HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-58 - Banning Ranch Project - Certify EIR; Adopt Findings and FactsRESOLUTION NO. 2012 -58
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CERTIFYING THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO.
2009031061) FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
NO. GP2008 -008, CODE AMENDMENT NO. CA2008-
004, PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN
NO. PC2008 -002, MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
NO. MP2008 -001, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO.
NT2008 -003, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO.
DA2008 -003, AFFORDABLE HOUSING
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NO. AH2008 -001, AND
TRAFFIC STUDY NO. TS2008 -002 FOR THE
NEWPORT BANNING RANCH PROJECT IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND STATE AND
LOCAL GUIDELINES AND MAKING CERTAIN
FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS THERETO
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
1. An application was filed by Newport Banning Ranch, LLC, with respect to a 401- gross-
acre property generally located north of West Coast Highway, south of 19th Street,
and east of the Santa Ana River, requesting approval of a planned community for
development of 1,375 residential dwelling units, a 75 -room resort inn and ancillary
resort uses, 75,000 square feet of commercial uses, approximately 51.4 gross acres of
parklands, and the preservation of approximately gross 252.3 gross acres of
permanent open space ( "Project "). The application included the following requests:
a. A Development Agreement between the applicant and the City of Newport
Beach describing development rights and public benefits;
b. A General Plan Amendment to the Circulation Element of the General Plan to
delete the planned segment of 15th Street west of Bluff Road;
c. A Code Amendment to rezone the Project site from Planned Community (PC-
25) to Planned Community (PC -57) and a pre- annexation zone change for
those portions of the Project site located within the City's Sphere of Influence
from County zoning to PC -57;
d. A Planned Community Development Plan to establish the allowable land uses,
general development regulations, and implementation and administrative
procedures;
e. A Master Development Plan to establish detailed design criteria for each land
use component to guide the review of subsequent development approvals;
City Council Resolution No. 2012 -58
Paae 2 of 5
f. A Tentative Tract Map to establish lots for public dedication or conveyance, lots
for residential development and conveyance to homebuyers, and lots for
financing and conveyance;
g. An Affordable Housing Implementation Plan specifying how the Project would
meet the City's affordable housing requirements; and
h. A Traffic Study Approval pursuant to Chapter 15.40 (Traffic Phasing
Ordinance).
2. Staff of the City of Newport Beach determined pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. ( "CEQA "), the CEQA
Guidelines (14 Cal. Code of Regulations, Sections 15000 et seq.), and City Council
Policy K -3, that the Project could have a significant effect on the environment, and thus
warranted the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report ( "EIR ").
3. On March 16, 2009, the City of Newport Beach, as lead agency under CEQA, prepared a
Notice of Preparation ( "NOP ") of the EIR and mailed that NOP to public agencies,
organizations and persons likely to be interested in the potential impacts of the Project.
4. On April 2, 2009, the City held two public scoping meetings, one for government
agencies and one for the general public, to present the Project and to solicit input from
interested individuals regarding environmental issues that should be addressed in the
EIR.
5. The City thereafter caused to be prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report ( "DEIR "),
which, taking into account the comments it received on the NOP, described the Project
and discussed the environmental impacts resulting there from, and on September 9,
2011, circulated the Draft EIR for public and agency review and comments.
6. On September 19, 2011 and October 17, 2011, the Environmental Quality Affairs
Committee of the City of Newport Beach held meetings to review and comment on the
Draft EIR.
7. On November 3, 2011, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach held a
study session on the Draft EIR process.
8. A 60 -day public review and comment period closed on November 8, 2011.
9. On January 19, 2012, February 9, 2012, and February 23, 2012, the Planning
Commission held study sessions on the Newport Banning Ranch Project.
10. On March 8, 2012, the Planning Commission held a study session on the Draft EIR.
City Council Resolution No. 2012 -58
Paqe 3 of 5
11. Staff of the City of Newport Beach reviewed the comments received on the Draft EIR
during the public comment and review period, and prepared full and complete responses
thereto, and on March 16, 2012, distributed the responses in accordance with CEQA.
12. The Planning Commission held public hearings on March 22, 2012, April 19, 2012,
and June 21, 2012 in the City Hall Council Chambers, at 3300 Newport Boulevard,
Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place, and purpose of the aforesaid
meeting was provided in accordance with CEQA. The Draft EIR, draft Responses to
Comments, draft Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program, staff report, and
evidence, both written and oral, were presented to and considered by the Planning
Commission at these hearings.
13. On March 22, 2012, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1873
recommending to the City Council of the City of Newport Beach certification of the
Newport Banning Ranch Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2009031061).
14. On June 21, 2012, the Planning Commission reaffirmed their March 22, 2012
recommendation to the City Council of the City of Newport Beach for the certification of
the Newport Banning Ranch Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2009031061).
15. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach held a public hearing on July 23, 2012,
in the City Hall Council Chambers, at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach,
California. A notice of time, place, and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was provided
in accordance with CEQA. The Final EIR, Responses to Comments, Mitigation,
Monitoring, and Reporting Program, staff report, and evidence, both written and oral,
were presented to and considered by the City Council at this hearing.
16. The environmental documentation comprising the Final EIR for the Project, including the
Comments and the Responses to Comments and the Mitigation, Monitoring, and
Reporting Program, was presented to the City Council, as the decision - making body of
the lead agency, for certification as having been completed in compliance with the
provisions of CEQA and State and local guidelines implementing CEQA.
17. The City Council has read and considered the Final EIR and has found that the Final EIR
considers all potentially significant environmental effects of the Project and is complete
and adequate, and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA and of the State and
local CEQA Guidelines.
18. The City Council finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA determinations and
approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In addition, project
opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges. As project
applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate that such
applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial challenge, and
bear the responsibility for any costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which may be
awarded to a successful challenger.
City Council Resolution No. 2012 -58
Paqe 4 of 5
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Certification. Based on its review and consideration of the Final EIR, Responses
to Comments, Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program, staff report, and evidence, both
written and oral, regarding the Project that have been submitted to and received by the City
Council, the City Council certifies that the Final EIR, consisting of the Draft EIR (Exhibit A -1),
Exhibits (Exhibit A -2), Appendices A Through F (Exhibit A -3), Appendices G Through Z (Exhibit
A-4), Responses to Comments and Errata (Exhibit A -5), and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (Exhibit A -6) for the Project has been completed in compliance with CEQA
and the State and local CEQA Guidelines. The City Council, having final approval authority over
the Project, adopts and certifies as complete and adequate the Final EIR, which reflects the City
Council's independent judgment and analysis. The City Council further certifies that the Final
EIR was presented to the City Council and that the City Council reviewed and considered the
information contained in it and the full administrative record prior to approving the Project.
SECTION 2. CEQA Findings of Fact. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 and 15093,
the City Council has reviewed and hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program dated July 2012 included in the Newport Banning Ranch Final Environmental Impact
Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2009031061) included in the attached Exhibit A; and, the
"Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
Project included in the attached Exhibit B, both of which exhibits are incorporated herein by
reference.
SECTION 3. Location and Custodian of Record of Proceedings. The Community Development
Department of the City of Newport Beach, located at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach,
California 92263, is hereby designated as the custodian of the documents and other materials
which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council's decision is based,
which documents and materials shall be available for public inspection and copying in
accordance with the provisions of the California Public Records Act (California Government
Code Section 6250 et seq.).
SECTION 4. Notice of Determination. The Community Development Director shall cause the
filing of a notice of determination with the County Clerk of the County of Orange and with the
State Office of Planning and Research within five working days of this approval.
SECTION 5. Indemnification. To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant and property
owner shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council, its boards and
commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims,
demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines,
penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees,
disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in
any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of this Project including, but not
limited to, the approval of General Plan Amendment No. GP2008 -008, Code Amendment No.
CA2008 -004, Planned Community Development Plan No. PC2008 -002, Master Development
Plan No. MP2008 -001, Tentative Tract Map No. NT2008 -003, Development Agreement No.
DA2008 -003, Affordable Housing Implementation Plan No. AH2008 -001, Traffic Study No.
City Council Resolution No. 2012- 58
Facie 5 of 5
TS2008 -002, and /or the City's related California Environmental Quality Act determinations, the
certification of the Environmental Impact Report, the adoption of a Mitigation Program. This
indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any,
costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action,
causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by the applicant or property owner, City,
and /or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicant and property owner shall
indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which City incurs in
enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the
City upon demand any amount owed to the City pursuant to the indemnification requirements
prescribed in this finding.
SECTION 6. Certification, Posting and Filing. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon
its adoption by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, and the City Clerk shall certify to
the vote adopting this resolution and shall cause a certified copy of this resolution to be filed.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of July 2012.
MA
ATT
CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM,
FFI F THE CIITYY ATTORNEY
V l�
Aaron Harp, City Attorney
for the City of Newport Beach
Exhibit A
Newport Banning Ranch
Final Environmental Impact Report
(SCH No. 2009031061)
Consists of:
1. Volume I: Draft Environmental Impact Report dated September 9, 2011
2. Volume II: Exhibits dated September 9, 2011
3. Volume III: Appendices A Through E dated September 9, 2011
4. Volume IV: Appendices F Through M dated September 9, 2011
5. Responses to Comments and Errata dated March 2012
6. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program dated July 2012
Exhibit A is available for review at the offices of the Office of the City Clerk or at
www.newportbeachca.gov.
21
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
EXHIBIT B
FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS
AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
FOR THE NEWPORT BANNING RANCH PROJECT
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT,
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2009031061
1. INTRODUCTION
The California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21081, and the State
CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations, Section 15091 (collectively, CEQA)
require that a public agency consider the environmental impacts of a project before a project is
approved and make specific findings. The State CEQA Guidelines.Section 15091 provides:
(a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been
certified 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 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 or should be adopted by
such other agency.
3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations,
including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers,
make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in
the final EIR.
(b) The findings required by subdivision (a) shall be supported by substantial
evidence in the record.
(c) The finding in subdivision (a)(2) shall not be made if the agency making the
finding has concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with identified
feasible mitigation measures or alternatives. The finding in subsection (a)(3) shall
describe the specific reasons for rejecting identified mitigation measures and
project alternatives.
(d) When making the findings required in subdivision (a)(1), the agency shall also
adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either
required in the project or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially
lessen significant environmental effects. These measures must be fully
enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures.
Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
(e) The public agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or
other materials which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which its
decision is based.
(f) A statement made pursuant to Section 15093 does not substitute for the findings
required by this section.
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 further provides:
(a) CEQA requires the decision - making agency to balance, as applicable, the
economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project
against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to
approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
benefits of a proposal project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental
effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable."
(b) Where the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of
significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or
substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to
support its action based on the final EIR and /or other information in the record.
This statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial
evidence in the record.
(c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement
should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned
in the notice of determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall
be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091.
Having received, reviewed and considered the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR)
and the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) for the Newport Banning Ranch Project,
SCH No. 2009031061 (collectively, the EIR), as well as all other information in the record of
proceedings on this matter, the following Findings and Facts in Support of Findings (Findings)
and Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) are hereby adopted by the City of Newport
Beach (City) in its capacity as the CEQA Lead Agency.
These Findings set forth the environmental basis for the discretionary actions to be undertaken
by the City for the development of the Project. These actions include the approval of the
following:
• Final Environmental Impact Report No. ER 2009 -002
• City of Newport Beach General Plan Circulation Element Amendment No. GP2008 -008
• City of Newport Beach General Plan Figure 12, Sphere of Influence
• City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2008 -004
• Pre- Annexation Zone Change
• Newport Banning Ranch Planned Community Zoning No. PC2008 -002
• Newport Banning Ranch Master Development Plan No. MP2008 -001
• Tentative Tract Map No. NT2008 -003
• Affordable Housing Implementation Plan (AHIP) No. AH2O08 -001
Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overridino Considerations
O Development Agreement No. DA2008 -003
C Traffic Study No. TS20089 -002 pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance
These actions are collectively referred to herein as the Project.
A. Document Format
These Findings have been organized into the following sections:
(1) Section 1 provides an introduction to these Findings.
(2) Section 2 provides a summary of the Project and overview of the discretionary
actions required for approval of the Project, and a statement of the Project's
objectives.
(3) Section 3 provides a summary of previous environmental reviews related to the
Project area that took place prior to the environmental review done specifically
for the Project, and a summary of public participation in the environmental review
for the Project.
(4) Section 4 sets forth findings regarding those environmental impacts which were
determined as a result of the Initial Study, Notice of Preparation (NOP) and
consideration of comments received during the NOP comment period either not
to be relevant to the Project or which were determined to clearly not manifest at
levels which were deemed to be significant for consideration at the Project -
specific level.
(5) Section 5 sets forth findings regarding significant or potentially significant
environmental impacts identified in the EIR which the City has determined are
either not significant or can feasibly be mitigated to a less than significant level
through the imposition of Project Design Features, standard conditions, and /or
mitigation measures. In order to ensure compliance and implementation, all of
these measures will be included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (MMRP) for the Project and adopted as conditions of the Project by the
Lead Agency. Where potentially significant impacts can be reduced to less than
significant levels through adherence to Project Design Features and standard
conditions, these findings specify how those impacts were reduced to an
acceptable level. Section 5 also includes findings regarding those significant or
potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the EIR which will or
which may result from the Project and which the City has determined cannot
feasibly be mitigated to a less than significant level.
(6) Section 6 sets forth findings regarding alternatives to the proposed Project.
(7) Section 7 consists of a Statement of Overriding Considerations which sets forth
the City's reasons for finding that specific economic, legal, social, technological,
and other benefits, including region -wide or statewide environmental benefits, of
the Project outweigh the Project's potential unavoidable environmental effects.
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
B. Custodian and Location of Records
The documents and other materials which constitute the administrative record for the
City's actions related to the Project are located at the City of Newport Beach Community
Development Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92658.
The City of Newport Beach is the custodian of the Administrative Record for the Project.
2. PROJECT SUMMARY
A. Project Location
The Project site is approximately 401.1 acres. Of the 401.1 acres, approximately
40 acres of the Project site are located in the incorporated boundary of the City of
Newport Beach (City), and approximately 361 acres are in unincorporated Orange
County (County) within the City's Sphere of Influence, as determined by the Local
Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) of Orange County. The entire Project site is
within the boundary of the Coastal Zone, as established by the California Coastal Act.
The Project site is generally bound on the north by the County of Orange Talbert Nature
Preserve /Regional Park in the City of Costa Mesa and residential development in the
City of Newport Beach; on the south by West Coast Highway and residential
development south of the highway in the City of Newport Beach; on the east by
residential, light industrial, institutional, and office development in the Cities of Costa
Mesa and Newport Beach; and on the west by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) restored 92 -acre salt marsh basin and the Santa Ana River. The City of
Huntington Beach is west of the Santa Ana River. At its nearest point, the Project site is
less than 0.25 mile inland from the Pacific Ocean. Because the property is an active
oilfield, there is no public access to the Project site.
B. Project Description
The Project would allow for the development of the site with residential, commercial,
resort inn, and park and recreational uses, and would provide open space uses that
would permit the continuance of oil production and consolidation of the oil operations on
a portion of the open space area of the Project site. The Project includes infrastructure to
support the proposed land uses, including roads, utilities, and public parks to serve
future Project residents and the community at large.
The 401 -acre Project site is proposed for development with 1,375 residential dwelling
units (du); 75,000 square feet (sf) of commercial uses, and a 75 -room resort inn.
Approximately 51.4 gross acres are proposed for active and passive park uses including
a 21.8- gross -acre public Community Park. Approximately 252.3 gross acres
(approximately 63 percent) of the 401 -acre site are proposed as permanent open space.
Of the 252.3 gross acres, approximately 16.5 gross acres would be used for interim oil
operations. Upon the future cessation of oil operations, these oil consolidation sites
would be abandoned and remediated, and the consolidation sites would be restored as
open space. The Project includes the development of a vehicular and a non - vehicular
circulation system for automobiles, bicycles, and pedestrians, including a pedestrian and
bicycle bridge from the Project site across West Coast Highway.
The City of Newport Beach General Plan (General Plan) was adopted by the City
Council on July 25, 2006, and approved by the voters on November 6, 2006. The
4 Exhibit 8
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
General Plan (1) establishes criteria and standards for land use development; and
(2) provides policy and land use guidance for the City and its Sphere of Influence. A
majority of the Project site is located in the unincorporated Orange County area within
the City's Sphere of Influence with a County General Plan designation of "Open Space ".
As a part of the Project, the unincorporated area within the City's Sphere of Influence is
proposed to be annexed to the City.
The Project site has a Newport Beach General Plan land use designation of OS(RV),
Open Space /Residential Village. The OS(RV) land use designation establishes a
Primary Use of Open Space and an Alternative Use of Residential Village for the Project
site, as described below:
Primary Use: Open Space, including significant active community parklands
that serve adjoining residential neighborhoods if the site is acquired through
public funding.
Alternative Use: If not acquired for open space within a time period and
pursuant to terms agreed to by the City and property owner, the site may be
developed as a residential village containing a mix of housing types, limited
supporting retail, visitor accommodations, school, and active community
parklands, with a majority of the property preserved as open space. The
property owner may pursue entitlement and permits for a residential village
during the time allowed for acquisition as open space.
The City of Newport Beach General Plan's Land Use Element prioritizes the retention of
the Project site for open space. As described in the General Plan, the open space
acquisition option could include consolidation of oilfield operations; restoration of
wetlands; and the provision of nature education and interpretative facilities and an active
park containing playfields and other facilities to serve residents of adjoining
neighborhoods.
The City of Newport Beach General Plan specifies that, if the Primary Use (Open Space)
is not implemented (i.e., the property is not acquired for open space within a time period
and pursuant to terms agreed to by both the City and property owner), the Project site
could be developed as a Residential Village (RV) containing a mix of housing types,
limited supporting retail, visitor accommodations, a school, and active community
parklands with a majority of the property preserved as open space. The General Plan
identifies the maximum intensity of development allowed on the property to include up to
1,375 du, 75,000 sf of retail commercial uses oriented to serve the needs of local and
nearby residents, and 75 hotel rooms in a small boutique hotel or other type of overnight
visitor accommodation. The proposed Project implements the General Plan's Alternative
Use for the property.
Both the Master Plan of Streets and Highways in the City of Newport Beach General
Plan's Circulation Element and the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways
(MPAH) depict roadways through the Project site. Roadways to be constructed as part of
the proposed Project include: (a) Bluff Road, a north - south, four -lane divided road
extending from West Coast Highway to 15th Street; (b) North Bluff Road, which would
transition from a four -lane divided road to a two -lane undivided road extending between
15th Street and 19`h Street; (c) an extension of 15th Street, a four -lane divided road, from
its existing western terminus at the boundary of the Project site and connecting with
North Bluff Road; (d) the extension of 16th Street, a two -lane collector roadway, from its
5 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
existing terminus at the Project site's eastern boundary to North Bluff Road; and (e) the
extension of 17th Street, a four -lane divided primary roadway from its existing terminus at
the Project site's eastern boundary and connecting with North Bluff Road.
The Project requires an amendment to the General Plan Circulation Element to delete a
second road connection to West Coast Highway through the Project site from 15th
Street. The traffic analysis done for the Project demonstrates that this roadway is not
needed to serve the traffic demand associated with the proposed Project and
subregional development. Therefore, construction of this second road to West Coast
Highway has not been identified as a component of the Project or assumed for any of
the Project Alternatives.
An amendment to the Orange County MPAH is also required to delete a second
connection to West Coast Highway and to redesignate North Bluff Road. The Orange
County MPAH designates North Bluff Road as a Primary (four -lane divided) to
17th Street and a Major (six -lane divided) between 17'h Street and 19th Street. An
amendment to the Orange County MPAH is required to change the designation from a
Major to a Secondary (four -lane undivided) between 17th Street and 19th Street.
Half -width roadway improvements on North Bluff Road north of 16th Street for
approximately 800 feet are proposed on property owned by the Newport -Mesa Unified
School District (School District). There is a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
between Newport Banning Ranch, LLC (Applicant) and the School District that would
permit these improvements.
C. Discretionary Actions
Implementation of the portion of the Project within the City of Newport Beach will require
several actions by the City, including
o Final Environmental Impact Report No. ER 2009 -002. The Project requires the
certification of the environmental document as having been prepared in compliance
with the CEQA Statutes, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Newport Beach
Implementation Procedures for the California Environmental Quality Act. By doing
this, the City is certifying that the information from the Final EIR was considered in
the final decisions on the Project.
a City of Newport Beach General Plan Circulation Element Amendment
No. GP2008 -008. The General Plan Circulation Element's Master Plan of Streets
and Highways Element depicts the westerly extension of 151h Street to West Coast
Highway through the Project site. An amendment to the Circulation Element of the
General Plan would delete the segment of 15th Street west of Bluff Road, which
would have provided a second arterial through the Project site connecting to West
Coast Highway. General Plan Circulation Element Figure CE1, Master Plan of
Streets and Highways, depicts two future Primary (four -lane divided) roads through
the Newport Banning Ranch site connecting to West Coast Highway.
a City of Newport Beach General Plan Figure 12, Sphere of Influence. The proposed
land uses for the Project site are consistent with the allowable land uses and
development intensity set forth in the Newport Beach General Plan. The Project
would not require an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element. The
General Plan Land Use Element Sphere of Influence map (General Plan Figure 12)
6 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
would require an amendment to modify the City boundary to include the entirety of
the Newport Banning Ranch site.
City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2008 -004. A Zoning Code
Amendment would rezone the Project site from Planned Community (PC) 25 to
PC -57.
o Pre - Annexation Zone Change. A pre- annexation zone change is proposed for those
portions of the Project site located within the City's Sphere of Influence from County
zoning to PC -57. The Newport Banning Ranch Planned Community (NBR -PC) would
serve as the zoning regulations for PC -57.
o Newport Banning Ranch Planned Community (NBR -PC) Zoning No. PC2008 -002.
The NBR -PC would serve as the zoning regulations for the Project. The NBR -PC
establishes allowable land uses within each land use district; development
regulations for each land use district; general development regulations applicable to
all development within the Project site; a plan for circulation and infrastructure
facilities to serve development; and procedures for implementing and administering
the NBR -PC. The NBR -PC would serve as the zoning and development regulations
for both the portion of the Project site located within the City and the portion of the
Project site located within the County of Orange but within the City's Sphere of
Influence. Following annexation of the areas located within the Sphere of Influence,
the NBR -PC would become effective.
a Newport Banning Ranch Master Development Plan No. MP2008 -001. Approval of
the Master Development Plan would implement the NBR -PC requirement for the
Project site by establishing design criteria for each land use component proposed for
development and by providing a sufficient level of detail, as determined by the City,
to guide the review of subsequent development approvals, including
construction -level permits, as required by the NBR -PC. The Master Development
Plan is also proposed to provide a sufficient level of detail related to Coastal Act
policies so that, pursuant to City approval, and to the maximum extent practicable,
the Coastal Commission may approve the. Master Development Plan as part of a
Coastal Development Permit which would include Coastal Commission approval
delegating authority to the City to be the final approving body for subsequent
discretionary and ministerial approvals.
• Tentative Tract Map No. NT2008 -003. The Project includes a request for approval of
Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 17308 which establishes lots for public dedication or
conveyance, lots for residential development and conveyance to homebuyers, and
lots for financing and conveyance that may further subdivide (with additional
subdivision maps) these lots for the development of conventional fee lots, planned
developments, and /or condominiums. Approval of the TTM would permit rough and
precise grading, oilfield facilities consolidation, site remediation, habitat restoration,
construction of public roadways, drainage and water quality improvements,
backbone infrastructure, and dry utilities, including domestic water and sewer
facilities throughout the Project site. Development of all other facilities and land uses
would require recordation of a final tract map.
• Affordable Housing Implementation Plan (AHIP) No. AH2O08 -001. The Newport
Banning Ranch AHIP proposes the construction of a minimum of 50 percent of the
required affordable housing on the Project site. The remaining affordable housing
7 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
obligation would be met through the payment of in -lieu fees; the construction of off -
site affordable housing including the rehabilitation of existing off -site housing that
would contribute to meeting the City's Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA)
requirements; land dedication; or a combination thereof.
o Development Agreement No. DA2008 -003. The Development Agreement between
the Applicant and the City would vest the Project's development approvals to allow
buildout of the Project site under the development standards and requirements in
place at the time of Project approval. The Development Agreement includes
requirements of the City that would need to be accomplished by the Applicant in
return for the vesting of Project approvals. The Development Agreement addresses
affordable housing requirements; parkland dedication/in-lieu fee requirements;
infrastructure phasing including Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) compliance;
permitting by the City pursuant to the Newport Banning Ranch Coastal Development
Permit subsequent to approval by the Coastal Commission; vesting of City
entitlements and applicable land use regulations; and other issues relevant to the
Project in order to describe the development rights of and public benefits to be
provided by the Applicant and to outline the terms for annexation of the property to
the City. The Development Agreement would not preclude the need for future site
plans, tentative tract maps, or other permit processing prior to development. If the
City does not have a certified Local Coastal Program by such date on which the
Development Agreement is entered into, the Development Agreement would be
submitted to the Coastal Commission for its approval.
C Traffic Study No. TS20089 -002 pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The City
of Newport Beach has adopted a Traffic Phasing Ordinance (Municipal Code Title
15, Chapter 15.40, Traffic Phasing Ordinance) (1) to provide a method of analyzing
the traffic impacts of projects on "primary intersections" during the morning and
evening peak hours; (2) to identify the near -term impacts of a project's traffic and
planned improvements to ensure that development is phased with improvements to
address impacts; (3) to ensure that project proponents make or fund circulation
system improvements that mitigate impacts at or near the time the project is ready
for occupancy; and (4) to ensure that a project's cost of mitigating traffic impacts is
roughly proportional to project impacts. Because the Newport Banning Ranch Project
is a large project, the TPO requirements direct the TPO traffic analysis to account for
full Project completion in five years, which in this case is 2016, as a "worst- case"
scenario. The TPO Study also includes an analysis for the Project phasing of
construction.
The Final EIR would also provide environmental information to responsible agencies, trustee
agencies, and other public agencies which may be required to grant approvals and permits or
coordinate with the City of Newport Beach as a part of Project implementation. These agencies
include, but are not limited to, those listed below.
a Orange County Transportation Authority. Amendment to the Orange County
Master Plan of Arterial Highways. To redesignate the proposed North Bluff Road just
north of 17`h Street to 19` Street from a Major (six -lane divided) to a Primary (four -
lane divided) and the deletion of a second road through the Project site to West
Coast Highway. The amendment would allow for the deletion of the connection from
17`" Street westerly to West Coast Highway.
8 Exhibit 6
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overridinq Considerations
o Orange County Health Care Agency. Approval of the final Remedial Action Plan for
the oil well /facility abandonment and site remediation is required from the Regional
Water Quality Control Board.
• Local Agency Formation Commission. The Local Agency Formation Commission
(LAFCO) is responsible for reviewing and approving proposed jurisdictional boundary
changes, including (1) annexations and detachments of territory to and /or from cities
and special districts; (2) incorporations of new cities; (3) formations of new special
districts; and (4) consolidations, mergers, and dissolutions of existing districts. For
the Newport Banning Ranch Project, the annexation would include approximately
361 acres of the 401.1 -acre Project site into the City and a change in service district
boundaries for water service.
• Newport -Mesa Unified School District. An encroachment permit consistent with
the MOU for the construction of the extension of 16`" Street and North Bluff Road on
the School District's property.
C California Department of Transportation. Activities located within California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) right -of -way would require an Encroachment
Permit. An Encroachment Permit would be required for widening and improvements
to West Coast Highway, modifying the reinforced concrete box (RCB) culvert in West
Coast Highway, and constructing a pedestrian and bicycle bridge over West Coast
Highway. All activities must be in compliance with Caltrans Statewide National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit.
• California Department of Fish and Game. The Project would require a Section
1600 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the California Department of Fish and
Game (CDFG) pursuant to Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code.
C Regional Water Quality Control Board. Issuance of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USAGE) Section 404 Permit would require the Santa Ana Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to issue a Water Quality Certification under
Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act. Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs)
issued by the Santa Ana RWQCB would be required for the fill or alteration of
"Waters of the State" on the Project site located under the RWQCB's jurisdiction.
Approval of the final Remedial Action Plan (RAP) for the oil well /facility abandonment
and site remediation is required from the Santa Ana RWQCB.
• California Coastal Commission. The Project would require a Coastal Development
Permit from the Coastal Commission, which would include approval of the Master
Development Plan and the Development Agreement.
• State of California Department of Conservation, Department of Oil, Gas and
Geothermal Resources ( DOGGR). Oil and gas wells to be abandoned or re-
abandoned shall be done in accordance with the current requirements of the
DOGGR. The abandonment requirements will be those applied by DOGGR at the
time the Remedial Action Plan, including the Combustible Soil Gas Hazard Mitigation
Plan, is submitted for review to the Orange County Fire Authority.
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Project would require a USACE Section 404
permit for impacts to areas determined to be "Waters of the U.S. ". As a federal
agency, the USACE's actions require compliance with NEPA.
9 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
f U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Because the Project would require
federal agency permits, the USFWS must conduct a Section 7 Consultation pursuant
to the Federal Endangered Species Act. Section 7 Consultation leads to the
issuance of a Biological Opinion. As a federal agency, the IJSFWS' actions require
compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
D. Statement of Project Objectives
The statement of objectives sought by the Project and set forth in the Final EIR is
provided as follows:
1. Provide a Project that implements the goals and policies that the Newport Beach
General Plan has established for the Banning Ranch area.
2. Preservation of a minimum of 50 percent of the Project site as open space
without the use of public funds to be used for habitat conservation, interpretive
trails, and development of public parks to meet the recreational needs of the
community.
3. Development of a residential village of up to 1,375 residential units, offering a
variety of housing types in a range of housing prices, including the provision of
affordable housing to 'help meet the City's Regional Housing Needs Assessment
(RHNA).
4. Development of up to 75 overnight accommodations in a small resort inn
including ancillary facilities and services such as a spa, meeting rooms, shops,
bars, and restaurants that would be open to the public.
5. Development of up to 75,000 square feet of retail commercial uses oriented to
serve the needs of local residents and visitors utilizing the resort inn and the
coastal recreational opportunities provided as part of the Project.
6. Development of a land use plan that (1) provides a comprehensive design for the
community that creates cohesive neighborhoods promoting a sense of identity
with a simple and understandable pattern of streets, a system of pedestrian
walkways and bikeways that connect residential neighborhoods, commercial
uses, parks, open space and resort uses; (2) reduces overall vehicle miles
travelled; (3) integrates landscaping that is compatible with the surrounding open
space /habitat areas and that enhances the pedestrian experience within
residential areas; and (4) applies architectural design criteria to orient residential
buildings to the streets and walkways in a manner that enhances the streetscape
scene.
7. Provide for roadway improvements to improve and enhance regional circulation,
minimize impacts of Project development on the existing circulation system, and
enhance public access while not developing more roadways than are needed for
adequate regional circulation and coastal access.
8. Provide enhanced public access in the Coastal Zone through a system of
pedestrian walkways, multi -use trails, and on- street bikeways designed to
encourage walking and biking as an alternative to the use of automobiles by
providing connectivity among residential, commercial, park, open space, and
10 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of overriding Considerations
resort uses within the Project site and to existing adjacent open space, hiking
and biking trails, the beach, and the Pacific Ocean.
9. Provide for the consolidation of oil resource extraction and related recovery
operations in locations that minimize impacts to sensitive habitat areas and
promote compatibility with development of the remainder of the property for
residential, resort, commercial, park, and open space uses.
10. Provide for the restoration and permanent preservation of habitat areas through
implementation of a Habitat Restoration Plan (HRP) for the habitat conservation,
restoration, and mitigation areas ( "Habitat Areas ") as depicted on the Master
Development Plan.
11. Provide for long -term preservation and management of the Habitat Areas through
the establishment of a conservation easement or deed restriction and the
creation of an endowment or other funding program.
12. Expand public recreational opportunities within the Coastal Zone through
development of a public community park and associated parking, and through
development of publicly accessible bluff parks, interpretive parks, and trails as
part of the Project.
13. Improve the existing arroyo drainage courses located within the Project site to
provide for higher quality habitat conditions than exist prior to the time of Project
implementation.
14. Implement a Water Quality Management Program within the Project site that will
utilize existing natural treatment systems and that will improve the quality of
urban runoff from off -site and on -site sources prior to discharging into the Santa
Ana River and the Semeniuk Slough.
15. Implement fire protection management solutions designed to protect
development areas from fire hazards, to preserve sensitive habitat areas, and to
create fire - resistant habitat restoration areas within currently denuded, invasive -
species laden, and /or otherwise degraded areas.
16. Provide compatibility between the Project and existing adjacent land uses.
17. Provide for annexation to the City of Newport Beach those portions of the Project
site within the City's Sphere of Influence following approval by the City and the
California Coastal Commission of the Project through the submittal of an
application for annexation to the Local Agency Formation Commission of Orange
County (LAFCO).
3. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The Final EIR includes the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) dated September 9,
2011, written comments on the Draft EIR that were received during the 60 -day public review
period, and written responses to those comments and clarifications /changes to the EIR. In
conformance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City conducted an extensive
environmental review of the Newport Banning Ranch Project:
11 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
A. Environmental Review
• Completion of the Notice of Preparation (NOP), which were released for a 30 -day
public review period from March 18, 2009, through April 17, 2009. The NOP was
sent to all responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and the Office of Planning
Research and posted at the Orange County Clerk - Recorder's office and on the City's
website on March 16, 2009.
• During the NOP review period, two Scoping Meetings were held to solicit additional
suggestions on the content of the Newport Banning Ranch EIR. One scoping
meeting was held for agencies and one meeting for the general public. Attendees
were provided an opportunity to identify verbally or in writing the issues they felt
should be addressed in the EIR. The two scoping meetings for the EIR were held on
Tuesday, April 2, 2009 at Newport Beach City Hall at 3300 Newport Boulevard,
Newport Beach, CA 92658. The notice of the public scoping meetings was included
in the NOP.
o Preparation of a Draft EIR by the City which was made available for a 60 -day public
review period (September 9, 2011 to November 8, 2011). The Draft EIR consisted of
three volumes. Volume I contains the text of the Draft EIR and analysis of the
Newport Banning Ranch Project. Volume II contains all Draft EIR graphics. Volume
III contains the appendices, including the NOP and comments received in response
to the NOP. The Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft EIR was published in the
September 9, 2011 editions of the Orange County Register and the Daily Pilot,
newspapers of general circulation. The NOA was sent to all interested persons,
agencies and organizations. The Notice of Completion (NOC) was sent to the State
Clearinghouse in Sacramento for distribution to public agencies. The NOA was
posted at the Orange County Clerk- Recorder's office on September 9, 2011. Copies
of the Draft EIR were made available for public review at the City of Newport Beach
Community Development Department, Newport Beach Central Branch Library,
Newport Beach Balboa Branch Library, Newport Beach Mariners Branch Library, and
Newport Beach Corona del Mar Branch Library. The Draft EIR was available for
download via the City's website: http: / /www.newportbeachca.gov.
• Preparation of a Final EIR, including the comments and Responses to Comments on
the Draft EIR. The Final EIR /Response to Comments contains: comments on the
Draft EIR, responses to those comments, clarifications /revisions to the Draft EIR,
and appended documents. The Final EIR Responses to Comments was released on
March 16, 2012. In compliance with Section 15088(b) of Title 14 of the California
Code of Regulations (State CEQA Guidelines), the City has met its obligation to
provide written Responses to Comments to public agencies at least 10 days prior to
certifying an EIR.
• The Environmental Quality Affairs Committee (EQAC) held meetings on September
19, 2011 and October 17, 2011 to review and comment on the Draft EIR.
• Planning Commission Study Sessions were held for the proposed Project and Draft
EIR on November 3, 2011, January 19, 2012, February 9, 2012, February 23, 2012,
and March 8, 2012.
• A notice of the Newport Beach Planning Commission hearing for the Project was
published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to all property owners within 1000 feet of the
Project Site and to all interested persons, agencies and organizations and posted at
the Project Site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the
12 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting,
which was posted at City Hall and on the City website.
• Planning Commission public hearings were held on March 22, April 19, and June 21,
2012.
A notice of the Newport Beach City Council hearing of July 23, 2012 for the Project
was mailed on July 11, 2012 to all property owners of record within 1000 feet of the
subject site and all individuals that requested to be notified. A notice for the City
Council hearing was posted at City Hall as required by established public hearing
posting procedures. Additionally, notice for the hearing was published in the Daily
Pilot on July 13, 2012.
B. Findings Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5
(Recirculation)
At the Planning Commission hearings of March 22, April 19, and June 21, 2012, the City
considered the public testimony and written correspondence received prior to and at
those hearings. Although these comments were received subsequent to the close of the
60 -day public review period that was provided under CEQA for the Newport Banning
Ranch Project Draft EIR, the City prepared responses to those comments. Although
CEQA does not require the lead agency to respond to comments received after the end
of the public review period (CEQA §21092(c)), the City Council must take into
consideration all information that has been presented to it and which is made a part of
the record before it. Therefore, responses to the comments which have been presented
to the City are provided to demonstrate that substantial evidence supports the City's
conclusions that the Final EIR meets CEQA's standards for adequacy and that
recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required.
The State CEQA Guidelines Section 15151 defines the standards for adequacy of an
EIR:
An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide
decision makers with information which enables them to make a decision
which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. An
evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be
exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what
is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR
inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement
among the experts. The courts have looked not for perfection but for
adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure.
The State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 identifies the criteria whereby an EIR is
required to be recirculated:
(a) A lead agency is required to recirculate an EIR when significant new
information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the
availability of the draft EIR for public review under Section 15087 but
before certification. As used in this section, the term "information" can
include changes in the project or environmental setting as well as
additional data or other information. New information added to an EIR is
not "significant" unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the
public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse
13 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid
such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project's
proponents have declined to implement. "Significant new information"
requiring recirculation includes, for example, a disclosure showing that:
(1) A new significant environmental impact would result from the
project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be
implemented.
(2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact
would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce
the impact to a level of insignificance.
(3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably
different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the
environmental impacts of the project, but the project's proponents
decline to adopt it.
(4) The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and
conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment
were precluded. (Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish and Game Com.
(1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1043)
(b) Recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR
merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an
adequate EIR...
(e) A decision not to recirculate an EIR must be supported by substantial
evidence in the administrative record.
The City determined that no "significant new information" as defined by Section 15088.5
of the State CEQA Guidelines has been presented to it requiring recirculation of the EIR
for the reasons set forth in the responses to the public comments submitted either in
writing or orally at the March 22, 2012, April 19, 2012, and June 21, 2012 Planning
Commission hearings. These comments were restatements of comments previously
made on the Draft EIR for which responses had been prepared and included in the Final
EIR, or the information presented and responses thereto did not disclose any new
impacts resulting from the Project, or disclose a substantial increase in any previously -
identified impacts, or identify new feasible alternatives or new feasible mitigation
measures. The responses to the submitted information clarified and provided additional
information in support of the analysis previously provided in the Final EIR, and together
with the Final EIR provide the substantial evidence relied upon by the City in making this
determination. For these reasons, the City concluded that recirculation of the Draft EIR
was not required.
C. Record of Proceedings
For purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the Record of Proceedings for the proposed
Project consists of the following documents and other evidence, at a minimum:
6 The City's General Plan, as amended, and all environmental documents relating
thereto;
14 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
® All information submitted to the City by the Applicant and its representatives relating
to the Project and /or the Final EIR including but not limited to the Newport Banning
Ranch Master Development Plan, NBR -PC, Tentative Tract Map, AHIP,
Development Agreement, and the Traffic Study pursuant to the Traffic Phasing
Ordinance.
o NOP and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the proposed
Project;
O The two Scoping Meetings held during the 30 -day NOP period;
C The Final EIR including the Draft EIR and all appendices, the Responses to
Comments document, and all supporting materials referenced therein. All
documents, studies, EIRs, or other materials incorporated by reference in the Draft
EIR and Final EIR. The reports and technical memoranda included or referenced in
the Response to Comments of the Final EIR;
G All written comments submitted by agencies and members of the public and
testimony provided at the November 3, 2011 Planning Commission Study Session
during the 60 -day public review comment period on the Draft EIR and included in the
Final EIR Responses to Comments document;
o All responses to written comments submitted by agencies and members of the public
and testimony provided at the November 3, 2011 Planning Commission Study
Session during the 60 -day public review comment period on the Draft EIR;
o The Environmental Quality Affairs Committee (EQAC) meetings on September 19,
2011 and October 17, 2011 to review and comment on the Draft EIR. The City
responded as a part of the Final EIR Responses to Comments document to EQAC's
comment letter submitted during the 60 -day public review comment period.
m All testimony provided by agencies and members of the public at the January 19,
2012, February 9, 2012, February 23, 2012, and March 8, 2012 Planning
Commission Study Sessions held subsequent to the 60 -day public review comment
period on the Draft EIR;
• Planning Commission public hearings on March 22, 2012, April 19, 2012, and June
21, 2012.
• Responses to public comments submitted either in writing or orally at the March 22,
2012, April 19, 2012, and June 21, 2012 Planning Commission hearings.
• City Council public hearing on July 23, 2012.
• All final City Staff Reports, and exhibits and attachments thereto and documents
referenced therein, relating to the Draft EIR, Final EIR, and the Project;
• All other public. reports, documents, studies, memoranda, maps or other planning
documents relating to the Project, the Draft EIR, and the Final EIR prepared by the
City, consultants to the City, or Responsible or Trustee Agencies.
• The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) adopted by the City for
the Project;
• The Ordinances and Resolutions adopted by the City in connection with the
proposed Project, and all documents incorporated by reference therein;
15 Exhibit B
m These Findings and Facts in Support
Considerations adopted by the City for
cited in these Findings of Fact; and
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
of Findings and Statement of Overriding
the Project, and any documents expressly
U Any other relevant materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public
Resources Code Section 21167.6(e).
The documents and other material that constitute the record of proceedings on which
these findings are based are located at the City of Newport Beach Community
Development Department. The custodian for these documents is the City of Newport
Beach. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section
21081.6(a)(2) and 14 California Code Regulations Section 15091(e).
4. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH WERE DETERMINED NOT TO BE
POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT
As a result of the Notice of Preparation circulated by the City on March 16, 2009, in connection
with preparation of the EIR, the City determined, based upon the threshold criteria for
significance, that the Project would have no impact or a less than significant impact on the
following potential environmental effects, and therefore, determined that these potential
environmental effects would not be addressed in the Draft EIR. Based upon the environmental
analysis presented in the EIR, and the comments received by the public on the Draft EIR, no
substantial evidence was submitted to or identified by the City which indicated that the Project
would have an impact on the following environmental areas:
(a) Agriculture and Forest Resources: The Project site does not contain Prime
Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. No portion of
the Project site is covered by a Williamson Act Contract. Additionally, the Project
site does not include forest resources, including timberlands, and is not zoned for
agriculture.
(b) Aesthetics and Visual Resources: The Project area is not adjacent to, nor can it
be viewed from a designated State scenic highway.
(c) Geology and Soils: The proposed Project would not use septic systems or
alternative waste water disposal systems.
(d) Hazards and Hazardous Materials: The Newport Banning Ranch Project site is
not located within an adopted Airport Land Use Plan. The nearest airport/airstrip
is the John Wayne Airport, which is located approximately four miles northeast of
the Project site. Furthermore, a discussion of this topic is not necessary because
there is no private airstrip in proximity to the Project site.
(e) Population, Housing, and Employment. There are no existing residential units on
the Project site. The Project proposes the development of up to 1,375 du on the
Project site. Therefore, the Project would not displace existing residential units or
residents and the Project would not necessitate the need for replacement
housing.
FINDINGS REGARDING POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The following potentially significant environmental impacts were analyzed in the EIR, and the
effects of the Project were considered in the EIR. Where as a result of the environmental
analysis of the Project and the identification of Project Design Features, compliance with
existing laws, codes and statutes, and the identification of feasible mitigation measures
16 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
(together referred herein as the Mitigation Program), the following potentially significant impacts
have been determined by the City to be reduced to a level of less than significant, the City has
found in accordance with CEQA Section 21081(a)(1) and State CEQA Guidelines Section
15091(a) (1) that "Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment," which is referred to herein as
"Finding 1 ". Where the potential impact can be reduced to less than significant solely through
adherence to and implementation of Project Design Features or standard conditions, these
measures are considered "incorporated into the project" which mitigate or avoid the potentially
significant effect, and in these situations, the City also will make "Finding 1" even though no
mitigation measures are required.
Where the City has determined pursuant to CEQA Section 21081(a)(2) and State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15091(a)(2) that "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," the City's findings is referred to herein as "Finding 2 ".
Where, as a result of the environmental analysis of the Project, the City has determined that
either (1) even with the identification of Project Design Features, compliance with existing laws,
codes and statutes, and /or the identification of feasible mitigation measures, potentially
significant impacts cannot be reduced to a level of less than significant, or (2) no feasible
mitigation measures or alternatives are available to mitigate the potentially significant impact,
the City has found in accordance with CEQA Section 21081(a)(3) and State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15091(a)(3) that "Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly
trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the
environmental impact report," referred to herein as "Finding 3 ".
A. Land Use and Related Planning Programs
(1) Potential Impact: The proposed Project would not physically divide an established
community.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is Less
Than Significant and that no standard conditions of approval or mitigation measures
are required or recommended. Project Design Features (PDFs) 4.1 -1 through 4.1 -5
identify the components of the Project.
Facts in Support of Finding: Consistent with the findings of the City of Newport
Beach General Plan EIR, the Project would not physically divide an established
community. The Project site is an active oilfield without public access. It is
contiguous to existing land uses, and roads through the site would provide planned
connections to existing land uses in the Project vicinity.
PDF 4.1 -1 Through the implementation of the Master Development Plan, the
Project permits a maximum of 1,375 residential dwelling units and
a variety of residential housing types to provide opportunities for a
range of lifestyles. Housing types include single - family detached,
single - family attached, multi - family, and /or residential uses in a
mixed -use configuration.
17 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
PDF 4.1 -2 The Master Development Plan designates areas for a diverse
public park system to include active, passive, and interpretive
recreation opportunities.
PDF 4.1 -3 The Master Development Plan designates more than 240 gross
acres of the Project site as Open Space, including wetland
restoration /water quality areas, interpretive trails, habitat
restoration areas, and habitat preservation areas. Open Space
areas also include 2 sites and a connecting road comprising
approximately 17 acres designated for continuing but interim use
as oil and gas production sites. At the end of the oilfield's useful
life, this area will revert to Open Space land use.
PDF 4.1 -4 The Master Development Plan provides for a minimum of 20 gross
(17 net) acres for a public Bluff Park as a visual and passive
recreational amenity, trail corridor, and a transition between open
space and development.
PDF 4.1 -5 The Master Development Plan and the Newport Banning Ranch
Planned Community Development Plan identify proposed uses
adjacent to existing Newport Beach and Costa Mesa residential
neighborhoods which are limited to either parks or open space.
Proposed uses adjacent to existing commercial and light industrial
areas within the City of Costa Mesa "Mesa West Bluffs Urban
Plan" overlay area will be a higher density residential and /or
mixed -use development of similar height and scale to those
prescribed in the "Mesa West Bluffs Urban Plan ". Open space
and /or park uses will be sited adjacent to the Newport Crest
community to provide a visual buffer between that community and
Project development areas.
(2) Potential Impact: There would be land use incompatibility associated with long -term
noise sources and night illumination on the Project site including from the Community
Park, the latter on those Newport Crest residences immediately contiguous to the
Project site. This impact is considered significant and unavoidable.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 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 through the
incorporation of Standard Condition (SC) 4.1 -1 and Noise Mitigation Measures
(MMs) 4.12 -5 through 4.12 -7. However, the City has determined that while the
above - described impact can be partially mitigated by the Mitigation Program
identified below, this impact cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. With
the exception of the No Development Alternative, there are no other feasible
alternatives or mitigation measures that would reduce this impact to ales than
significant level. Therefore, the City hereby also makes Finding 3 which would
require the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations as a condition of
Project approval.
Facts in Support of Finding: When evaluating the Project as a whole, it would be
considered generally compatible with the existing and proposed future off -site land
uses as well as compatible with land uses within the Project site. There is one legally
18 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
non - conforming single - family home located on industrially zoned property in the City
of Costa Mesa where there may be potential impacts (shade /shadow, night
illumination, and noise);, however, the required site plan review process set forth in
Standard Condition (SC) 4.1 -1 would ensure these impacts would be less than
significant.
The proposed Project would have significant and unavoidable construction - related
air quality and noise impacts. Although construction impacts would occur over
several years, they would end with the cessation of these activities. Because these
significant unavoidable construction impacts would terminate, they are not
considered a determinate factor in the compatibility of land uses. Additionally, there
would be significant vehicular noise impacts from Bluff Road to Newport Crest
residences immediately adjacent to the Project site and to six single - family
residences on 17th Street in the City of Costa Mesa. Noise MMs 4.12 -5, 4.12 -6, and
4.12 -7 regarding resurfacing roadways with rubberized asphalt, noise walls /berms,
and condominium noise attenuation measures that would mitigate noise impacts to a
less than significant level. However, the City cannot require owners of condominium
units at Newport Crest to accept and implement improvements on their private
property nor can it mandate the implementation of mitigation in another jurisdiction.
Therefore, it is speculative to know whether this mitigation, while feasible, is
desirable by residents and the Newport Crest Homeowners Association. As such,
noise impacts to the identified single - family residences on 17th Street and to a portion
of the Newport Crest Condominium development are considered significant and
unavoidable. Residences near the active areas of the proposed Community Park
may also be adversely impacted by night lighting. There are no feasible measures or
alternatives to mitigate this impact as the City has made a policy decision (as noted
on page 7 -7 of the Draft EIR) on the appropriateness of having night lighting at the
Community Park. As a result, the proposed Project as a whole would result in a land
use incompatibility with respect to long -term noise impacts and night illumination.
SC 4.1 -1 Approval of the Newport Banning Ranch Project would require
Project implementation and all future approvals to be subject to all
applicable provisions of the Newport Beach General Plan;
Newport Banning Ranch Planned Community Development Plan;
all requirements and enactments of federal, State, and local
agency authorities; as well as the requirements of any other
governmental entities. All such requirements and enactments will,
by reference, become conditions of Project approval.
MM 4.12 -5 The Applicant shall provide evidence that funds have been
deposited with the City of Newport Beach associated with the cost
of one -time resurfacing 15th Street west of Placentia Avenue with
rubberized asphalt. The Applicant shall provide evidence to the
City of Newport Beach that funds have been deposited with the
City of Costa Mesa associated with the cost of one -time
resurfacing 17th Street west of Monrovia Avenue with rubberized
asphalt.
MM 4.12 -6 Prior to the approval of a grading permit for Bluff Road and 15th
Street, the Applicant shall demonstrate to the City of Newport
Beach that the Project plans and specifications require the
construction and installation of a noise barrier to reduce future
19 Exhibit
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overridinq Considerations
traffic noise from the Bluff Road and 15`h Street to the Newport
Crest residences. The Applicant shall provide an acoustical
analysis prepared by a qualified Acoustical Engineer, of the
proposed barrier, which may be a wall, an earth berm, or a berm -
wall combination. The noise barrier, at a minimum, shall reduce
forecasted future ground floor residential exterior noise levels to
60 dBA CNEL and second floor residential noise levels to 65 dBA
CNEL. The barrier shall be solid from the ground to the top with no
decorative cutouts and shall weigh at least 3.5 pounds per square
foot of face area. The barrier may be constructed using masonry
block, '/4 inch thick glass, or other transparent material with
sufficient weight per square foot.
MM 4.12 -7 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for Bluff Road and /or
15th Street, the Applicant shall provide written notice to affected
residents of an offer of a program (Program) for the retrofit and
installation of dual pane windows /sliding doors on the fagade
facing the Newport Banning Ranch property. The Program offer
shall only apply to the owners of the residences (Owners) with
rear elevations directly adjacent to the Newport Banning Ranch
property in the western and northern boundaries of Newport Crest
Condominiums impacted by significant noise levels (significant
being a cumulative increase over existing conditions greater than
5 dBA) associated with the Project as determined by a licensed
Acoustical Engineer. Improvements shall be subject to the
approval of the Newport Crest Homeowners Association
(Association) and Owners. The Applicant shall be responsible for
the implementation of the Program pursuant to the following
provisions and guidelines: (i) in order to participate in the Program
and receive new windows /sliders, each participating Owner must
provide written notice to the Applicant within 45 days following
receipt of the proposed Program from the Applicant, that the
Owner wants to participate in the Program; (ii) failure to respond
within such time period shall mean the Owner desires not to
participate; (iii) following receipt of written notice from participating
Owners, the Applicant shall obtain a cost estimate and submit
written specifications from a licensed and bonded window
contractor to the Owners and the Association for
design /architectural approval; (iv) following receipt of
design /architectural approval from the Owners and the
Association of written specifications, the Applicant shall enter into
a contract with a qualified, licensed and bonded contractor for the
installation of windows /sliders to the participating Owners'
condominiums as part of one overall Program pursuant to the
contract between the Applicant and the contractor; (v) the total
cost of the Program shall be paid by the Applicant on behalf of the
Owners in an amount not exceed the total cost identified in the
cost estimate approved by the Applicant. Nothing in Mitigation
Measure 4.12 -7 shall prohibit the City from issuing a grading
permit for Bluff Road or 15'h Street in the event any or all Owners
decline to participate in the Program.
20 Exhibit 8
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
B. Aesthetics and Visual Resources
(1) Potential Impact: Development of the proposed Project would alter existing views of
the Project site; however, due to extensive site planning, buffers, landscaping and
architectural guidelines, the Project would not result in a significant topographical or
aesthetic impact. The Project would create public views from the Project site of on -site
and off -site scenic resources including the Pacific Ocean that are not currently available
because of the property's existing oilfield operations. This is considered a beneficial
impact.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this potentially
significant impact is Less Than Significant as a result of the implementation of Land
Use PDF 4.1 -4 (set forth above), Aesthetics PDFs 4.2 -1 through 4.2 -4, and
Biological Resources PDF 4.6 -4 (set forth below). No mitigation measures were
recommended or required.
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project is proposed to be implemented over
several years. Project implementation would change the overall visual character and
use the Project site from an oilfield to a developed urban infill community. The
resulting change in topography /landform and land use would be permanent.
Consistent with the General Plan, the majority of the property would be retained in
open space (General Plan Land Use Element Goal 3.4 and Policy 6.4.1). Site
disturbance would first occur associated with required site remediation efforts.
Roadways and utilities (such as water, wastewater, gas, electric, and cable) would
be constructed prior to the development of the structures. The transition from graded
lots to framed structures to finished buildings with landscaping would occur over
each area. As the structures are constructed and finished, the scale of the Project
and changes to the visual character of the Project site would become more evident.
Total excavation is estimated to be approximately 2,600,000 cubic yards (cy),
including approximately 900,000 cy of cut and fill and 1,455,000 cy of cut and fill
corrective grading. Cuts are anticipated to vary from 1 foot to 10 feet with localized
cuts up to approximately 25 feet. Fills are anticipated to vary between 1 foot and 30
feet, but may be up to 60 feet associated with bluff repairs with gradients between
2:1 and 3:1. The larger fills would be used for bluffs repair and restoration due to
erosion damage, but would allow for the retention of the major topographical features
of the Project site including the arroyos.
There is no public access to the Project site because it is private property and an
active oilfield. Therefore, the Project site cannot be observed by the public from on-
site locations nor can off -site views be observed from the property. There is a vertical
grade separation of approximately 50 feet from West Coast Highway to the top of the
Project bluffs along West Coast Highway and an approximate 50- to 65 -foot vertical
separation between the Newport Shores residences and the top of the bluff on the
western edge of Project site. Because of the difference in elevation, there are
uninterrupted views of off -site land uses to the south and west. These views include
but are not limited to existing off -site development, the USACE 92 -acre wetlands
restoration area, the Santa Ana River, and the Pacific Ocean.
21 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overridino Considerations
The Newport Beach General Plan EIR states:
The Banning Ranch property is currently developed with oil production
uses and associated structures, including large storage tanks. However,
much of Banning Ranch consists of open space. As such, the existing
conditions in Banning Ranch contribute to overall natural aesthetics within
the City... If the property cannot be acquired in a timely manner, the
development of a compact residential village that preserves the majority
of the site as open space and restores critical habitat is allowed in
accordance with Policies LU 6.3.1 through 6.5.5. Under both land use
options proposed for Banning Ranch, Policies LU 6.5.1 and 6.5.3 would
both apply to the area, and would relocate and cluster oil operations, as
well as restore and enhance wetlands and wildlife habitats. Both of these
policies would improve the overall aesthetic quality of the area. While
both options (open space and high quality residential development) would
protect visually important open space components of the existing area,
the visual impacts of retaining the site as open space would be less than
if development were to be allowed in the area... if the site is ultimately
developed, new land uses would include residential, limited commercial,
overnight accommodations, and community parks designed in such a way
as to provide a cohesive urban form that provides the sense of a
complete and identifiable neighborhood (Policy LU 6.4.5). Most
importantly, Policy LU 6.5.5 requires that development be located and
designed to prevent residences on the property from dominating public
views of the bluff faces from Coast Highway, the ocean, wetlands, and
surrounding open spaces. In addition, as discussed above, the
consolidation of oil operations as well as the restoration of wetlands and
habitat areas would improve the visual quality of the area. While new
development would represent a change from the existing land uses, with
implementation of the proposed General Plan Update policies, the
potential visual impacts of new development in the Banning Ranch area
would be minimized. Consequently, development in Banning Ranch
under the proposed General Plan Update would have less -than-
significant impacts on the visual quality of the area.
PDF 4.2 -1 As identified in the Master Development Plan, contour grading will
be used to minimize impacts to existing public view points from
West Coast Highway.
PDF 4.2 -2 Habitable structures will be set back at least 60 feet from the tops
of bluff edges, as required in the Newport Banning Ranch Planned
Community Development Plan.
PDF 4.2 -3 Implemented through the Master Development Plan, landscaping
will be provided around the perimeter of buildings that are
proposed adjacent to Open Space Preserve areas to provide a
transition.
PDF 4.2 -4 Architectural guidelines included in the Master Development Plan
provide for a range of housing types and architectural styles to
avoid visual monotony and minimize impacts to existing public
views of bluffs. Building architecture will be regulated through
22 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overridinq Considerations
provisions contained in the Master Development Plan to ensure
high quality designs that are sensitive to the natural resources and
compatible with the character of Newport Beach communities
within the Coastal Zone. Architectural guidelines require use of a
palette of earth tone colors compatible with the open space
setting.
PDF 4.6 -4 The Master Development Plan requires that street lights be
utilized only in key intersections and safety areas. The Planned
Community Development Plan requires that a "dark sky" lighting
concept be implemented within areas of the Project that adjoin
habitat areas. Light fixtures within these areas will be designed for
"dark sky" applications and adjusted to direct /reflect light
downward and away from adjacent habitat areas. The Newport
Banning Ranch Planned Community Development Plan will
restrict exterior house lighting to minimize light spillage into
adjacent habitat areas.
(2) Potential Impact: The proposed Project would generate new light sources. The
Project would include a "dark sky" lighting concept for development areas adjacent to the
Open Space Preserve. However, the Project would introduce nighttime lighting into a
currently unlit area. Consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, increased
lighting on the Project site is considered a significant, unavoidable impact.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 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. However, the City has
determined that while the above - described impact can be partially mitigated the
incorporation of PDF 4.6 -4 (set forth above) and MMs 4.2 -1 and 4.2 -2 (set forth
below), this impact cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. With the
exception of the No Development Alternative, there are no other feasible alternatives
or mitigation measures that would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
Therefore, the City hereby also makes Finding 3 which would require the adoption of
a Statement of Overriding Considerations as a condition of Project approval.
Facts in Support of Finding: Implementation of the Project would create new
sources of light and glare that are presently not found on the Project site. Nighttime
sources of light would include streetlights, vehicle headlights, lights used within and
around buildings including residences, retail areas, and the resort inn, and lights
used for the active sports fields in the Community Park.
The Project incorporates "dark sky" lighting standards for HOA land uses and
businesses within 100 feet of the Open Space Preserve and Bluff Parks (PDF 4.6.4).
Uses within the South and North Bluff Park and Nature Center contiguous to the
Open Space Preserve, and non - residential uses in the Villages and Colonies would
be required to have: (a) flood lamp shielding and /or City- approved "dark sky" light
fixtures /bulbs to reduce the amount of stray lighting into natural resource areas;
(b) direct lighting rays confined to the respective residential, resort inn, and
commercial lots or park areas upon which the exterior lights are to be installed so
that adjacent and nearby areas of the Open Space Preserve are protected from any
significant light spillage, intrusion, and glare; and (c) no skyward- casting light
fixtures /bulbs. Street lighting would be limited to the lighting of intersections.
23 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
However, where not within 100 feet of the Open Space Preserve or the Bluff Parks or
for land uses not restricted to dark sky lighting standards within 100 feet of the Open
Space Preserve (e.g., private residences), community landscape /common areas,
public facilities, streetscapes, parks, and other similar areas may contain accent or
other night lighting fixtures. Commercial use lighting would include lighting of parking
lots, drive aisles, and building facades subject to the lighting requirements set forth in
the NBR -PC.
The North Community Park area is proposed to include lighted tennis courts, lighted
soccer fields, a lighted basketball court, youth baseball and softball fields overlaid on
the soccer fields, a picnic area or skateboard park, tot lots, fitness /par course, and
parking areas. Sports areas would be lit until 10:00 PM. Lighting for athletic playing
fields in the Community Park would be required to have light control visors to control
spill and glare and to direct light downward onto the playing field. MMs 4.2 -1 and 4.2-
2 place lighting orientation and design restrictions on the Community Park and other
land uses within the Project site.
Although the Project proposes to restrict lighting in areas of the site, the Community
Park is proposed to have night lighting, and the Project as a whole would introduce
new light sources. The findings of this EIR analysis are consistent with the General
Plan EIR's determination that the Project's proposed development would result in
significant and unavoidable nighttime lighting impacts. In certifying the General Plan
Final EIR and approving the General Plan project, the City Council approved a
Statement of Overriding Considerations, which noted that there are specific
economic, social, and other public benefits that outweigh the significant unavoidable
impacts, specifically night lighting on the property, associated with the General Plan
project.
MM 4.2 -1 All public roadways and private development within the Village
and Colonies, South and North Bluff Park, Interpretive Parks, and
Oil Consolidation sites shall have their "dark sky" lighting system
and its components incorporated into the Project and approved by
the City of Newport Beach Community Development Director or
his /her designated representative prior to the issuance of a
building permit for the applicable Village, Colony, Bluff Park, and
Nature Center on the Project site. Each lighting plan shall
incorporate electrical plans and structural plans that detail the
provision of lighting systems for exteriors of all buildings, parking
lots, loading areas, walkways, public use areas, any public art
displays, fountains, or landscape areas. Lighting within the
development shall be directed and shielded so that light is
directed away from the Open Space Preserve, including habitat
areas. Floodlamp shielding and /or sodium bulbs shall be used in
developed areas to reduce the amount of stray lighting into native
restoration and preservation areas. No skyward- casting lighting
shall be used. Final lighting orientation and design shall be in
accordance with the "dark sky' lighting standards as defined by
the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America IIESNA)
and shall reduce the impacts of new light sources to the extent
feasible as determined by the Community Development Director
or his /her designated representative. Prior to final inspection or
issuance of a certificate of occupancy, where applicable, the City
24 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
shall cause to be performed a photometric field inspection of the
approved lighting system for the Project. The inspection shall
verify the proper construction and installation of materials within
the approved plan; determine the actual light patterns and values
through light meter testing and observation; and determine the
extent of any errant lighting. Deviations and /or violations shall be
corrected prior to the final clearance for the Project.
MM 4.2 -2 The lighting plan for the Community Park shall incorporate
electrical plans and structural plans that detail the provision of
lighting systems for sports field and hard courts; exteriors of
buildings; parking lots, walkways, and /or landscape areas. All
lighting within the development shall be directed and shielded so
that light is directed away from the Open Space Preserve,
including habitat areas. Floodlamp shielding and /or sodium bulbs
shall be used in developed areas to reduce the amount of stray
lighting into native restoration and preservation areas.
Furthermore, no skyward- casting lighting shall be used. The
lowest intensity lighting shall be used that is appropriate to the
intended use of the lighting. Light standards used for lighting
playing fields shall be either Musco LightingTM, "Light Structure
Green" standards, or another comparable light standard of similar
design that reduces light spillage. Final lighting orientation and
design shall be in accordance with the "dark sky" lighting
standards as defined by the Illuminating Engineering Society of
North America IIESNA) and shall reduce the impacts of new light
sources to the extent feasible, as determined by the Community
Development Director. Prior to final inspection, the City shall
cause to be performed a photometric field inspection of the
approved lighting system for the Community Park. The inspection
shall verify the proper construction and installation of materials
within the approved plan; shall determine the actual light patterns
and values through light meter testing and observation; and shall
determine the extent of any errant lighting. Deviations and /or
violations shall be corrected prior to the final clearance for the
Community Park.
C. Geology and Soils
(1) Potential Impact: The Project site is in a seismically active area with faults within
the development area that could not be proven to be inactive. Habitable structures on
the Project site near these faults are subject to fault setback zones and seismic design
parameters that would appropriately address seismic building standards.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this potentially
significant impact is Less Than Significant as a result of the implementation of the
Mitigation Program (Project Design Feature, standard conditions of approval, and
mitigation measures).
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is not located within an Alquist - Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zone. Most of Southern California is subject to ground shaking
(ground motion) as a result of movement along active and potentially active fault
25 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overridina Considerations
zones in the region. Three regional fault systems are within approximately six miles
of the Project site: the Compton Thrust Ramp, the Newport- Inglewood Fault Zone,
and the San Joaquin Hills Blind Thrust Fault. Seismic design of on -site structures
(excluding bridges) would be in accordance with the 2007 California Building Code
(CBC) criteria; seismic design of the pedestrian and bicycle bridge would be in
accordance with Caltrans standards. To accommodate the effects from seismic
shaking, all on -site Project structures would be required to comply with the seismic
design standards contained within the California Building Code as adopted by the
City.
There are two discrete segments of the Newport - Inglewood Fault Zone North Branch
(the Newport Mesa North Segment and the Newport Mesa South Segment)
potentially within the Project site. Portions of these fault segments were not
conclusively shown to have Holocene surface rupture, and therefore are "faults that
could not be proved to be inactive'; therefore, Fault Setback Zones were established.
Bluff setbacks are in excess of those required by the California Building Code and
would assure no potentially significant impact to Project development from surface
fault rupture.
State laws and local ordinances require that, prior to construction, potential seismic
hazards are identified and mitigated, as needed, to protect public health and safety
from substantial risks through appropriate engineering practices. Compliance with
PDF 4.3 -1, SCs 4.3 -1 and 4.3 -2, and MMs 4.3 -1 through 4.3 -3 (set forth below)
would ensure that impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking are less than
significant.
PDF 4.3 -1 Habitable structures will be set back a minimum of 60 feet from
the tops of bluff edges, as required in the Master Development
Plan and the Newport Banning Ranch Planned Community
Development Plan, and will not be constructed within identified
fault setback zones.
SC 4.3 -1 Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the City of Newport
Beach Community Development Department, Building Division
Manager or his /her designee shall review the grading plan for
conformance with the grading shown on the approved tentative
map. The grading plans shall be accompanied by geological and
soils engineering reports and shall incorporate all information as
required by the City. Grading plans shall indicate all areas of
grading, including remedial grading, and shall extend to the limits
outside of the boundaries of an immediate area of development as
required by the City. Grading shall be permitted within all Land
Use Districts and outside of an area of immediate development,
as approved by the City, for the grading of public roads, highways,
park facilities, infrastructure, and other development - related
improvements. Remedial grading for development shall be
permitted in all Land Use Districts and outside of an immediate
development area, as approved by the City, to adequately
address geotechnical or soils conditions. Grading plans shall
provide for temporary erosion control on all graded sites
scheduled to remain unimproved for more than 30 days. If the
Applicant submits a grading plan that deviates from the grading
Exhibit
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
shown on the approved tentative map (specifically with regard to
slope heights, slope ratios, pad elevations or configurations), as
determined by the Building Manager, s /he shall review the plan for
a finding of substantial conformance. If the Building Manager finds
the plan not to be in substantial conformance, the Applicant shall
process a revised tentative map or, if a final map has been
recorded, the Applicant shall process a new tentative map. A
determination of CEQA compliance shall also be required.
SC 4.3 -2 Prior to the recordation of a subdivision map or prior to the
issuance of any grading permit, whichever comes first, and if
determined necessary by the City of Newport Beach Community
Development Department, Building Division Manager, the
Applicant shall record a Letter of Consent from any affected
property owners permitting off -site grading, cross lot drainage,
drainage diversions, and /or unnatural concentrations. This
process will ensure that construction activities requiring
encroachment permits or having temporary effects on adjacent
parcels are properly noticed and coordinated.
MM 4.3 -1 The Applicant shall submit to the City of Newport Beach
Community Development Department, Building Division Manager
or his /her designee for review and approval, a site - specific,
design -level geotechnical investigation prepared for each
development parcel by a registered geotechnical engineer. The
investigation shall comply with all applicable State and local code
requirements and:
a) Include an analysis of the expected ground motions at the site
from known active faults using accepted methodologies;
b) Determine structural design requirements as prescribed by the
most current version of the California Building Code, including
applicable City amendments, to ensure that structures can
withstand ground accelerations expected from known active
faults;
c) Determine the final design parameters for walls, foundations,
foundation slabs, utilities, roadways, parking lots, sidewalks,
and other surrounding related improvements;
Project plans for foundation design, earthwork, and site
preparation shall incorporate all of the mitigations in the site -
specific investigations. The structural engineer shall review the
site - specific investigations, provide any additional necessary
measures to meet Building Code requirements, and incorporate all
applicable recommendations from the investigation in the
structural design plans and shall ensure that all structural plans for
the Project meet current Building Code requirements.
The City's registered geotechnical engineer or third -party
registered engineer retained to review the geotechnical reports
shall review each site - specific geotechnical investigation, approve
the final report, and require compliance with all geotechnical
27 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
requirements contained in the investigation in the plans submitted
for the grading, foundation, structural, infrastructure and all other
relevant construction permits.
The City shall review all Project plans for grading, foundations,
structural, infrastructure and all other relevant construction permits
to ensure compliance with the applicable geotechnical
investigation and other applicable Code requirements.
MM 4.3 -2 Prior to the approval of any applicable final tract map, the
Applicant shall have completed, by a qualified geologist, additional
geotechnical trenching and field investigations and shall provide a
supplemental geotechnical report to confirm the adequacy of
Project development fault setback limits in accordance with the
mandates of the Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. The
trenching and report shall be subject to the review and approval of
the City of Newport Beach Public Works Director.
MM 4.3 -3 Prior to the approval of any applicable final tract map,
development setbacks from the Upland fault segments, revised as
necessary based upon the findings of additional trenching
investigations, shall be incorporated into the Project consistent
with requirements set forth in the California Building Code and the
City of Newport Beach General Plan. Bluff setbacks consistent
with the regulatory requirements for habitable structures shall be
incorporated into the Project consistent with the beach bluff
setback standards in the City of Newport Beach General Plan.
Where applicable, setback distances consistent with
recommendations in the Project's Geotechnical Report (GMU
2010) shall be incorporated. Prior to the preparation of final
Project plans and specifications, additional trenching shall be
conducted within the 1,300 -foot gap between the 2 parts of the
existing Fault Setback Zone. This additional trenching shall
provide more information about the potential for active faulting in
this portion of the Project site. If necessary, the development fault
setback zones shall be modified after this information is obtained
and analyzed in accordance with the mandates of the Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. This information shall be
subject to the review and approval of the City of Newport Beach
Public Works Director and Community Development Director.
(2) Potential Impact: Two fault segments on the Project site have not been confirmed
as inactive, and development setbacks have been incorporated into the Project. The
fault setback zones would reduce the risk of surface fault rupture. Habitable structures
would be restricted to the Upland area, avoiding soils that may liquefy or undergo lateral
spreading.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this potentially
significant impact is Less Than Significant as a result of the implementation of the
Mitigation Program (Project Design Feature, standard conditions of approval, and
mitigation measures).
28 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Facts in Support of Finding: On -site soils subject to liquefaction and lateral
spreading are located in the Lowland; no habitable structures are proposed as a part
of the Project in the Lowland; this area is proposed for open space, trails, and oil
facilities and their associated infrastructure. Residential, commercial, active
recreation, and resort inn uses would only occur in the Upland area.
Soils in the Upland (except for existing colluvial deposits when subjected to saturated
conditions) are too dense, cemented, or too far above the water table for liquefaction
and lateral spreading to occur. Corrective grading would replace unsuitable materials
with suitable engineered fill materials over San Pedro Formation or terrace deposits
such that they would not be subject to liquefaction. Therefore, the risk associated
with seismic - related ground failure and associated liquefaction, lateral spreading, or
subsidence is less than significant.
There is no surficial evidence of subsidence on the Project site, and there have been
no reports of subsidence - related impacts on oil production facilities. Accordingly,
subsidence is not considered a significant risk to or from Project implementation.
(3) Potential Impact: Grading activities would increase the potential for soil erosion and
loss of top soil. Best Management Practices (BMPs) would minimize this impact both
during construction and long -term use of the Project site.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this potentially
significant impact is Less Than Significant as a result of the implementation of
Project Design Features. No mitigation measures were required or recommended.
Facts in Support of Finding: Grading activities would increase the potential for soil
erosion and loss of top soil. There is a risk of shallow slumping on bluff faces
associated with surface runoff; however, Project drainage improvements are
expected to reduce runoff compared to existing conditions. Upon completion of the
Project, soil erosion and the loss of topsoil would be minimized through the use of
engineered grading, surface drainage improvements, and landscaping.
Areas within the bluff slope setback zone would contain drainage devices to
minimize the surface flow over the bluff slopes. In addition, surface drainage and
bluff slope erosion - control plans would be developed in areas where bluff slopes are
to remain natural. Construction best management practices (BMPs) would ensure
that construction- related impacts on soil erosion would be less than significant, and
post- Project operation and occupancy would not generate surface flows that result in
loss of topsoil or induce erosion.
Erosion of the bluff face by surface runoff and local drainage has resulted in shallow
erosion, slumping, and localized surficial bluff instability. Future bluff retreat rates
would be expected to be lower than historic bluff retreat rates since removing oil
production activities in the Upland would reduce runoff rates over the bluffs. Project
drainage improvements would also reduce surface runoff over the bluffs and
resulting bluff face erosion; however, surface runoff from precipitation and nuisance
flows would not cease entirely. The Project would also implement subdrain systems
to capture infiltrated water and direct it away from the bluff faces on the Project site,
thereby reducing the risk of bluff instability related to post - development groundwater.
29 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
As sediments within the bluffs possess a fairly high erosion potential, the topographic
alteration of the bluffs would take the form of shallow erosion and surficial slumping
of bluff faces. The Project includes bluff repair for bluff stability. Areas that have
suffered from erosion would require careful grading in order to restore and
revegetate the bluff /slope edge and to limit further degradation. The drainage
overtopping the bluff /slope edge would be intercepted along the public trail system
and redirected into the Project drainage system. Compliance with PDF 4.3 -1 (set
forth above) and PDFs 4.3 -2 and 4.3 -3 (set forth below) would significant impacts do
not occur.
PDF 4.3 -2 The Master Development Plan identifies drainage devices to be
constructed along slopes adjacent to the development edge to
eliminate existing surface flow over bluffs to the extent feasible.
Landscape and irrigation plans will be designed to minimize
irrigation near natural areas /slopes through the use of drought-
tolerant vegetation and low -flow irrigation.
PDF 4.3 -3 The Master Development Plan includes a Bluff /Slope Restoration
Plan that requires eroded portions of bluff slopes to be repaired
and stabilized. In order to stabilize slopes and help avoid erosion,
bluff areas devoid of vegetation after repair and stabilization
efforts will be planted with native vegetation that does not require
permanent irrigation.
(4) Potential Impact: On -site soils have a low to medium expansion potential.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this potentially
significant impact is Less Than Significant as a result of the implementation of SCs
4.3 -1 and 4.3 -2 and MMs 4.3 -1, 4.3 -2, and 4.3 -3 (set forth above).
Facts in Support of Finding: Expansion tests indicate the presence of expansive
soils. Without correction, expansive soils can be unsuitable for building. Expansive
soils can be accommodated through strengthened and stiffened building foundation
design that is capable of resisting the effects of expansive soils. The final
geotechnical report will include an evaluation of expansive soils and include specific
construction and design recommendations, based on Building Code requirements to
reduce Project impacts associated with expansive soils.
D. Hydrology and Drainage
(1) Potential Impact: Construction and operation of the Project has the potential to
adversely impact water quality in downstream receiving waters through discharge of
runoff that contains various pollutants of concern. The Project incorporates detailed low
impact development (LID) features into internal site design and transitional areas for
sediment, source, and treatment control. Additional site - design, structural,
source - control, and treatment - control BMPs would be incorporated into the Project to
supplement LID features, ensuring compliance with the Project Water Quality
Management Plan and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit. The Project has demonstrated on -site ability to treat all runoff treatment volumes
that would be generated from the Project site in addition to runoff entering the site from
upstream developed areas within Costa Mesa in compliance with regulatory standards.
30
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this potentially
significant impact is Less Than Significant as a result of the implementation of
Project Design Features and standard conditions of approval. No mitigation
measures were required or recommended.
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project would incorporate a Runoff Management
Plan that includes water quality and drainage features designed to treat site runoff for
water quality purposes and to reduce runoff volumes or rates where feasible. Water
quality features would consist of LID features where feasible (e.g., bioswales,
landscaping biocells, permeable pavement, and other improvements designed to
promote soil -based infiltration processes) as well as source - control and
treatment - control BMPs. One water quality basin and one diffuser basin /habitat area
are proposed in the Lowland within the Open Space Preserve to provide treatment of
storm water and detention of runoff flowing from on -site areas and off -site urban
areas located to the east prior to discharging into the Lowland. The other basin is
proposed in the Lowland near the North Family Village to provide energy dissipation
of flows prior to entering the Semeniuk Slough. Both of these basins would be
planted with native emergent marsh and riparian species to promote water quality
cleaning and natural energy dissipation. A second water quality /detention basin is
proposed to intercept approximately 48 acres of off -site flows from the 16`h Street
Costa Mesa drainage area. The water quality /detention basin is proposed on the
Project site at the southeast corner of 16`h Street at the Project site boundary.
Drainage improvements would minimize runoff to arroyos, redirect runoff away from
bluffs, and reduce flow rates and volumes in the Semeniuk Slough. On -site local
drains would be provided to drain each of the on -site subwatersheds under
developed conditions. These drainage features would result in an improvement over
existing site runoff conditions with respect to water quality, velocities, and volumes.
The Project incorporates Project Design Features (PDFs) to minimize adverse
Project effects to water quality, storm water runoff, and groundwater impacts. Site
drainage patterns would remain generally consistent with the existing condition, with
minor alterations proposed in site subwatershed boundaries in order to manage
flows from the Project into Lowland area. The integration of LID features into the
Project design would provide sustainable water quality and storm water management
capabilities for the site.
PDF 4.4 -1 The Master Development Plan requires that two water quality
basins (one in the Community Park and one in the Open Space
Preserve) be constructed to treat off -site urban runoff from Costa
Mesa and Newport Beach and Project runoff that drains into the
Lowland area.
PDF 4.4 -2 The Master Development Plan includes a water quality basin and
a diffuser basin located within the Open Space Preserve to
provide for storm water control, energy dissipation, and natural
water quality treatment.
PDF 4.4 -3 The Master Development Plan requires that public arterials and
some selected collector roadways within the Project site be
designed with "Green Street' and other Low Impact Development
(LID) features, such as bioswales and bio- cells. Green Streets are
31 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
designed to incorporate sustainable design elements such as
narrower pavement widths, canopy street trees, traffic - calming
features, and minimal use of street lighting. Landscaping along the
street edges will be selectively used to treat storm water runoff
from the streets and adjacent development areas.
SC 4.4 -1 All landscape materials and irrigation systems shall be maintained
in accordance with the approved Landscape Plan. All landscaped
areas shall be kept in a healthy and growing condition and shall
receive regular maintenance. All landscaped areas shall be kept
free of weeds and debris. All irrigation systems shall be kept
operable, including adjustments, replacements, repairs, and
cleaning as part of regular maintenance.
SC 4.4 -2 The development shall be kept free of litter and graffiti. The owner or
operator shall provide for removal of trash, litter debris, and graffiti
from the premises and on all abutting sidewalks.
SC 4.4 -3 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, an SWPPP and Notice of
Intent (NO]) to comply with the General Permit for Construction
Activities shall be prepared, submitted to the State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB), and made part of the
construction program. This SWPPP shall detail measures and
practices that would be in effect during construction to minimize
the Project's impact on water quality and storm water runoff
volumes.
SC 4.4 -4 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Project Applicant shall
prepare and submit a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
for the project, subject to the approval of the Community
Development Department, Building Division and Code and Water
Quality Enforcement Division. The WQMP shall include
appropriate BMPs to ensure project runoff is adequately treated.
SC 4.4 -5 Prior to issuance of grading permits a list of "good housekeeping"
practices, consistent with the approved Water Quality
Management Plan, shall be submitted by the contractor for
incorporation into the long -term post- construction operation of the
site to minimize the likelihood that pollutants would be used,
stored, or spilled on the site that could impair water quality. These
may include frequent parking area vacuum truck sweeping,
removal of wastes or spills, limited use of harmful fertilizers or
pesticides, and the diversion of storm water away from potential
sources of pollution (e.g., trash receptacles and parking
structures). The WQMP shall list and describe all structural and
non - structural BMPs. In addition the WQMP must also identify the
entity responsible for the long term inspection, maintenance, and
funding for all structural (and if applicable treatment - control)
BMPs.
(2) Potential Impact: Local groundwater is not suitable for use as drinking water;
therefore, there would be no Project impact to groundwater table due to drawdown.
32 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding :Considerations
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this potentially
significant impact is Less Than Significant as a result of the implementation of PDF
4.4 -3 (set forth above) and PDF 4.4 -6 (set forth below). No mitigation measures were
required or recommended.
Facts in Support of Finding: Groundwater recharge does occur at the Project site
and would decrease under Project conditions due to a reduction in pervious surface
area. Infiltration BMPs would be incorporated into site design to ensure that site
runoff continues to infiltrate to the maximum extent practicable. The Project site is
not a designated recharge site for the City. Local groundwater is not suitable for use
as drinking water because of mixing with tidal waters. Consequently, the Project's
potable water needs would not impact local groundwater levels. Proper design of
structural BMPs and LID features would ensure separation of the volumes of water to
be treated and the underlying groundwater table, which would ensure no adverse
impact to groundwater quality from treatment- control BMPs and LID features.
Infiltration BMPs would treat most pollutants within the uppermost soil layers of the
BMP facility, reducing pollutant transfer to the groundwater table. Temporary
construction impacts associated with removal of oil pipelines in the Lowland would
be reduced to a less than significant level with the incorporation of BMPs. PDF 4.4 -3,
the use of LID standards, and PDF 4.4 -6, incorporation of BMPs, would ensure that
Project impacts would be less than significant.
PDF 4.4 -6 The Master Development Plan requires the use of best
management practices (BMPs) for erosion control, sediment
control, wind erosion control, storm water and non -storm water
management, and waste management/pollution control. These
BMPs will be implemented to ensure that potential effects on local
site hydrology, runoff, and water quality remain in compliance with
all required permits, City policies, and the Project's Water Quality
Management Plan (WQMP), and Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP).
(3) Potential Impact: Grading activities would increase the potential for soil erosion
and sedimentation to affect water quality. Best Management Practices (BMPs) and
Standard Conditions would minimize this impact both during construction and operation.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this potentially
significant impact is Less Than Significant as a result of the implementation of PDFs
4.4 -1 and 4.4 -2 (set forth above), PDF 4.4 -5 (set forth below) and SCs 4.4 -3, 4.4 -4,
and 4.4 -5 (set forth above). No mitigation measures were required or recommended.
Facts in Support of Finding: Sediment - control BMPs would be installed to intercept
and filter out soil particles that may have been mobilized by flows during construction
activities before these flows discharge into receiving waters. These controls may
include installing check dams, These measures would also be placed around areas
of soil- disturbing activities, such as grading or clearing, to retain sediments on site.
Compliance with the General Construction Permit and the Orange County
Dewatering Permit, the latter if required, would minimize construction impacts from
grading /excavation; material stockpiling and dewatering; construction and utilization
of access and haul roads; and equipment staging, operation, and fueling. The Project
would comply with the most current General Construction Permit and associated
33 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
local NPDES regulations to ensure that the potential for construction - related erosion
and adverse sedimentation effects are minimized through the identification and
application of efficient sediment - control BMPs and construction site monitoring.
These permits require development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan ( SWPPP), which would describe construction BMPs that address
the measures and controls necessary to ensure that construction site effects on
sedimentation and erosion are appropriately minimized and remain less than
significant.
Therefore, the Project would not result in adverse erosion or sedimentation impacts
on the Project site, in arroyo drainage channels, or to downstream receiving waters.
PDFs 4.4 -1, 4.4 -2, and 4.4 -5 and SCs 4.4 -3, 4.4 -4, and 4.4 -5 would ensure that
Project construction and operation would maintain flow velocities below erosion
thresholds and reduce overall sediment delivery to downstream systems. PDF 4.4 -1
requires water quality basins on the Project site to treat urban runoff originating from
off -site properties. PDF 4.4 -2 identifies that a portion of the Lowland would provide
for water quality treatment and storm water detention. PDF 4.4 -5 requires the
Project's drainage plan to stabilize runoff to West Coast Highway and the Semeniuk
Slough. SC 4.4 -3 requires a SWPPP in compliance with the General Permit for
Construction Activities and SC 4.4 -4 requires a WQMP including required BMPs.
Post- construction operations must include "good housekeeping" as required in the
WQMP (SC 4.4 -5).
PDF 4.4 -5 The Master Development Plan requires development of a
drainage plan to ensure that runoff systems from the Project site
to West Coast Highway and the Semeniuk Slough will be
stabilized and maintained through the Project's drainage system.
(4) Potential Impact: Project- induced increases in impervious surfaces would result in
an increase in peak flow runoff and runoff volumes from the site that could affect on -site
or off -site flooding. Project drainage area modifications would be incorporated into a
Runoff Management Plan to ensure that peak flow rates and volumes would not result in
adverse flooding impacts to downstream systems.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this potentially
significant impact is Less Than Significant as a result of the implementation of PDFs
4.4 -1, 4.4 -2, 4.4 -4, 4.4 -5, and 4.4 -6 as well as SC 4.4 -4 (set forth above). No
mitigation measures were required or recommended.
Facts in Support of Finding: During site remediation, grading, and construction,
soil would be exposed to wind and water erosion. The implementation of erosion and
sedimentation BMPs would control flows on site and would ensure that impacts
associated with construction would be properly managed (PDFs 4.4 -1, 4.4 -2, 4.4.3
and SCs 4.4 -2, 4.4 -3, 4.4 -4, and 4.4 -5) to protect water quality and beneficial uses of
receiving waters at the Project site from both construction and operational impacts.
LID and BMP features would ensure that runoff from the Project site complies with
NPDES site discharge requirements for the protection of receiving water quality and
beneficial uses. Water quality entering the Lowland area and Semeniuk Slough
would not be adversely impacted once these controls are in place. Construction
BMPs also contain measures to be implemented to control construction site runoff
and storm water.
34 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings. and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Site drainage patterns would largely remain the same upon Project completion;
drainage would continue to flow from east to west across the site, through the
existing arroyos and into either the Semeniuk Slough or the Lowland area. The
Project's drainage area for Subwatershed A (in the Lowland) would be reduced by
approximately 27 acres from the existing condition. While the proposed Project runoff
potential is anticipated to be slightly higher in the Project watershed, the overall
results show that this reduction in drainage area maintains flow volumes similar to
the existing condition. This is achieved largely through the preservation of open
space on the Project site. Modeling results of existing and proposed runoff volumes
into the Lowland and USACE- restored salt marsh basin indicate that the combined
basin capacity (Lowland and USACE- restored salt marsh basin) can store existing
flood volumes up to the 25 -year frequency in its current capacity. The proposed
condition 25 -year runoff volume would be less than the 345 acre -feet storage
capacity of the combined USACE- restored salt marsh basin and Lowland area.
In the Upland, all on -site curbs, gutters, and storm drains would be designed in
accordance with City standards, thereby minimizing potential impacts of on -site
development area flooding. The Project would slightly alter the existing drainage
patterns through minor modification in on -site subwatersheds. These minor
alterations are consistent with an overall Project storm water management strategy
that directs flows to areas that have additional capacity (the Lowland) and decreases
flows to areas with minimal or constrained capacity (Semeniuk Slough). Increase in
storm water runoff volume delivered to the Lowland area would be accommodated
by the storage capacity of the existing Lowland and USACE- restored salt marsh
basin. Sheet flow runoff under the existing condition on the Project site would be
replaced with storm drain systems to convey flows to the Lowland area, Semeniuk
Slough, and the Caltrans storm drain.
(5) Potential Impact: The proposed Project's modifications in Project drainage patterns
and Project drainage features would not exceed the capacity of storm water systems.
The Project drainage features would reduce flow rates through the middle and lower
sections of the Caltrans reinforced concrete box from existing conditions.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this potentially
significant impact is Less Than Significant as a result of the implementation of PDFs
4.4 -1, 4.4 -2, and 4.4 -3 and SCs 4.4 -2 through 4.4 -5 (set forth above). No mitigation
measures were required or recommended.
Facts in Support of Finding: Project site drainage from Subwatershed A would
discharge into the existing Caltrans' reinforced concrete box (RCB) storm drain in
West Coast Highway. The Project's proposed drainage plan would modify Caltrans'
existing storm drain to accommodate a new storm drain system from the Upland. Flow
rates were modeled in order to determine the Project's effect on flow rates moving
through the storm drain. These modeling results indicate that, overall, the storm drain
would experience reduced flood loading compared with the existing condition.
Therefore, impacts from the Project on the capacity of the Caltrans' storm drain are
less than significant. PDFs 4.4 -1 through 4.4 -3 and SCs 4.4 -2 through 4.4 -5 are
applicable.
(6) Potential Impact: Inundation of or impact to habitable structures on the Project site
by flooding, seiche, mudflow, or tsunami is not expected.
35 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this potentially
significant impact is Less Than Significant. No project design features, standard
conditions, or mitigation measures were required or recommended.
Facts in Support of Finding: Improvements to the Santa Ana River implemented
over recent years by the USACE in partnership with the Counties of Orange,
Riverside, and San Bernardino include levee upgrades, improvements to Prado
Dam, and construction of Seven Oaks Dam. These improvements protect
surrounding residences and communities from the 100 -year flood event. Project
development is proposed for the Upland area, which is located above the Santa Ana
River's 100 -year floodplain. While flooding could affect the Lowland, no habitable
structures are proposed in this area. There are no permanent standing water bodies
in the Upland area and inundation by seiche or mudflow is not anticipated in the
Upland area. Due to the Project's proximity to the coast, inundation by tsunami is
possible, and the Lowland is located within the tsunami warning area designated in
the City's General Plan. The development footprint remains out of the tsunami
inundation area and the impacts from potential tsunami effects under a condition of
future sea level rise are considered less than significant.
E. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
(1) Potential Impact: The disturbance of potential hazardous materials associated with
past oil extraction activities and from demolition of existing structures located on site is a
potential impact.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this potentially
significant impact is Less Than Significant as a result of the implementation of
Hydrology and Water Quality PDF 4.4 -6 (set forth above), and Hazards PDF 4.5 -1,
SC 4.5 -1, and MM 4.5 -1 (set forth below).
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is primarily impacted by petroleum
hydrocarbons, specifically degraded and weathered crude oil, and that these impacts
are generally confined to specific operating areas, including oil well locations,
pipelines, tank farms, sumps, and roadways. The Project site also includes road
materials made up of varying amounts of gravel, asphalt, crude oil, or crude oil tank
sediments, and large amounts of concrete used in oilfield operations and facilities.
Some areas of the site contain soils impacted by generally low concentrations of
chemicals other than crude oil, such as volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and
metals. None of the petroleum hydrocarbons or any other contaminants identified in
soil and groundwater were found on the Project site at levels exceeding the
hazardous waste criteria, as defined by federal and State regulations. These types of
impacts are consistent with oilfields of this age and are similar to other oilfields that
have been feasibly and effectively remediated for residential development. That said,
the presence of these materials on the Project site has the potential to adversely
affect the proposed land uses and persons residing on the Project site and, without
appropriate remediation, would be considered a significant impact.
Environmental assessment and cleanup work of the oilfield is conducted under the
regulatory oversight of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Santa
Ana Region and /or the Orange County Health Care Agency, Environmental Health
Division (OCHCA). This existing oversight is expected to continue through field
abandonment and remediation activity because both agencies have the most
36 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
experience of any agencies with oilfield -to- development projects. It is expected that
the RWQCB would continue to be the lead agency until the site receives closure.
All remediation activities, such as excavating pipelines, soil remediation, oil well
abandonment and re- abandonment, would be conducted pursuant to State and local
requirements. With the exception of the oil consolidation sites (which would remain),
any contaminants would be remediated to State and local standards and
requirements. Rem_ ediation to State and local standards would ensure that these
areas are safe for human exposure in the future. Contaminated material that cannot
be efficiently remediated on site would be transported off site and disposed of in
accordance with applicable regulatory requirements.
As a part of the EIR, a draft Remedial Action Plan (dRAP) was prepared and
identifies areas of the property proposed for remediation. The dRAP outlines the
scope of the planned remediation, the regulatory oversight structure, the remedial
processes that would be used, and the existing soil cleanup criteria. In addition to
targeted remediation, all development areas would be monitored, tested, and
remediated by credentialed third -party experts during mass grading to ensure that
nothing is overlooked and all soil impacts are mitigated. Remediation work would be
completed and approved by the regulatory oversight agencies before any
construction work is initiated in those areas.
The dRAP details the findings of both the Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site
Assessment (ESA) which contain initial findings of contaminants on the Project site.
It should be noted that, according to the Phase II EA, "at each of the areas tested, no
contaminant levels were found to exceed the hazardous waste criteria (i.e.,
concentration levels defined by State and federal guidelines) ". Because the soils do
not exceed hazardous waste criteria levels, all of the estimated 246,000 cy of
remediated soil can be treated and used on site.
Mitigation Measure (MM) 4.5 -1 requires the implementation of a comprehensive final
Remedial Action Plan (RAP) for oilfield abandonment, clean -up, remediation, and
consolidation. The final RAP must be submitted to and approved by RWQCB and /or
the OCHCA. With implementation of the requirements of the approved final RAP,
there would be less than significant impacts related to historic and ongoing oilfield
operations on the Project site.
With respect to the abandonment of oil wells, the oilfield operations on the property
are governed by regulations of the California Department of Conservation,
Department of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources ( DOGGR). The DOGGR has
specific guidelines for the abandonment or re- abandonment (the latter as necessary)
of oil wells. For oilfields that are abandoned for future development purposes,
DOGGR has established a process called "Construction Site Review' that must be
followed.
Additional oversight for air and vapor control would be provided by the South Coast
Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the Orange County Fire Authority
(OCFA). All environmental testing is conducted by third -party consultants and
analyzed and validated by State certified laboratories using chain of custody
procedures to ensure the integrity of the results.
37 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
There is a potential for the presence of lead -based paint (LBP) and asbestos -
containing materials (AGMs) in some of the structures and equipment on the Project
site. SC 4.5 -1 requires the handling and disposal of these substances, if identified, in
accordance with applicable State regulations.
PDF 4.5 -1 The Master Development Plan requires existing oil operations to
be consolidated into two areas within the Open Space Preserve
designated as "Interim Oil Facilities ", in accordance with the land
use districts established for the Project site in the Newport
Banning Ranch Planned Community Development Plan, totaling
approximately 17 acres including the service access road. This
use will ultimately revert to an Open Space land use at the end of
the oilfield's useful life.
SC 4.5 -1 Prior to demolition, testing for all structures for presence of lead -
based paint (LBP) and /or asbestos - containing materials (ACMs)
shall be completed. The Asbestos - Abatement Contractor shall
comply with notification and asbestos - removal procedures
outlined in the South Coast Air Quality Management District's
(SCAQMD's) Rule 1403 to reduce asbestos - related air quality
health risks. SCAQMD Rule 1403 applies to any demolition or
renovation activity and the associated disturbance of ACMs. This
requirement shall be included on the contractors' specifications
and verified by the Director of Community Development.
All demolition activities that may expose construction workers
and /or the public to ACMs and /or LBP shall be conducted in
accordance with applicable regulations, including, but not limited
to Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Subchapter
R (Toxic Substances Control Act); CalOSHA regulations (Title 8 of
the California Code of Regulations §1529 [Asbestos] and §1532.1
[Lead]); and SCAQMD Rule 1403 (Asbestos Emissions from
Demolition /Renovation Activities). The requirement to adhere to all
applicable regulations shall be included in the contractor
specifications, and such inclusion shall be verified by the Director
of Community Development prior to issuance of the first grading
permit.
MM 4.5 -1 A comprehensive final Remedial Action Plan (final RAP) shall be
submitted to and approved by the Orange County Health Care
Agency ( OCHCA) and the Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB) and initiated for the oilfield clean -up and remediation
prior to the issuance of the first City- issued permit that would allow
for site disturbance unrelated to oil remediation activities. The
Applicant shall follow the protocol for the OCHCA Industrial
Cleanup Program to develop the site - specific final RAP. The final
RAP shall use the draft Remedial Action Plan (dRAP) and the
existing clean -up levels that have been in effect since 2001 as the
basis of the final RAP consistent with OCHCA requirements. The
final RAP shall (1) incorporate the remediation methods to be
employed that are described in the dRAP; (2) propose the clean-
up criteria for specific areas of the Project site depending upon the
land uses for those areas; and (3) provide additional details such
38 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
as the location of on -site areas for bioremediation. The final RAP
shall also require compliance with Orange County Fire Authority
Guideline C -03 Combustible Soil Gas Hazard Mitigation.
The clean up criteria shall be approved by the OCHCA as a part of
final RAP subject to the review and approval of the RWQCB. The
final RAP shall describe the means by which those clean -up
standards shall be met per the remediation methods described in
the dRAP. Methods described in the dRAP include the use of
natural bio- remediation of soils on site; reuse and recycling of
treated soils where and when feasible; and removal and recycling
of materials such as concrete, gravel, and asphalt -like road
materials.
Oil and gas wells to be abandoned or re- abandoned shall be done
so in accordance with the current requirements of the California
Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal
Resources ( DOGGR). Documentation of final abandonment
approval from the DOGGR shall be provided to the Orange
County Fire Authority and the City of Newport Beach Community
Development Department, Building Division, before issuance of
the first certificate of occupancy.
(2) Potential Impact: There would be a less than significant impact to the existing
schools within '/a -mile of the Project site and /or from off -site haul
routes during on -site remedial activities and proposed Project
construction. There would be no impact to existing schools within
/ -mile of the Project site from proposed Project operations as
continued oil operations are proposed to be limited to two
consolidated oil facilities located along the southwestern portion of
the Project site.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this potentially
significant impact is Less Than Significant as a result of the implementation of PDF
4.5 -1 (set forth above) and SC 4.5 -2 (set forth below). No mitigation measures were
required or recommended.
Facts in Support of Finding: Off -site transport of impacted materials is planned to
be minimized as part of the overall remedial approach. However, when implemented,
haul routes may be within'/ mile of identified schools or other schools between the
Project site and the disposal location, an accident or upset condition during handling
and transport could result in the release of contaminated soils into the surrounding
environment. As described in SC 4.5 -2, any contaminated soils or other hazardous
materials removed from the Project site shall be transported only by a Licensed
Hazardous Waste Hauler in compliance with all applicable State and federal
requirements. Hazardous materials are routinely transported through Southern
California, in compliance with State and federal requirements, and accidents and /or
releases are quite rare. There would be a less than significant impact related to
transport of soils within '/ mile of existing schools.
SC 4.5 -2 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall submit
documentation in a form and of a content determined by the
Director of Community Development that any hazardous
39 Exhibit B
Newport Banning, Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
contaminated soils or other hazardous materials removed from the
project site shall be transported only by a Licensed Hazardous
Waste Hauler to approved hazardous materials disposal site, who
shall be in compliance with all applicable State and federal
requirements, including the U.S. Department of Transportation
regulations under 49 CFR (Hazardous Materials Transportation
Act), California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
standards, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
standards, and under 40 CFR 263 (Subtitle C of Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act). The Director of Community
Development shall verify that only Licensed Haulers who are
operating in compliance with regulatory requirements are used to
haul hazardous materials.
F. Bioloqical Resources
(1) Potential Impact: The Project would have direct and indirect impacts on habitat and
special status species associated with oilfield remediation, grading, construction, and
long -term use of the Project site. Grading activities could impact several sensitive natural
communities on the Project site.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this potentially
significant impact is Less Than Significant as a result of the implementation of PDFs
4.6 -1 through 4.6 -3, and MMs 4.6 -1 through 4.6 -16 (set forth below).
Facts in Support of Finding: Approximately 236.32 acres of native and non - native
vegetation types and other areas would be impacted by the proposed Project.
Permanent Project impacts (approximately 205.83 acres) would occur in areas of the
proposed for parks, recreation, residences, the resort inn, commercial uses,
roadways; public trails; and utility infrastructure including the consolidated oil sites,
access roads, landscape buffers, fuel modification areas, and water quality basins.
Temporary Project impacts (approximately 30.49 acres) would occur in areas that
are mapped as Open Space (i.e., existing oil operation roads, bluff repair, oilfield
remediation, and the vernal pool interpretative areas). This includes approximately
22.17 acres from non - remediation activities and approximately 8.32 acres from
remediation activities. These impacts are considered temporary because the areas
would be restored as part of the Project.
Construction activities for oilfield remediation would result in the loss of
approximately 38.70 acres of native habitat (coastal sage scrub, disturbed coastal
sage scrub, grassland depression features, marshes and mudflats, riparian
scrub /forest, disturbed riparian scrub /forest, and cliff) that provide valuable nesting,
foraging, roosting, and denning opportunities for a wide variety of wildlife species. In
addition, implementation of the proposed Project would result in the loss of
approximately 197.62 acres of non - native habitat or non - habitat cover types (non-
native grassland, non - native grassland /ruderal, ruderal, giant reed, ornamental,
disturbed, and disturbed /developed) that provide tower- quality or no wildlife habitat.
The Project would impact substantially more non - native /disturbed or non - habitat
types (84 percent) compared to native habitat types (16 percent). However, some of
these non- native habitats may provide nesting, foraging, roosting, and denning
opportunities for some species.
40 Exhibit 8
Newport Banning. Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overridino Considerations
Removing or altering habitats on the Project site would result in the loss of small
mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and other slow- moving animals that live within the
Project's direct impact area. More mobile wildlife species that are now using the
Project site would be forced to move into the remaining areas of open space, which
would consequently increase competition for available resources in those areas. This
situation would result in the loss of individuals that cannot successfully compete.
Habitat. The Project would result in impacts to approximately 236.32 acres of non-
native and native habitats that provide low to high value habitat for a suite of both
common and special status species. Of the 236.32 acres impacted, approximately
97.49 acres contain ornamental, disturbed, and disturbed /developed areas that
provide low value wildlife habitat. These impacts are considered adverse but not
significant in terms of habitat loss for general wildlife species on a regional basis.
The loss of wildlife habitat would not be expected to reduce wildlife populations
below self- sustaining levels in the region.
Prior to the consideration of mitigation, the Project would contribute to the historical
loss of habitats in the coastal areas of the region and may contribute to local
extirpation of some wildlife species from the Project site. Unmitigated impacts to
habitats in the coastal area would be considered significant. With implementation of
MM 4.6 -1 (Coastal Sage Scrub Habitat Preservation and Restoration), MM 4.6 -2
(Grassland Habitat Preservation and Restoration), MM 4.6 -3 (Grassland Depression
Feature and Fairy Shrimp Habitat Preservation and Restoration), MM 4.6 -4 (Marsh
Habitat Preservation and Restoration), and MM 4.6 -5 (Jurisdictional
Resources /Riparian Habitat Preservation and Restoration), this impact would be
reduced to a less than significant level.
Special Status Plants. Four special status plant species were observed during the
surveys: southern tarplant (CNPS List 1 B.1), southwestern spiny rush (CNPS List
4.2), California box -thorn (CNPS List 4.2), and woolly seablite (CNPS List 4.2).
Implementation of MM 4.6 -7, which requires implementation of a southern tarplant
restoration program, would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. The
southwestern spiny rush and woolly seablite would be temporarily impacted during
oilfield remediation activities and could be impacted. At this time, it is unknown
whether all southwestern spiny rush and woolly seablite could be avoided during the
remediation activities. All these species are CNPS List 4 species. CNPS List 4
species are "Plants of Limited Distribution — A Watch List ", and impacts on these
species are not typically considered significant by lead agencies. Project impacts are
not expected to have a substantial adverse effect on these species, and no
mitigation is required
San Diego Fairy Shrimp. San Diego fairy shrimp was observed on the Project site
during surveys. The Project result in permanent impacts to 0.173 acre of habitat
occupied by San Diego fairy shrimp and temporarily impact 0.06 acre of vernal pool
habitat through pipelines removal activities. Combined permanent and temporary
impacts to San Diego fairy shrimp habitat (0.24 acre) is considered significant
because the loss of this resource would represent a substantial adverse effect to this
species distribution in the region.
These impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level through the
development and implementation of a 3.58 -acre vernal pool conservation /restoration
area that supports the San Diego fairy shrimp (MM 4.6 -3). The Project proposes to
41 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overridino Considerations
also set aside an additional 1.73 -acre upland area north and west of the 1.85 -acre
vernal pool conservation area which would be used for future enhancement to
expand the vernal pool conservation area to total 3.58 acres. Expansion of the
watershed by 1.73 acres would increase hydrological input by creating hydrological
conditions for additional pools, which would promote more and higher quality habitat.
Birds. Potentially suitable foraging and /or nesting habitat for light- footed clapper rail,
western snowy plover, Belding's savannah sparrow, and tricolored blackbird is
present primarily in the salt and freshwater marsh areas on the Project site, and
these species may occur. The Project site provides only potentially suitable foraging
habitat for the long- billed curlew and large- billed savannah sparrow. Of these
species with potential to occur, only the Belding's savannah sparrow may nest on the
Project site. Permanent Project impacts on foraging and /or nesting habitat is
expected to be limited, and the habitat for these species, except the tricolored
blackbird, would remain as open space following oilfield remediation activities.
MMs 4.6 -4 and 4.6 -8 would reduce the potential impact on these species to a less
than significant level. These measures require the restoration and /or preservation of
approximately 9.90 acres of marsh habitat either on site or immediately off site and
avoidance measures during construction. PDFs 4.6 -1 through 4.6 -4 require the
designation and methodology of habitat restoration /preservation and indirect effect
minimization measures which would provide conservation and avoidance value to
the marsh areas and associated wildlife species.
In total, 17 territories (16 pairs and 1 solitary male) of the federally listed Threatened
coastal California gnatcatcher have been observed on the Project site (2009
surveys). Revegetation following oilfield remediation activities has the potential to
result in higher long -term habitat quality (i.e., invasive species removed, human
activity and disturbance related to oilfield operations removed, and larger blocks of
contiguous native habitat) available for this species in the open space area.
However, Project impacts on this species are significant because of the location and
size of the impacted population. MMs 4.6 -1 and 4.6 -9 require the on -site or off -site
restoration of 47.75 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat at a ratio of 3:1 for coastal
sage scrub (including disturbed southern coastal bluff scrub) and 1:1 for disturbed
coastal sage scrub (excluding disturbed southern coastal bluff scrub). In addition,
approximately 35.16 acres of coastal sage scrub or disturbed coastal sage scrub
would be preserved on site. Mitigation includes the required approval from the
USFWS to impact the species, and construction avoidance measures to minimize
the impacts to the greatest extent practicable. PDFs 4.6 -1 through 4.6 -4 require the
designation and methodology of habitat restoration /preservation and indirect effect
minimization measures, which would provide conservation and avoidance value to
the coastal sage scrub and associated wildlife species, including, but not limited to
the coastal California gnatcatcher.
Two coastal cactus wren territories were observed during 2009 focused surveys for
coastal California gnatcatcher. The proposed Project would impact approximately
2.92 acres (2.59 acres permanent, 0.33 acre temporary) of southern cactus scrub,
southern cactus scrub /Encelia scrub, disturbed southern cactus scrub, and disturbed
southern cactus scrub /Encelia scrub. Impacts on this species would be significant.
MMs 4.6 -1 and 4.6 -10 require the restoration of coastal sage scrub dominated by
native cactus species habitat at a ratio of no less that 1:1 and construction avoidance
measures to minimize the impacts to the greatest extent practicable. In addition,
approximately 35.16 acres of coastal sage scrub would be preserved on site (MM
42 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
4.6 -1). PDFs 4.6 -1 through 4.6 -4 require the designation and methodology of habitat
restoration /preservation and indirect effect minimization measures, which would
provide conservation and avoidance value to the cacti - dominated coastal sage scrub
and associated wildlife species, including, but not limited to the cactus wren.
Two least Bell's vireo territories (both solitary males) were observed during the 2009
focused surveys. The Project would impact approximately 2.74 acres (1.45 acres
permanent, 1.29 acres temporary) of undisturbed and disturbed willow riparian scrub
and willow riparian forest habitats. The permanent Project impacts on this species'
habitat is expected to be limited, and most of the habitat for this species would
remain as open space following oilfield remediation activities; these activities could
temporarily impact riparian habitats used by this species. Revegetation following
oilfield remediation activities would result in a higher long -term habitat quality. MMs
4.6 -5 and 4.6 -11 require the on -site or off -site restoration of riparian habitat at a ratio
from 3:1 to 1:1 depending on the habitat value impacted. The Project also requires
approval from the USFWS to impact the species and its habitat. In addition, the
Project would preserve approximately 23.03 acres of riparian habitats. MM 4.6 -1 and
PDFs 4.6 -1 through 4.6 -4 are applicable.
Suitable foraging and nesting habitat is present on the Project site for the burrowing
owl; it is only expected to winter on the Project site. Two owls were observed
wintering in 2008, and one owl was observed wintering in 2009 and 2010. The
Project would impact approximately 100.13 acres (97.26 acres permanent, 2.87
acres temporary) of grasslands and ruderal habitat on the Project site. Impacts on
occupied and potential habitat for this species would be considered significant.
MMs 4.6 -2 and 4.6 -12 require the restoration of grassland habitat at a ratio of 0.5:1
(approximately 50.07 acres). In addition, the Project would preserve approximately
20.27 acres of grassland areas and include construction avoidance measures to
minimize grassland impacts to the greatest extent practicable. PDFs 4.6 -1 through
4.6 -4 are also applicable.
Suitable foraging habitat is present for a variety of raptor species including Cooper's
hawk, sharp- shinned hawk, ferruginous hawk, northern harrier, white - tailed kite,
merlin, prairie falcon, American peregrine falcon, and short-eared owl. There is
foraging habitat for the osprey adjacent to the Project site within the USACE salt
marsh restoration site and the Santa Ana River. The permanent loss of
approximately 124.83 acres of foraging habitat for these raptor species would
contribute to the ongoing regional and local loss of foraging habitat; this impact is
significant. Revegetation following oilfield remediation activities would result in
higher - quality habitat. MMs 4.6 -1, 4.6 -2, 4.6 -4, and 4.6 -5 require the restoration of
coastal sage scrub, grassland habitat, marsh habitat, and riparian areas at a ratio
from 0.5:1 to 3:1 for approximately 119.56 acres of restoration. In addition, the
Project would preserve approximately 85.97 acres of additional habitat on site.
PDFs 4.6 -1 through 4.6 -4 are also applicable.
Cooper's hawk, northern harrier, and white - tailed kite have the potential to nest on
the Project site. The loss of any active raptor nest would be considered significant.
Impacts on active raptor nests would be reduced to less than significant levels with
implementation of MM 4.6 -13, which provides for construction avoidance measures
to minimize the impact to the greatest extent practicable. Nesting birds are protected
under the provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and are identified by
the List of Migratory Birds (50 CFR 10.13). Suitable habitat for birds protected by the
43 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
MBTA occurs throughout the Project site. Impacts on active nests would be reduced
to a less than significant level with the implementation of MM 4.6 -6, which
establishes protocols for vegetation removal during the migratory bird nesting
season.
Mammals. Suitable or potentially suitable foraging habitat is present for the pallid
bat, hoary bat, western yellow bat, pocketed free - tailed bat, and big free - tailed bat.
Hoary bat, pocketed free - tailed bat, and big free - tailed bat also have potential to
roost on the Project site. The permanent loss of approximately 124.86 acres of
foraging and roosting habitat for these bat species would contribute to the ongoing
regional and local loss of foraging and roosting habitat; this impact is significant.
Revegetation following oilfield remediation activities would result in a higher - quality
habitat. MMs 4.6 -1, 4.6 -2, 4.6 -4, and 4.6 -5 require the restoration of coastal sage
scrub, grassland habitat, marsh habitat, and riparian areas at a ratio from 0.5:1 to 3:1
(for approximately 119.56 acres of restoration). In addition, the Project would
preserve approximately 85.97 acres of additional habitat on site. PDFs 4.6 -1 through
4.6 -4 are also applicable.
Indirect Impacts. Indirect impacts are impacts related to, disturbance from
construction (such as noise, dust, and urban pollutants), and long -term use of the
Project site and its effect on the adjacent habitat areas. Bluff Road traffic noise
impacts are considered significant. MMs 4.6 -1, 4.6 -2, 4.6 -4 through 4.6 -6, and 4.6 -8
through 4.6 -13 would reduce this impact to a less than significant level by increasing
the biological value of the site for wildlife species. Short -term construction impacts to
active least Bell's vireo nests are considered potentially significant. MM 4.6 -11 would
reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
Seeds from invasive species may escape to natural areas and degrade the native
vegetation. Since the Project contains open space that includes high habitat value,
this impact is significant. MM 4.6 -14 requires monitoring in the oilfield remediation
areas and prohibits invasive, exotic plant species to be planted within the areas
adjacent to open space to reduce these impacts to less than significant.
Impacts on biological resources in the area could occur as a result of changes in
water quality. Adverse water quality effects during construction or operation of the
Project could (1) affect populations of insects, tadpoles, and other aquatic prey,
which would affect food web interactions related to species that forage in aquatic or
riparian areas or (2) cause adverse effects through biomagnification (i.e., the buildup
of pesticides to toxic levels in higher trophic levels). The Project Design Features and
Standard Conditions identified in Hydrology and Water Quality would preclude
significant water quality impacts.
Lighting could inadvertently result in an indirect impact on the behavioral patterns of
nocturnal and crepuscular (i.e., active at dawn and dusk) wildlife remaining in the
lowland or adjacent areas such as in the USACE salt marsh restoration site or along
the Santa Ana River. Wildlife present in these areas may already be somewhat
acclimated to current lighting associated with traffic from the adjacent roadways. The
Project would introduce new sources of ambient light on the Project site, which could
affect small, ground - dwelling animals that use the darkness to hide from predators,
owls, and other specialized night foragers and wildlife that primarily move at night. As
a part of the Project, no permanent night lighting would be permitted within the Open
Space Preserve with the exception of safety lighting in the two Oil Consolidation
44
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
sites. A "dark sky" lighting concept will be implemented within most areas that adjoin
habitat areas. PDF 4.6 -4, the Project would restrict exterior house lighting to
minimize light spillage into adjacent habitat areas.
Human activity in the Lowland would be limited to the trails; however, the overall
increase in human activity across the entire Project site could be potentially
significant. MM 4.6 -15 requires a fencing and signage plan. Development and park
uses built adjacent to natural open space, particularly near the lowland, may create
urban- wildlands interface issues. These urban - wildlands interface impacts are
significant. MM 4.6 -16 requires development and implementation of an urban -
wildlands interface brochure and public education program to reduce this impact to a
less than significant level.
During remediation and construction, the dust within the development footprint and
adjacent areas is expected to increase. The removal of the roads and vehicular
traffic associated with oilfield activities and subsequent revegetation of the Lowland
with native habitat may result in an increased habitat value. This would be
considered a potentially beneficial operational impact of the proposed Project.
As noted in PDF 4.6 -1, the Project would preserve and enhance approximately 220
acres of native habitat. The Project would also provide approximately 51.4 gross
(42.1 net) acres for active and passive park uses. Community landscaping
improvements for streets, parks, common areas, open space areas, and habitat
areas would be enhanced, restored, and improved with major supplemental plantings
that would increase the biomass of Newport Banning Ranch, providing for on -site
carbon sequestration. This would be a beneficial impact for GHG emissions.
PDF 4.6 -1 The Master Development Plan designates a minimum of 220
gross acres of the Project site as wetland restoration /water quality
areas, habitat conservation, and restoration mitigation areas.
PDF 4.6 -2 The Master Development Plan includes a Habitat Restoration Plan
(HRP) for the Habitat Areas. The HRP includes provisions for the
preservation and long —term maintenance of existing sensitive
habitat and habitat created and restored by the Project.
PDF 4.6 -3 As identified in the Master Development Plan, the Habitat Areas to
be restored as project design features will be subject to the same
five -year Maintenance and Monitoring Program implemented for
areas restored as mitigation. Standard Vegetation Monitoring
Procedures are outlined in the Biological Technical Report
prepared for the EIR and will be implemented consistent with
applicable regulatory requirements.
PDF 4.6 -4 The Master Development Plan requires that street lights be
utilized only in key intersections and safety areas. The Planned
Community Development Plan requires that a "dark sky" lighting
concept be implemented within areas of the Project that adjoin
habitat areas. Light fixtures within these areas will be designed for
"dark sky" applications and adjusted to direct /reflect light
downward and away from adjacent habitat areas. The Newport
Banning Ranch Planned Community Development Plan will
45 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
restrict exterior house lighting to minimize light spillage into
adjacent habitat areas.
MM 4.6 -1 Coastal Sage Scrub Habitat Preservation and Restoration.
Permanent impacts on coastal sage scrub vegetation (including
disturbed southern coastal bluff scrub) (12.32 acres) shall be
mitigated at a 3:1 ratio (36.96 acres) on the Project site or off site
(nearby) through the restoration of southern coastal bluff scrub
and California sagebrush scrub. Permanent impacts on disturbed
coastal sage scrub vegetation (excluding disturbed southern
coastal bluff scrub) (8.21 acres) shall be mitigated at a 1:1 ratio
(8.21 acres) elsewhere on the Project site or off site. In addition,
temporary impacts (2.58 acres) to coastal sage scrub and
disturbed coastal sage scrub vegetation types shall be mitigated
by revegetation with locally occurring native coastal sage scrub
species following remediation at a 1:1 ratio. The required
restoration is summarized in Table A. In addition to restoration,
the Project shall preserve 35.16 acres of coastal sage scrub on
site. Coastal sage scrub restoration and preservation on site
would total 82.91 acres.
TABLE A
REQUIRED COASTAL SAGE SCRUB RESTORATION
The Applicant shall be required to plan, implement, monitor, and
maintain a coastal sage scrub revegetation program for the
Project consistent with the most current technical
standards /knowledge regarding coastal sage scrub restoration.
Prior to issuance of the first permit that would allow for site
disturbance (e.g., grading permit), a detailed restoration program
shall be prepared by a qualified Biologist and approved by the City
of Newport Beach (City) and the resource agencies (i.e., the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] and the California Coastal
Commission). The program shall include, at a minimum, the items
listed below.
46
Restoration
Impact
Ratio
Required
(Acres)
Required
(Acres)
Permanent Impact
Coastal Sage Scrub (including disturbed
1.2.32
3:1
36.96
southern coastal bluff scrub)
Disturbed Coastal Sage Scrub (excluding
8.21
1:1
8.21
disturbed southern coastal bluff scrub)
Temporary Impact
Coastal Sage Scrub (including disturbed
1.92
1:1
1.92
southern coastal bluff scrub)
Disturbed Coastal Sage Scrub (excluding
0.66
1:1
0.66
disturbed southern coastal bluff scrub)
Total
23.11
47.75
The Applicant shall be required to plan, implement, monitor, and
maintain a coastal sage scrub revegetation program for the
Project consistent with the most current technical
standards /knowledge regarding coastal sage scrub restoration.
Prior to issuance of the first permit that would allow for site
disturbance (e.g., grading permit), a detailed restoration program
shall be prepared by a qualified Biologist and approved by the City
of Newport Beach (City) and the resource agencies (i.e., the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] and the California Coastal
Commission). The program shall include, at a minimum, the items
listed below.
46
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
1. Responsibilities and qualifications of the personnel to
implement and supervise the plan. The responsibilities of
the landowner, specialists, and maintenance personnel that
would supervise and implement the plan shall be specified.
2. Site selection. The mitigation site shall be determined in
coordination with the City and the resource agencies. The site
shall either be located on the Project site in a dedicated open
space area or land shall be purchased /obtained immediately
off site. Selected sites shall not result in the removal of a
biologically valuable resource (i.e., native grassland).
3. Site preparation and planting implementation. Site
preparation shall include (a) protection of existing native
species; (b) trash and weed removal; (c) native species
salvage and reuse (i.e., duff); (d) soil treatments (i.e.,
imprinting, decompacting); (e) temporary irrigation installation;
(f) erosion- control measures (i.e., rice or willow wattles);
(g) seed mix application; and (h) container species planting.
Locally occurring native plants and seeds shall be used and
shall include species present on site, in adjacent areas, and
uncommon species known to occur on site such as California
box -thorn and woolly seablite.
4. Schedule. A schedule shall be developed that includes
planting to occur in late fall and early winter (i.e., between
October 1 and January 30).
5. Maintenance plan /guidelines. The maintenance plan shall
include (a) weed control; (b) herbivory control; (c) trash
removal; (d) irrigation system maintenance; (e) maintenance
training; and (f) replacement planting. The maintenance plan
shall also include biological monitoring during maintenance
activities if they occur during the gnatcatcher breeding season
(February 15 to July 15).
6. Monitoring plan. The coastal sage scrub monitoring plan
shall include (a) qualitative monitoring (i.e., photographs and
general observations); (b) quantitative monitoring (i.e.,
randomly placed transects, wildlife monitoring);
(c) performance criteria as approved by the resource
agencies; (d) monthly reports for the first year and reports
every other month thereafter; and (e) annual reports for five
years, which shall be submitted to the resource agencies. The
site shall be monitored and maintained for five years to ensure
successful sage scrub habitat establishment within the
restored and created areas.
7. Long -term preservation. Long -term preservation of the site
shall also be outlined in the conceptual mitigation plan to
ensure the mitigation site is not impacted by future
development.
The Applicant shall begin coastal sage scrub restoration
activities (e.g., soil prep, seeding) no later than one year after
issuance of the first permit that allows for ground disturbance
47 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
(e.g., grading permit). The Applicant shall be fully responsible
for implementing the coastal sage scrub revegetation program
until the restoration areas have met the success criteria
outlined in the program. The City and the resource agencies
(i.e., the USFWS and the California Coastal Commission) shall
have final authority over mitigation area sign -off).
The Natural Communities Conservation Plan /Habitat
Conservation Plan (NCCP /HCP) program does not authorize
Incidental Take resulting from the conversion of habitat
occupied by coastal California gnatcatchers in Existing Use
Areas. Therefore, the Applicant has elected to seek a Take
Authorization through Section 7 of the FESA. Prior to issuance
of the first permit that would allow for site disturbance (e.g.,
grading permit), the Applicant shall provide, a Biological
Opinion issued from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) to the City that authorizes the removal of coastal
sage scrub (i.e., coastal California gnatcatcher habitat). It is
anticipated that the USFWS Biological Opinion will contain
conservation recommendations to avoid or reduce the Project
impact. Although any additional conservation measures
identified by the USFWS shall be enforced, at a minimum, the
Construction Minimization Measures listed below also shall be
followed.
1. Prior to the commencement of clearing operations or other
activities involving significant soil disturbance, all areas of
coastal sage scrub habitat to be avoided shall be identified
with temporary fencing or other markers that are clearly
visible to construction personnel.
2. A USFWS- approved Biological Monitor shall be on site
during any clearing of coastal sage scrub. The Applicant
shall advise the USFWS at least 7 calendar days —but
preferably 14 calendar days —prior to the clearing of
coastal sage scrub. The Biological Monitor shall flush avian
or other mobile species from habitat areas immediately
prior to brush - clearing and earth- moving activities. It shall
be the responsibility of the Monitoring Biologist to ensure
that identified bird species are not directly impacted by
brush - clearing and earth- moving equipment in a manner
that also allows for construction activities to continue on a
timely basis.
3. Following the completion of initial clearing activities, all
areas of coastal sage scrub habitat to be avoided by
construction equipment and personnel shall be marked
with temporary fencing or other clearly visible, appropriate
markers. No construction access, parking, or equipment
storage shall be permitted within such marked areas.
The combined restoration and preservation of 82.91 acres of
coastal sage scrub would result in a net increase in habitat by
24.64 acres.
48 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
MM 4.6 -2 Grassland Habitat Preservation and Restoration. Permanent
impacts on non - native grassland and ruderal vegetation (100.13
acres) shall be mitigated at a 0.7:1 ratio through on -site or off -site
restoration and preservation. These permanent impacts to non-
native grassland and ruderal vegetation shall be mitigated by the
restoration of 48.63 acres (0.5:1) of grassland and alkali meadow
within both the upland and lowland portions of the Project site as
summarized in Table B and may include native grassland areas
within Fuel Modification Zone C. Temporary impacts (2.87 acres)
shall be mitigated by native grassland or alkali meadow
revegetation following remediation at a 0.5:1 ratio (1.44 acres). An
additional 20.27 acres of grassland habitat shall be preserved on
site. The grassland restoration and preservation would total 70.34
acres.
TABLE B
REQUIRED GRASSLAND RESTORATION
The Applicant shall begin grassland restoration activities (e.g., soil
prep, seeding) no later than one year after issuance of the first
grading permit. The Applicant shall be required to plan,
implement, monitor, and maintain a native grassland
preservation /restoration program for the Project. A grassland
preservation/ restoration program shall be (1) developed by a
qualified Biologist; (2) submitted for review and approval to the
City of Newport Beach (City) prior to the first permit that would
allow for site disturbance (e.g., grading permit); and (3) shall be
implemented by a qualified Biologist. The grassland mitigation
plan shall also provide mitigation for the loss of raptor foraging
and burrowing owl habitat; therefore, site selection measures shall
include considerations that influence the site's suitability for
burrowing owl and other raptor species. Restoration shall consist
of seeding with appropriate
appropriate, incorporating seeds
plant species (southern tarplant)
Project. A detailed restoration pro
items:
49
needlegrass species and, if
collected from special status
that may be impacted by the
gram shall contain the following
Restoration
Impact
Ratio
Required
(Acres)
Required
(Acres)
Permanent Impact
Non - Native
Grassland and
97.26
0.5:1
48.63
Ruderal
Temporary Impact
Non- Native
Grassland and
2.87
0.5:1
1.44
Ruderal
Total
100.13
50.07
The Applicant shall begin grassland restoration activities (e.g., soil
prep, seeding) no later than one year after issuance of the first
grading permit. The Applicant shall be required to plan,
implement, monitor, and maintain a native grassland
preservation /restoration program for the Project. A grassland
preservation/ restoration program shall be (1) developed by a
qualified Biologist; (2) submitted for review and approval to the
City of Newport Beach (City) prior to the first permit that would
allow for site disturbance (e.g., grading permit); and (3) shall be
implemented by a qualified Biologist. The grassland mitigation
plan shall also provide mitigation for the loss of raptor foraging
and burrowing owl habitat; therefore, site selection measures shall
include considerations that influence the site's suitability for
burrowing owl and other raptor species. Restoration shall consist
of seeding with appropriate
appropriate, incorporating seeds
plant species (southern tarplant)
Project. A detailed restoration pro
items:
49
needlegrass species and, if
collected from special status
that may be impacted by the
gram shall contain the following
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
1. Responsibilities and qualifications of the personnel to
implement and supervise the plan. The responsibilities of
the Applicant, specialists, and maintenance personnel that
would supervise and implement the plan shall be specified.
2. Site selection. The mitigation site shall be determined in
coordination with the City and a qualified Biologist
knowledgeable about native grassland restoration, raptors,
and the burrowing owl. The site shall either be located on the
Project site in a dedicated open space area, or suitable
adjacent off -site open space shall be purchased /obtained. The
mitigation shall occur entirely in one to two locations to provide
the maximum habitat value for the raptors, burrowing owls,
and other wildlife species that require contiguous blocks of
open habitat types. The site(s) shall consist of level or gently
sloping terrain, soil types, and microhabitat conditions suitable
for occupation by raptors and burrowing owl, as determined by
a qualified Biologist.
3. Site preparation and planting implementation. Site
preparation shall include (a) protection of existing native
species; (b) trash and weed removal; (c) native species
salvage and reuse (i.e., duff); (d) soil treatments (i.e.,
imprinting, decompacting); (e) temporary irrigation installation;
(f) erosion - control measures (i.e., rice or willow wattles); (g)
Seed mix application; and (h) container species installation. If
mammal burrows are limited on the mitigation site(s), the
qualified Biologist shall recommend creation of artificial
burrows suitable for occupation by the burrowing owl. The
burrows shall be constructed using standard specifications
established for the owl. Depending on the topography of the
site(s) and the availability of natural perches, the qualified
Biologist shall make recommendations regarding whether
additional perching sites (e.g., large rocks) shall be placed on
the mitigation site(s).
4. Schedule. A schedule shall be developed that includes
planting to occur in late fall and early winter (i.e., between
October 1 and January 30).
5. Maintenance plan /guidelines. The maintenance plan shall
include (a) weed control; (b) herbivory control; (c) trash
removal; (d) irrigation system maintenance; (e) maintenance
training; and (f) replacement planting. The maintenance plan
shall also include biological monitoring during maintenance
activities if they occur during the burrowing owl /raptor breeding
season (February 1 to August 31).
6. Monitoring plan. The monitoring plan shall include (a)
qualitative monitoring (i.e., photographs and general
observations); (b) quantitative monitoring (i.e., randomly
placed transects); (c) performance criteria, as approved by the
resource agencies; (d) monthly reports for the first year and
reports every other month thereafter; and (e) annual reports
Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
for five years, which shall be submitted to the resource
agencies. The grassland mitigation site shall be monitored and
maintained for five years to ensure successful establishment
of native grassland habitat within the restored and created
areas. The performance criteria shall take into consideration
the habitat requirements for burrowing owl, particularly that
they occur in grasslands with openings or lower vegetation
coverage; thus, the performance criteria shall include a
requirement for openings or a lower percent cover for portions
of the mitigation site.
7. Long -term preservation. Long -term preservation of the site
shall also be outlined in the conceptual grassland mitigation
plan to ensure the mitigation site is not impacted by future
development.
The Project would result in the restoration of 50.07 acres of native
grassland and alkali meadow and preservation of 20.27 acres of
non - native grassland areas, for a total of 70.34 acres. Because
the value of habitat to be replaced (native grassland and alkali
meadow) is higher than those habitat values impacted by the
Project, a less than 1:1 mitigation ratio is deemed adequate to
compensate for the loss of non- native grassland areas.
MM 4.6 -3 Grassland Depression Feature and Fairy Shrimp Habitat
Preservation and Restoration. Grassland Depression Feature
Habitat Preservation and Restoration.
The proposed Project is designed to protect the two areas
previously described as vernal pools that are occupied by San
Diego fairy shrimp. The proposed Project would permanently
impact 0.07 acre of ephemeral pool and 0.06 acre of vernal pool
habitat in order to remediate the soil and remove the pipelines in
these areas. Once the remediation and pipeline removal are
completed, the vernal pool areas would be restored and protected.
Because oilfield pipelines are located on top of the soil surface in
the pooled areas, their removal would be conducted with the
minimum possible soil disturbance and would occur outside the
rainy season to reduce direct impacts to this species. However,
pipe removal activities would disrupt the soils within the vernal
pools in which the San Diego fairy shrimp has been observed and
which potentially contain fairy shrimp cysts. Therefore, these pipe
removal activities would be considered a potentially significant
temporary impact. This impact would be mitigated through
preservation and restoration of a 3.58 -acre conservation area.
This includes enlarging and protecting the pools watershed.
During Project grading, a small area of the surrounding upland
portion of the watershed would be impacted, but the Project
proposes to replace this portion of the watershed so that the
protected pools and 1.49 acre of contributing watershed would be
permanently protected within a 1.85 -acre vernal pool conservation
area. Remediation, restoration and permanent protection of the
two pools and protection of its watershed would ensure that
Exhibit 6
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Project impacts to these two pools are less than significant. In
addition, the Project has identified an additional 1.73 acres of
upland area, adjacent to the 1.85 -acre area, which would be
available for future vernal pool creation, restoration, and /or
enhancement. If this additional area is restored, a total vernal pool
conservation area of 3.58 acres would be provided by the Project
(Table C).
TABLE C
REQUIRED VERNAL POOL PRESERVATION /RESTORATION
Expansion of the watershed by 1.73 acres would increase
hydrological input by creating hydrological conditions for additional
pools, which would promote more and higher quality habitat
created as mitigation for Features E, G, I, and J, which support the
San Diego fairy shrimp.
Restoration of the pool areas, by removing mule fat and non-
native species, would restore the pools to characteristic vernal
pool habitat, as vernal pools do not typically support woody
vegetation such as mule fat. The restoration program would also
provide increased wildlife habitat function for migratory birds that
use the pools as a migration stopover, and the increased
watershed area would be planted with native alkali meadow or
native upland grasses favorable for raptor foraging and would be
"counted" toward the approximately 50 acres of grassland habitat.
Impacts to San Diego fairy shrimp detected in Features E and G,
which are to be remediated as part of the oilfield clean up and
remediation, shall be mitigated by testing the soils, and if the soils
are not contaminated to the degree requiring environmental
remediation, they shall be removed and relocated to the vernal
pool conservation area at a ratio of 1:1. Soils shall also be
Exhibit B
VP1, VP2,
Upland Area
Total
and Upland
Vernal Pool
Preservation/
Temporary
Permanent.
Total
Watershed
Enhancement
Enhancement'
Feature
Impact
Impact
Impact
Preservation
Area
Areas
VP1
0.06
0.00
0.06
VP2
0.00
0.00
0.00
FeatureAD3
0.00
'0.007
0.007
Total for VP1,
0.06
0.007
0.067
1.85
VP2, and AD 3
5
Features E and
G (oilfield
0
0.053
0.053
sumps)
Features I and
0
0.12
0.12
J (grasslands)
Total for E, G,
0.173
0.173
1.73
I, and J
Total San Diego Fairy Shrimp Habitat
0.24
3.58
Impacts
Expansion of the watershed by 1.73 acres would increase
hydrological input by creating hydrological conditions for additional
pools, which would promote more and higher quality habitat
created as mitigation for Features E, G, I, and J, which support the
San Diego fairy shrimp.
Restoration of the pool areas, by removing mule fat and non-
native species, would restore the pools to characteristic vernal
pool habitat, as vernal pools do not typically support woody
vegetation such as mule fat. The restoration program would also
provide increased wildlife habitat function for migratory birds that
use the pools as a migration stopover, and the increased
watershed area would be planted with native alkali meadow or
native upland grasses favorable for raptor foraging and would be
"counted" toward the approximately 50 acres of grassland habitat.
Impacts to San Diego fairy shrimp detected in Features E and G,
which are to be remediated as part of the oilfield clean up and
remediation, shall be mitigated by testing the soils, and if the soils
are not contaminated to the degree requiring environmental
remediation, they shall be removed and relocated to the vernal
pool conservation area at a ratio of 1:1. Soils shall also be
Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
removed and relocated within features I and J.' All mitigation shall
occur within the 1.73 acres that have been set aside along with
the 1.85 -acre conservation area to provide a 3.58 -acre vernal pool
conservation area.
The Applicant shall be required to plan, implement, monitor, and
maintain a vernal pool preservation /restoration program for the
Project. A vernal pool program shall be developed by a qualified
Biologist and shall be submitted for review and approval to the
City of Newport Beach (City) and the resource agencies (i.e., the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] and the California Coastal
Commission) prior to the first action and /or permit which would
allow for site disturbance (e.g., issuance of a grading permit). The
Applicant shall begin the vernal pool restoration activities (e.g.,
soil preparation) no later than one year after issuance of the first
grading permit. Restoration shall consist of seeding /planting with
appropriate vernal pool species and, if appropriate, incorporate
seeds collected from special status plant species that may be
impacted by the Project. A detailed restoration program shall
contain the following items:
1. Responsibilities and qualifications of the personnel to
implement and supervise the plan. The responsibilities of
the landowner, specialists, and maintenance personnel that
would supervise and implement the plan shall be specified.
2. Site selection. The mitigation site shall be determined in
coordination with the City and the resource agencies. The site
shall be located on the Project site in a dedicated open space
area. The mitigation areas shall not result in the removal of a
biologically valuable resource (e.g., native grassland).
3. Site preparation and planting implementation. Site
preparation shall include (a) protection of existing native
species; (b) trash and weed removal; (c) native species
salvage and reuse (i.e., duff); (d) soil treatments (i.e.,
imprinting, decompacting); (e) temporary irrigation installation;
(f) erosion - control measures (i.e., rice or willow wattles); (g)
seed mix application; and (h) container species installation.
4. Schedule. Planting shall occur by a qualified Biologist who is
monitoring on site rainfall to minimize impacts to existing fairy
shrimp.
5. Maintenance plan /guidelines. The maintenance plan shall
include (a) weed control; (b) herbivory control; (c) trash
removal; (d) irrigation system maintenance; (e) maintenance
training; and (f) replacement planting.
6. Monitoring plan. The monitoring plan shall include (a)
qualitative monitoring (i.e., photographs and general
' The final ratio would be determined in consultation with USFWS and would be based on the character of the
features known to be occupied. Features such as E and G, which are oilfield sumps would require a lower
mitigation ratio than less disturbed pools I and J.
53 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
observations); (b) quantitative monitoring (i.e., randomly
placed transects); (c) performance criteria, as approved by the
resource agencies; (d) monthly reports for the first year and
reports every other month thereafter; and (e) annual reports
for five years, which shall be submitted to the resource
agencies.
7. Long -term preservation. Long -term preservation of the site
shall also be outlined in the conceptual mitigation plan to
ensure the mitigation site is not impacted by future
development.
The Applicant shall be fully responsible for the implementation of
the vernal pool revegetation program until the restoration areas
have met the success criteria outlined in the program. The City
and the resource agencies (i.e., the USFWS and the California
Coastal Commission) shall have final authority over mitigation
area sign -off. The site shall be monitored and maintained for five
years to ensure successful establishment of vernal pool habitat
within the restored and created areas.
The preservation of the vernal pool habitat and the expansion of
the watershed habitat will result in a net increase in habitat
occupied by the San Diego fairy shrimp on the site that would also
exhibit higher levels of function for the fairy shrimp.
MM 4.6 -4 Marsh Habitat Preservation and Restoration. The Project would
impact 2.45 acres (0.10 permanent/2.35 temporary) of marshes.
Permanent impacts to marshes shall be restored at a replacement
ratio of 3:1, totaling 0.30 acre (Table D). Temporary impacts
associated with oilfield remediation shall be mitigated at a 1:1
rati02 (totaling 2.35 acres). In addition, 7.25 acres shall be
preserved on site, for a total of 9.90 acres of restoration and
preservation.
TABLE D
REQUIRED MARSH /MEADOW /OPEN WATER
HABITAT RESTORATION
2 It is important to note that all temporary impacts are for purposes of oilfield remediation and habitat restoration
and, as such, are an allowable use in wetland areas under Section 30233 of the California Coastal Act, which
includes habitat restoration as an allowable activity in wetlands.
54 Exhibit B
Restoration
Impact
Ratio.
Required
(Acres)
Required
(Acres)
Permanent Impact
Marsh /Meadow /Open
0.10
3:1
0.30
Water
Temporary Impact
Marsh /Meadow /Open
2,35
1:1
2.35
Water
Total
1 2.45
1
1 2.65
2 It is important to note that all temporary impacts are for purposes of oilfield remediation and habitat restoration
and, as such, are an allowable use in wetland areas under Section 30233 of the California Coastal Act, which
includes habitat restoration as an allowable activity in wetlands.
54 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
The Applicant shall be required to plan, implement, monitor, and
maintain a marsh /meadow preservation /restoration program for
the Project. A marsh /meadow preservation /restoration program
shall be developed by a qualified Biologist, and submitted for
review and approval to the City of Newport Beach (City) and the
resource agencies (i.e., the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
[USFWS], the California Department of Fish and Game [CDFG],
and the California Coastal Commission) prior to the first action
and /or permit that would allow for site disturbance (e.g., grading
permit). The Applicant shall begin marsh habitat restoration
activities (e.g., soil prep, seeding) no later than one year after
issuance of the first permit allowing ground disturbance (e.g.,
grading permit). The marsh /meadow preservation /restoration
program shall also mitigate for the potential loss of light- footed
clapper rail, western snowy plover, and Belding's savannah
sparrow habitat; therefore, site selection measures shall include
considerations that influence the site's suitability for these species.
Restoration shall consist of seeding with appropriate
marsh /meadow species and, if appropriate, incorporation of seeds
collected from special status plant species that may be impacted
by the Project. A detailed restoration program shall contain the
items listed below.
1. Responsibilities and qualifications of the personnel to
implement and supervise the plan. The responsibilities of
the landowner, specialists, and maintenance personnel that
would supervise and implement the plan shall be specified.
2. Site selection. The mitigation site shall be determined in
coordination with the City and the resource agencies. The site
shall either be located on the Project site in a dedicated open
space area, or suitable adjacent off -site open space shall be
obtained /purchased. Selected sites shall not result in the
removal of a biologically valuable resource (e.g., native
grassland).
3. Site preparation and planting implementation. The site
preparation shall include (a) protection of existing native
species; (b) trash and weed removal; (c) native species
salvage and reuse (i.e., duff); (d) soil treatments (i.e.,
imprinting, decompacting); (e) temporary irrigation installation;
(f) erosion - control measures (i.e., rice or willow wattles); (g)
seed mix application; and (h) .container species installation.
Locally occurring, native plants and seeds shall be used and
shall include species present on site and in adjacent areas,
and shall also include uncommon species known to occur on
site such as southwestern spiny rush.
4. Schedule. A schedule shall be developed that includes
planting to occur in late fall and early winter (i.e., between
October 1 and January 30).
5. Maintenance plan /guidelines. The maintenance plan shall
include (a) weed control; (b) herbivory control; (c) trash
55 Exhibit 8
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
removal; (d) irrigation system maintenance; (e) maintenance
training; and (f) replacement planting. The maintenance plan
shall also include biological monitoring during maintenance
activities if they occur during the light- footed clapper rail,
western snowy plover, and Belding's savannah sparrow
breeding season (March 1 to September 15).
6. Monitoring plan. The monitoring plan shall include (a)
qualitative monitoring (i.e., photographs and general
observations); (b) quantitative monitoring (i.e., randomly
placed transects); (c) performance criteria, as approved by the
resource agencies; (d) monthly reports for the first year and
reports every other month thereafter; and (e) annual reports
for five years, which shall be submitted to the resource
agencies.
7. Long -term preservation. Long -term site preservation shall
also be outlined in the conceptual mitigation plan to ensure the
mitigation site is not impacted by future development.
The Applicant shall be fully responsible for the implementation of
the marsh and mudflat restoration program until the restoration
areas have met the success criteria outlined in the program. The
City and the resource agencies (i.e., the USFWS and the
California Coastal Commission) shall have final authority over
mitigation area sign -off.
The site shall be monitored and maintained for five years to
ensure successful restoration of marsh and mudflat habitat within
the restored and created areas. The performance criteria shall
take into consideration the habitat requirements for light- footed
clapper rail, western snowy plover, and Belding's savannah
sparrow. For example, the light- footed clapper rail requires areas
with tidal influence and prefers using cordgrass to build their
nests; the western snowy plover nests on bare ground in areas of
little to no vegetation coverage; and the Belding's savannah
sparrow uses the upper portions of the marsh dominated by
pickleweed. Thus, performance criteria shall be tailored to fit
different portions of the mitigation site intended for each species.
The limits of grading shall be clearly marked, and temporary
fencing or other appropriate markers shall be placed around any
sensitive habitat adjacent to work areas prior to the
commencement of any ground- disturbing activity or native
vegetation removal. No construction access, parking, or storage of
equipment or materials shall be permitted within the marked
areas.
MM 4.6 -5 Jurisdictional Resources /Riparian Habitat Preservation and
Restoration. The Applicant is in the process of obtaining
permits /agreements /certifications from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE), the California Department of Fish and Game
(CDFG), the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and
the California Coastal Commission that are required for direct or
indirect impacts on areas within these agencies' jurisdictions. The
56 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Applicant shall be obligated to implement/comply with the
mitigation measures required by the resource agencies regarding
impacts on their respective jurisdictions. Jurisdictional areas shall
be restored on the Project site or immediately off site at a
minimum replacement ratio of 3:1 for permanent impacts and 1:1
for temporary impacts to ensure no net loss of habitat .3 The
jurisdictions of the USACE, CDFG, and California Coastal
Commission are not additive areas, as many of the riparian areas
on the Project site may be within the jurisdiction of several of
these agencies. Therefore, the permits and associated
jurisdictional replacement requirements would identify which
mitigation areas apply to the corresponding jurisdictions.
Permanent impacts on willow scrub and willow riparian forest
(1.42 acres) shall be mitigated at a 3 :1 ratio (4.26 acres) on the
Project site through restoration of willow habitat. Permanent
impacts on all other riparian vegetation types and all temporary
impacts to riparian vegetation types (11.51 acres) shall be
mitigated at a 1:1 ratio (11.51 acres) on the Project site. In total,
as compensation for permanent and temporary impacts to
12.93 acres of riparian habitat, the Project would create 15.77
acres of riparian habitat. In addition, the Project shall preserve
23.03 acres of riparian habitats, for at total of 38.80 acres of
restoration and preservation. Details of the restoration required
are summarized below in Table E.
TABLE E
REQUIRED RIPARIAN RESTORATION
3 It is important to note that all temporary impacts are for purposes of oilfield remediation and habitat restoration
and, as such, are an allowable use in wetland areas under Section 30233 of the California Coastal Act, which
includes habitat restoration as an allowable activity in wetlands.
57 Exhibit 8
Impact
(Acres)
Ratio
Required
Restoration
Required
(Acres)
Permanent Impact
Willow Scrub/Willow Riparian Forest
1.42
3:1
4.26
Disturbed Willow Scrub /Disturbed
Willow Riparian Forest
0.03
1:1
0.03
Mule Fat Scrub
0.47
1:1
0.47
Disturbed Mule Fat Scruba
4.95
1:1
4.95
Temporary Impact
Willow Scrub/Willow Riparian Forest
0.59
1:1
0.59
Disturbed Willow Scrub /Disturbed
Willow Riparian Forest
0.70
1:1
0.70
Mule at Scrub
0.20
1:1
0.20
Disturbed Mule Fat Scruba
4.57
1:1
4.57
Total
12.93
15.77
e Includes disturbed mule fat scrub, disturbed mule fat scrub /ruderal, and disturbed mule fat
.scrub /goldenbush scrub.
3 It is important to note that all temporary impacts are for purposes of oilfield remediation and habitat restoration
and, as such, are an allowable use in wetland areas under Section 30233 of the California Coastal Act, which
includes habitat restoration as an allowable activity in wetlands.
57 Exhibit 8
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Prior to the first permit that would allow for site disturbance, a
detailed restoration program shall be prepared for approval by the
City of Newport Beach (City) and the resource agencies (i.e., the
USACE, the CDFG, the RWQCB, and the California Coastal
Commission). The program shall include, at a minimum, the
following items:
1. Responsibilities and qualifications of the personnel to
implement and supervise the plan. The responsibilities of
the landowner, specialists, and maintenance personnel that
would supervise and implement the plan shall be specified.
2. Site selection. The mitigation site shall be determined in
coordination with the City and the resource agencies (i.e., the
USFWS, the CDFG, the RWQCB, and the California Coastal
Commission). The site shall either be located on the Project
site in a dedicated open space area, or suitable adjacent off -
site open space shall be obtained /purchased. Selected sites
shall not result in the removal of a biologically valuable
resource (e.g., native grassland).
3. Site preparation and planting implementation. Site
preparation shall include (a) protection of existing native
species; (b) trash and weed removal; (c) native species
salvage and reuse (i.e., duff); (d) soil treatments (i.e.,
imprinting, decompacting); (e) temporary irrigation installation;
(f) erosion - control measures (i.e., rice or willow wattles); (g)
seed mix application; and (h) container species installation.
4. Schedule. A schedule shall be developed that includes
planting to occur in late fall and early winter (i.e., between
October 1 and January 30).
5. Maintenance plan /guidelines. The maintenance plan shall
include (a) weed control; (b) herbivory control; (c) trash
removal; (d) irrigation system maintenance; (e) maintenance
training; and (f) replacement planting. The maintenance plan
shall also include biological monitoring during maintenance
activities if they occur during the least Bell's vireo breeding
season (March 15 to September 15).
6. Monitoring plan. The riparian vegetation /jurisdictional
resources monitoring plan shall include (a) qualitative
monitoring (i.e., photographs and general observations); (b)
quantitative monitoring (i.e., randomly placed transects);
(c) performance criteria, as approved by the resource
agencies; (d) monthly reports for the first year and reports
every other month thereafter; and (e) annual reports for five
years, which shall be submitted to the resource agencies.
7. Long -term preservation. Long -term preservation of the site
shall also be outlined in the conceptual mitigation plan to
ensure the mitigation site is not impacted by future
development.
58 Exhibit 6
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
The limits of grading shall be clearly marked, and temporary
fencing or other appropriate markers shall be placed around any
sensitive habitat adjacent to work areas prior to the
commencement of any ground- disturbing activity or native
vegetation removal. No construction access, parking, or storage of
equipment or materials shall be permitted within marked areas.
The Applicant shall begin riparian habitat restoration activities
(e.g., soil prep, seeding) no later than one year after issuance of
the first grading permit. The Applicant shall be fully responsible for
the implementation of the riparian revegetation program until the
restoration areas have met the success criteria outlined in the
program. The City and the resource agencies (i.e., the USFWS
and the California Coastal Commission) shall have final authority
over mitigation area sign -off.
The site shall be monitored and maintained for five years to
ensure successful establishment of riparian habitat within the
restored and created areas, and the performance criteria shall
take least Bell's vireo habitat requirements into consideration. For
example, the presence of a shrubby understory is important for
this species; thus, performance criteria shall include a requirement
for structural complexity.
The Applicant is seeking a Take Authorization through Section 7
of the Federal Endangered Species Act for impacts to habitat for
the least Bell's vireo. Prior to issuance of the first action and /or
permit that would allow for site disturbance (e.g., grading permit),
the Applicant shall provide to the City of Newport Beach a
Biological Opinion issued from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) authorizing the removal of jurisdictional resources (i.e.,
potential least Bell's vireo habitat). It is anticipated that the
USFWS Biological Opinion would contain conservation
recommendations to avoid or reduce the Project's impact.
Although additional conservation measures identified by the
USFWS shall be enforced, at a minimum, the Construction
Minimization Measures listed below shall be followed.
1. Activities involving the removal of riparian habitat shall be
prohibited during the least Bell's vireo breeding season (March
15 to September 15) unless otherwise directed by the USFWS
and the CDFG.
2. Vegetation - clearing activities shall be monitored by a qualified
Biologist. The Biological Monitor shall ensure that only the
amount of riparian habitat approved during the consultation
process shall be removed. The Biological Monitor shall
delineate (by the use of orange snow fencing or lath and
ropes /flagging) all areas adjacent to the impact area that
contain habitat suitable for least Bell's vireo occupation.
3. The use of any large construction equipment during site
grading shall be prohibited within 500 feet of an active least
Bell's vireo nest during the breeding season of this species
(March 15 to September 15), unless otherwise directed by the
59 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
USFWS and the CDFG. Construction may be allowed within
500 feet of an active nest if appropriate noise measures are
implemented, as approved by the resource agencies.
4. Appropriate noise- abatement measures (e.g., sound walls)
shall be implemented to ensure that noise levels are less than
60 A- weighted decibels (dBA) at specified monitoring locations
near active nest(s), as determined by the Biological Monitor.
This shall be verified by weekly noise monitoring conducted by
a qualified Acoustical Engineer during the breeding season
(March 15 to September 15) or as otherwise determined by a
qualified Biological Monitor based on vireo nesting activity.
5. If construction occurs during the breeding season, a summary
of construction monitoring activities and noise monitoring
results shall be provided to the USFWS and the CDFG
following completion of construction.
MM 4.6 -6 Migratory Bird Treaty Act. No vegetation removal shall occur
between February 15 and September 15 unless a qualified
Biologist, approved by the City of Newport Beach (City), surveys
the Project's impact area prior to disturbance to confirm the
absence of active nests. If an active nest is discovered,
disturbance within a particular buffer shall be prohibited until
nesting is complete; the buffer distance shall be determined by the
Biologist in consultation with applicable resource agencies and in
consideration of species sensitivity and existing nest site .
conditions. Limits of avoidance shall be demarcated with flagging
or fencing. The Biologist shall record the results of the
recommended protective measures described above and shall
submit a memo summarizing any nest avoidance measures to the
City to document compliance with applicable State and federal
laws pertaining to the protection of native birds.
To protect bird species on site, any front glass railings, screen
walls, fences and gates that occur adjacent to Project natural
open space areas shall be required to use materials designed to
minimize bird strikes. Such materials may consist, all or in part, of
wood; metal; frosted or partially- frosted glass, Plexiglas or other
visually permeable barriers that are designed to prevent creation
of a bird strike hazard. Clear glass or Plexiglas shall not be
installed unless an ultraviolet -light reflective coating specially
designed to reduce bird - strikes by reducing reflectivity and
transparency is also used. Any coating or shall be installed to
provide coverage consistent with manufacturer specifications. All
materials and coatings shall be maintained throughout the life of
the development to ensure continued effectiveness at addressing
bird strikes and shall be maintained at a minimum in accordance
with manufacturer specifications. Prior to issuance of a grading
permit, the Applicant shall submit plans showing the location,
design, height and materials of glass railings, fences, screen walls
and gates for the review and approval to the City and a qualified
Biologist.
60 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
MM 4.6 -7 Special Status Plant Species. The Applicant shall be required to
plan, implement, monitor, and maintain a southern tarplant
restoration program for the Project consistent with the most
current technical standards /knowledge regarding southern tarplant
restoration. Prior to the first action and /or permit that would allow
for site disturbance (e.g., a grading permit), a qualified Biologist
shall prepare a detailed southern tarplant restoration program that
would focus on (1) avoiding impacts to the southern tarplant to the
extent possible through Project planning; (2) minimizing impacts;
(3) rectifying impacts through the repair, rehabilitation, or
restoration of the impacted environment; (4) reducing or
eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance
operations during the life of the Project; and (5) compensating for
impacts by replacing or providing substitute resources or
environments. The program shall be reviewed and approved by
the City of Newport Beach (City) prior to site disturbance:
Impacts on southern tarplant shall be mitigated by seed collection
and re- establishment. The seeds shall be collected and then
placed into a suitable mitigation area in the undeveloped or
restored portion of the Project site or at an approved adjacent off-
site location. The southern tarplant restoration program shall have
the requirements listed below.
1. Seed ripeness shall be monitored every two weeks by a
qualified Biologist and /or a qualified Seed Collector at the
existing southern tarplant locations to determine when the
seeds are ready for collection. A qualified Seed Collector shall
collect all the seeds from the plants to be impacted when the
seeds are ripe. The seeds shall be cleaned and stored by a
qualified nursery or institution with appropriate storage
facilities.
2. The mitigation site shall be located in dedicated open space
on the Project site or at an adjacent off -site mitigation site. The
mitigation site shall be prepared for seeding as described in a
conceptual restoration plan.
3. The topsoil shall be collected from areas with limited amounts
of weeds from the impacted population and re- spread in the
selected location, as approved by the qualified Biologist.
Approximately 60 to 80 percent of the collected seeds shall be
spread in the fall following soil preparation and seed
preparation. The remainder of the seeds shall be kept in
storage for subsequent seeding, if necessary.
4. The qualified Biologist shall have the full authority to suspend
any operation at the site which is, in the qualified Biologist's
opinion, not consistent with the restoration program. Any
disputes regarding consistency with the restoration program
shall be resolved by the Applicant, the qualified Biologist, and
the City.
Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts: in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
MM 4.6 -8 Light- footed Clapper Rail, Western Snowy Plover, Belding's
Savannah Sparrow. Due to temporary impacts to marsh habitat
in the lowland by oilfield remediation activities, a focused survey
shall be conducted for light- footed clapper rail, western snowy
plover, and Belding's savannah sparrow in the spring prior to the
proposed impact to determine if these species nest on or
immediately adjacent to the Project site. If any of these species
are observed, the Applicant shall obtain approvals from the
resource agencies (i.e., the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
[USFWS], the California Department of Fish and Game [CDFG],
and the California Coastal Commission) prior to the initiation of
grading or any activity that involves the removal /disturbance of
marsh habitat, including clearing, grubbing, mowing, disking,
trenching, grading, or any other construction - related activity on the
Project site. If any of these species would be impacted, mitigation
for impacts on these species shall include replacement of marsh
habitat as described in MM 4.6 -4. In addition, the measures listed
below shall be implemented.
1. Marsh vegetation shall be removed after September 15 and
before March 1.
2. If marsh vegetation is proposed for removal prior to September
15, a series of pre- construction surveys shall be conducted to
ensure that no light- footed clapper rail, western snowy plover,
or Belding's savannah sparrows are in the area of impact. If
any of these species are observed within 100 feet of the
impact areas, the resource agencies shall be contacted to
determine if additional consultation and /or minimization
measures are required.
3. A Biological Monitor familiar with light- footed clapper rail,
western snowy plover, and Belding's savannah sparrow shall
be present during all activities involving marsh vegetation
removal to ensure that impacts to marsh habitats do not
extend beyond the limits of grading and to minimize the
likelihood of inadvertent impacts to marsh habitat. In addition,
the Biological Monitor shall monitor construction activities in or
adjacent to marsh habitat during the light- footed clapper rail,
western snowy plover, and Belding's savannah sparrow
breeding season (March 1 to September 15).
4. The limits of disturbance during oilfield cleanup shall be clearly
marked, and temporary fencing or other appropriate markers
shall be placed around any sensitive habitat adjacent to work
areas prior to the commencement of any ground- disturbing
activity or native vegetation removal. No construction access,
parking, or storage of equipment or materials shall be
permitted within the marked areas.
MM 4.6 -9 California Gnatcatcher. Prior to initiation of grading or any
activity that involves the removal /disturbance of coastal sage
scrub habitat, including clearing, grubbing, mowing, disking,
trenching, grading or any other construction - related activity on the
62 Exhibit
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Project site, the Applicant shall obtain a Biological Opinion from
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to authorize incidental take.
Mitigation for impacts on the California gnatcatcher shall include
restoration and preservation of 82.91 acres of coastal sage scrub
habitat and implementation of the Construction Minimization
Measures listed in MM 4.6 -1.
MM 4.6 -10 Coastal Cactus Wren. Impacts on southern cactus scrub,
southern cactus scrub /Encelia scrub, disturbed southern cactus
scrub, and disturbed southern cactus scrub /Encelia scrub shall be
avoided to the maximum extent practicable. If it is determined by
the City of Newport Beach (City) during the final grading plan
check that impacts on cactus habitat cannot be avoided, the
coastal sage scrub mitigation plan shall incorporate cactus into the
planting palette at no less than a 1:1 ratio for impacted cactus
areas. The Applicant shall submit the coastal sage scrub
mitigation plan to the City to verify that an appropriate amount of
cactus has been incorporated into the plan. Mitigation for impacts
on the coastal cactus wren shall include replacement of coastal
sage scrub habitat and implementation of the Construction
Minimization Measures described in MM 4.6 -1.
MM 4.6 -11 Least Bell's Vireo. Prior to initiation of grading or any activity that
involves the removal /disturbance of riparian habitat, including
clearing, grubbing, mowing, disking, trenching, grading or any
other construction - related activity on the Project site, the Applicant
shall obtain approvals from the resource agencies (i.e., the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS], the California Department of
Fish and Game [CDFG], and the California Coastal Commission).
Mitigation for impacts on the least Bell's vireo shall include (1)
replacement of riparian and upland scrub and riparian forest
habitat and the Construction Minimization Measures described in
MM 4.6 -5; (2) protection of nests and nesting birds as described in
MM 4.6 -6; and (3) any additional provisions imposed by the
permitting agencies.
MM 4.6 -12 Burrowing Owl. Impacts on known burrowing owl burrows and
surrounding non - native grasslands shall be avoided to the
maximum extent practicable, as determined by a qualified
Biologist in coordination with the City of Newport Beach (City). If
impacts on grassland habitat occupied by burrowing owl cannot
be avoided, mitigation for impacts on the burrowing owl shall
include restoration of native grassland habitat, as described in MM
4.6 -2.
Within 30 days prior to any ground- disturbing activity to suitable
burrowing owl habitat, a focused pre- construction survey shall be
conducted to determine the presence or absence of the burrowing
owl on the Project site. If the species is not observed, no further
mitigation shall be necessary. Results of the survey shall be
provided to the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG).
63 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
If an active burrow is observed during the non - nesting season, a
qualified Biologist shall monitor the nest site; when the owl is away
from the nest, the Biologist shall exclude the owl from the burrow
and then remove the burrow so the owl cannot return.
If an active burrowing owl burrow is observed during the nesting
season, the active site shall be protected until nesting activity has
ended to ensure compliance with Section 3503.5 of the California
Fish and Game Code. Peak nesting activity for burrowing owl
normally occurs from April to July. To protect the active burrow,
the following restrictions to construction activities shall be required
until the burrow is no longer active (as determined by a qualified
Biologist): (1) clearing limits shall be established within a 300 -foot
buffer around any active burrow, unless otherwise determined by
a qualified Biologist and (2) access and surveying shall be
prohibited within 200 feet of any active burrow, unless otherwise
determined by a qualified Biologist. Any encroachment into the
buffer area around the active burrow shall only be allowed if the
Biologist determines that the proposed activity shall not disturb the
nest occupants. Construction can proceed when the qualified
Biologist has determined that fledglings have left the nest burrow.
MM 4.6 -13 Raptor Nesting. To the maximum extent practicable, habitats that
provide potential nest sites for raptors shall be removed from July
1 through January 31. If Project construction activities are initiated
during the raptor nesting season (February 1 to June 30), a
qualified Biologist shall conduct a nesting raptor survey. Seven
days prior to the onset of construction activities, a qualified
Biologist shall survey within the limits of the Project disturbance
area for the presence of any active raptor nests (common or
special status). Any nest found during survey efforts shall be
mapped on the construction plans. If no active nests are found, no
further mitigation would be required, and survey results shall be
provided to the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG).
If nesting activity is present, the active site shall be protected until
nesting activity has ended to ensure compliance with Section
3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code. To protect any nest
site, the following restrictions on construction are required
between February 1 and June 30 (or until nests are no longer
active, as determined by a qualified Biologist): (1) clearing limits
shall be established a minimum of 300 feet in any direction from
any occupied nest and (2) access and surveying shall be
prohibited within 200 feet of any occupied nest. Any
encroachment into the 300- and /or 200 -foot buffer area(s) around
the known nest shall only be allowed if a qualified Biologist
determines that the proposed activity shall not disturb the nest
occupants. During the non - nesting season, proposed work
activities can occur only if a qualified Biologist has determined that
fledglings have left the nest.
64 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overridinq Considerations
MM 4.6 -14 Invasive Exotic Plant Species. A qualified Biologist shall monitor
any oilfield remediation activities that involve disturbance of native
habitat but that would not include removal of the habitat in its
entirety. During vegetation removal for remediation activities, the
Biological Monitor shall direct the construction crew to remove
invasive plant species, including but not limited to pampas grass
and giant reed. The Biologist shall also direct the crew on any
additional measures that may be needed to eradicate these
species, such as removal of roots, painting cut stems with Round-
up or other approved herbicide, or follow -up applications of
herbicide.
The Applicant shall submit Landscape Plans to the City of
Newport Beach (City) for review and approval by a qualified
Biologist. The review shall ensure that no invasive, exotic plant
species are used in landscaping adjacent to any open space and
that suitable substitutes are provided. When the process is
complete, the qualified Biologist shall submit a memo approving
the Landscape Plans to the City.
MM 4.6 -15 Human Activity. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the
Applicant shall submit a fencing plan to the City of Newport Beach
(City) for review to demonstrate that access to the open space
within the lowland shall be limited to designated access points that
link to existing trails. To best protect habitat from human activity,
fence rails shall be placed along the boardwalk trails. Signs shall
be posted along the fence indicating that habitat within the lowland
is sensitive because it supports Endangered species. The signage
shall also provide information on biological resources within the
lowland (e.g., coastal sage scrub, marsh, riparian habitats, and
special status species). In addition, signage shall require that dogs
be leashed in parks, along trails, and in any areas adjacent to
open space.
MM 4.6 -16 Urban Wildlands Interface. To educate residents of the
responsibilities associated with living at the wildland interface, the
Applicant shall develop a wildland interface brochure. The
brochure shall be included as part of the purchase /rental /lease
agreements for the Project residents. The brochure shall address
relevant issues, including the role of natural predators in the
wildlands (e.g., coyotes' predation of pets) and how to minimize
impacts of humans and domestic pets on native communities and
their inhabitants (e.g., outdoor cats' predation of native birds,
lizards, and small mammals). The brochure shall also address
invasive species that shall be avoided in landscaping consistent
with MM 4.6 -14.
(2) Potential Impact: Grading activities could impact several sensitive natural
communities on the Project site.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this potentially
significant impact is Less Than Significant as a result of the implementation of PDFs
4.6 -1 through 4.6 -4 and MMs 4.6 -1, 4.6 -3, 4.6 -4, and 4.6 -5 (set forth above).
65 Exhibit 8
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overridina Considerations
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project would impact approximately 14.18 acres
(12.26 acres permanent, 1.92 acres temporary) of special status coastal sage scrub
vegetation. Impacts on these coastal sage scrub vegetation types are considered
significant because (1) the loss of these vegetation types in the Project region would
be considered a substantial adverse effect on the coastal sage scrub community and
(2) impacts to these areas would reduce the habitat for the coastal California
gnatcatcher and other wildlife species. MM 4.6 -1 and PDFs 4.6 -1 through 4.6 -4
require habitat restoration of permanent impacts to coastal sage scrub (including
southern coastal bluff scrub) at a 3:1 ratio and disturbed coastal sage scrub
(excluding southern coastal bluff scrub) at a 1:1 ratio either on site or off site. In
addition, all temporarily impacted coastal sage scrub would be restored at a 1:1 ratio.
In total, 47.75 acres of coastal sage scrub restoration and an additional 35.16 acres
of coastal sage scrub would be preserved. MM 4.6 -1 also requires the Applicant to
follow Construction Minimization Measures TO provide conservation and avoidance
actions to reduce the adverse impact to the habitat and associated wildlife species.
PDFs 4.6 -1 through 4.6 -4 require the designation and methodology of habitat
restoration /preservation and indirect effect minimization measures. These features
also provide conservation and avoidance value to the habitat and associated wildlife
species.
The Project would significantly impact approximately 14.44 acres of special status
riparian habitats (6.62 acres permanent, 7.82 acres temporary). MMs 4.6 -4 and 4.6 -5
and PDFs 4.6 -1 through 4.6 -4 require the restoration and preservation of 48.70 acres
of riparian habitat as well as habitat restoration /preservation and indirect effect
minimization measures.
The Project is designed to protect the two vernal pool areas that are occupied by
San Diego fairy shrimp. The would permanently impact 0.07 acre of ephemeral pool
and 0.06 acre of vernal pool habitat in order to remediate the soil and remove the
pipelines in these areas. Once the remediation and pipeline removal are completed,
the vernal pool areas would be restored and protected. Pipe removal activities would
be a significant temporary impact that would be mitigated through preservation and
restoration of a 3.58 -acre conservation area. This includes enlarging and protecting
the pools watershed. The Project would replace a portion of the watershed so that
the protected pools and 1.49 acre of contributing watershed would be permanently
protected within a 1.85 -acre vernal pool conservation area (MM 4.6 -3). PDFs 4.6 -1
through 4.6 -4 are also applicable.
(3) Potential Impact: Grading and oil remediation activities could impact jurisdictional
areas as follows (some jurisdictional areas overlap): USACE -0.32 acre permanent /3.93
acre temporary; CDFG -1.87 acres permanent/0.05 acre temporary; California Coastal
Commission -2.47 acres permanent/6.48 acres temporary.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this potentially
significant impact is Less Than Significant as a result of the implementation of
Project Design Features (PDFs) 4.6 -1 through 4.6 -4 and Mitigation Measures (MMs)
4.6 -3 through 4.6 -5.
Facts in Support of Finding: Implementation of MMs 4.6 -3, 4.6 -4, and 4.6 -5, and
PDFs 4.6 -1 through 4.6 -4 would reduce impacts on jurisdictional resources to less
than significant levels through habitat restoration and preservation (totaling
approximately 52.28 acres). PDFs 4.6 -1 through 4.6 -4 also require the designation
T
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
and methodology of habitat restoration /preservation and indirect effect minimization
measures. These features also provide conservation and avoidance value to the
habitat and associated wildlife species.
(4) Potential Impact: The permanent loss of open space would reduce wildlife
movement corridor habitat available for species.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this potentially
significant impact is Less Than Significant as a result of the implementation of MMs
4.6 -1 through 4.6 -5 (set forth above).
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is adjacent or proximate to the Talbert
Marsh, the Santa Ana River, the USACE salt marsh restoration site, and Talbert
Park, as well as extensive urbanization in the Project vicinity. Wildlife movement
opportunities between the Project site and large areas of open space in the region
are already constrained by extensive urbanization in the Project vicinity, security
fencing around the Project site, and ongoing use of the Project site as an operating
oilfield. The Project would permanently reduce the size of coastal open space
(existing operating oilfield) by approximately 205.83 acres. Following oilfield
remediation activities within the Upland and Lowland, large contiguous areas would
be revegetated and remain contiguous with the USACE salt marsh restoration site,
the Santa Ana River, and the Talbert Marsh. The revegetation following oilfield
remediation activities would result in a higher - quality habitat resulting from invasive
species removal; removal of human activity and disturbance related to oilfield
operations; and availability of larger blocks of contiguous native habitat in the open
space area. With implementation of MMs 4.6 -1 through 4.6 -5, this impact would be
reduced to a less than significant level.
G. Population, Housing, and Employment
(1) Potential Impact: While the Project would result in population growth in the area
through the construction of new residences and employment opportunities, the Project
would not exceed the growth currently projected for the Project site or exceed regional
projections. While no significant Project impacts have been identified, PDF 4.7 -1 and
SC 4.7 -1 (set forth below) are applicable to the Project.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this potentially
significant impact is Less Than Significant as a result of the implementation of PDF
4.7 -1 and SC 4.7 -2. No mitigation measures were required or recommended.
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project's population, housing, and employment
growth are within the overall Orange County Projections (OCP -2006) for Orange
County and Regional Statistical Area (RSA) F -39. The Project is expected to directly
generate 3,012 residents, which would account for approximately 34 percent of the
projected growth in the City by 2025 and approximately 27 percent by 2035. The
General Plan Housing Element identifies several areas for future housing
opportunities including the Project site.
The Project would provide new jobs associated with the neighborhood commercial
and resort inn uses. It is assumed that the housing demand generated by these new
jobs would be met by (1) existing units in the City; (2) projected future units in the
City; (3) proposed on -site units, including affordable housing; and (4) units located
67 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
elsewhere in Orange County and the larger SCAG region. Given the mobility of
workers within the SCAG region, it is not possible to accurately estimate the housing
demand jobs would generate in other parts of the region.
The expected employment generation from the Project would represent
approximately 25 percent of the employment generation in the City by 2035; it is
expected that the demand for new housing generated from Project employees (422
jobs) could be accommodated by the projected housing growth. Therefore the
potential growth associated with Project - generated jobs (construction and operation)
would not be significant. While no significant Project impacts have been identified,
PDF 4.7 -1 and SC 4.7 -1 are applicable to the Project.
PDF 4.7 -1 The Master Development Plan includes a range of housing types
to meet the housing needs of a variety of economic segments of
the community to be designed to appeal to different age groups
and lifestyles.
SC 4.7 -1 An Affordable Housing Implementation Plan (AHIP) is required
that specifies how the development will meet the City's affordable
housing goal.
H. Recreation and Trails
(1) Potential Impact: The Project would increase the demand for park and recreational
facilities. The Project includes approximately 51.4 gross acres of parkland, including
21.8 gross acres for a public Community Park, as well as trails through the Project site
that connect to the regional trail system. The physical impacts of implementing park and
recreational facilities, including the pedestrian and bicycle bridge, are evaluated as part
of the overall Project.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this potentially
significant impact is Less Than Significant as a result of the implementation of PDFs
4.8 -1 through 4.8 -3 and SC 4.8 -1 (set forth below).
Facts in Support of Finding: The City's Park Dedication Ordinance would require
15.06 acres of park or the payment of in -lieu fees; the City's General Plan requires a
20- to 30 -acre community park on the Newport Banning Ranch property, although
the General Plan does not obligate the Applicant to develop a park exceeding Park
Dedication Ordinance requirements. The General Plan requires that sufficient
acreage be available on the Newport Banning Ranch property to comply with the
General Plan. The Project would exceed local Quimby Act and General Plan
parkland requirements by providing approximately 51 acres of parkland, including a
Community Park, consistent with the General Plan. In addition to parkland, the
Project includes multi -use trails for pedestrians and bicyclists, on- street bike lanes,
and the bridge over West Coast Highway,
PDF 4.8 -1 The Master Development Plan and Tentative Tract Map provide
for approximately 51 gross (42 net) acres of public parkland in the
form of an approximately 27 gross acre (22 net acre) public
Community Park, 2 bluff parks comprising approximately 21 gross
(18 net) acres, and 3 interpretive parks containing approximately 4
gross (3 net) acres. Of the approximately 27 gross acres for the
0
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
public Community Park, approximately 22 gross (18 net) acres will
be offered for dedication to the City which exceeds the City's
Municipal Code requirement for park dedication for the 1,375 unit
Project, which is approximately 15 acres.
PDF 4.8 -2 The Master Development Plan provides a system of bicycle,
pedestrian, and interpretive trails within the developed areas and
the Upland and Lowland Open Space areas of the Project.
PDF 4.8 -3 If permitted by all applicable agencies, a pedestrian and bicycle
bridge over West Coast Highway will be provided, as set forth in
the Master Development Plan, from the Project site to a location
south of West Coast Highway to encourage walking and bicycling
to and from the beach.
SC 4.8 -1 The Applicant shall comply with the City of Newport Beach Park
Dedication and Fees Ordinance (City of Newport Beach Municipal
Code Chapter 19.52). The City's tentative map review authority
shall determine . whether land dedication, an in lieu fee, or a
combination of the two shall be required in conjunction with its
approval of a tentative map. Land dedications shall be offered at
the time of appropriate final map recordation, either on the final
map or by separate instrument. The City may further clarify
improvement and phasing requirements in a Development
Agreement.
(2) Potential Impact: The Project would increase the demand for park and recreational
facilities; however, since the new recreational facilities provided by the Project exceed
City standards, it would prevent the overuse of existing local recreational facilities.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this potentially
significant impact is Less Than Significant as a result of the implementation of PDFs
4.8 -1 through 4.8 -3 and SC 4.8 -1 (set forth above) and MM 4.10 -10.
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project would increase the demand for park and
recreational facilities; however, the Project includes approximately 51.4 gross (42.1
net) acres of parkland, as well as off - street multi -use trails, on- street bike trails, and a
pedestrian and bicycle bridge over West Coast Highway to serve Project residents
and the surrounding community (PDFs 4.8 -1, 4.8 -2, and 4.8 -3). Air Quality MM 4.10-
10, requires the provision of bicycle spaces as a part of the Project. These
recreational facilities provided by the Project would prevent the overuse of existing
local recreational facilities. With regard to beaches, trails, and other regional
recreational facilities, these facilities are designed to meet the needs associated with
countywide projected growth. The Project is consistent with the City's General Plan
land use designation for the Project site; therefore, no impact would occur.
MM 4.10 -10 Bicycle Facilities. Prior to the issuance of building permits for the
following specific components of the Project, the Applicant shall
demonstrate to the City of Newport Beach that:
a. The plans for multi - family residences shall identify the
provision of a minimum of one on -site bicycle space per ten
dwelling units.
69 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overnoina Considerations
b. The plans for commercial development in the Mixed -
use /Residential District shall identify the provision of a
minimum of 1 on -site bicycle space per 2,500 gross square
feet (gsf) of commercial area.
c. The plans for resort inn and support commercial areas in the
Visitor - Serving Resort District (or visitor- serving commercial if
the resort is not built) within the Visitor - Serving
Resort/Residential: Provide on -site bicycle rack(s) with a
minimum of 1 bicycle space per 2,500 gsf of the resort inn
building (or commercial square footage if the resort inn is not
built).
d. Bicycle racks shall support the frame of the bike and not just
one wheel; shall allow the locking of the frame and one wheel
to the rack; shall be easily usable by both cable and U- locks;
and shall be usable by a wide variety of bikes, including those
with water bottle cages and with and without kickstands.
e. There shall be clear access routes from bike lanes to bicycle
racks in order to avoid riding through parking lots.
I. Transportation and Circulation
(1) Potential Impact: The Project would generate traffic that would significantly impact
intersections in the cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa. The traffic impact
analysis identifies significant impacts at one intersection in the City of Newport
Beach and up to seven intersections in the City of Costa Mesa.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 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. PDFs 4.9 -1 through
4.9 -3, SCs 4.9 -2 and 4.9 -3, and MM s 4.9 -1 and 4.9 -2 are applicable. However,
Finding 2 identifies that "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 ". The City of Newport Beach cannot impose mitigation
on another jurisdiction. Therefore, traffic improvements that would require the
approval. of the City of Costa Mesa or Caltrans are considered significant,
unavoidable impacts. There are no other feasible mitigation measures or alternatives
that would reduce this impact to a less than significant. Therefore, the City hereby
also makes Finding 3 which would require the adoption of a Statement of Overriding
Considerations as a condition of Project approval.
Facts in Support of Finding: No traffic, other than that associated with limited
oilfield operations, is currently generated on or from the Project site. As shown
below, multiple traffic scenarios were evaluated. At buildout, the Project is estimated
to generate 14,989 trips per day, with 906 trips in the AM peak hour (251 inbound
and 655 outbound trips) and 1,430 trips in the PM peak hour (866 inbound and 564
outbound trips). The following summarizes the significant intersection impacts by
traffic scenario. Unless mentioned, the Project's traffic impacts are less than
significant and mitigation is not required:
Existing Plus Project — The Project is forecasted to significantly impact three
intersections in Costa Mesa.
70
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Year 2016 With Project Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) Analysis — The Project
would significantly impact one intersection in Newport Beach and seven
intersections in Costa Mesa.
Year 2016 With Phase 1 Project TPO Analysis — The Project would significantly
impact one intersection in Newport Beach and two intersections in Costa Mesa.
Year 2016 Cumulative With Project — The Project would significantly impact one
intersection in Newport Beach and seven intersections in Costa Mesa. Of the
intersections in Costa Mesa, one is a State Highway intersection.
2016 Cumulative With Phase 1 Project— The Project would significantly impact to
two intersections in Costa Mesa.
General Plan Buildout — The Project would significantly impact to two
intersections in Costa Mesa.
The Project's Mitigation Program consists of several measures, including road
improvements that would be provided by contributions to the applicable jurisdiction's
capital improvement program and funded through fees and /or other methods of
financing. Where the Project causes a significant traffic - related impact, the Applicant
would be responsible for the required mitigation. Where the Project contributes to a
significant impact to an intersection, the Applicant would be required to participate in
the funding of improvements at the significantly impacted intersection on a fair -share
basis. Funds generated by the fair share traffic impact fees are deposited into the
City of Newport Beach's Circulation and Transportation Fund account and are used
only to construct circulation system improvements identified in the General Plan
Circulation Element. It is also important to recognize that the City's Fair Share Fee
Ordinance allows for the dedication of right -of -way or the construction of appropriate
arterial improvements in lieu of the payment of the fees. Proposed improvements
located outside the City of Newport Beach's jurisdiction require agreements with the
affected jurisdictions regarding the timing, cost, and fair -share responsibility of the
improvements.
The City of Newport Beach cannot impose mitigation on or mandate the
implementation of mitigation in another jurisdiction. The Applicant has reached an
agreement with the City of Costa Mesa for the payment of fees associated with
impacts occurring in Costa Mesa. In correspondence from the City of Costa Mesa to
the Applicant dated November 21, 2011, the City of Costa Mesa identifies that both
parties have agreed to a mitigation plan that requires the payment of $4,388,483 to
the City of Costa Mesa. Payments would be made by the Applicant to the City of
Costa Mesa prior to the issuance of the (1) 301" residential building permit; (2) 60151
residential building permit; (3) 9015` residential building permit; and (4) 1,2015`
residential building permit. However, the City of Newport Beach cannot ensure that
improvements would be made concurrent with or preceding the identified intersection
impact in the City of Costa Mesa. Therefore, for purposes of CEQA, the impacts to
be mitigated by the improvements would remain significant and unavoidable.
PDF 4.9 -1 In addition to mitigating traffic impacts of the Project, the
transportation improvements included in the Master Development
Plan provide arterial highway capacity needed to address existing
demand as well as for planned growth in the region through
Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
implementing portions of the City's General Plan and the County's
Master Plan of Arterial Highways.
PDF 4.9 -2 The Development Agreement requires that arterial roadway
improvements and contributions toward off -site improvements be
provided earlier in the development phasing program than needed
to mitigate Project traffic impacts and requires that contributions
toward off -site improvements be provided early relative to the
development phasing.
PDF 4.9 -3 The Master Development Plan includes a new arterial connection
between West Coast Highway and 19th Street that will provide
enhanced access to and from southwest Costa Mesa which will
contribute to the mitigation of the impacts of projected regional
growth.
SC 4.9 -2 In compliance with Municipal Code Chapter 15.38, Fair Share
Traffic Contribution Ordinance, the Applicant shall be responsible
for the payment of fair share traffic fees or right -of -way dedication
or traffic improvements or a combination thereof.
SC 4.9 -3 Traffic Management Plan. Prior to issuance of any grading
permit, the Applicant shall prepare for City of Newport Beach
Traffic Engineer review and approval a Construction Area Traffic
Management Plan for the Project for the issuance of a Haul Route
Permit. The Plan shall be designed by a registered Traffic
Engineer. The Traffic Management Plan shall identify construction
phasing and address traffic control for any temporary street
closures, detours, or other disruptions to traffic circulation and
public transit routes. The Plan shall identify the routes that
construction vehicles shall use to access the site, the hours of
construction traffic, traffic controls and detours, vehicle staging
areas, and parking areas for the Project. Advanced written notice
of temporary traffic disruptions shall be provided to emergency
service providers and the affected area's businesses and the
general public. This notice shall be provided at least two weeks
prior to disruptions.
The Applicant shall ensure that construction activities requiring
more than 16 truck (i.e., multiple axle vehicle) trips per hour on
West Coast Highway, such as excavation and concrete pours,
shall be prohibited between June 1 and September 1 to avoid
traffic conflicts with beach and tourist traffic. At all other times,
such activities on West Coast Highway shall be limited to 25 truck
(i.e., multiple axle vehicle) trips per hour unless otherwise
approved by the City of Newport Beach Traffic Engineer. Haul
operations shall be monitored by the City of Newport Beach Public
Works Department, and additional restrictions may be applied if
traffic congestion problems arise. A staging area shall be
designated on site for construction equipment and supplies to be
stored during construction. No construction vehicles shall be
allowed to stage on off -site roads during the grading and
construction period.
72 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
MM 4.9 -1 Table A identifies the City of Newport Beach (City) transportation
improvement mitigation program for the Project as well as the
Applicant's fair -share responsibility for the improvements. The
resulting levels of service are identified in Table B. In accordance
with the requirements of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, the
improvements shall be completed during the 60 months
immediately after approval. Approval refers to the receipt of all
permits from the City and applicable regulatory agencies. Concept
plans depicting these recommended improvements are provided
in Appendix F to the Newport Banning Ranch EIR.
MM 4.9 -2 Table C identifies the City of Costa Mesa transportation
improvement mitigation program proposed for the Project. The
resulting levels of service are identified in Table D. The Applicant
shall be responsible for using its best efforts to negotiate in good
faith to arrive at fair and responsible arrangements to either pay
fees and /or construct the required improvements in lieu of the
payment of fees to be negotiated with the City of Costa Mesa. The
payment of fees and /or the completion of the improvements shall
be completed during the 60 months immediately after approval.
Approval refers to the receipt of all permits from the City of
Newport Beach and applicable regulatory agencies. Concept
plans depicting these recommended improvements are provided
in Appendix F to the Newport Banning Ranch EIR.
73 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
TABLE A
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS
TABLE B
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Scenario
Peak
Period
Scenario in which Improvements are Needed /Project's Percentage of Fair
With Mitigation
ICU
Share Improvements
ICU
LOS
Intersection 9: Newport Boulevard/West Coast Highway
Restripe the southbound approach on Newport Boulevard to provide one exclusive right -turn lane, one exclusive
left -turn lane, and one shared right -/left -turn lane.
Existing + Project
2016
General
n/a
n/a
n/a
2016 TPO
Existing +
0.93
2016 TPO,
2016
Cumulative,
Plan
Location
Improvement
Project
2016 TPO
Phase 1
Cumulative
Phase 1
Buildout
E
0.91
Restripe the southbound approach on Newport Boulevard to
2016 Cumulative, Phase 1
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
General Plan Buildout
n/a
provide one exclusive right -turn lane, one exclusive left -turn
n/a
n/a
n/a
n /a: not applicable for the traffic scenario.
Source: Kimley -Horn 2011.
Newport
lane, and one shared right - /left -turn lane.
Note: The proposed improvement is limited to restriping of
9
BlvdNVest
n/a
X
X
n/a
n/a
n/a
Coast Hwy
the southbound approach. No physical changes to the
(45.1%)
(9.8 %)
roadway section are anticipated to be necessary and no
changes to the right -of -way should be required.
n/a: Mitigation measure is not required under this traffic scenario.
Source: Kimley-Horn 2011.
TABLE B
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Scenario
Peak
Period
Without Mitigation
With Mitigation
ICU
I LOS
ICU
LOS
Intersection 9: Newport Boulevard/West Coast Highway
Restripe the southbound approach on Newport Boulevard to provide one exclusive right -turn lane, one exclusive
left -turn lane, and one shared right -/left -turn lane.
Existing + Project
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
2016 TPO
AM
0.93
E
0.88
D
2016 TPO, Phase 1
AM
0.91
E
0.86
D
2016 Cumulative.
AM
0.96
E
0.91
E
2016 Cumulative, Phase 1
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
General Plan Buildout
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n /a: not applicable for the traffic scenario.
Source: Kimley -Horn 2011.
74 Exhibit 6
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overridinn Considerations
TABLE C
CITY OF COSTA MESA TRAFFIC MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS
75 Exhibit 8
Scenario in which Improvements are Needed
2016
2016
General
Existing
2016
TPO,
2016
Cumulative,
Plan
Location
Improvement
+ Project
TPO
Phase 1
Cumulative
Phase 1
Buildout
Install a traffic signal.
26
Monrovia Ave/
Note: The improvement would be limited to the installation of the
n/a
X
nla
X
n/a
We
191, St
traffic signal. No physical changes to the roadway section are
anticipated; no right -of -way is anticipated to be required
Provide a second southbound left -turn on Newport Boulevard.
Note: The proposed improvement is anticipated to require
modifications to the medians and incremental widening of the street
34
Newport Blvd/
on one or both sides of the roadway depending on the final
y p 9
n/a
X
n/a
X
n/a
X
19th St
design. Additional right -of -way may be required on one or both
sides of Newport Boulevard. Direct physical impacts are anticipated
to be limited to roadway components including median hardscape
andlandscape.
Addition of a fourth southbound through lane on Newport
Boulevard. Improve the southbound approach of Newport
Boulevard to provide three through lanes and one shared
through /right -turn lane and to improve the south leg to
Newport Blvd/
accommodate a fourth receiving lane.
36
Harbor Blvd
X
X
X
X
X
X
Note: Direct physical impacts are anticipated to be limited to
roadway components, including median hardscape and landscape
improvements, and sidewalk modifications both to the north and
south of the intersection. No existing structures or on- street parking
would be impacted.
Convert the southbound right -turn lane (southbound approach) of
Newport Boulevard to provide a. through /right -turn lane and to
improve the south leg to accommodate a fourth receiving lane.
Newport Blvd/
37
16th St
Note: This improvement has been conditioned on the Hoag Health
X
X
X
X
X
n/a
(Rochester St)
Center project. Direct physical impacts are anticipated to be limited
to roadway components, including median hardscape and
landscape improvements, and sidewalk modifications both to the
north and south of the intersection.
Install a traffic signal.
42
Pomona Ave/
Note: The improvement would be limited to the installation of the
n/a
X
n/a
X
n/a
n/a
17 SL
traffic signal. No physical changes to the roadway section are
anticipated; no right -of -way is anticipated to be required.
75 Exhibit 8
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overridinq Considerations
TABLE C (Continued)
CITY OF COSTA MESA TRAFFIC MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS
76 Exhibit 6
Scenario in which Improvements are Needed
2016
2016
General
Existing
2016
TPO,
2016
Cumulative,
Plan
Location
Improvement
+ Project
TPO
Phase 1
Cumulative
Phase 1
Buildout
Modify the westbound approach to provide one left, one shared
through /left, one through, and one right -turn lane. This will require
split phasing signal operation.
43
Su erior Ave/
17P St
X
X
n/a
X
n/a
n/a
Note: The proposed improvement is limited to signal operation
modifications. No physical changes to the roadway section are
anticipated to be necessary and no changes to the right -of -way
should be required.
Add a fourth through lane on the southbound approach and a
dedicated right -turn lane on the northbound approach.
Note: The proposed improvement in anticipated to require
modifications to the medians and incremental widening of the street
44
Newport Blvd/
on one or both sides of the roadway depending on the final design.
n/a
X
We
X
rife
n/a
17 St
Improvements may also require modifications to the frontage road
along the easterly side of Newport Boulevard. Additional right -of-
way may be required on one or both sides of Newport
Boulevard. Direct physical impacts are anticipated to be limited to
roadway components including median hardscape and landscape.
n /a: Mitigation measure is not required under this traffic scenario.
Source: Kimley -Horn 2011.
76 Exhibit 6
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overridinq Considerations
TABLE D
CITY OF COSTA MESA TRAFFIC MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Scenario
Peak
Period
I Without Mitigation
With Mitigation
ICU
LOS
ICU
LOS
Intersection 28: Monrovia Avenuel19" Street
Install traffic signal
Existing + Project
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
2016 TPO
AM
36.4
E
0.60
A
2016 TPO, Phase 1
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
2016 Cumulative
AM
39.2
E
0.61
B
2016 Cumulative, Phase 1
n /a.
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
General Plan Buildout
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Intersection 34: Newport Boulevard /19'" Street
Assumes the addition of a second southbound left -turn lane on Newport Boulevard.
Existing + Project
n/a
n/a
n/a
nia
n/a
2016 TPO
AM
0.91
E
0.85
D
2016 TPO, Phase 1
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
2016 Cumulative
AM
0.91
E
0.85
D
2016 Cumulative, . Phase 1
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
General Plan Buildout
AM
1.0.1
F
0.99
E
Intersection 36: Newport Boulevard /Harbor Boulevard
Addition of a fourth southbound through lane on Newport Boulevard. Improve the southbound approach of
Newport Boulevard to provide three through lanes and one shared through /right -turn lane and to improve the
.south leg to accommodate a fourth receiving lane.
Existing + Project
PM
1.05
F
0.87
D
2016 TPO
PM
1.14
F
1.01
F
2016 TPO, Phase 1
PM
1.07
F
0.90
D
2016 Cumulative
PM
1.15
F
0.95
E
2016 Cumulative, Phase 1
PM
1.07
F
0.90
D
General Plan Buildout
PM
1.12
F
0.92
E
Intersection 37: Newport Boulevard /18'" Street (Rochester Street)
Assumes the southbound right -turn lane is converted to a southbound shared through /right lane on Newport
Blvd.
Existing + Project
PM
1.05
F
0.88
D
2016 TPO
PM
1.15
F
0.97
E
2016 TPO, Phase 1
PM
1.09
F
0.91
E
2016 Cumulative
PM
1.16
F
0.98.
E
2016 Cumulative, Phase 1
PM
1.09
F
0.91
E
General Plan Buildout
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Intersection 42: Pomona Avenue /17'" Street
Install traffic signal
Existing + Project
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
2016 TPO
PM
46.3
E
0.54
A
2016 TPO, Phase 1
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
2016 Cumulative
PM
53.3
E
0.56
A
2016 Cumulative, Phase 1
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
General Plan Buildout
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
77 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overridinq Considerations
TABLE D
CITY OF COSTA MESA TRAFFIC MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
Scenario
Peak
Period
Without Mitigation
With Mitigation
77EU LOS
ICU
LOS
Intersection 43: Superior Avenue /17'" Street
Assumes the westbound approach is converted to provide one left, one shared /left, one through, and one
dedicated right -turn lane.
Existing + Project
PM
0.91
F
0.81
D
2016 TPO
PM
0.98
E
0.87
D
2016 TPO, Phase 1
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
2016 Cumulative
PM
0.98
E
0.88
D
2016 Cumulative, Phase 1
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
General Plan Buildout
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Intersection 44: Newport Boulevard /17'" Street
Assumes fourth southbound through lane and one dedicated northbound right -turn lane
Existing + Project
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
2016 TPO
PM
0.91
E
0.88
D
2016 TPO, Phase 1
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
2016 Cumulative
PM
0.92
E
0.89
D
2016 Cumulative, Phase 1
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
General Plan Buildout
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a: not applicable to the traffic scenario
Source: Kimley -Horn 2011.
(2) Potential Impact: Implementation of the proposed Project would not increase traffic
hazards due to design features or incompatible land uses and would not result in any
significant impacts related to circulation or access. The Project would not significantly
impact any emergency response evacuation plans.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 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 through the
implementation of SC 4.9 -1 (set forth below), SC 4.9 -3 (set forth above), and MMs
4.9 -3 and 4.9 -4 (set forth below).
Facts in Support of Finding: Because the property is an active oilfield, there are no
public roads through the site. The Project would construct Bluff Road and North Bluff
Road through the site, connecting West Coast Highway to 19th Street, as depicted in
the City of Newport Beach General Plan's Circulation Element and the Orange
County MPAH. Bluff Road would be constructed as a four -lane divided road from
West Coast Highway to 15th Street. North Bluff Road would be constructed as a four -
lane divided road from Bluff Road to the limits of the development area north of 17th
Street and a two -lane road northward to 19th Street. These roadways would intersect
with existing local streets to allow for the circulation of Project traffic to /from the
Project site and regional traffic through the Project site. Project roads would be
designed to be appropriately consistent with the City's Design Criteria, Standard
Special Provisions, and Standard Drawings. To facilitate the movement of
construction traffic and to minimize potential disruptions, standard conditions and
78 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
mitigation, would be applicable to the proposed Project. No significant impacts are
anticipated.
SC 4.9 -1 Sight distance at all intersections shall comply with City of
Newport Beach standards.
MM 4.9 -3 Prior to the introduction of combustible materials on the Project
site, emergency fire access to the site shall be approved by the
City of Newport Beach's Public Works and Fire Departments.
MM 4.9 -4 Prior to the start of grading, the Applicant shall demonstrate to the
City of Newport Beach Fire Department that all existing and new
access roads surrounding the Project site are designated as fire
lanes, and no parking shall be permitted unless the accessway
meets minimum width requirements of the Public Works and Fire
Departments. Parallel parking on one side may be permitted if the
road is a minimum 32 feet in width.
(3) Potential Impact: The Project includes regulations that require adequate parking for
new uses in the Project. The extension of 15th Street consistent with the General Plan
would displace parking at an existing office building.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 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 through the
implementation of MM 4.9 -5 (set forth below).
Facts in Support of Finding: Parking is proposed to meet the City's parking
requirements as well as the Coastal Commission's requirement for visitor - serving
coastal access parking. All local streets would be public and many would allow for
on- street parking; parking would not be permitted on arterials. Any modifications to
the off - street parking requirements, including the use of off -site parking facilities,
joint -use parking, and /or reductions in the required number of off - street parking
spaces for any and all land uses, are permitted pursuant to the provisions of
Municipal Code Chapter 20.
The extension of 15th Street onto the Project site would displace approximately 25
parking spaces associated with the office building along Monrovia Avenue. MM 4.9 -5
requires the Applicant to provide replacement parking for the 25 displaced parking
spaces associated with the existing office building in a parking lot in the proposed
Community Park site. Replacement spaces would be provided concurrent to or
preceding the loss of off -site parking.
MM 4.9 -5 Prior to the displacement of any private parking spaces associated
with improvements to 15th Street, the Applicant shall be
responsible for the construction of replacement parking on the
Project site within the Community Park site or in a location
immediately proximate to the existing parking lot.
69 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
J. Air Quality
(1) Potential Impact: With respect to potential conflicts with the applicable South Coast
Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), the
AQMP provides controls sufficient to attain the national and state ozone and particulate
standards based on the long -range growth projections for the region. The Project does
not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP. Therefore, the Project is in conformance with
the AQMP.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is
Less Than Significant and no Project Design Features, standard conditions of
approval, or mitigation measures were required or recommended.
Facts in Support of Finding: The AQMP is based on growth projections agreed
to the five affected counties and SCAG. If the total population accommodated by
a new project, together with the existing population and the projected population
from all other planned projects in the subarea, does not exceed the growth
projections for that subarea incorporated in the most recently adopted AQMP, the
completed project is consistent with the AQMP. The entire County of Orange is
considered to be one subarea. The AQMP is region -wide and accounts for, and
offsets, cumulative increases in emissions that are the result of anticipated
growth throughout the region. The AQMP assumptions for mobile source
emissions are based on assumed trip generation and trip distances, which are, in
turn, based upon existing uses and general plans. The assumptions in the AQMP
are consistent with the General Plan. The proposed Project does not propose
development that exceeds the quantities in the General Plan; therefore, the
Project does not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP. Because implementation
of the proposed Newport Banning Ranch Project would not exceed growth
projections for the subarea, the Project is considered consistent with the AQMP.
(2) Potential Impact: Construction emissions would exceed the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) regional threshold for nitrogen oxide (NOx) in some of
the years of construction. Emissions of all other criteria pollutants and NOx emissions in
2018 and 2020 through 2023 would not exceed the SCAQMD CEQA significance
thresholds. The exceedance of the NOx threshold would occur when remediation in one
area of the site would occur concurrently with grading in an area where remediation was
completed or not required. Thus, the exceedance would not be continuous for the entire
year but limited to periods when the two activities using multiple pieces of heavy
equipment would overlap. Localized concentrations of carbon monoxide (CO)
concentrations, NOZ, and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) due to construction
activities would not exceed regional thresholds.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 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 through the
implementation of SCs 4.10 -1 and 4.10 -2, and MMs 4.10 -1 through 4.10 -9 (set forth
below).
Facts in Support of Finding: As set forth in the EIR and as clarified and amplified in
the responses to comments received by the Planning Commission, construction
emissions were calculated using CaIEEMod. Compliance with SCAQMD Rules is
required; therefore, it is assumed that construction would be performed in
70 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
accordance with Rule 403, Fugitive Dust, and Rule 1113, Architectural Coatings (SC
4.10 -1 and SC 4.10 -2, respectively). To reduce NOx emissions, MMs 4.10 -1 through
4.10 -4 are incorporated into the Project. MM 4.10 -1 requires the use of advanced
design diesel- engine driven construction equipment with Tier 3 and Tier 4
certification. MMs 4.10 -2 through 4.10 -4 are measures commonly recommended by
the SCAQMD as good practice on large construction projects for NOx emissions
reduction; these measures principally require efficient operations of construction
equipment and construction traffic. Emissions reductions with Tier 3 and Tier 4
equipment can be estimated with the CalEEMod model.
Although unmitigated construction emissions would not exceed the CEQA
significance thresholds for pollutants other than NOx, MMs 4.10 -5 through 4.10 -7
provide additional emissions reductions; these measures require dust control, street
sweeping, and early road paving to minimize fugitive dust, PM10, and PM2.5
emissions. MMs 4.10 -8 and 4.10 -9 provide notices to nearby residents of planned
grading work and a complaint resolution process.
SC 4.10 -1 Dust Control. During construction of the proposed Project, the
Project Developer shall require all construction contractors to
comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District's
(SCAQMD's) Rules 402 and 403 in order to minimize short -term
emissions of dust and particulates. SCAQMD Rule 402 requires
that air pollutant emissions not be a nuisance off site. SCAQMD
Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with Best
Available Control Measures so that the presence of such dust
does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property
line of the emission source. This requirement shall be included as
notes on the contractor specifications. Table 1 of Rule 403 lists
the Best Available Control Measures that are applicable to all
construction projects. The measures include, but are not limited
to, the following:
a. Clearing and grubbing: Apply water in sufficient quantity to
prevent generation of dust plumes.
b. Cut and fill: Pre -water soils prior to cut and fill activities and
stabilize soil during and after cut and fill activities.
c. Earth- moving activities: Pre -apply water to depth of
proposed cuts; re -apply water as necessary to maintain soils
in a damp condition and to ensure that visible emissions do
not exceed 100 feet in any direction; and stabilize soils once
earth - moving activities are complete.
d. Importing /exporting of bulk materials: Stabilize material
while loading to reduce fugitive dust emissions; maintain at
least six inches of freeboard on haul vehicles; and stabilize
material while transporting to reduce fugitive dust emissions.
e. Stockpiles /bulk material handling: Stabilize stockpiled
materials; stockpiles within 100 yards of off -site occupied
buildings must not be greater than 8 feet in height, must have
71 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
a road bladed to the top° to allow water truck access, or must
have an operational water irrigation system that is capable of
complete stockpile coverage.
f. Traffic areas for construction activities: Stabilize all off -
road traffic and parking areas; stabilize all haul routes; and
direct construction traffic over established haul routes.
Rule 403 defines large operations as projects with 50 or more
acres of grading or with a daily earth- moving volume of 5,000
cubic yards at least 3 times in 1 year. The Project is considered a
large operation. Large operations are required to implement
additional dust - control measures (as specified in Tables 2 and 3 of
Rule 403); provide additional notifications, signage, and reporting;
and appoint a Dust Control Supervisor. The Dust Control
Supervisor is required to:
a Be employed by or contracted with the Property Owner or
Developer;
a Be on the site or available on site within 30 minutes during
working hours;
C Have the authority to expeditiously employ sufficient dust
mitigation measures to ensure compliance with all Rule 403
requirements; and
Have completed the AQMD Fugitive Dust Control Class and
have been issued a valid Certificate of Completion for the
class.
SC 4.10 -2 Architectural Coatings. Architectural coatings shall be selected
so that the VOC content of the coatings is compliant with
SCAQMD Rule 1113. This requirement shall be included as notes
on the contractor specifications.
MM 4.10 -1 Off -road Construction Equipment Engines. Prior to issuance of
a grading permit, the Applicant/Master Developer shall
demonstrate to the City of Newport Beach that construction
documents require the construction contractors to implement the
following measures:
a. Prior to December 31, 2014: All off -road diesel - powered
construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower (hp) shall
meet Tier 3 off -road emissions standards.
b. After January 1, 2015: All off -road diesel - powered construction
equipment greater than 50 horsepower (hp) shall meet Tier 4
off -road emissions standards, where available.
c. A copy of each unit's certified Tier specification shall be
provided at the time of mobilization of each applicable unit of
equipment.
4 Refers to a road to the top of the pile.
72 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
MM 4.10 -2 Construction Site Design and Operation. Prior to issuance of a
grading permit, the Landowner /Master Developer shall
demonstrate to the City of Newport Beach that construction
documents require the construction contractors to implement the
following measures or provide information and data that
demonstrates that implementation would not be feasible:
a. Electricity shall come from power poles rather than diesel- or
gasoline- fueled generators, compressors, or similar
equipment;
b. Construction parking shall be configured to minimize traffic
interference;
c. Construction trucks shall be routed away from congested
streets and sensitive receptors;
d. Construction activities that affect traffic flow on the arterial
system shall be scheduled to off -peak hours to the extent
practicable;
e. Temporary traffic controls, such as a flag person(s), shall be
provided where necessary to maintain smooth traffic flow; and
f. Dedicated turn lanes for movement of construction equipment
on- and off -site and signal synchronization shall be provided
as necessary to maintain smooth traffic flow.
MM 4.10 -3 Construction Equipment Operation. Prior to issuance of a
grading permit, the Landowner /Master Developer shall
demonstrate to the City of Newport Beach that construction
documents require the construction contractors to implement the
following measures:
a. All construction equipment shall be tuned and maintained in
accordance with the manufacturer's specifications;
b. Diesel truck idling time shall be five minutes or less, both on-
and off -site; and
c. Work crews shall shut off diesel equipment when not in use.
MM 4.10 -4 Construction Ridesharing and Transit Incentives. Prior to
issuance of a grading permit, the Landowner /Master Developer
shall provide copies of construction documents to the City of
Newport Beach showing that these documents include a
statement that the construction contractors shall support and
encourage ridesharing and transit incentives for the construction
crews.
MM 4.10 -5 Fugitive Dust— Supplementary Measures. Prior to issuance of
each grading permit, the Landowner /Master Developer shall
demonstrate to the City of Newport Beach that construction
documents and grading plans include the following:
a. The contractor shall suspend grading operations when wind
gusts exceed 15 miles per hour;
73 Exhibit 8
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
b. The contractor shall take measures (such as additional
watering or the application of chemical suppressants) to
stabilize disturbed areas and stockpiles prior to non -work days
if windy conditions are forecasted for a weekend, holiday, or
other day when site work is not planned.
c. The contractor shall re -apply water as necessary during
grading and earth - moving to ensure that visible emissions do
not extend to residences or schools.
MM 4.10 -6 Paving of Bluff Road. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the
Landowner /Master Developer shall demonstrate to the City of
Newport Beach that construction plans and schedule require the
construction and paving of Bluff Road between West Coast
Highway and 15'" Street as early as feasible in order to minimize
dust generation by vehicles using the roadway.
MM 4.10 -7 Fugitive Dust — Street Sweeping. Prior to issuance of a grading
permit, the Landowner /Master Developer shall demonstrate to the
City of Newport Beach that construction documents require the
construction contractors to sweep paved roads within and
adjacent to the Project site if visible soil materials are carried to
the streets. Street sweepers or roadway washing trucks shall
comply with SCAQMD Rule 1186 and shall use reclaimed water, if
available.
MM 4.10 -8 Notification of Receptors. The Landowner /Master Developer
shall distribute a notice to all residents, schools, and other
facilities within 100 feet of the Project site that states the following
or similar "the environmental analysis identifies a potential for
excess dust pollution for short periods during heavy grading. Extra
measures shall be taken to prevent the dust from leaving the
Project site, but persons should be aware of the potential for
pollution ". This notice may be combined with the notice described
in MM 4.10 -9.
MM 4.10 -9 Construction Complaint Resolution. The Landowner /Master
Developer shall appoint a person as a contact for complaints
relative to construction impacts to the adjacent neighborhoods. A
contact telephone number and email address shall be posted on
signs at the construction site and shall be provided by mail to all
residents within 500 feet of the Project site. Upon receipt of a
complaint, the designated contact person shall investigate the
complaint and shall develop corrective action, if needed. The
designated contact person shall respond to the complainant within
two working days to describe the results of the investigation, and
submit a report of the complaint and action taken to the City of
Newport Beach. The designated contact person shall maintain a
log of all complaints and resolutions.
(3) Potential Impact: Long -term operational emissions of criteria pollutants would not
exceed the SCAQMD mass emissions thresholds from initial Project occupancy through
2020. However, as Project development continues beyond 2020, emissions of volatile
74 Exhibit 6
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
organic compounds (VOC) and CO would exceed the significance thresholds, principally
due to vehicle operations. The impacts would be significant and unavoidable even with
implementation of the PDFs, compliance with Standard Conditions, and implementation
of identified mitigation measures.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 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. However, the City has
determined that while the above - described impact can be partially mitigated by
Recreation and Trails PDF 4.8 -3 (set forth above), Air Quality PDFs 4.10 -1 and 4.10-
2 (set forth below), and Greenhouse Gas Emissions PDFs 4.11 -1 through 4.11 -5 (set
forth below); SC 4.11 -1 (set forth below); and MMs 4.10 -10 through 4.10 -12 (set forth
below), this impact cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. Other than the
No Development Alternative, there are no other feasible mitigation measures or
alternatives that would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Therefore,
the City hereby also makes Finding 3 which would require the adoption of a
Statement of Overriding Considerations as a condition of Project approval.
Facts in Support of Finding: Operational emissions would begin as residences are
occupied (anticipated to commence in 2015). Between 2015 and the anticipated
completion (2023), the occupancy and use of residences, retail uses, and other
Project components would continue to increase. Over the same period, vehicle
emission factors for most gaseous pollutants are anticipated to decline with improved
vehicle fleet emissions. Operational emissions of all criteria pollutants in 2017 and
2020 would be less than the SCAQMD CEQA significance thresholds. In 2023,
calculated regional emissions of VOC, NOx, and CO resulting from Project operation
would exceed the SCAQMD CEQA significance thresholds. The emissions of SOx,
PM10, and PM2.5 would not exceed the thresholds. Vehicle operations would be the
principal source of pollutant emissions, with consumer products as a secondary
contributor to the total VOC emissions.
PDF 4.10 -1 The Master Development Plan provides for commercial uses, in
the Mixed - Use /Residential and Visitor - Serving Resort/Residential
Land Use Districts, within walking distance of the proposed
residential neighborhoods and nearby residential areas to reduce
vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled.
PDF 4.10 -2 The Master Development Plan provides a network of public
pedestrian and bicycle trails to reduce auto - dependency by
connecting proposed residential neighborhoods to parks and open
space within the Project site and to off -site recreational amenities,
such as the beach and regional parks and trails.
PDF 4.11 -1 The Newport Banning Ranch Planned Community Development
Plan and the Master Development Plan require that the Project be
consistent with a recognized green building programs that exist at
the time of final Project approval such as, but not limited to, Build
It Green, the U.S. Green Building Council's (USGBC's)
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design— Neighborhood
Development (LEED- NDTp9), California Green Builder, or National
Association of Home Builders' National Green Building
Standard TM
Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
PDF 4.11 -2 The Newport Banning Ranch Planned Community Development
Plan and the Master Development Plan require the Project to
exceed adopted 2008 Title 24 energy requirements by a minimum
of five percent.
PDF 4.11 -3 The Master Development Plan and the Newport Banning Ranch
Planned Community Development Plan require the Project to be
coordinated with Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA)
to allow for a transit routing through the community, and will
provide bus stops and /or shelters as needed in the community to
accommodate the bus routing needed by OCTA.
PDF 4.11 -4 The Newport Banning Ranch Planned Community Development
Plan and the Master Development Plan require that all residential
development incorporate the following measures, which will be
reflected on and incorporated into every application for a final
subdivision map that creates residential lots:
a. Builder - installed indoor appliances, including dishwashers,
showers, and toilets, will be low water -use. Homeowners
Association (HOA) owned and operated public and /or common
area men's restrooms will be required to feature waterless
urinals.
b. Smart Controller irrigation systems will be installed in all public
and common area landscaping. Community landscape areas
will be designed on a "hydrozone" basis to group plants
according to their water requirements and sun exposure.
c. Air conditioning units will be Freon -free.
d. Concrete for paving in public infrastructure and Project
common areas will not be acid- washed unless mandated by
agency requirements.
e. The future homeowners association for Newport Banning
Ranch will be required to provide educational information on
recycling to all homeowners prior to individual purchase of
property and again annually.
f. Multimetering "dashboards" will be provided in each dwelling
unit to visualize real -time energy use.
g. Single- family detached residential roofs, commercial building
roofs, and HOA owned public building roofs, which have
adequate solar orientation shall be designed to be compatible
with the installation of photovoltaic panels or other current
solar power technology.
PDF 4.11 -5 The Newport Banning Ranch Planned Community Development
Plan and the Master Development Plan require that the following
measures be implemented during initial project grading activities
and will be incorporated into all grading permit applications
submitted to the City:
76 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
- Statement of Overriding Considerations
a. Construction waste diversion will be increased by 50 percent
from 2010 requirements.
b. To the extent practical, during the oilfield clean -up and
remediation process, the Landowner /Master Developer will be
required to recycle and reuse materials on site to minimize off -
site hauling and disposal of materials and associated off -site
traffic.
SC 4.11 -1 Energy Efficiency Standards. The Project shall be built in
accordance with the California 2008 Building Energy Efficiency
Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, commonly
identified as the "2008 Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards" or the
version of these standards current at the time of the issuance of
each building permit.5
MM 4.10 -10 Bicycle Facilities. Prior to the issuance of building permits for the
following specific components of the Project, the Applicant shall
demonstrate to the City of Newport Beach that:
The plans for multi - family residences shall identify the
provision of a minimum of one on -site bicycle space per ten
dwelling units.
The plans for commercial
use /Residential District shall
minimum of 1 on -site bicycle
feet (gsf) of commercial area.
development in the Mixed -
identify the provision of a
space per 2,500 gross square
c. The plans for resort inn and support commercial areas in the
Visitor - Serving Resort District (or visitor - serving commercial if
the resort is not built) within the Visitor - Serving
Resort/Residential: Provide on -site bicycle rack(s) with a
minimum of 1 bicycle space per 2,500 gsf of the resort inn
building (or commercial square footage if the resort inn is not
built).
d. Bicycle racks shall support the frame of the bike and not just
one wheel; shall allow the locking of the frame and one wheel
to the rack; shall be easily usable by both cable and U- locks;
and shall be usable by a wide variety of bikes, including those
with water bottle cages and with and without kickstands.
e. There shall be clear access routes from bike lanes to bicycle
racks in order to avoid riding through parking lots.
MM 4.10 -11 Conservation Education — Mobile Sources. The future
homeowners associations for Newport Banning Ranch shall be
required to provide educational information on mobile source
emission reduction techniques (such as use of alternative modes
of transportation and zero- or low- emission vehicles) to all
Note that PDF 4.11 -2 requires the Project to exceed the energy requirements of these standards by at least five
percent.
77 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
homeowners as part of purchase closing documents for the
purchase of a property and annually after the close of escrow. The
homeowners associations shall provide an annual report of
conservation educational materials distributed to homeowners to
the City of Newport Beach,
MM 4.10 -12 Conservation Education — Consumer Products. The future
homeowners associations for Newport Banning Ranch shall be
required to provide educational information on the positive
benefits of using consumer products with low or no- volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) (such as paint thinners and solvents)
to all homeowners as part of purchase closing documents for the
purchase of a property and annually after the close of escrow.
(4) Potential Impact: Localized concentrations of CO at congested intersections would
not exceed ambient air quality standards or CEQA significance thresholds.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 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.
Facts in Support of Finding: Because the maximum traffic volumes would be
substantially less than the 31,600 vehicles per hour screening level, congested
intersections are located where mixing of air would not be limited, and because
vehicle mix would not be extraordinary, there would be no potential for a CO hotspot
or exceedance of State or federal CO ambient air quality standard. The impact would
be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.
(5) Potential Impact: The Project would have a significant cumulative air quality impact
because its contribution to regional pollutant concentrations of 03 would be cumulatively
considerable.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 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. However, the City has
determined that while the above - described impact can be partially mitigated by
Recreation and Trails PDF 4.8 -3 (set forth above), Air Quality PDFs 4.10 -1 and 4.10-
2 (set forth above), and Greenhouse Gas Emissions PDFs 4.11 -2 through 4.11 -4
(set forth above); SC 4.11 -1 (set forth above); and MMs 4.10 -10 through 4.10 -12 (set
forth above), this impact cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. There
are no other feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that would reduce this
impact to a less than significant level. Therefore, the City hereby also makes Finding
3 which would require the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations as a
condition of Project approval.
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project region is in nonattainment for ozone (03),
NOZ, PM10, and PM2.5. After 2020, implementation of the Project could result in
long -term emissions of the 03 precursor VOC and short -term emissions of the 03
precursor NO., which would exceed the SCAQMD mass emissions thresholds for
those pollutants. Long -term NOx emissions would not exceed the threshold but are
forecasted to be just less than the threshold. Therefore, the Project would
cumulatively contribute to a regional concentrations of 03 which is a significant,
78 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support or Findings and
Statement of Overridinq Considerations
unavoidable impact. PDFs 4.8 -3, 4.10 -1, 4.10 -2, 4.11 -2, 4.11 -3, and 4.11 -4 are
applicable. PDF 4.8 -3 requires a bridge over West Coast Highway that, if approved,
would further reduce VMT. SC 4.11 -1 requires construction in accordance with the
2008 Title 24 standards. In order to reduce long -term operational emissions, MM
4.10 -10, MM 4.10 -11, and MM 4.10 -12 would be implemented.
(6) Potential Impact: Health risk associated with Toxic Air Contaminants to both off -site
and on -site receptors found the cancer risk, the cancer burden, the chronic hazard risk
and the acute hazard risk are all below the SCAQMD thresholds
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is Less
Than Significant and no mitigation measures, project design features, or standard
conditions of approval were required or recommended.
Facts in Support of Finding: The oilfield consolidation would provide reductions of
cancer risk at 40 percent of the fence line receptors, and reduction of the chronic
non - cancer health risk at 29 percent of the receptors. The reductions are due to the
relocation of oilfield activities away from most of the receptors, as well as the
decreases in emissions due to the reduction in mobile equipment traveling for the
oilfield operations. Decreases in travel time and distance would reduce emissions
from diesel engine exhaust and unpaved road dust.
As a part of the EIR and as clarified and amplified in the responses to comments
received by the Planning Commission, a human health risk assessment (HHRA) was
conducted to determine potential exposure to Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) emitted
from future oilfield operations and from the combination of emissions from the oilfield
and the proposed residential and commercial development. TACs are a diverse
group of air pollutants that include both organic and inorganic chemical substances
that may be emitted from a variety of sources including industrial operations. TACs
are different from the "criteria" pollutants in that ambient air quality standards have
not been established for TACs.6 TACs occurring at extremely low levels may still
cause adverse health effects, and it is typically difficult to identify levels of exposure
that do not produce adverse health effects. TAC impacts are described by
carcinogenic risk, and chronic and acute adverse effects on human health.
The HHRA compared annual TAC emissions to SCAQMD Risk Assessment
Procedures Tier 1 thresholds and, where TAC emissions exceed Tier 1 thresholds, a
Tier 4 refined air dispersion modeling analysis was conducted to determine TAC
exposure concentrations at residential, commercial, and park receptors .7 An
emissions screening level HHRA was performed using the TAC emissions
inventories from the consolidation of oil operations and the proposed residential and
commercial operations. The Tier 1 HHRA was performed in accordance with
SCAQMD air toxics risk assessment procedures for Rules 1401 and 212.
In accordance with the SCAQMD procedures, where the Tier 1 analysis indicated
that TAC emissions exceeded the Tier 1 thresholds, then operational risks were
° An exception is that there are ambient standards for lead and vinyl chloride because the CARB classified these
pollutants as TACs after they were identified as criteria pollutants.
7 SCAQMD risk assessment procedures are defined in tiers. The tiers are designed to be used in order of
increasing complexity. If compliance cannot be demonstrated using one tier, the analyst may proceed to an
appropriate higher tier.
79 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
modeled using the USEPA AERMOD dispersion model. Three scenarios were
modeled: (1) Baseline Conditions; (2) Proposed Project Conditions (future TAC
concentrations at the property's fence line receptors), and (3) Future Oilfield Impact
on Development Area (exposure concentration on the Project's residential and
commercial areas).
TAC emissions that are anticipated to contribute significantly to cancer /chronic or
acute risk are included in the risk assessment calculations using CARB's Hotspots
Analysis Reporting Program (HARP). As required by the HARP protocol, the chronic
air toxic modeling for fence line, residential, and commercial receptors is conducted
for a 70 -year period assuming that a person is located at each receptor grid 24 hours
per day, 365 days per year for 70 years. The chronic modeling for receptors in
recreational areas assumes that the maximum exposure time would be 8 hours per
day, 245 days per year. The acute air toxic modeling is conducted for the peak one -
hour exposure.
The potential impact to existing off -site receptors was calculated by subtracting the
baseline risk from the future risks anticipated to occur after completion of the
proposed Project's consolidated oilfield, residential, and commercial areas.
Incremental chronic cancer risks and non - cancer hazards reflect the increase or
decrease of potential exposures under the future conditions relative to the existing
baseline. Because there are no on -site residential, commercial, or recreational uses,
the baseline risk is zero, and the total risk from the consolidated oilfield to future on-
site represents the incremental risk at these locations.
The cancer burden is the potential increase in the number of cancer cases for the
actual exposed population. SCAQMD procedures require that when the maximum
individual cancer risk (MICR) is greater than one in one million, the cancer burden is
calculated. The USEPA SCREENS model was used to determine the area of
analysis (the area where the cancer risk would be one in one million or greater). The
peak cancer risk for the consolidated oilfield on proposed. residential and commercial
areas was assumed to apply to the entire population within a radius area defined by
the distance at which the cancer risk dropped below one in one million.
The Tier 1 analysis was performed for two cases: (1) Net emissions increase (i.e.,
future conditions minus the baseline) from the consolidated oilfield and the proposed
residential, commercial, and hotel development to off -site receptors 100 meters from
the Project fence line and (2) emissions from the future consolidated oilfield to
receptors within the Project site (the baseline for this case is zero). Because the Tier
1 analysis indicated that at least one applicable screening index is projected to be
greater than 1.0 for each scenario, a Tier 4 analysis was performed.
The HHRA Tier 4 analysis was performed using the AERMOD and HARP models.
The scenarios considered were similar to those used for the Tier 1 analysis with the
following parameters: (1) for the impact from the Project and oilfield emissions to off -
site receptors, the receptors were located at the property boundary (fence line). The
exposure time for these receptors (HARP protocol) is assumed to be 24 hours per
day, 350 days per year, for 70 years; and (2) for the impact from the oilfield
emissions to on -site receptors, separate analyses were made for residential and
commercial receptors and for recreational areas. The exposure time for the
residential and commercial receptors is assumed to be 24 hours per day, 350 days
per year, for 70 years; the exposure time for recreation area receptors is 8 hours per
80 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
day, 245 days per year, for 70 years. The Tier 4 analysis indicates that for all
scenarios, the Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk (MICR) would be less than 10 in 1
million and the chronic non - cancer and acute hazard indices would be less than 1.0.
None of the TAC impact indicators would exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds.
The proposed oilfield consolidation would provide reductions of cancer risk at
40 percent of the fence line receptors, and reduction of the chronic non - cancer
health risk at 29 percent of the receptors. The reductions are due to the relocation of
oilfield activities away from most of the existing receptors, as well as the decreases
in emissions due to the reduction in mobile equipment traveling for the oilfield
operations. Decreases in travel time and distance would reduce emissions from
diesel engine exhaust and unpaved road dust.
Although all calculated MICR values are less than the 10 in 1 million SCAQMD
threshold, SCAQMD procedures require that when the MICR is greater than one in
one million, the cancer burden is calculated. The cancer burden is the potential
increase in the number of cancer cases for the actual exposed population. The
USEPA SCREEN3 model was used to determine the area of analysis, which is the
area where the cancer risk would be one in one million or greater. Drawing a rough
boundary around the outer edge of the entire Project site (not just the 20 -acre
consolidated oilfields) captured 19 census tracts in the Cities of Newport Beach,
Costa Mesa, and Huntington Beach. These census tracts have a combined
population of approximately 86,000. Assuming that everyone in these tracts was
exposed to a 4 in 1 million incremental cancer risk, the cancer burden would be 0.34,
which is less than the SCAQMD significance threshold of 0.5. The HHRA used very
conservative assumptions. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated and no
mitigation measures were required or recommended.
(7) Potential Impact: Odors may be perceived from both construction and long -term
operations, but these odors would be typical for the land use and operations. Odors from
the oilfields are not anticipated to be perceptible at nearby developed sites.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 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 through the
implementation of MM 4.10 -13 (set forth below).
Facts in Support of Finding: Field observation at the existing oilfield operations did
not detect objectionable odors between 50 and 100 feet from oilfield machinery.
Future residences, parks, and other areas where substantial groups of people would
gather would be 200 feet or further from the oilfields. Although no odor impacts area
anticipated, MM 4.10 -13 would provide a mechanism for future homeowners to
register odor complaints.
MM 4.10 -13 Odor Complaints. The future homeowners associations for
Newport Banning Ranch shall be required to advise residents that
complaints about offensive odors may be reported to the City
using the Quest online format on the City web site and /or to the
South Coast Air Quality Management District at 1- 800 -CUT-
SMOG (1- 800 - 288 - 7664). Disclosures shall be provided to
prospective buyers /tenants of residential development regarding
the potential of odors from the Project.
81 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
K. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
(1) Potential Impact: The Project would make a cumulatively considerable contribution
to the global greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 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. However, the City has
determined that while the above - described impact can be partially mitigated by
Recreation and Trails PDF 4.8 -3 (set forth above), Air Quality PDFs 4.10 -1 and 4.10-
2 (set forth above), and Greenhouse Gas Emissions PDFs 4.11 -1 through 4.11 -5;
SC 4.11 -1; and MMs 4.11 -1 through 4.11 -6 (set forth below), this impact cannot be
mitigated to a less than significant level. There are no other feasible mitigation
measures or alternatives that would reduce this impact to a less than significant
level. Therefore, the City hereby also makes Finding 3 which would require the
adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations as a condition of Project
approval.
Facts in Support of Finding: The total annual estimated GHG emissions for the
proposed Project are 19,392 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
(MMTCO2e). The Project would emit quantities of GHGs that would exceed the City's
6,000 MTCO2e /yr significance threshold. The Project would make a cumulatively
considerable contribution to the global GHG inventory and would have a cumulatively
significant impact on global climate change.
Temporary impacts would result from Project construction activities. GHGs would be
emitted by off -road and on -road construction equipment and worker vehicles
including remediation, consolidation, and construction activities. The total
construction GHG emissions are estimated at 16,851 MTCO2e. Operational GHG
emissions include mobile sources and operational activities. Reductions would be
associated with vehicular reductions that would result from the mixed use,
neighborhood walkability, and increased density designs; energy design that would
exceed Title 24 requirements; and water conservation design for indoor and outdoor
use. These measures would result in an estimated reduction in forecasted buildout
annual operational GHG emissions of approximately 25 percent: from 25,359 to
18,949 MTCO2e /yr.
The proposed Project is anticipated to include the planting of approximately 9,000
trees inclusive of private residential areas, parks, parkways, and medians. The
Project would improve the sequestration capacity of the project site by approximately
3,564 MTCO2e. These emissions, similar to construction emissions, are single -event
emissions to be amortized over the Project lifetime.
The Project would be consistent with applicable City of Newport Beach General Plan
policies that would result in minimization of GHG emissions and with measures
recommended by the California Attorney General to reduce GHG emissions.
Notwithstanding, the Project would emit quantities of GHGs that would substantially
exceed the City's 6,000 MTCO2e /yr significance threshold. GHG emission reductions
resulting from implementation of the SC, PDFs, and the Green and Sustainable
Program cannot be reasonably estimated. These reductions would not reduce
emissions to less than 6,000 MTCO2e /yr. Despite application of all feasible
mitigation, the Project would make a cumulatively considerable contribution to the
82 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overridinq Considerations
global GHG inventory and would have a significant and unavoidable GHG emissions
impact.
PDF 4.11 -1 The Newport Banning Ranch Planned Community Development
Plan and the Master Development Plan require that the Project be
consistent with a recognized green building programs that exist at
the time of final Project approval such as, but not limited to, Build
It Green, the U.S. Green Building Council's (USGBC's)
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design— Neighborhood
Development (LEED- ND TM), California Green Builder, or National
Association of Home Builders' National Green Building
Standard TM
PDF 4.11 -2 The Newport Banning Ranch Planned Community Development
Plan and the Master Development Plan require the Project to
exceed adopted 2008 Title 24 energy requirements by a minimum
of five percent.
PDF 4.11 -3 The Master Development Plan and the Newport Banning Ranch
Planned Community Development Plan require the Project to be
coordinated with Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA)
to allow for a transit routing through the community, and will
provide bus stops and /or shelters as needed in the community to
accommodate the bus routing needed by OCTA.
PDF 4.11 -4 The Newport Banning Ranch Planned Community Development
Plan and the Master Development Plan require that all residential
development incorporate the following measures, which will be
reflected on and incorporated into every application for a final
subdivision map that creates residential lots:
a. Builder - installed indoor appliances, including dishwashers,
showers, and toilets, will be low water -use. Homeowners
Association (HOA) owned and operated public and /or common
area men's restrooms will be required to feature waterless
urinals.
b. Smart Controller irrigation systems will be installed in all public
and common area landscaping. Community landscape areas
will be designed on a "hydrozone" basis to group plants
according to their water requirements and sun exposure.
c. Air conditioning units will be Freon -free.
d. Concrete for paving in public infrastructure and Project
common areas will not be acid - washed unless mandated by
agency requirements.
e. The future homeowners association for Newport Banning
Ranch will be required to provide educational information on
recycling to all homeowners prior to individual purchase of
property and again annually.
Multimetering "dashboards" will be provided in each dwelling
unit to visualize real -time energy use.
83 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts. in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
g. Single- family detached residential roofs, commercial building
roofs, and HOA owned public building roofs, which have
adequate solar orientation shall be designed to be compatible
with the installation of photovoltaic panels or other current
solar power technology.
PDF 4.11 -5 The Newport Banning Ranch Planned Community Development
Plan and the Master Development Plan require that the following
measures be implemented during initial project grading activities
and will be incorporated into all grading permit applications
submitted to the City:
a. Construction waste diversion will be increased by 50 percent
from 2010 requirements.
b. To the extent practical, during the oilfield clean -up and
remediation process, the Landowner /Master Developer will be
required to recycle and reuse materials on site to minimize off -
site hauling and disposal of materials and associated off -site
traffic.
SC 4.11 -1 Energy Efficiency Standards. The Project shall be built in
accordance with the California 2008 Building Energy Efficiency
Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, commonly
identified as the "2008 Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards" or the
version of these standards current at the time of the issuance of
each building permit.8
MM 4.11 -1 Prior to the issuance of each occupancy permit, the Applicant
shall submit for approval to the Community Development Director
the plan for the applicable future homeowners association to
provide educational information on (1) water conservation; (2)
energy conservation, including the use of energy- efficient lighting
and the limiting of outdoor lighting; (3) mobile source emission
reduction techniques, such as use of alternative modes of
transportation and zero- or low- emission vehicles; and (4) the use
of solar heating, automatic covers, and efficient pumps and
motors for pools and spas to all homeowners prior to individual
purchase of property and again annually.9
MM 4.11 -2 Prior to the issuance of the building permit for the resort inn and
each building permit for a multi - family complex with a swimming
pool or spa, the Applicant shall submit for approval to the
Community Development Director that the plans incorporate
energy efficient heating, pumps and motors.
8 Note that PDF 4.11 -2 requires the Project to exceed the energy requirements of these standards by at least five
percent.
9 The requirements in this measure are in addition to those of PDF 4.11 -4f, but may be distributed and /or grouped
together by the homeowners associations. The mobile source emissions component of this measure is the same
as MM 4.10 -7.
84 Exhibit 8
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
MM 4.11 -3 Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the Applicant shall
submit for approval to the Public Works Director that light emitting
diode (LED) lights shall be used for traffic lights and LED or similar
energy - efficient lighting will be used for street lights and other
outdoor lighting.
MM 4.11 -4 Prior to the issuance of each building permit for multi - family
buildings, parks, and other public spaces, the Applicant shall
submit for approval to the Community Development Director that
the plans include the installation of facilities for the collection of
recyclable materials consistent with the recycle requirements of
the City and the local waste collection contractor.
MM 4.11 -5 Prior to the issuance of each building permit for multi - family
buildings with subterranean parking and the resort inn, the
Applicant shall submit for approval to the Community
Development Director that the plans include the (1) the
designation of a minimum of three percent of the parking spaces
for electric or hybrid vehicles and (2) installation of facilities for
Level 2 electric vehicle recharging, unless it is demonstrated that
the technology for these facilities or availability of the equipment
current at the time makes this installation infeasible. Prior to the
issuance of each building permit for residential buildings with
attached garages, the Applicant shall submit for approval to the
Community Development Director that the plans (1) identify a
specific place or area for a Level 2 charging station could be
safely installed in the future; (2) includes the necessary conduit to
a potential future Level 2 charging station; and (3) the electrical
load of the building can accommodate a Level 2 charging station.
MM 4.11 -6 Prior to the issuance of each building permit for multi - family
buildings, commercial building, park, and other public space, the
Applicant shall submit for approval to the Community
Development Director that the plans include the installation of
bicycle parking spaces at each facility. Bicycle spaces for
residents and employees shall be easily accessible and secure.
Bicycle spaces for visitors and customers, in parks, and in public
spaces shall be visible from the primary entrance, illuminated at
night, and protected from damage from moving and parked
vehicles.
L. Noise
(1) Potential Impact: Construction activities would result in a substantial temporary
increase in ambient noise levels to noise sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the Project.
This is a significant, unavoidable impact.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 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. However, the City has
determined that while the above- described impact can be partially mitigated by SC
4.12 -1 and MMs 4.12 -2 through 4.12 -3 (set forth below), this impact cannot be
85 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement or Overriding Considerations -
mitigated to a less than significant level. There are no other feasible mitigation
measures or alternatives that would reduce this impact to a less than significant
level. Therefore, the City hereby also makes Finding 3 which would require the
adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations as a condition of Project
approval.
Facts in Support of Finding: Construction noise would be related primarily to the
use of heavy equipment during the grading phase of construction. The Project is
anticipated to be implemented over approximately 9 years. MMS 4.12 -1 and 4.12 -2
would reduce construction noise levels to values consistent with the Federal Transit
Administration's construction noise impact guidelines and the construction noise
limits established by some jurisdictions. However, even with temporary noise
barriers, maximum construction noise events for short periods of time could range up
to 40 dBA above the ambient noise levels and average hourly noise levels could be
30 dBA above ambient in areas where the existing ambient noise levels are low (i.e.,
in the 45 to 50 dBA Le range) and construction occurs close to a Project boundary.
Due to the low existing ambient noise levels, the proximity of the noise - sensitive
receivers, and duration of construction activities, the temporary noise increases would
be significant. There would be periodic, temporary, unavoidable significant noise
impacts that would cease upon completion of construction activities. MM 4.12 -3 would
provide notification to residents to allow persons to plan activities to minimize the
potential disruption that could be caused by the construction noise.
SC 4.12 -1 To ensure compliance with Newport Beach Municipal Code
Section 10.28.040, grading and construction plans shall include a
note indicating that loud noise- generating Project construction
activities (as defined in Section 10.28.040 of the Newport Beach
Noise Ordinance) shall take place between the hours of 7:00 AM
and 6:30 PM on weekdays and from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM on
Saturdays. Loud, noise - generating construction activities are
prohibited on Sundays and federal holidays.
MM 4.12 -1 Grading plans and specifications shall include temporary noise
barriers for all grading, hauling, and other heavy equipment
operations that would occur within 300 feet of sensitive off -site
receptors and occur for more than 20 working days. The noise
barriers shall be 12 feet high, but may be shorter if the top of the
barrier is at least one foot above the line of sight between the
equipment and the receptors. The barriers shall be solid from the
ground to the top of the barrier, and have a weight of at least 2.5
pounds per square foot, which is equivalent to 1/4 inch thick
plywood. The barrier design shall optimize the following
requirements: (1) the barrier shall be located to maximize the
interruption of line of sight between the equipment and the
receptor, which is normally at the top of slope when the grading
area and receptor are at different elevations. However, a top of
slope location may not be feasible if the top of slope is not on the
Project site; (2) the length and of the barrier shall be selected to
block the line of sight between the grading area and the receptors;
(3) the barrier shall be located as close as feasible to the receptor
or as close as feasible to the grading area; a barrier is least
86 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overridinq Considerations
effective when it is at the midpoint between noise source
and receptor.
If preferred by the developer or contractor, the construction of a
temporary earth berm may be used as the noise barrier. Earth
berms provide greater noise reduction than wood or masonry
walls of the same height.
A temporary noise barrier shall not be required when it is
demonstrated to the Community Development Department,
Building Division Manager or his /her designee that a barrier would
not be feasible. Reasons may include, but not be limited to (1) the
barrier would cause impacts more severe than the construction
noise, (2) the barrier would interfere with the construction work,
and (3) a property owner refuses to allow the barrier.
MM 4.12 -2 Prior to the start of grading, the Construction Manager shall
provide evidence acceptable to the City of Newport Beach Public
Works Director and /or Community Development Director, that:
a. All construction vehicles or equipment, fixed or mobile, shall
be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers;
mufflers shall be equivalent to or of greater noise reducing
performance than manufacturer's standard.
b. Stationary equipment, such as generators, cranes, and air
compressors, shall be located as far from local residences and
the Carden Hall School as feasible. Where stationary
equipment must be located within 250 feet of a sensitive
receptor, the equipment shall be equipped with appropriate
noise reduction measures (e.g., silencers, shrouds, or other
devices) to limit the equipment noise at the nearest sensitive
residences to 65 dBA Leq.
c. Equipment maintenance, vehicle parking, and material staging
areas shall be located as far away from local residences and
the Carden Hall School as feasible.
MM 4.12 -3 At least two weeks prior to the start of any grading operation or
similar noise generating activities within 300 feet of residences or
the Carden Hall school, the contractor shall notify affected
residents and the school of the planned start date, duration,
nature of the construction activity, and noise abatement measures
to be provided. The notification shall include a contact telephone
number for questions and the submittal of any complaints of
excess, unanticipated noise.
(2) Potential Impact: The increased traffic volumes on local roads associated with the
Project would expose off -site sensitive receptors to increased noise levels in excess of
City of Newport Beach standards for changes to ambient noise levels.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 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. MM 4.12 -5 (set forth
87 Exhibit 8
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
below) is applicable to noise impacts in the City of Costa Mesa. SC 4.12 -4 is
applicable to public streets in the City of Newport Beach (set forth below). MMs 4.12-
6 and 4.12 -7 (set forth below) are applicable to noise impacts on private properties in
the City of Newport Beach. However, Finding 2 identifies that "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 ". The City of
Newport Beach cannot impose mitigation on another jurisdiction or on private
property. Therefore, noise mitigation that would require the approval of the City of
Costa Mesa or occur on private property is considered a significant, unavoidable
impact. There are no other feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that would
reduce this impact to a less than significant. Therefore, the City hereby also makes
Finding 3 which would require the adoption of a Statement of Overriding
Considerations as a condition of Project approval.
Facts in Support of Finding — Costa Mesa: Noise sensitive uses adjacent to the
17th Street road segment west of Monrovia Avenue include six single- family
residences that have front yards and side yards facing 17th Street. Because the
single - family residences front onto 17th Street and driveway access from the streets
to these homes is needed, the construction of sound walls would not be effective
because a continuous wall is necessary for noise abatement. MM 4.12 -5 provides
funds to resurface 17th Street west of Monrovia Avenue and 15th Street west of
Placentia Avenue with rubberized asphalt as required. Noise level increases to
sensitive receptors adjacent to off -site roadways would be reduced to a less than
significant level. However, because the City of Newport Beach does not have the
authority to mandate the implementation of mitigation in the City of Costa Mesa, the
impact is considered significant and unavoidable.
Newport Beach Public Property. Project traffic noise could significantly impact
several residential patios and balconies and apartment units along adjacent to 15`h
Street west of Placentia Avenue. MM 4.12 -5 would require the Applicant would
provide funds to the City of Newport Beach for the installation of rubberized asphalt
pavement. The estimated 4 dBA noise reduction provided by the pavement would
reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
Newport Beach Private Property. The roadways were assumed to be paved with
rubberized asphalt in accordance with SC 4.12 -4. At Newport Crest, future noise
levels would exceed existing noise levels by 8.6 to 16.1 dBA at Newport Crest
receptor locations. Because future cumulative noise levels would be 5 or more dBA
greater than the existing noise levels, the cumulative impact would be significant.
MM 4.12 -6 would reduce noise levels to the "Clearly Compatible" and "Normally
Compatible" ranges defined in the City of Newport Beach General Plan although the
forecasted exterior noise level increases of 5 dBA or greater are substantial when
compared to existing noise levels. Although exterior and interior noise levels would
meet State and local compatibility standards with MM 4.12 -6, the degree of noise
increases require the consideration of further feasible mitigation. MM 4.12 -7 requires
windows with improved noise reduction capability and second floor balconies noise
barriers The City cannot mandate improvements on private property. Therefore, for
purposes of CEQA, the Project would result in a significant unavoidable noise impact
because the City cannot be assured that the recommended mitigation can be
implemented. Noise levels at other off -site sensitive land uses would be less than
significant.
88 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overridinq Considerations
SC 4.12 -4 In accordance with City of Newport Beach standards, rubberized
asphalt, or pavements offering equivalent or better acoustical
properties shall be used to pave all public arterials on the Project
site and all off -site City of Newport Beach roads where
improvements would be provided or required as a part of
the Project.
MM 4.12 -5 The Applicant shall provide evidence that funds have been
deposited with the City of Newport Beach associated with the cost
of one -time resurfacing 15th Street west of Placentia Avenue with
rubberized asphalt. The Applicant shall provide evidence to the
City of Newport Beach that funds have been deposited with the
City of Costa Mesa associated with the cost of one -time
resurfacing 17th Street west of Monrovia Avenue with rubberized
asphalt.
MM 4.12 -6 Prior to the approval of a grading permit for Bluff Road and 15th
Street, the Applicant shall demonstrate to the City of Newport
Beach that the Project plans and specifications require the
construction and installation of a noise barrier to reduce future
traffic noise from the Bluff Road and 15th Street to the Newport
Crest residences. The Applicant shall provide an acoustical
analysis prepared by a qualified Acoustical Engineer, of the
proposed barrier, which may be a wall, an earth berm, or a berm -
wall combination. The noise barrier, at a minimum, shall reduce
forecasted future ground floor residential exterior noise levels to
60 dBA CNEL and second floor residential noise levels to 65 dBA
CNEL. The barrier shall be solid from the ground to the top with no
decorative cutouts and shall weigh at least 3.5 pounds per square
foot of face area. The barrier may be constructed using masonry
block, '/ inch thick glass, or other transparent material with
sufficient weight per square foot.
MM 4.12 -7 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for Bluff Road and /or
15th Street, the Applicant shall provide written notice to affected
residents of an offer of a program (Program) for the retrofit and
installation of dual pane windows /sliding doors on the fagade
facing the Newport Banning Ranch property. The Program offer
shall only apply to the owners of the residences (Owners) with
rear elevations directly adjacent to the Newport Banning Ranch
property in the western and northern boundaries of Newport Crest
Condominiums impacted by significant noise levels (significant
being a cumulative increase over existing conditions greater than
5 dBA) associated with the Project as determined by a licensed
Acoustical Engineer. Improvements shall be subject to the
approval of the Newport Crest Homeowners Association
(Association) and Owners. The Applicant shall be responsible for
the implementation of the Program pursuant to the following
provisions and guidelines: (i) in order to participate in the Program
and receive new windows /sliders, each participating Owner must
provide written notice to the Applicant within 45 days following
receipt of the proposed Program from the Applicant, that the
89 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Owner wants to participate in the Program; (ii) failure to respond
within such time period shall mean the Owner desires not to
participate; (iii) following receipt of written notice from participating
Owners, the Applicant shall obtain a cost estimate and submit
written specifications from a licensed and bonded window
contractor to the Owners and the Association for
design /architectural approval; (iv) following receipt of
design /architectural approval from the Owners and the
Association of written specifications, the Applicant shall enter into
a contract with a qualified, licensed and bonded contractor for the
installation of windows /sliders to the participating Owners'
condominiums as part of one overall Program pursuant to the
contract between the Applicant and the contractor; (v) the total
cost of the Program shall be paid by the Applicant on behalf of the
Owners in an amount not exceed the total cost identified in the
cost estimate approved by the Applicant. Nothing in Mitigation
Measure 4.12 -7 shall prohibit the City from issuing a grading
permit for Bluff Road or 15`h Street in the event any or all Owners
decline to participate in the Program.
(3) Potential Impact: Traffic noise levels has the potential to impact certain sensitive
(i.e., residential and resort inn) land uses within the Project site.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is Less
Than Significant as a result of implementation of SC 4.12 -3 (set forth below) and SC
4.12 -4 (set forth above) and MM 4.12 -8 (set forth below).
Facts in Support of Finding: Project - related traffic noise levels to exceed 65 dBA
CNEL at exterior receptors within the (1) South Family Village adjacent to Bluff Road
and North Bluff Road; (2) North Family Village west of North Bluff Road between 16th
Street and 17`h Street; and (3) Urban Colony east of North Bluff Road. SC 4.12 -3
requires that interior noise levels at new residential and hotel uses to meet the
applicable interior noise standards. SC 4.12 -4 requires the application of rubberized
asphalt for pavement of public arterials within the Project site and off -site public
roads where improvements are proposed or required, minimizing noise impacts to
adjacent existing and future uses. MM 4.12 -8 requires the preparation of an
acoustical study to demonstrate that the exterior living areas of proposed residential
developments would be exposed to noise levels below 65 dBA CNEL prior to tract
map approval for residential uses.
SC 4.12 -3 All residential and hotel units shall be designed to ensure that
interior noise levels in habitable rooms from exterior transportation
sources (including aircraft and vehicles on adjacent roadways)
shall not exceed 45 dBA CNEL. This SC complies with the
applicable sections of the California Building Code (Title 24 of the
California Code of Regulations) and, for single - family detached
residences, exceeds the requirements of Section 10.26.025 of the
Noise Ordinance. Prior to granting of a building permit, the
Developer /Applicant shall submit to the City of Newport Beach
Community Development Department, Building Division Manager
or his /her designee for review and approval architectural plans
and an accompanying noise study that demonstrates that interior
90 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
noise levels in the habitable rooms of residential units due to
exterior transportation noise sources would be 45 dBA CNEL or
less. Where closed windows are required to achieve the 45 dBA
CNEL limit, Project plans and specifications shall include
ventilation as required by the California Building Code.
MM 4.12 -8 Prior to final map recordation for the residential areas adjacent to
Bluff Road and North Bluff Road, including the Urban Colony, the
Applicant shall provide an acoustical analysis prepared by a
qualified Acoustical Engineer to the City of Newport Beach for
review and approval. The analysis shall demonstrate that the
residential exterior living areas including, but not limited to
swimming pools, playgrounds, and patios, would be exposed to
noise levels below 65 dBA CNEL. The acoustical analysis shall
also demonstrate that the North Community Park has been
designed such that permitted park activities would not exceed the
City's Noise Ordinance standards at residential exterior living
areas. This can be accomplished through site design or the
construction of noise barriers. Barriers may be constructed using
an earth berm, wall, or berm -wall combination. Walls may be
masonry block, '/- inch -thick glass, or other transparent material
with sufficient weight per square foot.
(4) Potential Impact: Potential long -term stationary noise impacts would be associated
with residential uses, commercial uses at the mixed -use development, operations at the
proposed resort inn, the Community Park, and consolidated oil operations.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is Less
Than Significant as a result of implementation of SC 4.12 -2 (set forth below) and
MMs 4.12 -8 (set forth above) through 4.12 -11 (set forth below).
Facts in Support of Finding: Stationary source noise is regulated through the Cities
of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa Noise Ordinances; the standards are the same
for both cities. Potential stationary- related noise impacts associated with residential
uses include the operation of air conditioning units and outdoor activities. Potential
long -term stationary noise impacts with the Project's mixed -use residential area
would be occur primarily with loading dock activities, including truck deliveries;
operation of mechanical equipment, including exterior ground- mounted and rooftop
HVAC units; parking lot activity; and noise from restaurant and entertainment
establishments. With respect to the resort inn, the closest residential area nearest
would be approximately 100 feet north of the northern boundary of the resort inn
section of the Resort Colony area. The location of outdoor activity areas at the resort
inn has not been defined but because the inn entrance would be at the north end
and the most attractive views would be to the south and west, it is likely that outdoor
activities would be on the southern portion of the resort inn and separated from the
residential areas by both distance and buildings. No impacts to the residential areas
are anticipated. Further, compliance with the Noise Ordinance is required for the
resort inn operators. With respect to the North Community Park, all field and court
lighting would shut off at 10:00 PM; only passive use such as walking would be
anticipated to occur from 10:00 PM until 11:00 PM. Activities at the park would not
exceed the City of Newport Beach limits included in the City's Noise Ordinance.
91 Exhibit 8
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement.of Overriding Considerations
The drilling of wells requires some periods of 24 -hour activity. Drilling noise,
consisting principally of diesel engines and tool maneuvering, could occur during the
nighttime for periods up to five consecutive days. Intermittent noise levels at
receptors 200 feet away could be 75 dBA, although it is likely that the source to
receptor distance would be greater. MM 4.12 -11 requires the use of noise reduction
strategies to minimize drilling noise.
SC 4.12 -2 HVAC units shall be designed and installed in accordance with
Section 10.26.045 of the Newport Beach Noise Ordinance, which
specifies the maximum noise levels for new HVAC installations
and associated conditions.
MM 4.12 -9 Truck deliveries and loading dock activities in commercial areas of
the Project shall be restricted to between the hours of 7:00 AM
and 10:00 PM on weekdays and Saturdays and shall be restricted
to between the hours of 9:00 AM and 10:00 PM on Sundays and
federal holidays. Moreover, the Project Applicant/Developer or his
successors and assignees shall specify in the contract for each
operator of a commercial space that truck deliveries and loading
dock activities shall be restricted to these specified hours.
MM 4.12 -10 Loading docks shall be sited to minimize noise impacts to
adjacent residential areas. If loading docks or truck driveways are
proposed as part of the Project's commercial areas within 200 feet
of an existing home, an 8- foot -high screening wall shall be
constructed to reduce potential noise impacts.
MM 4.12 -11 Prior to the approval of a permit by the California Department of
Conservation, Department of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal
Resources (DOGGR) for the drilling of replacement oil wells in the
Consolidated Oil Facility, the Applicant shall provide to the City of
Newport Beach descriptions of the noise reduction methods to be
used to minimize drilling activity noise. These methods may
include, as feasible, but not be limited to (1) use of electric power
in place of internal combustion engines, and (2) acoustical
blankets or similar shielding around elevated engines on drill rigs.
(5) Potential Impact: Vibration may be noticeable for short periods during construction,
but it would be temporary and periodic
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is Less
Than Significant as a result of implementation of MM 4.12 -4 (set forth below).
Facts in Support of Finding: Construction activities can generate varying degrees
of groundborne vibration depending on the construction procedures and equipment
used. Groundborne vibration from construction activities rarely reaches levels that
can damage structure. Unless there are extremely large generators of vibration, such
as pile drivers, or receptors in close proximity to construction equipment, vibration is
generally only perceptible at structures when vibration rattles windows, picture
frames, and other projects. The existing Newport Crest condominiums and the
California Seabreeze residential community adjacent to the Project site would be
considered older residential structures for vibration impact assessment. The
Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overridinq Considerations
operation of large bulldozers and vibration rollers operating at the property boundary
at ten feet from a residential structure has the potential to cause structural damage.
MM 4.12 -4 prohibits the operation of large bulldozers and vibratory rollers within 25
feet of any existing residence, and would reduce the potential impact to a less than
significant level.
MM 4.12 -4 During construction, the operation of large bulldozers, vibratory
rollers, and similar heavy equipment shall be prohibited within 25
feet of any existing off -site residence.
M. Cultural and Paleontological Resources
(1) Potential Impact: The Project would not impact any known historical resources.
Grading and excavation could impact unknown historical resources.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this potentially
significant impact is Less Than Significant as a result of the implementation of MM
4.13 -1 (set forth below).
Facts in Support of Finding: The historical resources (eight buildings and their
adjacent elements) on the Project site were formally evaluated. None were found to
be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) or the
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The Project would not impact any
known significant historical resources. Although no impacts are anticipated to
historical resources, MM 4.13 -1 requires that an archaeologist monitor grading and
excavation activities in the event that unknown historic resources are uncovered
during these activities. The archaeologist would have the ability to temporarily halt or
redirect work to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of the artifacts and
resources.
MM 4.13 -1 Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit and /or action that
would permit Project site disturbance, the Applicant/Contractor
shall provide written evidence to the City of Newport Beach
Community Development Department that the Applicant/
Contractor has retained a qualified Archaeologist to observe
grading activities and to salvage and catalogue archaeological
and historic resources, as necessary. The Archaeologist shall be
present at the pre -grade conference; shall establish procedures
for archaeological resource surveillance; and shall establish, in
cooperation with the Applicant/Contractor, procedures for
temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling,
identification, and evaluation of the artifacts, as appropriate. If
archaeological and /or historic resources are found to be
significant, the Archaeologist shall determine appropriate actions,
in cooperation with the City and Applicant/Contractor, for
exploration and /or salvage. These actions, as well as final
mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the
approval of the Community Development Director.
Based on their interest and concern about the discovery of cultural
resources and human remains during Project grading, a qualified
Native American Monitor(s) shall be retained to observe some or
all grading activities.
93 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overridino Considerations
Nothing in this mitigation measure precludes the retention of a
single cross- trained observer who is qualified to monitor for both
archaeological and paleontological resources.
(2) Potential Impact: Grading and oilfield remediation activities would impact three
known archeological sites and could impact unknown resources.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this potentially
significant impact is Less Than Significant as a result of the implementation of SC
4.13 -1 (set forth below), MM 4.13 -1 (set forth above), and MM 4.13 -2 (set forth
below).
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site includes 11 archaeological sites
including 3 sites that would be impacted by the Project. Archaeological sites
(CA -ORA -839, CA -ORA -8448, and CA -ORA -906) are considered eligible for listing
on the CRHR and the NRHP. Disturbance activities could also impact unknown
resources. The removal of oilfield - related infrastructure would adversely impact
portions of CA -ORA -839 and CA- ORA -844B. All reasonable efforts would be made
to ensure minimal impact or avoidance as feasible to these archaeological sites. CA-
ORA -906 would be directly impacted by development as well as by oilfield
infrastructure removal. MM 4.13 -1 requires that an archaeologist monitor grading and
excavation activities. MM 4.13 -2 is applicable for the three sites deemed eligible for
listing on the CRHR or the NRHP as historical resources. There is no indication that
there are burials present on the Project site. Native American tribes note that
ancestors were often buried in coastal locations and much evidence exists to support
this supposition. In the event that human remains are discovered during grading
activities, SC 4.13 -1, which addresses procedures to follow in the event of a
discovery of suspected human remains. All impacts to these resources can be
mitigated to a less than significant level.
SC 4.13 -1 In accordance with Section 7050.5 of the California Health and
Safety Code, if human remains are found, the County Coroner
shall be notified within 24 hours of the discovery. No further
excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area
reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains shall occur until
the County Coroner has determined, within two working days of
notification of the discovery, the appropriate treatment and
disposition of the human remains. If the County Coroner
determines that the remains are or are believed to be Native
American, s /he shall notify the Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC) in Sacramento within 24 hours. In
accordance with Section 5097.98 of the California Public
Resources Code, the NAHC must immediately notify those
persons it believes to be the most likely descended from the
deceased Native American. The descendents shall complete their
inspection within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. The
designated Native American representative would then determine,
in consultation with the property owner(s), the disposition of the
human remains.
MM 4.13 -2 The State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR §15126.4[b][3]) direct public
agencies, wherever feasible, to avoid damaging historical
94 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
resources of an archaeological nature, preferably by preserving
the resource(s) in place. Several possibilities suggested by the
State CEQA Guidelines include (1) planning construction to avoid
the site; (2) incorporating the site into open space; (3) capping the
site with a chemically stable soil; and /or (4) deeding the site into a
permanent conservation easement.
The following is applicable for the three sites deemed eligible for
listing on the CRHR or the NRHP as historical resources. Only
CA -ORA -839 is also considered a unique archaeological
resource. In this instance, mitigation is the same for both types of
resources.
CA -ORA -839
It should be possible to preserve the vast majority of the site in
place in perpetuity to avoid further disturbance to it. However, it
appears that the planned removal of oilfield infrastructure may
impact portions of the site. In that event, the site shall undergo a
data recovery excavation of those areas that would be impacted.
Research Design /Treatment and Mitigation Plan
A Research Design/Treatment and Mitigation Plan (data recovery
plan) shall be prepared by a qualified Archaeologist and approved
by the City of Newport Beach Community Development Director
prior to any excavation being undertaken. The Plan shall explicitly
lay out the methods to be used in the excavation and the
scientifically consequential questions that the study will hope to
answer;
Data Recovery
Data recovery excavation shall be completed prior to Project
grading and shall be designed to recover the consequential data
present on the site. Data recovery shall be sufficient to collect a
representative sample of site constituents, including organic
materials, to permit additional absolute dating of the deposit. The
study shall include:
a. Excavation of a sufficient number of Control Units and shovel
test pits (STPs) to recover a representative sample of site
constituents;
b. Laboratory analysis of all recovered materials and creation of
a computerized database of artifacts recovered;
c. Completion of a Data Recovery Excavation /Mitigation Report
detailing the results of the study; and
d. Curation of excavated cultural material in a museum or other
scientifically accredited institution that would make the
collections available to future researchers.
Capping
In addition, secondary impacts (e.g., increased foot traffic,
erosion) could occur at the site after the Project has been
constructed; therefore, the site shall be capped with chemically
95 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
stable soil to preserve it in perpetuity. During grading operations,
excess dirt shall be placed on the site to a sufficient depth to
protect the deposit, but not cause unintended damage to it.
Shallow- rooted vegetation (such as native coastal sage scrub)
may be planted on the new surface. To ensure the integrity of the
archaeological deposit, the current ground surface shall initially be
covered with some form of horizon marker (e.g., by Mirafi, a
polypropylene geotextile) to prevent the deposit from mixing with
the covering material and to serve as a marker of the site if the
covering is ever removed. The following relies on guidance
provided by the National Park Service's Brief #5 Intentional Site
Burial: A Technique to Protect Against Natural or Mechanical Loss
(NPS 1989, revised 1991).
The capping program must include submittal to the Community
Development Department of a Site Capping Plan that includes:
a. An evaluation by a qualified Archaeologist of the classes of
archaeological components to be preserved and their
suitability for preservation;
b. An analysis by a qualified Soils Scientist of the pH levels,
compression strength, and permeability of the horizon marker
and capping material to be used to ensure they fit the
preservation needs of the site's constituents;
c. Formulation of a plan by a qualified Civil /Structural Engineer
that details how the cap would be physically constructed to
ensure that (1) hydraulic changes over time, (2) erosion, and
(3) the physical placement of the cap itself do not adversely
impact the deposit;
d. Archaeological monitoring during placement of the capping
material;
e. A Revegetation Plan, prepared by a qualified Biologist/
Restoration Specialist, that is designed to help stabilize the
new land surface and to prevent future erosion at the cap
surface;
f. A plan of future monitoring of the site to ensure the long -term
success of the capping program; and
g. A report detailing the results of the capping effort.
CA -ORA -844 Locus B
CA- ORA -844B is not expected to be directly impacted by
development. Oil infrastructure removal activities that would occur
prior to grading are expected to adversely impact portions of the
site. Indirect impacts from additional erosion of the unstable
surface and increased population in the vicinity of the site as a
result of the future development could cause further damage over
time.
Both capping and data recovery excavation are viable options for
treating the site; however, because it has been disturbed by
erosion and oil extraction activities, capping the deposit would be
96 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
difficult and possibly more expensive and time consuming and
may produce less desirable results than data recovery excavation.
Considering these circumstances, two options are provided:
(1) successful capping of the site, while likely difficult to
accomplish, would be designed to protect the site in perpetuity or,
preferably, (2) data recovery shall be undertaken prior to grading
to collect the scientifically consequential data that is present in the
site since it appears that only a small, yet important, portion of the
site remains. Because of the limited size of this site, this option
would enable the removal and analysis of the site in its entirety.
Capping the deposit or data recovery would result in temporary
impacts to approximately 0.92 acre of coastal sage scrub (0.29
acre of encelia scrub and 0.63 acre of cactus scrub). The
Mitigation Program set forth in Section 4.6, Biological Resources,
addresses this impact.
Capping
If option 1 is chosen, the site shall be capped with chemically
stable soil to preserve it in perpetuity. During grading operations,
excess dirt shall be placed on the site to a sufficient depth to
protect the deposit, but not cause unintended damage to it.
Shallow- rooted vegetation (such as native coastal sage scrub)
may be planted on the new surface. To ensure the integrity of the
archaeological deposit, the current ground surface shall initially be
covered with some form of horizon marker (e.g., by Mirafi, a
polypropylene geotextile) to prevent the deposit from mixing with
the covering material and to serve as a marker of the site if the
covering is ever removed. The following relies on guidance
provided by the National Park Service's Brief #5 Intentional Site
Burial: A Technique to Protect Against Natural or Mechanical Loss
(NIPS 1989, revised 1991).
The capping program must include submittal to the Community
Development Department of a Site Capping Plan that includes:
a. An evaluation by a qualified Archaeologist of the classes of
archaeological components to be preserved and their
suitability for preservation;
b. An analysis by a qualified Soils Scientist of the pH levels,
compression strength, and permeability of the horizon marker
and capping material to be used to ensure they fit the
preservation needs of the site's constituents;
c. Formulation of a plan by a qualified Civil /Structural Engineer
that details how the cap would be physically constructed to
ensure that (1) hydraulic changes over time, (2) erosion, and
(3) the physical placement of the cap itself do not adversely
impact the deposit;
d. Archaeological monitoring during placement of the capping
material;
e. A Revegetation Plan, prepared by a qualified Biologist/
Restoration Specialist, that is designed to help stabilize the
97 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
new land surface and to prevent future erosion at the cap
surface;
f. A plan of future monitoring of the site to ensure the long -term
success of the capping program; and
g. A report detailing the results of the capping effort.
Data Recovery
If option 2 is selected, data recovery excavation at CA -ORA -8446
shall be completed prior to Project grading and shall be designed
to recover the consequential data present in the site and to
remove site constituents. The study shall include:
a. Development of a Research Design/Treatment and Mitigation
Plan to explicitly lay out the methods to be used in the
excavation and the scientifically consequential questions that
the study will hope to answer.
b. Excavation of a sufficient number of Control Units and STPs to
recover a representative sample of site constituents.
c. Controlled demolition /removal of the site by a small scraper
under the direction of a qualified Archaeologist to ensure the
removal of all midden and other cultural constituents of the
site. Controlled demolition permits the discovery and recovery
of larger features not typically found during hand excavation
and reduces the number of hand - excavated control units
necessary.
d. Laboratory analysis of all recovered materials and creation of
a computerized database of artifacts recovered.
e. Completion of a Data Recovery Excavation /Mitigation Report
detailing the results of the study.
f. Curation of excavated cultural material in a museum or other
scientifically accredited institution that would make the
collections available to future researchers.
CA -ORA -906
CA -ORA -906 would be directly impacted as a result of
development as well as oil infrastructure removal. Data recovery
excavation at the site shall be completed prior to Project grading
and shall be designed to recover the consequential data present
in the site and to remove the site constituents. Mitigation shall be
in the form of data recovery excavation to collect the scientifically
consequential data that the site retains prior to its destruction by
Project grading. The study shall include:
a. Development of a Research Design /Treatment and Mitigation
Plan to explicitly lay out the methods to be used in the
excavation and the scientifically consequential questions that
the study will hope to answer.
b. Excavation of a sufficient number of Control Units and STPs to
recover a representative sample of site constituents.
98 Exhibit 6
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
c. Controlled demolition /removal of the site by a small scraper
under the direction of a qualified Archaeologist to ensure the
removal of all midden and other cultural constituents of the
site. Controlled demolition permits the discovery and recovery
of larger features not typically found during hand excavation
and reduces the number of hand - excavated control units
necessary.
d. Laboratory analysis of all recovered materials and creation of
a computerized database of artifacts recovered.
e. Completion of a data recovery excavation /mitigation report
detailing the results of the study.
f. Curation of excavated cultural material in a museum or other
scientifically accredited institution that would make the
collections available to future researchers.
(3) Potential Impact: Grading and oilfield remediation activities would impact significant
paleontological resources.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this potentially
significant impact is Less Than Significant as a result of the implementation of MMs
4.13 -3 and 4.13 -4 (set forth below).
Facts in Support of Finding: Fossil sites have been recorded in two mapped units
that underlie the site. San Pedro Sand and Palos Verdes Sand are considered to
have high paleontological sensitivity; the Quaternary younger alluvium is of low
paleontological sensitivity. The Project site contains paleontological resources
exposed in natural outcrops, borrow areas, and drainages over most of the site. MM
4.13 -3 requires that a qualified paleontologist monitor the grading and excavation
activities and conduct salvage excavation as necessary. If any scientifically important
large fossil remains are uncovered, the paleontologist would have the authority to
divert heavy equipment away from the fossil site. MM 4.13 -4 requires a
paleontological survey be conducted to record all paleontological resources present
at the surface for those portions of the Project site where grading would occur that
would affect Quaternary San Pedro Sand and Quaternary Palos Verdes Sand.
Significant impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level.
MM 4.13 -3 Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit and /or action that
would permit Project site disturbance, the Applicant/Contractor
shall provide written evidence to the City of Newport Beach
Community Development Department that the Applicant/
Contractor has retained a qualified Paleontologist to observe
grading activities and to conduct salvage excavation of
paleontological resources as necessary. The Paleontologist shall
be present at the pre - grading conference; shall establish
procedures for paleontological resources surveillance; and shall
establish, in cooperation with the City, procedures for temporarily
halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification,
and evaluation of the fossils as appropriate.
Any earth - moving activity associated with development, slope
modification, or slope stabilization that requires moving large
99 Exhibit
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
volumes of earth shall be monitored according to the
paleontological sensitivity of the rock units that underlie the
affected area. All vertebrate fossils and representative samples of
megainvertebrates and plant fossils shall be collected. Productive
sites that yield vertebrates should be excavated, and
approximately 2,000 pounds (Ibs) of rock samples should be
collected to be processed for microvertebrate fossil remains.
If any scientifically important large fossil remains are uncovered
during earth- moving activities, the Paleontologist shall divert
heavy equipment away from the fossil site until s /he has had an
opportunity to examine the remains. If warranted, a rock sample
shall be collected for processing. The Paleontologist shall be
equipped to rapidly remove fossil remains and /or matrix (earth),
and thus reduce the potential for any construction delays.
If scientifically important fossil remains are observed and if safety
restrictions permit, the Construction Contractor shall allow the
Paleontologist to safely salvage the discovery. At the
Paleontologist's discretion, the Grading Contractor may assist in
the removal of the fossil remains and rock sample to reduce any
construction delays.
All fossils shall be documented in a detailed Paleontological
Resource Impact Mitigation Report. Fossils recovered from the
field or by processing shall be prepared; identified; and, along with
accompanying field notes, maps and photographs, accessioned
into the collections of a designated, accredited museum such as
the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (LACM) or the
San Diego Natural History Museum.
Because of slope modification, fossil- bearing exposures of the
Quaternary marine deposits may be destroyed. If feasible, a few
stratigraphic sections with fossil- bearing horizons shall be
preserved for educational and scientific purposes.
MM 4.13 -4 Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit and /or action that
would allow for Project site disturbance, a paleontological survey
shall be conducted to record all paleontological resources present
at the surface for those portions of the Project site where grading
would occur that would affect Quaternary San Pedro Sand and
Quaternary Palos Verdes Sand. A qualified Paleontologist shall
make collections of exposed fossils from lithologic units of high
paleontologic significance, especially in areas where access to
fossil sites is not permitted because of slope modification. All
vertebrate and representative samples of megainve rte brates and
plant fossils shall be collected. Productive sites yielding
vertebrates should be excavated, and approximately 2,000 Ibs of
rock samples shall be collected to process for microvertebrate
fossil remains. Dry screening of fossil marine shell horizons in the
Quaternary terrace deposits and San Pedro Sand with % -inch
archaeological field screens shall be conducted to recover rare
types of fossil marine mollusks, bony fish, sharks, reptiles, birds,
and marine and terrestrial mammals. All fossil sites shall be tied to
100 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overridina Considerations
detailed measured sections showing sedimentary structures and
relationships with over- and underlying rock units.
a. For San Pedro Sand, prior to the issuance of the first grading
permit and /or action that would permit Project site disturbance,
a qualified Paleontologist shall prepare a detailed mitigation
plan to sample the existing paleontological sites that would be
affected by slope modification. The plan shall be developed in
consultation with a local museum (e.g., the LRCM or the San
Diego Natural History Museum) in order to describe the size of
the sample, methods of collection and processing,
stratigraphic information, and other pertinent information. A
bulk sample of at least 100 Ibs per fossil site shall be
processed through fine screens, and all identifiable fossils
shall be sorted from the concentrate. Detailed measured
geologic sections placing the fossil sites in a stratigraphic
sequence must be made. Bulk sampling that is collected from
matrix or sediment to recover rare invertebrates, marine
vertebrates, and terrestrial vertebrates must also be part of the
mitigation plan.
b. For Quaternary marine terrace deposits (Palos Verdes Sand),
prior to the issuance of the first grading permit and /or action
that would permit Project site disturbance, a detailed mitigation
plan must be developed to sample the existing paleontological
sites that would be affected by slope modification. This shall
be conducted in consultation with a local museum (e.g., the
LACM or the San Diego Natural History Museum) to describe
the size of the sample, methods of collection and processing,
stratigraphic information, and other pertinent information. A
bulk sample of at least 100 Ibs per fossil site shall be
processed through fine screens, and all identifiable fossils
shall be sorted from the concentrate. Detailed measured
geologic sections placing the fossil sites in a stratigraphic
sequence shall be made. Bulk sampling, collecting, water
screening, or dry screening of sediments that contain rare
invertebrates, marine vertebrates, and terrestrial vertebrates
shall be part of the mitigation plan.
c. A qualified Paleontologist shall be notified and retained when
earth - moving activities are anticipated to impact undisturbed
deposits in the San Pedro Sand and Palos Verdes Sand. The
designated Paleontologist shall be present during construction
activities on a full -time basis to assess whether scientifically
important fossils are exposed. Part-time monitoring is
recommended in Younger Alluvium. If any scientifically
important, large fossil remains are uncovered during
earth- moving activities, the Paleontological Monitor shall divert
heavy equipment away from the fossil site until s /he has had
an opportunity to examine the remains. If warranted, a rock
sample shall be collected for processing. The Monitor shall be
equipped to allow for the rapid removal of fossil remains
and /or matrix (earth), and thus reduce the potential for any
101
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overridinq Considerations
construction delays. At the Monitor's discretion, the Grading
Contractor may assist in the removal of the fossil remains and
rock sample to reduce any delay in construction.
d. All fossils shall be documented in a detailed Paleontological
Resources Impact Mitigation Report. Fossils recovered from
the field or by processing shall be prepared; identified; and,
along with accompanying field notes, maps and photographs,
accessioned into the collections of a designated, accredited
museum such as the LACM or the San Diego Natural History
Museum.
e. Because of slope modification and restoration of the bluff area,
most, if not all, the fossil- bearing exposures of the San Pedro
Sand and Quaternary marine terrace deposits would be
destroyed. If feasible, a few stratigraphic sections with
fossil- bearing horizons shall be preserved in perpetuity for
educational and scientific purposes.
Nothing in this mitigation measure precludes the retention of a
single cross - trained observer qualified to monitor for both
archaeological and paleontological resources.
N. Public Services and Facilities
(1) Potential Impact — Fire Protection: The majority of the Project site is designated as
having a high or moderate fire hazard risk. There is the potential for portions of the
Project site to not be served within City's established service response times.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this potentially
significant impact is Less Than Significant as a result of the implementation of PDF
4.14 -1, SCs 4.14 -1 through 4.14 -3, and MMs 4.14 -1 through 4.14 -3 (set forth below).
Facts in Support of Finding: With respect to fuel management, based on the State
"Draft Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA" Local Responsibility Area (LRA) map for
Newport Beach dated July 27, 2010, the majority of the Project site is designated
LRA High, and small portions of the site are designated LRA Moderate or are not
designated at all. None of the Project site is designated LRA Very High. The Project
includes a Fire and Life Safety Program. The Program is intended to meet or exceed
the requirements set forth in the City of Newport Beach Fire Code and all its
amendments to the 2010 California Building Code; the 2010 California Fire Code;
and the International Fire Code, 2009 Edition. The Project includes fuel management
zones consistent with the fire safety requirements for the Project. Fire protection in
landscaped areas would be achieved by avoiding and reducing the use of highly
flammable plant materials adjacent to proposed development. This would be
accomplished by revegetating these areas with low fuel volume plantings; removing
or pruning and thinning native plants; and /or using selective irrigation.
With respect to service response, Fire Station Number 2 cannot serve the entirety of
the proposed Project development within the City's established response time
standards. As identified on Table 4.14 -2, Site Planning Area 12b, the northerly block
of Site Planning Area 10a, and the northerly block of Site Planning Area 10b cannot
be served by Station Number 2 within the established response time. In order to
maintain appropriate response times, a temporary fire station would be required on
102 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
the Project Site to serve those areas that cannot be served by existing Station
Number 2; the temporary fire station would be required unless a replacement fire
station is operational in a location that provides appropriate response times. The
temporary fire station would remain in operation until a replacement fire station is
operational that could serve the Project in its entirety. It should be noted that in
addition to City fire services, Newport Beach participates in Metro Net, a multi -city
dispatch center covering Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, Fountain Valley, and
multiple cities in North Orange County and has individual automatic aid agreement
with the Cities of Costa Mesa, and Huntington Beach, and the OCFA. Together, all
fire agencies provide personnel to any emergency. Therefore, the Project can be
adequately served through the use of existing /future City of Newport Beach fire and
emergency medical services, a temporary fire station on the Project site, as well use
of fire and emergency medical services provided through the City's mutual aid
agreement with adjacent jurisdictions.
PDF 4.14 -1 The Master Development Plan requires that the Project be
designed to provide fire - resistant construction for all structures
adjoining natural open space, including utilizing fire - resistant
building materials and sprinklers.
SC 4.14 -1 Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of
residential and commercial uses, the Applicant shall pay the
required Property Excise Tax to the City of Newport Beach, as set
forth in its Municipal Code ( §3.12 et seq.) for public improvements
and facilities associated with the City of Newport Beach Fire
Department, the City of Newport Beach Public Library, and City of
Newport Beach public parks.
SC 4.14 -2 Prior to City approval of individual development plans for the
Project, the Applicant shall obtain Fire Department review and
approval of the site plan in order to ensure adequate access to the
Project site.
SC 4.14 -3 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall
complete that portion of the approved fuel modification plan
determined to be necessary by the City of Newport Beach Fire
Department prior to the introduction of any combustible materials
into the area. This generally involves removal and thinning of plant
materials indicated on the approved fuel modification plan(s).
Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, fuel
modification shall be installed and completed by the Applicant,
and inspected by the Fire Department. This includes physical
installation of features identified in the approved Precise Fuel
Modification Plan (including but not limited to plant establishment,
thinning, irrigation, zone markers, and access easements, among
others). If satisfactory, a Newport Beach Fire Department Fire
Code Official shall provide written approval of completion at the
time of this final inspection.
If applicable, a copy of the approved plans shall be provided to the
Homeowners Association (HOA). Fuel modification shall be
maintained as originally installed and approved.
103 Exhibit B
_ Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
The applicable Property Owner, HOA, or other party that the City
deems acceptable shall be responsible for all fuel modification
zone maintenance. All areas shall be maintained in accordance
with the approved Fuel Modification Plan(s). This generally
includes a minimum of two growth reduction maintenance
activities throughout the fuel modification areas each year (spring
and fall). Other activities include maintaining irrigation systems,
replacing dead or dying vegetation with approved materials,
removing dead plant material, and removing undesirable species.
The Fire Department shall conduct regular inspections of
established fuel modification areas. Ongoing maintenance shall be
conducted regardless of the date of these inspections.
MM 4.14 -1 Certificates of occupancy shall not be issued by the City of
Newport Beach for any residential dwelling unit, the resort inn, or
any commercial structure in Site Planning Area 10a (northerly
block only), Site Planning Area 10b (northerly block only), and Site
Planning Area 12b until Fire Station Number 2 is rebuilt at the
existing City Hall site at 3300 Newport Boulevard or at another
location that the Newport Beach Fire Department has determined
is sufficient to provide fire response within the Fire Department's
established response time standards.
The construction of a replacement Fire Station Number 2 within
the boundaries of the existing City Hall site at the northeastern
corner of Newport Boulevard at 32nd Street or at an alternative
location would be the subject of separate, subsequent
environmental review. The replacement Fire Station could only be
constructed upon the demolition of existing permanent and
temporary structures on the City Hall site. Potential environmental
impacts associated with the replacement Fire Station Number 2
would be associated with demolition of the existing Fire Station,
and the construction and operation of the replacement Fire
Station. Potential environmental effects are anticipated to include
short -term construction - related traffic, air quality, and noise
impacts during demolition and construction. Because of the
proximity between the existing and proposed Fire Stations
(approximately 500 feet), this relocation is not anticipated to result
in new significant operational impacts.
MM 4.14 -2 The Applicant shall pay the City of Newport Beach a fire facilities
impact fee equal to its fair share of the need for a relocated Fire
Station Number 2. The fair share fee shall be based on total
number of Project dwelling units as a ratio of the total number of
dwelling units within the service area of relocated Fire Station
Number 2. The proportionate fee shall be paid prior to the
issuance of a building permit for any residential dwelling unit.
MM 4.14 -3 Prior to issuance of certificates of use and occupancy for any
residential dwelling unit, the resort inn, or any commercial
structure in Site Planning Area 10a (northerly block only), Site
Planning Area 10b (northerly block only), and Site Planning Area
12b, Fire Station Number 2 shall be complete and operational at
Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
the existing City Hall site at 3300 Newport Boulevard or at another
location that the Newport Beach Fire Department has determined
is sufficient to provide fire response within the Fire Department's
established response time standards. In the event the
replacement station for Fire Station 2 is not operational in time for
issuance of use and occupancy for the above stated site planning
areas, then prior to issuance of building permits for any
combustible structure in the above site planning areas, the
Applicant shall provide and improve a site, as defined by the
Development Agreement within the Community Park, areas for a
temporary facility of sufficient size to accommodate one engine
company and one paramedic ambulance of at least three
firefighters on a 7- day /24 -hour schedule. The temporary fire
station site shall be within the Project limits of disturbance
approved as a part of the Project such that no new environmental
effects would occur.
(2) Potential Impact — Police Protection: The Project would introduce new structures,
residents, workers, and visitors into the Police Department's service boundaries, thereby
potentially increasing the need for police protection, facilities, and personnel.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this potentially
significant impact is Less Than Significant as a result of the implementation of SCs
4.14 -4 and 4.14 -5 (set forth below). No mitigation was recommended or required.
Facts in Support of Finding: Although the Project would increase demand for the
City's police protection services, this demand would not require the construction of
new facilities, nor would it require the expansion of existing facilities that would result
in physical environmental impacts. The Police Department's operating budget is
generated through tax revenues, penalties and service fees, and allowed
government assistance. Facilities, personnel, and equipment expansion and
acquisition are tied to the City budget process and tax -base expansion. Tax -base
expansion from development of the proposed Project would generate funding for the
police protection services. SCs 4.14 -4 and 4.14 -5 related to site security and building
and site safety design recommendations would ensure adequate police protection
services can be provided to the Project site.
SC 4.14 -4 Prior to issuance of building permits, the City of Newport Beach
Police Department shall review development plans for the
incorporation of defensible space concepts to reduce demands on
police services. Public safety planning recommendations shall be
incorporated into the Project plans. The Applicant shall prepare a
list of Project features and design components that demonstrate
responsiveness to defensible space design concepts. The Police
Department shall review and approve all defensible space design
features incorporated into the Project prior to initiating the building
plan check process.
SC 4.14 -5 Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit and /or action that
would permit Project site disturbance, the Applicant shall provide
evidence to the City of Newport Beach Police Department that a
construction security service or equivalent service shall be
105 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overridino Considerations
established at the construction site along with other measures, as
identified by the Police Department and the Public Works
Department, to be instituted during the grading and construction
phase of the Project.
(3) Potential Impact — Schools: The Project would generate new elementary, middle,
and high school students into the Newport-Mesa Unified School District ( NMUSD).
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this potentially
significant impact is Less Than Significant as a result of the implementation of SCs
4.14 -6 and 4.14 -7 (set forth below). No mitigation was recommended or required.
Facts in Support of Finding: Using the NMUSD school generation rates, the
proposed Project is anticipated to generate 268 K -12 students including
approximately 161 elementary, 42 middle, and 65 high school students. The School
District found that based on data about available capacity, the NMUSD would not
require funds to construct additional capacity to serve the Project - generated
students. A district -wide capacity surplus is forecasted by the School District.
SC 4.14 -6 Pursuant to Section 65995 of the California Government Code,
the Applicant shall pay developer fees to the Newport-Mesa
Unified School District at the time building permits are issued;
payment of the adopted fees would provide full and complete
mitigation of school impacts.
SC 4.14 -7 New development within the Project site shall be subject to the
same General Obligation bond tax rate as already applied to other
properties within the Newport-Mesa Unified School District for
Measure F (approved in 2005) and Measure A (approved in 2000)
based upon assessed value of the residential and commercial
uses.
(4) Potential Impact — Library Services: The Project would generate new residents
thereby increasing the demand on the Newport Beach Public Library system. No new
facilities are required.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that the change is Less
Than Significant. SC 4.14 -1 (set forth above) applies to the Project.
Facts in Support of Finding: Future residents of the Project would be expected to
primarily use the Mariners and Balboa Branch Libraries. While expanded library
services may be needed to meet this growing demand and the new population
expected from the Project, the City has not identified any negative impacts resulting
directly from the Project. The Project would not create a need for new or expanded
library facilities.
(5) Potential Impact — Solid Waste: The Project would generate solid waste associated
with oilfield remediation and construction activities as well as long -term use of the
Project site.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that the change is Less
Than Significant.
106 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Facts in Support of Finding: During the oilfield remediation and oil well closure
process, it is estimated that up to approximately 25,000 cubic yards (cy) of material
may require disposal at an off -site recycling /treatment facility; such facilities are
accessible in Southern and Central California. The Project would generate an
estimated 19,456.3 pounds of solid waste per day or approximately 3,540.5 tons of
solid waste annually. The development level proposed by the Project is consistent
with the growth projections in the Orange County Projections 2006 (OCP- 2006),
which are used by the County of Orange in their long -term planning for landfill
capacity. The County's landfill system has capacity in excess of the required 15 -year
threshold established by the California Integrated Waste Management Board
(CIWMB).There is adequate waste disposal capacity within the permitted County's
landfill system to meet the needs of the proposed Project. No significant impacts are
anticipated. Greenhouse Gas Emissions PDF 4.11 -5 applies to the Project (set forth
above) . PDF 4.11 -5 requires that construction waste diversion be increased by 50
percent from 2010 requirements and that the oilfield clean -up and remediation
process recycle and reuse materials on site to minimize off -site hauling and disposal
of materials. This PDF would further reduce the amount of solid waste generated by
the Project,
O. Utilities
(1) Potential Impact — Water Supply: The Project would increase demand for water
supply but would not require new water treatment facilities. Anticipated water demand
would require construction of water distribution facilities, the majority of which would
occur within the Project's development footprint.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this potentially
significant impact is Less Than Significant as a result of the implementation of PDFs
4.11 -1 and 4.11 -4 (set forth above), PDFs 4.15 -1 through 4.15 -4, and SCs 4.15 -1
and 4.15 -2 (set forth below). No mitigation measures were recommended or
required.
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project's water distribution system would require
connections to the City's existing water infrastructure at West Coast Highway, 151h
Street, 16'h Street; and Ticonderoga Street. Within the Project site, 8- to 12 -inch-
diameter water mains would provide potable, irrigation, and fire flow water service to
the proposed on -site land uses. In addition, a 12 -inch domestic water main would
extend east of the Project site into the 15'h Street right -of -way to the intersection with
Monrovia Avenue and connect with an existing 24 -inch water line. Another 12 -inch
water main would extend east of the Project site into 16'h Street and connect with an
existing 14 -inch water line. A pressure- reducing station is proposed adjacent to Bluff
Road near West Coast Highway. The construction of these water facilities would
primarily occur within the Project's development footprint. Potential impacts are
addressed as a component of the overall Project. PDFs 4.15 -1. through 4.15 -4, PDF
4.11 -1, and PDF 4.11 -4 are designed to reduce water consumption through
measures such as the use of drought - tolerant plants, Smart Controller irrigation
systems, and the green building program. SC 4.15 -1 and SC 4.15 -2 incorporate
water conservation and drought- response measures. No significant impacts are
anticipated associated with water infrastructure.
The Project's water demand is estimated to be 613.5 acre -feet per year (afy). The
water demand for the Project site was included in the City's water demand forecasts
107 Exhibit 8
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
(as identified by City staff and the 1999 Water Master Plan) and is reflected in the
City's 2005 and 2010 Urban Water Management Plan and in Metropolitan Water
District of Orange County (MWDOC), Orange County Water District (OCWD), and
Metropolitan Water District (MWD) planning documents. A Water Supply
Assessment (WSA) was prepared for the Project and approved by the Newport
Beach City Council on October 12, 2010. The City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban
Water Management Plan was adopted by the Newport Beach City Council on
June 14, 2011. The Project's WSA is consistent with the assumptions of both the
City's 2005 and 2010 Urban Water Management Plans. Based on the WSA, the City,
as water purveyor, determined that a sufficient supply is available during average,
single -dry, and multiple -dry years to meet the anticipated water demand associated
with the Project, in addition to the water demands of existing and planned future uses
through year 2030. The Project's contribution to the cumulative impact on water
supply is considered less than significant.
PDF 4.15 -1 The Newport Banning Ranch Planned Community Development
Plan and the Master Development Plan require the use of native
and /or drought - tolerant landscaping in public common areas to
reduce water consumption.
PDF 4.15 -2 The Newport Banning Ranch Planned Community Development
Plan and the Master Development Plan require the use of Smart
Controller irrigation systems in all public and common area
landscaping. Community landscape areas will be designed on a
"hydrozone" basis.
PDF 4.15 -3 The Newport Banning Ranch Planned Community Development
Plan and the Master Development Plan include a plan for a
domestic water system designed to take advantage of existing
water transmission facilities that connect to the Project site to
minimize off -site impacts.
PDF 4.15 -4 The Newport Banning Ranch Planned Community Development
Plan and the Master Development Plan include a plan for the
Project's water system to provide a level of redundancy by making
a connection between the City of Newport Beach Zone 1 and
Zone 2 water lines.
SC 4.15 -1 Chapter 14.16, Water Conservation and Supply Level Regulations,
of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code establishes the
following mandatory permanent water conservation requirements,
as summarized, during non - shortage conditions:
a. No customer shall use potable water to irrigate landscaping
unless such irrigation is limited to no more than ten minutes of
watering per day per station.
b. No person shall use water to irrigate landscaping that causes
or allows excessive flow or runoff.
c. No person shall use water to wash down hard or paved
surfaces, except when necessary to alleviate safety or sanitary
hazards.
108
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
d. No person shall permit excessive use, loss, or escape of water
through breaks, leaks, or other malfunctions in the user's
plumbing or distribution system.
e. No customer shall use potable water for irrigation during a.
rainfall event.
f. By July 1, 2012, all landscape irrigation systems connected to
dedicated landscape meters shall include rain sensors that
automatically shut off such systems during periods of rain or
include evapotranspiration systems that schedule irrigation
based on climatic conditions.
g. No customer shall operate a water fountain or other decorative
water feature that does not use a recirculating water system.
h. No customer shall use water to clean a vehicle, except by use
of a hand -held bucket or hand -held hose equipped with a
water shut -off nozzle or device.
i. Effective January 1, 2010, all new commercial conveyor car
wash systems shall have recirculating water systems. By
January 1, 2013, all commercial conveyor car wash systems
shall have recirculating water systems.
j. Eating or drinking establishments shall not provide drinking
water unless expressly requested by the patron.
k. Hotel, motel, and other commercial lodging establishments
shall provide customers the option of not having towels and
linen laundered daily.
I. No customer shall install a new, single pass cooling system in
a building or on premises requesting new water service.
m. Effective January 1, 2010, all new washing machines installed
in commercial and /or coin - operated laundries shall be
EnergyStato and CEE Tier 111 qualified. By January 1, 2014, all
washing machines installed in commercial and /or coin - operated
laundries shall be EnergyStaro and CEE Tier 111 qualified.
n. No customer shall use water from any fire hydrant for any
purpose other than fire suppression or emergency aid.
o. Commercial kitchens shall employ water - conservation
practices and technology.
p. Construction Site Requirements:
— No person shall use potable water for soil compaction or
dust control on a construction site where there is an
available and feasible source of recycled water or non -
potable water approved by the Department of Public
Health and appropriate for such use.
— No person shall operate a hose within a construction site
that is not equipped with an automatic shut -off nozzle,
provided that such devices are available for the size and
type of hose in use.
109 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
SC 4.15 -2 Chapter 14.16, Water Conservation and Supply Level
Regulations, of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code
establishes the following four levels of water supply shortage
response actions to be implemented during times of declared
water shortages.
Water
Conservation
Level
Requirements
Level One
Limit outdoor watering to scheduled irrigation days
Cutbacks in water usage (up to 10 %)
Increased response time to fix broken /leaking plumbing (within 72 hours of
notification from City)
Limit filling of ornamental water features /pools (once per week)
Level Two
Further reduction in scheduled irrigation days and no watering between 9:00 AM
and 5:00 PM on any day
Increased cutbacks in water usage (11 -25 %)
Increased response time to fix broken /leaking plumbing (within 48 hours of
notification from the City)
Increase limitations for filling of ornamental water features /pools (once every
other week)
Level Three
Further reduction in scheduled irrigation days and no watering between 9:00 AM
and 5:00 PM on any day
Increased cutbacks in water usage (28 -40 %)
Increased response time to fix broken /leaking plumbing (within 24 hours of
notification from the City)
No filling of ornamental water features /pools
Level Four
No outdoor watering
Increased cutbacks in water usage (more than 40 %)
No new potable water services /meters
Increased response time to fix broken /leaking plumbing (within 24 hours of
notification from City)
No filling of ornamental water features /pools
(2) Potential Impact — Wastewater Treatment: Existing wastewater treatment facilities
have sufficient capacity for Project - generated wastewater.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is Less
Than Significant and that no project design features, standard conditions of approval,
or mitigation measures were required or recommended.
Facts in Support of Finding: Total sewage generation is expected to be 0.259
million gallons per day (mgd). Effluent from the development areas would be
collected and directed to the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) trunk sewer
upstream of the Bitter Point Pump Station via 10- and 12 -inch pipes. The majority of
the wastewater pipelines would be constructed within the Project site and would
occur within the identified development footprint. An off -site connection would be
required on 16th Street, adjacent to the NMUSD property. No additional direct
impacts related to construction and operation of the on -site wastewater system
would occur. The April 2006 OCSD Strategic Plan Update assumed Project
development generating a higher effluent rate than would occur with the proposed
110 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Project. Currently Plant No. 2 is operating at 65 percent of design capacity. The
OCSD has indicated that it has existing and future treatment capacity to serve the
proposed Project.
(3) Potential Impact — Energy: The proposed Project would increase the demand for
electrical and natural gas service in the Project area.
Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is Less
Than Significant with the implementation of PDFs 4.6 -4, 4.11 -1, 4.11 -2, and 4.11 -4,
and SC 4.11 -1 (set forth above) and SC 4.15 -3 (set forth below). No mitigation
measures were required or recommended.
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project would generate a demand of
approximately 12.2 million kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity and approximately 66.2
cf of natural gas annually. Southern California Edison (SCE) and The Gas Company
have indicated an ability to serve the Project without significantly impacting levels of
service. The Project includes design consideration to avoid inefficient, wasteful, and
unnecessary energy consumption and reduce energy consumption. PDF 4.6 -4
(street lights only in certain areas), PDF 4.11 -2 (exceeding adopted 2008 Title 24
requirements by 5 percent), PDF 4.11 -4 (subdivision map requirements), and PDF
4.11 -5 (efficient grading operations). SCs 4.11 -1 and 4.15 -3 require that energy
conservation efforts are incorporated into the Project. PDF 4.11 -1 requires the
Project to be consistent with a recognized green building program. There is existing
facilities within and adjacent to the site that would serve the Project. SCE facilities
that may require relocation include an overhead circuit located along 1 g1 Street.
Impacts associated with infrastructure installation are a component of the Project.
SC 4.15 -3 The proposed Project shall meet or exceed all State Energy
Insulation Standards and City of Newport Beach codes in effect at
the time of application for building permits. Commonly referred to
as Title 24, these standards are updated periodically to allow
consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency
technologies and methods. Title 24 covers the use of energy -
efficient building standards, including ventilation; insulation;
construction; and the use of energy- saving appliances,
conditioning systems, water heating, and lighting. Plans submitted
for building permits shall include written notes or calculations
demonstrating compliance with energy standards and shall be
reviewed and approved by the City of Newport Beach Community
Development Department, Building Manager, prior to issuance of
building permits.
111 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
6. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES
A. Alternatives Considered and Rejected During the Scoping /Project Planning
Process
The following is a discussion of the land use alternatives considered during the scoping
and planning process and the reasons why they were not selected for detailed analysis
in the Draft EIR. Among the factors that can be used to eliminate alternatives from
detailed consideration in an EIR are "failure to meet most of the basic Project objectives,
infeasibility, or inability to avoid significant environmental impacts" (CEQA Guidelines
§15126.6[c]). Alternatives were eliminated during the scoping /planning process either
because they were determined to be infeasible or because it could be determined that
they would not avoid or eliminate significant environmental impacts when compared to
the proposed Project.
1. Development of the Project site Consistent with the County of Orange
General Plan and Zoning Designations
The zoning for the 361 acres of the Project site within the County jurisdiction would allow
for development of up to 2,510 multi - family dwelling units, 225 single - family dwelling
units, 50,000 sf of general commercial use, 235,600 sf of general office use, and
164,400 sf of industrial uses. Overlay zones, including Oil Production, Sign Restriction,
and Floodplain Zone 2 apply to portions of the property. Development of property
pursuant to the County zoning would generate approximately 22,075 average daily trips
on the circulation network (Newport Beach 2006a, 2006b). This Alternative was not
retained for detailed evaluation in the EIR because it would not reduce identified impacts
of the Project and in many cases would result in greater impacts associated with more
intense and increased development that could occur under the County's land use
designations for the property. This Alternative would also not achieve several important
Project objectives, specifically Objective 1 which is to provide a Project that implements
the goals of the General Plan of the City of Newport Beach, and Objective 16 which is to
provide a Project compatible with existing adjacent land uses. Consequently, this
Alternative has been considered and rejected from further analysis.
2. Alternative Site
Development of the Project on an alternative site has been reviewed and eliminated
from detailed consideration due to the lack of available alternate sites meeting the
majority of the objectives established for the proposed Project. Newport Beach is almost
fully developed with no other unentitled property that is suitable for supporting a mixed -
use project such as Newport Banning Ranch. Eight areas within the City were identified
and considered but no comparably sized parcels would provide for the same mix and
range of uses in the City. Alternative sites outside of the City's jurisdiction were also
considered; however, no comparable site within the County's coastal zone could be
identified. Although there may be properties inland that could provide a similar level of
development, inland areas would not meet the objectives regarding enhancing coastal
access and protection of coastal resources. For these reasons, consideration of
developing the Project on an alternative site was not included in the EIR alternatives
analysis.
112 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
3. Construction of General Plan Roads
Both the City of Newport Beach General Plan Master Plan of Streets and Highways and
the Orange County MPAH depict two connections to West Coast Highway through the
Project site. One connection is depicted as extending south from 19th Street to West
Coast Highway and the second roadway would extend from 15th Street past Bluff Road
and connect with West Coast Highway on the western edge of the Project site. The need
for these two primary roads was based on the environmental baseline that the 2006
General Plan Update used, which assumed more intense development on the Project
site. Based on the reduced density being proposed, only one roadway is needed to
serve the travel demand. This Alternative would have had more impacts due to the need
for the construction of an additional roadway. This alternate has been rejected from
further consideration.
B. Alternatives Selected for Analysis
The State CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR "describe a range of reasonable
alternatives to the Project, or to the location of the Project, which could feasibly attain
most of the basic objectives of the Project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of
the significant effects of the Project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the
alternatives" (State CEQA Guidelines §15126.6[a]). Six alternatives were evaluated. The
alternatives were developed to avoid or minimize impacts associated with
implementation of the proposed Project. Given the nature and scale of the Project,
complete avoidance of significant impacts was not feasible for any alternative other than
the No Project Alternative.
The following alternatives were analyzed:
• Alternative A:
No Action /No Development Alternative (Continuation of Existing Land
Uses).
• Alternative B:
Newport Beach General Plan /Open Space Designation.
• Alternative C:
Proposed Project with Bluff Road Extending to 17`h Street.
• Alternative D:
Reduced Development and Development Area.
• Alternative E:
Reduced Development Area.
• Alternative F:
Increased Open Space /Reduced Development Area.
The City's findings and facts in support of findings with respect to each of the
alternatives considered are provided below. Consistent with the guidance set forth in
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, the Findings address whether the alternative
would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Project; whether it would avoid
or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project; and whether the
alternative is feasible, as defined by the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15364, as being
"capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of
time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social and technological
factors ".
113 Exhibit 6
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
1. Alternative A: No Action /No Development Alternative (Continuation of
Existing Land Uses)
Description: Alternative A is the "no project" alternative required by the State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15126.6(e) which allows the decisionmakers to compare the potential
impacts of the proposed Project with the potential impacts of not approving the proposed
Project. Alternative A assumes existing conditions on the Project site (oil operations) and
the continuation and possible expansion of oil exploration and oil production operations
within the constraints of the Project site's existing California Coastal Act regulatory
exemption for petroleum production. No uses other than oil operations would occur on
the Project site. Oil consolidation, clean -up, and remediation would not occur for the
foreseeable future, and public access would not be provided. At the eventual cessation
of oil production operations, well abandonment and removal of certain surface
equipment and pipelines would occur in accordance with applicable State and local
regulations. This Alternative would not require an amendment to the City of Newport
Beach General Plan or Orange County MPAH, a zone change, a Coastal Development
Permit, or any of the other actions associated with the Newport Banning Ranch Project.
The approximate 361 acres of the 401 -acre site within the City's Sphere of Influence
would not be annexed into the City of Newport Beach.
Environmental Effects: A full discussion of Alternative A's environmental impacts as
compared to the proposed Project is set forth in Section 7.5.1 of the Final EIR, which is
hereby incorporated by reference. The City of Newport Beach has assumed the Project
site would ultimately be annexed to the City and has adopted land uses and policies
accordingly. Alternative A would have greater impacts than the proposed Project when
evaluating consistency with City plans and policies. However, since under this
Alternative scenario the site would not be annexed into the City of Newport Beach, the
City planning programs would not be applicable to the majority of the property. This
Alternative would not have any impacts that are significant and unavoidable when
compared to the proposed Project. The proposed Project would have significant and
unavoidable impacts associated with land use compatibility (due to noise and lighting
impacts), aesthetics, transportation, air quality, cumulative greenhouse gas emissions,
and noise. Alternative A would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects of the
proposed Project.
Ability to Achieve Project Objectives: When evaluating the desirability and feasibility
of an Alternative, it is also important to evaluate the ability of the Alternative to meet the
Project objectives. An Alternative does not need to meet all the Project objectives to be
considered potentially feasible. However, Alternative A does not meet any of the Project
objectives.
Feasibility: In the short-term, Alternative A is potentially feasible, at least from a
technological and legal perspective, as it contemplates the continuation of the existing oil
operations. Because the property is privately owned and the extent of petroleum
production activities will eventually cease when resources are depleted or when it
becomes uneconomical to continue extraction activities with diminishing returns, some
form of reuse of the Project site is expected to ultimately occur. Therefore, long -term
economic feasibility of this Alternative is questionable.
Finding: While this Alternative would avoid the Project's significant impacts, it would not
achieve any of the objectives established for the Project. From a policy perspective, this
Alternative would fail to provide the City with additional housing opportunities, including
114 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
affordable housing, the latter which is an identified need in the City's Housing Element,
and would not further the implementation of the City's General Plan. This Alternative
would also delay the remediation of the oilfield until the property owner chooses to cease
operations sometime in the future. This Alternative would also delay the City's ability to
provide a north -south road connection through the property as shown on the City's
General Plan Circulation Element Master Plan of Streets and Highways and the Orange
County Master Plan of Arterial Highways. In light of these considerations, this Alternative
has been rejected by the City in favor of the proposed Project.
2. Alternative B: Newport Beach General Plan /Open Space Designation
Description: The Project site is designated as OS(RV) in the City of Newport Beach
General Plan's Land Use Element. The OS(RV) land use designation allows for both a
Primary Use (Open Space) and an Alternative Use (Residential Village) on the Project
site. The Land Use Element prioritizes the retention of the Project site for open space.
The Project site would have to be acquired through public or private funding by an entity
capable of restoring and maintaining the Project site and with the approval of the
property owner(s), including the surface rights owners. As described in the General Plan,
the open space acquisition option includes consolidation of oil operations; wetlands
restoration; construction of roadways; and provision of nature education, interpretative
facilities, and an active park that contains lighted playfields and other facilities.
Alternative B would include park and open space uses, including an approximately 31.3 -
gross acre community park in the central portion of the site. Alternative B also assumes
consolidation of the oilfields, remediation of the property, and restoration of habitat
including wetlands. Additionally, the following roadways would be constructed consistent
with the City of Newport Beach General Plan's Circulation Element: (1) a north -south
road with a southern terminus at West Coast Highway and extending to a northern
terminus at 19th Street (Bluff Road and North Bluff Road); (2) the extension of 15th
Street from its existing terminus to Bluff Road within the Project site; (3) the extension of
16th Street from its existing terminus to Bluff Road within the Project site; and (4) the
extension of 17th Street from its existing terminus to Bluff Road within the Project site.
As with the proposed Project, Alternative B also assumes the deletion of the future
extension of a second road through the Project site and its connection to West Coast
Highway; this action would require the approval of a General Plan Amendment to the
City's Circulation Element and an amendment to the Orange County MPAH. Consistent
with the roadway assumptions for the proposed Project, North Bluff Road (extending
from 17th Street to 19th Street) would transition from a four -lane divided to a two -lane
undivided road to 19th Street.
With this Alternative, the City would be responsible for implementing the Community
Park, including the acquisition of the land designated for this use. However, the
acquisition of the remaining portion of the site, as well as funding of all remaining
improvements and maintenance, would be the responsibility of a yet unknown third
party. In addition to costs associated with site acquisition, funds would also be required
to initiate consolidation of oil operations and to address oilfield abandonment and clean-
up needs as well as acceptance and mitigation of any long -term liability exposure.
Additional funding would be required to implement restoration and long -term
management of sensitive habitats and to construct park(s), roadways, and other needed
infrastructure (including sewer, water, electrical, gas and storm drain facilities) to support
the park(s) and roadways. As with the proposed Project, a Coastal Development Permit
115 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
would be required to initiate restoration activities and to allow for the future construction
of permitted land uses and roadways through the Project site.
Environmental Effects: A full discussion of Alternative B's environmental impacts as
compared to the proposed Project is set forth in Section 7.5.2 of the Final EIR, which is
hereby incorporated by reference. Alternative B would have fewer impacts than the
proposed Project because it would involve less grading and site disturbance. This
Alternative would have less demand on public services and utilities. However, this
Alternative would not assist the City in meeting its RHNA housing requirements or
implementing the General Plan Housing Element. Alternative B would eliminate
significant and unavoidable impacts associated with traffic, air quality, greenhouse
gases, and certain noise impacts when compared to the proposed Project; however,
there would still be impacts that could not be reduced to a level considered less than
significant. The following areas would have significant, unavoidable impacts:
There would be land use incompatibility with respect to night illumination associated with
the development of the property including the Community Park as well as long -term
noise impacts on those Newport Crest residences immediately contiguous to the Project
site. In addition, there would be potential long -range noise impacts for residents on 17th
Street west of Monrovia Avenue because both Alternative B and the proposed Project
include the construction of the roadways consistent with the City's General Plan
Circulation Element. Although mitigation has been identified to reduce impacts from
vehicular noise, similar to the finding with respect to the proposed Project, noise impacts
would remain significant if the residents of Newport Crest elect not to implement the
mitigation measures to reduce the increased interior noise levels and if the City of Costa
Mesa does not implement the recommended measure of resurfacing the street with
rubberized asphalt.
Alternative B would introduce nighttime lighting into a currently unlit area. The
Community Park is anticipated to have night lighting of active sports fields, which could
result in light spillover onto adjacent properties. The night lighting impacts are
considered significant and unavoidable. The City of Newport Beach General Plan Final
EIR found that the introduction of new sources of lighting associated with development
of the site would be considered significant and unavoidable. However, in certifying the
General Plan Final EIR and approving the General Plan project, the City Council
approved a Statement of Overriding Considerations and found that there are specific
economic, social, and other public benefits that outweigh the significant and unavoidable
impacts associated with the General Plan project.
Construction of the roadways and park would cause a substantial temporary increase in
noise levels at residences and schools within 500 feet of the roadway and park
construction because of existing relatively low ambient noise levels. Due to the low
existing ambient noise levels, the proximity of the noise - sensitive receptors, and duration
of construction activities, the temporary noise increases would be significant and
unavoidable.
Ability to Achieve Project Objectives: This Alternative does not meet the Project
objectives as effectively as the proposed Project. Specifically, this Alternative would not
meet the following Project objectives:
C Development of a residential village of up to 1,375 residential units, offering a
variety of housing types in a range of housing prices, including provision of
116 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
affordable housing to help meet the City's Regional Housing Needs Assessment
(RHNA) (Objective 3).
• Development of up to 75 overnight accommodations in a small resort inn
including ancillary facilities and services such as a spa, meeting rooms, shops,
bars, and restaurants that would be open to the public (Objective 4).
• Development of up to 75,000 square feet of retail commercial uses oriented to
serve the needs of local residents and visitors utilizing the resort inn and the
coastal recreational opportunities provided as part of the Project (Objective 5).
• Development of a land use plan that (1) provides a comprehensive design for the
community that creates cohesive neighborhoods promoting a sense of identity
with a simple and understandable pattern of streets, a system of pedestrian
walkways and bikeways that connect residential neighborhoods, commercial
uses, parks, open space and resort uses; (2) reduces overall vehicle miles
travelled; (3) integrates landscaping that is compatible with the surrounding open
space /habitat areas and that enhances the pedestrian experience within
residential areas; and (4) applies architectural design criteria to orient residential
buildings to the streets and walkways in a manner that enhances the streetscape
scene (Objective 6).
• Implement a Water Quality Management Program within the Project site that will
utilize existing natural treatment systems and that will improve the quality of
urban runoff from off -site and on -site sources prior to discharging into the Santa
Ana River and the Semeniuk Slough (Objective 14).
In addition, the following objectives would only be partially met with Alternative B,
assuming that adequate funding is available:
• Provide enhanced public access in the Coastal Zone through a system of
pedestrian walkways, multi -use trails, and on- street bikeways designed to
encourage walking and biking as an alternative to the use of automobiles by
providing connectivity among residential, commercial, park, open space, and
resort uses within the Project site and to existing adjacent open space, hiking
and biking trails, the beach, and the Pacific Ocean (Objective 8).
• Provide for the restoration and permanent preservation of habitat areas through
implementation of a Habitat Restoration Plan (HRP) for the habitat conservation,
restoration, and mitigation areas ( "Habitat Areas ") as depicted on the Master
Development Plan (Objective 10).
• Provide for long -term preservation and management of the Habitat Areas through
the establishment of a conservation easement or deed restriction and the
creation of an endowment or other funding program (Objective 11).
• Improve the existing arroyo drainage courses located within the Project site to
provide for higher quality habitat conditions than exist prior to the time of Project
implementation (Objective 13).
• Implement fire protection management solutions designed to protect
development areas from fire hazards, to preserve sensitive habitat areas, and to
create fire- resistant habitat restoration areas within currently denuded, invasive -
species laden, and /or otherwise degraded areas (Objective 15).
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Feasibility: Although Alternative B appears to be legally, technologically, and socially
feasible, its feasibility is dependent upon the ability of a responsible party to obtain
sufficient funds to acquire the site and fund clean -up, restoration, and long -term
maintenance of the site. Consideration by the City of the proposed Project does not
preclude the City or any third party from acquiring the property and initiating site
remediation, habitat restoration, park development, and road construction. However, to
date, no one or entity has identified sufficient funds to implement the open space
acquisition alternative. Therefore, at this time it is difficult for the City to conclude that
this Alternative is feasible. Based upon the lack of identified sources of funding and
entities to undertake implementation of this Alternative, the City is not assured that
property acquisition may be "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner
within a reasonable period of time ".
Finding: Though this Alternative would not meet or would not effectively meet more than
half the Project objectives, the General Plan identifies that the Open Space land use is
the primary land use for the site with the Residential Village serving as an alternate, if
acquisition for open space is not feasible. While EIRs are to focus on environmental
impacts, rather than economic considerations, the financial feasibility of implementing an
alternative is a reasonable consideration under CEQA. To date, no individual or entity
including the City has identified the resources to implement the open space acquisition
option. Therefore, the decision makers may determine that this is not a feasible
alternative regardless of the potential environmental or other public benefits. For these
reasons, the City finds that the proposed Project is preferred over this Alternative.
3. Alternative C: Proposed Project with Bluff Road Extending to 17th Street
Description: Alternative C assumes the same land uses and same development plan as
the proposed Newport Banning Ranch Project and would require the same approvals
from local, regional, and State agencies. However, that segment of North Bluff Road
extending just north of 17`h Street to 19th Street would not be constructed under this
Alternative. The City of Newport Beach General Plan's Circulation Element and the
Orange County MPAH depict a north -south roadway connection from West Coast
Highway to 19th Street through the Project site. Alternative C would provide the
development of a north -south connection (North Bluff Road /Bluff Road) from West Coast
Highway only to 17`h Street. By removing the extension of this segment of the roadway,
the open space area would not be bisected as a result of this Alternative. Alternative C
does not assume the deletion of North Bluff Road between 17th Street and 19th Street
from the City's General Plan Circulation Element Master Plan of Streets and Highways
or the Orange County MPAH. Therefore, although the road would not be constructed as
part of this Alternative, it does not preclude the construction of this roadway segment in
the future by a party other than the Applicant. Should the road be constructed in the
future, the impacts that are avoided at this time would be realized. It should be noted
that implementation of the segment of roadway between 17th and 19th Streets would be a
separate project and would require separate approvals.
As with the proposed Project, Alternative C assumes an amendment to the Circulation
Element to delete a second road through the Project site and its connection to West
Coast Highway. An amendment to the Orange County MPAH is required for this deletion
as well as to downgrade North Bluff Road from a Major to a Primary. Alternative C is
proposed to minimize significant impacts to sensitive habitat areas and landform
alteration associated with the extension of North Bluff Road from just north of 1 Ph Street
to 19th Street.
118
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Environmental Effects: A full discussion of Alternative C's environmental impacts as
compared to the proposed Project is set forth in Section 7.5.3 of the Final EIR, which is
hereby incorporated by reference. Alternative C is the same as the proposed Project,
except that the extension of North Bluff Road between 17'h Street and 19th Street would
not be constructed. As a result, the nature of the impacts are the same as those
identified for the proposed Project, with incremental decreases in impacts associated
with the amount of grading and disturbance to native habitat and biological resources,
and increased (qualitative and quantitative) opportunities for habitat restoration. There is
also a reduction in construction air emissions and impacts to significant archaeological
and paleontological resources. This Alternative would also have the benefit of not having
the road extension bisecting the open space area. However, Alternative C would result
in additional traffic using Bluff Road, which would result in an incremental increase in
traffic noise along this segment of roadway. In addition, this Alternative would increase
the number of intersections that have Project - related impacts. Should it be determined at
some point in the future that the connection of North Bluff Road to 19th Street is required,
the City or other entity would be responsible for implementing the improvement. This
would not be an expense borne by the developer. Subsequent CEQA analysis would
likely be required and permitting may be more difficult because the roadway would bisect
lands that had been remediated and were functioning as open space.
Alternative C would not eliminate or substantially lessen any of the significant and
unavoidable impacts identified with the proposed Project. The following significant and
unavoidable impacts would occur with Alternative C:
There would be land use incompatibility with respect to night illumination associated with
the development including the Community Park, as well as long -term noise impacts on
those Newport Crest residences immediately contiguous to the Project site. In addition,
there would be a potential long -range noise impacts for residents on 171h Street west of
Monrovia Avenue. Although mitigation has been identified to reduce impacts from
vehicular noise, similar to the finding with respect to the proposed Project, noise impacts
would remain significant if the residents of Newport Crest elect not to implement the
mitigation measures to reduce the increased interior noise levels and if the City of Costa
Mesa does not implement the recommended measure of resurfacing the affected
segment of 17'h Street with rubberized asphalt.
Alternative C would include a "dark sky" lighting regulations in the NBR -PC that would
apply to businesses (e.g., resort inn and neighborhood commercial uses) and
Homeowners Association -owned and operated land uses within 100 feet of the Open
Space Preserve. However, Alternative C would introduce nighttime lighting into a
currently unlit area. The Community Park is anticipated to have night lighting of active
sports fields, which could result in light spillover onto adjacent properties. The night
lighting impacts are considered significant and unavoidable. The City of Newport Beach
General Plan Final EIR found that the introduction of new sources of lighting associated
with development of the site would be considered significant and unavoidable. In
certifying the General Plan Final EIR and approving the General Plan project, the City
Council approved a Statement of Overriding Considerations, which notes that there are
specific economic, social, and other public benefits that outweigh the significant and
unavoidable impacts associated with the General Plan project.
Alternative C would have impacts on intersections in the City of Costa Mesa.
Implementation of MM 4.9 -2 would mitigate the impacts to a level considered less than
significant. However, Newport Beach cannot impose mitigation on another jurisdiction.
119 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Therefore, if the Applicant is unable to reach an agreement with the City of Costa Mesa
that would ensure that Project impacts occurring in Costa Mesa would be mitigated
concurrent with or preceding the impact, the impacts to be mitigated by the
improvements would remain significant and unavoidable.
Long -term operational emissions of criteria pollutants would not exceed the SCAQMD
mass emissions thresholds from initial occupancy through 2020. However, as Alternative
C development continues beyond 2020, emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC)
and carbon monoxide (CO) would exceed the significance thresholds, principally due to
vehicle operations. Alternative C would have cumulatively considerable contributions to
regional pollutant concentrations of ozone (03).
Alternative C would emit quantities of greenhouse gases (GHGs) that would exceed the
City's 6,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (MTCO2e /yr) significance
threshold. Development associated with Alternative C would make a cumulatively
considerable contribution to the global GHG inventory affecting global climate change.
For the Existing Plus Project, 2016 with Project, and General Plan Buildout traffic
scenarios, the increased traffic volumes on 17th Street west of Monrovia Avenue would
expose sensitive receptors to noise level increases in excess of the City of Newport
Beach's standards for changes to the ambient noise levels. At buildout, noise levels
would also exceed significance thresholds in the City of Costa Mesa. MM 4.12 -5
requires the Applicant to provide funds to the City of Costa Mesa to resurface the street
with rubberized asphalt; however, the City of Newport Beach has no ability to ensuring
that the mitigation would be implemented. Therefore, the forecasted impact to residents
of 17th Street west of Monrovia is considered significant and unavoidable.
For portions of the Newport Crest development, there would be a significant increase in
the ambient noise level due to the projected traffic volumes in the buildout condition of
Alternative C. MM 4.12 -6 would reduce impacts to levels within the "Clearly Compatible"
or "Normally Compatible" classifications but would remain above the 5 dBA significance
criterion in the General Plan. MM 4.12 -7 would provide interior noise attenuation but
because the City of Newport Beach does not have the authority to mandate the
implementation of mitigation on private property that is not on the Project site, the impact
would be significant and unavoidable.
Use of construction equipment would result in a substantial temporary increase in
ambient noise levels to nearby noise - sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the Project.
Due to the low existing ambient noise levels, the proximity of the noise - sensitive
receptors, and duration of construction activities, the temporary noise increases would
be significant and unavoidable.
Ability to Achieve Project Objectives: Alternative C is a potentially feasible alternative.
It is able to meet the Project objectives as effectively as the proposed Project, with the
exception of Objective 7. Objective 7 would only be partially achieved with this
Alternative. This objective reads: "Provide for roadway improvements to improve and
enhance regional circulation, minimize impacts of Project development on the existing
circulation system, and enhance public access while not developing more roadways than
are needed for adequate regional circulation and coastal access." Alternative C does not
operate as effectively as the proposed Project in meeting this objective because it
results in an additional intersection operating at a deficient level of service. Additionally,
120 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
it does not construct a segment of the local and regional transportation network that is
identified in the adopted circulation plans.
Feasibility: This Alternative is considered feasible as it appears to be capable of being
accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into
account economic, environmental, legal, social and technological factors..
Finding: Alternative C would incrementally reduce impacts associated with the amount
of grading and disturbance to native habitat and biological resources, and would provide
increased (qualitative and quantitative) opportunities for habitat restoration. This
Alternative would have the same significant unavoidable impacts as the proposed
Project. From a policy perspective, this Alternative would not fully implement the City's
Master Plan of Streets and Highways or the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial
Highways which depict a north -north roadway through the property from West Coast
Highway to 19`h Street. While this Alternative is feasible, because it would not construct a
segment of the local and regional transportation network, the City, therefore, finds that
the proposed Project is preferred over this Alternative.
4. Alternative D: Reduced Development and Reduced Development Area (No
Resort Inn and 1,200 Units)
Description: Alternative D assumes a reduction in the amount of development that
would occur on the Project site and a reduction in the acreage associated with that
development. The same roadway system is proposed. When compared to the proposed
Project, Alternative D would allow for 1,200 du (compared to 1,375 du), including an
affordable housing component per the AHIP10; 60,000 sf of neighborhood commercial
uses (compared to 75,000 sf); 15,000 sf of visitor - serving commercial uses (in place of a
75 -room resort inn); approximately 39.1 acres of parks including a 24.8- gross -acre
Community Park (compared to approximately 51.4 total acres of parklands for the
proposed Project including a 21.8 -gross acre Community Park).17 The 15,000 sf of
visitor - serving commercial use would be predominately restaurant uses. Alternative D
does not include a Nature Center, trails, or the pedestrian and bicycle bridge. Open
space uses would increase from 252.3 gross acres to 269.1 gross acres. The
development area (residential, commercial, and visitor - serving uses) would decrease
from 97.4 gross acres to 92.9 gross acres. As with the proposed Project, the Community
Park would be constructed by the Applicant as part of this Alternative; it would be offered
for dedication to the City; and, upon acceptance, it would be maintained by the City.
Alternative D would require the same discretionary actions as noted for the proposed
Project. Alternative D is proposed to reduce impacts associated with the intensity of
development (e.g., vehicle trips, vehicle miles travelled, noise and air quality impacts)
and the footprint of development (e.g., biological resources).
Environmental Effects: A full discussion of Alternative D's environmental impacts as
compared to the proposed Project is set forth in Section 7.5.4 of the Final EIR, which is
hereby incorporated by reference. Alternative D would reduce the number of residential
units by approximately 13 percent and eliminate the resort inn. The project footprint
would be approximately 11 percent smaller. Although the nature of the impacts would be
1° The number of required affordable units would be 15 percent of the total number of approved units.
11 Alternative D assumes compliance with Quimby Act, which would require approximately 15 acres of parkland
based on 5 acres of park per 1,000 persons; the City assumes 2.19 persons per dwelling unit.
121 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overridinq Considerations
the same as those discussed for the proposed Project, the overall impacts associated
with Alternative D would be less due to the reduced amount and area of development.
However, it should be noted that this Alternative offers a reduced level of public
amenities (i.e., trails, parks, and pedestrian bridge) compared to the proposed Project,
and would not provide as much affordable housing as the proposed Project. Although
this Alternative would have fewer units and no resort inn, it is projected that there would
be a lower number of average daily trips (ADT), an increase in the number of AM peak
hour trips, and a slight decrease in PM peak hour trips. Moving the location of visitor -
serving commercial uses to the Resort Colony from the Urban Colony would result in a
redistribution of some trips on the circulation network, with more trips expected to be
generated in the southerly portion of the Project site, which would be expected to result
in a slightly higher volume of traffic on the southern portion of Bluff Road and use of 15th
Street easterly of the Project site.
This Alternative does not eliminate but would substantially lessen the significant impacts
of the proposed Project. Construction air emissions would remain significant and
unavoidable, but would be lessened. Although not identified as significant and
unavoidable, impacts associated with grading, habitat removal, and creation of
impervious surfaces would be reduced compared to the proposed Project due to the
reduction in the development footprint. The following significant and unavoidable impacts
would occur with Alternative D:
There would be land use incompatibility with respect to night illumination associated with
development of the property including the Community Park, as well as long -term noise
impacts on those Newport Crest residences immediately contiguous to the Project site.
In addition, there would be a potential long -range noise impacts for residents on 17`h
Street west of Monrovia Avenue. Although mitigation has been identified to reduce
impacts from vehicular noise, similar to the finding with respect to the proposed Project,
noise impacts would remain significant if the residents of Newport Crest elect not to
implement the mitigation measures to reduce the increased interior noise levels and if
the City of Costa Mesa does not implement the recommended measure of resurfacing
the affected segment of 17w Street with rubberized asphalt.
Alternative D would include a "dark sky" lighting regulations in the NBR -PC that would
apply to businesses (e.g., visitor- serving commercial and neighborhood commercial
uses) and Homeowners Association -owned and operated land uses within 100 feet of
the Open Space Preserve. However, Alternative D would introduce nighttime lighting into
a currently unlit area. The Community Park is anticipated to have night lighting of active
sports fields, which could result in light spillover onto adjacent properties. The night
lighting impacts are considered significant and unavoidable. The City of Newport Beach
General Plan Final EIR found that the introduction of new sources of lighting associated
with development of the site would be considered significant and unavoidable. In
certifying the General Plan Final EIR and approving the General Plan project, the City
Council approved a Statement of Overriding Considerations, which notes that there are
specific economic, social, and other public benefits that outweigh the significant and
unavoidable impacts associated with the General Plan project.
When compared to the proposed Project, Alternative D would have a reduction of
average daily trips (ADT), but an increase of trips in the AM peak hour and a decrease
trips in the PM peak hour. Based on the lower volume of ADT and PM peak hour
volumes, Alternative D would not create additional roadway or intersection deficiencies.
Both Alternative D and the proposed Project would be expected to result in a significant
122 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
impact at one intersection in the City of Newport Beach and seven intersections in the
City of Costa Mesa. Impacts to the intersection of Newport Boulevard at West Coast
Highway in the City of Newport Beach can be mitigated to a level considered less than
significant. Alternative D would impact the following Costa Mesa intersections: Newport
Boulevard at 19th Street, Newport Boulevard at Harbor Boulevard, Newport Boulevard at
18th StreeURochester, Newport Boulevard at 17th Street, Monrovia at 19th Street,
Pomona Avenue at 17th Street, and Superior Avenue at 17'h Street. Implementation of
MM 4.9 -2 would mitigate the impact to a level considered less than significant. However,
the City of Newport Beach cannot impose mitigation on another jurisdiction. Therefore, if
the Applicant is unable to reach an agreement with the City of Costa Mesa that would
ensure that Alternative D impacts occurring in Costa Mesa would be mitigated
concurrent with or preceding the impact, the impacts to be would remain significant and
unavoidable.
Alternative D would have construction - related air quality impacts. During grading, large
and fine particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5, respectively) concentrations may exceed
the SCAQMD CEQA significance thresholds at the property lines, but would not be likely
to exceed ambient air quality standards-
Long-term operational emissions of criteria pollutants would not exceed the SCAQMD
mass emissions thresholds from initial occupancy through 2020. However, as
development continues beyond 2020, emissions of VOCs, CO, and PM10 would exceed
the significance thresholds, principally due to vehicle operations. Alternative D would
have a significant cumulative air quality impact because its contribution to regional
pollutant concentrations would be cumulatively considerable.
Alternative D would emit quantities of GHGs that would exceed the City's 6,000
MTCO2e /yr significance threshold. Similar to the Project, Alternative D would make a
cumulatively considerable contribution to the global GHG inventory affecting global
climate change.
The increased traffic volumes on 17'h Street west of Monrovia Avenue would expose
sensitive receptors to noise levels in excess of the City of Newport Beach's standards for
changes to the ambient noise levels. At buildout, noise levels would also exceed
significance thresholds in the City of Costa Mesa.
For portions of the Newport Crest development, there would be a significant increase in
the ambient noise level due to the projected traffic volumes in the buildout condition.
MM 4.12 -6 would reduce impacts to levels within the "Clearly Compatible" or "Normally
Compatible" classifications but would remain above the 5 dBA significance criterion in
the General Plan. MM 4.12 -7 would provide interior noise attenuation but because the
City of Newport Beach does not have the authority to mandate the implementation of
mitigation on private property that is not on the Project site, the impact would be
significant and unavoidable.
Use of construction equipment would result in a substantial temporary increase in
ambient noise levels to nearby noise- sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the Project.
Due to the low existing ambient noise levels, the proximity of the noise - sensitive
receptors, and duration of construction activities, the temporary noise increases would
be significant and unavoidable.
123 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Ability to Achieve Project Objectives: This Alternative is able to meet most of the
project objectives. However, it does not meet the objective of providing overnight visitor
accommodations (Objective 4), which is an important Coastal Act policy consideration
and does not provide as extensive of a public access network (no pedestrian and bicycle
bridge over West Coast Highway) as compared to the proposed Project. Further, this
Alternative does not include a Nature Center or trails. In addition, it only partially meets
the following objectives:
Y Development of a residential village of 1,375 residential units, offering a variety of
housing types in a range of housing prices for future residents, including provision of
affordable residential dwelling units to help meet the City's Regional Housing Needs
Assessment (RHNA) (Objective 3).
• Provide enhanced public access through the Coastal Zone through a system of
pedestrian walkways, multi -use trails, and on- street bikeways designed to encourage
walking and biking as an alternative to the use of automobiles by providing
connectivity among residential, commercial, park, open space, and resort uses within
the Project site and to existing adjacent open space, hiking and biking trails, the
beach,.and the Pacific Ocean (Objective 8).
Feasibility: This Alternative is considered feasible as it appears to be capable of being
accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into
account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors.
Finding: While this Alternative would lessen some of the environmental effects of the
proposed Project, it would not eliminate these impacts. This Alternative would achieve
most of the Project objectives but would not provide visitor - serving overnight
accommodations or many of the public benefits (i.e., Nature Center, trails, pedestrian
and bicycle bridge) that are associated with the proposed Project and which are
important Coastal Act policy considerations. While this Alternative is feasible, because it
would not provide as many public benefits and would result in similar significant
environmental impacts, the City, therefore, finds that the proposed Project is preferred
over this Alternative.
5. Alternative E: Reduced Development Area
Description: Alternative E assumes the same number of residential units (1,375 du) as
proposed by the Project within a reduced footprint. The development area (residential,
commercial, and visitor- serving uses) would decrease from 97.4 gross acres to 92.9
gross acres. Residential units would be provided at a higher density and on smaller lots
than assumed for the proposed Project. The same roadway system is proposed. This
Alternative does not include a Nature Center, interpretive trails, or a pedestrian and
bicycle bridge over West Coast Highway. It provides 60,000 sf of neighborhood
commercial uses (compared to 75,000 sf); 15,000 sf of visitor- serving commercial uses
instead of the resort inn; and approximately 39.1 acres of parks, including a 20.8- gross-
acre Community Park (compared to approximately 51.4 total acres of parklands with the
Project). As with the proposed Project, the Community Park would be constructed by the
Applicant as part of this Alternative; it would be offered for dedication to the City; and
upon acceptance, it would be maintained by the City. Alternative E would require the
same discretionary actions as noted for the proposed Project.
Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Environmental Effects: A full discussion of Alternative E's environmental impacts as
compared to the proposed Project is set forth in Section 7.5.5 of the Final EIR, which is
hereby incorporated by reference. Alternative E would reduce the development footprint
by approximately 11 percent. Although the nature of the impacts would be the same as
those discussed for the proposed Project, the impacts associated grading and project
footprint would be incrementally smaller due to the reduced amount of disturbed area
(i.e., impacts associated with grading, habitat removal, creation of impervious surfaces,
construction air emissions). This Alternative would increase the overall vehicle miles
travelled (VMT); therefore, there would be slightly greater long -term air emissions, noise,
and traffic.
Although with Alternative E there would be incremental reduction in impacts due to the
reduction in development and the area being developed, this Alternative would not
eliminate any of the unavoidable significant impacts identified with the proposed Project.
The following significant unavoidable impacts would occur with Alternative E:
There would be land use incompatibility with respect to long -term noise impacts and
night illumination on those. Newport Crest residences immediately contiguous to the
Project site. Noise impacts would remain significant if the residents of Newport Crest
elect not to implement the mitigation measures to reduce the increased interior noise
levels. Land use compatibility issues from night lighting associated with the Community
Park would also be considered significant.
Development would introduce new sources of light on the Project site, which would
result in a significant visual impact.
Alternative E would result in impacts to the same intersections as outlined for the
proposed Project. Implementation of the Mitigation Program would reduce impacts to
less than significant levels. However, the City of Newport Beach cannot guarantee
implementation of necessary mitigation within another jurisdiction. Therefore, the
impacts in the City of Costa Mesa intersections are assumed to remain significant and
unavoidable.
Alternative E would have cumulatively considerable contributions to regional pollutant
concentrations of 03.
Alternative E would emit quantities of GHGs that would exceed the City's 6,000
MTCO2e 1yr significance threshold. This would make a cumulatively considerable
contribution to the global GHG inventory.
For portions of the Newport Crest development, there would be a significant increase in
the ambient noise level due to the projected traffic volumes in the buildout condition.
MM 4.12 -6 would reduce impacts to levels within the "Clearly Compatible" or "Normally
Compatible" classifications, but would remain above the 5 dBA significance criterion in
the General Plan. MM 4.12 -7 would provide interior noise attenuation, but because the
City of Newport Beach does not have the authority to mandate the implementation of
mitigation on private property that is not on the Project site, the impact would be
significant and unavoidable.
The increased traffic volumes on 17'" Street west of Monrovia Avenue would expose
sensitive receptors to noise levels in excess of the City of Costa Mesa's standards.
MM 4.12 -5 requires the Applicant to provide funds to the City of Costa Mesa to resurface
125 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
the street with rubberized asphalt; however, the City of Newport Beach has no control to
assure that the mitigation would be implemented. Therefore, the forecasted impact to
residents of 17'" Street west of Monrovia Avenue is considered significant and
unavoidable.
Use of construction equipment would result in a substantial temporary increase in
ambient noise levels to nearby noise - sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the Project.
Due to the low existing ambient noise levels, the proximity of the noise - sensitive
receptors, and duration of construction activities, temporary noise increases would be
significant and unavoidable.
Ability to Achieve Project Objectives: This Alternative is able to meet most of the
Project objectives. However, it does not meet the objective of providing overnight visitor
accommodations (Objective 4). In addition, it only partially meets the following objective:
e Provide enhanced public access through the Coastal Zone through a system of
pedestrian walkways, multi -use trails, and on- street bikeways designed to encourage
walking and biking as an alternative to the use of automobiles by providing
connectivity among residential, commercial, park, open space, and resort uses within
the Project site and to existing adjacent open space, hiking and biking trails, the
beach, and the Pacific Ocean (Objective 8).
Feasibility: Alternative E is considered feasible as it appears to be capable of being
accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into
account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors.
Finding: While this Alternative would lessen some of the environmental effects of the
proposed Project, it would not eliminate these impacts. This Alternative would achieve
most of the Project objectives but would not provide visitor - serving overnight
accommodations or many of the public benefits (i.e., Nature Center, trails, pedestrian
and bicycle bridge) that are associated with the proposed Project. Additionally, it would
not provide overnight visitor accommodations, which is an important Coastal Act policy
consideration. While this Alternative is feasible, because it would not provide as many
public benefits, the City, therefore, finds that the proposed Project is preferred over this
Alternative.
5. Alternative F: Increased Open Space /Reduced Development Area
Description: Alternative F assumes the same number of residential units (1,375 du) as
proposed by the Project within a reduced footprint. The development area (residential
and commercial) would decrease from 97.4 gross acres to 84.0 gross acres, an
approximate 14 percent reduction compared to the proposed Project. When parkland is
factored in, the development footprint for Alternative F is reduced by 20 percent
compared to the proposed Project. This alterative does not include a resort inn or visitor -
serving commercial uses. Residential units would be provided at a higher density and on
smaller lots than assumed for the proposed Project. The same roadway system is
proposed. Open space uses would increase from 252.3 gross acres to 282.4 gross
acres. This Alternative does not include a Nature Center, interpretive trails, or a
pedestrian and bicycle bridge over West Coast Highway. It provides 60,000 sf of
neighborhood commercial uses (compared to 75,000 sf); and includes approximately
34.7 acres of parks, including a 21.8- gross -acre Community Park (compared to
approximately 51.4 total acres of parklands). The acreage of the Community Park would
126 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overridinq Considerations
be the same for Alternative F and the proposed Project. As with the proposed Project,
the Community Park would be constructed by the Applicant as part of this Alternative; it
would be offered for dedication to the City; and upon acceptance, it would be maintained
by the City. Alternative F would require the same discretionary actions as noted for the
proposed Project.
Environmental Effects: A full discussion of Alternative F's environmental impacts as
compared to the proposed Project is set forth in Section 7.5.6 of the Final EIR, which is
hereby incorporated by reference. Alternative F would reduce the development footprint.
Although the nature of the impacts would be the same as those discussed for the
proposed Project, the overall impacts associated with Alternative F would be fewer due
to the reduced amount of disturbed area. Although not identified as significant and
unavoidable impacts, this Alternative would substantially less the impacts associated
with grading, habitat removal, and creation of impervious surfaces.
Alternative F would substantially lessen construction air emissions impacts compared to
the proposed Project because less development is proposed; the area of disturbance
would be smaller; and grading would be reduced by 25 to 35 percent. However,
Alternative F would not eliminate any significant and unavoidable impacts identified with
the proposed Project. The following significant and unavoidable impacts would occur
with Alternative F:
There would be land use incompatibility with respect to night illumination associated with
the Community Park and long -term noise impacts on those Newport Crest residences
immediately contiguous to the Project site. In addition, there would be a potential long -
range noise impacts for residents on 17`h Street west of Monrovia Avenue. For noise,
though mitigation is proposed, noise impacts would remain significant if the residents of
Newport Crest elect not to implement the mitigation measures to reduce the increased
interior noise levels and if the City of Costa Mesa does not implement the recommended
measure of resurfacing the street with rubberized asphalt.
Alternative F would include a "dark sky" lighting regulations in the NBR -PC that would
apply to businesses (e.g., neighborhood commercial uses) and Homeowners
Association -owned and operated land uses within 100 feet of the Open Space Preserve.
However, Alternative F would introduce nighttime lighting into a currently unlit area. The
Community Park is anticipated to have night lighting of active sports fields, which could
result in light spillover onto adjacent properties. The night lighting impacts are
considered significant and unavoidable. The City of Newport Beach General Plan Final
EIR found that the introduction of new sources of lighting associated with development
of the site would be considered significant and unavoidable. In certifying the General
Plan Final EIR and approving the General Plan project, the City Council approved a
Statement of Overriding Considerations, which notes that there are specific economic,
social, and other public benefits that outweigh the significant and unavoidable impacts
associated with the General Plan project.
Alternative F would be projected to result in a decrease in ADT and peak hour traffic
volumes when compared to the proposed Project. This decrease in peak hour volumes
would not cause any of the intersections operating at an acceptable level of service with
the Project to operate at an unacceptable level of service. Both Alternative F and the
proposed Project would be expected to result in deficiencies at the intersection of
Newport Boulevard at West Coast Highway in the City of Newport Beach which can be
mitigated to a level considered less than significant. Alternative F and the proposed
'127 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Project would significantly impact seven intersections in Costa Mesa: Newport Boulevard
at 19'h Street, Newport Boulevard at Harbor Boulevard, Newport Boulevard at
18`h Street/Rochester, Newport Boulevard at 17th Street, Monrovia at 19`h Street,
Pomona Avenue at 17`h Street, and Superior Avenue at 17th Street. Implementation of
MM 4.9 -2 would mitigate the impact to a level considered less than significant. However,
the City of Newport Beach cannot impose mitigation on another jurisdiction. If the
Applicant is unable to reach an agreement with the City of Costa Mesa that would
ensure that Alternative F impacts occurring in Costa Mesa would be mitigated
concurrent with or preceding the impact, the impacts to be mitigated by the
improvements would remain significant and unavoidable.
Long -term operational emissions of criteria pollutants would not exceed the SCAQMD
mass emissions thresholds from initial occupancy through 2020. However, as
development continues beyond 2020, emissions of VOCs and CO would exceed the
significance thresholds, principally due to vehicle operations. Alternative F would have a
cumulatively considerable contribution to regional pollutant concentrations of 03.
Alternative F would emit quantities of GHGs that would exceed the City's 6,000
MTCOZe /yr significance threshold. Similar to the Project, Alternative F would make a
cumulatively considerable contribution to the global GHG inventory affecting global
climate change.
The increased traffic volumes on 17th Street west of Monrovia Avenue would expose
sensitive receptors to noise levels in excess of the City of Newport Beach's standards for
changes to the ambient noise levels. At buildout, noise levels would also exceed
significance thresholds in the City of Costa Mesa. MM 4.12 -5 requires the Applicant to
provide funds to the City of Costa Mesa to resurface the street with rubberized asphalt;
however, the City of Newport Beach has no ability to ensuring that the mitigation would
be implemented. Therefore, the forecasted impact to residents of 17th Street west of
Monrovia is considered significant and unavoidable.
For portions of the Newport Crest development, there would be a significant increase in
the ambient noise level due to the projected traffic volumes in the buildout condition. MM
4.12 -6 would reduce impacts to levels within the "Clearly Compatible" or "Normally
Compatible" classifications but would remain above the 5 dBA significance criterion in
the General Plan. MM 4.12 -7 would provide interior noise attenuation but because the
City of Newport Beach does not have the authority to mandate the implementation of
mitigation on private property that is not on the Project site, the impact would be
significant and unavoidable.
Use of construction equipment would result in a substantial temporary increase in
ambient noise levels to nearby noise - sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the Project.
Due to the low existing ambient noise levels, the proximity of the noise - sensitive
receptors, and duration of construction activities, the temporary noise increases would
be significant and unavoidable.
Ability to Achieve Project Objectives: This Alternative is able to meet most of the
Project objectives. However, it does not meet the objective of providing overnight visitor
accommodations (Objective 4). In addition, it only partially meets the following
objectives:
128 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
• Development of 75,000 square feet of retail commercial uses oriented to serve the
needs of local residences and visitors utilizing the resort inn and the coastal
recreational opportunities provided as part of the Project (Objective 5).
• Provide enhanced public access through the Coastal Zone through a system of
pedestrian walkways, multi -use trails, and on- street bikeways designed to encourage
walking and biking as an alternative to the use of automobiles by providing
connectivity among residential, commercial, park, open space, and resort uses within
the Project site and to existing adjacent open space, hiking and biking trails, the
beach, and the Pacific Ocean (Objective 8).
Feasibility: Alternative F is considered feasible as it appears to be capable of being
accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into
account economic, environmental, legal, social and technological factors.
Finding: While this Alternative would lessen some of the environmental effects of the
proposed Project, it would not eliminate any significant impacts of the Project. However,
it should be noted that this Alternative does not offer the same level of amenities (i.e.,
trails, parks, and pedestrian bridge) as the proposed Project. While increasing public
access opportunities over the existing condition and compared to Alternatives A and B,
Alternative F would not provide the same extent of public access amenities (i.e.,
pedestrian /bike overcrossing) as compared to the proposed Project, and would not
provide overnight visitor accommodations, which is an important Coastal Act policy
consideration. For these reasons, the City rejects this Alternative in favor of the
proposed Project.
129 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overridinq Considerations
7. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Introduction
The City is the Lead Agency under CEQA for preparation, review, and certification of the Final
EIR for the Newport Banning Ranch Project. As the Lead Agency, the City is also responsible
for determining the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action and which of those
impacts are significant, and which can be mitigated through imposition of mitigation measures to
avoid or minimize those impacts to a level of less than significant. CEQA then requires the Lead
Agency to balance the benefits of a proposed action against its significant unavoidable adverse
environmental impacts in determining whether or not to approve the proposed Project. In
making this determination the City is guided by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 which
provides as follows:
CEQA requires the decision - making agency to balance, as applicable, the
economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region -wide or
statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project against its unavoidable
environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the
specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region -
wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposal (sic) project outweigh the
unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects
may be considered "acceptable."
When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of
significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or
substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to
support its action based on the final EIR and /or other information in the record.
The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial
evidence in the record.
If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement
should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned
in the notice of determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall
be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091.
In addition, Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) requires that where a public agency finds
that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make
infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in an EIR and thereby leave
significant unavoidable effects, the public agency must also find that overriding economic, legal,
social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects of the
project.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) and the State CEQA Guidelines Section
15093, the City has balanced the benefits of the proposed Project against the following
unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the proposed Project and has adopted all feasible
mitigation measures with respect to these impacts. The City also has examined alternatives to
the proposed Project, none of which both meet the Project objectives, and is environmentally
preferable to the proposed Project or feasible for the reasons discussed in the Findings and
Facts in Support of Findings.
130 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
The Newport City of Beach City Council, the Lead Agency for this Project, and having reviewed
the Final EIR for the Newport Banning Ranch Project, and reviewed all written materials within
the City's public record and heard all oral testimony presented at public hearings, adopts this
Statement of Overriding Considerations, which has balanced the benefits of the Project against
its significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts in reaching its decision to approve
the Project.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts
Although most potential Project impacts have been substantially avoided or mitigated, as
described in the Findings and Facts in Support of Findings, there remain some Project impacts
for which complete mitigation is not feasible. For some impacts, mitigation measures were
identified and adopted by the Lead Agency, however, even with implementation of the
measures, the City finds that the impact cannot be reduced to a level of less than significant.
The impacts and alternatives are described below and were also addressed in the Findings.
The EIR identified the following unavoidable adverse impacts of the proposed Project:
Land Use. The City of Newport Beach Zoning Code (October 2010) defines compatibility as
"The characteristics of different uses or activities that permit them to be located near each other
in harmony and without conflict. Elements affecting compatibility include: intensity of occupancy,
pedestrian or vehicular traffic generated, volume of goods handled, and environmental effects
(e.g., air pollution, glare, hazardous materials, noise, vibration, etc.) ". Therefore, land use
incompatibility can occur where differences between nearby uses result in significant noise
levels and significant traffic levels, among other factors, such that project - related significant
unavoidable direct and indirect impacts impede use of the existing land uses as they were
intended. The proposed Project would result in a land use incompatibility with respect to long-
term noise and night illumination on those Newport Crest residences immediately contiguous to
the Project site. The City of Newport Beach General Plan Final EIR found that the introduction
of new sources of lighting associated with development of the site would be considered
significant and unavoidable. In certifying the General Plan Final EIR and approving the General
Plan project, the City Council approved a Statement of Overriding Considerations which notes
that there are specific economic, social, and other public benefits that outweigh the significant
unavoidable impacts associated with the General Plan project. In addition, there would be a
potential long -range noise impacts for residents on 17th Street west of Monrovia Avenue. For
noise, though mitigation is proposed, noise impacts would remain significant if the residents of
Newport Crest elect not to implement the mitigation measures to reduce the increased interior
noise levels and if the City of Costa Mesa does not implement the recommended measure of
resurfacing the street with rubberized asphalt.
Aesthetics and Visual Resources. The proposed Project would include "dark sky' lighting
regulations set forth in the Newport Banning Ranch Development Planned Community (NBR-
PC) zoning regulations that would apply to businesses (e.g., resort inn and neighborhood
commercial uses) and Homeowners Association -owned and operated land uses within 100 feet
of the Open Space Preserve. However, the Project would introduce nighttime lighting into a
currently unlit area. The Project would result in night lighting impacts that are considered
significant and unavoidable. The City of Newport Beach General Plan Final EIR found that the
introduction of new sources of lighting associated with development of the site would be
considered significant and unavoidable. In certifying the General Plan Final EIR and approving
the General Plan project, the City Council approved a Statement of Overriding Consideration
which noted that there were specific economic, social, and other public benefits which
outweighed the significant unavoidable impacts associated with the General Plan project.
131 Exhibit 8
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Transportation and Circulation. The Project would have impacts on select intersections in the
City of Costa Mesa. Implementation of Mitigation Measure (MM) 4.9 -2 would mitigate the
Project's impact to a level considered less than significant. However, the City of Newport Beach
cannot impose mitigation on another jurisdiction or agency. Therefore, if the Applicant is unable
to reach an agreement with the City of Costa Mesa and the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) that would ensure that Project impacts occurring in Costa Mesa and
State highways would be mitigated concurrent with or preceding the impact, for purposes of this
EIR, the impacts to be mitigated by the improvements would remain significant and
unavoidable. The following impacts were identified with the various traffic scenarios evaluated:
— Existing Plus Project — Intersections identified as deficient are: (1) Newport Boulevard
at Harbor Boulevard; (2) Newport Boulevard at 18`h Street/Rochester Street; and (3)
Superior Ave at 17th Street. (This scenario assumes all development occurs at once,
which is not an accurate reflection of the timing of development for the proposed
Project.)
— Year 2016 With Project Transportation Phasing Ordinance (TPO) — Intersections
identified as deficient are: (1) Monrovia Avenue at 19th Street; (2) Newport Boulevard at
19th Street; (3) Newport Boulevard at Harbor Boulevard; (4) Newport Boulevard at 18th
Street/Rochester Street; (5) Pomona Avenue at 17th Street; (6) Newport Boulevard at
17th Street; (7) Superior Avenue at 17th Street; and (8) Newport Boulevard at West Coast
Highway.
— Year 2016 With Phase 1 Project TPO — Intersections identified as deficient are: (1)
Newport Boulevard at Harbor Boulevard; (2) Newport Boulevard at 18th Street/Rochester
Street; and (3) Newport Boulevard at West Coast Highway.
— Year 2016 Cumulative With Project — Intersections identified as deficient are:
(1) Monrovia Avenue at 190' Street; (2) Newport Boulevard at 19th Street; (3) Newport
Boulevard at Harbor Boulevard; (4) Newport Boulevard at 181h Street/Rochester Street;
(5) Pomona Avenue at 17'h Street; (6) Newport Boulevard at 17'h Street12; (7) Superior
Avenue at 17th Street; and (8) Newport Boulevard and West Coast Highway.
— Year 2016 Cumulative With Phase 1 Project — Intersections identified as deficient are:
(1) Newport Boulevard at Harbor Boulevard and (2) Newport Boulevard at 18th
Street/Rochester Street.
— General Plan Buildout with Project — Intersections identified as deficient are:
(1) Newport Boulevard at Harbor Boulevard and (2) Newport Boulevard at
18th Street/Rochester Street.
Air Quality. During periods of grading, localized large and fine particulate matter (PM10 and
PM2.5) concentrations may exceed the South Coast Management District's (SCAQMD's) CEQA
significance thresholds at the property lines but would not likely exceed ambient air quality
standards. Localized concentrations of carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) due
to construction activities would not exceed the applicable CEQA thresholds. Regional (mass)
emissions of criteria pollutants during construction activities would not exceed the applicable
thresholds.
12 The Newport . Boulevard at 17'h Street intersection has a Project - related impact using the Highway Capacity
Manual (Caltrans methodology), as well as an impact using the Intersection Capacity Utilization methodology.
132 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Long -term operational emissions of criteria pollutants would not exceed the SCAQMD mass
emissions thresholds from initial occupancy through 2020. However, as Project development
continues beyond 2020, emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), CO, and PM10 would
exceed the significance thresholds, principally due to vehicle operations. Feasible mitigation
measures would be implemented to reduce operational emissions, although the effects of such
mitigation are not quantifiable. Localized concentrations of CO at congested intersections would
not exceed ambient air quality standards or CEQA significance thresholds.
The Project would have a significant cumulative air quality impact because its contribution to
regional pollutant concentrations would be cumulatively considerable.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The Project would emit quantities of GHGs that would exceed
the City's 6,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (MTCO2e /yr) significance
threshold. The Project would make a cumulatively considerable contribution to the global GHG
inventory affecting Global Climate Change.
Noise. For the Existing Plus Project, 2016 with Project, and General Plan Buildout scenarios,
the increased traffic volumes on 17`h Street west of Monrovia Avenue in Costa Mesa, would
expose sensitive receptors to noise levels that would also exceed significance thresholds in the
City of Costa Mesa. MM 4.12 -5 requires the Applicant to provide funds to the City of Costa
Mesa to resurfacing the street with rubberized asphalt; however, the City of Newport Beach has
no ability to assure that the mitigation would be implemented. Therefore, the forecasted noise
impact to residents of 17th Street west of Monrovia is considered significant and unavoidable.
For portions of the Newport Crest condominium development, there would be a significant
increase in the ambient noise level due to the projected traffic volumes in the buildout condition.
MM 4.12 -6 would reduce impacts to levels within the "Clearly Compatible" or "Normally
Compatible" classifications. However, the long -term noise increases at some Newport Crest
residences from vehicular traffic noise from Bluff Road due to Project and cumulative traffic
levels would remain above the General Plan's 5 A- weighted decibels (d BA) significance
criterion. MM 4.12 -7 would provide interior noise attenuation, but because the City of Newport
Beach does not have the authority to mandate the implementation of mitigation on private
property that is not on the Project site, the impact would be significant and unavoidable.
Use of construction equipment would result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise
levels to nearby noise - sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the Project. Due to the low existing
ambient noise levels, the proximity of the noise - sensitive receptors, and duration of construction
activities, the temporary noise increases would be significant and unavoidable.
In addition, the EIR identified six alternatives to the Project and analyzed whether these
alternatives could avoid or substantially lessen the unavoidable environmental impacts of the
proposed Project. While some of the alternatives could lessen or avoid some of the unavoidable
impacts of the proposed Project, some of the alternatives also resulted in different and in some
cases, increased environmental impacts, consequently, for the reasons set forth in Section 6 of
these Findings, none of the alternatives were determined to be feasible:
Alternative A: No Action /No Development Alternative (Continuation of Existing Land
Uses).
• Alternative B: Newport Beach General Plan /Open Space Designation.
• Alternative C: Proposed Project with Bluff Road Extending to 17'h Street.
e Alternative D: Reduced Development and Development Area.
133 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Y Alternative E: Reduced Development Area.
C Alternative F: Increased Open Space /Reduced Development Area.
The City, after balancing the specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits
including region -wide or statewide environmental benefits, of the proposed Project, has
determined that the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts identified above may be
considered acceptable due to the following specific considerations which outweigh the
unavoidable, adverse environmental impacts of the proposed Project, each of which standing
alone is sufficient to support approval of the Project, in accordance with CEQA Section 21081(b)
and State CEQA Guideline Section 15093.
1.
The City's General Plan Policy LU 3.4 prioritizes the acquisition of Banning Ranch as an
open space amenity for the community and region, to enhance wetlands and other
habitats and provide parkland amenities to serve nearby neighborhoods. In order to
implement this policy, LU 6.3.2 recognizes the need to obtain sufficient funds through
private fundraising, State bonds, environmental mitigation fees, or other financing
mechanisms, none of which have been identified to date. As the General Plan
acknowledges, "due to the significant cost of purchasing the site and habitat restoration,
a large amount of revenue would need to be generated to help fund preservation of the
majority of the property as open space ". (Housing Element on page 5 -43)
Consistent with General Plan Policy LU 3.4, the Project will implement a comprehensive
Habitat Restoration Plan that encompasses more than 250 acres of the Project site and
would provide for the restoration of wetlands and other habitat areas, and the
preservation and long -term maintenance of existing open space, sensitive habitats and
additional restored and created habitats at no cost to the public.
2. New public and coastal access will be provided
0
The Project would make available to the public a site that has been privately -owned and
closed to the public since the 1940s. It would provide new public and coastal access
through construction of a road connection to West Coast Highway and the beach, as
well as access to open space and trails. The Project would also provide approximately
475 new public parking spaces in the coastal zone.
In addition to the restoration and long -term preservation of natural open space and
habitat areas described above in #1, above, the City's General Plan also contemplates
the provision of parkland amenities to serve nearby neighborhoods and City residents in
general. Under the General Plan's Primary Use as open space, in addition to the costs
of property acquisition, the City and its residents would be responsible for funding the
cost of park improvements. The Project provides approximately 26.8 acres of public
community parkland and improvements. As described below, the Project's parkland
dedication and improvements exceed the parkland dedication requirements under State
law and provide significant open space and recreational benefits to the City and its
residents.
134 Exhibit B
4.
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Government Code Section 66477 (commonly known as the "Quimby Act ") allows a city
to require the dedication of land or require the payment of fees for park and recreational
purposes as a condition to the approval of a tentative map. The Quimby Act establishes
limits on the amount of land that is required to be dedicated. Based on the number of
dwelling units proposed, the Project would be required to dedicate approximately 15
acres of parkland only. The Project would both dedicate land and provide improvements
to the following parks and recreational trails in excess of its Quimby Act requirements.
The public parks, recreational and open space provided by the Project are as follows:
• The improvement of the North Community Park and the Central Community
Park, totaling 26.8 gross acres (more than 18 net acres);
• The improvement of Bluff Park and the Interpretive Parks in accordance with the
Newport Banning Ranch Master Development Plan, totaling 24.6 gross acres;
and
• The improvement of a more than 7 mile trail system through open space areas in
accordance with the Newport Banning Ranch Master Development Plan, totaling
approximately seven miles of trails throughout the Project site.
The Newport Banning Ranch property is an active, operating oilfield. In addition, as an
active, operating oilfield, and as detailed in the City's General Plan, if acquisition of the
property were pursued through public funds, additional funds would have to be identified
by the City to pay for the costs of habitat restoration and parkland improvements.
Further, the City and public would be required to either allow the oil operator to continue
its operations until oil operations cease, or pay for the consolidation, clean up and
remediation of the oilfield to implement the habitat and parkland goals of the City's
General Plan. The Project provides for the consolidation of the existing oil operations
into two areas thereby permitting oilfield abandonment and clean up to commence on
the remainder of the Project site (approximately 380 acres) in advance of when they
would have occurred, and at no cost to the City or the public. In addition, the oil
operation consolidation would allow for habitat restoration activities to occur in advance
of when it would have absent the Project's ability to require consolidation.
5. Provision of areawide water quality benefits
The Project is designed to include water quality basins that are proposed to be sized to
treat off -site urban run -on from areas of the Cities of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach
developed with commercial, industrial and residential uses. These areas currently drain
through the Project site and flow untreated into the Project's lowland areas and to the
Semeniuk Slough. The water quality basin would also capture and treat on -site urban
runoff from within the Project. The 103 -acre Semeniuk Slough is identified in the City's
Coastal Land Use Plan as an Environmental Study Area which is characterized by open
estuarine, southern coastal salt marsh, and ornamental plant communities. Potential
impacts to the Semeniuk Slough include water quality degradation and sediment build-
up. (Coastal Land Use Plan at pages 4 -15 and 4-16) By capturing and treating this urban
runoff, the Project would provide significant water quality benefits to the Semeniuk
Slough.
135
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
6. Payment to City of a public benefit fee
In addition to any other fee or charge to which the Project would be required to pay, the
Project would to the City a public benefit fee of approximately $30,909 for each
residential unit constructed on the property
7. Net fiscal benefits to the City
3
The Fiscal Impact Analysis of the Proposed Newport Banning Ranch Annexation to the
City of Newport Beach prepared by Applied Development Economics concluded that the
Project would have a net fiscal benefit of nearly $2 million per year if all of the proposed
land uses are fully developed. Furthermore, even if the resort Inn and retail and service
commercial uses are not developed, the Project would have a net fiscal benefit of nearly
$1.4 million per year.
The City's Housing Element establishes as a goal: A balanced residential community,
comprised of a variety of housing types, designs, and opportunities for all social and
economic segments. (Housing Element Goal H2) The Project would provide a wide
range of housing types from single - family detached to higher density attached and multi-
family units that would provide a variety of housing opportunities within one site — a
feature not available in many other areas of the City or new developments elsewhere in
the City due to the limited number of sites and the sizes of parcels available for new
residential development. In addition, the Project would provide a minimum of 50 percent
of its affordable housing requirements on site which would provide greater opportunities
for all segments of the City's population to enjoy living on the Project site.
9. Fire station improvements
The Project would contribute $510 per residential unit or up to $700,000 with full build -
out towards the redevelopment of Newport Beach Fire Station No. 2, and in the event
the redevelopment of a station is not completed by the City prior to development of
certain areas of the Project site, the Project would make available an on -site location for
a temporary fire station.
10. Sustainable design
In addition to its emphasis on a mix of uses and housing opportunities, the Newport
Banning Ranch Project is designed to be a sustainable and green community that
provides energy efficiency and resource conservation to reduce the Project's
greenhouse gas emissions, consistent with AB 32. The following Project components
implement sustainability:
9 The Project would provide a network of public pedestrian and bicycle trails to
reduce auto dependency by connecting proposed residential neighborhoods to
parks and open space within the Project site and to off -site recreational
amenities, such as the beach and regional parks and trails. The Project would
coordinate with the Orange County Transportation Authority to allow for transit
routing through the Project site.
136 Exhibit B
Newport Banning Ranch
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overridinq Considerations
• The Project is registered under the Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design- Neighborhood Development (LEED -ND) Program, and will be consistent
with the program's green building requirements.
• The Project provides compact development patterns by concentrating
development in two main clusters which minimize habitat fragmentation and
provides larger, more contiguous areas for open space protection, habitat
restoration and parkland.
• The Project would implement a "dark sky" lighting program to minimize light
spillage into adjacent native habitat areas.
6 The Project would exceed adopted 2008 Title 24 energy conservation
requirements by a minimum of 5 percent.
• The Project would require that all residential development incorporate low water
use appliances; Smart Controller irrigation systems; Freon -free air conditioning
units; multimetering "dashboards' in each dwelling unit to visualize real -time
energy use; and solar orientation of structures to promote compatibility with the
installation of photovoltaic panels or other current solar power technology.
• The Project has provisions for parking spaces for electric or hybrid vehicles and
installation of facilities for Level 2 electric vehicle recharging.
• The Project would implement remediation and cleanup of the oilfield, which
includes the ability to recycle and properly dispose on -site oilfield materials.
Additionally, the treatment and cleaning of impacted soils would be done on site
which significantly reduces the potential export of oil field materials and impacted
soils.
• The Project would also increase construction waste diversion by 50 percent from
2010 requirements; and recycle and reuse construction materials onsite to
minimize off -site hauling and disposal of materials.
11. Circulation Improvements
The Project, through an agreement with the City of Costa Mesa, will fund intersection
improvements for intersections in that City. Although outside of the City of Newport
Beach, these traffic improvements will provide benefits to City of Newport Beach
residents who use these streets. The Applicant will incrementally fund the City of Costa
Mesa for intersections improvements. At Project build out, the Project will have provided
approximately $4.3 million in contributions to intersection improvements which is more
than double the Project's fair share requirements based upon the traffic analysis in the
Final EIR.
137 Exhibit 8
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
COUNTY OF ORANGE } ss.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH }
I, Leilani I. Brown, City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, California, do hereby certify that the
whole number of members of the City Council is seven, that the foregoing resolution, being Resolution
No. 2012 -58 was duly and regularly introduced before and adopted by the City Council of said City at a
regular meeting of said Council, duly and regularly held on the 23`d day of July, 2012, and that the same
was so passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit:
Ayes: Rosansky, Curry, Selich, Henn, Daigle, Mayor Gardner
Absent: Hill
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the official seal of
said City this 25" day of July, 2012.
City Clerk
Newport Beach, California
(Seal)