Newport Beach City Council
April 9, 2024

Energy consumption during Project operations would be associated with resident and visitor trips; delivery and supply trucks; and trips by maintenance and repair crews. The Project is an infill residential development within the Airport Area and near large employment areas, including Koll Center Newport and Newport Center, thereby potentially reducing the need to travel long distances for some residents." The project site is also near public transportation (bus routes), further reducing the need to drive. The City 12 Jobsite, Construction's Electric Future, June 11, 2018, Available at: https://jobsite.procore.com/construction-s-electric-future , Accessed August 18, 2023
3 The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association document, Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures (August 2010), identifies that infill developments, such as the proposed Project reduce vehicle miles traveled which reduces fuel consumption. Infill projects such as the proposed Project would have an improved location efficiency. 91 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
and surrounding areas are highly urbanized with numerous gasoline fuel facilities and infrastructure.

Consequently, the proposed Project would not result in a substantial demand for energy that would require expanded supplies or the construction of other infrastructure or expansion of existing facilities.

The gasoline and diesel fuel associated with on -road vehicular trips is calculated based on total VMT. The total gasoline and diesel fuel associated with on -road trips would be approximately 38,138 gallons per year and 80,110 gallons per year, respectively. Orange County's annual gasoline fuel use in 2021 was 1,114,084,000 gallons and diesel fuel use was 136,091,200 gallons.14 Expected Project operational use of gasoline and diesel would represent 0.0034 percent of current gasoline use and 0.059 percent of current diesel use in the County. None of the Project energy uses exceed one percent of their corresponding County use. Project operations would not substantially affect existing energy or fuel supplies or resources.

The Project would comply with applicable energy standards and new capacity would not be required. Fuel consumption associated with vehicle trips generated by the proposed Project would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary.

Electricity and Natural Gas
Electricity. Energy capacity, or electrical power, is generally measured in watts (W) while energy use is measured in watt-hours (Wh). On a utility scale, a generator's capacity is typically rated in megawatts (MW), which is one million watts, while energy use is measured in megawatt -hours (MWh) or gigawatt- hours (GWh), which is one billion watt-hours.

SCE would continue to provide electrical service to the project site. Currently, the site does use electricity due to current office uses. The electricity demand is expected to be adequately served by the existing SCE electrical facilities. Annual total electricity demand in California is forecast to increase by approximately 50,000 GWh—or 50 billion kWh —between 2022 and 203015. Total electricity demand in SCE's service area is forecast to increase by approximately 12,000 gigawatt-hours (GWh)—or 12 billion kWh —between 2015 and 2026.16 The Project would use approximately 1,598,150 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year; this represents a worst -case assumption because it does not account for existing electrical use associated with the office building. The Project's electricity consumption would represent an insignificant increase (0.0084%) compared to the overall demand in SCE's service area. Therefore, projected electrical demand would not significantly impact SCE's level of service.

The Project design and materials would comply with the latest Building Energy Efficiency Standards adopted at the time of Project construction. The City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, Building Division would review and verify that the Project plans which includes the Project's Site Photometrics to ensure compliance with the current version of the Building and Energy Efficiency Standards prior to issuance of a building permit. The Project would also adhere to the actions listed in CALGreen, which establishes planning and design standards for sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess of the CEC requirements), water conservation, material conservation, and internal air contaminants.
4 California Air Resources Board, EMFAC 2021.
s California Energy Commission, California Energy Demand 2018-2030 Revised Forecast, Figure ES-1: Statewide baseline Annual electricity Consumption, Available at: https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/getdocument.aspx?tn=223244 , . Accessed August 18, 2023. e California Energy Commission, California Energy Demand 2018-2030 Revised Forecast, Figure 49: Historical and Projected Baseline Consumption SCE Planning Area, Available at: https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/getdocument.aspx?tn=223244 , . Accessed August 18, 2023. 92 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Project development would not interfere with achievement of the 60 percent Renewable Portfolio Standard set forth in SB 100 for 2030 or the 100 percent standard for 2045. These goals apply to SCE and other electricity retailers. As electricity retailers reach these goals, emissions from end -user electricity use would decrease from current emission estimates.

The electricity demand is expected to be adequately served by the existing SCE electrical facilities on the project site currently serving office uses. SCE forecasts that it would have adequate electricity to meet the expected growth in its service area through 2026. Using SCE's anticipated consumption in 2026 in a high - demand consumption scenario, electricity demand is expected to be approximately 128,000 gigawatt- hours." The increase in electricity demand from the Project would be less than 0.0012 percent of overall demand in SCE's service area. Therefore, projected electrical demand would not significantly impact SCE's level of service. Impacts to electrical service would be less than significant.

Natural Gas. Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) provides natural gas service to the area. The Project is expected to use approximately 2,543,467 kilo -British thermal units per year (KBTU/year) of natural gas; this represents a worst -case assumption because it does not account for any existing natural gas use associated with the office buildings. The increased demand is expected to be adequately served by the existing SoCalGas facilities. From 2020 to 2035, core demand is expected to decline from 934 million cubic feet (mcf) to 806 mcf, while supplies remain constant at 3.775 billion cubic feet per day (bcfd)18 from 2015 through 2035.19 Therefore, the natural gas demand from the proposed Project would represent a nominal percentage of overall demand in SoCalGas' service area. The Project would not result in a significant impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation.

The increased demand is expected to be adequately served by the existing SoCalGas facilities. SoCalGas facilities that currently provide natural gas to existing office uses can also serve the proposed Project.

Therefore, the natural gas demand from the proposed Project would represent a nominal percentage of overall demand in SoCalGas' service area. SoCalGas can provide additional connections if necessary once utility plans are finalized for the Project and are required to do so by the California Public Utilities Commission to meet additional demand. Impacts to natural gas service would be less than significant.

It should also be noted that the Project's design and materials would comply with the most current Building Energy Efficiency Standards in effect. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the City of Newport Beach Building Division would review and verify that the Project plans demonstrate compliance with the current version of the Building and Energy Efficiency Standards. The Project would also be required adhere to the provisions of CALGreen, which establishes planning and design standards for sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code requirements), water conservation, material conservation, and internal air contaminants.

Project development would not interfere with achievement of the 60 percent Renewable Portfolio Standard set forth in SB 100 for 2030 or the 100 percent standard for 2045. These goals apply to SCE and 17 California Energy Commission, California Energy Demand 2018-2030 Revised Forecast, Figure 49: Historical and Projected Baseline Consumption SCE Planning Area, Available at: https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/getdocument.aspx?tn=223244 . Accessed August 18, 2023. 18 1 bcfd is equivalent to about 1.03 billion kBTU
19 California Gas and Electric Utilities, 2020 California Gas Report, Southern California Gas Company Annual Gas Supply 2020-2035 Table 1-SCG, Available at: https://www.socalgas.com/sites/default/files/2020-10/2020 California Gas Report Joint Utility Biennial Comprehensive Filing.pdf.

Accessed August 18, 2023.
93 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
other electricity retailers. As electricity retailers reach these goals, emissions from end -user electricity use would decrease from current emission estimates.

This would not be a new impact, nor would it increase the severity of the impact previously identified in the General Plan Program EIR and would therefore be consistent with the effects of implementation of the General Plan.

Threshold (b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
General Plan Significance Determination: The previous General Plan Program EIR did not discuss compliance with State or local renewable energy plans or energy efficiency. This discussion is new as part of this Addendum.

Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: Less Than Significant.

Project design and operation would comply with State Building Energy Efficiency Standards, appliance efficiency regulations, and green building standards. Project development would not cause inefficient, wasteful and unnecessary energy consumption, and no adverse impact would occur. The City of Newport Beach adopted an Energy Action Plan in 2013 in order to help reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to become a more sustainable community and to meet the goals of AB 32. The Energy Action Plan outlines various measures and strategizes numerous methods on how the City's long-term vision to conserve energy at government facilities can be achieved. The Plan does not have project -specific requirements but focuses on demonstrating leadership through the implementation of cost-effective energy efficiency improvements in their own facilities, minimizing costs associated with energy and utilities, and protecting the environment. As such, the proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct the City's Energy Action Plan.

SCAG's 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS:

Connect SoCal) establishes GHG emissions reduction goals for automobiles and light -duty trucks for 2020 and 2035. The Project is consistent with regional strategies to reduce passenger VMT. The project site is proximate to several major employers. Orange County is traditionally jobs -rich. Transit stops along Bristol Street connect the project site to the rest of the City as well as the cities of Irvine and Tustin. Increasing residential land uses near major employment centers is a key strategy to reducing regional VMT, which also reduces transportation fuel consumption. Therefore, in addition to being an efficient infill development, the Project would be consistent with regional goals to reduce trips and VMT by locating the residential development adjacent to business uses, which reduces vehicle trip lengths and transportation fuel use. The Project would not conflict with the stated goals of the RTP/SCS. Therefore, the Project would not interfere with SCAG's RTP/SCS.

The California Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) was established in 2002 under SB 1078 and was amended in 2006 and 2011. The RPS program requires investor -owned utilities, electric service providers, and community choice aggregators to increase the use of eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total procurement by 2020. Renewable energy sources include wind, small hydropower, solar, geothermal, biomass, and biogas.

Executive Order 5-14-08, signed in November 2008, expanded the State's RPS to 33 percent renewable power by 2020. This standard was adopted by the legislature in 2011 (SB X1-2). SB 350 was signed into 94 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
law in September 2015 and established tiered increases to renewable energy resources of 40 percent by 2024, 45 percent by 2027, and 50 percent by 2030. SB 350 also sets a new goal to double the energy - efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas through energy -efficiency and -conservation measures.

As noted above, SB 100 increased California's RPS requirements to 60 percent by 2030, with interim targets, and 100 percent by 2045. The bill also established a State policy that eligible renewable energy resources and zero -carbon resources supply 100 percent of all retail sales of electricity to California end - use customers and 100 percent of electricity procured to serve all State agencies by December 31, 2045.

Under SB 100, the State cannot increase carbon emissions elsewhere in the western grid or allow resource shuffling to achieve the 100 percent carbon -free electricity target.

Electrical service is provided to the project site and surrounding area by SCE, which obtains electricity from conventional and renewable sources. In 2019, 35.1 percent of SCE's electricity was generated from eligible renewables; 8.2 percent from nuclear power; 7.9 percent from large hydroelectric generators; and

32.6 percent from unspecified sources.20 SCE has reached California's 2020 renewable energy as mandated.

The net increase in power demand associated with the proposed Project, similar to the projects pursuant to the General Plan, is anticipated to be within the service capabilities of SCE and would not impede SCE's ability to implement California's renewable energy goals. Therefore, the proposed Project would not obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy. Thus, impacts would be less than significant and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR.

Cumulative Impacts
As discussed above, the proposed Project would not cause an energy impact to occur, nor an increase in the severity of any impact previously disclosed in the General Plan Program EIR. Implementation of the proposed Project would not alter the conclusions of the General Plan Program EIR analysis and would not result in a new or substantially more severe project -specific or cumulative energy impact than those already analyzed.

Mitigation Program
General Plan Policies
The General Plan Program EIR identifies General Plan policies that would address potential impacts to energy use. The following policy is applicable to the proposed Project and would be made a condition of approval.
■ NR 24.2 — Energy -Efficient Design Features: Promote energy -efficient design features.

Standard Conditions and Requirements
No standard conditions are applicable to the proposed Project.

Conclusion
Accordingly, no new impacts relative to energy or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would occur. With regard to PRC 20 Southern California Edison. 2020, October. 2019 Power Content Label. https://www.sce.com/sites/default/files/inline- files/SCE 2019PowerContentLabel.pdf. Accessed August 17, 2023. 9S Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified is available that would result in a new significant impact. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not warranted. 96 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

3.6 Geology and Soils
Threshold (a) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving the:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

General Plan Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR concluded that General Plan implementation would not expose people or structures to adverse effects involving rupture of a fault located in an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone. The City of Newport Beach is located in the northern part of the Peninsular Ranges Province, an area exposed to risk from multiple earthquake fault zones. The Newport -Inglewood fault zone, the Whittier fault zone, the San Joaquin Hills fault zone, and the Elysian Park fault zone, all have potential to cause moderate to large earthquakes that would cause ground shaking in Newport Beach and nearby communities. However, none of these faults has been zoned under the guidelines of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. There are no Alquist-Priolo zones in the City and impacts were identified as less than significant.

Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact; no substantial change from previous analysis.

A Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation (Kling Consulting Group, Inc., November 4, 2022) was prepared for the proposed Project (Appendix B). The site is not located within a Alquist-Priolo fault zone. The closest active fault zones are the San Joaquin Hills fault and Newport -Inglewood -Rose Canyon Fault Zone, located

2.2 miles south and 4.8 miles northwest, respectively from the project site. There are no active faults that are known to exist on the site.

Project construction would comply to seismic design standards required by the 2022 California Building Code (CBC) (or applicable adopted code at the time of plan submittal or grading and building permit issuance for construction). Compliance with the CBC requires proper construction of building footings and foundations so that it would withstand the effects of potential ground movement. The CBC also includes provisions to reduce impacts caused by potential major structural failures or loss of life resulting from geologic hazards. As set forth in SC GEO-1, NBMC Section 15.10.060, Excavation and Grading Code, requires approval of soil engineering report and engineering geology report before a grading or building permit is issued to a project. The Excavation and Grading Code also requires that recommendations included in the reports and approved by the building officials be incorporated in grading plans or specifications.

The proposed Project would not result in a new significant impact or an increase in the severity of impact that was identified in the General Plan Program EIR and would therefore be consistent with the effects of adhering to the General Plan. No further analysis is required. 97 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Threshold (a) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving the:
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
General Plan Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. The General Plan policies are set forth in order that adverse effects caused by seismic and geologic hazards such as strong seismic ground shaking are minimized. Policy S 4.1 requires regular update to building and fire codes to provide for seismic safety and design; Policy S 4.2 encourages the seismic retrofitting and strengthening of essential facilities such as hospitals and schools to minimize damage; and Policy S 4.7 requires seismic studies for new development in areas of potentially active faults. Additionally, new development would be required to comply with CBC Chapter 16: Structural Design, which contains requirements for design and construction of structures to resist loads, including earthquake loads. The CBC provides procedures for earthquake resistant structural design that include considerations for on -site soil conditions, occupancy, and the configuration of the structure including the structural system and height. Compliance with applicable regulations and the policies contained in the General Plan would ensure that impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking remain at a less than significant level.

Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No Impact; no substantial change from previous analysis.

As discussed above, according to the preliminary geotechnical investigation, the proposed Project is not located within any known fault zones. Moreover, the proposed Project would have to comply with seismic standards set forth in the 2022 CBC and NBMC which address seismic ground shaking. Additionally, NBMC Section 15.10.060 requires a soil engineering report and an engineering geology reports to be submitted and approved by the Building Official before issuance of grading or building permits. Moreover, the proposed Project would be required to adhere to seismic requirements outlined in the City's General Plan Safety Element. The preliminary geotechnical investigation also noted that the project site's risk of fault rupture is low. The proposed Project would not expose persons or structures to strong ground shaking with compliance of CBC and NBMC requirements. Therefore, impacts associated with the proposed Project would be less than significant. The proposed Project would have no increase of severity to the previously analyzed impact that was identified in the General Plan, nor would it result in a new significant impact and would therefore be consistent with the effects of adhering to the General Plan. No further analysis is required.

Threshold (a) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving the:
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? General Plan Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. Portions of the City are susceptible to liquefaction and related ground failure (i.e., seismically induced settlement) include areas along the coastline that includes Balboa Peninsula, in and around the Newport Bay and Upper Newport Bay, in the lower reaches of major streams in Newport Beach, and in the floodplain of the Santa Ana River.

A considerable part of the City mapped liquefiable areas (West Newport, Balboa Peninsula, the harbor islands and vicinity) are already built upon, mostly with residential and commercial development. The City Safety Element Policies S 4.1 through S 4.6 require new development to be in compliance with the most recent seismic and other geologic hazard safety standards, and the protection of community health and 98 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
safety through the implementation of effective, state of the art standards for seismic design of structures in the City. Additionally, if any development on steep terrain were to occur upon implementation of the General Plan, site -specific slope stability design would be required to ensure adherence to the standards contained in Appendix Chapter A33, Excavation and Grading, of the City Building Code, as well as by California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH, CAL/OSHA) requirements for shoring and stabilization. With compliance of applicable regulations as well as policies identified in the General Plan, impacts were determined to be less than significant, and no mitigation was required.

Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No Impact; no substantial change from previous analysis.

According to the preliminary geotechnical investigation, the project site is not located within a known liquefaction zone. However, the project site does contain localized and isolated sandy layers within the Old Paralic Deposits, which are susceptible to relatively minor liquefaction as a result of a potential earthquake along fault zones. Seismic induced liquefaction could be reduced by removal of susceptible materials, which would occur as a part of subterranean parking structure excavation. Typical construction methods and protocols for remedial grading would replace unsuitable materials with suitable engineered fill materials prior to re -compaction with paralic deposits and/or other non -expansive materials.

Compliance with NBMC Section 15.10.06 and SC GEO-1 would reduce the risk associated with seismic ground failures including lateral spreads, liquefaction, or subsidence to a less than significant level The proposed Project would not result in an additional significant impact, nor would it increase the severity of a previously identified impact in the General Plan Program EIR and would therefore be consistent with the effects of adhering to the General Plan and no further analysis is required.

Threshold (a) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving the:
iv) Landslides?
General Plan Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. Many of the areas in central and eastern Newport Beach have been identified as vulnerable to seismically induced slope failure, due to steep terrain. Compliance with the standards set forth in the current CBC would require an assessment of hazards related to landslides and liquefaction and the incorporation of design measures into structures to mitigate this hazard if development were considered feasible. The City has included policies in its Safety Element to achieve the goal of minimizing the risk of injury, loss of life, and property damage caused by earthquake hazards or geologic disturbances. The General Plan Program EIR found that adherence to the standards contained in Appendix Chapter A33, Excavation and Grading, City Building Code, and California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH, CAL/OSHA) requirements for shoring and stabilization would reduce impacts to a less than significant level and no mitigation was required.

Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No Impact; no substantial change from previous analysis.

The 2.38-acre site is relatively flat with an elevation of approximately 51 feet above msl. Due to the flat topography of the site and of the area surrounding the site, landslides are not anticipated. According to 99 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Seismic Hazard Zones Map from the California Geological Survey21, the site is not located within a Zone of Required Investigation for earthquake -induced landslides. Additionally, no historic landslides have been recorded on or near the site, nor were there any indications of landslides due to the developed nature of the area. The proposed Project would be required to adhere to standards set forth by the 2022 CBC and any other applicable building code and engineering standards related to shaking hazards and geologic stabilization. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in new impact or an increase in the severity of a previously identified impact in the General Plan and no further analysis is required.

Threshold (b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? General Plan Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR concluded that General Plan implementation would have a less than significant impact associated with soil erosion or topsoil. All demolition and construction activities within the City would be required to comply with CBC Chapter 70 (now CBC Section J110) standards, which ensure implementation of appropriate measures during grading activities to reduce soil erosion. General Plan Policies NR 3.10, NR

3.11, and NR 3.12 would require compliance with applicable local, State, or federal laws. Compliance with the CBC and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits would minimize effects from erosion and ensure consistency with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Water Quality Control Plan. The General Plan Program EIR found that implementation of the General Plan would have a less than significant impact associated with soil erosion or topsoil, and no mitigation was required.

Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact; no substantial change from previous analysis.

The project site is currently developed with 2 two-story office buildings, surface parking, and landscaping.

Grading and earthwork activities during construction would expose soils to potential short-term erosion by wind and water. The project site would be graded and the earthwork volume would include approximately 60,000 cubic yards of export.

All demolition and construction activities within the City would be required to comply with standards from CBC Section 1804A, which ensure proper techniques during grading activities to reduce soil erosion. In addition, all new developments would be subject to regional and local regulations pertaining to construction activities. Specifically, development greater than one acre would be required to comply with the provisions of the General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), which would require the implementation of best mitigation practices (BMPs) to limit the extent of eroded materials and pollutants from a construction site. All development that is between one and five acres would be required to comply with the provisions of the NPDES Phase II regulations concerning the discharge of eroded materials and pollutants from construction sites.

Compliance with the NPDES permit would minimize effects from erosion and ensure consistency with the RWQCB's Water Quality Control Plan. In addition to SC GEO-1, as discussed above, adherence to the General Plan Natural Resources Element Policies NR 3.11, 3.12, and 3.14 would have a less than significant impact associated with soil erosion or topsoil. Therefore, the proposed Project's impact on soil erosion would be less than significant, similar to those impacts previously analyzed in the General Plan Program EIR. The Project would not result in a new significant impact or an increase in severity to an impact that 21 https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/ . Accessed August 9, 2023. 100 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
was already identified in the General Plan Program EIR and would therefore be consistent with the effects of adhering to the General Plan and no further analysis is required.

Threshold (c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? General Plan Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR concluded that General Plan implementation would have a less than significant impact related to unstable soils or compressible and expansive soils, as a result of collapse, subsidence, differential settlement, lateral spreading, or heaving. Adherence to the CBC, City codes, and General Plan policies would ensure the maximum practicable protection available for users of buildings and infrastructure and associated trenches, slopes, and foundations. In view of these requirements, future projects were found to have a less than significant impact associated with the exposure of people or structures to hazards associated with unstable geologic units or soils. No mitigation was required.

Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact; no substantial change from previous analysis.

According to the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, the project site is considered to have moderate potential for expansion due to the potential existence of expansive clay underneath. As discussed previously, NBMC 15.10.060 requires that recommendations included in the soil engineering report and engineering geology report be incorporated into plans and specifications. If loose disturbed or softened soil is found, it is recommended that it be removed and replaced with engineered fill or processed in place and recompacted. Additionally, compliance with the 2022 CBC Sections 1804A and J110. Section 1804A specifically requires the diversion of water away from building foundations and the use of compatible fill materials during excavation and grading. The proposed Project would be required to comply with SC GEO-1. With adherence to these standard conditions, impacts would be less than significant, similar to the previously certified General Plan Program EIR. The Project would not result in a new significant impact or an increase in the severity of an impact that was identified in the General Plan Program EIR. No further analysis is required.

Threshold (d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property? General Plan Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR concluded that General Plan implementation would have a less than significant impact related to unstable soils, or geologic units. Development under the General Plan would be required to comply with all applicable provisions of the CBC related to soil hazard -related design. The City's Building Code requires a site -specific foundation investigation and report for each construction site that identifies potentially unsuitable soil conditions and contains appropriate recommendations for foundation type and design criteria that conform to the analysis and implementation criteria described in the City's Building Code, Chapters 16, 18, and A33. The General Plan Program EIR found this impact to be less than significant and no mitigation was required.
101 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact; no substantial change from previous analysis.

As discussed in the General Plan Program EIR, the City contains soils that are highly expansive and compressive, and subject to significant volume changes due to moisture fluctuations. The proposed Project would be required to adhere to the City's Building Code and SC GEO-1. Compliance with State and local regulations described in the standard conditions would reduce impacts related to expansive soils to be less than significant. This would not be a new significant impact or an increase in the severity of an impact that was identified in the General Plan Program EIR and would therefore be consistent with the effects of implementation of the General Plan and no further analysis is required.

Threshold (e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
General Plan Significance Determination: No Impact. The General Plan Program EIR determined that the City of Newport Beach is almost entirely built out with established utility services and new development would not require the use of septic tanks. No Impact would occur.

Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No Impact; no substantial change from previous analysis.

The project site has two office buildings, surface parking, and landscaping. The Project would connect to the existing sewer lateral from Spruce Avenue which serves the current site and would not use septic tanks. As a result, no impacts associated with the use of septic tanks would occur as part of the proposed Project's implementation. Therefore, no further analysis is required.

Threshold (f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
General Plan Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR identified that potential impacts to paleontological resources would be a less than significant with compliance with General Plan policies and Newport Beach City Council Paleontological Guidelines (K-4).

The City has known significant paleontological resources, including portions of the Vaqueros formation that underlie the Newport Coast, Newport Banning Ranch, the Topanga and Monterey Formations, and Fossil Canyon in the Bluffs area. Ground -disturbing activities associated with the buildout of the General Plan would have the potential to damage or destroy paleontological resources that may be present below the surface. Damage or destruction to these resources could cause a significant impact.

General Plan Policy HR 2.1 and Policy NR 18.1 require any new development to protect and preserve archaeological resources from destruction, and that potential impacts to such resources be avoided and minimized through planning policies and permit conditions. Other policies under Goal HR 2 and Goal NR 18 ensure that information resources are maintained regarding these resources and that grading and excavation activities where there is a potential to affect cultural or archaeological resources be monitored by a qualified archaeologist. Additionally, the Newport Beach Council Policy Manual, Paleontological and Archaeological Resource Protection Guidelines (K-5)22 requires the City to prepare and maintain sources 12 At the time of adoption of the General Plan, the Policy Manual reference was Paleontological Guidelines (K-4). 102 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
of information regarding paleontological sites. Compliance with policies under Goal NR 18 and the policies under Goal HR 2 would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact; no substantial change from previous analysis.

According to paleontology record search from the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, there are potentially fossil -bearing units present at the project site below the surface within deposits of Palos Verdes Sand. The proposed Project would adhere to the General Plan policies under Goal HR 2 and Goal NR 18 should ground -disturbing activities impact previously undisturbed grounds. The proposed Project would comply with the Paleontological and Archaeological Resource Protection Guidelines (K-5) as set forth in SC GEO-2. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR.

Cumulative Impacts
As discussed above, the proposed Project would not cause a new geologic or paleontological impact to occur, nor an increase in the severity of a geologic or paleontological resource impact previously disclosed in the General Plan Program EIR, with adherence to the Standard Conditions discussed in this section.

Implementation of the proposed Project would not alter the conclusions of the General Plan Program EIR analysis and would not result in a new or substantially more severe project -specific or cumulative impact than those already analyzed.

Mitigation Program
General Plan Policies
The General Plan Program EIR identifies General Plan policies that would address potential impacts to soils and geological resources. The following policies are applicable to the proposed Project and would be made conditions of approval.

Geology and Soils
■ S 4.7 — New Development: Conduct further seismic studies for new development in areas where potentially active faults may occur. Note: A geotechnical evaluation was prepared for the proposed Project to identify potential geotechnical hazards associated with the project site. This report serves as compliance with Safety Element Policy 4.7. ■ NR 3.9 - Water Quality Management Plan: Require new development applications to include a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to minimize runoff from rainfall events during construction and post -construction.
■ NR 3.10 - Best Management Practices: Implement and improve upon Best Management Practices (BMPs) for residences, businesses, development projects, and City operations. ■ NR 3.11 - Site Design and Source Control: Include site design and source control BMPs in all developments. When the combination of site design and source control BMPs are not sufficient to protect water quality as required by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), structural treatment BMPs will be implemented along with site design and source control measures.
103 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
■ NR 3.14 Runoff Reduction on Private Property: Retain runoff on private property to prevent the transport of pollutants into natural water bodies, to the maximum extent practicable. ■ NR 3.15 - Street Drainage Systems: Require all street drainage systems and other physical improvements created by the City, or developers of new subdivisions, to be designed, constructed, and maintained to minimize adverse impacts on water quality. Investigate the possibility of treating or diverting street drainage to minimize impacts to water bodies. ■ NR 3.20 - Impervious Surfaces: Require new development and public improvements to minimize the creation of and increases in impervious surfaces, especially directly connected impervious areas, to the maximum extent practicable. Require redevelopment to increase area of pervious surfaces, wherefeasible.
■ NR 4.4 - Erosion Minimization: Require grading/erosion control plans with structural BMPs that prevent or minimize erosion during and after construction for development on steep slopes, graded, or disturbed areas.

Paleontological Resources
■ HR 2.1 - New Development Activities: Require that, in accordance with CEQA, new development protect and preserve paleontological and archaeological resources from destruction and avoid and mitigate impacts to such resources. Through planning policies and permit conditions, ensure the preservation of significant archeological and paleontological resources and require that the impact caused by any development be mitigated in accordance with CEQA. ■ HR 2.2 - Grading and Excavation Activities: Maintain sources of information regarding paleontological and archeological sites and the names and addresses of responsible organizations and qualified individuals, who can analyze, classify, record, and preserve paleontological or archeological findings. Require a qualified paleontologist/ archeologist to monitor all grading and/or excavation where there is a potential to affect cultural, archeological or paleontological resources. If these resources are found, the Applicant shall implement the recommendations of the paleontologist/archaeologist, subject to the approval of the City Planning Department. ■ HR 2.4 - Paleontological or Archaeological Materials: Require new development to donate scientifically valuable paleontological or archaeological materials to a responsible public or private institution with a suitable repository, located within Newport Beach, or Orange County, whenever possible.
■ NR 18.1- New Development: Require new development to protect and preserve paleontological and archaeological resourcesfrom destruction andavoid and minimize impactsto such resources in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. Through planning policies and permit conditions, ensure the preservation of significant archeological and paleontological resources and require that the impact caused by any development be mitigated in accordance with CEQA. ■ NR 18.4 - Donation of Materials: Require new development, where on -site preservation and avoidance are not feasible, to donate scientifically valuable paleontological or archaeological materials to a responsible public or private institution with a suitable repository, located within Newport Beach or Orange County, whenever possible.
104 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Standard Conditions and Requirements
SC GEO-1 The Project is required to comply with City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, Chapter 15.10, Excavation and Grading Code. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the City of Newport Beach Deputy Community Development Director or Building Official or his/her designee shall review the grading plan for conformance with the conceptual grading shown on the approved site development plan submittal. The grading plans shall be accompanied by geological and soils engineering reports and shall incorporate all information as required by the City.

SC GEO-2 In compliance with Newport Beach Council Policy Manual, Paleontological and Archaeological Resource Protection Guidelines (K-5), prior to the issuance of a grading permit by the City of Newport Beach, the Applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist to be available on -call during ground -disturbing activities on site and provide documentation of such retention to the City of Newport Beach Community Development Director. If paleontological resources are encountered, all construction work within 50 feet of the find shall cease, and the paleontologist shall assess the find for importance.

Construction activities may continue in other areas. If, in consultation with the City, the discovery is determined to not be important, work will be permitted to continue in the area. Any resource shall be curated at a public, nonprofit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County or the Cooper Center (a partnership between California State University, Fullerton and the County of Orange).

Conclusion
Accordingly, no new impacts relative to geology and soils or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would occur. With regard to PRC Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of less than significant with mitigation. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not warranted.
105 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Threshold (a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
General Plan Significance Determination: The General Plan Program EIR did not evaluate the effects of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission generation. At the time of approval of the General Plan Program EIR, the contribution of GHG emissions to climate change was a prominent issue of concern. On March 18, 2010, amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines took effect which set forth requirements for the analysis of GHG emissions under CEQA. Since the EIR has already been certified, the determination of whether GHG emissions and climate change needs to be analyzed for this specific development is governed by the law on supplemental or subsequent EMS (PRC §21166 and CEQA Guidelines §§15162 and 15163).

GHG emissions and climate change are not required to be analyzed under those standards unless it constitutes "new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time" the General Plan Program EIR was approved (State CEQA Guidelines §15162(a)(3)).

The issue of GHG emissions and climate change impacts is not new information that was not known or could not have been known at the time of the certification of the General Plan Program EIR. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was established in 1992. The regulation of GHG emissions to reduce climate change impacts was extensively debated and analyzed throughout the early 1990s. The studies and analyses of this issue resulted in the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997.

Therefore, the fact that GHG emissions could have a significant adverse environmental impact was known at the time the General Plan was approved and the General Plan Program EIR was certified. When the Housing Element was updated in 2013, the City analyzed GHG emissions and found that the Housing Element would have less than significant impacts with respect to this threshold.

Although the City finds that GHG impacts and climate change is not "new information" under PRC Section 21166, the following analysis for the proposed Project is provided for informational purposes.

Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact.

Although the Project introduces 229 multi -unit rental units at the project site, the units would be within the overall 2,200 maximum multi -unit residences in the Airport Area as identified in the General Plan.

Therefore, although the Project is inconsistent with the CO-G land use designation, the Project is consistent with the City's General Plan goals and policies for the Airport Area and the additional dwelling units and population growth from the Project were accounted for in the residential units that were allocated to the Airport Area. Therefore, the proposed Project would be within the development capacity analyzed in the General Plan Program EIR.

Construction GHG Emissions
The proposed Project would result in direct emissions of GHGs from construction activities. The approximate quantity of daily GHG emissions generated by construction equipment associated with the Project is identified in Table 3.7-1, Construction -Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions. As shown in the table, Project construction would result in the generation of approximately 1,499 metric tons of CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalent) over the course of construction. Once construction is complete, the generation of these GHG emissions would cease. The SCAQMD recommends that construction emissions be amortized over a 30-year period. Therefore, projected GHGs from construction have been quantified 106 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
and amortized over 30 years. The amortized construction emissions are added to the annual average operational emissions.

Table 3.7-1: Construction -Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions Category
MTCO2e per Year
2023

63.03 2024
602.13
2025
834.62
Total GHG Emission (2023, 2024, and 2025)
1,499.78
30-Year Amortized Construction

49.99 Source: CalEEMod version 2022.1.1.18. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs.

Operations GHG Emissions
Table 3.7-2, Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions summarizes the GHG emissions associated with Project operations. As shown, the proposed Project would generate approximately 2,145 metric tons of CO2e annually.

Table 3.7-2: Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Emissions Source
MTCO2e per Year
Construction Amortized Over 30 Years

49.99 Area Source

8.14 Energy
522.43
Mobile
1,536.06
Waste

52.83 Water and Wastewater

26.15 Refrigeration

0.26 Total
2,145.87
Bright Line Threshold
3,000
Source: CalEEMod version 2022.1.1.18. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs.

As identified in Table 3.7-2, the SCAQMD's interim screening level numeric bright -line threshold of 3,000 metric tons of CO2e annually would not be exceeded. The proposed Project's cumulative contribution to GHG emissions is therefore less than significant. Water demand, wastewater generation and solid waste generation, and energy demand would incrementally increase due to the introduction of 229 rental units at the project site to the extent such demand exceeds demands of the existing office buildings. However, the units would be within the overall 2,200 maximum number of units for the Airport Area as identified in the General Plan. As previously addressed in this Addendum, the General Plan Program EIR evaluated 4,300 multi -unit units in the Airport Area. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in a substantial increase in GHG emissions had the evaluation been provided in the General Plan Program EIR.
107 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Threshold (b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
The City of Newport Beach Energy Action Plan outlines goals to reduce energy consumption and GHG emissions to become a more sustainable community and to meet AB 32 goals. Goals include:
■ Meet and exceed AB 32 energy reduction goals;
■ Be an example for energy efficiency and sustainability at City facilities; ■ Continue interacting, educating, and informing the community about energy efficiency and GHG emissions;
■ Explore the newest "green" technologies and methods to decrease future energy dependency; and ■ Explore renewable energy recourses (not limited to solar) and possible financing based on available grants/rebates.

The proposed Project would be required to comply with all building codes in effect at the time of construction which include energy conservation measures mandated by Title 24 of the California Building Standards Code — Energy Efficiency Standards (refer to SC GHG-1) and the California Green Building Standards (refer to SC GHG-2). Because Title 24 standards require energy conservation features in new construction (e.g., high -efficiency lighting, high -efficiency heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning (HVAC) systems, thermal insulation, double -glazed windows, water -conserving plumbing fixtures), these standards indirectly regulate and reduce GHG emissions. California's Building Energy Efficiency Standards are updated on an approximately three-year cycle. The most recent 2022 standards went into effect January 1, 2023. Although the City's Energy Plan is primarily focused on reducing municipal energy consumption, the proposed Project would not conflict with the community -wide energy use goals of the plan. As discussed in Section 3.5, Energy, the Project's energy impacts would be less than significant.

Further, the Project would be below the SCAQMD's GHG threshold and would comply with the City's General Plan policies, and State Building Code provisions designed to reduce GHG emissions. In addition, the proposed Project would comply with all SCAQMD applicable rules and regulations during construction and the operational phases and would not interfere with the State's goals of reducing GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 per SB 32 and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 per Executive Order S-3-05.

In accordance with AB 32 and SB 32, CARB's Scoping Plan lays out the transformations needed across various sectors to reduce GHG emissions and reach the State's climate targets. CARB published the Final 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan Update) in November 2022, as the third update to the initial plan that was adopted in 2008. The CARB Scoping Plan has been the primary tool to develop performance -based and efficiency -based CEQA criteria and GHG reduction targets for climate action planning efforts.

Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions in the latest 2022 Climate Change Scoping Plan build upon the strategies from the 2017 update which include implementing SB 350, which expands the Renewables Portfolio Standard to 50 percent by 2030 and doubles energy efficiency savings; expanding the Low Carbon Fuel Standard to 18 percent by 2030; implementing the Mobile Source Strategy to deploy zero - electric vehicle buses and trucks; implementation of the Sustainable Freight Action Plan; implementation 108 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
of the Short -Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy, which reduces methane and hydrofluorocarbons 40 percent below 2013 levels by 2030 and black carbon emissions 50 percent below 2013 levels by 2030; continuing to implement SB 375; creation of a post-2020 Cap -and -Trade Program; and development of an Integrated Natural and Working Lands Action Plan to secure California's land base as a net carbon sink.

Statewide GHG emissions reduction measures that are being implemented as a result of the Scoping Plan would reduce the proposed Project's GHG emissions. The 2022 Scoping Plan Update also includes implementing AB 1279 (The California Climate Crisis Act), which establishes the policy of the state to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, but no later than 2045; to maintain net negative GHG emissions thereafter; and to ensure that by 2045 statewide anthropogenic GHG emissions are reduced at least 85 percent below 1990 levels.

Additionally, approximately 91 percent of the Project's emissions are from energy and mobile sources which would be further reduced by the 2022 Scoping Plan measures described above. It should be noted that the City has no control over vehicle emissions (approximately 66 percent of the Project's total emissions). However, these emissions would decline in the future due to statewide measures including the reduction in the carbon content of fuels, CARB's advanced clean car program, CARB's mobile source strategy, fuel efficiency standards, cleaner technology, and fleet turnover. Additionally, SCAG's RTP/SCS is also expected to help California reach its GHG reduction goals, with reductions in per capita transportation emissions of 8 percent by 2020 and 19 percent by 2035.23 The Project is an infill residential development and near large employment areas such as Koll Center Newport and Newport Center, which could reduce the need to travel long distances for some residents and reducing associated GHG emissions.24
Regarding goals for 2050 under Executive Order S-3-05, at this time it is not possible to quantify the emissions savings from future regulatory measures, as they have not yet been developed. Nevertheless, it can be anticipated that operation of the proposed Project would benefit from the implementation of current and potential future regulations (e.g., improvements in vehicle emissions, SB 100/renewable electricity portfolio improvements, etc.) enacted to meet an 80 percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2050.

Therefore, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on GHG emissions. Consistent with Title 24, AB 32, SB 32, and the Energy Action Plan, the proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions.

Impacts would be less than significant.

The GHG emissions associated with the land uses assumed in the General Plan Program EIR would be reduced through compliance with statewide measures that have been adopted since AB 32 and SB 32 were adopted, inclusive of the proposed Project. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with the above statewide strategies identified to implement the CARB Scoping Plan. Therefore, there are no changes or new significant information that would require subsequent environmental documentation. zs Southern California Association of Governments, 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, September 3, 2020, page 9.
24 The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures (August 2010) identifies that infill developments, such as the proposed Project reduce vehicle miles traveled which reduces fuel consumption. Infill projects such as the proposed Project would have an improved location efficiency. 109 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Cumulative Impacts
Because of the global nature of climate change, most projects will not result in GHG emissions that are individually significant. Therefore, it is accepted as very unlikely that any individual development project or General Plan would have GHG emissions of a magnitude to directly impact global climate change and the impact of the proposed Project is considered on a cumulative basis. The Project's cumulative contribution of GHG emissions would be less than significant and the Project's cumulative GHG impacts would also be less than cumulatively considerable and potential impacts are considered less than significant.

Mitigation Program
General Plan Policies
The following policies are applicable to the proposed Project and would be made conditions of approval. ■ NR 6.1— Walkable Neighborhoods: Provide for walkable neighborhoods to reduce vehicle trips by siting amenities such as services, parks, and schools in close proximity to residential areas. ■ NR 6.2 — Mixed -Use Development: Support mixed -use development consisting of commercial or office with residential uses in accordance with the Land Use Element that increases the opportunity for residents to live in proximity to jobs, services, and entertainment. ■ NR 7.1 — Fuel Efficient Equipment: Support the use of fuel efficient heating equipment and other appliances.
■ NR 7.2 — Source Emission Reduction Best Management Practices: Require the use of Best Management Practices (BMP) to minimize pollution and to reduce source emissions. ■ NR 8.1— Management of Construction Activities to Reduce Air Pollution: Require developers to use and operate construction equipment, use building materials and paints, and control dust created by construction activities to minimize air pollutants.
■ NR 24.2 — Energy -Efficient Design Features: Promote energy -efficient design features. ■ NR 24.3 — Incentives for Green Building Program Implementation: Promote or provide incentives for "Green Building" programs that go beyond the requirements of Title 24 of the California Administrative Code and encourage energy -efficient design elements as appropriate to achieve "green building" status.

Standard Conditions and Requirements
SC GHG-1 Prior to issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall be required to demonstrate to the Community Development Department, Building Division that building plans meet the applicable Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 24, Part 6). These standards are updated, nominally every three years, to incorporate improved energy efficiency technologies and methods.

SC GHG-2 Prior to issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall be required to demonstrate to the Community Development Department, Building Division that building plans meet the applicable California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) Code (24 CCR 11). 110 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Conclusion
As discussed above, the proposed Project would not cause a new GHG impact nor an increase in the severity of GHG impacts. Therefore, the proposed Project would not cause either a new cumulative impact to occur, nor an increase in the severity of a cumulative impact previously disclosed. 111 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Threshold (a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? General Plan Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. As identified in the General Plan Program EIR, General Plan implementation would have a less than significant impact related to the public with respect to hazardous materials. General Plan Policy S 7.6 requires that all users, producers, and transporters of hazardous materials and wastes clearly identify the materials that they store, use, or transport, and to notify the appropriate city, county, State and federal agencies in the event of a violation.

Oversight by the appropriate federal, State, and local agencies and compliance by new development with applicable regulations related to the handling and storage of hazardous materials would minimize the risk of the public's potential exposure to these substances. The General Plan Program EIR found that impacts were less than significant.

Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact; no substantial change from previous analysis.

Exposure of hazardous materials to the public or the environment can occur through transportation accidents; environmentally unsound disposal methods; improper handling of hazardous materials or hazardous wastes (particularly by untrained personnel); and/or emergencies, such as explosions or fires.

The severity of these potential effects varies by type of activity, concentration and/or type of hazardous materials or wastes, and proximity to sensitive receptors.

The proposed Project, similar to all development pursuant to the General Plan, would be required to comply with regulations and standards established by applicable regulatory agencies, including the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the U.S. EPA, and OSHA. Compliance with applicable laws and regulations governing the use, storage, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials would ensure that the proposed Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, storage, production, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Additionally, as discussed above, adherence to General Plan Policy S 7.6 would further minimize the risk of exposure to hazardous materials from transport, use, or disposal during construction.

As a part of Project operations, hazardous materials would be limited to those associated with common household fertilizers, pesticides, paint, solvent, and petroleum products. Because these materials would be used in very limited quantities, they are not considered a significant hazard to the public. The proposed Project's impact on creating significant hazards to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant.

The proposed Project would not result in any new adverse impacts or increase the severity of any previously identified impacts for hazardous materials. No new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified that would impact the prior finding under this threshold. Therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent with the effects of implementation of the General Plan. 112 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Threshold (b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment?
General Plan Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR concluded that compliance with existing regulations of the County Environmental Health Division, County Department of Toxic Substances Control, and RWQCB, and General Plan Policies S 7.1 and S 7.4 would reduce impacts related to the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Compliance with Titles 8, 22, 26, and 49 of the CCR, and their enabling legislation in Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code, would ensure that this impact is less than significant by requiring compliance with applicable laws and regulations that would reduce the risk of hazardous materials use, transportation, and handling through the implementation of established safety practices, procedures, and reporting requirements. Therefore, impacts were found to be less than significant.

Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact; no substantial change from previous analysis.

A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Appendix C; Partner Engineering and Science, January 2020) was prepared for the proposed Project. No recognized, historical, or controlled recognized environmental conditions at the project site were identified. However, the Site Assessment identified that due to the age of the existing buildings, there is a potential that asbestos -containing material (ACM) and/or lead -based paint (LBP) are present.

As discussed in the General Plan Program EIR Impact 4.6-2, all demolition that could result in the release of lead and/or asbestos must be conducted according to Cal/OSHA standards. CCR Chapter 4 Title 8, Section 1529 (Asbestos) regulates asbestos exposure in all construction work which includes demolition of structures where asbestos is present. This requires the implementation of engineering and practice controls including, but not limited to wetting methods and HEPA filter -equipped vacuum cleaners to reduce the exposure of ACM to minimal levels. Title 8, Section 15321.1 (Lead) regulates exposure of lead during construction work, alteration and/or repair, which requires implementation of periodic testing and other engineering and practice controls to reduce and maintain exposure to lead to or below the permissible exposure limit where feasible. Therefore, compliance with existing regulations would ensure that impacts are less than significant.

Review of the DTSC Envirostor Database identified nine cases within a one -mile radius from the project site. All of these cases are more than 0.5 mile from the site and do not pose an environmental concern to the proposed land uses. A review of the GeoTracker database identified 19 cases within a 0.5-mile radius from the project site. Of the 19 cases, 16 have a "completed -case closed" status. The three ongoing cases are related to the John Wayne Fuel Farm remediation project, located on the east side of the airport. The proposed Project would not exacerbate risk of exposure to hazards associated with any previously identified hazardous cases and facilities.

The proposed Project would not result in any new adverse impacts or increase the severity of any previously identified impacts for hazardous materials. No new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified that would impact the prior finding under this threshold. Therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent with the effects of implementation of the General Plan. 113 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Threshold (c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
General Plan Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR noted that areas of concerns for hazardous materials sites near schools were Hixson Metal Finishing, Big Canyon Reservoir, and San Joaquin Reservoir. Although hazardous materials and waste generated from future development may pose a health risk to nearby schools, all businesses that handle or transport hazardous materials would be required to comply with the provisions of the City's Fire Code and any additional elements as required in the California Health and Safety Code Article 1 Chapter 6.95 for Business Emergency Plan. Additionally, the General Plan Safety Element includes Policy S 7.5, which requires that strict land use controls, performance standards, and structure design standards, including development setbacks from sensitive uses such as schools, hospitals, daycare facilities, elder care facilities, residential uses, and other sensitive uses, be developed and implemented for uses which generate or use hazardous materials. Compliance with the provisions of the City's Fire Code and implementation of General Plan Safety Element S 7.5 would minimize the risks associated with the exposure of sensitive receptors to hazardous materials. Impacts were considered less than significant.

Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No Impact; no substantial change from previous analysis.

There are no schools within 0.25 mile of the project site. The closest school, Newport Montessori School, is approximately 0.34 mile southwest of the project site. Accordingly, no new impacts relative to proximity to schools or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of less than significant impact.

Threshold (d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? General Plan Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR notes that the City has sites that have been identified as being contaminated from the release of hazardous substances in the soil, including oilfields, landfills, sites containing leaking underground storage tanks, and large and small -quantity generators of hazardous waste. Future development at contaminated sites would be required to undergo remediation and clean up consistent with the requirements of the DTSC and the Santa Ana RWQCB. General Plan Policy S 7.1 requires proponents of projects in known areas of contamination from oil operations or other uses to perform comprehensive soil and groundwater contamination assessments in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials standards. The General Plan Program EIR found that compliance with all applicable regulatory standards would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No Impact; no substantial change from previous analysis.
114 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
The project site is not identified on the Cortese List, which is the list of hazardous materials sites that is compiled pursuant to California Government Code Section 65962.5. In addition to the Cortese List, federal, State and local governmental agencies maintain other lists of sites where hazardous materials may be present or used. The Phase I ESA determined that the project site was not listed on hazardous materials databases. As previously addressed, a number of listings were identified that are proximate to the project site but determined to not be considered an environmental concern. Accordingly, no new impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of less than significant impact.

Threshold (e) Would the project be located within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? General Plan Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR identifies that John Wayne Airport is the nearest airport to Newport Beach. John Wayne Airport generates nearly all aviation traffic directly above the City of Newport Beach due to flight paths and descent patterns.

All land uses surrounding the airport are required to comply and be compatible with the land use standards established in the NBMC and the Airport Land Use Commission's (ALUC) Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport. The General Plan identifies a goal to protect residents, property, and the environment from aviation -related hazards, and lists General Plan Policies S 8.1 through S 8.4 to ensure preparation and minimize risk in the case of an aviation accident. The entire Airport Area is within the Height Restriction Zone designated in the AELUP. Should the ALUC find a project inconsistent with the AELUP, the City Council may make appropriate findings for an override in accordance with applicable law.

Impacts would be considered less than significant.

Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact; no substantial change from previous analysis.

The project site is approximately 0.4 mile southeast of John Wayne Airport. As previously noted, the AELUP identifies safety and compatibility zones that depict which land uses are acceptable and unacceptable in various portions of AELUP Safety Zones 1 through 6. The project site is in Safety Zone 6, which allows residential uses and most nonresidential uses other than outdoor stadiums, children's schools, daycare centers, hospitals, and nursing homes. Safety Zone 6 has a "generally low likelihood of accident occurrence at most airports; risk concern primarily is with uses for which potential consequences are severe." Safety Zone 6 includes all other portions of regular traffic patterns and pattern entry routes." The project site is in the Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 Obstruction Imaginary Surface Zone and the FAR Part 77 Notification Area of John Wayne Airport, as identified in the AELUP for John Wayne Airport. Per FAR Part 77, Section 77.13(a), notice to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is required for any proposed structure more than 200 feet above the ground level of its site. The FAA has issued a "Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation" for the proposed Project finding that the proposed structure would not exceed obstruction standards and would not be a hazard to air navigation.

With respect to noise, the project site is outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour adopted by the City of Newport Beach and is in an area where residential development meeting the applicable height limit is 115 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
allowed. The proposed development has a maximum height of 85 feet to the top of the parapet. The proposed Project is consistent with the allowable uses under the AELUP Safety Zone 6 and is under the 200 feet height limit for the AELUP and for FAA Part 77 notification. Consistent with the findings of the General Plan Program EIR, the proposed Project is a new use outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour and would therefore be considered less than significant. The proposed Project would not result in any new adverse impacts or increase the severity of any previously identified impacts.

Threshold (f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
General Plan Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Newport Beach Emergency Management Plan guides responses to emergency situations associated with natural disasters, technological incidents, and nuclear defense operations. In addition, the General Plan Safety Element also contains Policies S 9.1, S 9.2, and S 9.3 to ensure that the City's Emergency Management Plan is regularly updated, provides for efficient and orderly citywide evacuation, and also ensures that emergency services personnel are familiar with the relevant response plans applicable to the City. Implementation of General Plan policies would reduce impacts associated with emergency response and evacuation in the City to a less than significant level.

Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact; no substantial change from previous analysis.

The proposed Project would not impair or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan, including the City of Newport Beach 2022 Emergency Operations Plan (EOP). The EOP identifies evacuation routes, emergency facilities, and City personnel and describes the overall responsibilities of federal, State, regional, Operational Area, and City entities. No revisions to the adopted EOP would be required as a result of Project implementation. The proposed Project includes a pedestrian bridge over Spruce Avenue connecting the approved but not yet constructed Residences at 1300 Bristol Street development to the project site. According to the Preliminary Construction Management Plan, the pedestrian bridge would be constructed off site and installed after topping out of the podium structure.

Primary access to all major roads would be maintained during construction and no evacuation routes would be impacted during Project implementation. As discussed in Section 3.6, Geology and Soils, the Project would connect to existing utility infrastructure in Bristol Street North and Spruce Avenue.

Adherence to applicable City regulations would result in a less than significant impact with respect to interference with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No new impact would result, nor would the impact previously identified be any more severe as a result of Project implementation. Therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan Program EIR.

Threshold (g) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas?
General Plan Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. The General Plan identified areas with high and moderate wildfire susceptibility. The General Plan Program EIR found that implementation of the General Plan could result in the development of residential and commercial uses in areas susceptible to wildland fires. These areas occur primarily in the eastern portion of the City. Compliance 116 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
with regulatory requirements and General Plan Safety Element Policies 6.1 through 6.9 would result in a less than significant impact.

Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No Impact; no substantial change from previous analysis.

The project site is in an urban environment and is not contiguous or proximate to open space. According to the CAL FIRE Hazard Severity Zone Map for Orange County, the project site is not within or proximate to Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) zone for a Local Responsibility Area. Additionally, General Plan Figure S4, Wildfire Hazards, shows that the project site is not within areas designated as High or Moderate fire susceptibility. No new impact would result, nor would the impact previously identified be any more severe as a result of Project implementation. Therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent with the effects of implementation of the General Plan.

Cumulative Impacts
Impacts associated with hazardous materials are often site -specific and localized. While impacts are minimized with implementation of General Plan policies, impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials were considered less than significant and no mitigation was required under the General Plan Program EIR. As identified in the General Plan Program EIR, the General Plan would continue to develop new land uses in the City, possibly exposing persons to hazardous materials through improper handling or use of hazardous materials or hazardous wastes during construction or operation of future developments, or proposed land uses in areas that would create hazards for people working or residing in the area. However, compliance with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations related to hazardous materials on a project -by -project basis would ensure that the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would not result in adverse impacts. All demolition activities that would involve asbestos or lead -based paint would also occur in compliance with SCAQMD Rule 1403 and OSHA Construction Safety Orders, which would ensure that hazardous materials impacts would be less than significant. With adherence to applicable federal, State, and local regulations governing hazardous materials and compliance with the General Plan policies, the potential risks associated with hazardous wastes in the area would be less than significant. Implementation of the proposed Project would not alter the conclusions of the General Plan Program EIR analysis and would not result in a new or substantially more severe project -specific or cumulative hazards impact than those already analyzed.

Mitigation Program
Relevant General Plan Policies
The following policy is applicable to the proposed Project and would be made a condition of approval. ■ S 7.4 - Implementation of Remediation Efforts: Minimize the potential risk of contamination to surface water and groundwater resources and implement remediation efforts to any resources adversely impacted by urban activities.

Conclusion
As discussed above, the proposed Project would not cause a new hazardous materials impact to occur, nor an increase in the severity of a hazardous material impact previously disclosed in the General Plan Program EIR, with compliance with all State and local regulations, along with General Plan policies discussed in this section. Therefore, the proposed Project would not cause either a new impact to occur or an increase in the severity of an impact previously disclosed. 117 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
Threshold (a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? General Plan Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR concluded that construction and operations of future development would result in a less than significant impact related to violations of water quality standards. Areas that disturb one or more acres of land surface are subject to the Construction General Permit adopted by the SWRCB. Preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required for compliance with the NPDES General Construction Stormwater Activity Permit. Certain projects require the preparation of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). Construction would also need to comply with the requirements of NBMC Chapter 14.36 which regulates water quality. Under the provisions of this chapter, any discharge that would result in or contribute to degradation of water quality via stormwater runoff is prohibited. New development or redevelopment projects are required to comply with provisions in the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP), including the implementation of appropriate BMPs to control stormwater runoff so as to prevent any deterioration of water quality that would impair subsequent or competing beneficial uses of the water. Impacts were considered less than significant.

Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact; no substantial change from previous analysis.

The proposed Project would create new types of pollutant sources associated with residential development that could alter the types of constituents or levels of pollutants contained in post -developed site runoff. In order to reduce the amount of pollutants in storm water runoff from the proposed Project and to minimize associated hydrologic and water quality impacts, BMPs are required to be implemented in accordance with City, State, and RWQCB standards, set forth in SC WQ-1, SC WQ-2, and SC WQ-3.

Construction of the proposed Project, similar to construction associated with development analyzed and assumed under the General Plan, would be subject to the Construction General Permit, NBMC Chapter

14.36 requirements, the Orange County DAMP, and the General Plan policies. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not violate water quality standards or substantially degrade water quality; this impact would be less than significant. This is consistent with the impact conclusions of the General Plan Program EIR.

Threshold (b) Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
General Plan Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. The City is not located within an identified recharge area, as recharge primarily occurs in the upper portions of the Orange County Groundwater Basin. Groundwater table depths could occur as shallow as 50 feet. Development footprints could encounter groundwater, although support and foundation structures in the groundwater would not displace enough volume to be considered substantial. Construction activities were considered to not substantially deplete groundwater supplies nor interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. The City of Newport Beach Water Master Plan, which assumed the demand associated with General Plan buildout, identifies that projected groundwater supplies would meet projected demand throughout the City. The Natural Resources Element of the General Plan identifies goals and related policies designed to 118 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
minimize water consumption and expand the use of alternative water sources to provide adequate water supplies for present use and future growth. According to the City of Newport Beach's 2005 Urban Water Management Plan (2005 UWMP) referenced in the General Plan Program EIR, water supplies would continue to meet the City's imported water needs until 2030. The Orange County Water District (OCWD), which provides the groundwater supply to the City, projects that there would be sufficient groundwater supplies to meet any future demand requirements in Newport Beach. Impacts were considered less than significant.

Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact; no substantial change from previous analysis.

Under current conditions, the project site is approximately 22 percent pervious and 78 percent impervious. Under Project implementation, approximately 27 percent of the project site's 2.34-acre drainage area would be pervious and 73 percent would have imperious surfaces. This change is considered negligible compared to existing site conditions. Similar to the development assumed under the General Plan, the Project would occur in an already developed area and would not substantially affect groundwater recharge. Additionally, there are no public water wells located on the project site and groundwater is not drawn from the area. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge, any greater than already analyzed in the General Plan Program EIR and this impact would be less than significant. This is consistent with the impact conclusions of the General Plan Program EIR.

Threshold (c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) Result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site.

General Plan Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to threshold (a) above.

Impacts would be less than significant and there are no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR.

Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact; no substantial change from previous analysis.

The project site is currently developed with two office buildings, surface parking, and landscaping. The proposed storm drain system would largely maintain the same existing drainage patterns, and connectivity. The construction of the proposed Project would not increase the overall drainage areas in the proposed condition. Clearing, grading, excavation, and construction activities associated with the Project may impact water quality by induced sheet erosion of exposed soils and the subsequent deposition of particulates in local drainages. Grading activities and sediment stockpiles can lead to exposed areas of loose soil that are susceptible to uncontrolled sheet flow and wind erosion. In compliance with NPDES regulations, the State of California requires that any construction activity disturbing one acre or more of soil comply with the General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit (Construction General Permit). The permit requires development and implementation of a SWPPP and monitoring plan, which must include erosion -control and sediment -control BMPs that would meet or exceed measures required by the Construction General Permit to control potential construction -related pollutants.
119 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Therefore, implementation of the General Plan policies and compliance with NPDES regulations and the NBMC would reduce the risk of substantial erosion or siltation on or off the project site from drainage alterations to a less than significant level. Therefore, no changes or new information require preparation subsequent environmental documentation.

Threshold (c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site.

General Plan Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR noted that increased impervious surfaces would increase stormwater runoff in the City. This increased runoff could exceed the capacity of existing and planned infrastructure and cause downstream flooding impacts. Several General Plan policies are intended to reduce stormwater runoff would also apply to runoff -related flooding impacts. These policies include NR 3.10, NR 3.11, NR 4.4, NR 3.20, S 5.3, NR 3.16, and NR 3.21. These policies require preparation of a WQMP, implementation of BMPs, incorporation of stormwater detention facilities, design of drainage facilities to minimize adverse effects on water quality, minimize increases in impervious areas. Implementation of these policies would also reduce the volume of runoff generated, and potential for flooding. Compliance with the methods and provisions contained in Chapter 15.50 of the NBMC would also minimize flood hazards resulting from drainage alterations.

Therefore, implementation of General Plan policies and compliance with NPDES regulations, the NBMC, and California Fish and Wildlife regulations would reduce the risk of flooding resulting from drainage alterations to a less than significant level.

Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No Impact; no substantial change from previous analysis.

The project site is currently developed with office buildings, surface parking, and landscaping. Reuse of the site with a residential building and parking structure would not increase the rate or amount of surface runoff such that it would result in a significant increase in flooding on or off of the site or exceedance of the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. With implementation of the proposed Project, there would be an increase in pervious surfaces, from 22 percent to 26 percent, when compared to existing site conditions.

The Project would require BMPs to treat the drainage associated with the proposed impervious areas of the Project. Implementation of the Project would not cause flooding on or off of site and impacts on storm drainage capacity would be less than significant. Therefore, implementation of the General Plan policies and compliance with NPDES regulations and the City's NBMC would reduce the risk of flooding resulting from drainage alterations to a less than significant level. Therefore, no changes or new information require preparation subsequent environmental documentation.

Threshold (c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
120 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.

General Plan Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR concluded that existing storm drainage facilities at the time would not be able to serve future development assumed in the General Plan. However, the Public Infrastructure Plan in the General Plan specified that the City and County would review the Storm Drain Master Plan to assure that adequate facilities are provided to serve permitted land use development. Construction of necessary storm drainage upgrades in and of itself would result in impacts separate from the General Plan. Upgrades, expansion, and construction of necessary utilities to accommodate new development would be subject to project - specific environmental review. Impacts were therefore considered less than significant.

Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact; no substantial change from previous analysis.

The project site currently drains in two directions: approximately 10 percent of flows are directed toward Spruce Avenue and 90 percent drains toward Bristol Street North. The site is considered relatively flat with one to two percent grade to provide sheet flow within the existing surface parking lot area. The parking lot drainage is collected by a series of concrete swales that are collected by private on -site catch basins.

The proposed Project would maintain the existing drainage pattern. The Project would result in 26 percent impervious surfaces in the form of landscaping, and 74 percent in impervious surfaces in the form of walkway areas, roads, and asphalt paving areas. The Project would result in a slight increase in pervious surfaces, from 22 percent to 26 percent, which would result in a decrease in runoff volumes by approximately 4 percent. Drainage areas south of the on -site high point would drain to Bristol Street and drainage areas north of the high point would drain to Spruce Avenue. The Project proposes three drainage management areas to treat runoff, primarily through biotreatment planters and modular wetlands.

Drainage management area "A" and "C" both utilize modular wetland systems, where captured runoff is treated and eventually discharged to a parkway drain or catch basin along Spruce Avenue or Bristol Street respectively. Drainage management area "B" uses a biotreatment planter and treats runoff collected from the building roof and landscaping. Treated flows are discharged into a catch basin on Bristol Street, which eventually connects to an existing 18-inch storm drainpipe on Bristol Street.

As previously discussed, and as identified in Table 3.9-1, Runoff Volume Summary, the proposed Project would result in a four percent decrease in runoff flows to the storm drain system because the new development would slightly increase the pervious surface percentage at the project site. As a result, no hydrologic conditions of concern (HCOC) would occur (see Appendix D). Implementation of the proposed Project would not alter the conclusions of the General Plan Program EIR analysis and would not result in a new or substantially more severe infrastructure or water quality impacts than those already analyzed. 121 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Table 3.9-1: Runoff Volume Summary (2-year, 24-hour storm event) Drainage
Existing Condition
Proposed Condition
Area
Area (acre)
Volume (cf)
Area (acre)
Volume (cf)
A

0.48 208

0.48 198
B

0.34 135

1.45 713
C

1.52 776

0.41 159
Tota I

2.34 1,119

2.34 1,069
Note: the drainage area accounts for a very limited portion of the public sidewalk areas that encroach onto the property via a public access easement.
cf = cubic feet
Source: Tait & Associates, Inc., 2023.

Threshold (c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows.

General Plan Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR noted that intensification of development would increase the area of land covered by structures, leaving less available ground surface area over which flood flows could travel. Several of the nine planning subareas planned for development as set forth in the General Plan are within the 100-year flood zone.

Parts of Mariners' Mile, the western portion of Banning Ranch, Balboa Village, Balboa Peninsula, Balboa Island, and West Newport Highway are susceptible to 100-year flood conditions.

General Plan implementation was not anticipated to substantially increase obstructions to flood flows, with the exception of potential development at Banning Ranch. A water displacement analysis would be required to investigate the effect of new structural development or fill on flooding depth, pursuant to FEMA regulation 44 CFR 60.3 (c)(10). Preparation of water displacement analyses where appropriate and compliance with FEMA regulations would ensure that General Plan implementation would not substantially impede or redirect flows. Impacts were considered less than significant.

Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No Impact; no substantial change from previous analysis.

The project site is approximately 2,000 feet north of the nearest flood hazard area and is not in a 100-year flood zone. Implementation of the proposed Project would not alter the conclusions of the General Plan Program EIR analysis and would not result in a new or substantially more severe impacts related to flood hazards.

Threshold (d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
General Plan Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR addresses potential risks from seiches and tsunamis. Compliance with requirements set forth in the Safety Element of the General Plan would minimize the impact of flooding, including flooding as a result of seiche and tsunami inundation. All new development in the City occurring in areas that are subject to flood hazards would be required to comply with the flood damage prevention provisions of the NBMC. 122 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Therefore, risks associated with inundation by seiche, tsunami, and mudflow were considered to be less than significant.

Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No Impact; no substantial change from previous analysis.

The project site is not proximate to flood hazard, tsunami, seiche, and project inundation hazards. The project site is approximately 2,000 feet north of the nearest flood hazard area and is not within a flood zone. The site is not within a Tsunami Advisory Evacuation Zone or a Tsunami Run Up Area.25 The site is about five miles from the Pacific Ocean and is at a higher elevation from standing bodies of water. Further, the project site is approximately 2,300 feet north of the nearest dam, the San Joaquin Reservoir, but is not directly in the path of any potential downstream hazards resulting from a dam breach. Therefore, the project site is not subject to flood, tsunami, or seiche hazards. The proposed Project would not result in any new adverse impacts or increase the severity of any previously identified impacts. No new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified that would impact the prior finding under this threshold. Therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent with the effects of implementation of the General Plan.

Threshold (e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
General Plan Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR concluded that impacts to water quality control plans or groundwater management plans were less than significant. The City is under the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana RWQCB, which establishes water quality objectives and standards for both surface and groundwater of the region, and water quality discharge requirements. Under the Santa Ana RWQCB's NPDES permit system, all existing and future municipal and industrial discharges to surface waters within the City would be subject to regulations. NPDES permits are required for operators of MS4s, construction projects, and industrial facilities. Developments within the City would also be subject to the provisions in NBMC Chapter 14.36, Water Quality. Under the provisions of this chapter, any discharge that would result in or contribute to degradation of water quality via stormwater runoff is prohibited. Operation of new development or redevelopment projects are required comply with provisions set forth in the DAMP, including the implementation of appropriate BMPs identified in the DAMP, to control stormwater runoff so as to prevent any deterioration of water quality that would impair subsequent or competing beneficial uses of the water.

General Plan Policy NR 3.6 requires that development not result in the degradation of natural water bodies. The OCWD manages the Orange County Groundwater Basin through the Groundwater Management Plan. Consistent with the OCWD Groundwater Management Plan, the Natural Resources Element of the General Plan identifies goals and related policies designed to minimize water consumption and expand the use of alternative water sources to provide adequate water supplies for present use and future growth. Implementation of these policies would ensure water conservation and reduce potential impacts to groundwater supply. Impacts were considered less than significant. zs https://www.newportbeachca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/64418/636989626695570000 and https://www.newportbeachca.gov/Home/ShowDocument?id=1093 . Accessed August 18, 2023. 123 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact; no substantial change from previous analysis.

Newport Beach is under the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana RWQCB. The Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan is the basis for the RWQCB's regulatory programs and establishes water quality standards for the ground and surface waters of the region. As indicated under threshold (a), the proposed Project, similar to development pursuant to the General Plan, would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality, and would therefore not conflict with the water quality control plan.

OCWD adopted its most recent groundwater management plan in 2015. This plan sets basin management goals and objectives and describes how the basin is managed. The project site is within the City's water service area. According to the 2020 UWMP, the City's 2020 water supply was approximately 15,005 AF, which was combination of 4,255 AF of imported water, 10,237 AF of groundwater, and 513 AF of recycled water. The City anticipates that its supply capabilities will balance anticipated total water use and supply from 2021 to 2045 under normal year, single dry year, and multiple dry year conditions. The buildout of the proposed Project is estimated to generate a water demand of approximately 80,320 gallons per day (gpd), or 90 AFY, which does not account for the water use associated with the existing office building.

This worst -case demand represents less than one percent of the City's anticipated water supply through 2045 during a normal year, single dry year, and multiple dry year conditions and would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. The 2020 UWMP found that the City's supply capabilities are expected to balance anticipated total water use and supply and to accommodate normal years, single dry years, and multiple dry -year events. The UWMP indicated that there is adequate existing and planned water supply to accommodate future development accounted for in the General Plan inclusive of the City's Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation for the 61h Cycle planning period of 2021-2029 and its associated water demands.

The Project would implement environmentally sustainable practices including but not limited to water - efficient landscaping; energy efficient water fixtures; and water quality BMPs to treat surface runoff from the project site. Therefore, the proposed Project, similar to development pursuant to the General Plan, would not degrade groundwater quality, substantially decrease groundwater supplies, or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. Impacts would be less than significant, and there are no changes or new information on requiring preparation of an EIR. No new impact would result, nor would the impact previously identified be any more severe as a result of the proposed Project. Therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent with the effects of implementation of the General Plan.

Cumulative Impacts
As discussed above, the proposed Project would not cause a new hydrological impact to occur, nor an increase in the severity of a hydrological impact previously disclosed in the General Plan Program EIR, with implementation of the mitigation measures discussed in this section. Implementation of the proposed Project would not alter the conclusions of the General Plan Program EIR analysis and would not result in a new or substantially more severe project -specific or cumulative drainage or water quality impact than those already analyzed.
124 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Mitigation Program
General Plan Policies
The General Plan includes policies that address issues related to hydrology and water quality. The following policies are applicable to the proposed Project and would be made conditions of approval. ■ NR 3.3 - Ground Water Contamination: Suspend activities and implement appropriate health and safety procedures in the event that previously unknown groundwater contamination is encountered during construction. Where site contamination is identified, implement an appropriate remediation strategy that is approved by the City and the state agency with appropriate jurisdiction. ■ NR 3.4 - Storm Drain Sewer System Permit: Require all development to comply with the regulations under the City's municipal separate storm drain system permit under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.
■ NR 3.9 - Water Quality Management Plan: Require new development applications to include a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to minimize runoff from rainfall events during construction and post -construction.
■ NR 3.10 - Best Management Practices: Implement and improve upon Best Management Practices (BMPs) for residences, businesses, development projects, and City operations. ■ NR 3.11 - Site Design and Source Control: Include site design and source control BMPs in all developments. When the combination of site design and source control BMPs are not sufficient to protect water quality as required by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), structural treatment BMPs will be implemented along with site design and source control measures. ■ NR 3.14 Runoff Reduction on Private Property. Retain runoff on private property to prevent the transport of pollutants into natural water bodies, to the maximum extent practicable. ■ NR 3.15 - Street Drainage Systems: Require all street drainage systems and other physical improvements created by the City, or developers of new subdivisions, to be designed, constructed, and maintained to minimize adverse impacts on water quality. Investigate the possibility of treating or diverting street drainage to minimize impacts to water bodies. ■ NR 3.17 - Parking Lots and Rights -of -Way: Require that parking lots and public and private rights -of -way be maintained and cleaned frequently to remove debris and contaminated residue. • NR 3.19 - Natural Drainage Systems: Require incorporation of natural drainage systems and stormwater detention facilities into new developments, where appropriate and feasible, to retain stormwater in order to increase groundwater recharge.
• NR 3.20 - Impervious Surfaces: Require new development and public improvements to minimize the creation of and increases in impervious surfaces, especially directly connected impervious areas, to the maximum extent practicable. Require redevelopment to increase area of pervious surfaces, wherefeasible.
■ NR 4.4 - Erosion Minimization: Require grading/erosion control plans with structural BMPs that prevent or minimize erosion during and after construction for development on steep slopes, graded, or disturbed areas.
125 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Standard Conditions and Reauirements
SC WQ-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, an SWPPP and Notice of Intent (NOI) 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 stormwater runoff volumes.

SC WQ-2 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the Project, subject to the approval of the Community Development Department. The WQMP shall include appropriate BMPs to ensure project runoff is adequately treated.

SC WQ-3 During construction, if groundwater is unexpectedly encountered, the Applicant shall apply for dewatering coverage and adhere to the monitoring and reporting program under the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).

Conclusion
Accordingly, no new impacts relative to hydrology and water quality or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would occur. With regard to PRC Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of less than significant with mitigation. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not warranted.
126 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

3.10 Land Use and Planning
Threshold (a) Would the project physically divide an established community? General Plan Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR concluded that the General Plan would not include any roadway extensions or other development features through currently developed areas; instead, it would allow limited infill development in select subareas in the City. The General Plan Program EIR did not include any extensions of roadways or other development features through currently developed areas that could physically divide an established community. Therefore, the General Plan Program EIR would not physically divide an established community and impacts were identified as being less than significant.

Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No Impact; no substantial change from previous analysis.

The City of Newport Beach is nearly built out, and the proposed Project is an infill development in an urbanized area. The proposed Project would not include any roadway extensions or other development features through currently developed areas. No off -site improvements such as new roadways or infrastructure are proposed that could physically divide an established community. The proposed Project would demolish the existing two, two-story office building and construct a residential apartment building on the site. Specifically, the site would be included within the PC-11 Residential Overlay, where multi -unit residential development is permitted as a stand-alone use provided minimum affordable housing requirements are met. The proposed Project includes affordable housing units.

Therefore, the proposed Project, similar to development pursuant to the General Plan, would not physically divide an established community and there would be no impacts. Therefore, there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR.

Threshold (b) Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
General Plan Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR analyzed land use incompatibility with regard to introducing new land uses and structures that could result in intensification of development in the City. The General Plan Program EIR concluded that the majority of land use changes proposed would not result in incompatibilities or nuisances that rose to a level of significance and impacts were considered less than significant. The General Plan Program EIR was found to be consistent with all applicable land use plans for the City. The Airport Area is in the boundaries of the John Wayne Airport AELUP. Provided that residential uses remain outside the 65 dBA CNEL contour, the General Plan Program EIR found that impacts would be less than significant.

Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact; no substantial change from previous analysis.

General Plan Consistency
The project site has a General Plan land use designation of General Commercial Office (CO-G) and requires an amendment to change the designation to Mixed -Use Horizontal-2 (MU-1­12). The MU-1­12 designation 127 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
provides for a horizontal intermixing of uses that may include regional commercial office, multi -family residential, vertical mixed -use buildings, industrial, hotel rooms, and ancillary neighborhood commercial uses. The MU-H2 designation applies to a majority of properties in the Airport Area, inclusive of the project site and adjacent uses and permits:
■ A maximum of 2,200 residential units are permitted as replacement of existing office, retail, and/or industrial uses at a maximum density of 50 units per adjusted gross acre, of which a maximum of 550 units may be developed as infill units.

The General Plan policies for the Airport Area call for the orderly evolution of this area from a single - purpose business park to a mixed -use district with cohesive residential villages integrated within the existing fabric of the office, industrial, retail, and airport -related businesses. The proposed Project is consistent with the MU-H2 land use designation for the project site and would implement the City's General Plan goals and policies for this portion of the Airport Area because it would integrate residential uses into Newport Place.

An analysis of the proposed Project's consistency with the applicable goals and policies of the General Plan is provided in Table 3.10-1, General Plan Consistency Analysis. The analysis concludes that the Project would be consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the City's General Plan. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in significant land use impacts related to relevant Newport Beach General Plan goals and policies.

Cumulative Impacts
The Project is consistent with applicable land use goals and policies. Although other changes in land use plans and regulations may have occurred with past and present projects in the area and may be necessary for individual future projects, such changes have been, and would be, required to demonstrate consistency with General Plan and other City policies such that no significant adverse cumulative impact has occurred or would occur from such changes. Given that the proposed Project would be consistent with the land use policies of the applicable plans, subject to the approval of development standard and incentive waivers allowed by density bonus law, the Project would not combine with any past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects to cause a significant adverse cumulative land use impact based on a conflict with a plan or policy. Any associated physical impacts are covered in the individual topic sections. It is also anticipated that regional growth would be subject to review for consistency with adopted land use plans and policies by the County of Orange, City of Newport Beach, and other cities in Orange County, in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the State Zoning and Planning Law, and the State Subdivision Map Act, all of which require findings of plan and policy consistency prior to approval of entitlements for development. Therefore, no significant cumulative impacts associated plans and policies are anticipated. In addition, the contribution of the proposed Project to any such cumulative impacts would be less than significant because present and probable future projects are consistent with applicable plans, policies, and regulations. The Project would not contribute to any cumulative impacts associated with plan or policy inconsistency.
128 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Table 3.10-1: General Plan Consistency Analysis
Applicable City of Newport Beach General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency
Land Use Element
Goal LU 2 — A living, active, and diverse environment that complements all lifestyles and enhances neighborhoods, without compromising the valued resources that make Newport Beach unique. It contains a diversity of uses that support the needs of residents, sustain and enhance the economy, provide job opportunities, serve visitors that enjoy the City's diverse recreational amenities, and protect its important environmental setting, resources, and quality of life.

Policy LU 2.1 Residential -Serving Land Uses. Accommodate uses that support Consistent: The proposed Project would support the needs of Newport Beach since it would the needs of Newport Beach's residents including housing, retail, services, develop a multi -story residential project with 229 residential units, inclusive of 23 very -low employment, recreation, education, culture, entertainment, civic engagement, income affordable units. The Project is an infill development and would not adversely impact and social and spiritual activity that are in balance with community natural the community's natural resources and open spaces, particularly because the Airport Area is resources and open spaces.
an urbanized area of the City.

Policy LU 2.2 Sustainable and Complete Community. Emphasize the Consistent: The proposed Project would develop residential uses in Newport Place. By development of uses that enable Newport Beach to continue as a self-sustaining integrating residential uses adjacent and proximate to other commercial and office uses as community and minimize the need for residents to travel outside of the well as the approved Residences at 1300 Bristol Street project, the proposed Project would community for retail, goods and services, and employment. provide residents with opportunities for employment in the many businesses in and around Newport Place and other nearby business and employment centers in Newport Beach and surrounding communities.

Policy 2.3 Range of Residential Choices. Provide opportunities for the Consistent: The proposed Project would have 229 residential units, including studio, development of residential units that respond to community and regional needs 1-bedroom, and 2-bedroom units. The Project includes 23 affordable units. The Project in terms of density, size, location, and cost. Implement goals, policies, programs, provides a mix of residential dwelling units (both in terms of size and affordability levels) in and objectives identified within the City's Housing Element. furtherance of the City's General Plan and 6th Cycle 2021-2029 Housing Element.

Policy LU 2.8 Adequate Infrastructure. Accommodate the types, densities, and Consistent: The proposed Project would be adequately served by the necessary public mix of land uses that can be adequately supported by transportation and utility services and utilities and service systems. Off -site sewer line improvements would be infrastructure (water, sewer, storm drainage, energy, and so on) and public implemented as a part of the Project. Refer to Sections 3.14, Public Services, and 3.17, Utilities services (schools, parks, libraries, seniors, youth, police, fire, and so on). and Service Systems, for further information and analysis regarding public services and utility infrastructure, respectively.

Goal LU 3 — A development pattern that retains and complements the City's residential neighborhoods, commercial and industrial districts, open spaces, and natural environment.

PolicyLU3.2 Growth and Change. Enhance existing neighborhoods, districts, and Consistent: The Project requires a General Plan land use amendment and an amendment to corridors, allowing for re -use and infill with uses that are complementary in type, PC-11 to include the project site within the PC-11 Residential Overlay area. The proposed form, scale, and character. Changes in use and/or density/intensity should be Project is an infill residential development that would replace the existing two-story office considered only in those areas that are economically underperforming, are buildings with 229 multi -unit residences, inclusive of 206 market rate units and 23 affordable necessary to accommodate Newport Beach's share of projected regional units. The Airport Area, inclusive of Newport Place, includes a mix of existing and planned population growth, improve the relationship and reduce commuting distance office, commercial, hotel, and residential uses. Therefore, the Project would be compatible between home and jobs, or enhance the values that distinguish Newport Beach with existing and future uses. The six -story building would be located adjacent and proximate 129 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Table 3.10-1: General Plan Consistency Analysis
Applicable City of Newport Beach General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency
as a special place to live for its residents. The scale of growth and new to existing office buildings ranging in height from one to ten stories and to the six -story development shall be coordinated with the provision of adequate infrastructure approved but not yet constructed multi -unit residential development at 1300 Bristol Street and public services, including standards for acceptable traffic level of service.

North. Proximity to one of Newport Beach's job centers can reduce commute distances between home and jobs. The Project provides a mix of residential dwelling units (both in terms of size and affordability levels) in furtherance of the City's 61" Cycle 2021-2029 Housing Element. Additionally, as concluded in Addendum Section 3.14, Public Services, Section 3.16, Transportation, and Section 3.17, Utilities and Service Systems, the Project would not adversely impact public services, traffic, or utilities.

Policy LU 3.3. Opportunities for Change. Provide opportunities for improved Consistent: The Project would redevelop and reuse a site featuring an underperforming office development and enhanced environments for residents in the following districts use and would develop residential uses in a cohesive design near existing jobs and services. and corridors, as specified in Polices 6.3.1 through 6.22.7:

John Wayne Airport Area: reuse of underperforming industrial and office properties and development of cohesive residential neighborhoods in proximity to jobs and services.

Policy LU 3.8 Project Entitlement Review with Airport Land Use Commission.

Applicable. The proposed Project will be referred to the ALUC for a determination of Refer the adoption or amendment of the General Plan, Zoning Code, specific consistency with the AELUP for John Wayne Airport because the Project requires a General plans, and Planned Community development plans for land within the John Plan amendment and zoning code amendment (PC-11 Amendment).

Wayne Airport planning area, as established in the JWA Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP), to the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for Orange County for review, as required by Section 21676 of the California Public Utilities Code. In addition, refer all development projects that include buildings with a height greater than 200 feet above ground level to the ALUC for review.

Goal LU 4 — Management of growth and change to protect and enhance the livability of neighborhoods and achieve distinct and economically vital business and employment districts, which are correlated with supporting infrastructure and public services and sustain Newport Beach's natural setting.

Policy LU 4.1 Land Use Diagram. Accommodate land use development Consistent: The Project requires a General Plan land use amendment and an amendment to consistent with the Land Use Plan. Figure LU1 depicts the general distribution of PC-11 to include the project site within the PC-11 Residential Overlay area. The Project uses throughout the City and Figure LU2 through Figure LU15 depict specific use proposes 153 "base" units on a 2.38-acre parcel, which equates to density of 64 du/ac. The categories for each parcel within defined Statistical Areas. Table LU1 (Land Use Project's 153 base units are comprised of 89 units from the conversion of the office buildings Plan Categories) specifies the primary land use categories, types of uses, and, for to a residential use and 64 additional units allocated to the Airport Area (Statistical Area L4) certain categories, the densities/intensities to be permitted. See page 3-11 of under the General Plan. With the inclusion of 77 density bonus by providing the necessary the City's General Plan for the full policy.
level of affordable housing, the Project would have a density of 96 du/net acre. 130 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Table 3.10-1: General Plan Consistency Analysis
Applicable City of Newport Beach General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency
Goal LU 5.6 — Neighborhoods, districts, and corridors containing a diversity of uses and buildings that are mutually compatible and enhance the quality of the City's environment Policy LU 5.6.1 Compatible Development. Require that buildings and properties Consistent: The proposed Project would develop additional residential uses in Newport Place. be designed to ensure compatibility within and as interfaces between By integrating residential uses adjacent and proximate to other commercial and office uses as neighborhoods, districts, and corridors.
well as the approved Residences at 1300 Bristol Street project, the proposed Project would provide residents with opportunities for employment in the many businesses in and around Newport Place and other nearby business and employment centers in Newport Beach and surrounding communities. Additionally, the Project's building mass is compatible to the existing and planned land uses in the area, where these building are variable in height.

Policy LU 5.6.2 Form and Environment. Require that new and renovated Consistent: The contemporary architectural style of the Project would be compatible with buildings be designed to avoid the use of styles, colors, and materials that existing and planned development in Newport Place and surrounding areas with respect to unusually impact the design character and quality of their location such as abrupt materials and colors. The Project would use building glass and glazing with minimal reflective changes in scale, building form, architectural style, and the use of surface characteristics. The building material, style, and colors would not raise local temperatures materials that raise local temperatures, result in glare and excessive illumination through glare or excessive illumination.
of adjoining properties and open spaces, or adversely modify wind patterns.

Policy LU 5.6.3 Ambient Lighting. Require that outdoor lighting be located and Consistent: Exterior lighting would be designed, arranged, directed downward, or shielded to designed to prevent spillover onto adjoining properties or significantly increase contain direct illumination on -site to prevent excess illumination and light spillover onto the overall ambient illumination of their location.
adjoining land uses and/or roadways. Development of the Project would also be required to adhere to all applicable City lighting as set forth in NBMC Section 20.30.070, Outdoor Lighting.

It is also noted that development of the Project would be required to comply with California's Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential Buildings, Title 24, Part 6, of the CCR, which outlines mandatory provisions for lighting control devices and luminaries.

Policy LU 6.1.1 Adequate Community Supporting Uses. Accommodate schools, Consistent: As addressed in Section 3.14, Public Services, of this Addendum, the Project would government administrative and operational facilities, fire stations and police not adversely impact community services. The Project would comply with applicable facilities, religious facilities, schools, cultural facilities, museums, interpretative conditions and requirements, including the payment of the Property Excise Tax to the City of centers, and hospitals to serve the needs of Newport Beach's residents and Newport Beach, as set forth in NBMC Section 2.12 et seq. and used for public improvements businesses.
and facilities associated with the Fire Department, public libraries, and public parks.

Goal LU 6.2 — Residential neighborhoods that contain a diversity of housing types and supporting uses to meet the needs of Newport Beach's residents and are designed to sustain livability and a high quality of life.

Policy LU 6.2.1 Residential Supply. Accommodate a diversity of residential units Consistent: The General Plan 2021-2029 Housing Element identifies the Airport Area as one of that meets the needs of Newport Beach's population and fair share of regional the key areas for future housing opportunities. The Project would have 229 multi -unit rental needs in accordance with the Land Use Plan's designations, applicable density apartments, inclusive of 206 market rate units and 23 very low-income affordable units. This standards, design and development policies, and the adopted Housing Element. development would support the City's 611 Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation.
131 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Table 3.10-1: General Plan Consistency Analysis
Applicable City of Newport Beach General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency
Policy LU 6.2.3. Residential Affordability. Encourage the development of Consistent: The Project would have 23 units (15% of total base units) that are reserved for residential units that are affordable for those employed in the City. very -low income households. As revised by Council Resolution No. 2023-13 on July 25, 2023, the minimum percent of affordable units for residential development in the Newport Place Planned Community (PC-11) residential overlay was revised from 30 percent to 15 percent of the base units21. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the City's affordability requirements.

To illustrate compliance with the Residential Overlay affordable housing requirements and density bonus allowances of the City Zoning Code and State law, the Project includes an Affordable Housing Implementation Plan.

Policy LU 6.2.9 Private Open Spaces and Recreational Facilities. Require the Consistent: The Project would provide on -site resident recreational amenities including a open space and recreational facilities that are integrated into and owned by business center, dog spa, pool recreation room, clubroom, media center, California room, and private residential development are permanently preserved as part of the pool deck. Recreational amenities would not be converted to residential or other types of land development approval process and are prohibited from converting to residential uses on the site. The Project includes a development standard waiver to reduce the minimum or other types of land uses.
required private open space for approximately nine of the units as well as the overall common open space. However, the Project provides almost 4, 000 sf of common space with recreational amenities to serve the project residents.

Goal LU 6.15 — A mixed -use community that provides jobs, residential, and supporting services in close proximity, with pedestrian -oriented amenities that facilitate walking and enhance livability.

Policy LU 6.15.1 Land Use Districts and Neighborhoods. Provide for the Consistent: See consistency analysis for Policies LU 5.6.1 and 5.6.2. The Project will provide development of distinct business park, commercial, and airport -serving districts 229 additional residential dwelling units (including affordable units) to the Airport Area in and residential neighborhoods that are integrated to ensure a quality proximity to other approved developments including the Residences at 1300 Bristol Street environment and compatible land uses.
project (approved but not yet constructed). The Project would advance the City's General Plan policies that provide for a mix of integrated uses in the Airport Area.

Policy LU 6.15.3 Airport Compatibility. Require that all development be Consistent: The Project is a six -story podium apartment building with ground level and constructed in conformance with the height restrictions set forth by the Federal subterranean parking. The project site is in Safety Zone 6 of the JWA AELUP, the FAR Part 77 Aviation Administration (FAA), Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77, and Obstruction Imaginary Surface Zone, and the FAR Part 77 Notification Area. The building is Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, and that residential development shall be proposed to be 85 feet high, measured from the established grade to the top of the rooftop allowed only on parcels with noise levels of less than the John Wayne Airport 65 parapet, which is consistent with the allowable uses under the AELUP Safety Zone 6 and is dBA CNEL noise contour area as shown in Figure N5 of the Noise Element of the under the 200 feet height limit for the AEULUP and for FAA Part 77 notification. Therefore, the General Plan, unless and until the City determines, based on substantial Project would not exceed obstruction standards and would not be a hazard to air navigation. evidence, that the sites wholly within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour shown in Further, the project site is outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour identified by the City of Figure N5 are needed for the City to satisfy its Sixth Cycle RHNA mandate.

Newport Beach for John Wayne Airport as set forth in the 2014 John Wayne Airport Settlement ze A minimum of 15% of base units in a residential development are required to be affordable to lower income households. 132 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Table 3.10-1: General Plan Consistency Analysis
Applicable City of Newport Beach General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency
Nonresidential uses are, however, encouraged on parcels located wholly within Agreement Amendment EIR No. 617. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the land use and the 65 dBA CNEL contour area.
noise -related policies of the General Plan including LU 6.15.3.

Policy LU 6.15.5 Residential and Support Uses. Accommodate the development Consistent: The proposed Project would be adjacent and proximate to existing office and of a maximum of 2,200 multi -family residential units, including workforce commercial land uses that provide jobs and supporting services within the Airport Area. More housing, and mixed -use buildings that integrate residential with ground level specifically, the Project proposes 229 residential units, inclusive of 23 affordable units. The office or retail uses, along with supporting retail, grocery stores, and parklands.

Project would be within the 2,200 maximum multi -unit count for the Airport Area. LU 6.15.5 Residential units may be developed only as the replacement of underlying established a development limit of 2,200 maximum dwelling units for the Airport Area, permitted nonresidential uses. When a development phase includes a mix of exclusive of density bonuses permitted under SDBL. The Project's 89 residential units residential and nonresidential uses or replaces existing industrial uses, the converted from the office buildings onsite area within the 2,200 maximum for the Airport Area number of peak hour trips generated by cumulative development of the site shall established by the General Plan. The Project includes a General Plan Amendment request to not exceed the number of trips that would result from development of the increase the base density by 64 dwelling units (for a total of 153 base units), which are not underlying permitted nonresidential uses. However, a maximum of 550 units may counted towards to the General Plan allocation of 2,200 units allocated to the Airport Area. be developed as infill on surface parking lots or areas not used as occupiable buildings on properties within the Conceptual Development Plan Area depicted on Figure LU22 provided that the parking is replaced on -site.

Policy LU 6.15.6 Size of Residential Villages. Allow development of mixed -use Consistent: Newport Place Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. PD2011- residential villages, each containing a minimum of 10 acres and centered on a 005 was adopted creating the Residential Overlay in the Planned Community, which permitted neighborhood park and other amenities (as conceptually illustrated in Figure residential developments less than 10 acres in size, subject to Site Development Review, LU23).
provided they include: (1) a minimum of 30 percent of the units affordable to lower -income households; and (2) include densities between 30 du/acre and 50 du/acre consistent with the General Plan land use designation and policies for the Airport Area. As revised by Council Resolution No. 2023-13 on July 25, 2023, the minimum percentage of affordable units was revised from 30 percent to 15 percent of the base units within a residential development are required to be affordable to lower income households. The affordable housing requirement forthe proposed Project is 23 units (15% of 153 base units). The Project meets the affordability criteria, in lieu of the 10-acre minimum project site development.

Policy LU 6.15.7. Overall Density and Housing Types. Require that residential Consistent: The Project proposes 153 "base" units on the site, which equates to 64 du/ac. The units be developed at a minimum density of 30 units and maximum of 50 units Project's 153 base units are comprised of 89 units from the conversion of the office buildings per net acre averaged over the total area of each residential village. Net acreage to a residential use and 64 additional units allocated to the Airport Area (Statistical Area L4) shall be exclusive of existing and new rights -of -way, public pedestrian ways, and under the General Plan. With the inclusion of 77 density bonus units by providing the necessary neighborhood parks. Within these densities, provide for the development of a level of affordable housing, the Project would have a density of 96 du/net acre. A waiver from mix of building types ranging from townhomes to high-rises to accommodate a this Policy LU 6.15-7 has been requested in order to allow a density of 96 du/ac, associated variety of household types and incomes and to promote diversity of building with the provision of affordable housing. With approval of requested waiver, the Project with masses and scales.
be consistent with LU 6.15.7. The Project would include architectural elements and 133 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Table 3.10-1: General Plan Consistency Analysis
Applicable City of Newport Beach General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency
landscaping to promote a pedestrian -scale streetscape to foster a village environment. It accommodates a mix of household types and incomes by including studios, one -bedroom apartments, and two -bedroom apartments.

Policy LU 6.15.8 First Phase Development Density. Require a residential density Consistent: The Project would be developed in one phase. of 45 to 50 units per net acre, averaged over the first phase for each residential village. This shall be applied to 100 percent of properties in the first phase development area whether developed exclusively for residential or integrating service commercial horizontally on the site or vertically within a mixed -use building. On individual sites, housing development may exceed or be below this density to encourage a mix of housing types, provided that the average density for the area encompassed by the first phase is achieved.

Policy LU 6.15.13 Standards. To provide a focus and identity for the entire Consistent: The Project requests a waiver of the City's park dedication requirements neighborhood and to serve the daily recreational and commercial needs of the associated with the provision of affordable housing and density bonus. Pursuant to General community within easy walking distance of homes, require dedication and Plan Policy LU 16-15.13, a public park equal to 8 percent of the gross land area of the total improvement of at least 8 percent of the gross land area (exclusive of existing development, or a minimum 0.5-acre, whichever is greater, shall be provided. This rights -of -way) of the first phase development in each neighborhood, or %2 acre, requirement would mandate a 0.5-acre park on the 2.38-acre project site. The General Plan whichever is greater, as a neighborhood park. This requirement may be waived allows a waiver of its park dedication requirement where it can be demonstrated that the by the City where it can be demonstrated that the development parcels are too development parcels are too small to feasibly accommodate the park or inappropriately small to feasibly accommodate the park or inappropriately located to serve the located to serve the needs of local residents and when in -lieu park fees are paid to the City. needs of local residents, and when an in -lieu fee is paid to the City for the Here, the 2.38-acre project site is too small to feasibly accommodate a 0.5-acre park. Further, acquisition and improvement of other properties as parklands to serve the the Applicant is requesting a portion of the in -lieu park fee to be waived as a concession, as Airport Area. In every case, the neighborhood park shall be at least 8 percent of allowed under density bonus law. With approval of the parkland dedication waiver, and the total Residential Village Area or one acre in area, whichever is greater, and concession related to partial payment of in -lieu park fees, the Project is considered consistent shall have a minimum dimension of 150 feet. Park acreage shall be exclusive of with LU 6.15.13. The Project will include on -site resident recreational amenities including a existing or new rights -of -way, development sites, or setback areas. A swimming pool.
neighborhood park shall satisfy some or all of the requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance, as prescribed by the Recreation Element of the General Plan.

Policy LU 6.15.17 Street and Pedestrian Grid. Create a pattern of streets and Consistent: The project site is 2.38 net acres bordered on two sides by roadways and adjacent pedestrian ways that breaks up large blocks, improves connections between to existing development including the planned Residences at 1300 Bristol residential neighborhoods and community amenities, and is scaled to the predominantly development (approved but not yet constructed). The Project would continue to provide residential character of the neighborhoods.
sidewalks and pedestrian connections to the public street system and adjacent properties. The Project also includes a steel truss pedestrian bridge across Spruce Avenue (public right-of-way) that would connect the proposed 1400 Bristol building to the approved but not yet 134 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Table 3.10-1: General Plan Consistency Analysis
Applicable City of Newport Beach General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency
constructed Residences at 1300 Bristol Street building. The proposed pattern of development would provide connectivity to employment, transportation, recreation and open space, and retail uses.

Policy LU 6.15.22 Building Massing. Require that high-rise structures be Consistent: The proposed apartment building would be six stories and will include articulation surrounded with low- and mid -rise structures fronting public streets and and landscaping. The six -story building would be located adjacent and proximate to existing pedestrian ways or other means to promote a more pedestrian scale. office buildings ranging in height from one to ten stories and to the six -story approved but not yet constructed multi -unit residential development at 1300 Bristol Street North. Therefore, the proposed building would be compatible with surrounding structures and would provide a variety of scale.

Policy LU 6.15.23 Sustainability Development Practices. Require that Consistent: The Project would be required to comply with the provisions of the Building and development achieves a high level of environmental sustainability that reduces Energy Efficiency Standards and the Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen). Additionally, pollution and consumption of energy, water, and natural resources. This may be the Project would implement water -efficient landscaping; electric vehicle charging accomplished through the mix and density of uses, building location and design, infrastructure in the parking structure; water quality best management practices to treat transportation modes, and other techniques. Among the strategies that should surface runoff from the project site; and low impact development practices. The project site be considered are the integration of residential with jobs -generating uses, use of is also near office buildings and commercial (retail) centers in the Airport Area and would alternative transportation modes, maximized walkability, use of recycled provide housing near employment and shopping opportunities. materials, capture and re -use of storm water on -site, water -conserving fixtures and landscapes, and architectural elements that reduce heat gain and loss.

Housing Element
Goal H 3 — A variety of housing types, designs, and opportunities for all social and economic segments.

Policy H 3.1. Encourage preservation of existing and provision of new housing Consistent: The Project includes 23 units of housing that is affordable to very low income affordable to extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderate -income households. households.

Policy H 3.2. Encourage housing developments to offer a wide spectrum of Consistent: The Project proposes 229 multi -unit rental residences, which include studio, one - housing choices, designs, and configurations.
bedroom, and two -bedroom configurations.

Goal H4 — Housing opportunities for as many renter- and owner -occupied households as possible in response to the market demand and RHNA obligations for housing in the City.

Policy H 4.2. Enable construction of new housing units sufficient to meet City Consistent: The General Plan 2021-2029 Housing Element identifies the Airport Area as one quantified goals by identifying adequate sites for their construction. of the key areas for future housing opportunities. The Project would have 229 multi -unit rental apartments, inclusive of 206 market rate units and 23 very low-income affordable units. This development would support the City's 61h Cycle RHNA allocation.

Goal H7 — Equal housing opportunities in the City for all people.

Policy H 7.1. Support fair and equal housing opportunities, and environmental Consistent: The Project includes 23 very low -income affordable units and would not prevent justice considerations for all housing opportunities in the City. the City to implement the policy actions associated with this goal and policy. 135 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Table 3.10-1: General Plan Consistency Analysis
Applicable City of Newport Beach General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency
Historical Resources Element
Goal HR 2 — Identification and protection of important archeological and paleontological resources within the City.

Policy HR 2.1 New Development Activities. Require that, in accordance with Consistent: The Addendum identifies standard conditions to comply with potential impacts to CEQA, new development protect and preserve paleontological and archaeological unknown archaeological and paleontological resources found during ground -disturbing resources from destruction, and avoid and mitigate impacts to such resources. activities.

Through planning policies and permit conditions, ensure the preservation of significant archeological and paleontological resources and require that the impact caused by any development be mitigated in accordance with CEQA.

Policy HR 2.2 Grading and Excavation Activities. Require a qualified Consistent: See consistency analysis for Policy HR 2.1 of Goal HR 2. paleontologist/archeologist to monitor all grading and/or excavation where there is a potential to affect cultural, archeological or paleontological resources. If these resources are found, the applicant shall implement the recommendations of the paleontologist/archeologist, subject to the approval of the City Planning Department.

Policy HR 2.3 Cultural Organizations. Notify cultural organizations, including Consistent: The City conducted Native American tribal consultation in compliance with the Native American organizations, of proposed developments that have the requirements of SB 18. Please also see the consistency analysis for Policy HR 2.1 of Goal potential to adversely impact cultural resources. Allow representatives of such HR 2.
groups to monitor grading and/or excavation of development sites.

Policy HR 2.4 Paleontological or Archaeological Materials. Require new Consistent: See consistency analysis for Policy HR 2.1 of Goal HR 2. development to donate scientifically valuable paleontological or archaeological materials to a responsible public or private institution with a suitable repository, located within Newport Beach, or Orange County, whenever possible.

Circulation Element
Goal CE 1.1—An overall transportation system thatfacilitates the movement of people and goods within and through the City of Newport Beach and accommodates conservative growth within the City of Newport Beach but is not expanded primarily to accommodate growth in the surrounding region.

Policy CE1.1.3 Levels of Service Related to Community Character. Maintain level Consistent: The Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the proposed Project identifies no of service standards that reflect the character of the various unique districts and significant impact to traffic study area intersections. neighborhoods of Newport Beach.

Goal CE 2.1— A roadway system with no significant gaps that provides for the efficient movement of goods and people in the City of Newport Beach, while maintaining the community's character and its residents' quality of life. 136 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Table 3.10-1: General Plan Consistency Analysis
Applicable City of Newport Beach General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency
Policy CE 2.1.1 Level of Service Standards. Plan the arterial roadway system to Consistent: The Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the proposed Project identifies no accommodate projected traffic at the following level of service standards:
significant impact to traffic study area intersections.

A. Level of Service (LOS) "D" throughout the City, unless otherwise noted B. LOS "E" at any intersection in the Airport Area shared with Irvine, and in Corona del Mar (subject to findings of the most recent General Plan update traffic study)
Goal CE 2.2—A safe and efficient roadway system.

Policy CE2.2.4 Traffic Control. Design traffic control measuresto ensure Citystreets Consistent: As part of the proposed Project, any necessary traffic control measures would be and roads function with safety and efficiency for vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. installed to ensure that the City's roadways function as intended while allowing site access from Spruce Avenue and Bristol Street North. The Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the proposed Project identifies no significant impact to traffic study area intersections. On -street bicycle facilities are provided in the project area along Bristol Street North. Bristol Street North adjacent to the project site has Class II Bike Lane (On -Road Striped) and also is classified as a Class I (Off -Road Paved) Bikeway (sidewalk riding is permitted). Roadways that provide on - street bicycle facilities near the project site include Bristol Street South, Birch Street, and intermittent areas of Jamboree Road and Campus Road. Existing pedestrian sidewalks along Bristol Street North and Spruce Avenue would be retained.

Policy CE 2.2.5 Driveway and Access Limitations. Limit driveway and local street Consistent: There one existing driveway on Bristol Street North and one driveway on Spruce access on arterial streets to maintain a desired quality of traffic flow and limit Avenue providing access to the office buildings. The proposed Project would provide vehicular hazards to active transportation modes. Wherever possible, consolidate and/or access to residents from one unsignalized driveway on Spruce Avenue and on Bristol Street reduce the number of driveways and implement access controls during North. The Bristol Street North driveway would provide access to the parking structure. The redevelopment of adjacent parcels.

Spruce Avenue driveway would provide a turnaround and garage access. All driveway improvements would be designed and constructed in accordance with the City's engineering standards to ensure safety and a desired quality of traffic flow. The pedestrian bridge between the Residences at 1400 Bristol Street Project and the approved Residences at 1400 Bristol Street project would allow for pedestrian access across Spruce Avenue and the two residential uses without impeding vehicular movement.

Policy CE 2.2.7 Emergency Access. Provide all residential, commercial, and Consistent: To address emergency access needs, the Project's internal circulation has been industrial areas with efficient and safe access for emergency vehicles. An designed in accordance with City of Newport Beach Fire Department (Fire Department) design emergency evacuation map shall be prepared as part of an updated Safety standards for emergency access. Additionally, the Project would be required to incorporate all Element.
applicable design and safety requirements in the most current adopted fire codes, building codes, and fire and life safety standards. During the building plan check and development review process, the City would continue to coordinate with the Public Works Department, Fire 137 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Table 3.10-1: General Plan Consistency Analysis
Applicable City of Newport Beach General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency
Department, and Newport Beach Police Department (Police Department) to ensure that adequate circulation and access are provided.

Goal CE 2.3 — Optimal roadway system operations.

Policy CE 2.3.3 New Development Maintenance Responsibility. Ensure Consistent: The Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the proposed Project identifies no minimization of traffic congestion impacts and parking impacts and ensure significant impact to traffic study area intersections. The Applicant has prepared a proper roadway maintenance through review and approval of Construction Construction Management Plan to identify planned travel patterns for haul vehicles. The haul Management Plans associated with new development proposals in residential route to and from the project site for all dirt haul -off operations would be from SR-73. Trucks neighborhoods.
would enter the site from Bristol Street North; trucks would exit the site from Spruce Avenue and continue to Bristol Street North. The contractor would be required to obtain a Haul Route Permit from the City of Newport Beach.

Goal CE 5.2 — Convenient bicycle trail systems that satisfy recreational desires and transportation needs.

Policy CE 5.2.4 Trail System. Promote construction of a comprehensive trail Consistent: The City is updating its Bikeways Master Plan, which was adopted in 2014. system as shown on Figure CE3 to connect bicycle trails with hiking trails and Implementation of the Project would not preclude future bikeway improvements. transit routes. (Updated figure in process)
Policy CE 5.2.6 Pedestrian Improvements in New Development Projects. Require Consistent: There are existing sidewalks on Bristol Street North and Spruce Avenue, which new development projects to include safe and attractive sidewalks, walkways, would be retained as a part of the Project. The City is updating its Bikeways Master Plan, which and bike lanes in accordance with the Master Plan, and, if feasible, trails. was adopted in 2014. Implementation of the Project would not preclude future bikeway improvements.

Policy CE 5.2.11 Bicycle Supporting Amenities. Require bicycle facilities such as Consistent: The Project includes bike storage areas on the two levels of the subterranean bike racks, bike stations, or lockers according to national standards for long-term parking structure.
and short-term bicycle utilization on City property and with new development and encourage the addition of such bicycle facilities within existing development.

Goal CE 5.4 — Completion of pedestrian infrastructure where planned and necessary.

Policy CE 5.4.2 Overhead Pedestrian Street Crossings. Consider overhead Consistent: The proposed Project would include a steel truss pedestrian bridge over the public pedestrian crossings in areas where pedestrian use limits the efficiency of the right-of-way (Spruce Avenue) that would connect to the future residential structure at 1300 roadway or signalized intersection and/or where an overhead crossing provides Bristol Street to the project site. The pedestrian bridge would be located on the second story, for improved pedestrian safety
at the southern corner of the building. The bridge would include a 9-foot-wide pathway and span approximately 108 feet. The pedestrian bridge would provide access to residents between both residential buildings.
138 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Table 3.10-1: General Plan Consistency Analysis
Applicable City of Newport Beach General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency
Goal CE 7.1— Promote strategies to reduce the use of internal combustion passenger cars and the attendant greenhouse gas emissions.

Policy CE 7.1.1 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT Analysis). Follow the analysis Level of Service was the applicable threshold when the City certified the General Plan Program methodology for vehicle miles traveled according to the Newport Beach VMT EIR in 2006. The mandate requiring lead agencies to use VMT as a threshold for evaluating thresholds policy and as required in Senate Bill 743 and the revised California traffic impacts was adopted in 2018 and effective in 2020. Settled CEQA case law supports Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.
reliance on level of service as the appropriate threshold by which to measure traffic impacts of proposed Project.

For informational purposes, the Traffic Impact Analysis addressed VMT. The proposed Project was assessed in accordance with guidance provided by the City of Newport Beach SB 743 Implementation (VMT Guidelines). The proposed Project is located in the Orange County Transportation Analysis Model (OCTAM) TAZ 1390 and is in an area with low residential VMT per capita (lower than 85% of Countywide average VMT per capita). Therefore, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on VMT because it satisfies the City - established screening criteria.

Policy CE 7.1.2 VMT Mitigation Measures. Require implementation of CEQA Consistent: See consistency analysis for Policy CE 7.1.1. The proposed Project would not result project related VMT mitigation measures when warranted and monitor in VMT impacts that would require mitigation.
reductions in VMT from new development.

Policy CE 7.1.4 Alternative Transportation Modes and Practices. Promote and Consistent: On -street bicycle facilities are provided in the project area along Bristol Street encourage the use of alternative transportation modes, such as ridesharing, North. Bristol Street North adjacent to the project site has Class II Bike Lane (On -Road Striped) carpools, vanpools, public transit, bicycles, walking, and telecommuting and also is classified as a Class I (Off -Road Paved) Bikeway (sidewalk riding is permitted). programs, through the planning and development of a Complete Streets master Roadways that provide on -street bicycle facilities near the project site include Bristol Street plan and design guide.

South, Birch Street, and intermittent areas of Jamboree Road and Campus Road. There is an existing transit stop on Bristol Street North at the project site, which is part of the OCTA Route 57 line. Existing sidewalks along the project site frontage on Bristol Street North and Spruce Avenue would be retained.

Policy CE 7.1.5 Support Facilities for Alternative Modes: Require new Consistent. See the consistency analysis for Policy CE 7.1.4. The Project is a multi -unit development projects to provide facilities commensurate with development residential infill development. The Project includes bike storage areas on the two levels of type and intensity to support alternative modes, such as preferential parking for subterranean parking structure.
carpools, bicycle lockers, showers, commuter information areas, rideshare vehicle loading areas, water transportation docks, and bus stop improvements.

Policy CE 7.1.7 Project Site Design Supporting Alternative Modes. Encourage Consistent: See the consistency analysis for Policy CE 7.1.4. increased use of public transportation by requiring project site designs that facilitate the use of public transportation and walking. ( 139 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Table 3.10-1: General Plan Consistency Analysis
Applicable City of Newport Beach General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency
Policy CE 7.1.8 Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Stations. Install additional EV Consistent. The Project includes 40 EV capable parking spaces, 98 EV ready spaces, and 21 EV charging stations on City properties, support existing private development to add charging stations.
new EV charging stations and develop incentives for the installation of EV charging stations and other alternative fuels systems as part of new development.

Policy CE 7.1.7 Project Site Design Supporting Alternative Modes. Encourage Consistent: See the consistency analysis for Policy CE 7.1.4. increased use of public transportation by requiring project site designs that facilitate the use of public transportation and walking.

Goal CE 8.1—An adequate supply of convenient parking throughout the City.

Policy CE 8.1.1 Required Parking. Require that new development provide Consistent: All project parking would be provided on the site. All residential and guest parking adequate, convenient parking for residents, guests, business patrons, and for the Project would be within the parking structure, which includes a ground floor level and visitors.
two subterranean levels. Guest parking would be provided on the ground level from the Spruce Avenue entrance and would be separated from resident parking by roll up gates. The Bristol Street North entrance leads to a resident only access. Subterranean parking would be restricted to residents with key -card access.

As provided for in Government Code Section 65915(p) and NBMC Section 20.32.060, the Project is entitled to a reduction in the number of required parking spaces. NBMC Section

20.32.060, Parking Requirements in Density Bonus Projects, reflects the language of Government Code Section 65915(p), which identifies 1 parking space for studio and one - bedroom units and 1.5 parking spaces for units with two to three bedrooms. Under these regulatory standards, the proposed Project is required to provide 261 parking spaces. The Project proposes to provide 422 parking spaces. The parking ratio would be 1.84 parking spaces per dwelling unit inclusive of guest parking, which would exceed Government Code Section 65915(p) and NBMC Section 20.32.060 requirements.

Recreation Element
Goal R 3: Accessibility of Facilities — Accessible parks and recreation facilities to persons with disabilities.

Policy R3.1 Adequate Access. Ensure that parks and recreation facilities include Consistent: All resident recreation facilities would be designed and constructed to include provisions for adequate access for persons with disabilities and that existing provisions for adequate access for persons with disabilities in accordance with the Americans facilities are appropriately retrofitted to include such access as required by the with Disabilities Act.

Americans with Disabilities Act.
140 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Table 3.10-1: General Plan Consistency Analysis
Applicable City of Newport Beach General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency
Natural Resources Element
Goal NR 1— Minimized water consumption through conservation methods and other techniques.

Policy NR 1.1 Water Conservation in New Development. Enforce water Consistent: Section 3.17, Utilities and Service Systems, identifies that the Project would be conservation measures that limit water usage, prohibit activities that waste required to comply with the water -efficient landscape requirements outlined in NBMC water or cause runoff, and require the use of water —efficient landscaping and Chapter 14.17 (Water Efficient Landscape Requirements). The Project would also be required irrigation in conjunction with new construction projects. to comply with the provisions of the Green Building Standards Code, which contains requirements for indoor water use reduction and site irrigation conservation. The Project would implement a number of environmentally sustainable practices, including but not limited to water -efficient landscaping; water quality best management practices to treat surface runoff from the project site; and low impact development practices.

Policy NR 1.2 Use of Water Conserving Devices. Establish and actively promote Consistent: See consistency analysis for Policy NR 1.1 of Goal NR1. use of water -conserving devices and practices in both new construction and major alterations and additions to existing buildings. This can include the use of rainwater capture, storage, and reuse facilities.

Policy NR 1.6 Services for Lower Income Households. New developments which Consistent: The proposed Project would provide 23 units that are affordable to very low - provide housing for lower income households that help meet regional needs shall income households. Because the project site is located in an existing developed urban area, have priority for the provision of available and future resources or services, the Project can be served by water and other services. An off -site sewer main upgrade is including water and sewer supply and services.

I required and is evaluated as a part of the Project.

Goal NR 3 — Enhancement and protection of water quality of all natural water bodies, including coastal waters, creeks, bays, harbors, and wetlands.

Policy NR3.3-Ground Water Contamination. Suspend activities and implement Consistent: The proposed Project would comply with all applicable regulatory requirements appropriate health and safety procedures in the event that previously unknown should any contaminated groundwater be encountered.
groundwater contamination is encountered during construction. Where site contamination is identified, implement an appropriate remediation strategy that is approved by the City and the state agency with appropriate jurisdiction.

Policy NR 3.4 Storm Drain Sewer System Permit. Require all development to Consistent: The proposed Project would be required to comply with the City's NPDES permit comply with the regulations under the City's municipal separate storm drain requirements, including the submittal and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution system permit under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.

Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and best management practices (BMPs). The proposed Project would use BMPs throughout the site to capture and treat storm water. The Project would result in the conveyance of less water to the storm drain system because the new development would reduce the impervious area at the project site. The reduction of water to the storm drain system and use of best management practices would incrementally improve water quality on the project site.
141 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Table 3.10-1: General Plan Consistency Analysis
Applicable City of Newport Beach General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency
The project site currently drains in two directions: approximately 10 percent of flows are directed toward Spruce Avenue and 90 percent drains toward Bristol Street North. The site is considered relatively flat with one to two percent grade to provide sheet flow within the existing surface parking lot area. The proposed Project would maintain the existing drainage pattern.

Approximately 0.62 acre of the project site would be landscaped and have pervious surfaces.

The Project proposes three drainage management areas to treat runoff, primarily through biotreatment planters. Drainage management areas "A" and "C" would both use modular wetland systems, where captured runoff is treated and eventually discharged to a parkway drain or catch basin along Spruce Avenue or Bristol Street North, respectively. Drainage management area "B" uses a biotreatment planter and treats runoff collected from the building roof and landscaping. Treated flows are discharged into a catch basin on Bristol Street North, which eventually connects to an existing 18-inch storm drainpipe on Bristol Street North. More information regarding drainage and water quality is discussed in Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality.

Policy NR 3.9 Water Quality Management Plan. Require new development Consistent: See consistency analysis for Policy NR 3.4. As discussed in Section 3.9, Hydrology applications to include a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to minimize and Water Quality, a preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) has been runoff from rainfall events during construction and post -construction. prepared which identifies site -design, and source- and treatment -control BMPs.

Implementation of hydraulic and drainage design features would assist in the retention of storm water. Collectively, the BMPs outlined in the WQMP and the required preparation of a SWPPP would address the anticipated and expected pollutants of concern from the operational and construction phases of the proposed Project. Additionally, through the development review process, the City complies with various statutory requirements necessary to achieve regional water quality objectives and protect groundwater and surface waters from pollution by contaminated storm water runoff. Storm water runoff generated from within the project site would be managed in accordance with all applicable federal, State, and local water quality rules and regulations to effectively minimize the Project's impact on water quality.

Policy NR 3.10 Best Management Practices. Implement and improve upon Best Consistent: See consistency analysis for Policies NR 3.4 and NR 3.9 of Goal NR 3.

Management Practices (BMPs) for residences, businesses, development projects, and City operations.

Policy NR 3.11 Site Design and Source Control. Include site design and source Consistent: See consistency analysis for Policies NR 3.4 and NR 3.9 of Goal NR 3 and control BMPs in all developments. When the combination of site design and Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality.
source control BMPs are not sufficient to protect water quality as required by the 142 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Table 3.10-1: General Plan Consistency Analysis
Applicable City of Newport Beach General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), structural treatment BMPs will be implemented along with site design and source control measures.

Policy NR 3.14 Runoff Reduction on Private Property. Retain runoff on private Consistent: See consistency analysis for Policies NR 3.4 and NR 3.9 of Goal NR 3 and property to prevent the transport of pollutants into natural water bodies, to the Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality.
maximum extent practicable.

Policy NR 3.15 Street Drainage Systems. Require all street drainage systems and Consistent: See consistency analysis for Policies NR 3.4 and NR 3.9 of Goal NR 3 and other physical improvements created by the City, or developers of new Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality.
subdivisions, to be designed, constructed, and maintained to minimize adverse impacts on water quality. Investigate the possibility of treating or diverting street drainage to minimize impacts to water bodies.

Policy NR 3.17 Parking Lots and Rights -of -Way. Require that parking lots and Consistent: The Project would be required to comply with all applicable City codes and public and private rights -of -way be maintained and cleaned frequently to remove regulations regarding the maintenance and keeping of public and private rights -of -way, debris and contaminated residue.
including NBMC Sections 6.04.210, Persons Required to Clean Sidewalks, and 10.50.020, Nuisance.

Policy NR 3.19 Natural Drainage Systems. Require incorporation of natural Consistent: See consistency analysis for Policies NR 3.4 and NR 3.9 of Goal NR 3. Additionally, drainage systems and stormwater detention facilities into new developments, the proposed storm drain system would largely maintain the same existing drainage patterns. where appropriate and feasible, to retain stormwater in order to increase As addressed, approximately 0.62 acre of the 2.38-net-acre project site would be landscaped groundwater recharge.
areas and have pervious surfaces. The Project proposes three drainage management areas to treat runoff, primarily through biotreatment planters. More information regarding drainage and water quality is discussed under Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality.

Policy NR 3.20 Impervious Surfaces. Require new development and public Consistent: See consistency analysis for Policy NR 3.19 of Goal NR 3. Under current conditions, improvements to minimize the creation of and increases in impervious surfaces, the project site is 22 percent pervious and 78 percent impervious. With implementation of especially directly connected impervious areas, to the maximum extent the Project, approximately 26 percent would be pervious and 74 percent would have practicable. Require redevelopment to increase area of pervious surfaces, where imperious surfaces.
feasible.

Goal NR 4 — Maintenance of water quality standards through compliance with the total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) standards.

Policy NR 4.4 Erosion Minimization. Require grading/ erosion control plans with Consistent: See consistency analysis for Policies NR 3.4 and 3.9 of Goal NR 3. Collectively, structural BMPs that prevent or minimize erosion during and after construction implementation of the BMPs outlined in the SWPPP and the Project's proposed water quality for development on steep slopes, graded, or disturbed areas. design features would address the anticipated and expected erosion impacts during the construction and operational phases of the Project.

Goal NR 6 — Reduced mobile source emissions.
143 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Table 3.10-1: General Plan Consistency Analysis
Applicable City of Newport Beach General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency
Policy NR 6.1 Walkable Neighborhoods. Provide for walkable neighborhoods to Consistent: See consistency analyses for Policy LU 6.15.5 and Policies CE 5.2.6, CE 5.2.11, and reduce vehicle trips by siting amenities such as services, parks, and schools in CE 7.1.4
close proximity to residential areas.

Policy NR 6.2 Mixed -Use Development. Support mixed -use development Consistent: See consistency analysis for Policy LU 2.2 of Goal LU 2 and Policy LU 6.15.5 of Goal consisting of commercial or office with residential uses in accordance with the

6.15. Land Use Element that increases the opportunity for residents to live in proximity to jobs, services, and entertainment.

Goal NR 7 - Reduced air pollutant emissions from stationary sources.

Policy NR 7.1 — Fuel Efficient Equipment. Support the use of fuel -efficient Consistent: The Project would comply with the energy efficiency requirements of Title 24. heating equipment and other appliances.

Policy NR 7.2 — Source Emission Reduction Best Management Practices.

Consistent: The Project would comply with the energy efficiency requirements of Title 24. As Require the use of Best Management Practices (BMP) to minimize pollution addressed in Section 3.2, Air Quality, the Project would be required to adhere to all applicable and to reduce source emissions.

SCAQMD regulations that help reduce air pollutants from construction -related activities.

Additionally, the Project would be required to comply with the construction -related measures.

Goal NR 8 — Reduced air pollutant emissions from construction activities.

Policy NR 8.1 Management of Construction Activities to Reduce Air Pollution.

Consistent: See consistency analysis for Policy NR 7.2.

Require developers to use and operate construction equipment, use building materials and paints, and control dust created by construction activities to minimize air pollutants.

Goal NR 18 — Protection and preservation of important paleontological and archaeological resources.

Policy NR 18.1 New Development. Require new development to protect and Consistent: See consistency analysis for Policies HR 2.1 through HR 3.4 of Goal HR 2. preserve paleontological and archaeological resources from destruction, and avoid and minimize impacts to such resources in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. Through planning policies and permit conditions, ensure the preservation of significant archeological and paleontological resources and require that the impact caused by any development be mitigated in accordance with CEQA.

Policy NR 18.3 Potential for New Development to Impact Resources. Notify Consistent: See consistency analysis for Policies HR 2.1 through HR 3.4 of Goal HR 2. cultural organizations, including Native American organizations, of proposed developments that have the potential to adversely impact cultural resources. 144 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Table 3.10-1: General Plan Consistency Analysis
Applicable City of Newport Beach General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency
Allow qualified representatives of such groups to monitor grading and/or excavation of development sites.

Policy NR 18.4 Donation of Materials. Require new development, where on -site Consistent: See consistency analysis for Policies HR 2.1 through HR 3.4 of Goal HR 2. preservation and avoidance are not feasible, to donate scientifically valuable paleontological or archaeological materials to a responsible public or private institution with a suitable repository, located within Newport Beach or Orange County, whenever possible.

Policy NR 22.1 - Regulation of Structure Mass. Continue to regulate the visual Consistent. See consistency analysis for Policy LU 6.15.22 of Goal LU 6.15. and physical mass of structures consistent with the unique character and visual scale of Newport Beach.

Goal NR 24 — Increased energy efficiency in City facilities and operations and in private developments Policy NR 24.2 — Energy -Efficient Design Features: Promote energy -efficient Consistent. The Project would comply with all applicable building energy efficiency design features.
standards.

Policy NR 24.3 — Incentives for Green Building Program Implementation.

Consistent: The current building energy efficiency standards are substantially more stringent Promote or provide incentives for "Green Building" programs that go beyond the than were in effect when the General Plan Program EIR was certified. For example, the 2016 requirements of Title 24 of the California Administrative Code and encourage standards for residential buildings are 28 percent more energy -efficient and nonresidential energy -efficient design elements as appropriate to achieve "green building" buildings are 5 percent more energy efficient than under the 2013 Standards and buildings status.
that are constructed in accordance with the 2013 Building Energy Efficiency Standards are 25 percent (residential) more energy efficient than the 2008 Standards as a result of better windows, insulation, lighting, ventilation systems, and other features. The 2019 Standards improved upon the 2016 Standards and the current 2022 Standards are applicable to the proposed Project and require additional mandatory efficiency and design improvements.

Safety Element
Goal S 4—Adverse effects caused by seismic and geologic hazards are minimized by reducing the known level of risk to loss of life, personal injury, public and private property damage, economic and social dislocation, and disruption of essential services.

Policy S4.7 Conduct further seismic studies for new development in areas where Consistent: A geotechnical evaluation was prepared for the proposed Project to identify potentially active faults may occur.
potential geotechnical hazards associated with the project site, including active faults, liquefaction, subsidence, landslide, lateral spreading, collapse, expansive soils, and other ground failure hazards. According to the study, like most of California, the site is in a seismically active area; however, no active faults are known to cross the site. Additionally, the Project would not exacerbate ground shaking on the site. The design and construction of all structures would comply with seismic design parameters in the geotechnical evaluation, including the seismic design requirements under the California Building Code and Chapter 145 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Table 3.10-1: General Plan Consistency Analysis
Applicable City of Newport Beach General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency

15.10 of the NBMC, Excavation and Grading in effect at the time grading and building permits are issued for construction.

Goal S 7 — Exposure of people and the environment to hazardous materials associated with methane gas extraction, oil operations, leaking underground storage tanks, and hazardous waste generators is minimized.

Policy S 7.1 Known Areas of Contamination. Require proponents of projects in Consistent: A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was prepared as a part of the proposed known areas of contamination from oil operations or other uses to perform Project to determine soil and groundwater contamination. There are no known or suspected comprehensive soil and groundwater contamination assessments in accordance recognized environmental conditions (RECs), Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions, with American Society for Testing and Materials standards, and if contamination Controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions or De Minimis Conditions at the project site. exceeds regulatory action levels, require the proponent to undertake The Project is consistent with General Plan Policy S 7.1. remediation procedures prior to grading and development under the supervision of the County Environmental Health Division, County Department of Toxic Substances Control, or Regional Water Quality Control Board (depending upon the nature of any identified contamination).

Policy S 7.5 Siting of Sensitive Uses. Develop and implement strict land use Consistent: Development of the proposed Project would involve demolition of the existing controls, performance standards, and structure design standards including office buildings and associated surface parking and landscaping to accommodate the development setbacks from sensitive uses such as schools, hospitals, day care residential development. The Phase I indicates that no known or suspected RECs were facilities, elder care facilities, residential uses, and other sensitive uses that identified at the project site. Further, no evidence of contamination, distressed vegetation, generate or use hazardous materials.
petroleum hydrocarbon surface staining, waste drums, USTs, ASTs, illegal dumping, or improper waste storage/handling was noted during site reconnaissance. The Project would be required to comply with state and local health and safety requirements, including the City's Fire Code and Fire Department Guidelines dictating requirements related to emergency access, fire protection, building construction, and storage and handling of hazardous materials. Potential safety hazards related to hazardous materials are addressed in Section

3.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Because the Project proposes residential land uses and would not generate or use hazardous materials in such a manner as to present a hazard to sensitive uses, setbacks from such sensitive users are not required.

Noise Element
Goal N 1 Noise Compatibility— Minimized land use conflicts between various noise sources and other human activities.

Policy N 1.1 Noise Compatibilityof New Development. Require that all proposed Consistent: The project site is inside the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour and outside of the 65 dBA projects are compatible with the noise environment through use of Table N2, and CNEL noise contour identified by the City of Newport Beach for John Wayne Airport as set enforce the interior and exterior noise standards shown in Table N3. forth in the 2014 John Wayne Airport Settlement Agreement Amendment EIR No. 617. General Plan Noise Element Table N2 characterizes residential development as "normally compatible" 146 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Table 3.10-1: General Plan Consistency Analysis
Applicable City of Newport Beach General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency
up to 65 dBA. The Addendum noise analysis demonstrates that the Project would comply with the requirements as outlined in the City's Noise Ordinance.

Policy N 1.2 Noise Exposure Verification for New Development. Applicants for Consistent: On -site noise impacts are evaluated in Section 3.12, Noise. The project site is proposed residential or mixed -use projects located in areas projected to be outside of the 65 dBA CNEL John Wayne Airport contour (but within the 60 dBA CNEL). Typical exposed to 65-70 dBA CNEL or greater, as shown on Figure N5 must conduct a building construction reduces noise levels by 26 dBA with the windows closed. Therefore, the noise study to provide evidence that the depicted noise contours do not worst -case exterior interior noise levels would be reduced to 39.5 dBA, which is below the adequately account for local noise exposure circumstances due to such factors City's 45 dBA daytime interior noise standard and the 40 dBA nighttime interior noise as, topography, variation in traffic speeds, and other applicable conditions. These standard. Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations states that "If the interior noise level findings shall be used to determine the level of exterior or interior, noise depends upon windows being closed, the design for the structure must also specify a attenuation needed to attain an acceptable noise exposure level and the ventilation or air-conditioning system to provide a habitable interior environment." Because feasibility of such mitigation when other planning considerations are taken into the Project proposes operable windows, air conditioning would be provided in each residential account consistent with Title 21 of the California Code of Regulations. unit. Therefore, additional noise attenuation beyond what is required for standard building code requirements would not be required.

Policy N 1.4 New Development in Urban Areas. Require that applicants of Consistent: The Project would comply with all applicable building code requirements. residential portions of mixed -use projects and high -density residential developments in urban areas (such as the Airport Area and Newport Center) demonstrate that the design of the structure will adequately isolate noise between adjacent uses and units (common floor/ceilings) in accordance with the California Building Code.

Policy N 1.5A Airport Area Infill Projects. Allow infill residential projects Consistent: The project site is wholly outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour identified by proximate to John Wayne Airport to have a higher exterior noise level standard the City of Newport Beach for John Wayne Airport as set forth in the 2014 John Wayne Airport (65-70 dBA CNEL) if it can be shown that there are no practical mechanisms or Settlement Agreement Amendment EIR No. 617. The Addendum noise analysis demonstrates designs to meet the exterior noise levels. The interior standard of 45 dBA CNEL that the Project would comply with the requirements as outlined in the City's Noise Ordinance shall be enforced for any residential component of projects. No residential units and building code requirements.
may be located on parcels wholly within the John Wayne Airport 65 dBA CNEL noise contour area as shown in Figure N5, of the Noise Element of the General Plan, unless and until the City determines, based on substantial evidence, that the sites wholly within such contour area are needed for the City to satisfy its Sixth Cycle RHNA mandate. Nonresidential uses are encouraged on parcels located wholly within the 65 dBA CNEL contour area, shown in Figure N5. 147 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Table 3.10-1: General Plan Consistency Analysis
Applicable City of Newport Beach General Plan Goals and Policies Policy N 1.8 Significant Noise Impacts. Require the employment of noise mitigation measures for existing sensitive uses when a significant noise impact is identified. A significant noise impact occurs when there is an increase in the ambient CNEL produced by new development impacting existing sensitive uses.

The CNEL increase is shown in the table below.

CNEL dBA
dBA increase
55 3
60 2
65 1
75 1
Over 75
Any increase is considered significant
Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Project Consistency
Consistent: Addendum Section 3.12, Noise, discusses these potential long-term noise impacts of the proposed Project. The Project would not generate transportation, or stationary long- term noise sources that would exceed the stated requirements under this policy. With respect to construction noise, refer to Policy N 4.6, Maintenance or Construction Activities. The General Plan Program EIR finds that with compliance with applicable City requirements, construction noise is a less than significant impact.

Goal N 2 — Minimized motor vehicle traffic and boat noise impacts on sensitive noise receptors.

Policy N 2.1 New Development. Require that proposed noise -sensitive uses in Consistent: The project site is inside the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour and outside of the 65 dBA areas of 60 dBA and greater, as determined the analyses stipulated by Policy CNEL noise contour identified by the City of Newport Beach for John Wayne Airport as set N1.1, demonstrate that they meet interior and exterior noise levels. forth in the 2014 John Wayne Airport Settlement Agreement Amendment EIR No. 617. General Plan Noise Element Table N2 characterizes residential development as "normally compatible" up to 65 dBA. The Project would comply with the requirements as outlined in the City's Noise Ordinance and building code requirements.

Policy N 2.2 Design of Sensitive Land uses. Require the use of walls, berms, Consistent: Based on standard attenuation rates, interior noise levels would not exceed interior noise insulation, double -paned windows, advanced insulation systems, noise levels set forth in General Plan Policy N2.2. or other noise mitigation measures, as appropriate, in the design of new residential developments to attenuate noise levels to not exceed 45 dBA CNEL interior. Other new noise -sensitive land uses that are adjacent to major arterials and located proximate to John Wayne Airport (e.g., infill residential) and within the 65-70 dBA CNEL noise contour area are required to be indoor -oriented to reduce noise impacts on outdoor living or recreational areas. Application of the Noise Standards in Table N2 shall govern this requirement.

Goal N 3 — Protection of Newport Beach residents from the adverse noise impacts of commercial air carrier operations at John Wayne Airport as provided in the City Council Airport Policy.

Policy N3.1 New Development. Ensure new development is compatible with the Consistent: The project site is wholly outside the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour. noise environment proximate to John Wayne Airport by not allowing residential units on parcels located wholly within the John Wayne Airport 65 dBA CNEL noise contour, as shown in Figure N5 of the Noise Element of the General Plan, unless 148 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Table 3.10-1: General Plan Consistency Analysis
Applicable City of Newport Beach General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency
and until the City determines, based on substantial evidence, that the sites wholly within such contour area are needed for the City to satisfy its Sixth Cycle RHNA mandate.

Policy N 3.2 Residential Development. Require that residential development Consistent: The project site is wholly outside the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour. The Applicant proximate to John Wayne Airport shall not be located on parcels wholly within would be required to notify prospective tenants of aircraft noise and require signage notifying the John Wayne Airport 65 dBA CNEL noise contour shown in Figure N5 of the users regarding the proximity to John Wayne Airport and operating aircraft noise. Thus, the Noise Element of the General Plan, unless and until the City determines, based proposed Project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive on substantial evidence, that the sites wholly within such contour area are noise levels, and impacts would be less than significant. needed for the City to satisfy its Sixth Cycle RHNA mandate. Require developers of residential or mixed -use land uses with a residential component to notify prospective purchasers or tenants of aircraft noise. Additionally, require outdoor common areas or recreational areas of residential or mixed -used developments to be posted with signs notifying users regarding the proximity to John Wayne Airport and the presence of operating aircraft and noise.

Goal N 4: Minimization of Non -Transportation -Related Noise — Minimized non -transportation -related noise impacts on sensitive noise receptors.

Policy N 4.1 Stationary Noise Sources. Enforce interior and exterior noise Consistent: As discussed in Section 3.12, Noise, potential stationary -related noise impacts standards outlined in Table N3, and in the City's Municipal Code to ensure that associated with residential uses include the operation of air conditioning units and outdoor sensitive noise receptors are not exposed to excessive noise levels from activities. Mechanical equipment (e.g., HVAC equipment) typically generates noise levels of stationary noise sources, such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning approximately 50 to 60 dBA at 50 feet. SC N-2 requires that HVAC units be designed and equipment.
installed in accordance with the Newport Beach Noise Ordinance. Outdoor activities may occur intermittently, and if future residents and their guests engage in activities that exceed the limits set forth in NBMC Chapters 10.26 and 10.28, the City can take actions to abate that activity.

With application of SC N-2, proposed residential uses would not significantly impact existing and planned noise -sensitive uses including office uses in the area, or proposed on -site noise - sensitive uses. Operation of mechanical equipment would not be anticipated to increase ambient noise levels beyond the acceptable compatible land use noise levels.

Policy N 4.6 Maintenance or Construction Activities. Enforce the Noise Consistent: As discussed in Section 3.12, Noise, the City understands that control of Ordinance noise limits and limits on hours of maintenance or construction construction noise is difficult and therefore provides an exemption for this type of noise as activity in or adjacent to residential areas, including noise that results from in- identified in NBMC Section 10.28.040, Construction Activity — Noise Regulations. Section home hobby or work -related activities.

10.28.040 identifies that construction is permitted on weekdays between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:30 PM and Saturdays between the hours of 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM, in any area of the City that is not designated as a high -density area. Construction is not permitted on 149 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Table 3.10-1: General Plan Consistency Analysis
Applicable City of Newport Beach General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency
Sundays or any federal holiday. All construction activities proposed within the project site would be required to adhere to these standards. Additionally, any project -related maintenance would be required to adhere to the standard or permitted exemptions and exceptions as stated in NBMC Section 10.28.045.

Goal N 5 — Minimized excessive construction -related noise.

Policy N 5.1 Limiting Hours of Activity. Enforce the limits on hours of Consistent: See response above to Policy N 4.6 of Goal N 4. construction activity.
150 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Mitigation Program
General Plan Policies
General Plan policies related to land use have been identified in Table 3.10-1.

Standard Conditions and Requirements
No conditions of approval or mitigation measures are required.

Conclusion
Accordingly, no new impacts relative to land use and planning or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would occur. With regard to PRC Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not warranted. 151 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

3.11 Mineral Resources
Threshold (a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? General Plan Significance Determination: No Impact. The majority of the City is located with Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ)-1 and MRZ-3. MRZ-1 is defined as an area where available geologic information indicates there is little or no likelihood for presence of significant mineral resources and MRZ-3 is defined as an area containing known mineral occurrences of undetermined mineral significance. According to the California Geologic Survey, the City does not have any land classified as MRZ-2 which is an area underlain by significant mineral deposits or with a high likely hood of such. Therefore, the General Plan Program EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan would not impact mineral resources that would be of value to the region and the residents of California.

Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No Impact; no substantial change from previous analysis.

The project site is located with MRZ-3 and does not contain mineral resources of significant value.27 The proposed Project would not have the potential impact any resources within MRZ-2, which is consistent with the General Plan Program EIR. The Project would not affect active oil wells located in the northwestern area of the City. No impact with regards to mineral resources of value to the region and the residents of California would occur. Therefore, no new impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would occur.

Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of no impact.

Threshold (b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
General Plan Significance Determination: No Impact. The General Plan Program EIR states that there are no regional, State, or locally important mineral resource recovery sites in the City. Consequently, implementation of the General Plan would not substantially alter the projected production or consumption of mineral resources. No impact would occur.

Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No Impact; no substantial change from previous analysis.

The proposed Project would construct a residential development within an urbanized area of the City. The proposed Project would not remove any locally or regionally important mineral resources from production or preclude access to important mineral resources. No impact to locally -important mineral resource recovery sites would occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of no impact.
21 City of Newport Beach, General Plan Program EIR Figure 4.5-4— Mineral Resource Zones 152 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Cumulative Impacts
As discussed above, the proposed Project would not cause a new mineral impact to occur, nor an increase in the severity of a mineral impact previously disclosed in the General Plan Program EIR. Implementation of the proposed Project would not alter the conclusions of the General Plan Program EIR analysis and would not result in a new or substantially more severe project -specific or cumulative mineral resources impact than those already analyzed.

Mitigation Program
General Plan Policies
General Plan policies related to mineral resources identified in the General Plan Program EIR to mitigate potential impacts to minerals resources are not applicable to the Project.

Standard Conditions and Requirements
No conditions of approval or mitigation measures are required.

Conclusion
Accordingly, no new impacts relative to mineral resources or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would occur. With regard to PRC Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not warranted. 153 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

3.12 Noise
Threshold (a) Would the project generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? General Plan Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact; Significant and Unavoidable. The General Plan Program EIR identified that future development as set forth in the General Plan would not be exposed to excessive noise from the John Wayne Airport once new General Plan Update policies were implemented. Receptors that would fall under the airport's 60 dB or 65 dB CNEL noise contours would be required to be consistent with the General Plan. Policies N.3.1 and N.3.2 of the General Plan would ensure that new uses are compatible and achieve appropriate interior noise levels of 45 dB CNEL or less. Policy N 3.4 would ensure that future changes associated with the airport would be minimized and would not result in adverse effects to receptors. The impact was found to be less than significant.

With respect to temporary construction noise, the General Plan Program EIR found that construction noise is not subject to the noise standards in the NBMC when activities occur during limited hours of the day and days of the week. Existing and future construction noise levels at individual construction sites may not substantially differ but previously unexposed areas could experience new sources of construction noise. Both existing and future noise would be exempt from the City code and when construction noise occurs, impacts would be considered less than significant.

Construction activities would produce groundborne vibration as well as noise. Construction would occur within 100 feet of existing residential development, which would expose the residences to vibration levels in excess of the 72 VdB threshold of significance. The General Plan Program EIR noted that mitigation was not available to ensure that the threshold would not be exceeded in all cases, and there are no General Plan policies that would mitigate the vibration impact. The potential for this impact to occur was identified as significant and unavoidable.

The General Plan Program EIR identified that regional growth would create noise that would affect new and existing receptors. Most of this noise would be produced by increased traffic on local roads. Many of the General Plan policies would reduce the impact. However, existing receptors would still be exposed to new noise levels in excess of standards, and this impact, even with the proposed General Plan policies, was found to be significant and unavoidable. The areas with the greatest potential for exceeding noise standards are roadway segments where the 65 dBA CNEL noise contours extend beyond the roadway right-of-way. The exposure of existing land uses to noise levels in excess of City standards as a result of the future growth under the General Plan is considered a significant impact.

Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact.

Traffic Noise
Policy N 1.8 of the General Plan Noise Element requires the implementation of noise mitigation measures for existing sensitive uses when a significant noise impact is identified for new development impacting existing sensitive uses, as presented in Table 3.12-1: Incremental Noise Impact Criteria for Noise - Sensitive Uses.
154 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Table 3.12-1: Incremental Noise Impact Criteria for Noise -Sensitive Uses (dBA CNEL) Existing Noise Exposure
Allowable Noise Exposure Increment
55 3
60 2
65 1
70 1
75 0
Source: City of Newport Beach General Plan, 2006.

Project -generated traffic noise was modeled as identified in Table 3.12-2, Existing and Project Traffic Noise, Table 3.12-3, Opening Year and Project Traffic Noise, and Table 3.12-4, General Plan Buildout and Project Traffic Noise. The proposed Project would generate a minimal increase in vehicle trips, resulting in a minimal increase in traffic -generated noise levels. Therefore, buildout of the proposed Project is not anticipated to result in a substantial increase in traffic noise compared to what was previously analyzed in the General Plan Program EIR.

Table 3.12-2: Existing and Project Traffic Noise
Roadway Segment
Existing
Existing Plus Project
Project
Change from
Existing
Conditions
Significant
Impact?
ADT
dBA CNEL a
ADT
dBA CNEL a
Irvine Avenue
South of Mesa Dr
24,500

65.9 24,500

65.9 0.0
No
South of Bristol St South
21,300

66.1 21,300

66.1 0.0
No
Campus Drive
North of Bristol St North
21,000

65.3 21,000

65.3 0.0
No
East of Von Karman Ave
8,900

61.2 8,900

61.2 0.0
No
MacArthur Boulevard
South of Birch St
13,800

65.4 13,900

65.4 0.0
No
Jamboree Road
North of Eastbluff/University Dr
50,700

71.2 50,700

71.2 0.0
No
North of Bison Ave
43,500

70.6 43,500

70.6 0.0
No
University Drive
East of Jamboree Rd
13,700

64.2 13,700

64.2 0.0
No
Birch Street
South of Orchard
6,500

59.9 6,500

59.9 0.0
No
Bristol Street
East of Birch St
20,200

64.7 20,500

64.7 0.0
No
ADT = average daily trips; dBA = A -weighted decibels; CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level a. Traffic noise levels are at 100 feet from the roadway centerline. The actual sound level at any receptor location is dependent upon such factors as the source -to -receptor distance and the presence of intervening structures, barriers, and topography.

Source: Based on traffic data provided by Ganddini Group., June 2023. Refer to Appendix E for traffic noise modeling assumptions and results. 155 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
On -Site Traffic Noise
Future residents at the project site would be exposed to mobile traffic noise along SR-73 and Bristol Street.

Table 3.12-3 shows that the loudest traffic noise levels adjacent to the project site would be 64.8 dBA.

General Plan Policy N 1.2 requires residential and mixed -use developments that are located in areas projected to be exposed to a CNEL of 65-70 dBA or greater to conduct a noise study. These findings must be used to determine the level of exterior or interior noise attenuation needed to attain an acceptable noise exposure level and the feasibility of such mitigation consistent with Title 21 of the California Code of Regulations.

Table 3.12-3: Opening Year and Project Traffic Noise
Roadway Segment
Opening Year
Opening Year
Plus Project
Project
Change from
Existing
Conditions
Significant
Impact?
ADT
dBA CNEL a
ADT
dBA CNEL a
Irvine Avenue
South of Mesa Dr
26,000

66.1 26,000

67.1 0.0
No
South of Bristol St South
22,700

66.4 22,700

67.2 0.0
No
Campus Drive
North of Bristol St North
21,200

65.3 21,200

66.7 0.0
No
East of Von Karman Ave
9,000

61.2 9,000

62.0 0.0
No
MacArthur Boulevard
South of Birch St
15,100

65.8 15,200

67.0 0.0
No
Jamboree Road
North of Eastbluff/University Dr
55,000

71.5 55,000

71.5 0.0
No
North of Bison Ave
47,500

71.0 47,500

71.5 0.0
No
University Drive
East of Jamboree Rd
13,800

64.3 13,800

64.3 0.0
No
Birch Street
South of Orchard
6,600

59.9 6,600

61.2 0.0
No
Bristol Street North
East of Birch St
20,600

64.7 20,900

64.8 0.1
No
ADT = average daily trips; dBA = A -weighted decibels; CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level a. Traffic noise levels are at 100 feet from the roadway centerline. The actual sound level at any receptor location is dependent upon such factors as the source -to -receptor distance and the presence of intervening structures, barriers, and topography.

Source: Based on traffic data provided by Ganddini Group., June 2023. Refer to Appendix E for traffic noise modeling assumptions and results.

General Plan Policy N 2.1 requires that proposed noise -sensitive uses in areas of 60 dBA and greater, as determined the analyses stipulated by Policy N 1.1, demonstrate that they meet interior and exterior noise levels. General Plan Policy N 1.1 requires all projects to be compatible with the noise environment through use of Noise Element Table N2 and enforce the interior and exterior noise standards shown in Noise Element Table N3. Noise Element Table N2 identifies a "Clearly Compatible" exterior noise standard of 65 dBA for residences in mixed use areas. Land uses that are clearly compatible are satisfactory for buildings of normal conventional construction without any special noise insulation requirements. The project site is currently zoned Planned Community ("PC") 11 as Industrial Site 3A and designated as 156 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
General Commercial -Office (CO-G) under the City's General Plan land use category. However, the project proposes a PC Amendment to include the Property in the PC-11 Residential Overlay, and a General Plan Amendment to redesignate the property as Mixed Use Horizontal 2 ("MU-H2"). Thus, the project proposes to be in a Mixed -Use District.

Noise Element Table N3 identifies a daytime interior noise standard of 45 dBA and a nighttime interior noise standard of 40 dBA. Typical building construction reduces noise levels by a minimum of 26 dBA with the windows closed.28 Therefore, the worst -case exterior interior noise levels would be reduced to 39.5 dBA, which is below the City's 45 dBA daytime interior noise standard and the 40 dBA nighttime interior noise standard. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Table 3.12-4: General Plan Buildout and Project Traffic Noise Roadway Segment
General Plan Buildout
(No Project)
General Plan Buildout
(With Project)
Project
Change
from
Existing
Conditions
Significant
Impact?
ADT
dBA CNEL a
ADT
dBA CNEL a
Irvine Avenue
South of Mesa Dr
48,700

68.9 48,700

68.9 0.0
No
South of Bristol St South
48,700

69.7 48,700

69.7 0.0
No
Campus Drive
North of Bristol St North
49,600

69.0 49,600

69.0 0.0
No
East of Von Karman Ave
27,500

66.1 27,500

66.1 0.0
No
MacArthur Boulevard
South of Birch St
27,700

68.4 27,700

68.4 0.0
No
Jamboree Road
North of Eastbluff/University Dr
48,500

71.0 48,600

71.0 0.0
No
North of Bison Ave
46,200

70.9 46,300

70.9 0.0
No
University Drive
East of Jamboree Rd
13,200

64.1 13,200

64.1 0.0
No
Birch Street
South of Orchard
16,800

64.0 16,800

64.0 0.0
No
Bristol Street
East of Birch St
24,200

65.4 24,500

65.5 0.1
No
ADT = average daily trips; dBA = A -weighted decibels; CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level a. Traffic noise levels are at 100 feet from the roadway centerline. The actual sound level at any receptor location is dependent upon such factors as the source -to -receptor distance and the presence of intervening structures, barriers, and topography.

Source: Based on traffic data provided by Ganddini Group., June 2023. Refer to Appendix E for traffic noise modeling assumptions and results.

On -Site Airport Noise
Future residents at the project site would be within the 60 dBA CNEL airport noise contour. General Plan Policy N 1.5A allows infill residential projects proximate to John Wayne Airport to have a higher exterior 28 Barbara Locher, et al., Differences between Outdoor and Indoor Sound Levels for Open, Tilted, and Closed Windows, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, January 2018. The exterior -to -interior sound reduction from standard construction practices ranges from 26 to 31 dBA. Note that this analysis conservatively uses the minimum attenuation rate of 26 dBA. 157 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
noise level standard (65-70 dBA CNEL) if it can be shown that there are no practical mechanisms or designs to meet the exterior noise levels. The interior standard of 45 dBA CNEL shall be enforced for any residential component of projects. No residential units may be located on parcels wholly within the John Wayne Airport 65 dBA CNEL noise contour area as shown in Figure N5, of the Noise Element of the General Plan, unless and until the City determines, based on substantial evidence, that the sites wholly within such contour area are needed for the City to satisfy its 6th Cycle RHNA mandate. Nonresidential uses are encouraged on parcels located wholly within the 65 dBA CNEL contour area. The project site is outside of the 65 dBA CNEL JWA contour. Therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent with General Plan Policy N 1.5A, and impacts would be less than significant.

Stationary Noise
The project site is currently zoned Planned Community ("PC")-11 as Industrial Site 3A and designated as General Commercial -Office (CO-G) under the City's General Plan land use category. However, the Project proposes a PC Amendment to include the site in the PC-11 Residential Overlay, and a General Plan Amendment to redesignate the property as Mixed Use Horizontal 2 ("MU-H2"). The proposed Project would result in stationary noise that is typical of residential neighborhoods/uses, including dogs barking, music playing, people talking, etc. The site is currently developed with two office buildings with surface parking. Stationary noise sources associated with these uses include rooftop mechanical equipment such as HVAC equipment and parking lot. The proposed Project would not introduce new types of noise sources that were not already anticipated under the existing land use designation. In general, stationary noise sources associated with the proposed residential uses are similar to or less than the office uses (e.g., HVAC equipment and group conversations). Future development would be subject to the City's exterior noise standards in the NBMC, as set forth in SC N-1. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Construction Noise
Certain land uses are particularly sensitive to noise and vibration. These uses include residential, schools, libraries, churches, nursing homes, hospitals, hotels, and open space/recreation areas where quiet environments are necessary for enjoyment, public health, and safety. Commercial and industrial uses are generally not considered noise and vibration sensitive unless noise and vibration would interfere with normal operations and business activities. The nearest sensitive receptor to the project site is an approved, but not yet constructed, multi -unit residential development29 located approximately 300 feet southeast of the project site (1300 Bristol Street). The closest structure to the project site boundary is an office building located approximately 250 feet to the northeast.

Project construction is anticipated to commence in Summer 2024 and conclude in Spring 2026.30 Construction activities would include demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. Such activities may require dozers, concrete/ industrial saws, and tractors,, graders and tractors during site preparation; graders, dozers, tractors during grading; cranes, forklifts, generators, tractors, and welders during building construction; cement and mortar mixers, pavers, rollers, tractors, and paving equipment during paving; and air compressors during architectural coating. 29 The approved 1300 Bristol Street project has the potential to be occupied during of the construction of the proposed Project. This analysis conservatively assumes that 1300 Bristol Street project would be occupied during the construction of the proposed Project. so At the time of preparation of the environmental analysis, the construction schedule was assumed to commence in Winter 2023. The Project is planned to begin construction in Summer 2024.
158 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
As a conservative estimate, short-term construction noise (i.e., the construction activity with highest number of equipment used during each sub -phase) was modeled using the FHWA's Roadway Construction Noise Model (FHWA-HEP-05-054) (January 2006). The noise levels calculated in Table 3.12-5, Project Construction Noise Levels, show estimated exterior construction noise at the closest receptors.

Table 3.12-5: Project Construction Noise Levels
Construction
Phase
Receptor Location
Worst Case
Modeled Exterior
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
Noise
Threshold
(dBA Le&
Exceeded?
Land Use
Direction
Distance
(feet)'
Residential
Southeast
300

71.8 80
No
Demolition
Commercial
Northeast
250

73.4 85
No
Residential
Southeast
300

69.5 80
No
Site Preparation
Commercial
Northeast
250

71.1 85
No
Residential
Southeast
300

70.3 80
No
Grading
Commercial
Northeast
250

71.9 85
No
Building
Residential
Southeast
300

71.6 80
No
Construction
Commercial
Northeast
250

73.2 85
No
Residential
Southeast
300

70.2 80
No
Paving
Commercial
Northeast
250

71.8 85
No
Architectural
Residential
Southeast
300

58.2 80
No
Coating
Commercial
Northeast
250

59.7 85
No
Overlapping Phases
Demolition and
Residential
Southeast
300

73.8 80
No
Site Prep
Commercial
Northeast
250

74.5 85
No
Paving and
Residential
Southeast
300

70.2 80
No
Architectural
Coating
Commercial
Northeast
250

75.6 85
No
Building
Residential
Southeast
300

71.6 80
No
Construction and
Architectural
Coating
Commercial
Northeast
250

75.6 85
No
a. Equipment would move throughout the project site and would not be located along the property line during the entirety of construction activities. Per FTA Guidance (Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, 2018) the equipment distance is an average distance that equipment would be located from sensitive receptors. b. Threshold from the Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, 2018.

Source: Federal Highway Administration, Roadway Construction Noise Model, 2006. Refer to Appendix E for noise modeling results.

The proposed Project is also anticipated to require off -site sewer improvements on Dove Street between Newport Place Manhole MHM28-003 and Manhole MHM28-041, which is located approximately 435 feet south of Newport Place. The off -site improvements would result in approximately 435 linear feet of sewer line replacement. Construction equipment used for the off -site improvements would likely involve the use of a trencher and excavator, which have a typical noise level of 80 dBA at 50 feet and 81 dBA at 50 feet, respectively. The nearest sensitive receptors to the off -site improvements include commercial/office uses approximately 55 feet east of the off -site improvement boundary. At this distance, the anticipated construction noise level for the off -site improvements would be 79.3 dBA which is below the FTA 159 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
construction noise threshold of 85 dBA for commercial uses. Additionally, construction noise would be temporary in nature and cease upon completion of this infrastructure improvement.

The City does not have quantitative standards for construction noise levels. Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 10.28.040(A) states that "No person shall, while engaged in construction, remodeling, digging, grading, demolition, painting, plastering or any other related building activity, operate any tool, equipment or machine in a manner which produces loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb, a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, unless authorized to do so in accordance with subsection (B) of this section."
As applicable to the proposed Project, NBMC Section 10.28.040(B) states that the provisions of Section 10.28.040(a) do not apply to those activities between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:30 PM on any weekday that is not a federal holiday, and between the hours of 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM on Saturdays. The permitted hours of construction are in recognition that construction activities undertaken during daytime hours are a typical part of living in an urban environment and do not cause a significant impact. However, this analysis conservatively uses the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) threshold of 80 dBA (8-hour Leq) for residential uses and 85 dBA (8-hour Leq) for commercial uses to evaluate construction noise impacts.at Actual construction -related noise activities are expected to be lower than the conservative levels described above and would cease upon completion of construction. Due to the variability of construction activities and equipment for the Project, overall construction noise levels would be intermittent and would fluctuate over time. These assumptions represent the worst -case noise scenario because construction activities would typically be spread out throughout the project site, and thus some equipment would be farther away from the affected receptors. In addition, the noise modeling assumes that construction noise is constant, when, in fact, construction activities and associated noise levels would fluctuate and generally be brief and sporadic, depending on the type, intensity, and location of construction activities. It is also noted that Project construction equipment would be equipped with functioning mufflers as mandated by the state, and construction would occur throughout the project site and would not be concentrated or confined in the areas closest to sensitive receptors.

Potential construction noise related to this use would be similar to noise as addressed in the General Plan Program EIR and would not represent a new impact. Construction noise would be temporary in nature and cease upon Project completion.

Construction noise would be subject to General Plan Policy N 4.6, which would require enforcement of the Noise Ordinance limits and hours in the NBMC. Since the Project's construction noise levels would not substantially differ from the assumptions of the General Plan Program EIR, construction noise impacts with implementation of the proposed Project would be less than significant. The proposed Project would not result in any new adverse impacts or increase the severity of any previously identified noise impacts.

No new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified that would impact the prior finding under this threshold. 31 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, Table 7-2, Page 179, September 2018. 160 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Threshold (b) Would the project generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
General Plan Significance Determination: Significant and Unavoidable. The General Plan Program EIR concluded that vibrations associated with construction activities would impact existing buildings and their occupants if they are located close enough to the construction sites. Vibration levels would be problematic if sensitive uses were located within about 100 feet of potential project construction sites, where sensitive receptors (e.g., residents, school children) would experience vibration levels that exceed the FTA's vibration impact threshold of 72 VdB. The only mitigation that could eliminate the vibration impact is to distance construction and existing sensitive receptors by approximately 150 feet. The General Plan Program EIR noted that there are no mitigation measures available that would ensure that the threshold would not be exceeded in all cases and no General Plan policies that would mitigate the vibration impact.

Under these circumstances, impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact; change from previous analysis.

Increases in groundborne vibration levels attributable to the proposed Project would be primarily associated with construction -related activities. Construction on the project site would have the potential to result in varying degrees of temporary groundborne vibration, depending on the specific construction equipment used and the operations involved. Ground vibration generated by construction equipment spreads through the ground and diminishes in magnitude with increases in distance. The effect on buildings located in the vicinity of the construction site often varies depending on soil type, ground strata, and construction characteristics of the receiver building(s). The results from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibration at moderate levels, to slight damage at the highest levels. Groundborne vibrations from construction activities rarely reach levels that damage structures.

Construction -related ground vibration is normally associated with impact equipment such as pile drivers, jackhammers, and the operation of some heavy-duty construction equipment, such as dozers and trucks.

Vibration decreases rapidly with distance.

The FTA has published standard vibration velocities for construction equipment operations. In general, depending on the building category of the nearest buildings adjacent to the potential pile driving area, the potential construction vibration damage criteria vary. For example, for a building that is constructed with reinforced concrete with no plaster, the FTA guidelines show that a vibration level of up to 0.50 inch per second (in/sec) peak particle velocity (PPV) is considered safe and would not result in any construction vibration damage. The FTA architectural damage criterion for continuous vibrations for non -engineered timber and masonry buildings (i.e., 0.20 inch/second) appears to be conservative. The types of construction vibration impact include human annoyance and building damage. Human annoyance occurs when construction vibration rises significantly above the threshold of human perception for extended periods of time. Building damage can be cosmetic or structural. Ordinary buildings that are not particularly fragile would not experience any cosmetic damage (e.g., plaster cracks) at distances beyond 30 feet. This distance can vary substantially depending on the soil composition and underground geological layer between vibration source and receiver. In addition, not all buildings respond similarly to vibration generated by construction equipment. The City of Newport Beach does not provide numerical vibration standards for construction activities. Therefore, this impact discussion uses FTA standard of 161 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

0.20 inch/second PPV with respect to the prevention of structural damage for normal buildings and human annoyance.

Table 3.12-6, Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels, identifies vibration levels feet for typical construction equipment. The nearest structure to any of the construction activities is a multi -family apartment building located approximately 120 feet to the southeast, which is more than the 100-foot buffer identified in the General Plan Program EIR. Based on FTA data, vibration velocities from typical heavy construction equipment operations that would be used during project construction would range from 0.003 to 0.089 inch/second PPV at 25 feet and 0.0003 to 0.0085 inch/second PPV at nearest structure which is located 120 feet southeast of the project site boundary. It is also acknowledged that construction activities would occur throughout the project site and would not be concentrated at the point closest to the nearest structure. Vibration from construction activities experienced at the nearest building would be below the 0.20 inch/second PPV significance threshold. As noted above, the

0.20 inch/second PPV threshold is conservative because the construction vibration damage criteria are for non -engineered timber and masonry buildings. Buildings would be better represented by the

0.50 inch/second PPV significance threshold (construction vibration damage criteria for a reinforced concrete, steel or timber buildings). Once operational, the project would not be a source of groundborne vibration. Because construction equipment vibration levels would be below the significance thresholds, impacts would be less than significant. The proposed Project would not result in any new adverse impacts or increase the severity of any previously identified impacts related to vibration. No new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified that would impact the prior finding under this threshold.

Table 3.12-6: Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels Equipment Type
Peak Particle Velocity at 25 Feet
(inches per second)
Peak Particle Velocity at 120
Feet (inches per second )a
Large Bulldozer

0.089

0.0085
Caisson Drilling

0.089

0.0085
Loaded Trucks

0.076

0.0072
Jackhammer

0.035

0.0033
Small Bulldozer/Tractor

0.003

0.0003
a. Calculated using the following formula: PPV equip = PPVr& x (25/D)11, where: PPV (equip) = the peak particle velocity in inch per second of the equipment adjusted for the distance; PPVrd = the reference vibration level in inch per second from Table 7-4 of the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (2018); D = the distance from the equipment to the receiver.

Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, 2018.

Threshold (c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
General Plan Significance Determination: Less Than Significant. The General Plan Program EIR concluded that residential development that occurs outside the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour for John Wayne Airport would not exceed allowable exterior noise levels for a residential area. Impacts would be less than significant.
162 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact; no substantial change from previous analysis.

The Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) of Orange County adopted the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP), amended April 17, 2008, that included John Wayne Airport. The AELUP is a land use compatibility plan that is intended, in part, to protect the public from adverse effects of aircraft noise. The proposed Project is within the "airport influence area" defined by the AELUP32. John Wayne Airport is approximately

0.60-mile northwest of the project site.

On November 14, 2023, Newport Beach City Council Resolution No. 2023-72 was approved to amend the aircraft noise contours which were originally derived from the 1985 Master Plan for John Wayne Airport and the accompanying EIR. The amended CNEL noise contours were updated using contemporary noise modeling programs (INM Version 7.0d) which were released in 2013 and used to reflect the noise contours identified by the 2014 John Wayne Airport Settlement Agreement Amendment EIR No. 617.33 The CNEL noise contours have reduced in size compared to the 1985 AELUP Master Plan CNEL noise contours.

Additionally, General Plan Policy N1.4 and SC N-3 require residential developments within the Airport Area demonstrate that the design of the structure will adequately isolate noise between adjacent uses and units (common floor/ceilings) in accordance with the California Building Code and that interior noise levels would achieve 45 dBA CNEL or less. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. The proposed Project would not result in any new adverse impacts or increase the severity of any previously identified impacts related to aircraft noise. No new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified that would impact the prior finding under this threshold.

The amended General Plan Noise Element shows the project site is inside the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour and outside of the 65 CNEL noise contour for John Wayne Airport (JWA).34 The new General Plan Policy N 1.5A allows infill residential projects proximate to John Wayne Airport to have a higher exterior noise level standard (65- 70 dBA CNEL) if it can be shown that there are no practical mechanisms or designs to meet the exterior noise levels. The interior standard of 45 dBA CNEL shall be enforced for any residential component of projects. No residential units may be located on parcels wholly within the John Wayne Airport 65 dBA CNEL noise contour area as shown in Figure N5, of the Noise Element of the General Plan, unless and until the City determines, based on substantial evidence, that the sites wholly within such contour area are needed for the City to satisfy its Sixth Cycle RHNA mandate. The proposed Project would be consistent with General Plan Policy N 1.5A.

The proposed Project would be consistent with General Plan Policy N 2.2 which requires the use of walls, berms, interior noise insulation, double -paned windows, advanced insulation systems, or other noise measures, as appropriate, in the design of new residential developments to attenuate noise levels to not exceed 45 dBA CNEL interior. Based on standard attenuation rates, interior noise levels would not exceed General Plan Policy N 2.2. The projects would also be consistent with General Plan Policy N 3.1 which 32 Airport Land Use Commission, Airport Environs, Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport. Available at https://files.ocair.com/media/2021- 02/JWA AELUP-April-17-2008.pdf?Versionld=cBObyJidad9OuY5im7Oai5aWaT1FS.vD. Accessed August 22, 2023. 33 John Wayne Airport, Orange County, John Wayne Airport (JWA) Settlement Agreement Amendment, Certified Environmental Impact Report.

Available at: files.ocair.com/media/2023-06/Settlement Agreement Amendment, CEQA Certified Environmental Impact Report 617 and MMRP.pdf?Versionld=TRHREEItP4NXQRN1QD17byu4hGklCDyc, Accessed August 22, 2023. 34 City of Newport Beach, General Plan Noise Element Figure N5, available at:
https://www.newportbeachca.gov/PLN/General_Plan/Figures/FigN5_FutNoisel_17xllcolor_web.pdf , accessed August 22, 2023. 163 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
would ensure new development is compatible with the noise environment proximate to JWA by not allowing residential units on located wholly within the John Wayne Airport 65 dBA CNEL noise contour, unless and until the City determines that the sites wholly within such contour area are needed for the City to satisfy its Sixth Cycle RHNA mandate. Finally, the project would be consistent with General Plan Policy N 3.2 which requires residential developers of residential or mixed -use land uses with a residential component to notify prospective purchasers or tenants of aircraft noise and require signage notifying users regarding the proximity to JWA and operating aircraft noise. Therefore, the proposed Project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels, and impacts would be less than significant.

Cumulative Impacts
As discussed above, all construction and operational noise impacts would be less than significant.

Construction noise impacts are by nature localized. However, the project could contribute to other proximate construction project noise impacts if construction activities were conducted concurrently.

There is a previously approved but not yet constructed project located at 1300 Bristol Street, that would be constructed concurrently with the proposed Project. Other cumulative projects are located further away, and the project noise levels would attenuate due to distance and not interact with other construction activities. The closest structure to both projects is an office building located approximately 250 feet northeast of the proposed Project. If the construction of the two projects overlapped, there is the potential to double the sound energy at the nearest receptor (office building). However, the doubling of sound energy would result in a 3 dBA noise level increase, which is a barely perceptible noise level change .3' Therefore, the Project would not contribute to a cumulative construction noise increase at this location.

As discussed above, operational noise caused by the proposed Project would be less than significant. Due to site distance and these intervening land uses, cumulative stationary noise impacts would not occur. No known past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects would compound or increase the operational noise levels generated by the project. Therefore, cumulative impacts relative to temporary and permanent noise generation associated with the proposed Project would be less than significant.

As discussed above, the proposed Project would not cause a new noise impact to occur, nor an increase in the severity of a noise impact previously disclosed in the General Plan Program EIR. Implementation of the proposed Project would not alter the conclusions of the General Plan Program EIR analysis and would not result in a new or substantially more severe project -specific or cumulative noise or vibration impact than those already analyzed.

Mitigation Program
General Plan Policies
The following policies are applicable to the proposed Project and would be made conditions of approval. ■ N 1.1 Noise Compatibility of New Development. Require that all proposed projects are compatible with the noise environment through use of Table N2, and enforce the interior and exterior noise standards shown in Table N3.
ss California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, September 2013. 164 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
■ N1.2 Noise Exposure Verification for New Development. Applicants for proposed residential or mixed -use projects located in areas projected to be exposed to 65-70 dBA CNEL or greater, as shown on Figure N5, must conduct a noise study to provide evidence that the depicted noise contours do not adequately account for local noise exposure circumstances due to such factors as, topography, variation in traffic speeds, and other applicable conditions. These findings shall be used to determine the level of exterior or interior noise, attenuation needed to attain an acceptable noise exposure level and the feasibility of such measures when other planning considerations are taken into account, consistent with Title 21 of the California Code of Regulations.
■ N 1.4 New Developments in Urban Areas. Requires that applicants of residential portions of mixed -use projects and high -density residential developments in urban areas (such as the Airport Area and Newport Center) demonstrate that the design of the structure will adequately isolate noise between adjacent uses and units (common floor/ceilings) in accordance with the California Building Code.
■ N MA Airport Area Infill Projects. Allow infill residential projects proximate to John Wayne Airport to have a higher exterior noise level standard (65-70 dBA CNEL) if it can be shown that there are no practical mechanisms or designs to meet the exterior noise levels. The interior standard of 45 dBA CNEL shall be enforced for any residential component of projects. No residential units may be located on parcels wholly within the John Wayne Airport 65 dBA CNEL noise contour area as shown in Figure N5, of the Noise Element of the General Plan, unless and until the City determines, based on substantial evidence, that the sites wholly within such contour area are needed for the City to satisfy its Sixth Cycle RHNA mandate. Nonresidential uses are encouraged on parcels located wholly within the 65 dBA CNEL contour area, shown in Figure N5. ■ N 2.1 New Development. Require that proposed noise -sensitive uses in areas of 60 dBA and greater, as determined the analyses stipulated by Policy N1.1, demonstrate that they meet interior and exterior noise levels.
■ N 2.2 - Design of Sensitive Land Uses. Require the use of walls, berms, interior noise insulation, double -paned windows, advanced insulation systems, or other noise measures, as appropriate, in the design of new residential developments to attenuate noise levels to not exceed 45 dBA CNEL interior. Other new noise -sensitive land uses that are adjacent to major arterials and located proximate to John Wayne Airport (e.g., infill residential) and within the 65-70 dBA CNEL noise contour area are required to be indoor -oriented to reduce noise impacts on outdoor living or recreational areas. Application of the Noise Standards in Table N2 shall govern this requirement. ■ N 3.1 - New Development. Ensure new development is compatible with the noise environment proximate to John Wayne Airport by not allowing residential units on parcels located wholly within the John Wayne Airport 65 dBA CNEL noise contour, as shown in Figure N5 of the Noise Element of the General Plan, unless and until the City determines, based on substantial evidence, that the sites wholly within such contour area are needed for the City to satisfy its Sixth Cycle RHNA mandate.
■ N 3.2 - Residential Development. Require that residential development proximate to John Wayne Airport shall not be located on parcels wholly within the John Wayne Airport 65 dBA CNEL noise contour shown in Figure N5 of the Noise Element of the General Plan, unless and until the City 165 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
determines, based on substantial evidence, that the sites wholly within such contour area are needed for the City to satisfy its Sixth Cycle RHNA mandate. Require developers of residential or mixed -use land uses with a residential component to notify prospective purchasers or tenants of aircraft noise. Additionally, require outdoor common areas or recreational areas of residential or mixed -used developments to be posted with signs notifying users regarding the proximity to John Wayne Airport and the presence of operating aircraft and noise. ■ N 4.1 - Stationary Noise Sources. Enforce interior and exterior noise standards outlined in Table N3 of the Noise Element and in the City's Municipal Code to ensure that sensitive noise receptors are not exposed to excessive noise levels from stationary noise sources, such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment.
■ N 4.6 - Maintenance or Construction Activities. Require the enforcement of the Noise Ordinance noise limits and limits hours of maintenance or construction activity in or adjacent to residential areas, including noise that results from in -home hobby or work -related activities. ■ LU 6.15.3 - Airport Compatibility. Require that all development be constructed in conformance with the height restrictions set forth by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77, and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, and that residential development shall be allowed only on parcels with noise levels of less than the John Wayne Airport 65 dBA CNEL noise contour area as shown in Figure N5 of the Noise Element of the General Plan, unless and until the City determines, based on substantial evidence, that the sites wholly within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour shown in Figure N5 are needed for the City to satisfy its Sixth Cycle RHNA mandate. Nonresidential uses are, however, encouraged on parcels located wholly within the 65 dBA CNEL contour area.

Standard Conditions and Requirements
SC N-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 Municipal Code) shall take place between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:30 PM on weekdays that are not federal holidays and from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM on Saturdays in any area of the City that is not designated as a high -density area. Loud, noise -generating construction activities are prohibited outside of these hours and on Sundays and federal holidays.

SC N-2 Heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) units shall be designed and installed in accordance with Section 10.26.045 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, which specifies the maximum noise levels for new HVAC installations and associated conditions. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view of adjacent properties and adjacent public streets, as authorized by a Site Development Review Permit.

SC N-3 Consistent with General Plan Policy N 1.4, all residential units shall be designed to ensure that interior noise levels in habitable rooms from exterior sources (including aircraft and vehicles on adjacent roadways) shall not exceed 45 dBA CNEL. This mitigation measure complies with the applicable sections of the California Building Code (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations). Prior to granting of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit to the City of Newport Beach Community Development Department for review and approval architectural plans and an accompanying noise study that demonstrates 166 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
that interior noise levels in the habitable rooms of residential units 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.

Conclusions
Accordingly, no new impacts relative to noise or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would occur. With regard to PRC Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of less than significant with mitigation. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not warranted. 167 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

3.13 Population and Housing
Threshold (a) Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of road or other infrastructure?
General Plan Significance Determination: Significant Unavoidable Impact. The General Plan Program EIR assumed that General Plan buildout would result in an increase the number of dwelling units by 14,215 units (approximately 12,515 multi -units and approximately 1,700 single-family units), for a total of 54,394 units. Using a persons per household rate of 2.19, the General Plan Program EIR assumed that the 14,215 residential units would result in a population increase of approximately 31,131 residents. This increase would result in a total population of 103,753 persons at General Plan buildout.

The increase in residential units and the associated increase in population identified in the General Plan would exceed SCAG projections. The number of households in the City projected by SCAG by 2030 was 43,100 units, while the number of dwelling units under the General Plan was 54,394 units. The SCAG projected population was 94,167 residents by 2030, while the population resulting from the General Plan buildout would be approximately 10 percent higher, or 103,753 residents. The General Plan Program EIR concluded that since residential growth would substantially increase population growth within the City (by approximately 43 percent over 2002 population, and approximately 10 percent higher than existing SCAG projections), impacts on population growth would be considered significant. It was noted that the estimated population increase represented a conservative, worst -case scenario because it assumed that all allowed units would be built. Additionally, this estimate assumed that all residences in the City would be occupied. The City typically has a substantially higher vacancy rate than that of the County due to a higher percentage of vacation properties (seasonal housing).

Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact; reduced impact from previous analysis.

The proposed Project would allow for the development of 229 apartment units. Assuming 2.19 persons per unit, the proposed Project would have a residential population of 502 persons. This increase in residential units and population represents approximately 3.5 percent of the growth anticipated under the General Plan. It is important to note that the General Plan Program EIR addressed the introduction of 4,300 residential units into the Airport Area; the adopted General Plan includes 2,200 multi -units.

Project implementation would make progress on the City's housing goals and be consistent with projected growth in the City based on SCAG's growth forecasts. The City's 61" Cycle (2021-2029) RHNA allocation is 4,845 housing units: 1,050 moderate -income units, 1,409 above moderate -income units, 1,456 very low-income units, and 930 low-income units. Additionally, the Project does not include the extension of roads or other infrastructure to unserved areas, which could induce indirect growth. Therefore, the Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the City. No significant impacts would occur, and no mitigation is required. The proposed Project would cause neither a new impact to occur nor an increase in the severity of an impact previously disclosed. As such, no further analysis is required.
168 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Threshold (b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
General Plan Significance Determination: No Impact. The General Plan Program EIR concluded that development would occur primarily by intensifying current land uses, and through the conversion of land uses of economically underperforming and obsolete development. No substantial demolition of residential uses was proposed in the General Plan. There was an allowance for the loss of ten single-family residential units in the West Newport Mesa subarea, only if these units are sold voluntarily by the owners.

These properties could be converted to commercial uses. However, West Newport Mesa would also gain 1,070 multi -units, which would be consistent with Policy LU 6.6.2, which promotes the development of a mix of residential types and building scales within the subarea. Because the General Plan does not propose uses that would displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people, the General Plan Program EIR found that no impact would occur.

Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No Impact; no substantial change from previous analysis.

The project site is currently developed with two office buildings and associated surface parking and landscaping. No existing residential uses are located on the site; therefore, Project implementation would not displace existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing. No impacts would occur and no mitigation is required. The proposed Project would cause neither a new impact to occur nor an increase in the severity of an impact previously disclosed. As such, no further analysis is required.

Cumulative Impacts
As discussed above, the proposed Project would not cause impact to population and housing to occur, nor an increase in the severity of any impacts previously disclosed in the General Plan Program EIR.

Therefore, the proposed Project would not cause either a new cumulative impact to occur, nor an increase in the severity of a cumulative impact previously disclosed.

Mitigation Program
General Plan Policies
The City of Newport Beach General Plan Housing Element for the 6t" Cycle planning period includes policies applicable to the proposed Project.
■ Housing Policy 2.1— Support all reasonable efforts to preserve, maintain, and improve availability and quality of existing housing and residential neighborhoods, and ensure full utilization of existing City housing resources for as long into the future as physically and economically feasible. ■ Housing Policy 3.1 - Encourage preservation of existing and provision of new housing affordable to extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderate -income households. ■ Housing Policy 3.2 — Encourage housing developments to offer a wide spectrum of housing choices, designs, and configurations.
■ H 2.2 - Encourage the housing development industry to respond to existing and future housing needs of the community and to the demand for housing as perceived by the industry. ■ H 2.3 - Approve, wherever feasible and appropriate, mixed residential and commercial use developments that improve the balance between housing and jobs. 169 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Standard Conditions and Requirements
No standard conditions are applicable to the proposed Project.

Conclusion
Accordingly, no new impacts relative to population and housing or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would occur. With regard to PRC Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of less than significant with mitigation. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not warranted.
170 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

3.14 Public Services
Threshold (a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection? General Plan Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR found that impacts to fire services from implementation of the General Plan were less than significant assuming compliance with applicable regulations and General Plan policies. The General Plan Program EIR addressed the introduction of residential uses into the Airport Area. As previously addressed in this Addendum, the General Plan evaluated the construction of 4,300 multi -unit units in the Airport Area; however, the adopted General Plan includes 2,200 multi -unit units. The General Plan Program EIR noted that new Airport Area residential uses would increase demands for 24-hour medical service, and that an increase in density by both infill development and the conversion of low-rise properties to mid -rise and high-rise development would necessitate the addition of a ladder truck company at the Santa Ana Heights Fire Station (Fire Station 7).

New development would be required to comply with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations governing the provision of fire protection services. General Plan Policy LU 3.2 requires that growth and development be coordinated with the provision of adequate infrastructure. The General Plan Program EIR analysis concluded that compliance with applicable regulations and policies identified in the General Plan would ensure impacts would be less than significant.

Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact; no substantial change from previous analysis.

The proposed Project would demolish the two existing office buildings and develop a 229-multi-unit residential building with ground -level parking and two levels of subterranean parking. As discussed in Section 3.13, Population and Housing, the Project has the potential to generate 502 residents. This would incrementally increase the demand for service from the Newport Beach Fire Department (Fire Department), as well as potentially increase the Fire Department's response time to the project site.

Consistent with the findings of the General Plan Program EIR, the proposed Project would incrementally increase the Fire Department's demand for emergency medical services provided by the Fire Department.

At the time of preparation of the General Plan Program EIR, it was forecasted that an additional ladder truck company would be needed at Fire Station 7. Because of changes in technology, building codes, and ongoing review of the current needs of the Fire Department, Fire Station 7 now requires a rescue ambulance with patient transport and advanced life support (ALS) capabilities instead of a ladder truck company without the need for new or expanded facilities. Fire Station 7 has the physical capacity to house a paramedic rescue ambulance unit and would be able to address the additional service demand. In addition to the ambulance unit and its appurtenant equipment, the paramedic rescue ambulance unit requires six firefighters that are cross -trained as paramedics to ensure the unit is available 24 hours a day.

General Plan Policy LU 2.8 and Policy LU 6.1.1 require that land uses can be adequately supported by transportation and utility infrastructure and by public services. Implementation of SC PS-2 would ensure appropriate levels of service to the Airport Area.
171 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Given the proximity of the project site to Fire Station 7, Santa Ana Heights Fire Station (1.8 mile), and with implementation of SCs PS-1 and PS-2, the Fire Department would continue to maintain its service response goals and provide adequate staffing. Therefore, increases in service demand generated by the proposed Project would not have a substantial impact on the Fire Department's ability to adequately serve the project site. Therefore, the Project can be adequately served.

All new development would be required to comply with the existing International Fire Code and California Fire and Building Codes in the California Health and Safety Code. In addition, NBMC Chapter 10.48 authorizes the Fire Marshal to regulate weed and rubbish abatement in the City to reduce potential fire hazards from dry grasses, brush, garden refuse, etc. The Project would comply with the Fire Department's Fire Prevention Guidelines and Standards. By complying with these federal, State, and local regulations, adequate fire and emergency safety elements would be integrated into the Project, thereby reducing the risk for fire hazards.

The Fire Department's operating budget is generated through tax revenues. Facilities, personnel, and equipment expansion and acquisition are tied to the City budget process and tax -base expansion.

Additionally, the Project would be subject to the City of Newport Beach Property Excise Tax codified under NBMC Section 3.12 for public improvements and facilities associated with the City's Fire Department, public libraries, and public parks; see SC PS-1.

Accordingly, no new impacts relative to fire protection or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would occur.

Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of less than significant with mitigation.

Mitigation Program
General Plan Policies
The following policies are applicable to the proposed Project and would be made conditions of approval. ■ LU 2.8 Adequate Infrastructure: Accommodate the types, densities, and mix of land uses that can be adequately supported by transportation and utility infrastructure (water, sewer, storm drainage, energy, and so on) and public services (schools, parks, libraries, seniors, youth, police, fire, and so on).
■ LU 6.1.1 Adequate Community Supporting Uses. Accommodate schools, government administrative and operational facilities, fire stations and police facilities, religious facilities, schools, cultural facilities, museums, interpretative centers, and hospitals to serve the needs of Newport Beach's residents and businesses.

Standard Conditions and Requirements
SC PS-1 Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project, the Applicant shall pay the required Property Excise Tax to the City of Newport Beach, as set forth in its Municipal Code (§2.12 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.
172 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
SC PS-2 In compliance with General Plan Policy LU 2.8 and Policy 6.1.1, prior to the issuance of a building permit for the residential structure, the Applicant, or any successors in interest, shall provide payment to the City of Newport Beach for the project's pro-rata share of the cost for purchasing and equipping a new rescue ambulance with patient transport and advanced life support (ALS) capabilities to be located at Santa Ana Heights Fire Station No. 7. This Standard Condition will be satisfied through the Applicant's payment of a Public Safety Fee.

Threshold (b) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police protection? General Plan Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR determined build out of the General Plan would have a less than significant impact on police services. In order to maintain acceptable levels of service, the General Plan includes policies to ensure adequate law enforcement is provided as the City experiences future development (Policy LU 2.8). It was noted that to maintain the ratio of 1.7 officers per 1,000 residents (148 officers and 85,120 residents), the Newport Beach Police Department (Police Department) would have had to provide 53 additional officers by General Plan buildout. Maintaining the Police Department's ratio of 0.60 nonsworn personnel per sworn officer would result in the addition of 32 nonsworn personnel. The addition of 85 police personnel would require Police Department to expand police facilities. However, since Police Department did not have near -term plans for expansion of police facilities, staff, or equipment inventory, it was speculative to determine whether a new substation would be considered. All new development would be subject to the City's project -specific review. Therefore, the General Plan Program EIR found that impacts would be less than significant.

Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No Impact; no substantial change from previous analysis.

General Plan Policy LU 2.8 provides that only land uses that can be adequately supported by the City's public services should be accommodated. Project implementation would introduce new residential uses and increase population in the City. Buildout of the proposed Project has the potential to generate 502 residents (see Section 3.13, Population and Housing). Based on the City's current ratio of officers to residents (1.6 officers per 1,000 residents), Project implementation would result in the demand for less than one additional police officer. It should be noted that the ratio of 1.6 officers per 1,000 residents is the current ratio but is not a ratio required by any City plan or policy.

The Police Department currently provides police services to the existing office use on the project site. The Police Department does not have any immediate or future plans to expand police facilities. Although the Project would incrementally 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. Most new development will occur as infill development or redevelopment. Development on the project site has been considered in long-range planning efforts by the Police Department.
173 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of 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. Implementation of SC PS-3 related to site security and building and site safety design recommendations would ensure adequate police protection services can be provided to the project site. Therefore, the Project's impact on police protection services would be less than significant.

Mitigation Program
General Plan Policies
General Plan Policies LU 2.8 and 6.1.1 are applicable to the proposed Project.

Standard Conditions and Reauirements
SC PS-1 and the following conditions are applicable.

SC PS-3 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.

Threshold (c) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for schools? General Plan Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR analyzed school capacity in Newport -Mesa Unified School District, Santa Ana Unified School District, and Laguna Beach Unified School District. At buildout, the student population in the City was estimated to increase by approximately 6,230 students. The Airport Area is served by the Santa Ana Unified School District. The General Plan Program EIR projected that the Airport Area would experience an increase of 4,300 residential units and contribute approximately 1,883 students (of the total 6,230 students generated citywide under General Plan buildout). The General Plan Program EIR also noted that anticipated growth within the Irvine Business Complex (IBC) would have the potential to cumulatively impact Airport Area schools. The General Plan includes goals and policies to address capacity issues for NMUSD and SAUSD. Buildout would likely require construction of new school facilities; however, the Program EIR concluded that compliance with General Plan policies would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact; no substantial change from previous analysis.

Student generation rates are used by school districts to estimate the number of students generated by new development in order to determine whether existing school facilities would be adequate for future 174 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
student enrollment. As identified in Table 3.14-1, Student Generation using these student generation rates, the proposed 229 rental units would introduce approximately 102 students into the attendance area of Santa Ana Unified School District. The proposed Project would be served by Monroe Elementary, McFadden Intermediate, and Century High Schools. Based on the generation factors for the school district, the proposed Project would generate 44 elementary, 25 intermediate students, and 33 high school students.

Table 3.14-1: Student Generation
School Level
Multi -Family Rate
Number of
Proposed Units
Students Potentially
Generated by the Project
Elementary School (K-5)

0.1937
229
44 Intermediate School (6-8)

0.1111
229
25 High School (9-12)

0.1427
229
33 Total
--
--
102
Source: Santa Ana General Plan Update Program EIR, 2022.

School funding comes predominantly from federal, State, and local contributions, such as business and personal income taxes, sales tax, property tax, etc. In accordance with Government Code Section 65995, the Santa Ana Unified School District requires all new development to pay fees to help offset the impacts to school facilities from new residential, commercial, and industrial development. The fees would be collected by school district at the time of issuance of building permits.

As stated in Government Code Section 65995(h), "The payment or satisfaction of a fee, charge, or other requirement levied or imposed ...are hereby deemed to be full and complete mitigation of the impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property, or any change in governmental organization or reorganization ...on the provision of adequate school facilities." Payment of these fees would offset impacts from increased demand for school services associated with development of the proposed Project by providing an adequate financial base to construct and equip new and existing schools. Overall, Santa Ana Unified School District would be able to provide adequate school facilities for the projected student residents of the Project, and payment of impact fees would ensure that impacts are offset and remain less than significant.

Parks
Refer to Section 3.15, Recreation.

Threshold (d) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for other public facilities? General Plan Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR concluded a less than significant impact to library facilities from implementation of the General Plan.

General Plan Policy LU 2.8 would help ensure that adequate library facilities are provided to the City's residents and that public services can adequately support new development. Compliance with policies 175 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
contained in the General Plan would satisfy any future demand for library facilities. Impacts associated with library services were found to be less than significant.

Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No Impact; no substantial change from previous analysis.

The Project is anticipated to include 502 residents, thereby incrementally increasing the demand for City library services. Although future Project residents would be expected to primarily use the Central Library and Crean Mariners Library, they would have access to all libraries within the City's library system. The existing library space, collections, and programs provided are considered adequate for the existing residents, and the proposed residential development would have a nominal impact on library services.

The City's library system would continue receiving funding for library facilities and resources through the City's General Fund; the property excise tax per NBMC Chapter 3.12 as set forth in SC PS-1; and library activities, such as fines, facility rentals, passport photo/execution fees, and grants and private donations.

Overall, Project impacts to library services would be less than significant. Therefore, impacts on library facilities and services would be less than significant.

Cumulative Impacts
As discussed above, the proposed Project would not cause a new public services impact to occur, nor an increase in the severity of any public services, recreation, or utilities impacts previously disclosed in the General Plan Program EIR, with implementation of the standard conditions discussed in this section.

Implementation of the proposed Project would not alter the conclusions of the General Plan Program EIR analysis and would not result in a new or substantially more severe project -specific or cumulative public services impact than those already analyzed.

Mitigation Program
General Plan Policies
General Plan Policies LU 2.8 and 6.1.1 are applicable to library services.

Standard Conditions
SC PS-1 is applicable.

Conclusion
Accordingly, no new impacts relative to public services or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would occur. With regard to PRC Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of less than significant with mitigation. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not warranted.
176 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis

3.15 Recreation
Threshold (a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
Threshold (b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which have an adverse physical effect on the environment? General Plan Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR found that potential impacts on recreational facilities would be less than significant with the implementation of General Plan policies and requirements.

The General Plan Program EIR evaluated parks and recreational facilities on citywide basis and by service area. Twelve service areas were identified. The Airport Area is in Service Area 4—Santa Ana Heights/Airport Commercial. The General Plan Program EIR identified an existing park surplus (2006) for Service Area 4, noting that the two -acre Bayview Park and proximity to the Upper Bay recreation area provides recreational opportunities. A pocket park and joint use community center project with the YMCA were planned for this area. However, the General Plan identified a shortfall in active playfields and that the existing park uses did not account for future demand associated with multi -unit residences in the Airport Area.

The General Plan Program EIR found that there would be a greater possibility for physical deterioration of recreational facilities because of the introduction of multi -unit residential development into the Airport Area. Prior to the adoption of the 2006 General Plan Update, there were no residential units in or permitted by the General Plan in the Airport Area. The General Plan Program EIR noted that new Airport Area residents would most likely use Bonita Canyon Sports Park stating "However, this park is already being fully utilized, and the increased usage resulting from the increase in population could contribute to this facility's physical deterioration." It was noted that the policies under General Plan Goal R 2 would help ensure that existing parks and recreation facilities are maintained and preserved. Compliance with General Plan Policy R 2.1 would maintain existing park facilities, thereby reducing impacts related to deterioration.

With respect to the maintenance at preservation of existing parks and recreation facilities (General Plan Goal R 2), General Plan Policy R 2.1 states:

Policy R 2.1. Use funding from the City's Park Dedication Fee Ordinance to enhance existing parks and recreational facilities.

For residential development in the Airport Area, the General Plan Program EIR concludes that with implementation of General Plan Policy R 2.1, impacts related to deterioration of parks and recreation facilities in the Airport Area would be less than significant.

It is important to note that both the General Plan Program EIR and the General Plan cross reference the Park Dedication Fee Ordinance to the mandates of the Quimby Act, which only apply to residential subdivisions. The Park Dedication Fee would therefore have been applicable to all of the multi -unit residential uses in the Airport Area based on the evaluation of 4,300 units in the General Plan Program EIR or 2,200 units adopted in the General Plan only if the residential developments include a subdivision (most typically for for -sale residential). However, if any or all of the residential units do not require a subdivision, which is typically the case for for -rent residential developments, the fee would not apply. 150 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
In additional to compliance with General Plan Policy R 2.1 to mitigate impacts to existing park facilities, the General Plan places additional park and recreational requirements on residential villages in the Airport Area. Compliance with General Plan Policy LU 6.15.13 is identified as a development requirement. General Plan Policy LU 6.15.13 was modified in the adopted General Plan as shown below. General Plan Policy LU

6.15.13 addresses standards for neighborhood parks in the Airport Area.

Policy LU 6.15.13. To provide a focus and identity for the entire neighborhood and to serve the daily recreational and commercial needs of the community within easy walking distance of homes, require dedication and improvement of dedicate —and— impFeve at least 8 percent of the gross land area (exclusive of existing rights -of -way) of the first phase of development, or % acre, whichever is greater, in eaGh Reighherhoo ' as a neighborhood park. This requirement may be waived by the City where it can be demonstrated that the development parcels are too small to feasibly accommodate the park or inappropriately located to serve the needs of local residents, and when an in -lieu fee is paid to the City for the acquisition and improvement of other properties as parklands to serve the Airport Area.

In every case, the neighborhood park shall be at least 8 percent of the total Residential Village Area or one acre in area, whichever is greater, and shall have a minimum dimension of 150 feet. Park acreage shall be exclusive of existing or new rights -of -way, development sites, or setback areas. A neighborhood park shall satisfy some or all of the requirements of the Parkland Dedication Ordinance, as prescribed by the Recreation Element of the General Plan.
- ............... .. .. -- - -- -- -
--- -- •--- ---- - - ---
------- -
....

The General Plan Program EIR included proposed General Plan Policy R 1.3 related to the provision of on -site recreational amenities for high -density residential developments in the Airport Area. This draft policy was replaced with General Plan Policy LU 6.15.16 in the adopted General Plan. Both policies are provided below.

General Plan EIR: Policy R 1.2, High -Density Residential Developments. Require developers of new high -density residential developments on parcels eight acres or larger, to provide on -site recreational amenities. For these developments, 44 square feet of on - site recreational amenities shall be provided for each dwelling unit in addition to the requirements under the City's Park Dedication Ordinance. On -site recreational amenities can consist of public urban plazas or squares where there is the capability for recreation and outdoor activity. These recreational amenities can also include swimming pools, exercise facilities, tennis courts, and basketball courts. Where there is insufficient land to provide on -site recreational amenities, the developer shall be required to pay the City of Newport Beach cash in -lieu that would be used to develop or upgrade nearby recreation facilities to offset user demand as defined in the City's Park Dedication Fee Ordinance. 151 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
The acreage of on -site open space developed with residential projects may be credited against the parkland dedication requirements where it is accessible to the public during daylight hours, visible from public rights -of -way, and is of sufficient size to accommodate recreational use by the public. However, the credit for the provision of on -site open space shall not exceed 30 percent of the parkland dedication requirements.

Adopted General Plan: Policy LU 6.15.16: On -Site Recreation and Open Space Standards.

Require developers of multi -family residential developments on parcels 8 acres or larger to provide on -site recreational amenities. For these developments, 44 square feet of on - site recreational amenities shall be provided for each dwelling unit in addition to the requirements under the City's Park Dedication Ordinance and in accordance with the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan. On -site recreational amenities can consist of public urban plazas or squares where there is the capability for recreation and outdoor activity. These recreational amenities may also include swimming pools, exercise facilities, tennis courts, and basketball courts. Where there is insufficient land to provide on -site recreational amenities, the developer shall be required to pay cash in -lieu that would be used to develop or upgrade nearby recreation facilities to offset user demand as defined in the City's Park Dedication Fee Ordinance.

The acreage of on -site open space developed with residential projects may be credited against the parkland dedication requirements where it is accessible to the public during daylight hours, visible from public rights -of -way, and is of sufficient size to accommodate recreational use by the public. However, the credit for the provision of on -site open space shall not exceed 30 percent of the parkland dedication requirements.

With respect to the maintenance at preservation of existing parks and recreation facilities (General Plan Goal R 2), General Plan Policy R 2.1 states:

Policy R 2.1. Use funding from the City's Park Dedication Fee Ordinance to enhance existing parks and recreational facilities.

In summary, the General Plan Program EIR concluded that "With implementation of Policy R 2.1, impacts related to deterioration of parks and recreation facilities in the Airport Area would be less than significant."
Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact; no substantial change from previous analysis.

As discussed, the General Plan Program EIR identified significant impacts to existing recreational facilities caused by the introduction of residential development in the Airport Area. The deterioration of existing parks and recreational facilities caused by new residential development in this area would be mitigated through the use of funding from the City's Park Dedication Fee Ordinance. The Park Dedication Fee Ordinance applies to residential subdivisions. The proposed Project does not include or require a subdivision but does include on -site recreational amenities for residents.

With respect to recreational facilities, General Plan Policy LU 6-15.13 identifies that a public park equal to 8 percent of the gross land area of the total development, or a minimum 0.5-acre, whichever is greater, shall be provided. Therefore, the Project would be required to provide a 0.5-acre park on the approximate

2.38-acre site. The General Plan allows a waiver of its park dedication requirement where it can be 152 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
demonstrated that the development parcels are too small to feasibly accommodate the park or inappropriately located to serve the needs of local residents when park in -lieu fees are paid. The Applicant is requesting a waiver of the General Plan Policy LU 6-15.13 public park dedication requirement. Further, the Applicant is requesting a portion of the in -lieu park fee to be waived as a concession, as allowed under density bonus law.

General Plan Policy LU 6.15.16 requires developers of multi -unit residential developments on parcels that are eight acres or larger to provide on -site recreational amenities. This policy is not applicable to project because the project site is less than eight acres.

The City has approximately 687 acres of parkland.11, 3' According to the General Plan Recreation Element, the City's established citywide level of service goal for parkland is a minimum of 5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. Based on the City's estimated 2023 population of 83,411, the City has approximately 8.3 acres of parkland (including City -operated beaches) for every 1,000 residents, representing parkland service that is higher than the citywide minimum.

The Project is consistent with the General Plan mitigation requirements and policies set forth in the General Plan Program EIR, including procedures for obtaining a waiver from provision of on -site park facilities, as well as State and City density bonus law. The Project would provide on -site recreational amenities for its residents including a swimming pool and spa, and outdoor barbeques. It is also noted, that, citywide, the City exceeds the 5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. For these reasons, Project impacts would be less than significant. The proposed Project would not result in any new adverse impacts or increase the severity of any previously identified impacts on recreation. No new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified that would impact the prior finding under this threshold.

Cumulative Impacts
As discussed above, the proposed Project would not cause impacts to recreation to occur, nor an increase in the severity of any impacts previously disclosed in the General Plan Program EIR. Implementation of the proposed Project would not alter the conclusions of the General Plan Program EIR analysis and would not result in a new or substantially more severe project or cumulative recreation impact than those already analyzed.

Mitigation Program
General Plan Policies
General Plan Policy LU 6.15.13 is applicable to the proposed Project. The Applicant is requesting a waiver of the 0.5-acre park dedication requirement for the Project. The project site is limited to 2.38-acres and is too small to accommodate both a 0.5-acre park and the 229-unit residential building. The Project Applicant will pay a portion of the in -lieu fee to offset the dedication requirement and has requested a waiver on the remaining in -lieu fee as a concession under density bonus law. 36 This acreage calculation includes City -operated beaches. 31 City of Newport Beach. Newport Beach Demographics and Statistics. Retrieved from: https://www.newportbeachca.gov/i-am- a/visitor/about-newport-beach/demographics-and-statistics. Accessed March 2023. 153 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
Standard Conditions and Requirements
There are no additional standard conditions applicable to the proposed Project.

Conclusion
Accordingly, no new impacts relative to recreation or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would occur. With regard to PRC Section 21166 and state CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of less than significant with mitigation. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not warranted. 154 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis

3.16 Transportation
This section summarizes the findings of the 1400 Bristol Street North Traffic Impact Analysis (Traffic Impact Analysis) prepared by the Ganddini Group, Inc. (Ganddini, 2023) to evaluate the potential traffic impacts associated with the proposed Project. The Traffic Impact Analysis is included as Appendix F of the Addendum.

Threshold (a) Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? General Plan Significance Determination: Significant and Unavoidable Impact. The General Plan Program EIR Transportation Study evaluated: existing traffic conditions, future traffic conditions without implementation of the General Plan Update, and traffic conditions following implementation of the General Plan Update. The Transportation Study evaluated the following buildout scenarios: Without Project (buildout of the then current General Plan); With Project (buildout of proposed General Plan Update); and General Plan Update without surrounding regional growth.

The General Plan Program EIR concluded that implementation of the General Plan would contribute to a substantial impact at freeway ramps that exceeds thresholds and would result in operational deficiencies.

Impacts related to freeway mainlines and ramps were considered significant because needed improvements exceeded the current maximum planned improvements. With improvements noted in the General Plan Circulation Element, growth related to General Plan buildout alone would be reduced to less than significant levels. The improvements included in the City of Newport Beach Circulation Element are detailed in the General Plan Program EIR.

General Plan Circulation Element (2022) policies including but not limited to CE 5.2.4, CE 5.2.6, CE 5.2.11, CE 6.1.1, CE 6.1.2, CE 6.1.3, CE 7.1.4, CE 7.1.5, and CE 7.1 encourage alternative modes of transportation, use of intelligent transportation systems, efficient and safe roadway operations, encourage enhancement and maintenance of public water transportation services and expanded public water transportation uses and land support facilities.

Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact; no substantial change from previous analysis.

Methodology
The Traffic Impact Analysis provided an evaluation of morning and evening peak hour conditions at 13 intersections identified in Table 3.16-1, Traffic Study Area Intersections. The study intersections are located in the cities of Newport Beach and Irvine. Of the 13 study intersections, 3 have shared jurisdiction between the City of Irvine and City of Newport Beach. The remaining 10 are controlled and maintained by the City of Newport Beach. Each intersection was analyzed using the methodology and parameters employed by the city in which the intersection is located. For "shared" intersections on the city boundary, the intersection analysis is based on the methodology used by the city that controls and maintains the signal.
155 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
Table 3.16-1: Traffic Study Area Intersections
No.

Intersection
Jurisdiction 1
Traffic Control
1 Campus Dr (NS) at Bristol St North (EW)
Newport Beach
Traffic Signal
2 Irvine Ave/Campus Dr (NS) at Bristol St South (EW)
Newport Beach
Traffic Signal
3 Birch St (NS) at Bristol St North
Newport Beach
Traffic Signal
4 Birch St (NS) at Bristol St South (EW)
Newport Beach
Traffic Signal
5 MacArthur Blvd (NS) at Campus Dr (EW)
Newport Beach/Irvine
Traffic Signal
6 MacArthur Blvd (NS) at Birch St (EW)
Newport Beach
Traffic Signal
7 MacArthur Blvd (NS) at Newport Place Dr/Von Karman Ave (EW) Newport Beach
Traffic Signal
8 MacArthur Blvd (NS) at Jamboree Rd (EW)
Newport Beach/Irvine
Traffic Signal
9 MacArthur Blvd (NS) at Bison Ave (EW)
Newport Beach
Traffic Signal
10 Jamboree Rd (NS) at Campus Dr (EW) 1
Newport Beach/Irvine
Traffic Signal
11 Jamboree Rd (NS) at Bristol St North (EW)
Newport Beach
Traffic Signal
12 Jamboree Rd (NS) at Bristol St South (EW)
Newport Beach
Traffic Signal
13 Jamboree Rd (NS) at Eastbluff Dr/University Dr (EW)
Newport Beach
Traffic Signal
NS = north -south roadway; EW = east -west roadway
Source: Ganddini, 2023
Existing peak hour intersection volumes were developed from intersection turning movement counts primarily collected in March/April 2022 during typical weekday morning and evening peak periods of commuter traffic. The morning peak period was counted between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM and the evening peak period was counted between 4:30 PM and 6:30 PM. The actual peak hour within the peak period is the 4 consecutive 15-minute periods with the highest total volume of all approaches. Existing (2022) intersection volumes were developed by applying the City's Regional Traffic Annual Growth Rate of one percent per year through 2027 to the measured volumes along applicable arterial highways (Irvine Avenue, Jamboree Road, and MacArthur Boulevard). This equates to a growth factor of 1.05 along those arterials with counts conducted in 2022.

Operating conditions for the ICU methodology are expressed in terms of "Level of Service," which is also referred to by its acronym, LOS. The ICU calculation returns a volume -to -capacity (V/C) ratio that translates into a corresponding level of service, ranging from LOS A, representing uncongested, free - flowing conditions; to LOS F, representing congested, over -capacity conditions. Table 3.16-2, Level of Service Descriptions, includes a summary description of each level of service and the corresponding V/C ratio or delay.
156 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
Table 3.16-2: Level of Service Descriptions
Level of
Service
V/C Ratio
Description
EXCELLENT — No vehicle waits longer than one red light, and no approach phase A

0.81 - 0.91 - 1.00
prevent movement of vehicles out of the intersection approaches. Tremendous delays with continuously increasing queue lengths.

LOS = Level of Service; ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization; HCM = Highway Capacity Manual; V/C = volume -to -capacity Source: Ganddini, 2023.

Performance Criteria
The City of Newport Beach target level of service for peak hour operation of signalized intersections is LOS D or better, except for any intersections in the Airport Area shared with the City of Irvine and in Corona del Mar, where LOS E is acceptable.

To determine whether the addition of project -generated trips would result in a substantial level of service impact, the City of Newport Beach uses the following criteria:
■ A significant transportation impact would occur when the addition of project -generated trips is forecast to cause/worsen a deficient intersection operation (generally LOS E or F) and increase the intersection capacity utilization by one percent or more of capacity (v/c increases by 0.010 or more)
If a project is forecast to cause or worsen a substantial Level of Service impact, the project must construct or provide funding for improvements, to the extent feasible, such that the project -related increase in capacity utilization does not exceed the City -established criteria.

Studv Scenarios
Each of the study intersections has been analyzed for the following scenarios for this Addendum:
■ Existing Conditions
■ Year 2027 Without Project
■ Year 2027 With Project
■ General Plan Comparison: Post-2030 General Plan Buildout Without Project ■ General Plan Comparison: Post-2030 General Plan Buildout With Project 157 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
Existing Conditions
Intersection Levels of Service
Existing AM and PM peak hour intersection operations are summarized on Table 3.16-3, Intersection Operations: Existing Conditions. All study intersections are currently operating at an acceptable level of service (LOS D for all intersections, except LOS E for intersections in the Airport Area shared with the City of Irvine).

Table 3.16-3: Intersection Operations: Existing Conditions No.

Intersection
Traffic
Control
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
V/C
LOS
VC
LOS
1 Campus Dr (NS) at Bristol St North (EW)
S

0.36 A

0.61 B
2 Irvine Ave/Campus Dr (NS) at Bristol St South (EW)
S

0.49 A

0.44 A
3 Birch St (NS) at Bristol St North
S

0.47 A

0.51 A
4 1 Birch St (NS) at Bristol St South (EW)
S

0.34 A

0.35 A
5 MacArthur Blvd (NS) at Campus Dr (EW) 1
S

0.33 A

0.53 A
6 MacArthur Blvd (NS) at Birch St (EW)
S

0.28 A

0.37 A
7 MacArthur Blvd (NS) at Newport Place Dr/
Von Karman Ave (EW)
S

0.31 A

0.35 A
8 MacArthur Blvd (NS) at Jamboree Rd (EW) 1
S

0.37 A

0.45 A
9 MacArthur Blvd (NS) at Bison Ave (EW)
S

0.38 A

0.41 A
10 Jamboree Rd (NS) at Campus Dr (EW) 1
S

0.48 A

0.49 A
11 Jamboree Rd (NS) at Bristol St North (EW)
S

0.34 A

0.35 A
12 Jamboree Rd (NS) at Bristol St South (EW)
S

0.58 A

0.60 A
13 Jamboree Rd (NS) at Eastbluff Dr/University Dr (EW)
S

0.54 A

0.57 A
NS = north -south roadway; EW = east -west roadway; S = Signalized; V/C = volume to capacity; LOS = Level of Service

1. Level of Service E is acceptable at this intersection; shared jurisdiction with City of Irvine Source: Ganddini, 2021.

Project Trip Generation
Trip generation estimates for the proposed Project were developed using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11" Edition) publication. The ITE trip generation rates for general office building (Land Use Code 710) and multi -family housing (mid -rise) (Land Use Code 221) were used for the existing and proposed land uses. The project trip generation forecast is determined by multiplying the trip generation rates by the land use quantities. The trip generation forecast uses a conservative approach by calculating all 229 units as market -rate under the mid rise ITE land use code. However, the Project includes 23 units designated for very -low income households, which would reflect slightly lower trip generation rates than non -affordable units.

Daily, morning peak hour, and evening peak hour trip generation estimates for the proposed Project are shown on Table 3.16-4, Project Trip Generation. The existing office use is estimated to generate 420 daily trips with 59 trips during the morning peak hour and 56 trips during the evening peak hour. The Project is forecast to generate 1,044 daily trips with 85 trips during the morning peak hour and 90 trips during the evening peak hour. Therefore, the proposed Project is forecast to result in net increase of 624 daily trips with 26 new net trips during the morning peak hour and 34 net new trips during the evening peak hour. 158 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
Table 3.16-4: Project Trip Generation
Trip Generation Rates
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Daily
% In
% Out
Rate
% In
% Out
Rate
Land Use
ITE Code
Unit
General Office Building
710
TSF

10.84 88%
12%

1.52 17%
83%

1.44 Multifamily Housing
(Mid -Rise)
221
DU

4.54 23%
77%

0.37 61%
39%

0.39 Year 2025 Trip Generation Estimates
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Daily
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
Land Use
Quantity
Unit
Existing
General Office Building

33.764
TSF
420
52 7
59 9
47 56
Proposed
Multifamily Housing
230'
DU
1,044
21 64
85 55
35 90
(Mid -Rise)
Net Project Trips
+624
-31
+57
+26
+46
-12
+34
General Plan Buildout Trip Generation Estimates2
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Daily
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
Land Use
Quantity
Unit
Multifamily Housing
(Mid -Rise)
142
DU
F
12 41
53 34
21 55
ITE = Institute of Transportation Engineers; TSF = thousand square feet; DU = dwelling unit

1. Project Trip Generation originally assumed 230 units. Project was revised to 229. Analysis assumes 230 units as conservative approach.

2. The General Plan comparison analysis evaluates the addition of 142 DUs to NBTM TAZ 1390. Project (229 DU) - TAZ 1390 (87 DU) = +142 DU.

Source: Ganddini, 2023.

Future Conditions
Future Year Cumulative Conditions includes traffic from pending projects in the cities of Newport Beach and Irvine, in addition to the approved projects. Pending projects are those in various stages of the application and approval process but are not yet approved. These projects are considered to be reasonably foreseeable projects in the vicinity of the project site. The cities of Newport Beach and Irvine were consulted and provided the list of cumulative projects to be included in this analysis.

As previously addressed, to account for ambient growth on roadways, existing (2022) volumes were increased by a growth rate of one percent peryearthrough 2027 along applicable arterial highways (Irvine Avenue, Jamboree Road, and MacArthur Boulevard) in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Regional Traffic Annual Growth Rate. This equates to a growth factor of 1.05 along arterials with counts conducted in 2022. The cumulative projects list, provided as Table 3.16-5, Traffic Analysis Cumulative Projects, includes the projects identified by the cities of Newport Beach and Irvine. 159 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
Table 3.16-5: Traffic Analysis Cumulative Projects
Net Trip Generation
Daily
PM Peak Hour
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
Daily
No.

Description
Land Use
Qty
Units
City of Newport Beach
NB1
1600 Dove Street
General Office Building (Existing)

60.675
TSF
Residences
-59
59 0
45 -36
9 472
Multi -family Housing (Mid -Rise)
249
DU
(Proposed)
NB2
Sage Hill School
Expansion
Private School (K-8)
150
ST
86 66
152
18 21
39 617
NB3
Mother's Market
Boat Sales (Existing)

4.487
TSF
11 17
28 29
24 53
690
Multi -Family Housing (Proposed)
36 DU
Supermarket (Proposed)

5.096
TSF
NB 4
Newport Beach Porsche
Auto Dealership
143.394
TSF
195
72 267
139
208
347
3,995
NB 5
The Garden Restaurant
Quality Restaurant

10.240
TSF
6 2
8 55
29 84
971
Commercial Retail

0.747
TSF
NB6
Newport Village
Existing Uses
John Siple/Johnson Yacht Sales

0.500
TSF
Sun Country Marine

1.000
TSF
Powerhouse Vehicle Sales

17.000
TSF
WCH-Duffield Marine

2.000
TSF
General Office Building

7.185
TSF
WCH-A'Maree's

8.100
TSF
Marina
68 Berths
108
55 163
77 105
182
2,238
Proposed Uses
Multi -family Housing (Mid -Rise)
108
DU
General Office

55.280
TSF
Car Show Room

7.900
TSF
Single -Family Detached Residential
14 DU
General Office

36.620
TSF
Duffield Marine Sales/Office

2.000
TSF
Boat Show Room
10 EMP
High -Turnover Sit -Down

3.815
SF
160 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
Table 3.16-5: Traffic Analysis Cumulative Projects
Net Trip Generation
Daily
PM Peak Hour
No.

Description
Land Use
Qty
Units
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
Daily
Restaurant Quality Restaurant

9.100
TSF
Marina
63 Berths
Coffee Shop w/ Drive Thru
(Proposed)

2.565
TSF
NB7
Newport Coast
Multi -family Housing
564
DU
413
932
1,345
926
557
1,483
14,778
Single -Family Detached Residential
954
DU
University of California, Irvine
UCI
UCI North Campus
Hospital
144
BEDS
Hospital Project
526
163
689
202
520
722
8,550
Ambulatory Care
225.000
TSF
UCI North Campus Child
Health/ Medical Office
Medical Office Building
168.000
TSF
331
79 410
162
414
576
5,531
City of Irvine
IR1
Volar Apartments
Multi -family Housing (Mid -Rise)
930
DU
79 265
344
221
141
362
4,222
IR2
Futures Academy
Private School

5.621
TSF
8 1
9 1
7 8
61 IR3
Multi -family Housing (Mid -Rise)
593
DU
50 169
219
141
90 231
2,692
General Office Building

2.730
TSF
4 0
4 1
3 4
30 Elements Phase 3
Strip Retail Plaza (<40k)

5.000
TSF
7 5
12 16
16 32
272
Coffee Donut Shop: no drive-thru

2.730
TSF
130
125
255
44 44
88 1,393
Health Fitness Club

6.900
TSF
5 4
9 14
10 24
205
Hotel
386
RM
138
78 216
116
112
228
3,084
IR4
Landmark
General Office
448.000
TSF
599
82 681
110
535
645
41856
IRS
Milani Apartments
Multi -family Housing (Mid -Rise)
287
DU
24 82
106
68 44
112
1,303
IR6
Elements
Multi -family Housing (Mid -Rise)
700
DU
60 199
259
167
106
273
3,178
IR7
Von Karman Quartz
General Office

16.538
TSF
22 3
25 4
20 24
179
Office
Total
2,743
2,458
5,201
2,556
2,970
5,526
59,317
DU = Dwelling Unit, TSF = 1,000 square feet; ST = student; RM = room Source: Ganddini, 2023.
161 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
Year 2027 Without Project
Intersection Levels of Service. Year 2027 Without Project intersection operations are provided in Table 3.16-6, Intersection Operations: Year 2026. All traffic study area intersections are forecasted to operate at an acceptable level of service in both peak hours without the proposed Project.

Year 2027 With Project
Intersection Levels of Service. In this scenario, project -related peak hour traffic volumes were added to the Year 2027 Without Project traffic volumes (Table 3.16-6). The table includes the net change in ICU at the applicable study intersections. The addition of project -generated trips is not forecast to cause any study intersection to operate deficiently (LOS E or F) or worsen a deficient intersection operation by more than one percent of capacity. Therefore, the proposed Project is forecast to result in no significant impacts and no new mitigation measures are required.

General Plan Comparative Analysis
A comparative analysis has been conducted to determine whether the proposed Project would result in any new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts when compared to the conclusions of the City of Newport Beach General Plan Transportation Study (March 2006). The Newport Beach Traffic Model (NBTM) analyzed traffic impacts based on assumed land uses in the General Plan Program EIR. The Project site is located within Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) 1390, which assumed up to 87 dwelling units of multi -unit housing and 99,970 sf of general office in the General Plan Program EIR.

Because the Project proposes 229 multi -unit dwelling units, the Project is proposing 142 additional dwelling units when compared to the assumptions used in the NBTM in the General Plan Program EIR Transportation Study. Therefore, the General Plan Buildout With Project scenario was determined by adding the net increase in dwelling units proposed within TAZ 1390 to the General Plan Buildout forecasts evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR. The general office square footage was not changed in this analysis.

Post-2030 General Plan Buildout Without Project
Table 3.16-6, Intersection Operation: Post-2030 General Plan Buildout Intersection Operations compares the Post-2030 General Plan Buildout conditions without and with the proposed Project.

As shown in the table, without the proposed Project, the study intersections are forecast to operate at LOS D or better during the peak hours, except for the following intersections:

1. Campus Drive (NS) at Bristol Street North (EW)
(AM and PM peak hours)

3. Birch Street (NS) at Bristol Street North (EW)
(AM peak hour)

5. MacArthur Boulevard (NS) at Campus Drive (EW)
(PM peak hour)

6. MacArthur Boulevard (NS) at Birch Street (EW)
(PM peak hour)

10. Jamboree Road (NS) at Campus Drive (EW)
(PM peak hour)

12. Jamboree Road (NS) at Bristol Street South (EW)
(AM peak hour)
162 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
Table 3.16-6: Intersection Operations: Year 2027
No.

Intersection
Traffic
Control
Without Project
With Project
V/C Change
Significant
Impact
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
WC
LOS
V/C
LOS
WC
LOS
WC
LOS
AM
PM
1 Campus Dr (NS) at Bristol St North (EW)
S

0.458
A

0.677
B

0.459
A

0.676
B
+0.001
-0.001
No
2 Irvine Ave/Campus Dr (NS) at Bristol St South (EW)
S

0.543
A

0.492
A

0.541
A

0.494
A
-0.002
+0.002
No
3 Birch St (NS) at Bristol St North (EW)
S

0.498
A

0.535
A

0.504
A

0.533
A
+0.006
-0.002
No
4 Birch St (NS) at Bristol St South (EW)
S

0.361
A

0.364
A

0.361
A

0.365
A

0.000
+0.001
No
5 MacArthur Blvd (NS) at Campus Dr (EW) 1
S

0.441
A

0.669
B

0.441
A

0.669
B

0.000

0.000
No
6 MacArthur Blvd (NS) at Birch St (EW)
S

0.355
A

0.479
A

0.355
A

0.479
A

0.000

0.000
No
7 MacArthur Blvd (NS) at Newport PI Dr/
Von Karman Ave (EW)
S

0.404
A

0.423
A

0.403
A

0.425
A
-0.001
+0.002
No
8 MacArthur Blvd (NS) at Jamboree Rd (EW) 1
S

0.557
A

0.620
B

0.556
A

0.625
B
-0.001
+0.005
No
9 MacArthur Blvd (NS) at Bison Ave (EW)
S

0.450
A

0.476
A

0.451
A

0.477
A
+0.001
+0.001
No
10 Jamboree Rd (NS) at Campus Dr (EW) 1
S

0.574
A

0.622
B

0.574
A

0.622
B

0.000

0.000
No
11 Jamboree Rd (NS) at Bristol St North (EW)
S

0.394
A

0.423
A

0.386
A

0.431
A
-0.008
+0.008
No
12 Jamboree Rd (NS) at Bristol St South (EW)
S

0.651
B

0.664
B

0.652
B

0.593
A
+0.001
-0.071
No
13 Jamboree Rd (NS) at Eastbluff Dr/
University Dr (EW)
S
FO.6
B

0.678
B

0.637
B

0.679
B
+0.001
+0.001
No
S = Signalized; V/C = volume to capacity; LOS = Level of Service Bold and shaded values indicate intersections operating at LOS E or F per city standards.

1. Level of Service E is acceptable at this intersection; shared jurisdiction with the City of Irvine.

Source: Ganddini, 2023.
163 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
Table 3.16-7: Post-2030 General Plan Buildout Intersection Operations No.

Intersection
Traffic
Control
Without Project
With Project
V/C Change
Significant
Impact
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
WC
LOS
V/C
LOS
V/C
LOS
V/C
LOS
AM
PM
1 Campus Dr (NS) at Bristol St North (EW)
S

1.024
F

0.948
E

1.025
F

0.949
E
+0.001
+0.001
No
2 Irvine Ave/Campus Dr (NS) at Bristol St South (EW)
S

0.893
D

0.774
C

0.893
D

0.775
C

0.000
+0.001
No
3 Birch St (NS) at Bristol St North (EW)
S

0.916
E

0.811
D

0.919
E

0.813
D
+0.003
+0.002
No
4 Birch St (NS) at Bristol St South (EW)
S

0.547
A

0.625
B

0.554
A

0.627
B
+0.007
+0.002
No
5 MacArthur Blvd (NS) at Campus Dr (EW) 1
S

0.809
D

1.241
F

0.809
D

1.241
F

0.000

0.000
No
6 MacArthur Blvd (NS) at Birch St (EW)
S

0.796
C

1.016
F

0.797
C

1.018
F
+0.001
+0.002
No
7 MacArthur Blvd (NS) at Newport PI Dr/
Von Karman Ave (EW)
S

0.562
A

0.682
B

0.562
A

0.684
B

0.000
+0.002
No
8 MacArthur Blvd (NS) at Jamboree Rd (EW) 1
S

0.877
D

0.858
D

0.878
D

0.861
D
+0.001
+0.003
No
9 MacArthur Blvd (NS) at Bison Ave (EW)
S

0.775
C

0.792
C

0.775
C

0.793
C

0.000
+0.001
No
10 Jamboree Rd (NS) at Campus Dr (EW) 1
S

0.930
E

1.180
F

0.931
E

1.182
F
+0.001
+0.002
No
11 Jamboree Rd (NS) at Bristol St North (EW)
S

0.681
B

0.606
B

0.684
B

0.617
B
+0.003
+0.011
No
12 Jamboree Rd (NS) at Bristol St South (EW)
S

0.942
E

0.867
D

0.947
E

0.871
D
+0.005
+0.004
No
13 Jamboree Rd (NS) at Eastbluff Dr/
University Dr (EW)
S

0.681
B

0.667
B

0.681
B

0.667
B

0.000

0.000
No
S = Signalized; V/C = volume to capacity; LOS = Level of Service Bold and shaded values indicate intersections operating at LOS E or F per city standards.

1. Level of Service E is acceptable at this intersection; shared intersection with the City of Irvine.

Source: Ganddini, 2023.
164 Residences at 1300 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
Post-2030 General Plan Buildout With Project
The proposed increase in General Plan buildout units would generate 645 additional daily trips with 53 additional morning peak hour trips and 55 evening peak hour trips. The addition of project -generated trips is not forecast to cause any study intersection to operate deficiently (LOS E or F) or worsen a deficient intersection operation by more than one percent of capacity. Based on the significance criteria, the proposed Project is forecast to result in no significant level of service impacts at the study intersections and no mitigation is required. Based on this comparison, the proposed Project would not result in any new traffic impacts.

Potential impacts associated with the proposed Project would either be the same or not substantially greater than those described in the General Plan Program EIR. In addition, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the proposed Project would be undertaken that would result in more severe environmental traffic impacts than previously addressed in the General Plan Program EIR, nor has any new information regarding the potential for more severe significant environmental impacts been identified that would result in the previous analysis being inadequate. As such, no further analysis is required.

Construction Traffic
Construction of the proposed Project would add construction -related trips to and from the site during construction activities. These trips are associated with construction activities, including construction workers, grading, and construction of structures and site features.

Throughout construction, the size of the work crew reporting to the site each day would vary depending on the construction phase and the different activities taking place at the time. Until the parking structure is completed, the work crew (approximately 30 persons) would park at 1300 Bristol. Workers would be prohibited from parking on the City streets. Construction parking would be on the site once the parking structure is completed
Large construction equipment such as bulldozers, loaders, scrapers, and pavers would be required during various construction phases. Large equipment is generally brought to the site at the start of the construction phase and kept on site until its term of use ends. A staging area would be designated on -site to store construction equipment and supplies during construction.

The Applicant has prepared a Construction Management Plan to identify planned travel patterns for haul vehicles. The haul route to and from the project site for all dirt haul -off operations would be from SR-73.

Trucks would enter the site from Bristol Street North; trucks would exit the site from Spruce Avenue and continue to Bristol Street North. The contractor would be required to obtain a Haul Route Permit from the City of Newport Beach.

Impacts from construction traffic would be limited to occasional and temporary delays to traffic during the movement of heavy equipment or transport of heavy loads to and from the site. The arrivals and departures of dirt -hauling trucks and other heavy trucks will be scheduled to minimize traffic during the peak hours. The Applicant would be required to identify planned travel patterns for haul vehicles (SC TRAN-1). Construction management requirements, such as complying with peak hour restrictions, using flag men for short-term obstructions, and a formal traffic control plan for extended lane and street closures would be required. Impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, no new significant impacts 165 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
result from Project modification or changed circumstances, and no revisions to the General Plan Program EIR are necessary.

Threshold (b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines §15064.3, subdivision (b)?
This State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Checklist question and the referenced CEQA Guidelines section were added to the CEQA Guidelines updates in 2018, and therefore were not addressed in the certified General Plan Program EIR in 2006.

When the City's General Plan Program EIR was approved in 2006, the applicable traffic threshold was Level of Service (LOS), not Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). On September 27, 2013, SB 743 was signed into law and started a process that would change transportation impact analysis as part of CEQA compliance. These changes include the elimination of auto delay, LOS, and similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as a basis for determining significant environmental impacts. On January 20, 2016, the Office of Planning and Research released revisions to its proposed CEQA guidelines for the implementation of SB 743, and final review and rulemaking for the new guidelines were completed in December 2018. OPR allowed lead agencies an opt -in period to adopt the guidelines before the mandatory date adoption of July 1, 2020. However, since LOS was the applicable threshold when the General Plan Program EIR was approved, settled CEQA case law dictates that LOS, not VMT, is the applicable CEQA standard for the proposed Project.

A CEQA Addendum is appropriate when some changes to a prior EIR are necessary but (1) there are no substantial changes to a project which require major revisions to the previous EIR due to new or increased environmental impacts; (2) there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which a project is undertaken which require major revisions to the EIR due to new or increased environmental impacts; and (3) there is no new information showing that the project would have significant effects not discussed in the prior EIR or showing that new mitigation measures or alternatives are feasible or required. (14 Cal Code Regs §15164(b).) Preparation of an addendum is based on whether there have been any substantial changes to the project's physical environmental impacts or whether there are any new physical environmental impacts. The purpose of a CEQA Addendum is to compare physical project impacts with what was evaluated in the prior EIR to determine whether major revisions to the EIR are required. (See Fund for Environmental Defense v. County of Orange (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 1538.) Level of Service was the applicable threshold when the City certified the General Plan Program EIR in 2006.

The mandate requiring lead agencies to use VMT as a threshold for evaluating traffic impacts was adopted in 2018 and effective in 2020. It does not constitute "new information" requiring additional environmental review nor does it affect the assessment of project environmental impacts or mitigation measures compared to those analyzed in the General Plan Program EIR. The potential environmental impacts regarding the amount of travel associated with the General Plan was known at the time that General Plan Program EIR was certified. Settled CEQA case law supports reliance on level of service as the appropriate threshold by which to measure traffic impacts of proposed Project.

For informational purposes, the Traffic Impact Analysis addressed VMT. The proposed Project was assessed in accordance with guidance provided by the City of Newport Beach SB 743 Implementation (April 6, 2020) (VMT Guidelines). The transportation guidelines provide a framework for "screening thresholds" for certain projects that are expected to cause a less than significant impact without conducting a detailed VMT study. The proposed Project is a residential land use. 166 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
The City's VMT Guidelines contain a map of VMT per capita for existing Newport Beach residential areas.

VMT per capita in each area is compared to the regional average VMT per capita for Orange County. This map shows areas where residential developments have a VMT per capita lower than the Orange County regional average and may therefore be presumed to result in a less than significant VMT impact based on guidance provided in the OPR Technical Advisory.

The proposed Project is located in the Orange County Transportation Analysis Model (OCTAM) TAZ 1390 and is in an area with low residential VMT per capita (lower than 85 percent of Countywide average VMT per capita). Therefore, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on VMT because it satisfies the City -established screening criteria.

Therefore, no new significant impacts result from Project modification or changed circumstances, and no revisions to the General Plan Program EIR are necessary. No changes or new information would require preparation of an EIR.

Threshold (c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
General Plan Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR concluded that impacts related to geometric design features would be less than significant. General Plan policies in the then -current Circulation Element and the Land Use Element (CE 1.3.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.5) provided for maintaining and enhancing existing roadways, increasing safety of roadways, and balancing safety, quality of life and efficiency in the design of circulation and access. Compliance with General Plan policies would help reduce hazards due to design features. The General Plan Program EIR concluded that this impact would be less than significant.

Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No Impact; no substantial change from previous analysis.

The project site is already developed, and the proposed development would be accessed by roadways and driveways into the project site. Vehicular access to the site is from Bristol Street North and Spruce Avenue. There is one existing driveway into the site on each street. The driveways are currently unsignalized. The driveway on Bristol Street North permits right -in, right -out turning movements, while the driveway on Spruce Avenue is unrestricted.

Project implementation would retain the same vehicular access.

Bristol Street Driveway: A driveway would be retained but would be relocated approximately 65 feet to the northwest as part of the Project and have right -in, right -out access. The driveway would lead to a controlled access resident garage entry. A designated turn out area is proposed within the Bristol Street North entry for loading and trash.

Spruce Avenue Driveway: The driveway on Spruce Avenue would remain and would provide unrestricted turn movements. The driveway would lead to another gated entry for residents and guests. A turnout area on Spruce Avenue is proposed for ride share pick up and drop offs. 167 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
All entrances to the parking structure would have a high-speed roll -up gate. The roll -up gates for ground level parking would be open during normal business hours. The entrance to subterranean parking garage would be restricted to residents with key -card access. Guests would use a free-standing call box for entry.

The proposed Project would not introduce incompatible uses to area roadways. The Project would be designed in compliance with all applicable State and City building codes and would meet City of Newport Beach standards for design, including sight distance at all intersections (SC TRAN-2). The Project would not introduce roadway hazards or incompatible uses. It would not increase transportation hazards in comparison to the General Plan. Impacts would be less than significant. The proposed Project would cause neither a new impact to occur, nor an increase in the severity of an impact previously disclosed. As such, no further analysis is required.

Threshold (d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? General Plan Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR found that impacts related to emergency access were less than significant. Projects would be required to meet all applicable local and state regulatory standards for adequate emergency access. General Plan policies related to disaster planning include measures for effective emergency response to natural or human -induced disasters that minimizes the loss of life and damage to property and reducing disruptions in the delivery of vital public and private services during and following a disaster. Therefore, the General Plan Program EIR concluded that with compliance with applicable regulatory standards, the NBMC, and Fire Code requirements regarding emergency access, impacts would be less than significant.

Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No Impact; no substantial change from previous analysis.

As addressed under Threshold c, the proposed Project would retain the existing vehicular access and would not introduce incompatible uses to area roadways. The Project would not adversely impact public roads or introduce features that would adversely affect vehicular, pedestrian, or bicycle circulation in the vicinity of the site. In addition, Project traffic would not result in substantial delays and congestion that would affect the circulation of emergency vehicles in the study area compared to the General Plan Program EIR. The proposed Project would not result in new impacts in comparison to the General Plan Program EIR.

Project traffic would not result in substantial delays and congestions that would affect the circulation of emergency vehicles in the study area. The on -site access road would meet requirements for fire access roads in the California Fire Code (CCR Title 24 Part 9), Section 503. The proposed Project would not require new mitigation and emergency access impacts are considered less than significant. This determination of less than significant impact is supported by the previously certified EIR prepared for the General Plan. The proposed Project would cause neither a new impact to occur, nor an increase in the severity of an impact previously disclosed. As such, no further analysis is required.

Cumulative Impacts
As discussed above, the proposed Project would not cause a transportation impact to occur, nor an increase in the severity of any transportation impacts previously disclosed in the General Plan Program EIR, with implementation of the mitigation measures discussed in this section. Implementation of the proposed Project would not alter the conclusions of the General Plan Program EIR analysis and would not 168 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
result in a new or substantially more severe project -specific or cumulative transportation impact than those already analyzed.

Mitigation Program
Relevant General Plan Policies
The following policies are applicable to the proposed Project and would be made conditions of approval. ■ CE 2.1.1 Level of Service Standards. Plan the arterial roadway system to accommodate projected traffic at the following level of service standards:
o Level of Service (LOS) "D" throughout the City, unless otherwise noted o LOS "E" at any intersection in the Airport Area shared with Irvine, and in Corona del Mar (subject to findings of the most recent General Plan update traffic study) ■ CE 2.2.4 Traffic Control. Design traffic control measures to ensure City streets and roads function with safety and efficiency for vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. ■ CE 2.2.5 Driveway and Access Limitations. Limit driveway and local street access on arterial streets to maintain a desired quality of traffic flow and limit hazards to active transportation modes.

Wherever possible, consolidate and/or reduce the number of driveways and implement access controls during redevelopment of adjacent parcels.
■ CE 2.2.7 Emergency Access. Provide all residential, commercial, and industrial areas with efficient and safe access for emergency vehicles. Provide all residential, commercial, and industrial areas with efficient and safe access for emergency vehicles. An emergency evacuation map shall be prepared as part of an updated Safety Element.
■ CE 5.2.4 — Trail System. Promote construction of a comprehensive trail system as shown on Figure CE3 to connect bicycle trails with hiking trails and transit routes. ■ CE 5.2.6 - Pedestrian Improvements in New Development Projects. Require new development projects to include safe and attractive sidewalks, walkways, and bike lanes in accordance with the Master Plan, and, if feasible, trails.
■ CE 7.1.5 Support Facilities for Alternative Modes. Require new development projects to provide facilities commensurate with development type and intensity to support alternative modes, such as preferential parking for carpools, bicycle lockers, showers, commuter information areas, rideshare vehicle loading areas, water transportation docks, and bus stop improvements. ■ CE 7.1.7 - Project Site Design Supporting Alternative Modes. Encourage increased use of public transportation by requiring project site designs that facilitate the use of public transportation and walking.

Standard Conditions and Reauirements
SC TRAN-1 Construction Management Plan. Prior to issuance of any building permit, the Applicant shall submit for City of Newport Beach Community Development Director and Traffic Engineer review and approval a Construction Management Plan for the Project.

The 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 169 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
site, the hours of construction traffic, traffic controls and detours, construction materials and vehicle staging areas, and temporary parking arrangements for the construction workers.

SC TRAN-2 Sight distance at all intersections shall comply with City of Newport Beach standards.

Conclusion
Accordingly, no new impacts relative to transportation or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would occur. With regard to PRC Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of less than significant with mitigation. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not warranted.
170 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis

3.17 Utilities and Service Systems
Threshold (a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm drainage, electrical power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Water
General Plan Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. The City's water suppliers are the City, the Mesa Consolidated Water District (MCWD), and the Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD), which source their imported water from the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC). The General Plan Program EIR concluded that the City's three water suppliers would have enough capacity to serve General Plan development and that no relocation or expansion of water facilities was required. Impacts would be less than significant. All of service providers use groundwater and recycled water to supplement their supply. Development consistent with the General Plan would increase water demand within the City; MWDOC indicated that its 2030 projected availability of imported water supply would exceed the 2030 projected regionwide demand for imported water supply by at least 155,000 acre-feet. Therefore, MWDOC would be able to meet 100 percent of the City's imported water needs through 2030, as shown in Table 3.17-1, Projected Potable Water Supply and Demand (2005 UWMP).

Table 3.17-1: Projected Potable Water Supply and Demand (2005 UWMP) Water Source
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
MWDOC
6,404
5,758
6,157
6,392
6,226
6,256
OCWD
11,927
13,590
14,921
14,778
14,990
14,960
Recycled Water
317
444
478
500
500
500
Total Water Demand
18,648
19,792
21,556
21,640
21,716
21,716
Projected Demand
18,648
19,792
21,556
21,640
21,716
21,716
MWDOC= Municipal Water District of Orange County; OCWD = Orange County Water District.

Source: City of Newport Beach, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan Table 3-5, Table 4-8.

According to the General Plan Program EIR, the City provided approximately 1,200 AFY of the irrigation demand using recycled water. Policy NR 2.1 of the General Plan encourages the use of recycled water in the City by continuing to provide financial incentives, staff assistance, and training opportunities for customers, and expanding recycled water infrastructure and programs, when feasible. Future recycled water infrastructure developments, if necessary, would require further environmental review when project -level details are known. Therefore, impacts associated with the construction of new recycled water conveyance systems within the City were considered less than significant.

The General Plan Program EIR identified that new development would be subject to site -specific evaluation of existing water system's capacity to serve the development. If improvements are required, developers are required to pay its share of costs of all or portions of the needed improvements. General Plan Policy LU 2.8 directs the City to accommodate land uses that can be adequately supported by infrastructure, including water treatment and conveyance facilities. Therefore, overall impacts to the three water suppliers were found to be less than significant. 171 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact; no substantial change from previous analysis.

The project site is within the service area of the City of Newport Beach. As it applies to the proposed Project, the Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (2020 UWMP) is the applicable planning document for evaluating water supply and demand. According to the 2020 UWMP, Newport Beach's 2020 water supply was approximately 15,005 acre-feet (AF), which was combination of 10,237 AF of groundwater, 4,255 AF of imported water, and 513 AF of recycled water. Table 3.17-2, Newport Beach Projected Water Supplies shows the forecasted water supply for the City through year 2045.

Table 3.17-2: Newport Beach Projected Water Supplies
(AF)
Additional
Water Supply
Detail
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
Orange County
Groundwater
Groundwater
10,237
12,175
12,605
12,729
12,869
12,838
(not desalinated)
Basin
Purchased or
MWDOC
4,255
2,149
2,224
2,246
2,271
2,265
Imported Water
Recycled Water
OCWD
513
542
542
542
542
542
Total
15,005
14,866
15,371
15,517
15,682
15,645
AFY = acre-feet; MWDOC=Municipal Water District of Orange County; OCWD=Orange County Water District Source - Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, Arcadis U.S., Inc. (2021) Due to OCWD's plans to increase regional groundwater recharge, the basin production percentage (BPP) is expected to be 85%
starting in
2025 (Refer to Section 6.3.4). The BPP is only applied to the City's potable water supply. Volumes of groundwater and imported water may vary depending on OCWD's actual BPP projections, which are established annually.

This table only considers direct use of recycled water - this does not include indirect potable recharge.

The Project includes 229 multi -unit dwellings. The 2020 UWMP noted that the daily per capita water usage was 160 gallons per capita per day. The number of persons expected to reside in each residential unit is

2.19 persons, per the General Plan EIR assumptions. Therefore, approximately 502 residents are associated with the proposed Project. The projected water demand for the Project is shown in Table 3.17-3, Potable Water Demand.

Table 3.17-3: Potable Water Demand
Land Use
Unit Count
Expected
Population
Demand
Factor
Gallons per
Day (gpd)
Acre -Feet per
Year (AFY)
High Density Residential
229 DU
502
160 gpcd
80,320

90.0 gpd = gallons per day; gpcd = gallons per capita per day; DU = dwelling unit; AFY = acre-feet per year Source for per capita generation rate: Newport Beach 2020 Urban Water Management Plan.

Project implementation is estimated to generate a water demand of approximately 80,320 gpd, or 90.0 AFY (Table 3.17-3), which does not account for the water use associated with the existing office buildings.

This worst -case demand represents less than one percent of Newport Beach's anticipated water demand for through 2045 under normal year, single dry year, and multiple dry year conditions. The 2020 UWMP found that the City's supply capabilities are expected to balance anticipated total water use and supply and to accommodate normal years, single dry years, and multiple dry -year events. The UWMP indicated that there is adequate existing and planned water supply to accommodate future development accounted 172 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
for in the General Plan and addresses the City's Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation for the 61h Cycle planning period of 2021-2029. The 2020 UWMP provides updated water demand and supply projections, shown in Table 3.17-4, Newport Beach Current and Projected Water Demand.

Table 3.17-4: Newport Beach Current and Projected Water Demand (AFY) Water Source
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
Potable Water, Raw, Other Non -potable
14,492
14,324
14,829
14,975
15,140
15,103
Recycled Water Demand
513
542
542
542
542
542
Total Water Demand
15,005
14,866
15,371
15,517
15,682
15,645
AF = acre-feet
Source: Newport Beach UWMP, 2021.

Therefore, no relocation or construction of new water facilities would be required. No new impact would result, nor would the impact previously identified be any more severe as a result of the proposed Project.

Therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent with the effects of implementation of the General Plan.

Wastewater
General Plan Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR concluded that implementation of the General Plan would produce an additional 4.12 million gallons per day (mgd) of wastewater. The additional 4.12 mgd of wastewater would be treated at Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) Reclamation Plants No. 1 and No. 2. Reclamation Plant No. 1 had a capacity of 174 mgd and treated an average flow of 90 mgd, approximately 52 percent of its design capacity.

Reclamation Plant No. 2 had a capacity of 276 mgd and treated an average of 153 mgd, approximately 55 percent of its design capacity. The additional 4.12 mgd from buildout of the General Plan was determined to be nominal compared to the capacities of the two plants. In addition, policies in the General Plan require adequate wastewater facilities and conveyance systems to be available to the City residents through renovations, installations, and improvements when needed. Impacts were determined to be less than significant.

Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact; no substantial change from previous analysis.

The Project proposes 229 multi -unit rental apartments with structured parking. The General Plan Program EIR evaluated up to 4,300 residential units in the Airport Area; the General Plan was adopted for up to 2,200 residential units. As such, the proposed residential development is consistent with the assumptions in the General Plan for the Airport Area.

The total area of the project site is 2.38 acres. Using the typical unit flow factor of 2,500 gpd/ac, the existing flow at the project site is calculated as 5,950 gpd. According to the Sewer Capacity Study (Tait, 2023), the residential unit flow factors range from 110 gpd/du to 240 gpd/du. Based on a review of similar parcels within the City, a generation rate of 160 gpd/du has been used. Based on 229 dwelling units, the calculated daily flow for the proposed Project is 36,800 gpd or an increase of 30,850 gpd, as identified in Table 3.17-5, Wastewater Generation.
173 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
Table 3.17-5: Wastewater Generation
Existing Flow at Project Site (gpd)
Proposed Flow at Project Site (gpd)
Net Increase in Flow (gpd)
5,950
36,800
30,850
gpd = gallons per day
Source: Sewer Capacity Study, Tait, 2023. See Appendix G: Sewer Study Wastewater collected by the City would be treated at OCSD's treatment plants in Fountain Valley (Plant No. 1) and Huntington Beach (Plant No. 2). Plant No. 1 has an average daily flow of 120 mgd and Plant No. 2 has an average daily flow of 59 mgd. Collectively, the two plants have an average daily wastewater flow of 179 mgd. 38 Given that the proposed Project would generate an additional 30,850 gpd or 0.03 mgd of wastewater, this increase is nominal compared to the combined capacity of both treatment plants.

Therefore, existing wastewater treatment facilities would accommodate the project -generated wastewater and continue maintaining a substantial amount of remaining capacity for future wastewater treatment.

As noted in the Project's sewer study, cumulative projects occurring in the vicinity of the project site would cause one of the City's manhole outflow streams to exceed the minimum design requirements for depth and diameter ratio. The flows through this manhole is deficient. As a part of the Project, a segment of the existing 10-inch sewer main would be upsized to a 12-inch sewer main, on Dove Street between Newport Place and Bowsprit Drive. The construction and replacement of the sewer main would not result in significant environmental effects.

Further, General Plan Policy NR 5.1 and NR 5.3 require the renovation of all older sewer pump stations and the installation of new plumbing according to most recent standards, and implementation of the Sewer System Management Plan and Sewer Master Plan. The proposed off -site improvements would comply with General Plan policies to provide additional upgrades to the City's sewer system.

The proposed Project would not result in any new adverse impacts or increase the severity of any previously identified impacts related to wastewater. No new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified that would impact the prior finding under this threshold. Therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent with the effects of implementation of the General Plan.

Storm Drainage
General Plan Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR noted that impacts to the City's storm drainage system would be less than significant. Since the City of Newport Beach is almost entirely built out, development would occur only in areas with existing storm drainage infrastructure. The Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan requires new developments to create and implement a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), which would ensure pollutant discharges are reduced to the maximum extent practicable and do not exceed existing storm drainage capacities. Therefore, any additional stormwater runoff expected at buildout of the General Plan would not exceed existing storm drainage capacities, and impacts were found to be less than significant. 38 Orange County Sanitation District. Facts and Key Statistics. Available at: Regional Sewer Service I Orange County Sanitation District (ocsan.gov), accessed July 6, 2023.
174 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact; no substantial change from previous analysis.

As discussed under Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, the site currently drains in two directions:
approximately 10 percent of flows are directed toward Spruce Avenue and 90 percent drains toward Bristol Street North. The site is considered relatively flat with one to two percent grade to provide sheet flow within the existing surface parking lot area. With buildout of the project site, the Project would maintain the existing drainage pattern. Approximately 0.62 acre of the 2.38-acre project site would be landscaped areas and have pervious surfaces. The Project proposes three drainage management areas (DMA) to treat runoff, primarily through biotreatment planters. Two DMAs would use modular wetland systems to treat water and discharge into the existing curb and gutter. The last DMA would use a biotreatment planter to treat water before discharging into a proposed catch basin on Bristol Street.

The proposed Project, similar to other projects developed pursuant to the General Plan, would be required to implement a WQMP. The WQMP would reduce discharge of stormwater into urban runoff from the operational phase by managing site runoff volumes and flow rates through application of appropriate best management practices. BMPs would be designed in accordance with the NPDES requirements. Any drainage facilities would also be designed in accordance with NBMC Section 19.28.080, set forth in SC UTIL-2. Therefore, stormwater runoff expected at buildout of the proposed Project would not exceed existing storm drainage capacities. The proposed Project would not result in any new adverse impacts or increase the severity of any previously identified impacts related to storm water drainage. No new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified that would impact the prior finding under this threshold.

Therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent with the effects of implementation of the General Plan.

Telecommunications
General Plan Significance Determination: No Impact. Telecommunications are provided by Spectrum, Cox, and Google Fiber. Local telecommunications companies operate and maintain transmission and distribution infrastructure in the area, which currently serves the project site. The General Plan Program EIR did not analyze impacts associated with the construction or relocation of telecommunication infrastructure.

Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No Impact; no substantial change from previous analysis.

The proposed Project would not require relocation or construction of new telecommunication facilities.

The Project would connect to existing connections for services. No impact would occur.

Threshold (b) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? General Plan Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. According to the City of Newport Beach's 2005 Urban Water Management Plan referenced in the General Plan Program EIR, water supplies would continue to meet the City's imported water needs until year 2030. OCWD, which provides the groundwater supply to the City, projects that there would be sufficient groundwater supplies to meet any future demand requirements in Newport Beach. The water supply impact associated with the City's water service boundaries for the City and its Sphere of Influence were determined to be less than significant. 175 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact; no substantial change from previous analysis.

Water service is provided to the project site and surrounding area by the City of Newport Beach. The 2020 UWMP found that the City's supply capabilities are expected to balance anticipated total water use and supply and to accommodate normal years, single dry years, and multiple dry -year events. The UWMP indicated that there is adequate existing and planned water supply to accommodate future development as set forth in the General Plan inclusive of the City's Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation for the 6th Cycle planning period of 2021-2029 and its associated water demands. Table 3.17-6, Drought Risk Assessment (AF) identifies supply and demand forecasts between 2021 and 2025.

Table 3.17-6: Drought Risk Assessment (AF)
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Supply Totals
15,876
15,846
15,817
15,787
15,758
Demand Totals
15,876
15,846
15,817
15,787
15,758
Difference
0 0
0 0
0 [AF�e-feet
Newport Beach UWMP Table 7-5, 2021
As previously identified in Table 3.17-3, the proposed Project would generate an increase in water demand of 90.0 AFY for the project site, which does not account for the water use associated with the existing office buildings. The City's 2020 UWMP found that water supplies are sufficient to meet the 2045 projected water demand for its service residents during normal years, single dry years, and multiple dry - year events. The Project is consistent with the growth projected in the General Plan and therefore demand from the Project is accounted for in the 2020 UWMP. Therefore, the City's existing and future water supply is able to accommodate the increased water demand associated with the proposed Project. Impacts are less than significant. The proposed Project would not result in any new adverse impacts or increase the severity of any previously identified impacts for the provision of water. No new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified that would impact the prior finding under this threshold. Therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent with the effects of implementation of the General Plan.

Threshold (c) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? General Plan Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR concluded a less than significant impact related to wastewater treatment capacity. The additional

4.12 mgd from buildout of the General Plan was nominal compared to the capacities of the two plants. In addition, policies in the General Plan require adequate wastewater facilities and conveyance systems to be available to the City residents through renovations, installations, and improvements when needed.

Therefore, impacts were determined to be less than significant.

Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact; no substantial change from previous analysis.
176 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
As mentioned above, the incremental increase in wastewater generated by the proposed Project could be accommodated by OCSD's treatment plants (Table 3.17-5). The City requires NPDES permits, which set limits on allowable concentrations in any wastewater discharge. The NBMC also requires dwelling units and commercial uses to connect to the City's public sewer network and prohibits certain polluting substances from being discharged into a public sewer. The proposed Project, similar to development in accordance with the General Plan, would be required to comply with all provisions of the NPDES program and the NBMC and would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. No new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified that would impact the prior finding under this threshold. Therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent with the effects of implementation of the General Plan.

Threshold (d) Would the project generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
General Plan Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR found that impacts on existing solid waste facilities from project -generated solid waste were less than significant. Development of the General Plan would result in an additional 21,659 tons per year of solid waste to be disposed of at the Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill, which represented approximately

0.68 percent of the solid waste accepted annually at the landfill. Based on the landfill's 16-year lifespan and remaining capacity of approximately 44.6 million tons at the time the previous EIR was prepared, the increase in solid waste generated from buildout of the General Plan was considered less than significant.

Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact; no substantial change from previous analysis.

The Bowerman Landfill has a maximum permitted disposal of 11,500 tons per day. The landfill has a remaining capacity of 205,000,000 cubic yards with a closure date of December 31, 2053.39 As identified in Table 3.17-7, Estimated Solid Waste Generation, the proposed Project would generate approximately 1,468 pounds of solid waste per day (0.74 ton per day or 269 tons/year). The estimated refuse generation for the Project is less than 0.01 percent of the landfill's annual tons per day average. The proposed Project's development intensity is consistent with the City's development assumptions, 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 Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. Based on the remaining capacity of the Bowerman Landfill and the County's long-term planning programs required to meet CalRecycle requirements, there would be adequate waste disposal capacity within the permitted County's landfill system to meet the needs of the proposed Project. No significant impacts are anticipated.

Table 3.17-7: Estimated Solid Waste Generation
Units/square feet (sf)
Solid Waste Generation Rate
Solid Waste Generation
229 units: multi -unit residential

6.41 Ibs/unit/day
1,468 Ibs/day
Total
1,468 Ibs/day (269 tons/yr)
Source: City of Newport Beach General Plan Program EIR, 2006. 39 CalRecycle, SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details, Available at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/Solid Waste/SiteActivity/Details/2767?sitelD=2103, Accessed July 7, 2023. 177 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
The proposed Project, similar to other projects developed pursuant to the General Plan, would comply with the California Green Building Standards and AB 341. The 2022 California Green Building Standards Code requires that at least 65 percent of the non -hazardous construction and demolition waste from residential construction operations be recycled and/or salvaged for reuse. AB 341 mandates a statewide solid waste diversion rate of 75 percent by 2020. No new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified that would impact the prior finding under this threshold. Therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent with the effects of implementation of the General Plan.

Threshold (e) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
General Plan Significance Determination: No Impact. The General Plan Program EIR concluded that no impacts would occur related to compliance with federal, state, and local regulations. AB 939, the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (PRC §40000 et seq.) required all local governments to develop source reduction, reuse, recycling, and composting programs to reduce tonnage of solid waste going to landfills. Cities were required to divert at least 50 percent of all solid waste generated by January 1, 2000.

AB 1327, the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991 (PRC §§42900 et seq.), required the California Integrated Waste Management Board to develop a model ordinance requiring adequate areas for the collection and loading of recyclable materials in development projects. Local agencies were then required to adopt and enforce either the model ordinance or an ordinance of their own by September 1, 1993. Chapter 6.06 of the City's NBMC includes waste recycling requirements in conformance with AB 1327. The City consistently diverts 50 percent or more of solid waste and, therefore, complies with this legislation. Therefore, the General Plan Program EIR identified no impacts.

Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No Impact; no substantial change from previous analysis.

Compliance with AB 939 is measured for each jurisdiction, in part, as actual disposal amounts compared to target disposal amounts. Target disposal rates for the City are 9.6 pounds per day (ppd) per resident.

Actual disposal rates in 2018 were 6.9 ppd per resident. Therefore, solid waste diversion in Newport Beach is consistent with AB 939 and the Project's solid waste generation would be consistent with AB 939 and AB 1327. The proposed Project, similar to all projects, is required to recycle construction waste in compliance with the 2019 California Green Building Code, store and collect recyclable materials in compliance with AB 341 and handle green waste in accordance with AB 1826 (2014). AB 1826 requires businesses, including multi -unit developments, to recycle organic waste and for local jurisdictions across to implement organic waste recycling programs to divert organic waste generated by businesses.

California's definition of "organic waste" is food waste, green waste, landscape and pruning waste, nonhazardous wood waste, and food -soiled paper waste that is mixed in with food waste.

SB 1383 (2016) establishes targets to achieve a 50 percent reduction in the level of the statewide disposal of organic waste from the 2014 level by 2020 and a 75 percent reduction by 2025. The law grants CalRecycle the regulatory authority required to achieve the organic waste disposal reduction targets and establishes an additional target that not less than 20 percent of currently disposed edible food is recovered for human consumption by 2025. CalRecycle's regulations to meet the organic waste reduction targets for 2020 and 2025 took effect and are enforceable as of January 1, 2022. 178 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
No new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified that would impact the prior finding under this threshold.

Therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent with the effects of implementation of the General Plan.

Cumulative Impacts
As discussed above, the proposed Project would not cause a utilities impact to occur, nor an increase in the severity of any utilities impacts previously disclosed in the General Plan Program EIR, with implementation of the mitigation measures discussed in this section. Implementation of the proposed Project would not alter the conclusions of the General Plan Program EIR analysis and would not result in a new or substantially more severe project -specific or cumulative utility impact than those already analyzed.

Mitigation Program
Relevant General Plan Policies
Consistent with the General Plan Program EIR, the following policies are applicable to the proposed Project and would be made conditions of approval.

The policies below are applicable to this Project.
■ LU 2.8 Adequate Infrastructure: Accommodate the types, densities, and mix of land uses that can be adequately supported by transportation and utility infrastructure (water, sewer, storm drainage, energy, and so on) and public services (schools, parks, libraries, seniors, youth, police, fire, and so on).
■ LU 3.2 Growth and Change: Enhance existing neighborhoods, districts, and corridors, allowing for re- use and infill with uses that are complementary in type, form, scale, and character. Changes in use and/or density/intensity should be considered only in those areas that are economically underperforming, are necessary to accommodate Newport Beach's share of projected regional population growth, improve the relationship, and reduce commuting distance between home and jobs, or enhance the values that distinguish Newport Beach as a special place to live for its residents.

The scale of growth and new development shall be coordinated with the provision of adequate infrastructure and public services, including standards for acceptable traffic level of service. ■ NR 3.4 Storm Sewer System Permit - Require all development to comply with the regulations under the City's municipal separate storm sewer system permit under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. (Policy HB8.5)
■ NR 3.11 Site Design and Source Control - Include site design and source control BMPs in all developments. When the combination of site design and source control BMPs are not sufficient to protect water quality as required by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), structural treatment BMPs will be implemented along with site design and source control measures. (Policy HB8.12)
■ NR 3.15 Street Drainage Systems - Require all street drainage systems and other physical improvements created by the City, or developers of new subdivisions, to be designed, constructed, and maintained to minimize adverse impacts on water quality. Investigate the possibility of treating or diverting street drainage to minimize impacts to water bodies. (Policy HB8.16) 179 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
Standard Conditions and Requirements
SC UTIL-1 The project shall be required to comply with the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 14.16 related to water conservation and supply level regulations in effect during the construction and operation of the project, and Municipal Code Chapter 14.17 with respect to water -efficient landscaping.

SC UTIL-2 The project shall be required to comply with Section 19.28.080 (Storm Drains) of the City's Municipal Code which requires developers to design and construct all drainage facilities necessary for the removal of surface water from the site (e.g., open/closed channels, catch basins, manholes, junction structures), and to protect off -site properties from a project's water runoff. The storm drain system must be designed in accordance with the standards of the Orange County Flood Division. A drainage fee is also charged to fund improvements to the City's drainage facilities.

SC UTIL-3 The Applicant shall prepare and obtain approval of a Construction and Demolition Waste Management Plan (CDWMD) for the project. The CWMP shall list the types and weights or volumes of solid waste materials expected to be generated from construction. The CDWMP shall include options to divert from landfill disposal, nonhazardous materials for reuse or recycling by a minimum of 65 percent of total weight or volume.

Conclusion
Accordingly, no new impacts relative to Utilities and Services or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would occur. With regard to PRC Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of less than significant with mitigation. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not warranted.
180 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis

3.18 Wildfire
The topic of Wildfire was not addressed in the General Plan Program EIR because the requirement to analyze in CEQA documents the potential impacts associated with proximity to very high fire hazard severity zones did not become effective until January 1, 2019, which was subsequent to the certification of General Plan Program EIR by the Newport Beach City Council in 2006. However, the General Plan identified areas with high and moderate fire susceptibility.

Threshold (a) If located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact. According to the CAL FIRE Hazard Severity Zone Map for Orange County, the project site is not within or proximate to Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) zone for a Local Responsibility Area.

Additionally, General Plan Figure S4, Wildfire Hazards, shows that the project site is not within areas designated as High or Moderate fire susceptibility. Therefore, this threshold is not applicable to the proposed Project. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (b) If located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? No Impact. As noted, the site is not within or proximate to a VHFHSZ. Therefore, this threshold is not applicable to the proposed Project. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (c) If located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
No Impact. As noted, the site is not within or proximate to a VHFHSZ. Therefore, this threshold is not applicable to the proposed Project. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (d) If located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post - fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
No Impact. As noted, the site is not within or proximate to a VHFHSZ. Therefore, this threshold is not applicable to the proposed Project. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

Cumulative Impacts
As discussed above, the project site is not within a VHFHSZ. Therefore, the proposed Project would not cause either a new cumulative impact to occur, nor cumulatively contribute to wildfire impacts. 181 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
Mitigation Program
General Plan Policies
General Plan policies related to wildfires identified in the General Plan Program EIR to mitigate potential impacts to wildfires are not applicable to the Project.

Standard Conditions and Requirements
No standard conditions are applicable to the proposed Project.

Conclusion
Accordingly, no new impacts relative to wildfires or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would occur. With regard to PRC Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 1S162(a), the Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior findings. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not warranted.
182 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 4
Determination
4 DETERMINATION OF APPROPRIATE CEQA DOCUMENTATION
The following discussion lists the appropriate subsections of Sections 15162 and 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines and provides justification for the City of Newport Beach to make a determination of the appropriate CEQA document for the proposed Project, based on the environmental analysis provided above.

Section 15162 — Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations (a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.

The City of Newport Beach proposes to implement the Project within the context of the General Plan, as described in this Addendum. As discussed in the Environmental Impact Analysis section of this Addendum, no new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would occur that would require substantive revisions to the General Plan Program EIR. The proposed Project would not result in substantially increased impacts above what was evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR with regard to density and environmental factors. (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.

As documented herein, there have been no changes in circumstances under which the General Plan is being implemented since certification of the General Plan Program EIR; and none of the proposed Project elements would result in new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects than previously identified.
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant environmental effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
No new information that was not known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was prepared is now available that demonstrates that the proposed Project will result in a new or increased significant impact.

Based on the analysis prepared for the proposed Project, the project -related effects would not be substantially more severe than were disclosed in the General Plan Program EIR as a result of the proposed Project. Implementation of the proposed Project within the context of the General Plan would not substantially increase the severity of previously identified impacts. 183 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 4
Determination
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or No mitigation measures or alternatives found infeasible in the General Plan Program EIR are now feasible. (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

No feasible alternatives have been identified that would substantially reduce significant impacts.

Additional technical analyses were performed for the proposed Project and are the subject of this Addendum. Based on the analysis in this document, the proposed Project would not result in any new significant environmental effects that are substantially different from those identified in the General Plan Program EIR nor would it substantially increase the severity of significant effects previously identified in the General Plan Program EIR. None of the conditions listed under subsection (a) would occur that would require preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis. (b) Once a project has been approved, the lead agency's role in project approval is completed, unless further discretionary approval on that project is required. Information appearing after an approval does not require reopening of that approval. If after the project is approved, any of the conditions described in subsection (a) occurs, a subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall only be prepared by the public agency which grants the next discretionary approval for the project, if any. In this situation no other Responsible Agency shall grant an approval for the project until the subsequent EIR has been certified or subsequent negative declaration adopted.

None of the conditions listed in subsection (a) would occur as a result of the proposed Project. Therefore, no subsequent environmental analysis is required.

Section 15164 — Addendum to an EIR or Negative Declaration (a) The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.

As described above, none of the conditions described in the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration have occurred. (b) An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred.

None of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration would occur as a result of the proposed Project. Therefore, an Addendum to the certified General Plan Program EIR is the appropriate CEQA document for the proposed Project. (c) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the EIR or adopted negative declaration.
184 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 4
Determination
This Addendum will be attached to the General Plan Program EIR and maintained in the administrative record files at the City of Newport Beach.
(d) The decision -making body shall consider the Addendum with the EIR prior to making a decision on the project.

The City of Newport Beach would consider this Addendum with the General Plan Program EIR prior to making a decision on the proposed Project.
(e) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency's required findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence.

This document provides substantial evidence for City of Newport Beach records to support the preparation of this Addendum for the proposed Project.

Therefore, preparation of subsequent environmental analysis is not required and the appropriate CEQA document for the proposed Project is this Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR. No additional environmental analysis or review is required for the proposed Project. This document will be maintained in the administrative record files at City of Newport Beach offices. 185 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

5 PREPARERS
City of Newport Beach (Lead Agency)
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
James Campbell, Deputy Community Development Director
Liz Westmorland, Senior Planner
Brad Sommers, P.E., T.E., City Traffic Engineer
Socheata Chhouk, Associate Civil Engineer
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
1100 W. Town & Country Road, Suite 700
Orange, California 92868
Dana C. Privitt, AICP, Project Director
Brian Leung, AICP, Project Manager
Sarah Miller, Planning Analyst
Achilles Malisos, Technical Studies Manager
Section 5
Preparers
186 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 6
References
6 REFERENCES
Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County. 2008. Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport.
—. 2005 (July). Figure 1, Airport Planning Areas.

Arcadis. 2021 (May). Final Draft 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Prepared for the City of Newport Beach, CA.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). State Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps (June 15, 2023). https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/fire-hazard-severity-zones-maps- 2022/. Accessed August 23, 2023.

California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). Construction/Demolition and Inert Debris Tools and Resources. Construction/Demolition and Inert Debris Resources - CalRecycle Home Page
—. Disposal Facility Inspection Report for the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill. SWIS Facility/Site Details (ca.gov)
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). California Scenic Highway System Map. California State Scenic Highway System Map (arcgis.com).

EIP Associates. 2006 (April) City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report.

Prepared for the City of Newport Beach, CA.
—. 2006 (July). City of Newport Beach General Plan. Prepared for the City of Newport Beach, CA.

Federal Aviation Administration. 2023 (Jan 17). Aeronautical Study No. 2023-AWP-49-OE. Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation.

Ganddini Group, Inc. 2023 (June). 1400 Bristol Street North Residences Traffic Impact Analysis.

Kling Consulting Group, Inc. 2022 (Nov). Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for Feasibility Purposes, 1400 Bristol Street N, Newport Beach, California. Prepared for The Picerne Group.

Newport Beach, City of. 2023 (Aug). Newport Beach Municipal Code, as amended. http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/NewportBeach/ .
—. No date. City of Newport Beach Demographics and Statistics. https://www.newportbeachca.gov/i- am-a/visitor/about-newport-beach/demographics-and-statistics. —. 2019. City of Newport Beach Sewer System Management Plan. —. 2022. City of Newport Beach Emergency Operations Plan (EOP). —. 2017. City of Newport Beach Paleontological and Archaeological Resource Protection Guidelines. https://www . newportbeachca.gov/home/showpubl isheddocument/2437/636385647487800000.

Accessed 2023.
187 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 6
References
Newport Beach Fire Department. EMS Division.
http://www.newportbeachca.gov/government/departments/fire-department/emergency- medical-services-division.

Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). 2023. https://www.ocsan.gov/ —. Regional Sewer Service. https://www.ocsan.gov/services/regional-sewer-service . Accessed 2023.

Orange County Waste & Recycling. Active Landfills. https:Hoclandfills.com/landfills/frank-r-bowerman- landfill. Accessed 2023.

Orange County Water District (OCWD). 2015 (June). Orange County Water District Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update. https://www.ocwd.com/what-we-do/groundwater- management/groundwater-management-plan/
Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. 2020 (Jan). Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment for 1400 &1420 Bristol Street). Prepared for Buchanan Street Partners.

Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy.

Southern California Edison (SCE). Overview - Who We Are. https://www.sce.com/about-us/who-we-are .

Accessed 2023.

Springbrook Realty Advisors, Inc. 2023 (Aug 11). 1400 Bristol Street Affordable Housing Implementation Plan and Density Bonus Application. Prepared for The Picerne Group.

Tait & Associates, Inc. 2022 (Dec 19). Priority Project Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (pWQMP). Prepared for the KCN Management, LLC.
—. 2023 (May 24). Sewer Capacity Study for 1400 Bristol St. N Newport Beach, CA 92660. Prepared for The Picerne Group.

The Picerne Group, Inc. No date. Construction Management & Control Plan for 1400 Bristol. 188 Residences at 1400 Bristol Street
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

APPENDIX A

AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY MODELING DATA

APPENDIX B

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

APPENDIX C

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT

APPENDIX D

PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDIX E

NOISE MODELING DATA

APPENDIX F

TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

APPENDIX G

SEWER STUDY

APPENDIX B

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation
for Feasibility Purposes,1400 Bristol
Street N., Newport Beach, California,
92660.

KCGKLI NG
Consulting
Group, Inc.

PN 22029-00
November 4, 2022

KCGKLI N G
Consulting
Group, Inc.

November 4, 2022
Mr. Andrew Strohl
The Picerne Group
5000 Birch Street,
Newport Beach, CA 92660
PN 22029-00
Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for Feasibility Purposes, 1400 Bristol Street N., Newport Beach, California, 92660
Dear Mr. Strohl:

At your request and authorization, Kling Consulting Group, Inc. (KCG) has performed a preliminary feasibility level geotechnical investigation for a proposed multi -level apartment complex located in Newport Beach, California (see Figure 1 - Site Location Map). The purpose of our evaluation has been to review site geologic/geotechnical conditions and assess potential constraints affecting development of the site. Subsurface field exploration consisting of three Cone Penetrometer (CPT) soundings, was completed to characterize the subsurface soils and determine selected engineering properties to develop preliminary geotechnical conclusions and recommendations for feasibility purposes. We expect our findings and opinions will assist in your decision -making process to develop the property and aid in development of preliminary costs and budgets for the project.

We appreciate this opportunity to be of continued service and to work with you on this project. Should you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to call.

Respectfully,

KLING CONSULTING GROUP
Staff Engineer
Principal Geotechnical Engineer
GE 2205 Expires 3/31/24
JH:JPB:HFK:MK
NCI /
effrey P. Blake
NO.EG224 ='
E�,to 1
Associate Engineering Geologist
CEG 2248 Expires 10/31/23
18008 Sky Park Circle, Suite 250, Irvine, California 92614 (949) 797-6241 Fax (949) 797-6260

The Picerne Group
November 4, 2022
PN 22029-00
Dist.: Pdf via email

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................... 4

1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE................................................................................................. 4 1.2 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION........................................................................... 4 2.0 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS..................................................................................... 5 2.1 Subsurface Investigation and Sampling........................................................................... 5 2.2 Regional and Site Specific Geologic Setting................................................................... 5 2.3 Subsurface Conditions...................................................................................................... 5 2.3.1 Asphalt...................................................................................................................... 5 2.3.2 Old Paralic Deposits (Qopfa).................................................................................... 5 2.4 Groundwater.....................................................................................................................6

3.0 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS .................................... 6 3.1 Expansive Soil Characteristics......................................................................................... 6 3.2 Sulfate Content................................................................................................................. 6 3.3 Faulting and Seismicity.................................................................................................... 7 3.4 Seismic Design Parameters.............................................................................................. 7 3.5 Seismic Hazards............................................................................................................... 8 3.5.1 Liquefaction Potential............................................................................................... 8 3.5.2 Liquefaction Settlement Analysis............................................................................. 8 3.5.3 Sesimically-Induced Settlement............................................................................... 9 3.5.4 Lateral Spreading...................................................................................................... 9 4.0 CONCLUSIONS.......................................................................................................9

5.0 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................ 11 5.1 Supplemental Subsurface Exploration........................................................................... 11 5.2 Earthwork Specifications............................................................................................... 11 5.3 Remedial Earthwork....................................................................................................... 11 5.3.1 Conventional Foundations —One or Two Level Subterranean ................................ 11 5.3.2 Mat Slab Foundations —One or Two Level Subterranean ....................................... 12 5.3.3 Proposed Pavement and Flatwork Areas................................................................ 12 5.4 Processing of Natural Soils and Fill Placement............................................................. 12 5.5 Preliminary Recommendations - Proposed Building Foundations ................................ 12 5.5.1 Subterranean -Conventional Shallow Foundations .................................................. 12 5.5.2 Subterranean- Mat Slab.......................................................................................... 13 5.6 Settlement.......................................................................................................................13

5.7 Slab-On-Grade............................................................................................................... 13 5.7.1 Basement Slab on Grade Floors.............................................................................. 14 5.8 Permanent Subterranean Walls...................................................................................... 14 5.9 Temporary Excavations.................................................................................................. 16 5.10 Shoring........................................................................................................................... 16 5.11 Preliminary Pavement Design........................................................................................ 18 5.11.1 Asphalt Concrete Pavement.................................................................................... 18 5.11.2 Portland Cement Concrete Pavement..................................................................... 19 5.12 Exterior Flatwork........................................................................................................... 19 S:\Projects\KCG\2022\22029-00 1400 Bristol St\22029-00 DD 1400 Bristol Street 11-22(hk).doc 2 The Picerne Group
November 4, 2022
PN 22029-00

TABLE OF CONTENTS
(CONTINUED)

5.12.1 Sidewalk, Pedestrian Walkways............................................................................. 20

5.13 Drainage......................................................................................................................... 20

5.14 Geotechnical Observation and Testing.......................................................................... 20

6.0 PROFESSIONAL LIMITATIONS........................................................................ 20 Attachments:

Figure 1 — Site Location Map
Figure 2 — Exploration Location Map
Appendix A -
References
Appendix B -
CPT Soundings
Appendix C -
Liquefaction and Seismic Settlement Analysis
Appendix D -
Hardscape Recommendations
Appendix E -
ASFE Insert
S:\Projects\KCG\2022\22029-00 1400 Bristol St\22029-00 DD 1400 Bristol Street 11-22(hk).doc 3 The Picerne Group PN 22029-00
November 4, 2022

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The purpose of our limited geotechnical investigation was to evaluate near -surface soil conditions to provide preliminary feasibility level geotechnical design recommendations for a proposed multi -level apartment building complex. The scope of work undertaken included the following tasks:
• Compilation and interpretation of available, previously documented geologic and geotechnical data for the property;
• Coordination with Underground Service Alert to mark and identify buried utilities;
• Subsurface exploration, including three (3) Cone -Penetrometer Soundings (CPTs) up to to maximum depths of approximately 50 feet. Continuous logs of the subsurface conditions, as encountered in the soundings, were recorded and are presented in Appendix B. The locations of the soundings are shown in Figure 2 - Exploration Location Map;
• Geotechnical engineering analysis and preliminary estimate of liquefaction settlement; and
• Preparation of this report along with accompanying maps and illustrations. This report presents our findings, conclusions, and feasibility level recommendations.

1.2 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The subject site is located along the north side of Bristol Street, north of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, Highway 73, in Newport Beach, California. The subject site is identified as APN 427-332-02, and is addressed as 1400 Bristol Street N. The square -shaped site encompasses approximately 2.36-acres, and is currently occupied by two existing commercial office buildings along with paved drive and parking areas. The site is bordered by Bristol Street North to the south and west, Spruce Avenue to the east and existing commercial/retail buildings and paved parking to the north. The approximate location of the site is illustrated in Figure 1- Site Location Map.

Through discussions with the client and a review of conceptual yield study plans provided by TCA Architects, dated September 16, 2022, it is understood the proposed development preliminarily consists of a multi -level podium III style building entailing multiple levels of studio, one -bedroom and two -bedroom apartments with both ground floor parking and two levels of subterranean parking. Access will be provided via a driveway that extends along the northern and eastern property boundaries.

S:\Projects\KCG\2022\22029-00 1400 Bristol St\22029-00 DD 1400 Bristol Street 11-22(hk).doc 11 :antzi
Country
Club
61 P '
John Wayne
Airport -
Orange
P Country
O
73146
G�
r t�
ITE LOCATION ; a
.,,. Ic) rt
Be ac h Golf is/0 0
�0
Course
rX / Q7
S� T?
0 Duck Ponds
2 U Prier T'
Back Bay
rk
e 11
Ucftcison Dr
3 R
> Jc
T
University Di
W1
O� k` \ Re
BonL-i
Creek
&Qck BaY Dr Park
Notes:

A
Scale: 1": 1850'
C�tee`t- KC�"KLING
San Diego Consulting
s Group, Inc.
0 ! ne l l Client:

Q e�F The Picerne Group
a
C�. Address:
1400 Bristol Street N.,
Newport Beach, CA 92660
O,
pe\j,3c a n Dr
Site Location Map
Drawn: J H
Date:
11/4/2022
P/N: 22029-00
FYgure: 1

The Picerne Group PN 22029-00
November 4, 2022
Specific grading plans are not available; however, grading is anticipated to include cut excavations of at least 24-feet below existing grades to achieve the proposed grades for subterranean parking.

2.0 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS

2.1 Subsurface Investigation and Sampling
On October 10, 2022, three CPT soundings were advanced using a Cone Penetration Testing drill rig. The CPT soundings were completed to depths of 50 feet below the existing ground surface in the vicinity of the proposed development area. Records of the CPT soundings are included in Appendix B. The approximate location of the soundings is illustrated in Figure 2 - Exploration Location Map.

For this preliminary field exploration, no ring and bulk samples were obtained for laboratory testing.

2.2 Regional and Site Specific Geologic Setting
The subject site is located in the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province, at the South- eastern edge of the Los Angeles Basin and within the nearly flat -lying area of the Tustin Plain. The site is primarily underlain by elevated Pleistocene and late Pliocene marine terrace deposits established by progressive and (or) episodic tectonic uplift of coastal southern California.

The National Geologic Map Database maps the site as being underlain by late to middle Pleistocene Old Paralic Deposits. The Old Paralic Deposits comprise a poorly sorted, moderately permeable, reddish -brown, interfingered strandline, beach, estuarine, and colluvial deposits composed of silt, sand, and cobbles. These deposits rest on now emergent wave -cut abrasion platforms preserved by regional uplift.

2.3 Subsurface Conditions

2.3.1 Asphalt
The site is mantled by a relatively thin veneer of asphalt to a depth of approximately 3.5- inches from the existing ground in the vicinity of the soundings.

2.3.2 Old Paralic Deposits (Qopfa)
The site is underlain by sands, clay, and sandy -silt associated with the Old Paralic Deposits of Late to Middle Pleistocene age to an observed depth of up to 50.0 feet below the current ground level in the vicinity of the CPT soundings. The Old Paralic Deposits typically consist of light brown to dark gray, sandy clays and sandy to clayey silts, that are medium stiff to hard and moist to wet, with silty sands that are medium dense to very dense. Records of the CPT soundings are presented in Appendix B.

S:\Projects\KCG\2022\22029-00 1400 Bristol St\22029-00 DD 1400 Bristol Street 11-22(hk).doc

The Picerne Group
November 4, 2022
PN 22029-00

2.4 Groundwater
Groundwater was encountered within all CPT soundings based on pore water dissipation readings at depths of approximately 40 feet below the existing ground surface. We anticipate that the groundwater levels would not significantly impact one level of subterranean parking founded at a depth of 12 feet below exsiting grades or two subterranean parking levels founded at a depth of 24 feet below existing grades.

However, a previous Geotechncial Investigation (Reference 11) performed by KCG to the south of the subject site at 1300 N Bristol Street encountered perched groundwater levels at approximately 26 to 35 feet below the existing ground surface. These levels if present could have an impact on two subterrnanean parking levels founded at a depth of 24 feet.

It should be noted that groundwater variation may result from fluctuations in the ground surface topography, subsurface stratification, rainfall, irrigation and other factors that may not be evident at the time of our subsurface exploration. The depth to groundwater within the vicinity of the site should be confirmed as part of a design -level exploration of the site. Until the regional ground water table can be clearly established, the groundwater discussed above should be considered in construction planning and final design.

The nearest groundwater observation well, monitored by the California Department of Water Resources, is located west of the intersection of Irvine Ave and Bristol Street at a ground surface elevation of 28 feet above sea level. The highest recorded groundwater level was recorded at approximately 50 feet below the ground surface in February 1990 (Reference 4). The subject site is approximately 0.5 miles southeast from this observation well. According to the California Geologic Survey (CGS), Seismic Hazard Zone Maps and Report for the Tustin 7.5-Minute Quadrangle (References 6 and 7), the reported and mapped historical high groundwater level is approximately 10 feet below the current ground level in the vicinity of the site.

3.0 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS

3.1 Expansive Soil Characteristics
We anticipate that subsurface soils will consist of interbedded sand, silt, and clay. While sandy soils are generally not susceptible to expansion, the potential exists that layers of expansive clay could be present at the foundation elevation. These layers should not be left in place or used as fill if any clay beds are encountered. Laboratory testing to evaluate expansion potential would be recommended as part of a design -level exploration of the site. Until future testing is performed, the soil should be considered as having moderate potential for expansion.

3.2 Sulfate Content
Sulfate testing was not performed as part of this investigation. Laboratory testing to evaluate sulfate content would be recommended as part of a design -level exploration of the site. Preliminarily, the soils can be considered "SO" sulfate per ACI-318 (Reference 2).

S:\Projects\KCG\2022\22029-00 1400 Bristol St\22029-00 DD 1400 Bristol Street 11-22(hk).doc

The Picerne Group
November 4, 2022
PN 22029-00

3.3 Faulting and Seismicity
The subject site is not located within a State of California Earthquake Fault Zone (formerly known as Alquist-Priolo Zones, Jennings and Bryant, 2010; Hart and Bryant, 1997). The property is not located where a site -specific investigation to determine the locations of any active faults would be required. However, the Southern California region is seismically active. Active and potentially active faults within Southern California are capable of producing seismic shaking at the site. It is anticipated that the site will periodically experience ground acceleration due to exposure to moderate to large magnitude earthquakes occurring on distant faults.

However, no active faults are known to exist at the site, and the risk of surface fault rupture is considered low. The closest active fault zones to the subject site is the San Joaquin Hills fault located approximately 2.2 miles from the site and the Newport - Inglewood -Rose Canyon Fault Zone, located approximately 4.8 miles from the subject site.

3.4 Seismic Design Parameters
Presented below are the site seismic parameters utilizing generic geologic, seismic, and geotechnical data gathered for the site using the SEAC/OSHPD web based tool (Reference 12). All structures should be designed for earthquake -induced strong ground motions in accordance with the 2019 CBC procedures utilizing the following parameters:

Seismic Design Parameters
Site Class (Soil Profile)
D
Latitude

33.659638
Longitude
-117.869390
Short Period Spectral

1.298
Acceleration, Ss:
1-Second Period Spectral

0.463
Acceleration, S1:

Site Coefficient, Fa:

1.0 Site Coefficient, Fv:

1.837
Maximum Considered
Earthquake

1.298
Spectral Response Acceleration,
SMS:

Maximum Considered
Earthquake

0.851
Spectral Response Acceleration,
SMl:

Design Spectral Response

0.865
Acceleration, SDS:

Design Spectral Response

0.567
Acceleration, SDI:

Site modified peak ground

0.612
S:\Projects\KCG\2022\22029-00 1400 Bristol St\22029-00 DD 1400 Bristol Street 11-22(hk).doc 7 The Picerne Group
November 4, 2022
PN 22029-00
acceleration PGAM
Seismic Design Category D
Note: A site specific ground motion analysis was not included in the scope of this investigation. Per ASCE 7-16, 11.4.8, structures on Site Class D with Si greater than or equal to 0.2 may require Site Specific Ground Motion Analysis. However, a site specific ground motion analysis may not be required based on exceptions listed in ASCE 7-16, 11.4.8. The project structural engineer should verify whether exceptions are valid for this site and if a Site Specific Ground Motion Analysis is required.

3.5 Seismic Hazards

3.5.1 Liquefaction Potential
Liquefaction occurs when ground water pressure in loose sandy soil becomes greater than overburden pressure due to seismic -induced cyclic shear stresses from earth quakes. The result is a near complete loss of soil shear strength and ground settlement. The California Geological Survey (CGS), Seismic Hazard Zone Map for the Tustin Quadrangle (Reference 6) indicates the site is not situated in a liquefaction zone. Our review of the Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Tustin Quadrangle (Reference 7), indicates the historic groundwater is reported to be approximately 10 feet from existing grades in the vicinity of the property. Our liquefaction analysis conservatively incorporates the historic high groundwater depth of 10 feet. Our geotechnical evaluation indicated that localized and isolated sandy layers within the Old Paralic Deposits that underlie the site are susceptible to relatively minor amounts of liquefaction due to a design -level earthquake along a nearby fault. Overall seismic induced liquefaction settlement would be reduced with the removal of materials for the subterranean excavations. The portions of the site that appear to be susceptible to liquefaction and the magnitudes of seismic -induced settlement described above appear to be somewhat localized. The state of California has not established a seismic hazard zone for the area.

3.5.2 Liquefaction Settlement Analysis
The total earthquake -induced liquefaction settlement potential was calculated using the software program "CLiq v.1.7" by GeoLogismiki (Reference 9). Our evaluation was based on the site class and adjusted peak ground acceleration of 0.612g, as presented in the Seismic Design Parameters Table above, and a probabilistic 2,475-year modal magnitude of 6.89. Our analysis indicated the estimated settlement due to earthquake - induced liquefaction settlement is essentially negligible, approximately 0 to 0.35 inches.

These settlement values are considered preliminary, and further geotechnical investigation would be required to provide refinement of the estimated differential settlement of the site. The results of our analysis are included herein in Appendix C - Seismic Settlement Analysis.

The liquefaction analysis was performed utilizing a groundwater level case presented below:
• 10-foot groundwater table based on the historic highest groundwater table as presented in The Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Tustin 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Orange County, California (Appendix A).

S:\Projects\KCG\2022\22029-00 1400 Bristol St\22029-00 DD 1400 Bristol Street 11-22(hk).doc E

The Picerne Group
November 4, 2022
PN 22029-00
In addition, the analysis included the following parameters and assumptions:
• Factor of Safety = 1.0
• "Dry" seismic settlements calculated
• Soil Behavior Type Index (Ic) = 2.6018.
• Weighting factor for volumetric strain applied"
• Cn limit value applied.

3.5.3 Sesimically-Induced Settlement
The liquefaction analyses results for seismically induced vertical ground settlement is presented below:

CPT
Vertical Settlements
(Inches)
Liquefaction Potential
Index (LPI)
1 0.35

4.596 (low risk)
2 0.26

4.473 (low risk)
3 0.31

5.004 (high risk)
The overall vertical settlement calculations include seismically induced "dry" settlements.

Based on our analysis, the seismic induced settlements range from approximately 0.26 inches to 0.35 inches. It should be noted the majority of the vertical ground settlement occurs in the upper 20 feet of the soil column. Vertical ground settlements between 24 and 50 feet are less than 0.2 inches. Additionally, seismically induced differential settlement is variable across the site, with a worst case differential of 0.09-inches over a horizontal distance of 150 feet.

3.5.4 Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading, a phenomenon associated with seismically induced soil liquefaction, is the lateral displacement of soils due to inertial motion and lack of lateral support during or post liquefaction. Lateral spreading generally occurs on gently sloping ground or level ground with nearby free surface faces such as a drainage or stream channel. No open channels or free face surfaces are known to be located in close proximity to the site.

According to studies undertaken by Zhang et al. (2004), Cubrinovski (2012), lateral displacements occur between 300 and 1000 feet from a "free face". As such, the potential for lateral spreading would be unlikely to occur within the project site.

4.0 CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions are preliminary and based upon our analysis and data review obtained during our limited subsurface field investigation. It is our opinion that the proposed development concept is considered geotechnically feasible provided the recommendations presented herein are implemented during design and construction.

Recommendations presented herein are subject to revision and refinement upon completion of the full geotechnical investigation.

S:\Projects\KCG\2022\22029-00 1400 Bristol St\22029-00 DD 1400 Bristol Street 11-22(hk).doc 6 The Picerne Group PN 22029-00
November 4, 2022
• Based upon our review of the site and the proposed development plans, the underlying soils on -site are considered to have sufficient bearing capacity to support the proposed development, provided the recommendations herein are implemented. • Our geotechnical evaluation indicates that the Old Paralic Deposits that underlie the site are not susceptible to siginificant liquefaction settlement due to a design -level earthquake incorporating a historical high groundwater level of 10 feet below existing grades (CGS/CDMG, 1998). The estimated settlements are in the range of 0.0 inches to 0.35 inches at the site during seismic events. Overall seismic induced liquefaction settlement would be reduced with the removal of the upper materials for the subterranean excavation, as summarized in Section 3.5. The liquefaction assessment is considered preliminary, and further study is required to refine the estimates and determine likely differential settlement. Lateral spreading is considered unlikely due to the lack of "free face" in the vicinity of the subject site.
• No active fault is known to exist at the site, and the risk of surface fault rupture is considered to be low. However, the project site lies within a region of historical seismicity and will likely be subject to seismic shaking in the future. • KCG's professional opinion is that liquefaction -induced ground displacements are essentially negligible. As part of the supplemental investigation differential liquefaction settlement can be quantified and if needed, incorporated into the structural analysis.

Should the final analysis determine differential settlement substantial enough to require mitigation, added stiffness from a mat foundation system or grade beams for spread footings, or similar could be considered.
• Soils underlying the subject site are not considered to be susceptible to hydrocollapse; • Groundwater condition was encountered in our CPT soundings at depths of approximately 40 feet below the existing ground surface based on pore water dissipation.

Although groundwater levels would not be expected to impact and pose a problem for for the proposed site construction of one subterranean level at or near a depth of 12 feet below exsiting grades, groundwater could potentially be an issue for two subterranean levels at or near a depth of 24 feet below existing grades based on our previous investigation completed south of the subject site at 1300 N Bristol Street. Further investigation that included piezometers could better define if the water near a depth of 24 feet is perched, or is connected to regional groundwater. For preliminary planning, temporary dewatering or other measures should be considered possible. • Preliminarily, the soils underlying the site should be considered to have moderate expansion potential.
• The proposed development should not adversely affect neighboring properties, provided standard of practice excavation shoring methods are employed.

S:\Projects\KCG\2022\22029-00 1400 Bristol St\22029-00 DD 1400 Bristol Street 11-22(hk).doc 10 The Picerne Group PN 22029-00
November 4, 2022

5.0 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS
Preliminary recommendations presented below are based on plans obtained from the client and the limited geotechnical information gathered and analyzed to date. Based on our limited subsurface investigation, subsoils at one level deep consist of stiff clay/silt and two subterranean levels are dense sand. These soils should provide suitable soil support for the proposed structures. Foundations can be expected to bear directly on native soil, provided it has not been disturbed or found to be locally soft. Each foundation excavation should be evaluated and if loose disturbed or softened soil is found, it should be removed and replaced as engineered fill or processed in place and recompacted. The extent and depth of processing or recompaction should be as approved by the geotechnical consultant.

5.1 Supplemental Subsurface Exploration
During this limited feasibility level investigation, the subsurface exploration was limited to three sounding locations in readily accessible areas. We recommend that a supplemental geotechnical investigation be performed that includes additional CPT and soil borings (including installation of piezometers). The supplemental investigation should also include additional laboratory testing, foundation and settlement analysis; ground water measurements and to verify subsurface conditions. Recommendations would be updated as warranted.

5.2 Earthwork Specifications
All grading should be performed per the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications presented in Appendix F unless specifically revised or amended below. Grading should also conform to all applicable governing agency requirements. Prior to the commencement of grading operations, all vegetation, organic topsoil and human -made structure should be cleared and disposed of off -site. Any undocumented fill or back -fill encountered should be removed and re -compacted. All areas receiving fill should be scarified to 6 inches and/or over -excavated, moisture conditioned to between optimum moisture and two to four percent above optimum moisture content, and re -compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction as determined by ASTM D1557. Soil material excavated from the site should be adequate for re -use as compacted fill provided it is free of trash, vegetation and other deleterious material. All earthwork and grading operation should be performed under the observation and testing of the geotechnical consultant of record.

5.3 Remedial Earthwork

5.3.1 Conventional Foundations —One or Two Level Subterranean For convential speard footings, the foundation excavations should be evaluated for suitability and any disturbed soil or localized softened soil be mitigated with removal and replacement, or processed in place and recompacted, as needed to create adequate support. The geotechnical consultant should perform the evaluation and approve mitigation measures, if needed.

S:\Projects\KCG\2022\22029-00 1400 Bristol St\22029-00 DD 1400 Bristol Street 11-22(hk).doc 11 The Picerne Group PN 22029-00
November 4, 2022

5.3.2 Mat Slab Foundations —One or Two Level Subterranean For Mat slab foundation systems, the exposed subgrade soil should be evaluated as recommended for spread footings. Any disturbed or locally soft soil encountered should be either removed and replaced with compacted fill, or processing (i.e. 12-inch scarification and recompaction) and proof rolling of the subgrade soils exposed at the subterranean level. Acceptance of exposed soil should be performed by the geotechnical consultant and should also approve any mitigation measures, if needed.

5.3.3 Proposed Pavement and Flatwork Areas
In areas outside of proposed structural areas that would support pavement and flatwork, the exposed sub -grade soils should be processed and re -compacted to a depth of 12-inches. If soils are disturbed during the removal of existing improvements, the disturbed soil should be removed and replaced with compacted fill. After removals are made, exposed soils should be scarified to a depth of 6- inches, brought to near optimum moisture content, and re -compacted.

5.4 Processing of Natural Soils and Fill Placement
Processing of in -place soils exposed after clearing, grubbing, and removal of unsuitable material and before placing fill should include the following items of work:

Scarification of the materials exposed after remedial removals should be accomplished to a depth of at least 6 inches or as dictated by actual soil conditions encountered; The scarified soils should be brought to 2 to 4 percent above optimum moisture content by watering or drying, as required;
Compaction of the processed soils to at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density before placing fill.

Fill should be placed in relatively thin (6 to 8-inch) uniform lifts; moisture conditioned to 2 to 4 percent above optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction based on ASTM D 1557. Actual lift thickness would depend on soil type and compaction equipment being used.

5.5 Preliminary Recommendations - Proposed Building Foundations All foundation criteria are considered minimum requirements that may be superseded by more stringent requirements from the architect, structural engineer, or governing agencies; recommended preliminary geotechnical design parameters are being provided for conventional spread footing and reinforced mat slab foundation systems for the residential building with two subterranean parking levels.

5.5.1 Subterranean -Conventional Shallow Foundations
The following preliminary geotechnical design parameters are provided to design proposed conventional foundations for the proposed multi -level apartment S:\Projects\KCG\2022\22029-00 1400 Bristol St\22029-00 DD 1400 Bristol Street 11-22(hk).doc 12 The Picerne Group
November 4, 2022
PN 22029-00
building, with two levels of subterranean parking. The proposed foundations for the proposed building may be supported by square pad footings utilizing a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 4000 pounds per square foot with maximum width of 8-feet, and minimum depth of 2-feet below the lowest adjacent grade (including the top of the slab on grade). A coefficient of friction of

0.40 may be used, along with a passive lateral resistance of 250 pounds per square foot per foot of embedment. This bearing value could potentially be increased based on further subsurface exploration and laboratory analysis generated from supplemental investigation.

If normal code requirements are used for seismic design, the allowable bearing value and coefficient of friction may be increased by 1/3 for short duration loads, such as the effect of wind or seismic forces.

If any utility lines are within a 1:1 (horizontal: vertical) projection from the bottom of a footing, they may be within the influence zone of the proposed footing load; if this condition exists, the proposed footing should be deepened so that the utility is outside the zone of influence; the utility line could also be relocated or encased with concrete with concrete slurry. These conditions should be evaluated on a case by case basis.

5.5.2 Subterranean- Mat Slab
A rigid mat foundation may be used to support the structure, provided the recommendations above are implemented. The exposed soil in the excavation should be evaluated and if determined necessary, proof rolled or locally recompacted as needed, in accordance with the recommendations herein. When properly designed and constructed, a structural mat foundation system can be expected to support high structural loads and provide relatively uniform settlement and bridge over local areas of slightly less stiffness or density. Mat foundations should be properly reinforced to form a relatively rigid structural unit in accordance with the structural engineer's design. For designing a mat foundation, we preliminarily recommend a modulus of subgrade reaction of 120 pounds per square inch per inch (pci) with a maximum bearing value of 4000 psf.

This value can be further refined as part of the supplemental investigation.

5.6 Settlement
Static settlement of proposed foundations is not expected to exceed one inch for total and one half inch differential over 50 horizontal feet, provided the recommendations presented above for the specific foundation system type is implemented. For preliminary design purposes, seismic induced liquefaction settlement for the apartment site ranges froms 0 to 0.35 inches. This is considered very minor settlement, however it should be refined and verified during the recommended supplemental investigation.

5.7 Slab -On -Grade
These recommendations are provided for planning purposes as the anticipated podium construction would not entail interior slab on grade floors. Additionally, the S:\Projects\KCG\2022\22029-00 1400 Bristol St\22029-00 DD 1400 Bristol Street 11-22(hk).doc 13 The Picerne Group PN 22029-00
November 4, 2022
recommendations are considered minimum requirements that may be superseded by more stringent requirements from the architect, structural engineer, or governing agencies.

Concrete slabs should be at least 5-inches in thickness. Actual slab thickness and reinforcement should be determined by the structural engineer based on structural loads and soil interaction. Our recommendations should be superseded by the recommendations of the structural engineer or architect.

Subgrade soils should be placed wet of the optimum moisture content, and moisture should be maintained until placement of the concrete slab. Additional testing should be performed after precise grading to verify our recommendations.

The slab should be underlain by a minimum two-inch layer of sand, with a sand equivalent of 30 or greater. The sand layer should be underlain by a 15-mil Stego Wrap vapor retarder or equivalent product with a permeance rate of 0.012 perms and a puncture resistance of Class "A" or "B" per ASTM E 1745-97. As per the manufacturer's recommendations, all seams should overlap a minimum of 6 inches and should be sealed in accordance with the specifications provided by the vapor retarder manufacturer. All penetrations should be sealed using a combination of Stego Wrap, Stego Tape and/or Stego Mastic or approved equivalent product. The vapor retarder should be lapped downward a minimum of 12 inches where the vapor retarder encounters an interior footing or exterior thickened edge or footing. The vapor retarder should be placed on top of the sand layer if the sand is expected to become wet before pouring concrete. If the sand can be kept dry before pouring concrete, the vapor retarder should be placed under the sand layer. The water -cement ratio should be a minimum of 0.45 for all concrete within the structure that will contact the on -site soil.

If moisture sensitive floor coverings are utilized, interior concrete slabs should be designed and constructed in accordance with the applicable floor covering manufacturer's specifications.

Slab subgrade soil should be pre -saturated to at least optimum moisture content to a depth of at least 12 inches below the sand layer.

5.7.1 Basement Slab on Grade Floors
Parking garage basement slab in grade floors, other than a mat slab, should be a minimum of 5-inches in thickness and reinforced to resist shrinkage and temperature warping cracking. Actual slab thickness and steel reinforcement should be determined by the structural engineer based on environmental factors and concrete shrinkage considerations. An aggregate base layer may be required depending on the subgrade soils exposed during construction or determined from the supplemental investigation.

5.8 Permanent Subterranean Walls
We anticipate that where temporary shoring is installed, the permanent restrained retaining walls for the subterranean level will predominantly be placed directly against the temporary shoring. The design parameters provided below assume that granular non - expansive soils (Expansion Index 30) are used to back -fill any retaining S:\Projects\KCG\2022\22029-00 1400 Bristol St\22029-00 DD 1400 Bristol Street 11-22(hk).doc 14 The Picerne Group PN 22029-00
November 4, 2022
walls. Permanent subterranean walls should be designed to resist the pressure exerted by retained soils plus any additional lateral forces due to loads placed adjacent to or near the wall. Retaining walls that are free -draining, are situated above groundwater and are to be restrained from movement at the top, such as basement walls, should be designed for an equivalent fluid weight of 60 pcf for at -rest conditions (for a level surface of retained earth). If traffic loads are planned adjacent to the walls, the walls should be designed for an additional uniform horizontal pressure of 75 and 150 psf for passenger car and truck traffic, respectively. For other surcharge loads, we recommend the walls be designed to resist a uniform horizontal pressure equal to 30 percent of the uniform surcharge load.

If back -fill conditions (including the slope of the retained ground surface) differ from those assumed herein, Kling Consulting Group should be consulted to provide additional evaluation and/or recommendations as warranted. All retaining structures should be fully free draining. Building walls below grade should be waterproofed or damp -proofed, depending on the degree of moisture protection desired. The foundation system for the retaining walls should be designed in accordance with the recommendations presented in the preceding sections of this report, as appropriate. Footings should be embedded at a minimum of 18-inches below adjacent grade (excluding the 6-inch landscape layer).

For resistance to lateral loads, an allowable coefficient of friction of 0.35 between the base of the foundation elements and underlying material is recommended. In addition, an allowable passive resistance equal to an equivalent fluid weighing 250 pcf acting against the foundation may be used to resist lateral forces. Passive pressure in the upper 1.0-foot should be neglected unless confined by concrete slabs -on -grade or asphaltic pavement.

These values may be increased by one-third for transient wind or seismic loads. A seismic surcharge of 19 H should be applied as an equivalent fluid pressure with the resultant acting at 1/3-height above the base of the wall, where H= the retained height of the wall greater than 6 feet.

The permanent subterranean wall should be provided with an adequate back drain system to reduce the potential for build-up of hydrostatic pressures.

Adequate drainage should be provided behind all retaining walls. The drainage system should consist of a minimum of four -inch diameter perforated PVC pipe (schedule 40 or approved equivalent) placed at the base of the retaining wall and surrounded by 3/4-inch clean crushed rock wrapped in a Mirafi 140N filter fabric, or equivalent approved by the Geotechnical Engineer. The drain rock wrapped in fabric should be at least 12-inches wide and extend from the base of the wall to within two feet of the ground surface. The upper two feet of back -fill should consist of compacted native soil. The retaining wall drainage system should be sloped to outfall to the storm drain system or other appropriate facility.

For those portions of the wall not placed against shoring, the above values assume granular back -fill and free -draining conditions to prevent buildup of hydrostatic pressure in the back -fill. Back -fill materials should meet the recommendations described in the following section of this report. Import fill materials should be approved by the soils S:\Projects\KCG\2022\22029-00 1400 Bristol St\22029-00 DD 1400 Bristol Street 11-22(hk).doc 15 The Picerne Group PN 22029-00
November 4, 2022
engineer prior to placement. Wall back -fill should be compacted by mechanical methods to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557.

5.9 Temporary Excavations
We anticipate the on -site soils can be excavated using conventional heavy duty earthmoving equipment in good condition. Shoring systems, if used, may yield during excavation causing adjacent facilities and improvements to settle slightly. The magnitude of shoring movements and the resulting settlements are difficult to estimate because they depend on many factors, including the method of installation and the contractor's skill with installing the shoring system. Lateral deflections for a properly designed and constructed shoring system would likely be within ordinarily accepted limits of approximately 1-inch. A monitoring program should be established to evaluate the effects of shoring construction on other facilities.

Provided the excavations are above groundwater, temporary excavations and trench walls to a depth of four feet may be made vertically without shoring, subject to verification of safety by the contractor. Deeper excavations should be no steeper than 1.5:1 (horizontal to vertical) or braced or shored in accordance with CAL OSHA standards and guidelines.

The contractor is assumed responsible for maintaining safety at the jobsite. All excavation work should be in compliance with current CAL OSHA standards. Under no circumstances should excavations be made deeper than four feet or below groundwater without shoring, bracing or laying -back, in accordance with CAL OSHA standards and guidelines. No surcharge loads should be allowed within five feet from the top of the cuts.

Existing utility lines, roadways and other easements/right-of-ways may be impacted by the temporary excavations may require shoring to obtain the full depth of the excavation.

5.10 Shoring
It is understood that a temporary or permanent shoring system may be warranted for areas of proposed subterranean basement excavation where space is not available for properly sloped backcuts. The shoring contractor should coordinate with the earthmoving contractor regarding sequence and requirements of installing the shoring system. The shoring contractor should also consider the potential for localized perched groundwater in the design and installation procedures of the shoring system.

We anticipate that the shoring system will be designed as a cantilever system and may consist of closely spaced steel H-Pile soldier piles and wooden lagging. Preliminary design considerations are presented in the following section for this anticipated shoring method. Please note that the method of temporary support can impact the design earth pressures. As such, Kling Consulting Group should perform a review of the shoring design and provide additional recommendations, as warranted.

Shoring systems, during excavation, may yield causing adjacent facilities and improvements to settle slightly. The magnitude of shoring movements and the resulting settlements are difficult to estimate because they depend on many factors, including the method of installation and the contractor's skill with installing the shoring system.

S:\Projects\KCG\2022\22029-00 1400 Bristol St\22029-00 DD 1400 Bristol Street 11-22(hk).doc 16 The Picerne Group PN 22029-00
November 4, 2022
Lateral deflections for a properly designed and constructed shoring system would likely be within ordinarily accepted limits of approximately 1-inch. A monitoring program should be established to evaluate the effects of shoring construction on other facilities.

Horizontal and vertical movements of the shoring system should be monitored by a licensed surveyor. The construction monitoring and performance of the shoring system are ultimately the contractor's responsibility. At a minimum, we recommend that the tops of the soldier beams should be surveyed prior to excavation and that the top and bottom of the soldier beams be surveyed on a weekly basis until the foundation is completed. The surveyed soldier beam data points should be located at approximately 50 feet on -center.

Surveying should consist of measuring movements in vertical and two perpendicular horizontal directions.

The shoring system should be designed to resist the pressure exerted by the retained soils plus any additional lateral forces due to loads applied near the top of the excavations.

Cantilever shoring walls with a level back -fill surface should be designed for an equivalent fluid pressure of 40 pcf. For surcharge loads due to traffic, the shoring should be designed for an additional uniform horizontal pressure of 75 psf for passenger car traffic and 150 psf for heavy truck traffic. For other surcharge loads, the wall should be designed for a uniform horizontal pressure equal to one-third the anticipated surcharge pressure. These parameters all assume a level ground surface and that temporary shoring will not be subject to hydrostatic pressures. The shoring system should be properly embedded beneath the toe of the excavation to provide adequate structural stability.

It is recommended that the design of the shoring system incorporate a passive equivalent fluid weight of 250 pcf for the shoring embedded within relatively competent old paralic deposits material. The soldier piles should be spaced no closer than 3 diameters on center.

The soldier piles should be drilled and back -filled with concrete to the full depth of the passive resistance zone. The area providing the passive resistance can be assumed to have a width equal to twice the concrete pile diameter.

The recommended passive pressure for the shoring assumes a horizontal surface for the soil mass extending at least 10 feet in front of the face of the shoring, or three times the height of the surface generating passive pressure, whichever is greater. The shoring system should be embedded a sufficient depth beneath the toe of the excavation so as to provide structural stability. We recommend that a factor of safety of at least 1.2 be applied to the calculated embedment depth and that the passive pressure be limited to 2,500 psf. The assumed geotechnical conditions should be verified as necessary during shoring construction by a representative of the geotechnical consultant.

Timber lagging may be used between the soldier piles to help support the exposed soils.

If lagging is to remain after construction, treated lumber should be used. Lagging should be designed for the full lateral pressure recommended above. If possible, structural walls should be cast directly against the shoring, thus eliminating the need for placing back -fill within a narrow space. Voids between the soil and lagging should be properly grouted or slurried to reduce the potential for the voids to propagate to the surface.

S:\Projects\KCG\2022\22029-00 1400 Bristol St\22029-00 DD 1400 Bristol Street 11-22(hk).doc 17 The Picerne Group PN 22029-00
November 4, 2022
Special provisions for wall drainage (such as the use of prefabricated composite drain) may be necessary above the groundwater table where this type of construction is used.

The performance of the proposed shoring system is highly dependent on the means and methods utilized by the contractors involved in the work and the judgment of the shoring design engineer. The shoring engineer and contractor shall be solely responsible for locating the existing improvements surrounding the site, controlling settlements of the surrounding structures and improvements within the structural and aesthetic limits. Load path and loading determination for underpinning design is the purview of the structural underpinning designer.

If the anticipated depth of excavation requires shoring that extends to depths where a cantilever shoring system is not feasible, we would be pleased to provide geotechnical recommendations for an anchored (tie -back) shoring system upon request. With deep excavations required to allow for the construction of subterranean levels that would normally require tie -back anchors, due to the proximity to the adjacent properties or structures tie -back systems may not be allowed and other options such as H-beam and lagging or rakers may be required.

5.11 Preliminary Pavement Design
Pavement section design is provided below based on near surface soil conditions encountered during our investigation and assumed traffic loading.

5.11.1 Asphalt Concrete Pavement
The upper on -site subgrade soils were classified as silty clays and clayey silts and sandy silts. To allow for soil variability, we are assuming an R-Value of 10 for preliminary design purposes.

Based on an R-value of 10, the parameters below are provided for preliminary design purposes. Pavement sections were calculated for traffic indices of 4.0 and

5.5, which are commonly used for parking stalls and drive aisles subject to passenger vehicles, respectively. However, the selection of actual traffic index should be the purview of the project civil or traffic engineer.

Pavement Section Design
Multiple
Layered
Asphalt
Aggregate
Location
R-Value
Traffic
Index
Concrete
Base*
(inches)
(inches)
Parking
Stall
10 4.0

3.0 6.0
Drive
Aisles
10 5.5

4.0 9.0
*Aggregate base material should consist of Class 2 aggregate base materials or Crushed Miscellaneous Base (CMB).

S:\Projects\KCG\2022\22029-00 1400 Bristol St\22029-00 DD 1400 Bristol Street 11-22(hk).doc IN

The Picerne Group
November 4, 2022
PN 22029-00
The upper 12 inches of the subgrade soils should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density (ASTM D1557). All base materials should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density (ASTM D1557).

5.11.2 Portland Cement Concrete Pavement
For preliminary design of concrete pavement, it is recommended that a concrete pavement section consisting of 6-inches of concrete underlain by at least 4-inches of either Class 2 or crushed miscellaneous base be used for preliminary design.

Concrete Compressive strength should be 4000 psi or greater. Aggregate base material should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction as per ASTM D1557. Subgrade soil should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM D1557. If concrete crack control is desired, the slabs should be minimally reinforced with No. 4 rebar, placed every 24 inches on center, both ways. A 10-foot square or less grid system should be used in the construction of continuous sections of concrete pavement or as recommended by the structural engineer.

For trash enclosures, concrete pavement should consist of a minimum 8-inch thick concrete slab placed over a minimum of 6-inches of either Class 2 or crushed miscellaneous base material, compacted to 95 percent relative compaction.

Concrete should have a minimum strength of 4000 psi and be reinforced with a minimum of No. 4 bars placed at 24 inches on center, in each direction, positively supported (with concrete chairs or other devices) at mid -height in the slab. Crack control joints should be placed at a 10-foot maximum spacing in each direction in the slab or as recommended by the structural engineer. Concrete mix design should incorporate the recommendations presented in the slab on grade section of this report for improved geotechnical performance.

5.12 Exterior Flatwork
Laboratory testing of onsite soils by and our experience with similar soils in the site vicinity indicate that the upper on -site soil materials present possess a very low to high expansion potential.

Appendix D contains a table listing our hardscape recommendations for varying degrees of expansive soils. This table should be preliminarily followed for a low to high expansion potential for Expansion Index (E.I.) = 21 to 130. Additional testing should be performed during future supplemental investigation and subsequently during earthwork construction to confirm the as graded conditions.

The following general recommendations may be considered for concrete hardscape including expansive soils mitigation and may be superseded by the requirements of the City of Newport Beach. These recommendations are based on "medium" expansion potential and are preliminary.

S:\Projects\KCG\2022\22029-00 1400 Bristol St\22029-00 DD 1400 Bristol Street 11-22(hk).doc 19 The Picerne Group
November 4, 2022
PN 22029-00

5.12.1 Sidewalk, Pedestrian Walkways
Expansion
Minimum
Subgrade
Joint '�
Potential
Concrete
Pre -Soaking Depth
Reinforcement
Spacing
Thickness (in)
Medium
120% of Optimum to
#3 @ 16" OC, EW
(EI >51 &
4 (Full)
1 811
4-5 Feet
<90)
(or 5% over optimum,
* Joints at curves and angle points are recommended.

The above recommendations may be superseded by the project architect, structural engineer or the governing agency's requirements. These recommendations are not intended to mitigate cracking caused by shrinkage and temperature warping.

5.13 Drainage
Positive drainage should be maintained away from any building or graded slope face and directed to suitable areas via non -erosive devices, as designed by the project civil engineer. For drainage over soil and paved areas immediately adjacent to structures, please refer to Section 1804.4 of the 2019 CBC.

5.14 Geotechnical Observation and Testing
Geotechnical observation and testing should be conducted during the following stages of grading:
• During all phases of precise grading, footing excavations, etc. • During slab subgrade pre -saturation and moisture conditioning. • During utility trench excavation and compaction.
• During placement of retaining wall sub -drainage, back -fill, and compaction. • For any unusual conditions encountered during grading.

6.0 PROFESSIONAL LIMITATIONS
Geotechnical services are provided by KCG in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering and geologic practice in the area where these services are to be rendered. Client acknowledges that the present standard in the engineering and geologic and environmental profession does not include a guarantee of perfection and, except as expressly set forth in the conditions above, no warranty, expressed or implied, is extended by KCG.

S:\Projects\KCG\2022\22029-00 1400 Bristol St\22029-00 DD 1400 Bristol Street 11-22(hk).doc 20 The Picerne Group PN 22029-00
November 4, 2022
Geotechnical reports are based on the project description and proposed scope of work as described in the proposal. Our conclusions and recommendations are based on the results of the field, laboratory, and office studies, combined with an interpolation and extrapolation of soil conditions as described in the report. The results reflect our geotechnical interpretation of the limited direct evidence obtained. Our conclusions and recommendations are made contingent upon the opportunity for KCG to continue to provide geotechnical services beyond the scope in the proposal to include all geotechnical services. If parties other than KCG are engaged to provide such services, they must be notified that they will be required to assume complete responsibility for the geotechnical work of the project by concurring with the recommendations in our report or providing alternate recommendations.

It is the reader's responsibility to verify the correct interpretation and intention of the recommendations presented herein. KCG assumes no responsibility for misunderstandings or improper interpretations that result in unsatisfactory or unsafe work products. It is the reader's further responsibility to acquire copies of any supplemental reports, addenda, or responses to public agency reviews that may supersede recommendations in this report.

S:\Projects\KCG\2022\22029-00 1400 Bristol St\22029-00 DD 1400 Bristol Street 11-22(hk).doc 21 APPENDIX A

REFERENCES

The Picerne Group
November 4, 2022
PN 22029-00

APPENDIX A

REFERENCES

1. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 2018, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Volume 04.08, Construction: Soil and Rock (I), Standards D 420 - D 5876

2. American Concrete Institute, 2014, Manual of Concrete Practice, Volume 1 through 6.

3. California Building Standards Commission, 2019, California Building Code, Volume 2.

4. California Department of Water Resources, 2019, Groundwater Level Data, accessed October 2022 URL: http://www.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrar .

5. California Geologic Survey (CGS), Compilation of Quaternary Surficial Deposits:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/gsd/app/ , Accessed October 2022.

6. California Geological Survey, 2001, Seismic Hazard Zones, Tustin Quadrangle, dated revised January 17, 2001.

7. California Geological Survey, Department of Conservation, Division of Mines of Geology, 1998, "Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Tustin 7.5-Minute Quadrangle", Seismic Hazard Zone Report 012, Tustin, CA.

8. Cubrinovski, M. Robinson, K. Taylor, M. Hughes, M. Orense, R. (2012) Lateral spreading and its impacts in urban areas in the 2010-2011 Christchurch earthquakes, New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics, 55:3, 255-269, DOI:

10.1080/00288306.2012.699895

9. Geologismiki, 2007, CLiq, Liquefaction Software, Version 1.7.

10. Google® Maps®, Accessed October 2022.

11. Kling Consulting Group, Inc., 2022, Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Multi -Level Apartment Complex, 1300 Bristol Street N, Newport Beach, CA 92660, Dated June 23, PN 21016-01.

12. Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAC)/Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development OSHPD: Seismic Design Maps: https:Hoshpd.ca.gov/seismic maps.orr , accessed October, 2022.

13. TCA Architects, TPG Stein Yield Study, 1400 Bristol St N., Newport Beach, California.

Dated September 16, 2022.

S:\Projects\KCG\2022\22029-00 1400 Bristol St\22029-00 DD 1400 Bristol Street 11-22(hk).doc

The Picerne Group
November 4, 2022
PN 22029-00

APPENDIX A

REFERENCES
(CONTINUED)

14. USGS, National Geologic Map Data Base (NGMDB), hiips://nwndb.usgs.gov/mgpvie accessed October, 2022

15. USGS, topoView, hgps://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/, accessed October, 2022.

16. USGS, 2019, US Seismic Design Maps, accessed October, 2022, URL:
https:Hearthquake.usgs.gov/design qps/us/gpplication.php

17. Youd, T. L., Hansen, C. M., and Bartlett, S. F.—2002!. Revised multilinear regression equations for prediction of lateral spread displacement. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 1007-1017

18. Zhang, G. Robertson, P.K. 2004. Estimating Liquefaction -Induced Lateral Displacements Using the Standard Penetration Test or Cone Penetration Test. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering.

S:\Projects\KCG\2022\22029-00 1400 Bristol St\22029-00 DD 1400 Bristol Street 11-22(hk).doc

APPENDIX B

CPT SOUNDINGS

Kehoe Testing and Engineering
T 714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
Project: Kling Consulting Group
Location: 1400 Bristol St. N, Newport Beach, CA
Cone resistance Sleeve friction
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 22
24 26
a 28
30 32
34 36
38 40
42 44
46 48
50 52
54 56
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 22
24 w 26
a 28
t7 30
32 34
36 38
40 42
44 46
48 50
52 54
56 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Tip resistance (tsf) Friction (tsf)
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 22
24 26
a 28
30 32
34 36
38 40
42 44
46 48
50 52
54 56
Pore pressure u Friction ratio
nvi,D AUGER 4 M.Ave AMUCK
6 8
10 12-
14-
16—
is-
20 22
24 26
a 28
o 30
32 34
36 38
40 42
44 46
48 50
52 54
56 0 50 100 150 200 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Pressure (psi) Rf (%)
0 2
4 6
8 10-
12-
14-
16—
is
20 22
24 26
a 28
0 30
32 34
36 38
40 42
44 46
48 50
52 54
56 CPT-1
Total depth: 55.00 ft, Date: 10/10/2022
Soil Behaviour Type
'iMD NGER
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty San
Si
Sa id
Sa
id & si
ty sand
Sa
a
Sa
id
Si
Id
T san
Sa
d & silty
San
Sa
d
Sa
d & si
ty san
Ck
y & silly
clay
Sil
y san
& sandy
silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 10/11/2022, 10:49:34 AM 1 Project file: C:\CPT Project Data\Kling-NewportBeachl0-22\CPT Report\CPeT.cpt

K Kehoe Testing and Engineering
'r 714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
Project: Kling Consulting Group
Location: 1400 Bristol St. N, Newport Beach, CA
Cone resistance Sleeve friction
0 0
2 2
4 4
6 6
8 8
10 10
12 12
14 14
16 16
18 18
20 20
22 22
24 24
26 cl�f 26
28 Y 28
CL
30 0 30
32 32
34 34
36 36
38 38
40 40
42 42
44--'44
46 46
48 48
50 50
52 52
54 54
56 56
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Tip resistance (tsf)
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 22
24 26
28 Q
30 32
34 36
38 40
42 44
46 48
50 52
54 56
Pore pressure u
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 50 100 150 200
Friction (tsf) Pressure (psi)
NONE■■
■■■■■■
NOON■■■
.EVENNESS
■A■■E■E■
■■■■■■■■
■■■■E■EN
CPT-2
Total depth: 50.40 ft, Date: 10/10/2022
Soil Behaviour Type
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 22
24 F 26
-F-I 28
Q
� 30
32 34
36 38
40 42
44 46
48 50
52 54
56 I■■Z©
IO111■
•■■zm�ffl■
■
�M■El�TirNNE
!IM■■■■
!■■ES�■■■
'�'!
mml
-:Iwo
o=.M■
■E=0■■
MENNEN
M■N■■■
■■R®M■■
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 10/11/2022, 10:49:34 AM 2 Project file: C:\CPT Project Data\Kling-NewportBeachl0-22\CPT Report\CPeT.cpt

K Kehoe Testing and Engineering
'r 714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
Project: Kling Consulting Group
Location: 1400 Bristol St. N, Newport Beach, CA
Cone resistance
0 2
4-
6 8-
10-
12-
1 16
18 20
22 24
26 a 28
30--
32--
34--
36 38
40 42
44 46
48 50
52 54
56 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Tip resistance (tsf)
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 22
24 cl�f 26
a 28
0 30
32 34
36 38
40 42
44 46
48 50
52 54
56 Sleeve friction
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 22
24 26
a 28
30 32
34 36
38 40
42 44
46 48
50 52
54 56
Pore pressure u
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 50 100 150 200
Friction (tsf) Pressure (psi)
WEi�����
maimomm
SiW_m__m■■■
■■■■W m■
■■■■■`m■
■■■■i`qu
■■■■FM■
■■■r%m■■
■■E1■■■■
EV E■E■E■
■M■■■■■■
Fr■■■■■■
W-M■E■■■■
RA■■■■■■
■■■■■■
■■■■■■
NONE■■
_NONEE■
■ENNEN
■ U■■■■■■
■!11■■■■MOMMEMEM
■■
■rim■■■■■
■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■�
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 22
24 F 26
a 28
30 32
34 36
38 40
42 44
46 48
50 52
54 56
CPT-3
Total depth: 50.27 ft, Date: 10/10/2022
Soil Behaviour Type
J■�A!!!!f�111■■
■■■■■■
■E■■■
ammu■■
I NOON■■■
It ■■EEMMI■
I■■
■
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 10/11/2022, 10:49:34 AM 3 Project file: C:\CPT Project Data\Kling-NewportBeachl0-22\CPT Report\CPeT.cpt

APPENDIX C

LIQUEFACTION AND SEISMIC SETTLEMENT ASSESSMENT

Geotechnlcil Software
Kling Consulting Group, Inc.
18008 Sky Park Circle, Suite 250
Irvine, CA 92614
www.klingconsultinggroup.com
Project title :

Location
CPT file: CPT-1
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:

Robertson (2009)
G.W.T. (in -situ):

40.00 ft
Use fill:

No
Fines correction method:

Robertson (2009)
G.W.T. (earthq.):

10.00 ft
Fill height:

N/A
Points to test:

Based on Ic value
Average results interval:
5 Fill weight:

N/A
Earthquake magnitude MW:

6.82 Ic cut-off value:

2.60 Trans. detect. applied:

Yes
Peak ground acceleration:

0.61 Unit weight calculation:

Based on SBT
Ka applied:

Yes
Cone resistance Friction
Ratio
SBTn Plot
CRR plot

0.8 0.7-

0.6-

0.5-
to

0.3 U
U

0.2-

0.1 2d-
12-1
32-1 7
100 200 300 400 500 0 2 4 6 8 10 1 2 3 4
qt (tsf) Rf (%) Ic (Robertson 1990)
Mw=71/2, sigma'=1 atm base curve
1 Clay like behavior
applied: All soils
Limit depth applied: Yes
Limit depth: 50.00 ft
MSF method: Method based
FS Plot
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
CRR & CSR Factor of safety
Summary of liquefaction potential

0.1 1 10
Normalized friction ratio (%)
Zone A,: Cyclic liquefaction likely depending on size and duration of cyclic loading Zone A,: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss likely depending on loading and ground 0 geometry
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Zone B: Liquefaction and post -earthquake strength loss unlikely, check cyclic softening Zone C: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss possible depending on soil plasticity, Qtn,cs brittleness/sensitivity, strain to peak undrained strength and ground geometry Liquefaction
••• • *61
M14 •
M•• •
No Liquefaction
CLiq v.1.7.6.34 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 10/24/2022, 1:38:28 PM 1 Project file:

This software is licensed to: Kling Consulting Group, Inc.

CPT basic interpretation plots
Cone resistance Friction Ratio Pore pressure SBT Plot
CPT name: CPT-1
Soil Behaviour Type
Sillysa-H&san slit
2 4
51tysand &sar*silt
6 Clay&siltyday
8 Clay&siltyday
Clay
10 Clay
12 aay&siltyday
14 aay
16 Clay&siltyday
sltysand &sar*silt
18 aay&siltyday
20 22
Sand&siltysand
24 Siltysad &sa*silt
26 Sad&siltysad
28 30
Sand
32 Sand
34 Sad&siltysad
Sand
36 Sad
Sad&siltysad
38 Sand
40 ! sltysad&sarlysilt
42 44
46 Clay&siltyday
48 50
52 54
Siltysad& silt
i i i i i
100 200 300 400 500
0 2 4 6
8 10
0 50 100 150
200 1
2 3
4 0 2 4 6 8
10 12 14 16 18
qt (tsf)
Rf (%)
u (psi)
Ic(SBT)
SBT (Robertson
et al. 1986)
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method: Robertson (2009)
Depth to water table (erthq.):

10.00 ft
Fill weight:

N/A
SBT
legend
Fines correction method: Robertson (2009)
Average results interval:
5 Transition detect. applied:

Yes
Points to test: Based on Ic value
Ic cut-off value:

2.60 KQ applied:

Yes
❑

1. Sensitive fine grained
❑

4. Clayey silt to silty ❑

7. Gravely sand to sand
Earthquake magnitude MN,: 6.82
Unit weight calculation:

Based on SBT
Clay like behavior applied:

All soils
❑

2. Organic material
❑

5. Silty sand to sandy silt ❑

8. Very stiff sand to
Peak ground acceleration: 0.61
Use fill:

No
Limit depth applied:

Yes
Depth to water table (insitu): 40.00 ft
Fill height:

N/A
Limit depth:

50.00 ft
❑

3. Clay to silty clay
❑

6. Clean sand to silty sand ❑

9. Very stiff fine grained
CLiq v.1.7.6.34 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 10/24/2022, 1:38:28 PM 2 Project file:

This software is licensed to: Kling Consulting Group, Inc.

CPT basic interpretation plots (normalized)
Norm. cone resistance Norm. friction ratio Nom. pore pressure ratio SBTn Plot L
++
d
CS
Qtn Fr (%) Bq
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:

Robertson (2009)
Depth to water table (erthq.):

10.00 ft
Fill weight:

N/A
Fines correction method:

Robertson (2009)
Average results interval:
5 Transition detect. applied:

Yes
Points to test:

Based on Ic value
Ic cut-off value:

2.60 KQ applied:

Yes
Earthquake magnitude MW:

6.82 Unit weight calculation:

Based on SBT
Clay like behavior applied:

All soils
Peak ground acceleration:

0.61 Use fill:

No
Limit depth applied:

Yes
Depth to water table (insitu):

40.00 ft
Fill height:

N/A
Limit depth:

50.00 ft
1 2 3 4
Ic (Robertson 1990)
CPT name: CPT-1
Norm. Soil Behaviour Type
sltysad &sa*silt
2 Sandmiltysaxl
4 � 5ltysad&sar*silt
1111111114
6 5ltysad &sar*silt
8 Clay&siltyday
10 aay
12 aay&siltyday
14 aa'
6-1
aay&siltyday
18 51tysad &W*silt
Clay&siI day
Siltysad Id ay
20 lull
22 sadmiltysad
24 Siltysad &sa*silt
26 Sand&siltysad
28 30
Sand
32 Sard
34 36
Sandmiltysad
38 40
Siltysad &sa*silt
42 44
46 Clay
48 50
52 54
SBTn(Robertson 1990)
SBTn legend

1. Sensitive fine grained ❑ 4. Clayey silt to silty 7. Gravely sand to sand

2. Organic material 5. Silty sand to sandy silt 8. Very stiff sand to

3. Clay to silty clay 6. Clean sand to silty sand 9. Very stiff fine grained CLiq v.1.7.6.34 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 10/24/2022, 1:38:28 PM 3 Project file:

This software is licensed to: Kling Consulting Group, Inc.

Liquefaction analysis overall plots (intermediate results) Total cone resistance SBTn Index Norm. cone resistance Grain char. factor w
+J
n
G1
z
d —
L2
L4
L6
L8
?0
22 24 — C
?6
Zg
30 32
34 36
38 10
12 14
16 18
50 52
54 IFE
YT�11111111111111111112
100 200 300 400 500
1 2
3 4
0 50 100
150 200 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
qt (tsf)
Ic (Robertson 1990)
Qtn
Kc
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method: Robertson (2009)
Depth to water table (erthq.):

10.00 ft
Fill weight:

N/A
Fines correction method: Robertson (2009)
Average results interval:
5 Transition detect. applied:

Yes
Points to test: Based on Ic value
Ic cut-off value:

2.60 KQ applied:

Yes
Earthquake magnitude MN,: 6.82
Unit weight calculation:

Based on SBT
Clay like behavior applied:

All soils
Peak ground acceleration: 0.61
Use fill:

No
Limit depth applied:

Yes
Depth to water table (insitu): 40.00 ft
Fill height:

N/A
Limit depth:

50.00 ft
CLiq v.1.7.6.34 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 10/24/2022, 1:38:28 PM Project file:

CPT name: CPT-1
Corrected norm. cone resistance
0 50 100 150 200
Qtn,cs
4 This software is licensed to: Kling Consulting Group, Inc.

CPT name: CPT-1
Liquefaction analysis overall plots
CRR plot FS Plot LPI Vertical settlements Lateral displacements w
t
a
Fi
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
0 0.5 1

1.5 2
0 5 10
15 20

CRR &CSR
Factor of safety
Liquefaction
potential
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method: Robertson (2009)
Depth to water table (erthq.):

10.00 ft
Fill weight:

N/A
Fines correction method: Robertson (2009)
Average results interval:
5 Transition detect. applied:

Yes
Points to test: Based on Ic value
Ic cut-off value:

2.60 Ka applied:

Yes
Earthquake magnitude MW: 6.82
Unit weight calculation:

Based on SBT
Clay like behavior applied:

All soils
Peak ground acceleration: 0.61
Use fill:

No
Limit depth applied:

Yes
Depth to water table (insitu): 40.00 ft
Fill height:

N/A
Limit depth:

50.00 ft
211
1z
14 16
18 20
22 24
J
26 Q 28
a�
30 32
34 36
38 40
42 44
46 48
50 52
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
0 Settlement (in)
Displacement (in)
F.S.
color scheme
LPI color scheme
❑
Almost certain it will liquefy
Very high risk
Very likely to liquefy
High risk
Liquefaction and no liq. are equally likely
Low risk
Unlike to liquefy
Almost certain it will not liquefy
CLiq v.1.7.6.34 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 10/24/2022, 1:38:28 PM 5 Project file:

This software is licensed to: Kling Consulting Group, Inc.

Liquefaction analysis summary plots
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:

Robertson (2009)
Depth to water table (erthq.):

10.00 ft
Fill weight:

N/A
Fines correction method:

Robertson (2009)
Average results interval:
5 Transition detect. applied:

Yes
Points to test:

Based on Ic value
Ic cut-off value:

2.60 KQ applied:

Yes
Earthquake magnitude MN,:

6.82 Unit weight calculation:

Based on SBT
Clay like behavior applied:

All soils
Peak ground acceleration:

0.61 Use fill:

No
Limit depth applied:

Yes
Depth to water table (insitu):

40.00 ft
Fill height:

N/A
Limit depth:

50.00 ft
CLiq v.1.7.6.34 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 10/24/2022, 1:38:28 PM Project file:

CPT name: CPT-1

This software is licensed to: Kling Consulting Group, Inc. w
t
n
CS
CPT name: CPT-1
Check for strength loss plots (Robertson (2010))
orm. cone resistance Grain char. factor Corrected norm. cone resistance SBTn Index Liquefied Su/Sig U
2-
4-
6-
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 22
24 26
28 30
32 34
36 .r
38 40
42 44
46 48
50 52
54 100 200 300 400
0 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10
0 50 100
150 200 1 2 3
Qtn
Kc
Qtn,cs Ic (Robertson 1990)
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method: Robertson (2009)
Depth to water table (erthq.):

10.00 ft
Fill weight:

N/A
Fines correction method: Robertson (2009)
Average results interval:
5 Transition detect. applied:

Yes
Points to test: Based on Ic value
Ic cut-off value:

2.60 Ka applied:

Yes
Earthquake magnitude MW: 6.82
Unit weight calculation:

Based on SBT
Clay like behavior applied:

All soils
Peak ground acceleration: 0.61
Use fill:

No
Limit depth applied:

Yes
Depth to water table (insitu): 40.00 ft
Fill height:

N/A
Limit depth:

50.00 ft
CLiq v.1.7.6.34 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 10/24/2022, 1:38:28 PM Project file:

IMMM
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Su/Sig'v
7 This software is licensed to: Kling Consulting Group, Inc.

CPT name: CPT-1
Transition layer No Number of points Depth SBT„ number SBTn description

Kling Consulting Group, Inc.

GE I npgr­----- _ 18008 Sky Park Circle, Suite 250
ti Irvine, CA 92614
■ Olt 1 www.klingconsultinggroup.com
Project:

Location:

Norm. cone resistance
w
0-
8 L
CRR plot
Qtn CRR & CSR
Analysis method:

Robertson (2009)
G.W.T. (in -situ):

40.00 ft
Fines correction method:

Robertson (2009)
G.W.T. (earthq.):

10.00 ft
Points to test:

Based on Ic value
Average results interval:
5 Earthquake magnitude M.:

6.82 Ic cut-off value:

2.60 Peak ground acceleration:

0.61 Unit weight calculation:

Based on SBT
Vertical settlements
C
n
w
a
S
CPT: CPT-1
Total depth: 55.00 ft
Norm. Soil Behaviour Type
Siltysard &m*silt
Sand&siltys"
Siltysard &sa*silt
Slltysaxd &w*silt
Gay&siltyday
Gay
Gay&siltyday
Gay
Gay&siltyday
Siltysard &m*silt
Gay&siltyday
S ltys" &M*silt
Sand&siltysand
Slltysaxi &w*silt
Sand&siltysand
Sand
Sand
Sand&siltysaid
Slltysaxi &sa*silt
Gay
0 0.1 0.2

0.3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Settlement (in)
SBTn (Robertson 1990)
Use fill:

No
Clay like behavior
Fill height:

N/A
applied:

All soils
Fill weight:

N/A
Limit depth applied:

Yes
Trans. detect. applied:

Yes
Limit depth:

50.00 ft
KQ applied:

Yes
MSF method:

Method based
CPeT-IT v.1.7.6.34 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 10/24/2022, 1:38:29 PM Project file:

Kling Consulting Group, Inc.

GE I npgr­----- _ 18008 Sky Park Circle, Suite 250
ti Irvine, CA 92614
■ Olt 1 www.klingconsultinggroup.com
Project:

Location:

Norm. cone resistance
FS Plot
16 18
20 '
22 ,e
24 ,
26 a 28
S' 'in
,
,
n
o
Qtn Factor of safety
Analysis method:

Robertson (2009)
G.W.T. (in -situ):

40.00 ft
Fines correction method:

Robertson (2009)
G.W.T. (earthq.):

10.00 ft
Points to test:

Based on Ic value
Average results interval:
5 Earthquake magnitude M.:

6.82 Ic cut-off value:

2.60 Peak ground acceleration:

0.61 Unit weight calculation:

Based on SBT
Vertical settlements
a
S
CPT: CPT-1
Total depth: 55.00 ft
Norm. Soil Behaviour Type
Siltysard &m*silt
Sand&siltysad
Siltysard &sa*silt
Slltysad &w*silt
Gay&siltyday
Gay
Gay&siltyday
Gay
Gay&siltyday
Siltysard &m*silt
Gay&siltyday
S ltys" &M*silt
Sand&siltysand
Slltysad &w*silt
Sand&siltysand
Sand
Sand
Sand&siltysaid
Slltysad &sa*silt
Gay
0 0.1 0.2

0.3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Settlement (in)
SBTn (Robertson 1990)
Use fill:

No
Clay like behavior
Fill height:

N/A
applied:

All soils
Fill weight:

N/A
Limit depth applied:

Yes
Trans. detect. applied:

Yes
Limit depth:

50.00 ft
KQ applied:

Yes
MSF method:

Method based
CPeT-IT v.1.7.6.34 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 10/24/2022, 1:38:29 PM Project file:

Kling Consulting Group, Inc.

I WROYM_ 18008 Sky Park Circle, Suite 250
i Irvine, CA 92614
■ ■ ■ www.klingconsultinggroup.com
Project title : Location
CPT file: CPT-2
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:

Robertson (2009)
G.W.T. (in -situ):

40.00 ft
Use fill:

No
Fines correction method:

Robertson (2009)
G.W.T. (earthq.):

10.00 ft
Fill height:

N/A
Points to test:

Based on Ic value
Average results interval:
5 Fill weight:

N/A
Earthquake magnitude M.:

6.82 Ic cut-off value:

2.60 Trans. detect. applied: Yes
Peak ground acceleration:

0.61 Unit weight calculation:

Based on SBT
K. applied:

Yes
Cone resistance Friction
Ratio
SBTn Plot
CRR plot

0.8 0.7-

0.6-
0 M
C� 0.4-
(n
.v
U 0.3-
U

0.2-

0.1 !2-1
521-
Clay like behavior
applied: All soils
Limit depth applied: Yes
Limit depth: 50.00 ft
MSF method: Method based
FS Plot
2-
4 6-
8 10 D ring rt q.
12 14
16-
18- 1 -
20-
22-
24 26
28-
30-
32-
34 36-
38-
40-
42 44
46-
48-
50-
200 400 0 2 4 6 8 10 1 2 3 4 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 qt (tsf) Rf (%) Ic (Robertson 1990) CRR & CSR Factor of safety Mw=7112, sigma'=1 atm base curve Summary of liquefaction potential Liquefaction
N • •
♦
•�
No Liquefaction
1 0.1 1 10
Normalized friction ratio (%)
Zone Ai: Cyclic liquefaction likely depending on size and duration of cyclic loading Zone A,: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss likely depending on loading and ground geometry
0 Zone B: Liquefaction and post -earthquake strength loss unlikely, check cyclic softening 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Zone C: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss possible depending on soil plasticity, Qtn,cs brittleness/sensitivity, strain to peak undrained strength and ground geometry CLiq v.1.7.6.34 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 10/24/2022, 1:38:30 PM 11 Project file:

This software is licensed to: Kling Consulting Group, Inc.

CPT basic interpretation plots
Cone resistance Friction Ratio Pore pressure SBT Plot
z
4 6
8 10
I
12 14
16 18
20 22
24 26
28 30
32 34
36 38
40 42
44 46
48 50
100 200 300 400 500
0 2 4 6
8 10
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
qt (tsf)
Rf (%)
u (psi)
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method: Robertson (2009)
Depth to water table (erthq.):

10.00 ft
Fill weight:

N/A
Fines correction method: Robertson (2009)
Average results interval:
5 Transition detect. applied:

Yes
Points to test: Based on Ic value
Ic cut-off value:

2.60 KQ applied:

Yes
Earthquake magnitude MN,: 6.82
Unit weight calculation:

Based on SBT
Clay like behavior applied:

All soils
Peak ground acceleration: 0.61
Use fill:

No
Limit depth applied:

Yes
Depth to water table (insitu): 40.00 ft
Fill height:

N/A
Limit depth:

50.00 ft
1 2 3 4
Ic(SBT)
CPT name: CPT-2
Soil Behaviour Type
allysarMamysit
2 Clay
4 �
6 = aay&siltyday
Clay
8-
Siltysaxl&sa*silt
10 Clay
12 Clay&siltyday
Clay&siltyday
14 i aay
Clay
16 Clay&siltyday
18 5ltysa1d&sar*silt
Siltysa-d &sa*silt
20 a
22 Clay&siltyday
24 Sand&siltysa-d
sand
26 Sand
28 earl&siltysa-d
Sand
30 Send&siltysaxl
32 Sard
Sand&siltys"
34 36
sand&siltys"
Sand
38 Sarld
Sand&siltysaxl
40 5ltysad &sar*silt
42 Clay&siltyday
44 sltysaxl &sa*silt
Clay&siltyday
46 _ Siltysaxl&sa*§It
Clay&siltyday
48 50
SBT (Robertson et al. 1986)
SBT legend

1. Sensitive fine grained ❑ 4. Clayey silt to silty 7. Gravely sand to sand

2. Organic material 5. Silty sand to sandy silt 8. Very stiff sand to

3. Clay to silty clay 6. Clean sand to silty sand 9. Very stiff fine grained CLiq v.1.7.6.34 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 10/24/2022, 1:38:30 PM 12 Project file:

This software is licensed to: Kling Consulting Group, Inc.

CPT basic interpretation plots (normalized)
Norm. cone resistance Norm. friction ratio Nom. pore pressure ratio SBTn Plot Qtn Fr (%) Bq
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:

Robertson (2009)
Depth to water table (erthq.):

10.00 ft
Fill weight:

N/A
Fines correction method:

Robertson (2009)
Average results interval:
5 Transition detect. applied:

Yes
Points to test:

Based on Ic value
Ic cut-off value:

2.60 KQ applied:

Yes
Earthquake magnitude MN,:

6.82 Unit weight calculation:

Based on SBT
Clay like behavior applied:

All soils
Peak ground acceleration:

0.61 Use fill:

No
Limit depth applied:

Yes
Depth to water table (insitu):

40.00 ft
Fill height:

N/A
Limit depth:

50.00 ft
1 2 3 4
Ic (Robertson 1990)
CPT name: CPT-2
Norm. Soil Behaviour Type
aay&siltyday
2 Gay
4 6
Gay&siltyday
Gay&siltyday
8 Sand&siltys"
Gay
10 VeydanSEYShffsdl
12 Gay&siltyday
aay&siltyday
14 Vaydersdsliff scil
Vayd r�Sfiffsdl
16 Gay&siltyday
18 Siltysaxi &ser*silt
Siltysa id &sa*silt
20 Ga,
zz
Gay
24 Sand&siltysa-d
Sad
26 Sand
28 Sanl&siltys"
30 Said
Ssnd&siltysa d
32 34
36 Ssnd&siltysa d
38 40
5ltysard &W*silt
42 Gay
44 Gay&siltyday
46 �
aay
48 50
SBTn(Robertson 1990)
SBTn legend

1. Sensitive fine grained ❑ 4. Clayey silt to silty 7. Gravely sand to sand

2. Organic material 5. Silty sand to sandy silt 8. Very stiff sand to

3. Clay to silty clay 6. Clean sand to silty sand 9. Very stiff fine grained CLiq v.1.7.6.34 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 10/24/2022, 1:38:30 PM 13 Project file:

This software is licensed to: Kling Consulting Group, Inc. w
C
n
Liquefaction analysis overall plots (intermediate results) Total cone resistance SBTn Index Norm. cone resistance Grain char. factor i
G1
L2J
30 32
34 36
38 10
12 18�50
2-
i2-1
100 200 300 400 500
1 2
3 4
0 50 100
150 200 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
qt (tsf)
Ic (Robertson 1990)
Qtn
Kc
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method: Robertson (2009)
Depth to water table (erthq.):

10.00 ft
Fill weight:

N/A
Fines correction method: Robertson (2009)
Average results interval:
5 Transition detect. applied:

Yes
Points to test: Based on Ic value
Ic cut-off value:

2.60 KQ applied:

Yes
Earthquake magnitude MN,: 6.82
Unit weight calculation:

Based on SBT
Clay like behavior applied:

All soils
Peak ground acceleration: 0.61
Use fill:

No
Limit depth applied:

Yes
Depth to water table (insitu): 40.00 ft
Fill height:

N/A
Limit depth:

50.00 ft
CLiq v.1.7.6.34 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 10/24/2022, 1:38:30 PM Project file:

CPT name: CPT-2
Qtn, cs
14 This software is licensed to: Kling Consulting Group, Inc.

CPT name: CPT-2
Liquefaction analysis overall plots
CRR plot FS Plot LPI Vertical settlements Lateral displacements G1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
0 0.5 1

1.5 2
0 5 10
15 20

CRR & CSR
Factor of safety
Liquefaction
potential
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method: Robertson (2009)
Depth to water table (erthq.):

10.00 ft
Fill weight:

N/A
Fines correction method: Robertson (2009)
Average results interval:
5 Transition detect. applied:

Yes
Points to test: Based on Ic value
Ic cut-off value:

2.60 KQ applied:

Yes
Earthquake magnitude MN,: 6.82
Unit weight calculation:

Based on SBT
Clay like behavior applied:

All soils
Peak ground acceleration: 0.61
Use fill:

No
Limit depth applied:

Yes
Depth to water table (insitu): 40.00 ft
Fill height:

N/A
Limit depth:

50.00 ft
211
12 14
16 18
20 22
24 s
26 28
30 32
34 36
38 40
42 0

0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
0 Settlement (in)
Displacement (in)
F.S.
color scheme
LPI color scheme
Almost certain it will liquefy
Very high risk
Very likely to liquefy
High risk
Liquefaction and no liq. are equally likely
Low risk
Unlike to liquefy
Almost certain it will not liquefy
CLiq v.1.7.6.34 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 10/24/2022, 1:38:30 PM 15 Project file:

This software is licensed to: Kling Consulting Group, Inc.

Liquefaction analysis summary plots
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:

Robertson (2009)
Depth to water table (erthq.):

10.00 ft
Fill weight:

N/A
Fines correction method:

Robertson (2009)
Average results interval:
5 Transition detect. applied:

Yes
Points to test:

Based on Ic value
Ic cut-off value:

2.60 KQ applied:

Yes
Earthquake magnitude MN,:

6.82 Unit weight calculation:

Based on SBT
Clay like behavior applied:

All soils
Peak ground acceleration:

0.61 Use fill:

No
Limit depth applied:

Yes
Depth to water table (insitu):

40.00 ft
Fill height:

N/A
Limit depth:

50.00 ft
CPT name: CPT-2
CLiq v.1.7.6.34 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 10/24/2022, 1:38:30 PM 16 Project file:

This software is licensed to: Kling Consulting Group, Inc.

Check for strength loss plots (Robertson (2010))
Norm. cone resistance Grain char. factor Corrected norm. cone resistance SBTn Index L2 I-
WzM
w
C
n
CS
2J
L21
30 32
34 36
38 10 —
12 18�50
100 200 300 400
0 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10
0 50 100
150 200 1 2 3 4
Qtn
Kc
Qtn,cs Ic (Robertson 1990)
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method: Robertson (2009)
Depth to water table (erthq.):

10.00 ft
Fill weight:

N/A
Fines correction method: Robertson (2009)
Average results interval:
5 Transition detect. applied:

Yes
Points to test: Based on Ic value
Ic cut-off value:

2.60 KQ applied:

Yes
Earthquake magnitude MW: 6.82
Unit weight calculation:

Based on SBT
Clay like behavior applied:

All soils
Peak ground acceleration: 0.61
Use fill:

No
Limit depth applied:

Yes
Depth to water table (insitu): 40.00 ft
Fill height:

N/A
Limit depth:

50.00 ft
CLiq v.1.7.6.34 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 10/24/2022, 1:38:30 PM Project file:

CPT name: CPT-2
Liquefied Su/Sig'v
— Peak Su ratio
Liq. Su ratio
su/sig'v
17 This software is licensed to: Kling Consulting Group, Inc.

CPT name: CPT-2
Transition layer No Number of points Depth SBT„ number SBTn description

Kling Consulting Group, Inc.

GE I npgr­----- _ 18008 Sky Park Circle, Suite 250
ti Irvine, CA 92614
■ Olt 1 www.klingconsultinggroup.com
Project:

Location:

Norm. cone resistance
C
n
C
CRR plot
n;
Vertical settlements
2-
4-
6-
0-
2-
4-
6-
0-
2-
4-
6-
0-
2-
4-
6-
8-
0 2-
4-
6 8
0 t
a
S
CPT: CPT-2
Total depth: 50.40 ft
Norm. Soil Behaviour Type
Gay&s ltyday
2 Gay
4 6
Gay&siltyday
Gay&siltyday
Sand&siltysad
8 Gay
10 vaydens6stiffsdl
12 Gay&siltyday
Gay&siltyday
14 veyderEdstiffscil
vayde se'stiff scil
16 Gay&siltyday
Siltysad &sa*silt
18 Siltysad &sa*silt
20 CA ay
22 ! Gay
24 Sad&siltysad
Sand
26 S"
28 Sad&siltysad
d
sand
Sand&siltysad
32 ML
34 36
Sand&siltysad
38 40
S ltysad &sa*silt
42 Gay
44 Gay&sltyday
46 Gay
48 50
�
0 50
100 150
200 0

0.2 0.4

0.6 0 0.05

0.1 0.15

0.2 0.25
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Qtn

CRR & CSR
Settlement (in)
SBTn (Robertson 1990)
Analysis method:

Robertson (2009)
G.W.T. (in -situ):

40.00 ft
Use fill:

No
Clay like behavior
Fines correction method:

Robertson (2009)
G.W.T. (earthq.):

10.00 ft
Fill height:

N/A
applied:

All soils
Points to test:

Based on Ic value
Average results interval:
5 Fill weight:

N/A
Limit depth applied:

Yes
Earthquake magnitude M.:

6.82 Ic cut-off value:

2.60 Trans. detect. applied:

Yes
Limit depth:

50.00 ft
Peak ground acceleration:

0.61 Unit weight calculation:

Based on SBT
KQ applied:

Yes
MSF method:

Method based
CPeT-IT v.1.7.6.34 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 10/24/2022, 1:38:31 PM Project file:

Kling Consulting Group, Inc.

GE I npgr­----- _ 18008 Sky Park Circle, Suite 250
ti Irvine, CA 92614
■ Olt 1 www.klingconsultinggroup.com
Project:

Location:

Norm. cone resistance
C
n
t
0-
8 FS Plot
C
n
Vertical settlements
t
a
S
CPT: CPT-2
Total depth: 50.40 ft
Norm. Soil Behaviour Type
Gay&siltyday
2 Gay
4 �
6 Gay&siltyday
Gay&siltyday
Sand&siltysad
8 Gay
10 - vay&sdsbffsdl
12 Gay&siltyday
Gay&siltyday
14 veydase'stiffscil
veydase'shff scil
16 Gay&siltyday
Siltysad &sa*silt
18 Siltysad &sa*silt
20 CA ay
22 ! Gay
24 Sad&siltysad
Sand
26 Sand
28 _ Sad&siltysad
30 Sad
Sand&siltysad
32 34
36 Sand&siltysad
38 40
S ltysad &sa*silt
42 Gay
44 Gay&sltyday
46 Gay
48 50
0 50
100 150
200 0 0.5 1 1.5
2 0 0.05

0.1 0.15

0.2 0.25
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Qtn
Factor of safety
Settlement (in)
SBTn (Robertson 1990)
Analysis method:

Robertson (2009)
G.W.T. (in -situ): 40.00 ft
Use fill:

No
Clay like behavior
Fines correction method:

Robertson (2009)
G.W.T. (earthq.): 10.00 ft
Fill height:

N/A
applied:

All soils
Points to test:

Based on Ic value
Average results interval: 5
Fill weight:

N/A
Limit depth applied:

Yes
Earthquake magnitude M.:

6.82 Ic cut-off value: 2.60
Trans. detect. applied:

Yes
Limit depth:

50.00 ft
Peak ground acceleration:

0.61 Unit weight calculation: Based on SBT
KQ applied:

Yes
MSF method:

Method based
CPeT-IT v.1.7.6.34 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 10/24/2022, 1:38:32 PM Project file:

Kling Consulting Group, Inc.
i 1«■Ys_
18008 Sky Park Circle, Suite 250
Irvine, CA 92614
■ ■ ■ www.klingconsultinggroup.com
Project title :

Location
CPT file: CPT-3
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:

Robertson (2009) G.W.T. (in -situ): 40.00 ft
Use fill:

No
Clay like behavior
Fines correction method:

Robertson (2009) G.W.T. (earthq.): 10.00 ft
Fill height:

N/A
applied:

All soils
Points to test:

Based on Ic value Average results interval: 5
Fill weight:

N/A
Limit depth applied:

Yes
Earthquake magnitude M.:

6.82 Ic cut-off value: 2.60
Trans. detect. applied: Yes
Limit depth:

50.00 ft
Peak ground acceleration:

0.61 Unit weight calculation: Based on SBT
K. applied:

Yes
MSF method:

Method based
Cone resistance Friction Ratio SBTn Plot
CRR plot
FS
Plot
2 2
2-
2-
2 4
4 4-
4 4
,
I
■
6 6
6-
6-
6 8
8 8
~
8-
8 10
10 10-
10 During
art
q.
10 12
12-
12-
12 12
.
14 14-
14-
14 14
,
16 16
16-
16-
16 18
18 18-
18-
18 20
20-
20-
20-
20 22
22 22-
22-
22 24
24 24-
24 24
Q 26
26 26-
26 26-
28 28
28-
t
28-
28 30
30 30-
30-
30 32
32 32
F
32-
32 34
34 34-
34 34
36 36
36-
36 36
38 38-38-
38 38
40 40
40-
40 40
42 1
al-
42 42

0.8 0.7-

0.6-
O
V)
.v
U 0.3-
U

0.2-

0.1 200 400 600 0 2 4 6 8 10 1 2 3 4 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 qt (tsf) Rf (%) Ic (Robertson 1990) CRR & CSR Factor of safety Mw=71/2, sigma =1 atm base curve Summary of liquefaction potential Liquefaction
so •• •
0 at VA
1111AW/
No Liquefaction
1 0.1 1 10
Normalized friction ratio (%)
Zone Ai: Cyclic liquefaction likely depending on size and duration of cyclic loading Zone A,: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss likely depending on loading and ground geometry
0 Zone B: Liquefaction and post -earthquake strength loss unlikely, check cyclic softening 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Zone C: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss possible depending on soil plasticity, Qtn,cs brittleness/sensitivity, strain to peak undrained strength and ground geometry CLiq v.1.7.6.34 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 10/24/2022, 1:38:33 PM 21 Project file:

This software is licensed to: Kling Consulting Group, Inc.

CPT basic interpretation plots
Cone resistance Friction Ratio Pore pressure SBT Plot
i Insitu
100 200 300 400 500 600
0 2 4 6
8 10
0 50 100
150 1
qt (tsf)
Rf (%)
u (psi)
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method: Robertson (2009)
Depth to water table (erthq.):

10.00 ft
Fill weight:

N/A
Fines correction method: Robertson (2009)
Average results interval:
5 Transition detect. applied:

Yes
Points to test: Based on Ic value
Ic cut-off value:

2.60 KQ applied:

Yes
Earthquake magnitude MN,: 6.82
Unit weight calculation:

Based on SBT
Clay like behavior applied:

All soils
Peak ground acceleration: 0.61
Use fill:

No
Limit depth applied:

Yes
Depth to water table (insitu): 40.00 ft
Fill height:

N/A
Limit depth:

50.00 ft
CPT name: CPT-3
Soil Behaviour Type
aSltyd
ay `
2 Clay
4 sltysad &sar*silt
6-
Clay
Sad&siltysad
8 aay&siltyday
Clay&siltyday
10 Clay&siltyday
12 Clay
14 Clay
! Clay&siltyday
16 -Clay&siltyday
18 5ltysad &saxysilt
20 Siltysad &sa*silt
2z
24 Sand&siltysad
26 28
Sand
Sand&siltysad
30 S3-d&siltysa d
32 Sand
Sand&siltysad
34 Sad&siltysad
sand
36 Sad
38 Sand&siltysad
sand
40 Clay
42 44
Clay&siltyday
46 �
48 -
2 3
4 0 2 4 6 8
10 12 14 16 18
Ic(SBT)
SBT (Robertson
et al. 1986)
SBT legend

1. Sensitive fine grained

4. Clayey silt to silty

7. Gravely sand to sand

2. Organic material

5. Silty sand to sandy silt

8. Very stiff sand to

3. Clay to silty clay

6. Clean sand to silty sand

9. Very stiff fine grained
CLiq v.1.7.6.34 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 10/24/2022, 1:38:33 PM 22 Project file:

This software is licensed to: Kling Consulting Group, Inc.

Norm. cone resistance
w
L
d
CPT basic interpretation plots (normalized)
Norm. friction ratio Nom. pore pressure ratio SBTn Plot 0 50 100 150 200
0 2 4 6
8 10
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6

0.8 1
Qtn
Fr (%)
Bq
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method: Robertson (2009)
Depth to water table (erthq.):

10.00 ft
Fill weight:

N/A
Fines correction method: Robertson (2009)
Average results interval:
5 Transition detect. applied:

Yes
Points to test: Based on Ic value
Ic cut-off value:

2.60 KQ applied:

Yes
Earthquake magnitude MN,: 6.82
Unit weight calculation:

Based on SBT
Clay like behavior applied:

All soils
Peak ground acceleration: 0.61
Use fill:

No
Limit depth applied:

Yes
Depth to water table (insitu): 40.00 ft
Fill height:

N/A
Limit depth:

50.00 ft
1 2 3 4
Ic (Robertson 1990)
CPT name: CPT-3
Norm. Soil Behaviour Type
2 Veydensdshffscil
aay
4 siltysard &W*silt
aay&siltyday
6 Sand&siltysard
8 aay&siltyday
Veydensdshffscil
10 Veydensdsuffscil
12 aay
14 Clay
aay
16 aay&siltyday
18 Siltysad &sa *silt
20 Sand&siltysand
22 siltysard &W*silt
24 Sad&siltysad
26 28
Sand
30 Sard
Sand&siltysad
Said
32 said
34 Sad&siltysad
36 Sard
38 Sad&siltysad
Siltysad &sa*§It
40 Clay&siltyday
42 44
Clay
46 48
50i
i i i i,
SBTn(Robertson 1990)
SBTn legend

1. Sensitive fine grained 4. Clayey silt to silty 7. Gravely sand to sand

2. Organic material 5. Silty sand to sandy silt 8. Very stiff sand to

3. Clay to silty clay 6. Clean sand to silty sand 9. Very stiff fine grained CLiq v.1.7.6.34 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 10/24/2022, 1:38:33 PM 23 Project file:

This software is licensed to: Kling Consulting Group, Inc. w
C
n
Liquefaction analysis overall plots (intermediate results) Total cone resistance SBTn Index Norm. cone resistance Grain char. factor i
w
cl
n
G1
L2J-
L8
20 22
30 32
34 36
38 10C12
+u
50 100 200 300 400 500 600
1 2
3 4
0 50 100
150 200 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
qt (tsf)
Ic (Robertson 1990)
Qtn
Kc
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method: Robertson (2009)
Depth to water table (erthq.):

10.00 ft
Fill weight:

N/A
Fines correction method: Robertson (2009)
Average results interval:
5 Transition detect. applied:

Yes
Points to test: Based on Ic value
Ic cut-off value:

2.60 KQ applied:

Yes
Earthquake magnitude MN,: 6.82
Unit weight calculation:

Based on SBT
Clay like behavior applied:

All soils
Peak ground acceleration: 0.61
Use fill:

No
Limit depth applied:

Yes
Depth to water table (insitu): 40.00 ft
Fill height:

N/A
Limit depth:

50.00 ft
CLiq v.1.7.6.34 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 10/24/2022, 1:38:33 PM Project file:

CPT name: CPT-3
Qtn,cs
24 This software is licensed to: Kling Consulting Group, Inc.

CPT name: CPT-3
Liquefaction analysis overall plots
CRR plot FS Plot LPI Vertical settlements Lateral displacements G1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
0 0.5 1

1.5 2
0 5 10
15 20

CRR & CSR
Factor of safety
Liquefaction
potential
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method: Robertson (2009)
Depth to water table (erthq.):

10.00 ft
Fill weight:

N/A
Fines correction method: Robertson (2009)
Average results interval:
5 Transition detect. applied:

Yes
Points to test: Based on Ic value
Ic cut-off value:

2.60 KQ applied:

Yes
Earthquake magnitude MN,: 6.82
Unit weight calculation:

Based on SBT
Clay like behavior applied:

All soils
Peak ground acceleration: 0.61
Use fill:

No
Limit depth applied:

Yes
Depth to water table (insitu): 40.00 ft
Fill height:

N/A
Limit depth:

50.00 ft
CLiq v.1.7.6.34 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 10/24/2022, 1:38:33 PM Project file:
2 4
6 8
10 12
14 16
18 20
22 24
26 28
30 32
34 36
38 40
42 44
46 48
50 0

0.1 0.2 0.3
0 Settlement (in)
Displacement (in)
F.S.
color scheme
LPI color scheme
❑
Almost certain it will liquefy
Very high risk
Very likely to liquefy
High risk
Liquefaction and no liq. are equally likely
Low risk
Unlike to liquefy
Almost certain it will not liquefy
25 This software is licensed to: Kling Consulting Group, Inc.

Liquefaction analysis summary plots
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:

Robertson (2009)
Depth to water table (erthq.):

10.00 ft
Fill weight:

N/A
Fines correction method:

Robertson (2009)
Average results interval:
5 Transition detect. applied:

Yes
Points to test:

Based on Ic value
Ic cut-off value:

2.60 KQ applied:

Yes
Earthquake magnitude MN,:

6.82 Unit weight calculation:

Based on SBT
Clay like behavior applied:

All soils
Peak ground acceleration:

0.61 Use fill:

No
Limit depth applied:

Yes
Depth to water table (insitu):

40.00 ft
Fill height:

N/A
Limit depth:

50.00 ft
CPT name: CPT-3
CLiq v.1.7.6.34 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 10/24/2022, 1:38:33 PM 26 Project file:

This software is licensed to: Kling Consulting Group, Inc. w
t
n
CS
Check for strength loss plots (Robertson (2010))
Norm. cone resistance Grain char. factor Corrected norm. cone resistance SBTn Index L2- -
Wzi
32-1-
2J
L2-J_
L8
20 ?2 —
100 200 300 400
0 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10
0 50 100
150 200 1 2 3 4
Qtn
Kc
Qtn,cs Ic (Robertson 1990)
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method: Robertson (2009)
Depth to water table (erthq.):

10.00 ft
Fill weight:

N/A
Fines correction method: Robertson (2009)
Average results interval:
5 Transition detect. applied:

Yes
Points to test: Based on Ic value
Ic cut-off value:

2.60 Ka applied:

Yes
Earthquake magnitude MW: 6.82
Unit weight calculation:

Based on SBT
Clay like behavior applied:

All soils
Peak ground acceleration: 0.61
Use fill:

No
Limit depth applied:

Yes
Depth to water table (insitu): 40.00 ft
Fill height:

N/A
Limit depth:

50.00 ft
CLiq v.1.7.6.34 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 10/24/2022, 1:38:33 PM Project file:

CPT name: CPT-3
Liquefied Su/Sig'v
- Peak Su ratio
— Uq. Su ratio
SU/Slg'v
27 This software is licensed to: Kling Consulting Group, Inc.

CPT name: CPT-3
Transition layer No Number of points Depth SBT„ number SBTn description

Kling Consulting Group, Inc.

GE I npgr­----- _ 18008 Sky Park Circle, Suite 250
ti Irvine, CA 92614
■ Olt 1 www.klingconsultinggroup.com
Project:

Location:

Norm. cone resistance
0-
8 C
CRR plot
1 1
1 1
1 2
2 2
Nfl- 2
2 3
3 3
3 3
4 4
4 4
4 5
Vertical settlements
1 i
3 i
1 i
3 1
1 i
3 1
4 i
3 1
i
3 a
S
CPT: CPT-3
Total depth: 50.27 ft
Norm. Soil Behaviour Type
�cyaNnyuay
Uayder estffsdl
Gay
Siltysa d &sa*silt
Gay&dltyday
siltysa d &sa*silt
Sltysa d &M*silt
Gay&siltyday
Gay&siltyday
Veyde se'stiffsdl
Gay
Gay
Gay&siltyday
siltysad &sadysilt
Said&siltysad
sitysa d &M*silt
Sad&siltysad
Sand
Sad
Sand&siltysaid
Sand&siltysaid
Sad&siltysad
Sad&siltysad
Sad
Sad&siltysad
siltysa d &M*silt
Gay&siltyday
Gay
0 50
100 150
200 0

0.2 0.4

0.6 0 0.05

0.1 0.15 0.2

0.25 0.3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Qtn

CRR & CSR
Settlement (in)
SBTn (Robertson 1990)
Analysis method:

Robertson (2009)
G.W.T. (in -situ):

40.00 ft
Use fill:

No
Clay like behavior
Fines correction method:

Robertson (2009)
G.W.T. (earthq.):

10.00 ft
Fill height:

N/A
applied:

All soils
Points to test:

Based on Ic value
Average results interval:
5 Fill weight:

N/A
Limit depth applied:

Yes
Earthquake magnitude M.:

6.82 Ic cut-off value:

2.60 Trans. detect. applied:

Yes
Limit depth:

50.00 ft
Peak ground acceleration:

0.61 Unit weight calculation:

Based on SBT
KQ applied:

Yes
MSF method:

Method based
CPeT-IT v.1.7.6.34 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 10/24/2022, 1:38:34 PM Project file:

Project:

Location:

Kling Consulting Group, Inc.
------ _ 18008 Sky Park Circle, Suite 250
ti Irvine, CA 92614
■ ■ ■ 1 www.klingconsultinggroup.com
Norm. cone resistance
0-
8 FS Plot
v .v
ivv •.lv
cw V
V.J 1 1.7 L
Qtn
Factor of safety
Analysis method:

Robertson (2009)
G.W.T. (in -situ):

40.00 ft
Fines correction method:

Robertson (2009)
G.W.T. (earthq.):

10.00 ft
Points to test:

Based on Ic value
Average results interval:
5 Earthquake magnitude M.:

6.82 Ic cut-off value:

2.60 Peak ground acceleration:

0.61 Unit weight calculation:

Based on SBT
1 1
1 1
1 2
2 2
n2
N
2 3
3 3
3 3
4 4
4 4
4 5
Vertical settlements
1 i
3 i
1 i
3 1
1 i
3 1
4 i
3 1
i
3 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Settlement (in)
a
S
CPT: CPT-3
Total depth: 50.27 ft
Norm. Soil Behaviour Type
�cyaNnyuay
Uayder estffsdl
Gay
Siltysa d &sa*silt
Gay&dltyday
siltysa d &sa*silt
Sltysa d &M*silt
Gay&siltyday
Gay&siltyday
Veyde se'stiffsdl
Gay
Gay
Gay&siltyday
siltys" &sadysilt
Said&siltys"
S ltys" &M*silt
Sall&siltys"
Sand
Sand
Sand&siltys"
Sand&siltys"
Sall&siltysad
Sad&siltysad
sand
Sad&siltys"
siltysa d &M*silt
Gay&siltyday
Gay
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
SBTn (Robertson 1990)
Use fill:

No
Clay like behavior
Fill height:

N/A
applied: All soils
Fill weight:

N/A
Limit depth applied: Yes
Trans. detect. applied:

Yes
Limit depth: 50.00 ft
KQ applied:

Yes
MSF method: Method based
CPeT-IT v.1.7.6.34 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 10/24/2022, 1:38:34 PM Project file:

Procedure for the evaluation of soil liquefaction resistance, NCEER (1998) Calculation of soil resistance against liquefaction is performed according to the Robertson & Wride (1998) procedure. The procedure used in the software, slightly differs from the one originally published in NCEER-97-0022 (Proceedings of the NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils). The revised procedure is presented below in the form of a flowchart':
q, : tip resistance, f., = sleeve friction
. vet in -situ verrical total and effective stress
units = all in kPa
initial stress expsincnt'7 : n i 1.0 and calculate Q, F, and 1. ifIC5 1.64,rt=0.5
if 1.64 3.30,n=1.0
iterate until the change in n, An 300 kPa, lot n = 1.0 for &11 svibs aupdated form
Robertson and lUC}
wridr: (l99 $)
�Y O
= (q ''° ) - CO, F — }y 4
100 ) 100
(qL VO
1, = 3.47—log )'+(1.22+logF)
_./I
if i4 I �
BUT. if 1.64 [ Ic 2._603 using other eritcria; likely ncchquifiablo if F > I % 1 "Estimating liquefaction -induced ground settlements from CPT for level ground", G. Zhang, P.K. Robertson, and R.W.I. Brachrran

APPENDIX D

HARDSCAPE RECOMMENDATIONS

KCGKLING
Consulting
Group, Inc.

HARDSCAPE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EXPANSIVE SOILS
(COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL BUILDING) 4
Joint 121
Minimum
Subgrade
Cutoff Barrier
Spacing
Description
Concrete
Pre -Soaking
or
(Max)
Base
Thickness
Depth
Reinforcement (')
Edge Thickness
(Inches)
Common Sidewalks - Isolated
EI 130
5 130% of/or 5% over optimum (whichever is greater) to 24" 6 feet
Common Sidewalks - Not Isolated
(adjacent to curbs or structures)
Dowel into curbs and entries
N.R.
5-10 Feet
N.R.

EI 130
5 120% of/or 5% over optimum (whichever is greater) to 24" Enhanced or Decorative Concrete
(where higher degree of crack control is desired)
E 130
6 120% of/or 5% over optimum (whichever is greater) to 24" #4 re -bar @ 12" O.C., E.W.
12" thick x 12" wide
6 feet
Curb and Gutter
C.S.

Scarify 6"/Pre-Moisten
N.R.

N.R.
10 Feet
N.R.

General Concrete Paving 3
7 N.R.

N.R.
12"x12" where adjacent to
10 Feet
6"
landscape
Trash Enclosure/Loading Bay 3
8 N.R.

N.R.
12"x12" where adjacent to
10 Feet
6"
landscape
N.R. = Not Recommended
C.S. = City/County Standard
O.C. = On Center
E.W. = Each Way
General Notes:
(A) All concrete thickness should be "full"
(B) Square concrete panels when possible
(C) Maintain positive drainage from concrete flatwork
(D) All slab reinforcement should be placed at mid -height of slab (E) The above recommendations are intended to mitigate expansive soils independent of other design considerations. The recommendations of the structural engineer and/or architect should also be incorporated into the final design.

Footnotes:
(1) Reinforcement to extend into cutoff barrier in thickened edge. (2) Joint at curves or angle points.
(3) The above concrete paving recommendations are for planning purposes only.

An actual pavement design should be generated based on concrete strength, and frequency and magnitude of anticipated axle loads. (4) The above recommendations are intended to mitigate expansive soils independent of other design considerations.

The recommendations of the structural engineer and/or architect should also be incorporated into the final design.

APPENDIX E

ASFE INSERT

Geolechnical Engineering RePOPI --)
Geotechnical Services Are Performed for
Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects
Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engineer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, each geo- technical engineering report is unique, prepared solelyfor the client. No one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one - not even you - should apply the report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated.

Read the Full Report
Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary.

Do not read selected elements only.

A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Based on
A Unique Set of Project -Specific Factors
Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project -specific factors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the client's goals, objectives, and risk management preferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the geotechnical engi- neer who conducted the study specifically indicates otherwise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was:
• not prepared for you,
• not prepared for your project,
• not prepared for the specific site explored, or
• completed before important project changes were made.

Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical engineering report include those that affect:
• the function of the proposed structure, as when it's changed from a parking garage to an office building, or from alight industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse,
• elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure,
• composition of the design team, or
• project ownership.

As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes - even minor ones - and request an assessment of their impact.

Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which they were not informed.

Subsurface Conditions Can Change
A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. Do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or by natu- ral events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems.

Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional
Opinions
Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engineers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ -sometimes significantly from those indi- cated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to provide construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions.

A Report's Recommendations Are Not Final
Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your re- port. Those recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engineers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual

subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical engi- neer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report's recommendations if that engineer does not perform construction observation.

A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Subject to
Misinterpretation
Other design team members' misinterpretation of geotechnical engineer- ing reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having your geotechnical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review pertinent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk by having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing construction observation.

Do Not Redraw the Engineer's Logs
Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings.

Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk.

Give Contractors a Complete Report and
Guidance
Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give con- tractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, butpreface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or to conduct ad- ditional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer.

A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contractors have sufficient timeto perform additional study. Only then might you be in a position to give contractors the best information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unantici- pated conditions.

Read Responsibility Provisions Closely
Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disciplines.

This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled "limitations" many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers' responsibilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly.

Geoenviponmental Concerns Are Not Covered
The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenviron- mental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually re- late any geoenvironmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to numerous project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own geoenvironmental in- formation, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk management guidance.

Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for someone else.

Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal with Mold
Diverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction, op- eration, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from grow- ing on indoor surfaces. To be effective, all such strategies should be devised for the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a comprehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a professional mold prevention consultant. Because just a small amount of water or moisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations, a number of mold prevention strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry. While groundwater, wa- ter infiltration, and similar issues may have been addressed as part of the geotechnical engineering study whose findings are conveyed in -this report, the geotechnical engineer in charge of this project is not a mold prevention consultant; none of the services performed in connection with the geotechnical engineer's study were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold prevention. Proper implementation of the recommendations conveyed in this report will not of itself he sufficient to prevent mold from growing in or on the struc- ture involved.

Rely on Your ASFE-Member Geotechnical
Engineer For Additional Assistance
Membership in ASFE/The Best People on Earth exposes geotechnical engi- neers to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer with your ASFE-member geotechnical engineer for more information.

ASFE
The Best People on Earth
8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone:' 301/565-2733 Facsimile: 301/589-2017
e-mail: [email protected] www.asfe.org
Copyright 2004 by ASFE, Inc. Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with ASFE's specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission ofASFE, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of ASFE may use this document as a complement to or as an element of a geotechnical engineering report. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being anASFE member could be committing negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation. 1IGER06045.0M

APPENDIX C

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT

PARTNER
Engineering and Science, Ine:

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL

SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT
1400 & 1420 Bristol Street
1400 & 1420 Bristol Street North
Newport Beach, California 92660
Report Date: January 20, 2020
Partner Project No. 19-270257.1
Prepared for:

Buchanan Street Partners
3501 Jamboree Road, Suite 4200
Newport Beach, California 92660

PAffrNER
Engineering and Science, Inc.

January 20, 2020
Mr. Matthew Haugen
Buchanan Street Partners
3501 Jamboree Road, Suite 4200
Newport Beach, California 92660
Subject: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
1400 & 1420 Bristol Street
1400 & 1420 Bristol Street North
Newport Beach, California 92660
Partner Project No. 19-270257.1
Dear Mr. Haugen:

Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. (Partner) is pleased to provide the results of the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA) report of the abovementioned address (the "subject property"). This assessment was performed in conformance with the scope and limitations as detailed in the ASTM Practice Ell 527-13 Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process.

This assessment included a site reconnaissance as well as research and interviews with representatives of the public, property ownership, site manager, and regulatory agencies. An assessment was made, conclusions stated, and recommendations outlined.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide environmental services to you. If you have any questions concerning this report, or if we can assist you in any other matter, please contact me at (310) 765-7243.

Sincerely,
DRAFT
Jenny Redlin
Relationship Manager
2154 Torrance Blvd., Suite 200, Torrance, CA 90501 0 Phone 800-419-4923 0 Fax 866-928-7418

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. (Partner) has performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) in accordance with the scope of work and limitations of ASTM Standard Practice E1527-13, the Environmental Protection Agency Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (AAI) (40 CFR Part 312) and set forth by Buchanan Street Partners for the property located at 1400 & 1420 Bristol Street North in Newport Beach, Orange County, California (the "subject property"). The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment is designed to provide Buchanan Street Partners with an assessment concerning environmental conditions (limited to those issues identified in the report) as they exist at the subject property.

Property Description
The subject property is located on the north corner of Bristol Street North and Spruce Avenue within a commercial area of Orange County. Please refer to the table below for further description of the subject property:

Addresses:

Property Use:

Land Acreage (Ac):

Number of Buildings:

Number of Floors:

Gross Building Area (SF):

Net Rentable Area (SF):

Date of Construction:

Assessor's Parcel Number (APN):

Type of Construction:

Current Tenants:

Site Assessment Performed By:

Site Assessment Conducted On:
1400 & 1420 Bristol Street North, Newport Beach, California Commercial

2.376 Ac
Two
Two
29,406 (1400 Building)
13,291 (1420 Building)
42,697 TOTAL
38,611 SF (per rent roll)
1978
427-332-02
Conventional wood -framing and structural steel
Davis Partners consisting of 23 office units
Chloe Adelmann of Partner
January 13, 2020
The subject property is currently occupied by 23 office tenants for commercial use. Onsite operations consist of general office use and maintenance activities. In addition to the current structures, the subject property is also improved with asphalt paved parking areas, concrete paved walkways, and limited landscaping.

According to available historical sources, the subject property was formerly undeveloped as early as 1896; developed for agricultural purposes circa 1938; vacant/agricultural land between 1946 and circa 1963; vacant land and developed with an auxiliary storage/ ranch structure by 1972; and developed with the existing two commercial office structures and associated parking lot in 1978. Tenants on the subject property included various sales and medical office tenants.

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment PARTNER
Project No. 19-270257.1
January 20, 2020
Page i

The immediately surrounding properties consist of two multi -tenant office structures to the north; Bristol Street North beyond which is Corona Del Mar Freeway to the south; a multi -tenant office and parking lot to the east across Spruce Avenue; and a multi -tenant office to the west.

According to a previous subsurface investigation conducted on a nearby property, the depth to groundwater in the vicinity of the subject property is inferred to be approximately 22 feet below ground surface (bgs) and groundwater flow is inferred to be toward the southwest.

Findings
A recognized environmental condition (REC) refers to the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property: due to release to the environment; under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. The following was identified during the course of this assessment:
• Partner did not identify any recognized environmental conditions during the course of this assessment.

A controlled recognized environmental condition (CREC) refers to a REC resulting from a past release of hazardous substances or petroleum products that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority, with hazardous substances or petroleum products allowed to remain in place subject to the implementation of required controls. The following was identified during the course of this assessment:
• Partner did not identify any controlled recognized environmental conditions during the course of this assessment.

A historical recognized environmental condition (HREC) refers to a past release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products that has occurred in connection with the property and has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority or meeting unrestricted use criteria established by a regulatory authority, without subjecting the property to any required controls. The following was identified during the course of this assessment:
• Partner did not identify any historical recognized environmental conditions during the course of this assessment.

An environmental issue refers to environmental concerns identified by Partner, which do not qualify as RECs; however, warrant further discussion. The following was identified during the course of this assessment:
• Due to the age of the subject property buildings, there is a potential that asbestos -containing material (ACM) and/or lead -based paint (LBP) are present. Readily visible suspect ACMs and painted surfaces were observed in good condition. Should these materials be replaced, the identified suspect ACMs would need to be sampled to confirm the presence or absence of asbestos prior to any renovation or demolition activities to prevent potential exposure to workers and/or building occupants.

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment PARTNER
Project No. 19-270257.1
January 20, 2020
Page ii

Conclusions, Opinions and Recommendations
Partner has performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice E1527-13 of 1400 & 1420 Bristol Street North in Newport Beach, Orange County, California (the "subject property"). Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described in Section 1.5 of this report.

This assessment has revealed no evidence of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the subject property; however, environmental issues were identified. Based on the conclusions of this assessment, Partner recommends the following:
• An Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Program should be implemented in order to safely manage the suspect ACMs and LBP located at the subject property.

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment PARTNER
Project No. 19-270257.1
January 20, 2020
Page iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Purpose................................................................................................................................................................................1

1.2 Scope of Work...................................................................................................................................................................1

1.3 Limitations..........................................................................................................................................................................2

1.4 User Reliance.....................................................................................................................................................................2

1.5 Limiting Conditions.........................................................................................................................................................3

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION............................................................................................................................4

2.1 Site Location and Legal Description.........................................................................................................................4

2.2 Current Property Use......................................................................................................................................................4

2.3 Current Use of Adjacent Properties..........................................................................................................................4

2.4 Physical Setting Sources................................................................................................................................................5

2.4.1 Topography..............................................................................................................................................................5

2.4.2 Hydrology.................................................................................................................................................................5

2.4.3 Geology/Soils..........................................................................................................................................................5

2.4.4 Flood Zone Information......................................................................................................................................6

3.0 HISTORICAL
INFORMATION............................................................................................................ 7

3.1 Aerial Photograph Review............................................................................................................................................7

3.2 Fire Insurance Maps........................................................................................................................................................8

3.3 City Directories..................................................................................................................................................................9

3.4 Historical Topographic Maps...................................................................................................................................10

4.0 REGULATORY
RECORDS REVIEW..................................................................................................11

4.1 Regulatory Agencies....................................................................................................................................................11

4.1.1 Health Department............................................................................................................................................11

4.1.2 Fire Department..................................................................................................................................................11

4.1.3 Air Pollution Control Agency..........................................................................................................................11

4.1.4 Regional Water Quality Agency....................................................................................................................11

4.1.5 Department of Toxic Substances Control.................................................................................................12

4.1.6 Building Department.........................................................................................................................................12

4.1.7 Planning Department........................................................................................................................................13

4.1.8 Oil & Gas Exploration........................................................................................................................................14

4.1.9 Assessor's Office..................................................................................................................................................14

4.1.10 Sanitation Department.....................................................................................................................................14

4.2 Mapped Database Records Search........................................................................................................................14

4.2.1 Regulatory Database Summary.....................................................................................................................15

4.2.2 Subject Property Listings.................................................................................................................................15

4.2.3 Adjacent Property Listings..............................................................................................................................16

4.2.4 Sites of Concern Listings..................................................................................................................................17

4.2.5 Orphan Listings....................................................................................................................................................18

5.0 USER PROVIDED INFORMATION AND INTERVIEWS.................................................................. 19

5.1 Interviews......................................................................................................................................................................... 20

5.1.1 Interview with Owner........................................................................................................................................20

5.1.2 Interview with Report User..............................................................................................................................20 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment PARTNER
Project No. 19-270257.1
January 20, 2020
Page iv

5.1.3 Interview with Key Site Manager..................................................................................................................20

5.1.4 Interviews with Past Owners, Operators and Occupants....................................................................20

5.1.5 Interview with Others........................................................................................................................................20

5.2 User Provided Information........................................................................................................................................20

5.2.1 Title Records, Environmental Liens, and AULs.........................................................................................20

5.2.2 Specialized Knowledge.....................................................................................................................................20

5.2.3 Actual Knowledge of the User....................................................................................................................... 20 5.2.4
Valuation Reduction for Environmental Issues.......................................................................................21

5.2.5 Commonly Known or Reasonably Ascertainable Information..........................................................21

5.2.6 Previous Reports and Other Provided Documentation.......................................................................21

6.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE.................................................................................................................22

6.1 General Site Characteristics.......................................................................................................................................22

6.2 Potential Environmental Hazards............................................................................................................................23

6.3 Non-ASTM Services......................................................................................................................................................25

6.3.1 Asbestos -Containing Materials(ACMs).....................................................................................................25

6.3.2 Lead -Based Paint(LBP).....................................................................................................................................25

6.3.3 Radon...................................................................................................................................................................... 26

6.3.4 Lead in Drinking Water.....................................................................................................................................26

6.3.5 Mold.........................................................................................................................................................................27

6.4 Adjacent Property Reconnaissance........................................................................................................................27

7.0 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS.....................................................................................................28

8.0 SIGNATURES OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONALS...............................................................30

9.0 REFERENCES.....................................................................................................................................31 Figures
Figure 1 Site Location Map
Figure 2 Site Plan
Figure 3 Topographic Map
Appendices
Appendix A
Site Photographs
Appendix B
Historical/Regulatory Documentation
Appendix C
Regulatory Database Report
Appendix D
Qualifications
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment PARTNER
Project No. 19-270257.1
January 20, 2020
Page v

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. (Partner) has performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Standard Practice E1527-13 and the Environmental Protection Agency Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (AAI) (40 CFR Part 312) for the property located at 1400 & 1420 Bristol Street North in Newport Beach, Orange County, California (the "subject property"). Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this scope of work are described in the report.

1.1 Purpose
The purpose of this ESA is to identify existing or potential Recognized Environmental Conditions (as defined by ASTM Standard E1527-13) affecting the subject property that: 1) constitute or result in a material violation or a potential material violation of any applicable environmental law; 2) impose any material constraints on the operation of the subject property or require a material change in the use thereof, 3) require clean-up, remedial action or other response with respect to Hazardous Substances or Petroleum Products on or affecting the subject property under any applicable environmental law; 4) may affect the value of the subject property; and 5) may require specific actions to be performed with regard to such conditions and circumstances. The information contained in the ESA Report will be used by Client to: 1) evaluate its legal and financial liabilities for transactions related to foreclosure, purchase, sale, loan origination, loan workout or seller financing; 2) evaluate the subject property's overall development potential, the associated market value and the impact of applicable laws that restrict financial and other types of assistance for the future development of the subject property; and/or 3) determine whether specific actions are required to be performed prior to the foreclosure, purchase, sale, loan origination, loan workout or seller financing of the subject property.

This ESA was performed to permit the User to satisfy one of the requirements to qualify for the innocent landowner, contiguous property owner, or bona fide prospective purchaser limitations on scope of Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) (42 U.S.C. §9601) liability (hereinafter, the "landowner liability protections," or "LLPs"). ASTM Standard E1527-13 constitutes "all appropriate inquiry into the previous ownership and uses of the property consistent with good commercial or customary practice" as defined at 42 U.S.C. §9601(35)(B).

1.2 Scope of Work
The scope of work for this ESA is in accordance with the requirements of ASTM Standard E1527-13. This assessment included: 1) a property and adjacent site reconnaissance; 2) interviews with key personnel; 3) a review of historical sources; 4) a review of regulatory agency records; and 5) a review of a regulatory database report provided by a third -party vendor. Partner contacted local agencies, such as environmental health departments, fire departments and building departments in order to determine any current and/or former hazardous substances usage, storage and/or releases of hazardous substances on the subject property. Additionally, Partner researched information on the presence of activity and use limitations (AULs) at these agencies. As defined by ASTM E1527-13, AULs are the legal or physical restrictions or limitations on the use of, or access to, a site or facility: 1) to reduce or eliminate potential Phase I Environmental Site Assessment PARTNER
Project No. 19-270257.1
January 20, 2020