified in the Final EIR together with the Finding that each fact in support of the Findings is true and is based upon substantial evidence in the record, including the Final EIR. The Statement of Facts is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth. 2. The City Council finds that the Facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations are true and are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including the Final EIR. The Statement of Overriding Considera- tions is attached hereto as Exhibit 2 and incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth. 3. The City Council finds that the Final EIR has identified all significant environmental effects of the project and that there are no known potential environmental impacts not addressed in the Final EIR. 4. The City Council finds that all significant effects of the project are set forth in the Statement of Facts. 5. The City Council finds that although the Final EIR identifies certain significant environmental effects that will result if the project is approved, all significant effects that can feasibly be avoided or mitigated have been avoided or mitigated by the imposition of Conditions on the approved project and the imposition of mitigation measures as set forth in the Statement of Facts and the Final EIR. 0 6. The City Council finds that potential mitigation measures and project alternatives not incorporated into the project were rejected as infeasible, based upon specific economic, social and other considerations as set forth in the Statement of Facts and the Final EIR. - 2 - 7. The City Council finds that the unavoidable significant impacts of the project, as identified in the Statement of Facts, that have not been reduced to a level of insignificance have been substantially reduced in their impacts by the imposition of Conditions on the approved project and the imposition of mitigation measures. In making its decision on the project, the • City Council has given greater weight to the adverse environmental impacts. The City Council finds that the remaining unavoidable significant impacts are clearly outweighed by the economic, social and other benefits of the project, as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. 8. The City Council finds that: the Final EIR has described all reasonable alternatives to the project that could feasibly obtain the basic objectives of the project, even when those alternatives might impede the attainment of project objectives and might be more costly. Further, the City Council finds that a good faith effort was made to incorporate alternatives in the preparation of the Draft EIR and all reasonable alternatives were consid- ered in the review process of the Final EIR and ultimate decisions on the project. 9. The City Council finds that the project should be approved and that any alternative to this action should not be approved for the project based on the information contained in the Final EIR, the data contained in the Statement of Facts and for the reasons stated in the public record and those contained in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. 10. The City Council finds that a good faith effort has been made to seek out and incorporate all points of view in the preparation of the Draft and Final EIR as indicated in the public record on the project, including the Final EIR. 11. The City Council finds that during the public hearing process on the Newport Place Tower Project, the Planning Commission and the environ- mental documents evaluated a range of alternatives and the project is included within that range of alternatives. The City Council has considered the recom- mendation of the Planning Commission in its decision on the project. • BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council does hereby certify the Final EIR for the Newport Place Tower Project as complete and adequate in that it addresses all environmental effects of the proposed project and fully - 3 - • complies with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality and the CEQA Guidelines. Said Final EIR is composed of the following elements: a) Volume I - Draft EIR and Technical Appendices b) Attachments 1 and 2, including comments, responses and additional information c) Planning Commission Staff Reports d) Planning Commission Minutes e) City Council Staff Reports f) City Council Minutes g) City Council Resolutions h) Comments and responses received prior to final action and not contained in a) through g) above. All of the above information has been and will be on file with the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California ADOPTED THIS ATTEST: 92658 -8915, (714) 644 -3225. 9th day of March 1 1987, PLT /kk CC20 - 4 - Exhibit 1 L% CEQA STATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND FACTS AMENDMENT NO. 638 AND TRAFFIC STUDY NEWPORT PLACE TOWER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED, FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO SAID EFFECTS AND STATEMENT OF FACTS IN SUPPORT THEREOF, ALL WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED CERTIFICATION OF AN ENVIRONMEN- TAL IMPACT REPORT, APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT WITH MODIFICA- TIONS AND A TRAFFIC STUDY FOR THE NEWPORT PLACE PLANNED COMMUNITY PROFESSIONAL AND BUSINESS OFFICES SITE 5, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA. BACKGROUND The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Guidelines) promulgated pursuant thereto provide: "No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. 3. Specific economic, social, or other considera- tions make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Section 15091 of the Guidelines)." The City of Newport Beach is considering approval of a request to increase future development rights in Professional and Business Offices Site 5 of the Newport Place Planned Community (Amendment No. 638). The project includes the certification of an Environmental Impact Report, and approval of an amendment to the Planned Community District Regulations and Planned Community Development Plan, a Modification regarding the number and configuration of parking, and a Traffic Study. Because the proposed actions constitute a project under the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach has prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). This EIR has identified certain significant effects which may occur as a result of the project, or on a cumulative basis in conjunc- tion with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects. Further, the City desires to approve this project and, after determining that the EIR is complete and has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and the Guidelines, the findings set forth are herein made: Ultimate development of the project will result in certain significant unavoidable adverse impacts to the environment, as indicated below and in the Final EIR. With respect to those impacts, the City Council of Newport Beach makes the findings as stated on the following pages. 2 FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS FOR SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE INSIGNIFICANT NOISE * Short term impact on ambient noise levels from construc- tion noise. * Increases in noise levels generated by traffic are less than 3 dB. LAND USE * The proposed project will result in demolition of an existing bank building. * The proposed project represents an increase in scale when related to the existing buildings on -site. * The proposed project adds retail and recreational uses to the site not currently permitted by the Newport Place Planned Community District Regulations. HOUSING * The relative housing demand generated by the project is less than one percent of the total city housing stock. AESTHETICS * The proposed project will result in replacement of the current bank building with a multi -level office build- ing. Existing surface parking areas will be replace with a multi -level parking structure. * Morning shade from the proposed project will extend westward over Site 5 across the site toward the Wells Fargo Realty Finance building. * The Charles Dunn - Continental building will receive noontime shading from the proposed office and parking structures. * Late afternoon shade /shadows from the proposed project will extend eastward across :MacArthur Boulevard to the Pacific Club facilities and the parking structure will partially shade the E1 Torito Restaurant. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES * The project will add to area -wide demand for fire protection and paramedic services. The project will not require an additional fire station, equipment or personnel. * Demand on police services will not increase signifi- cantly due to the project. Since the site is currently • developed and patrolled, the project will not add to the patrol area; however, an increase in population in the area will increase the demand for police services. * The project will increase demand for solid waste collection from private haulers. Solid waste generation at the site will increase with the addition of office and commercial square footage. The estimated additional solid waste generation at the site upon buildout is as follows: • 3 Net Net Use Employees Tons /Year Commercial 699 319 This increase of 319 tons per year of waste generated at the site will incrementally add to the increase in solid waste tonnage being disposed of in Coyote Canyon Sanitary Land Fill. * The project will utilize an additional 3,398 megawatt - hours of electricity annually upon buildout. * The completed project will utilize an additional 6.7 million cubic feet of natural gas per year. * The project will increase demand for telephone services and facilities. * The project will not impact the wastewater treatment facility at Fountain Valley. * The project is not anticipated to impact significantly the provision of hospital services. 4 EFFECTS DETERMINED TO MITIGABLE TO LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION Sianificant Effect * Nineteen intersections analyzed exceed the one percent volume criteria when project traffic is added to 1988 • traffic conditions. Of these, the Intersection Capacity Utilization ratio will be increased to a level over 0.9 by project traffic at nine intersections. Finding 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substan- tially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. The project has been reduced in size by approximately 61% below that which was requested by the applicant and analyzed in the draft EIR. 2. That prior to the occupancy of the project, the circula- tion system improvements identified in the Traffic Study, dated August 20, 1986 (Pages 28 -30), except at the intersection od Campus Drive and Bristol Street North, shall have been constructed (unless subsequent project approval requires modification thereto). The circulation system improvements shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 3. That a contribution to the improvement at the intersec- tion of Campus Drive and Bristol Street North propor- tionate to the ratio of project generated traffic at this intersection as determined by the City Traffic Engineer will be made by the applicant pursuant to Section 15.40.030(A)(i)(c) of the Newport Beach Munici- pal Code. 4. Prior to the issuance of the Building Permit, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Department a comprehensive Transportation Demand Management Program. The Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City, the form and content of which shall be approved by the Planning Director and the City Attorney, which commits the applicant to implement the TDM program and otherwise comply with this condition. The TDM program shall be made a part of all tenant leases in the building. All tenant leases shall provide that a failure to implement the TDM Program shall be a material • breach of the lease, with the applicant having the right to obtain a court order coiapelling compliance. The provisions of the lease relevant to the TDM program shall be approved by the City Attorney. The Applicant shall use its best efforts, and all available legal remedies, to insure compliance with the provisions of the lease that relate to the TDM Program. The Transportation Demand Management Program shall, at a minimum, include the following features: 5 1. A program coordinator which shall be an employee of the property owner. The program coordinator shall have the specific assignment of developing, coordinating and overseeing the program. Each tenant with 50 or more on site employees shall designate one management employee to serve as a contact for the tenants and employees and program coordinator. • 2. A goal to reduce, by 25% or more, the a.m. and p.m. peak hour trip generation rates, the reduction to be based upon a comparison with standard City rates. 3. METHODS: The TDM program shall identify, at a minimum, the following methods for reducing peak hour trip generation rates, and each lease for each tenant shall obligate the tenant to use one or more of the following methods in implementing the TDM Program: a. Flex -time: May consist of assigned staggered hours or may allow employees to select their own hours if acceptable to the tenant's needs and results in desired trip reductions. Flex- time also includes four day or other alternate work weeks. b. Public Transportation: Each tenant shall be required to participate in the Orange County Transit District ridesharing computer match program. Public Transit route information shall be made available in the lobby of the building or any other accessible public place. Each tenant shall make subsidized transit passes available to all employees. C. Carpooling: This method utilizes vehicles already owned by employees for ridesharing. A variety of incentives may be used to promote carpooling including preferential parking and periodic prize drawings limited to partici- pants. The project shall be required to provide structure parking to carpools at no charge. d. Vanpooling: This method is similar to carpooling, except that it usually includes the purchase of a large, comfortable vehicle. This method can be supported with information on vehicle acquisition and financing, and may include financial assistance or the provision of vehicles. 4. EVALUATION: A report shall be submitted to the City every six months for the first two years and annually thereafter. The report shall discuss the various methods in use and participation levels. It shall also include traffic counts entering and • leaving the site for each fifteen minute period during the peak two and one -half hour period for morning and evening. (Counts are to be taken on a representative day during midweek and are subject to verification by City staff.) The report shall also discuss the extent to which the TDM Program has achieved the desired 25% reduction in a.m. and p.m. peak hour trip rates and, if the desired reduction has not been achieved, an assessment of the additional measures necessary to accomplish the goal. 0 The City shall have the right to require the applicant, or the applicant's successor- in- interest, to modify the TDM Program, establishing a level of participation of tenants in each method of the program, in the event a 25% reduction in peak hour trip generation has not been achieved during any reporting period. All tenant leases shall contain a provision authorizing the property owner to require additional participation by each tenant in • the TDM Program. 5. Access to the site shall be redesigned to minimize the number of driveways. An access study shall be prepared by a registered Traffic Engineer and will be required if more than a single, two -lane access is proposed for any street. Approval of access points with two or more egress lanes shall be subject: to revocation if the City Traffic Engineer finds that they create a hazardous condition. Significant Effect Increased demand for parking will occur with additional office development. Finding 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substan- tially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. A parking structure shall be constructed to accommodated all parking demand generated by the project. Parking shall be provided at a minimum of one space for each 250 sq.ft of net area for office and retail use, one space for each 40 sq.ft of net public area for restaurant use, and additional parking may be required for the health club based upon a demonstrated formula. AIR QUALITY Significant Effect * Project emissions for carbon dioxide, nitric oxides and hydrocarbons are less than 0.25 percent of Source Receptor Area 18. Finding 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substan- tially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 7 i. Development will comply with SCAQMD rules and regula- tions. 2. All mitigation measures related to traffic and circula- tion will improve traffic flow in the vicinity of the project and will incrementally improve air emissions for non -point sources. 3. The site will be regularly watered during the grading process in order to reduce fugitive dust emissions during construction. NOISE Significant Effect * The increase in site occupants is an increase in noise receptors in the area from traffic and airport sources. Finding 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substan- tially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. All structures shall be sound attenuated against the combined input of all present and projected noise to meeting the following interior noise criteria: Typical Use Lea (h) Private office, board room, 45 conference room, etc. General office, reception, 50 clerical, etc. Bank lobby, retail store, 55 restaurant, typing pool, etc. Significant Effect * Mechanical equipment required for the building will increase ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project. Finding 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substan- tially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding • The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. That roof top 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. 0 GEOLOGY /SOILS Significant Effect * Development of the project will require typical engin- eering measures to alleviate settlement, possible groundwater seepage, possible expansive soils, and measures to protect the building from the impacts of • groundshaking. Finding 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substan- tially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. 2. That 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. 3. The grading permit shall include a description of haul routes, access points to the site, watering, and sweeping program designed to minimize the impact of haul operations. 4. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan, if requir- ed, shall be submitted 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. 5. That grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer' and based on recommenda- tions of a soils engineer and an engineering geologist subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproduc- ible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Department. • L•] SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED The following effects are those determined by the City of Newport Beach to be significant environmental effects which cannot be avoided if the project is implemented. All significant environmental effects that can be feasibly avoided have been eliminated or substantially lessened by • virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project as set forth above. The remaining, unavoidable significant effects are acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations made below, giving greater weight to the remaining, unavoidable environmental effect. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION Significant Effect The project is anticipated to generate 2,714 additional daily vehicle trips. Temporary congestion may occur in the immediate area and some area intersections will function beyond their design capacity. In concert with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects, the proposed project is expected to have a significant cumulative adverse impact on traffic conditions on the local circulation system. Findings 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substan- tially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibil- ity and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. 3. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alterna- tives identified in the Final EIR (Section 15091 of the Guidelines)." Facts in Support of Findings The significant effect has been substantially lessened by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorpor- ated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. That prior to the occupancy of the project, the circula- tion system improvements identified in the Traffic Study, dated August 20, 1986 (Pages 28 -30), except at the intersection od Campus Drive and Bristol Street North, shall have been constructed (unless subsequent project approval requires modification thereto) . The • circulation system improvements shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 2. That a contribution to the improvement at the intersec- tion of Campus Drive and Bristol Street North propor- tionate to the ratio of project generated traffic at this intersection as determined by the City Traffic Engineer will be made by the applicant pursuant to Section 15.40.030(A) (i) (c) of the Newport Beach Munici- pal Code. 0U0 3. Prior to the issuance of the Building Permit, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Department a comprehensive Transportation Demand Management Program. The Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City, the form and content of which shall be approved by the Planning Director and the City Attorney, which commits the applicant to implement the TDM program and otherwise comply with this condition. The TDM program • shall be made a part of all tenant leases in the building. All tenant leases shall provide that a failure to implement the TDM Program shall be a material breach of the lease, with the applicant having the right to obtain a court order compelling compliance. The provisions of the lease relevant to the TDM program shall be approved by the City Attorney. The Applicant shall use its best efforts, and all available legal remedies, to insure compliance with the provisions of the lease that relate to the TDM Program. The Transportation Demand Management Program shall, at a minimum, include the following features: A program coordinator which shall be an employee of the property owner. The! program coordinator shall have the specific assignment of developing, coordinating and overseeing the program. Each tenant with 50 or more: on site employees shall designate one management employee to serve as a contact for the tenants and employees and program coordinator. 2. A goal to reduce, by 25% or more, the a.m. and p.m. peak hour trip generation rates, the reduction to be based upon a comparison with standard City rates. 3. METHODS: The TDM program shall identify, at a minimum, the following methods for reducing peak hour trip generation rates, and each lease for each tenant shall obligate the tenant to use one or more of the following methods in implementing the TDM Program: a. Flex -time: May consist of assigned staggered hours or may allow employees to select their own hours if acceptable to the tenant's needs and results in desired trip reductions. Flex- time also includes four day or other alternate work weeks. b. Public Transportation: Each tenant shall be required to participate in the Orange County Transit District ridesharing computer match program. Public Transit route information shall be made available in the lobby of the building or any other accessible public place. Each tenant shall make subsidized transit passes available to all employees. C. Carpooling: This method utilizes vehicles • already owned by employees for ridesharing. A variety of incentives may be used to promote carpooling including preferential parking and periodic prize drawings limited to partici- pants. The project shall be required to provide structure parking to carpools at no charge. d. vanpooling: This method is similar to carpooling, except that it usually includes 11 the purchase of a large, comfortable vehicle. This method can be supported with information on vehicle acquisition and financing, and may include financial assistance or the provision of vehicles. 4. EVALUATION: A report shall be submitted to the City every six months for the first two years and • annually thereafter. The report shall discuss the various methods in use and participation levels. It shall also include traffic counts entering and leaving the site for each fifteen minute period during the peak two and one -half hour period for morning and evening. (Counts are to be taken on a representative day during midweek and are subject to verification by City staff.) The report shall also discuss the extent to which the TDM Program has achieved the desired. 25% reduction in a.m. and p.m. peak hour trip rates and, if the desired reduction has not been achieved, an assessment of the additional measures necessary to accomplish the goal. The City shall have the right: to require the applicant, or the applicant's successor -in- interest, to modify the TDM Program, establishing a level of participation of tenants in each method of the program, in the event a 25% reduction in peak hour trip generation has not been achieved during any reporting period. All tenant leases shall contain a provision authorizing the property owner to require additional participation by each tenant in the TDM Program. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project has been reduced in size by approximately 61% below that which was requested by the applicant and analyzed in the draft EIR. Changes or alterations jurisdiction of another the finding. 1. The State Departme responsibility for region. are within the responsibility and public agency and not the one making nt of Transportation has the overall major roadways and freeways in the 2. The County of Orange is responsible for the implementa- tion of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible, however, specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project represents the best balance and mix of uses • for the project area, all factors considered. 2. The alternatives set forth for the site were rejected for the reasons as set forth above and in the subsequent sections of this statement. The applicant is required by the City's Fair Share Traffic Contribution Ordinance (Chapter 15.38 NBMC) to provide an additional monetary contribution to the City for use in the construction of circulation system 12 improvements which will increase the capacity of the roadway system in the City, of Newport Beach. The purpose of the Ordinance is the provide funds for the construction of improvements so that traffic generated by development and redevelopment within the City will not result in unacceptable congestion of the circulation system. 4. Regarding regional roadways, the applicant is also required to participate in the City's adopted San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Fee Program. The program is consistent with the Orange County San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Fee Program, established to fund the construction of the Transportation Corridor to improve regional roadway capacities and reduce congestion. The remaining unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations and in view of the fact that the impact identified is considered significant only on a cumulative basis, resulting from the proposed project in association with other past, present and reasonably foresee- able future projects. AIR QUALITY /ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENTLAND USE /AESTHETICS Significant Effect * The project will incrementally intensify the urban character of the area and will result in increased traffic, air pollutant emissions, and noise levels in the immediate vicinity. In concert with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects, the proposed project is expected to have a significant cumulative adverse impact on air pollution and noise levels in the vicinity of the project. Findinas 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substan- tially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibil- ity and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. 3. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alterna- tives identified in the Final EIR (Section 15091 of the Guidelines)." Facts in Support of Findings The significant effect has been substantially lessened by • virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorpor- ated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared for the project by a licensed landscape architect. The landscape plan shall integrate and phase the installation landscaping with the proposed construc- tion schedule. (Prior to occupancy of the structure, the licensed landscape architect shall certify to the 13 Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with the plan). 2. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department and the approval of the Planning and Public Works Department. 3. Street trees shall be provided along the public streets • as required by the Public Works department and the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department. 4. Landscaping shall be regularly maintained free of weeds and debris. All vegetation shall be regularly trimmed and kept in a health condition. 5. Development will comply with SCAQMD rules and regula- tions. 6. All mitigation measures related to traffic and circula- tion will improve traffic flow in the vicinity of the project and will incrementally improve air emissions for non -point sources. 7. The site will be regularly watered during the grading process in order to reduce, fugitive dust emissions during construction. 8. All structures shall be sound attenuated against the combined input of all present and projected noise to meeting the following interior noise criteria: Typical Use Le h Private office, board room, 45 conference room, etc. General office, reception, 50 clerical, etc. Bank lobby, retail store, 55 restaurant, typing pool, etc. 9. That roof top 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. 10. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall provide for weekly vacuum sweeping of all paved parking areas and drives. A weekly cleanup program around the public walks shall be conducted. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project has been reduced, in size by approximately 61% below that which was requested by the applicant and analyzed in the draft EIR. • Changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the one making the finding. 1. The State Department of Transportation has the overall responsibility for major roadways and freeways in the region. 2. The County of Orange is responsible for the implementa- tion of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. 14 The State Air Resources Board is responsible for the attainment of national air quality standards. 4. The South Coast Air Quality Management District is responsible for basin air quality. 5. The Southern California Association of Governments in association with the SCAQMD is responsible for the Air • Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the airshed. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible, however, specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project represents the best balance and mix of uses for the project area, all factors considered. 2. The alternatives set forth for the site were rejected for the reasons as set forth above and in the subsequent sections of this statement. The remaining unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations and in view of the fact that the impact identified is considered, significant only on a cumulative basis, resulting from the proposed project in association with other past, present and reasonably foresee- able future projects. HOUSING Significant Effect The project will result in approximately 597 additional permanent employees. While it can be assumed that a major portion of the new employees will be provided through the local labor market, a certain portion will be drawn from outside and will thus increase the demand for housing, partially in the "affordable" range. In concert with other past, present and reasonably foresee- able future projects, the proposed project is expected to have a significant cumulative adverse impact on housing in the vicinity of the project. Findings 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substan- tially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 3. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alterna- tives identified in the Final EIR (Section 15091 of the Guidelines)." Facts in Support of Findings The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the • extent that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project has been reduced in size by approximately 61% below that which was requested by the applicant and analyzed in the draft EIR. 15 The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible, however, specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project represents the best balance and mix of uses for the project area, all factors considered. • 2. The alternatives set forth for the site were rejected for the reasons as set forth above and in the subsequent sections of this statement. The remaining unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations and in view of the fact that the impact identified is considered. significant only on a cumulative basis, resulting from the proposed project in association with other past, present and reasonably foresee- able future projects. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES Significant Effect Project implementation will incrementally add to demand for major new infrastructure in the area including circulation improvements, fire protection, water systems and electrical facilities. Project implementation will add to the cumulative demand for finite resources such as energy and water. In concert with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects, the proposed project is expected to have a significant cumulative adverse impact on public services and utilities. Findings 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substan- tially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 3. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alterna- tives identified in the Final EIR (Section 15091 of the Guidelines)." Facts in Support of Findings The significant effect has been substantially lessened by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorpor- ated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. The landscape plan shall place heavy emphasis on the use of drought resistant native vegetation and be irrigated with a system designed to avoid surface runoff and over watering. 2. That prior to the issuance of building permits, the Fire • Department shall review the proposed plans and may require automatic fire sprinkler protection. 3. That all buildings on the site shall be equipped with fire suppression systems approved by the Fire Depart- ment. 4. That all access to the buildings be approved by the Fire Department. 16 5. That all on -site fire protection (hydrants and Fire Department connections) shall be approved by the Fire and Public Works Departments. 6. That all fire vehicle access, including the proposed planter islands, shall be approved by the Fire Depart- ment. • 7. The project shall be designed to conform to Title 24, Paragraph 6, Division T -20, chapter 2, Sub - chapter 4 of the California Administrative Code dealing with energy requirements. 8. Prior to occupancy of any building, the applicants shall provide written verification from the Orange County Sanitation Districts that adequate sewer capacity is available to serve the project. 9. Final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation of water - saving devices for project lavatories and other water -using facilities. 10. Where feasible, reclaimed water should be utilized for non - contact purposes, such as irrigation. 11. Efficient irrigation systems which minimize runoff and evaporation should be installed. Irrigation should be automatically timed during the early morning hours to minimize waste and evaporation. 12. The project shall construct any additional on -site water distribution facilities required by the new development. 13. Trash compactors shall be utilized to the extent feasible to provide for more efficient trash disposal. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project has been reduced in size by approximately 61% below that which was requested by the applicant and analyzed in the draft EIR. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible, however, specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project represents the best balance and mix of uses for the project area, all factors considered. 2. The alternatives set forth for the site were rejected for the reasons as set forth above and in the subsequent sections of this report. • The remaining unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations and in view of the fact that the impact identified is considered significant only on a cumulative basis, resulting from the proposed project in association with other past, present and reasonably foresee- able future projects. 17 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES The Draft EIR evaluated alternatives for the project. The approved project is a substantial reduction from the project requested by the applicant and analyzed in the Draft EIR. The project selected is within the range of alternatives analyzed, and has similar environmental effects, although those effects have been lessened. The plan was modified • during the course of public review through a series of actions including, but not limited to, those listed below: 1. The City Staff analysis of the project. 2. The responses to the Notice of Preparation. 3. The responses to the Non - Statutory Advisements. 4. The comments on the draft EIR.. 5. The testimony at the public hearings on the project and EIR held before the City of Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council. 6. The recommendations of the Quality of Life Advisory Committee. 7. The recommendations of the Newport Beach Planning Commission. 8. The data in the Final EIR. Findings 1. The refined project has been accomplished in a manner so as to provide the greatest public involvement in the planning and CEQA process. 2. The process has developed a project which is in substan- tial conformance with that described in the Notice of Preparation and for which the EIR was prepared. 3. The Certified Final EIR indicates all refinements which have been incorporated in the project. 4. The mitigation measures and standard City policies have been made a part of the refined project. 5. The following provides a brief description of project alternatives. 6. The alternatives were rejected in favor of the current project proposal. 7. The rationale for rejection of each alternative is provided below. 8. The rejection rationale is supported by the public record including, but not limited to, the Certified Final EIR. • NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE The No Project Alternative provides for no new development on the site. Findings Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the No Project Alternative described in the Final EIR in that: M 1. No traffic improvements will be made if no new develop- ment occurs on -site. 2. The No Project Alternative does not provide for the mixed uses on -site, which result in a significant reduction in peak hour traffic generated by the project. SIX -STORY OFFICE ALTERNATIVE • The six -story office alternative assumes development as currently allowed in the Planned Community Development Plan. Findings Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the six -story office alternative described in the Final EIR in that: 1. A significant amount of additional development is allowed in the existing Planned Community District Regulations without any additional traffic and circula- tion system improvements. 2. The six -story office alternative does not provide for the mixed uses on -site, which result in a significant reduction in peak hour traffic generated by the project. NINE AND TWELVE STORY OFFICE ALTERNIATIVES Both of these alternatives involve increased development on the site which is less than requested. These alternatives are not directly rejected, but reflect the action taken by the City in approving the project. The final project lies in between these two alternatives, and was determined to most appropriated because the floor area ratio was within the maximum currently permitted in the airport area. • Exhibit 2 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The California Environmental Quality Act 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 City of Newport Beach has deter- mined that the unavoidable risks of this project, giving greater weight to the unavoidable environmental risks. In making this determination, the following factors and public benefits were considered or decisions made: • 1. The proposed project is consistent with other existing uses in the vicinity of the project and the community in general. 2. The proposed project represents infill development located in an urban area where adequate facilities and services exist. 3. The density and intensity of the project is appropriate. 4. The proposed project will contribute to a fair share of local and regional roadway improvements, specifically the City's Fair Share Traffic Contribution Ordinance, and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Fee Program. 5. Revenues generated by the project will exceed costs associated with serving the project, resulting in net revenue for the City. 6. The project includes a mix of office and retail uses, which will reduce the peak. hour traffic generation ordinarily anticipated from office projects. 7. The project will implement a Transportation Demand Management program with specific participation require- ments and reporting procedures. The implementation of this program will enable the City to study the effec- tiveness of such programs for individual, multi- tenant office buildings. 8. The project will make a number of intersection improve- ments, which will provide capacity for this project, as well as existing uses and future planned development and will reduce congestion in the area. 9. The size and scale of the project will allow for the retention of small employers within the community. PIT ED \A638FDG.EIR •