Newport Beach City Council
April 9, 2024

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

1. Introduction

2. Substantial changes would occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken that require major revisions to 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.

3. New information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified or the negative declaration was adopted shows any of the following:
a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration.
b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than identified in the previous EIR.
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 proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives. d. Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives.

Preparation of an Addendum to an EIR is appropriate when none of the conditions specified in Section 15162 (above) are present and some minor technical changes to the previously certified EIR are necessary.

After careful consideration of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project, the City of Newport Beach, as lead agency, has determined that none of the conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR have occurred. The City, therefore, has determined that the circumstances described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 apply to the proposed project, and an Addendum to the 2006 and 2014 certified EIRs is appropriate. This Addendum compares the proposed project to the designated land uses for the project site as approved in the 2006 General Plan Update (GPU) and the associated environmental impacts assessed in the GPU EIR. It further details impacts of the project compared to impacts identified for the site in the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR.

This Addendum includes analysis of new topical sections that were not included in the previous EIRs; specifically, it includes a new energy section and a new wildfire section (see discussion in Section 1.2.3, CEQA Checklist Update). These additional analyses are appropriate for inclusion in the Addendum, but none result in new or increased significant impacts that would require preparation of a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines.

1.2.2 Scope of Subsequent Analysis
The discretionary approvals subject to CEQA for the proposed project include the following:

May 2020 Page 3

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

1. Introduction
■ Zone Change from OA (Office Airport) to PC (Newport Airport Village Planned Community) ■ General Plan Amendment from AO (Airport Office and Supporting uses) to MU-H2 (Mixed Use Horizontal)
■ Adoption of Newport Airport Village Planned Community Development Plan ■ Approval of Development Agreement between the applicant and the City of Newport Beach As lead agency under CEQA for this action, the City of Newport Beach is required to evaluate the environmental impacts associated with these discretionary approvals. The scope of the review for project - related impacts for this Addendum is limited to changes between the land uses as evaluated in the 2006 and 2014 EIRs in comparison to the currently proposed project. The approved, designated land uses in the 2006 General Plan and the GPU policies identified in the 2006 GPU EIR that mitigate potential environmental impacts for the site serve as the baseline for the environmental impact analysis of the proposed project. Relative impacts to the site land use as evaluated in the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR are also evaluated to substantiate that new impacts associated with the proposed project would not be significant.

Note that neither the 2006 GPU EIR nor the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR included mitigation measures. Both relied on detailed General Plan policies adopted in the 2006 General Plan to mitigate potential environmental impacts. As applicable, in addition to 2006 General Plan policies, this Addendum documents required regulatory requirements and City conditions of approval that reduce potential environmental impacts. As described further below, existing enforcement and monitoring mechanisms are in place to ensure that all measures will be implemented. A CEQA Mitigation Monitoring Program, therefore, is not required. This document is intended to provide sufficient information to allow the City of Newport Beach and any other permitting agencies to evaluate the potential impacts from construction and operation of the proposed project.

1.2.3 CEQA Checklist Update
On December 28, 2018, the Office of Administrative Law approved updated CEQA Guidelines that were implemented on January 1, 2019. The updated guidelines include an update to the Appendix G Checklist, which is used as the basis for topical environmental review by the City of Newport Beach. This Addendum has been prepared to fully address the requirements of the updated guidelines.. The updated Appendix G checklist includes some impact areas that were not included in the 2006 and 2014 certified EIRs. However, as discussed in this Addendum, the proposed project would not have any significant impacts or require mitigation in those impact areas. The addition of impact areas added to the Appendix G Checklist do not necessitate a new EIR.

1.3 CONTENT AND ORGANIZATION OF THIS ADDENDUM
The following components comprise the EIR Addendum in its totality:

1. The Introduction (Section 1), the Environmental Setting (Section 2) and Project Description (Section 3)

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

1. Introduction

2. The completed Environmental Checklist Form and its associated analyses (Sections 4 and 5), which conclude that the proposed project would not result in any new significant environmental impacts or substantially increase the severity of environmental impacts beyond the level disclosed in the 2006 General Plan Update EIR as Addended with Addendums 1 and 2.

This Addendum relies on the most current CEQA environmental checklist (Appendix G, 2019 CEQA Guidelines), which addresses environmental issues section by section. The completed checklist and conclusions in the checklist are included and substantiated in Section 5, Environmental Analysis, which includes the following subheadings for each environmental topic:
■ Summary of Impacts Identified in the 2006 and 2014 Certified EIRs ■ Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
■ Adopted Mitigation Measures/General Plan Policies Applicable to the Proposed Project ■ Level of Significance After Mitigation/Policies Implementation Where applicable, specific regulatory requirements identified in the 2006 and 2014 certified EIRs to reduce environmental impacts are reproduced in this Addendum as applicable for the proposed project.

3. The following Appendices to this Addendum:
■ Appendix A: Airport Village Planned Community Development Plan (PCDP) ■ Appendix B: Newport Village Trip Making Assessment

4. The 2006 General Plan Update EIR, accompanying Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), Technical Appendices to the GPU EIR, Findings and Statement of Facts, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and City Council Resolution No. 2006-75, which are all herein incorporated by reference pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15150 and are available for review at City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660 and online at www.newportbeachca.gov .

5. Addendum No. 1 to the General Plan Update EIR, which is herein incorporated by reference pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15150 and is available for review at City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660.

6. Addendum No. 2 to the General Plan Update EIR, which is herein incorporated by reference pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15150 and is available for review at City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660.

7. General Plan Land Use Element Amendment Final Supplemental EIR, March 2014 (SCH No. 201310164) accompanying Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), Technical Appendices to the GPU EIR, findings and Statement of Facts, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and City Council Resolution No. 2014-65, which are all herein incorporated by reference pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15150 and are available for review at City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660 and online at www.newportbeachca.gov May 2020 Page 5

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

1. Introduction
Tbis page intentionally left blank.

2. Environmental Settin

2.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The 16.46-acre project site is generally located southeast of John Wayne Airport and within the Airport Area as defined by the Newport Beach General Plan. The Airport Area includes approximately 360 acres in the northernmost portion of Newport Beach, bounded by Campus Drive to the west and north, Jamboree Road to the east, and Bristol Street to the south. The City of Irvine is located north and east of the Airport Area.

The Airport Area is proximate to Interstate 405 and State Routes 55 and 73, and is within a commercial area of Newport Beach that is gradually redeveloping into a mixed -use community integrating residential development with commercial office, retail, and other uses. The Regional Location and Local Vicinity for the project site are depicted in Figures 1 and 2, respectively. An aerial photograph of the project site, which is located west of MacArthur Boulevard, south of Campus Drive, north of Birch Street, and about 550 feet north of Dove Street, is provided as Figure 3, Aerial Photograph, Project Site.

2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

2.2.1 Existing Land Use
The 2013 traffic study prepared for the LUE Amendment SEIR identified traffic area zones (TAZs). TAZs 1378 and 1379 include the project site and some adjacent properties (they encompass the area bounded by MacArthur Boulevard, Birch Street, Dove Street, and Campus Drive). The traffic study identified existing uses in TAZs 1378 and 1379 as 171,191 square feet of commercial uses and 352,300 square feet of office uses.

These uses, as shown on Figure 3, Aerial Photograph, Project Site, are accommodated within several buildings fronting Campus Avenue and Birch Street, and include miscellaneous commercial uses, including retail, office, a bank, service uses, medical offices, a restaurant, and car rental facilities.

2.2.2 Surrounding Land Use
Surrounding land uses, including office, hotels, auto rental facilities and retail uses, are depicted on Figure 4, Aerial Photograph, Airport Area. The John Wayne Airport abuts Campus Drive to the north. The 7- to 10-story Radisson Hotel and Benihana Restaurant are located across Birch Street to the south of the project site. South of the hotel and restaurant, the site of the existing MacArthur Square shopping center, bounded by Scott Drive, Corinthian Way, and Dove Street, was recently approved (2018) for development of a 5-story, 350-unit residential project (Newport Crossings). Office and hotel uses are located across MacArthur Boulevard to the east.

May 2020 Page 7

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

2. Environmental Setting
This page intentionally left blank.

Pacific Oce n

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

2. Environmental Setting
Tbis page intentionally left blank.

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Figure 2 - Local Vicinity
S�- A
a
shasa v Dr Fxitg
Ma; n
Gillettegve
ca
Q�e
c
Stu r eon Dr
eo St
u
a
Pier ant Dr
c otel Manistee Dr
ay
m
Mores
N PaularinoAve
��
�aaor'tB
4a
A/
�
w`
Sat
Baker St
�m caQ�
a
o.
gas 9fl
Rand Iph v
a
w
aae
st
Mohc
et a
a
F� a
nOr
O
rq va P
sum
Costa esa
= John Wayne Tate
o
kaimus
1 Airport a�
v
arts oa
Or
AveLear
a
as
cP
�a
�
des ThE
. L
waY a
St
p� m
3m sx`i
�
� o
Haas aSt�
°.

Sq uyac e a St
�`a� �
�aa
t
N
R, PI ce Of
a
t`9e
IrvineAve
`�
gow rit
F�
�a
0 as M�aO
_
Irvine
a 5
yti a
a�y4n 5
0� as `?X%eW
m ya
/
Newport Beach ��
QaGca ga iaw
aq
Way
eua
University Or
m
ZZ
Upper Newport Bay
S
@
m
m ice e
a
V �ckB
v
rnnovatkOn
a
Or ?� aNa Q
s
m o Ornada g YOr
m Oter o7a
o
da a
atn
nd
ri Ova a y c
Note: Unincorporated county areas are shown in white.
0 2,000
— — — — Project Boundary
Source: ESRI, 2019 Scale (Feet)
PlaceWorks

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

2. Environmental Setting
Tbis page intentionally left blank.

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Figure 3 - Aerial Photograph, Project Site
rnthfan � '
Y
mod,
�G
k
Office
— — — Project Boundary Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) 1377 and 1378 0 350
Source: ESRI, 2019 Scale (Feet)
k.

PLaceWl'orks

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

2. Environmental Setting
Tbis page intentionally left blank.

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

2. Environmental Setting
Tbis page intentionally left blank.

I Proiect Description

3.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND

3.1.1 2006 General Plan
Since Newport Beach is almost fully developed, the 2006 General Plan (existing General Plan) focused on "new development that would result as re -use of economically underperforming properties and obsolete development, conversion of uses in response to market demand (e.g., office and industrial to residential) and more intense use of land in defined areas" (DEIR, General Plan 2006 Update). The General Plan identified several subareas as special study areas, including the John Wayne Airport Area. The plan for the Airport Area is shown in Figure 5, LU22Air�iortArea, and allows for the maintenance and/or limited expansions of currently developed mix of uses, including office, airport -supporting commercial, hotel, and public uses. The 2006 General Plan also introduced the opportunity to develop new residential neighborhoods as replacements for existing and allowed future uses, and in some cases, for underutilized surface parking lots. Policies establish criteria for the development of cohesive residential neighborhoods oriented around neighborhood parks and local -serving convenience commercial facilities and interconnected by a network of pedestrian -oriented streets.

Buildout of the Airport Area in accordance with the approved General Plan would allow up to 2,200 residential units (1,650 replacement and 550 additional units), although the addition of 4,300 residential units was studied in the 2006 GPU EIR.

As shown in Figure 5, the project site is designated for Airport and Office Supporting (AO) businesses.

Residential uses per the 2006 General Plan are not a permitted use within the 16.46-acre project site, but were identified as allowable uses in the Mixed -Use -Horizontal (MU-H2) areas throughout much of the Airport Area.

3.1.1.1 ADDENDUMS TO THE 2006 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EIR
Subsequent to approval of the General Plan Update approval and certification of the GPU EIR in 2006, two GPU EIR Addendums were approved. Both Addendums were limited to changes in the Newport Center Statistical Area (General Plan Statistical Area L1 (Newport Center/Fashion Island) of the City and did not change land uses or environmental findings related to the Airport Area or to the Airport Village project site.

No mitigation measures were required for the changes approved as addressed in these Addendums. Following is a brief summary of actions covered:
■ Addendum to the City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update Final Environmental Impact Report, November 2007.

The approval established a "Planned Community District" and adopted the North Newport Center Planned Community (PC) Text. The action incorporated Fashion Island, Block 600 and Block 500, and San Joaquin Plaza owned by The Irvine Company (applicant) into a single Planned Community District.

Respective areas and PC Text within the San Joaquin Planned Community District were removed.

May 2020 Page 17

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

3. Project Description
The PC District is intended to provide the classification and development of land use parcels as a coordinated, comprehensive project to take advantage of large-scale community planting. The North Newport Center PC Text was developed to be consistent with the 2006 adopted General Plan and reflects the uses and land designations permitted under the plan. As detailed in Addendum No. 1, Table 1, "Development Area Summary," land uses would not allow for any increase beyond the development intensities allowed in the General Plan for those subareas. ■ Addendum No. 2 to the City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update Final Environmental Impact Report, June 12, 2015.

This Addendum addressed proposed transfers of unbuilt development intensity within the Newport North Center PC (NNCPC). Specifically, the Addendum analyzed:
• Conversion of unbuilt, nonresidential development intensity (79 hotel rooms) to multifamily residential development intensity and transfer into the NNCPC.
• Assignment of 15 residential units within the MU-H3 portions of Newport Center to San Joaquin Plaza.
• Amendment of NNCPC Development Plan to increase allowable residential development by a total of 94 units and to allocate the 94 units plus the 430 residential units currently allocated to the MU-H3 portions of the NNCPC solely to San Joaquin Plaza.
• Amendment of the Public Benefit Agreement between the City of Newport Beach and the Irvine Company concerting North Newport Center to vest the revised development intensities and allocations.
• Approval of a traffic study for 94 units pursuant to the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance and Amendment to the Affordable Housing Implementation Plan (AHIP).

Based on the facts and analysis in Addendum No. 2, the City's Planning Commission found that the project, when compared to the 2006 GPU EIR, would not result in any new or more severe adverse environmental impacts. The Planning Commission also specifically concluded that, based on the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) traffic analysis prepared for Addendum No 2, the project would not have any new or more significant adverse traffic or circulation impacts.

The General Plan Update EIR and both Addendum Nos. 1 and 2 are incorporated by reference pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15150 and are available for review at the City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660.

None of the approvals addressed in the GPU EIR Addendums affect the Airport Area or proposed Airport Village project site. Therefore, they are not addressed further in this Addendum.

YY�
AO
j� CO-G
A /\ C
cPy B / MU-H2 o
AO s
5 w
PF
CO-G /
MU-
A
MU-H2
CO- 0
�I �
AD- m ® \\
MU-H2
Co-G U-H2 \
j' opv,

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Figure 5 - LU22 Airport Area
Q Sub -Area
Conceptual
Development
Plan Area
Land Use
Delineator Line
^i Highway
65 CNEL Noise
Contour
•Refer to anomaly
table
1with
nderlying Uses: Office, Hotel, Supporting Retail,
esidential Village: Housing and Mixed -Ise Guidelines for Design and Development) aAirport -Supporting Businesses
19 Commercial and Office
0 1,200
Scale (Feet)
Source: City of Newport Beach, 2006, General Plan Update, fig. LU22 PlaceWlorks

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

3. Project Description
Tbis page intentionally left blank.

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

3. Project Description

3.1.2 General Plan Land Use Element Amendment
In 2014, an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element was prepared to reflect changes in the economy and market, recent legislation, and emerging best practices. The LUE Amendment included increases/decreases in development capacity in specific areas of the city. Some areas within the Airport Area were proposed for increases in density, as shown in Figure 6, Airport Area Proposed Changer, 2014 LUE Amendment. The proposed land use modifications included redesignating the subject property (and adjacent properties collectively called the "Saunders Properties") as Mixed Use Horizontal (MU-142) and increasing the allowable capacity by 238,077 square feet of office space, 329 units, and 115 density bonus units. Those 444 units and 238,077 square feet were in addition to nonresidential development pursuant to the site's allowed 0.5 FAR. These changes are compared to existing uses (as of 2014) and uses allowed pursuant to the 2006 General Plan in Table 1, Proposed Area 4A Land Use Changes, LUE Amendment (2014).

On July 22, 2014, the LUE Amendment was approved by the City Council, and the Supplemental EIR was certified. The City also posted a Notice of Determination (NOD) on July 23, 2014, with the County Clerk as well as the State Clearinghouse for the Office of Planning and Research (OPR). The project approval, however, was subject to City Charter Section 423, which requires that voters approve major amendments (known as the Greenlight Initiative). A "major amendment" is one that significantly increases the maximum amount of traffic that allowed uses could generate or significantly increases allowed density or intensity. The voters declined to approve the LUE Amendment in the November 2014 election. The certification of the Supplemental EIR, however, was not subject to Charter Section 423; therefore, the SEIR remains valid and certified.

Table 1 Proposed Area 4A Land Use Changes, LUE Amendment (2014) Map
Planning
2006 General Plan
Proposed
Changes 2014 LUE Amendment
Resulting Capacity
Reference
Location
Sub -Area
Desi nation
Allowable
Designation
Increased Capacity
w/Amendment
4A
Saunders
Airport
Airport
571,507 SF
Mixed -Use
238,077 SF
809,584 SF
(TAZs
Properties
Area
Office and
Office and Auto
Horizontal
329 DU
444 DU (329 DU plus
1377 &

26.24*
Supporting
Rental Facilities
(MU-H2)
115 density bonus
1378)
acres
Uses (AO)
I
units)**
* The Airport Village project site is 16.46 acres within this total 26.24 acre area. **The traffic study for the proposed LUE Amendment evaluated 804,366 SF and 444 DU.

3.2 PROPOSED LAND USE
The project applicant (Saunders Property Company) proposes redesignation of the approximately 16.46-acre project site to allow a maximum of 329 residential dwelling units, additional density bonus units, and a maximum of 297,572 square feet of office, retail, service, and auto rental facilities. The potential configuration of the land uses is shown in Figure 7, Concept Plan. The proposed project site encompasses 16.46 acres of the

26.24 acres studied in the 2014 LUE Amendment.

3.2.1 Residential
The base 329 units would be developed at a maximum density of 50 units per acre (du/acre) in the residentially designated portion of the PCDP and in accordance with Land Use Element Policy LU 6.15.7. The applicant May 2020 Page 21

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

3. Project Description
has requested a waiver of the Land Use Element Policy LU 6.15.7 minimum density requirement (30 dwelling unit per acre) as allowed by California Government Code Section 65915(e)(1).

The MU-H2 land use designation allows a variety of residential development configurations, including single - unit dwellings -attached, single -unit dwelling -detached, multiunit dwellings, two -unit dwellings, and/or live -work units. However, the proposed PCDP assumes multiunit development.

The project would be entitled to a density bonus that corresponds with its affordable units, pursuant to state density bonus law and consistent with Chapter 20.32 of the NBMC. The percentage of the project's base 329 residential units will be set aside for affordable housing as follows:
■ At least 5 percent for very low income households, OR ■ At least 10 percent for low income households, OR
■ At least 10 percent for moderate income households.

The proposed Newport Airport Village PCDP details the potential entitlement for density bonus units based on the provision of affordable units. The project could be eligible for up to 35 percent of the base units (an additional 115 dwelling units), depending on the affordable housing set -aside.

The proposed project is adjacent to John Wayne Airport, and residential uses would be prohibited within the 65 DBA CNEL contour of the airport and within John Wayne Airport Safety Zone 3 (see Figures 12 and 16, respectively, for Safety Compatibility Zone and CNEL boundaries) to ensure consistency with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport and Newport Beach General Plan Policy N 3.2.

3.2.2 Nonresidential
The project proposes a maximum of 297,572 square feet of office, commercial, and auto -rental facilities. The current land use designation of AO allows up to 358,498 square feet of commercial use based on the allowable

0.5 FAR. With a few exceptions, uses permitted or conditionally permitted within the CIA zoning district, as listed in Chapter 20.20 of the Municipal Code, would remain permitted or conditionally permitted pursuant to the PCDP. Per the code, the CIA zoning district is intended to provide for uses that support or benefit from airport operations. These may include corporate and professional offices; automobiles sales, rental and service; aviation sales and service; hotels; and accessory retail, restaurant, and service uses. Uses determined by the Community Development Director to be accessory or ancillary to permitted uses would also be allowed.

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Figure 6 -Airport Area Proposed Changes, 2014 LUE Amendment a,P
,.. -u-u City Boundary
4A -Saunders Properties ��' m U+arHu � ,
Retail: +238,077 SF = F 4C - Lyon Companies Q Areas of Change Residential: +329 DUs
i oQ Retail: +85,000 SF Residential Neighborhoods
Residential: +850 Replacement DUs
Hotel: +150 Rooms RS-D - Single -Unit Residential Detached RS-A - Single -Unit Residential Attached
RT-Two-Unit Residential
�.

RM- Multiple Unit Residential
i
46- The Hangars RM-D- Multiple -Unit Residential Detached Commercial Districts and Corridors
Retail: +11,800 SF ♦� doe a o OO � CN - Neighborhood Commercial 5° O —
♦ CC -Corridor Commercial
z �
a CG - General Commercial
� z
CV -Visitor Serving Commercial
O
CM -Recreational and Marine Commercial
6 ♦ � CR- Regional Commercial
o
Commercial Office Districts
CO-G - General Commercial Office
3 a ♦ a O ♦� CO-M- Medical Commercial Office
♦�� CO-R- Regional Commercial Office
Industrial Districts
♦' o
M1111 IG-Industrial
c �
4D - UAP Companies Airport Supporting Districts
4699 Jamboree Road, 5190 Campus Drive
AO Airport Office and Supporting Uses
q Revise Anomaly #6 to allow
'�o�s Qa� ♦ 2.0 FAR if trip neutral congregate care Mixed -Use Districts r
MU-V-Mixed Use Vertical
MU-H - Mixed Use Horizontal
o
g � MU-W -Mixed Use Water Related
i
Public, Semi -Public and Institutional
PI -Private Institutions
PF -Public Facilities
e5 cr �a PR - Parks and Recreation
mP OS - Open Space
Source: City of Newport Beach, March 2014, Supplemental EIR, fig. 3.4 0 1,200
Scale (Feet)
PlaceWlorks

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

3. Project Description
Tbis page intentionally left blank.

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Figure 7 - Concept Plan
16 Existing
Office/Retail
Land Use Summary %.�, m
Retail/Commercial-
O�--
Story Office m
2 & 3 �
4 Story Residential over Parking
©(Existing) Enterprise Office/Facility—
(Future) Retail/Commercial, ��� ��7
Out ParcelEl
��<'� ���` \• /�� ,�
aa�,r
—---------
{
0 300
Scale (Feet)
Source: Airport Village Planned Community Development Plan, May 2020 PlaceWlorks

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

3. Project Description
Tbis page intentionally left blank.

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

3. Project Description

3.3 PROPOSED ENTITLEMENTS
The following entitlements/discretionary approvals from the City are required for the proposed project:
■ Zone Change from CIA (Office Airport) to PC (Newport Airport Village Planned Community) ■ General Plan Amendment from AO (Airport Office and Supporting Uses) to MU-H2 (Mixed Use Horizontal)
■ Adoption of the Newport Airport Village Planned Community Development Plan (PCDP) ■ Approval of Development Agreement between the applicant and the City of Newport Beach Approvals of these entitlements would provide the land use authorization for development of the site with a maximum of 329 residential dwelling units, additional density bonus units, and a maximum of 297,572 square feet of office, retail, service, and auto rental facilities. This Addendum analyzes the potential impacts associated with the requested entitlements. Future development of the project site in accordance with these approvals, however, would require site development review and supporting applications/information, including refined site plan(s), infrastructure detail, and focused technical studies. The subsequent review would also be subject to applicable environmental review under CEQA.

3.3.1 Newport Airport Village Planned Community Development Plan Upon approval, the Newport Airport Village PCDP would become the zoning for the project area and would provide development standards and guidelines for buildout of property. The proposed PCDP is provided as Appendix A to this Addendum. The PCDP includes:
■ Introduction and Purpose
■ The PC District Boundary, Parcel Numbers, and Addresses ■ Land Use and Development Regulations
■ Site Development Standards
■ Architectural Design Considerations
■ Plan Administration Information

3.3.1.1 LAND USES, DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, AND SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Land Uses
The proposed PCDP district boundary encompasses 16.46 acres and is shown in Figure 8, PC District Boundary.

The project area is delineated into two planning areas, as depicted in Figure 9, PC Land Use — Planning Areas 1 and 2. Planning Area 1 comprises 7.14 acres and is designated as Mixed -Use Residential. Planning Area 2 is designated Commercial and encompasses 9.32 acres. The boundary of Planning Area 1 coincides with the 65 dBA CNEL contour from the John Wayne Airport Environs Land Use Plan (OCALUC 2008). Per the PCDP, a maximum of 329 residential units plus density units would be allowed within the residential -designated area, May 2020 Page 27

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

3. Project Description
outside of the 65 dB CNEL noise contour. The AELUP categorizes safety zones from 1 to 6, with 1 being the most restrictive (prohibits all new structures and residential uses). Zone 3 limits residential uses to very low residential densities and recommends avoidance of moderate to higher usage intensities. Planning Area 1 is within Safety Zone 6, which does not restrict any residential uses.

The future residential project would comply with Chapter 19.52 of the City's municipal code requiring dedication of parks and/or payment of in -lieu fees.

The major land use categories for each planning area are listed in Table 2, Permitted Uses by Planning Area. The PCDP notes that the Community Development Director may determine other uses not specifically listed may be allowed or allowed pursuant to a Minor Use Permit (MUP) of Conditional Use Permit (CUP), provided the use is consistent with the purposed of the planning area, compatible with surrounding uses, and not listed as a prohibited use.

Table 2 Permitted Uses By Planning Area
Uses I Planning Area 1 I Planning Area 2 I Notes
Residential
Multi -unit dwellings
P
Live/work units
P
Mixed -use development
P
Accessory dwelling units
P
Per NBMC 20.48.200
Home Occupations
P
Per NBMC 20.48.110
Residential accessory uses and amenities
P
P
Food, Alcohol, Entertainment
Alcohol sales (off -site)
MUP
MUP
Alcohol Sales (on -site)
CUP
CUP
Bars, lounge, nightclub
CUP
Food service, no late hours
MUP
MUP
Food service, late hours
CUP
CUP
Office, Retail, Service
Financial Institutions
P
P
Offices, business & professional
P
P
Offices, medical and dental
P
P
Personal services, general
P
P
Personal services, restricted
MUP-
MUP
Retail sales (less than 10,000 sq. ft.)
P
P
Retail sales (greater than 10,000 sq. ft.)
I
P
Other Uses
Uses not listed herein, but allowed in the OA
zone
_
A
P = Permitted Use
CUP = Conditional Use Permit
MUP = Minor Use Permit
A = Allowed subject to permit requirements provided in Table 2-4 of NBMC Section 20.20.020(C) = Not Permitted

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

3. Project Description
Development Standards
PCDP site development standards include: height limitations; minimum building area square footage; floor area ratios; setbacks; parking standards by use; landscaping, lighting, and sign standards; energy requirements, walls/hedges height limitations; and screening/buffering standards (for storage, mechanical equipment, and waste, etc.). The proposed PCDP development standards specify residential density, open space requirements, affordability requirements, noise standards and notification requirements, and park dedication/fees requirements (please see PCDP in Appendix A for complete list of standards).

Planning Area 1 Development Standards (Mixed -Use Residential) ■ Maximum height of residential or mixed -use structure: 85 feet, including any architectural features of mechanical equipment.

Maximum height of non-residential structure: 37 feet including any architectural feature, elevator penthouse, or mechanical equipment, unless a Site Development Review is approved pursuant to NBMC Section 20.52.080, in which case the maximum shall be 55 feet. ■ Minimum setbacks:

Buildings, or portion thereof, that are under 20 feet in height shall be set back a minimum of 10 feet from any street property line and a minimum of 5 feet from any internal property line. • Buildings, or portion thereof, that are 20 feet or greater in height shall be set back a minimum of 20 feet from any street and a minimum of 5 feet from any internal property line.

Residential Density: Densities shall be a minimum of 30 dwelling units per acre and a maximum of 50 dwelling units per acre, not including density bonus units.

Floor Area Limit: Floor area for nonresidential uses shall not exceed 94,583 square feet. This floor area limit is based on the conversion commercial development allowed by the general plan to residential dwelling units pursuant to General Plan Policy LU6.15.5.
■ Affordability Requirements: Residential development shall include affordable housing as follows: a minimum of 17 units for very -low income households (5 percent of 329 units), or a minimum of 33 units for low-income households (10 percent of 329 units), or a minimum 33 units for moderate -income households within a common -interest development.

Planning Area 2 Development Standards
Permitted Height of Structures: No structure, nor any portion of any structure, architectural feature, elevator penthouse, or mechanical equipment shall exceed a height of 37 feet, unless a Site Development Review is approved pursuant to NBMC Section 20.52.080, in which the review authority may allow buildings or structures to exceed 37 feet to a maximum of 55 feet.

May 2020 Page 29

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

3. Project Description
■ Setbacks: Minimum setbacks shall be 15 feet from any street property line and 5 feet from any internal property line.
■ Floor Area Ratio: Floor area ratio shall not exceed 0.5, except for warehouse uses, which are allowed a maximum floor area ratio of 0.75.
■ Lot Size and Dimensions: Newly created shall meet the minimum standards for lots provided in NBMC Section 20.20.030 for the OA (Office —Airport) Zoning District.

Additional Development Standards
In addition to the planning area specific development standards, the proposed PCDP includes standards applicable to all development within the Newport Airport Village Planned Community that address:
■ Maximum intensity
■ Parking and Circulation
■ Landscaping
■ Pedestrian and Bicycle Connection
■ Lighting
■ Utilities
■ Air Conditioning Units
■ Signs
■ Fences, Hedges, and Walls
■ Buffering and Screening
■ Ground -Mounted Mechanical Equipment
■ Outdoor Storage
■ Solid Waste Storage Areas
■ Native American Monitoring

3.3.1.2 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
The PCDP includes general principles for architectural design and additional principles by land use: mixed use, residential, and office/commercial. Pursuant to the PCDP, development will be designed to convey a unified and high -quality character with use -consistent architectural design, materials, and color palette. Abundant use of landscape within interior courtyards, open spaces, and parking areas is encouraged. Figure 10, Conceptual Architecture, shows images by land use type as included in the PCDP to guide development with respect to architectural massing, detail, building material variety, and pedestrian -orientation integration. These images are not intended to portray precise design of future development.

3.3.1.3 PLAN ADMINISTRATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
The Plan Administration section summarizes the ongoing procedures to implement the PCDP. The Site Development Review process, including an application with all materials to determine consistency with the

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

3. Project Description
PCDP and applicable requirements of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, would be required prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit. No parcel or tract map shall be recorded prior to the approval of the Site Development Review for the entire project or significance phase, and until responsibility for the performance of and payment for maintenance are clear. CC&Rs shall be subject to the approval of the City Attorney.

Applications for PCDP amendment shall follow the process identified in the NBMC (Section 20.56.050(E), and administrative responsibilities and authority shall be subject to NBMC Chapter 20.60. Compliance with the CDP and the Zoning Code shall be subject to NBMC Chapter 20.68.

May 2020 Page 31

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

3. Project Description
Tbis page intentionally left blank.

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Figure 8 - PC District Boundary
,•,� i

JOHN WAYNE
J
AIRPORT 0.
o`
J�
Unincorporated Orange County
� � v
Cs
Newport Beach 07
OoGeS Co�infha�
Project Boundary
— • • — City Boundary
Source: Newport Airport Village PCDP, May 2019
0 300
Scale (Feet)
ru
PlaceWlorks

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

3. Project Description
Tbis page intentionally left blank.

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Figure 9 - PC Land Use - Planning Areas 1 and 2
� Q
John WayneAirport
M
4676 Q_
2 ) �I
Q4 4f
J5 �T ♦ g
64 I
Planning Area 1
�J�j • a`� 6
i '°° ►
• Planning Area 2,1
I 63
�p0 D4° ► ��A43
g� ►
of
z ►
o°Fz6°� SafetyZono
iimn II,
---------�-`�'z
-_
5�
w
�'O ► w
4� r
�cs3 r
q�s `► c�RiNrHrgN � m
AY
Project Boundary
Planning Area 1 Mixed -Use Residential (7.14 acres)
Planning Area 2 Commercial (9.32 acres)
0 250
Source: Newport Airport Village Planned Community Development Plan, 2020 Scale (Feet) PlaceWorks

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

3. Project Description
Tbis page intentionally left blank.

.ilk 1�Ell
F -
- — fir- I ,� � T i :as f i �"� ` _ _• b✓�
pl
big
y�l F,It dd
r
T r
s
r R
/ r � �► 6; Km
h m r
r
Wig
r I1�mR
8 rl
i y
5 ,
§:ail
f,E
19119I :.�d f 7tr!
i
R
v _.�YJ _• ._. - .�.. _ — _

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

3. Project Description
Tbis page intentionally left blank.

4. Environmental Checklist

4.1 BACKGROUND

1. Project Title: Newport Airport Village

2. Lead Agency Name and Address:

City of Newport Beach
Community Development Department
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660

3. Contact Person and Phone Number:

James W. Campbell, Deputy Director Community Development 949-644-3210

4. Project Location:

The 16.46-acre project site is generally located southeast of John Wayne Airport and within the approximate 360-acre Airport Area as defined by the Newport Beach General Plan. The site is located west of MacArthur Boulevard, south of Campus Drive, north of Birch Street, and about 550 feet north of Dove Street.

5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:

Saunders Property Company c/o Starpointe Ventures
19700 Fairchild, Suite 240
Irvine, CA 92612

6. General Plan Designation: Airport Office and Supporting Uses (AO)

7. Zoning: Office -Airport (OA)

8. Description of Project:

Proposed redesignation of the approximately 16.46-acre project site to allow mixed uses, including a maximum of 329 residential dwelling units, additional density bonus units (up to 115 units), and a maximum of 297,572 square feet of office, retail, service, and auto rental facilities.

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:

The John Wayne Airport abuts Campus Drive to the north. The 7- to 10-story Radisson Hotel and Benihana Restaurant are located across Birch Street to the south of the project site. South of the hotel and restaurant, the site of the existing MacArthur Square shopping center, bounded by Scott Drive, Corinthian Way, and Dove Street, was recently approved (2018) for development of a 5-story, 350-unit residential project (Newport Crossings). Office and hotel uses are located across MacArthur Boulevard to the east.

May 2020 Page 39

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

4. Environmental Checklist

10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval or Consideration Is Required: (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement):
■ Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC): John Wayne Airport ■ Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Agency ■ South Coast Air Quality Management District

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDOM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

4. Environmental Checklist

4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
This Addendum evaluates the potential incremental impacts of the proposed project in comparison to the 2006 GPU EIR and the 2014 LUE Amendment Supplemental EIR to determine if there are potentially new project - related significant impacts , an increase in the severity of previously determined significant impacts, or changes in circumstances that could result in new significant impacts. ❑
Aesthetics
❑
Agricultural and Forest Resources
❑
Air Quality
❑
Biological Resources
❑
Cultural Resources
❑
Energy
❑
Geology / Soils
❑
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
❑
Hazards & Hazardous Materials
❑
Hydrology / Water Quality
❑
Land Use / Planning
0 Mineral Resources
❑
Noise
❑
Population / Housing
❑
Public Services
❑
Recreation
❑
Transportation / Traffic
❑
Tribal Cultural Resources
❑
Utilities / Service Systems
❑
Wildfire
❑
Mandatory Findings of Significance

4.3 DETERMINATION (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE LEAD AGENCY)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
1-1 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONivfENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could, as originally proposed, have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures or conditions or approval that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required prior to consideration and adoption of this modified IS/Checklist and Addendum. .Ow+� _ 2,f
Date
._
Printed Name
-V"t+
tYlay 2020 Page 41

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

4. Environmental Checklist

4.4 COMPARING CHANGES AND/OR NEW INFORMATION TO PREVIOUS EIRs
The purpose of the checklist is to evaluate the categories in terms of any "changes" or "new information" that may result in a changed environmental impact evaluation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15162-15164. A "no" answer does not necessarily mean that there are no potential impacts relative to the environmental category, but that there is no substantial change in the project or circumstances surrounding the project that would result in new significant adverse environmental impacts from those identified in the previously adopted negative declaration.

4.4.1 Explanation of Checklist Evaluation Categories
Where Impact Was Analyzed in Prior Environmental Documents This analysis provides a crosswalk to the pages of the other environmental documents where information and analysis may be found relative to the environmental issue listed under each topic.

Are Substantial Changes Proposed to the Project Which Require Major Revisions to the Prior EIR or Negative Declaration Involving New Significant Impacts or a Substantial Increase in the Severity of Previously Identified Significant Impacts?
Pursuant to Section 15162(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether any changes to the project would require major revisions to the prior EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant adverse environmental effects. If a "yes" answer is given, additional mitigation measures, or revised measures, will be specified in the discussion section including a statement of impact after mitigation.

Any Substantial Change in Circumstances Involving New Significant Impacts or Substantial Increase in the Severity of Previously Identified Significant Impacts? Pursuant to Section 15162(a)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether there have been substantial changes to the project site or the vicinity (environmental setting) that have occurred after certification of the EIR or adoption of the prior negative declaration and which would result in the project having new significant impacts that were not considered or mitigated by the prior environmental document.

Any New Information of Substantial Importance Requiring Additional Analysis? Pursuant to Section 15162(a)(3)(A)-(D) of the CEQA Guidelines, this column asks whether 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 or negative declaration, shows any of the following criteria listed above (A)-(D).

Prior Environmental Document Mitigation Measures Adopted to Address Impacts? Pursuant to Section 15162(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether other environmental documents provide mitigations to address effects in the related impact category. If NA is indicated, a previous

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

4. Environmental Checklist
environmental document and this initial study conclude that the impact does not occur with this project, and therefore no mitigation is needed.

4.4.2 Discussion and Mitigation Sections

4.4.2.1 DISCUSSION
A discussion of the elements of the checklist is provided under each environmental category in order to clarify the answers. The discussion provides information about the particular environmental issue, how the project relates to the issue and the status of any mitigation that may be required or that has already been implemented.

4.4.2.2 MITIGATION MEASURES
Applicable Mitigation Measures are listed under each environmental category and may be revised to reflect the project revisions. If changes to the project, changes in circumstances, or new information involves new impacts, revised mitigation measures address those impacts and ensure no new significant impacts would result.

May 2020 Page 43

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

4. Environmental Checklist
Tbis page intentionally left blank.

5. Environmental Analvsis
This section provides evidence to substantiate the conclusions in the environmental checklist. The section will briefly summarize the conclusions of both the 2006 GPU EIR and the 2014 General Plan Land Use Element Amendment Supplemental EIR, then discuss whether or not the proposed project is consistent with the findings contained in the respective EIR.

Applicable 2006 General Plan policies are reproduced for each topical area, and upon approval, the project would be required to comply with these policies. The 2006 GPU EIR did not include any mitigation measures.

As described under Section 3.12, General Plan Land Use Amendment, of this Addendum, after City Council approval of the LUE Amendment and the statute of limitations ran on the certified EIR, the voters declined to approve the project in the November 2014 election. The EIR as certified was not challenged and remains valid for environmental analysis, but since project approval was rescinded, any revised or supplemental General Plan policies in the General Plan LUE Supplement EIR are not applicable.

Various topical analyses throughout this Addendum will refer to Table 3, below. This table provides a summary of proposed project site land uses in comparison to the maximum allowed uses for the project site under the approved 2006 General Plan and the 2014 General Plan Land Use Amendment (LUE Amendment). The table also quantifies the net difference (increase or decrease in allowable residential units and nonresidential building square footages) of the project in comparison to the 2006 General Plan and 2014 LUE Amendment.

May 2020 Page 45

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
Tbis page intentionally left blank.

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
Table 3 Allowable Land Use Comparison: Proposed Project, 2006 General Plan and 2014 LUE Amendment for the Project Site Permitted/Proposed Land Use
SF
Conversion to
Remaining
Density
Land Use
Allowable
Replacement
SF
Replacement
Bonus
Project/Plan
Designation*
SF
Description
Units
Pro'ect Site
Units
Units
New Units
Total Units
Explanation
Airport Village -
MU-H2=16.46
358,498
Land use re -designation
60,926 SF
297,572
329
115
0 444
— 60,926 SF commercial area within Airport Village
Proposed
acres
SF
to mixed use horizontal
SF
converted to replacement units.

Project
— 329 units are part of 2,200 replacement units allocated under GP. 115 density bonus units (up to 35% base
units) are based on maximum bonus for affordable units. 2006 GP
AO =16.46
358,498
Includes professional
0 358,498
0 0
0 0
AO applies under 2006 GP to entire project site.
acres
SF
offices, aviation, retail,
SF
automobile rental, sales,
and service, hotels, and
ancillary retail,
restaurant and service
uses
Net Change Between Proposed Project and 2006 GP
—60,926
329
115
0 444
In comparison to the GP, Airport Village adds units to the project site but does NOT result in a net increase in units for the Airport Area, where 2,200 residential units (1,650 replacement and 550 additional units) are allowed under the 2006 GP.
2014 LUE
MU-1-12 = 16.46
507,772
include professional
0 507,772
0 0
444
444
— Non-residential SF 358,498 SF allowable per 2006 GP
Amend
acres
SF
offices, aviation, retail,
SF
The 2014 LUE Amend would have added 288,077 SF to
automobile rental, sales,
the 26.25-acre Campus Tract and 62.7% of this amount,
and service, hotels, and
149.274 SF, would have been allocated to the 16.46-
ancillary retail,
acre site.
restaurant and service
Residential includes 329 additional DU (not replacement uses
units), plus up to 35% density bonus for 444 new DU.

May 2020 Page 47

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
Table 3 Allowable Land Use Comparison: Proposed Project, 2006 General Plan and 2014 LUE Amendment for the Project Site Permitted/Proposed Land Use
SF
Conversion to
Remaining
Density
Land Use
Allowable
Replacement
SF
Replacement
Bonus
Project/Plan
Designation*
SF
Description
Units
Project Site
Units
Units
New Units
Total Units
Explanation
Net Change Between Proposed Project and LUE Amendment
—210,200
329
115
444
0 In comparison to the LUE Amendment, the proposed
project would result in a reduction of 210,200 SF
(507,772-297,572) commercial floor area. The LU
amendment also added 444 DU above the 2006 GP. The
proposed project adds DU to the site, but those DUs are in the approved 2006 GP
AO= Airport Office
MU-H2 = Mixed Use/Horizontal

PlaceVorks

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis

5.1 AESTHETICS

5.1.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Program EIRs

5.1.1.1 2006 GENERAL PLAN EIR
After implementation of 2006 General Plan policies, impacts related to aesthetics and scenic vistas were deemed less than significant and no mitigation measures were required. The GPU EIR acknowledged that new uses, including the introduction of mixed -use development and higher density residential development in the Newport Center/Fashion Island area, the Airport Area, and West Newport Mesa would change the visual character of these areas of the City. The GPU EIR noted that both City-wide and area -specific policies would reinforce design standards, protect visual character and views, and enhance the City's existing aesthetic qualities while simultaneously accommodating projected growth. The GPU EIR also stipulated that new development would undergo a subsequent environmental review consisting of a case -by -case analysis of visual impacts, and that these developments would be required to conform to general plan update standards, the City's municipal code, and as applicable, the local coastal plan. Visual impacts were concluded to be less than significant.

5.1.1.2 2014 LUE AMENDMENT SEIR
There are no designated public viewpoints or coastal view roads within or in proximity of the Airport Area.

The closest designated coastal view road is Jamboree Road south of SR-73, approximately 0.7 mile southwest.

Due to the distance and highly urbanized nature of the Airport Area, the 2014 LUE SEIR determined that public views along this coastal view road would not be impacted by the 2014 LUE Amendment.

The General Plan LUE Amendment proposed the following changes to parcels within the Airport Area, all of which would increase development capacity relative to the 2006 General Plan:
■ #4A, Saunders Property:' +238,077 SF retail; +329 DU
■ #4B, The Hangars: +11,800 SF retail
■ #4C: +85,000 SF retail; +850 replacement DU; +150 hotel rooms ■ #4D, UAP Companies: +148,000 SF congregate care (increase FAR to 2.0 if trip neutral) The 2014 LUE SEIR concluded that future development and/or redevelopment in accordance with the LUE Amendment would change the visual character and appearance of the Airport Area. New development intensity would require an increase in building massing and/or heights. Additionally, the introduction of residential and congregate care uses would change the general character of the Airport Area.

The 2014 LUE SEIR noted that all of the airport area properties are subject to height restrictions governed by the John Wayne Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations.
' The proposed project is located on the Saunders Property.

May 2020 Page 49

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
The 2014 LUE SEIR noted that development within the Airport Area would be subject to case -by -case review, including site -specific environmental review with respect to aesthetic impacts. Projects within the Airport Area also must comply with specific policies identified in the 2006 General Plan as applicable to this area (as shown in Section 5.1.4). Among other categories, these policies include detailed urban form and structure, regulatory plans, and design and development standards. Design and development standards detail neighborhood park, streets and pedestrian ways, and building massing requirements. Implementation of the LUE Amendment was therefore found not to degrade the existing visual character or quality of the Airport Area.

5.1.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
NX'ould the proposed project:

Less Than
Significant
Substantial
ImpactslNo
Substantial
Change in
New
Changes or
Change in
Circum-
Information
New
Project
stances
Showing New
Information
Requiring
Requiring
or Increased
Requiring
Major EIR
Major EIR
Significant
Preparation of
Environmental Issues
Revisions
Revisions
Effects
an EIR
No Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
X
state scenic highway?
c) In non -urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings (Public views are those that
are experienced from publicly accessible
X
vantage point). If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the project conflict
with applicable zoning and other regulations
governing scenic quality?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
X
nighttime views in the area?
Comments:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact.

Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR
Vistas provide visual access or panoramic views to a large geographic area and are generally located at a point where surrounding views are greater than one mile away. Panoramic views are usually associated with vantage

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
points over a section of urban or natural areas that provide a geographic orientation not commonly available.

Examples of panoramic views might include an urban skyline, valley, mountain range, a large open space area, the ocean, or other water bodies.

The Airport Area does not have public viewpoints or coastal view roads. The closest designated coastal view road is Jamboree Road south of SR-73. Since the coastal view portion of Jamboree road is 0.7 mile from the Airport Area, the project would not impact public views along this coastal road. Therefore, there are no impacts to scenic vistas and no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR
The 2014 LUE SEIR stated that there were no designated public viewpoints or coastal view roads within or in proximity of the Airport Area. The closest designated coastal view road is Jamboree Road south of SR-73, approximately 0.7 mile southwest. The project site would be too far from the coastal view portion of Jamboree Road to cause any impacts. Therefore, there are no impacts to scenic vistas and no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No Impact.

Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR
State Route 1, also known as Pacific Coast Highway, is identified as eligible for State Scenic Highway designation, but the City of Newport Beach would need to adopt a scenic corridor protection program and apply for scenic approval from Caltrans to officially designate the highway. Therefore, there are currently no officially designated state scenic highways in the City of Newport Beach. Thus, the proposed project would have no impact on scenic resources within a state scenic highway, and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR
As mentioned above, the City of Newport Beach has no officially designated state scenic highways. Therefore, no impacts to scenic highways would arise.
c) In non -urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR May 2020 Page 51

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR
The proposed project would result in a change in land use designation and development capacity for the project site, as shown in Table 3. The proposed land use changes would allow residential development and alter the visual character of the site in comparison to the office, retail, and service uses permitted under the 2006 General Plan EIR.

The City's zoning code (Title 20 of the municipal code) identifies land use categories, development standards, and other general provisions that ensure consistency between the City's General Plan and proposed development projects. Property development standards, including height limits and floor area ratio (FAR), are established in Chapter 20.20.030 for the Commercial Zoning Districts. For the project site, the height limit for nonresidential and mixed -use structures with flat roofs is 300 feet (pursuant to the High Rise and Shoreline Height Limit Areas Map (Map H-1) of the NBMC). The FAR is 0.5 for office uses and 0.75 for warehouse uses.

Upon approval, the Newport Airport Village PCDP would become the zoning for the project area and would provide development standards and guidelines for buildout of property. As described in Section 3.3.1.1, Land Uses, Development Regulations and Development Standards, different development standards would apply to the respective planning areas (see Figure 9, PC Land Use Planning Areas 1 and 2). The boundaries for the Planning Areas are comparable with the FAA height restriction zones shown in Figure 11. The AELUP also designates safety zones for the airport area, as depicted in Figure 12, AirportArea Safety Zones, and summarized in Table 4.

The PCDP height and land use limitations correspond with FAA height limits and compatible land uses defined for the airport safety zones.

In comparison to the maximum 300-foot height limit under existing site zoning, PCDP Planning Area 1 would allow a maximum height of 85 feet for residential and mixed use structures, including architectural features, and mechanical equipment. Non-residential structures within Planning Area 1 would be limited to a maximum of 55 feet (with Site Development Review). Up to six -story buildings (consistent with the 85-foot-high maximum PCDP standard) are proposed within the residential portion of the project site.

The increase in allowable maximum building heights for Planning Area 1 (up to 85 feet) in comparison to the maximum building height currently allowed by the site's zoning (55 feet) would alter the future character of the project site. This increased height, however, is consistent with several surrounding area buildings in the Airport Area within Newport Beach and surrounding City of Irvine. Across Birch Street, there are several multistory buildings that range from 3 to 14 stories (office, hotel and retail/restaurant uses). Across MacArthur Boulevard is a nine -story office building.

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Ail -
Irvine
Newport Beach
Source: Orange County Airport Land Use Commission Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport, 2008 eet AMS
Figure 11 - Height Restrictions per Federal Air Regulations Part 77 Project Boundary
City Boundary
Elevation Contours in feet above mean sea level (AMSL)
Airport Surfaces
0 Horizontal Surface - Elevation 206 Feet AMSL
0 Departure Surface - Slope 50:1 (Horizontal:Vertical)
0 Transitional Surface - Slope 7:1 (Horizontal:Vertical) 0 Conical Surface - Slope 20:1 (Horizontal:Vertical)
0 Runway - Elevation 54 Feet AMSL
0 2,400
Scale (Feet)
PlaceWorks

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
Tbis page intentionally left blank.

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Costa Mesa
• 5
4 2 .�.
6 r
Newport Beach
S -
s
Irvine
Figure 12 - Safety Zones Airport Area
— — — —
Project Boundary
—11-11=
City Boundary
Long Runway
Safety Zones
Q1
- Runway Protection Zone
Q2
- Inner Approach/Departure Zone
Q3
- Inner Turning Zone
4 - Outer Approach/Departure Zone
5 - Sideline Zone
6 - Traffic Pattern Zone
Short Runway Safety Zones
1 - Runway Protection Zone
Q2
- Inner Approach/Departure Zone
Q3
- Inner Turning Zone
4 - Outer Approach/Departure Zone
5 - Sideline Zone
Q6
- Traffic Pattern Zone
0 1,300
Scale (Feet)
Source: Orange County Airport Land Use Commission Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport, 2008 T PlaceForks

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
Tbis page intentionally left blank.

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
The maximum building height in Planning Area 2 would be 37 feet unless a Site Development Review is approved in which the review authority may allow buildings to a maximum of 55 feet. The 55-foot height limit would be the same as for the site's existing zoning for commercial uses. The proposed project's nonresidential buildings would be within Airport Safety Zone 3, in which buildings with more than three habitable floors are generally unacceptable. Three-story buildings, therefore, are proposed in the nonresidential portion of the proposed project. Figure 10, Conceptual Architecture, shows concepts consistent with the PCDP's height limitations.

Table 4 Land Use Compatibility: John Wayne Airport Safety Zones Safety Zone
Land Use Compatibility
1 . Airport ownership of property encouraged
Prohibit all new structures
• Prohibit residential land uses
• Avoid nonresidential uses except if very low intensity in character and confined to the sides and outer end of the area 2 . Prohibit residential uses except on large, agricultural parcels Limit nonresidential uses to activities which attract few people (uses such as shopping centers, most eating establishments, theaters, meeting halls, multi -story office buildings, and labor-intensive manufacturing plants unacceptable)
• Prohibit children's schools, day care centers, hospitals, nursing homes Prohibit hazardous uses (e.g. aboveground bulk fuel storage) 3 . Limit residential uses to very low densities (if not deemed unacceptable because of noise) • Avoid nonresidential uses having moderate or higher usage intensities (e.g., major shopping centers, fast food restaurants, theaters, meeting halls, buildings with more than three aboveground habitable floors are generally unacceptable)
Prohibit children's schools, large day care centers, hospitals, nursing homes 4 . In undeveloped areas, limit residential uses to very low densities (if not deemed unacceptable because of noise); if alter- native uses are impractical, allow higher densities as infill in urban areas • Limit nonresidential uses as in Zone 3
Prohibit children's schools, large day care centers, hospitals, nursing homes 5 . Avoid residential uses unless airport related (noise usually also a factor) Allow all common aviation -related activities provided that height -limit criteria are met • Limit other nonresidential uses similarly to Zone 3, but with slightly higher usage intensities • Prohibit children's schools, large day care centers, hospitals, nursing homes 6 . Allow residential uses
• Allow most nonresidential uses; prohibit outdoor stadiums and similar uses with very high intensities Avoid children's schools, large day care centers, hospitals, nursing homes Source: OCALUC 2008.

The FARs specified in the PCDP are 0.5 for office uses, 0.75 for warehouse uses, and no restrictions for residential or mixed uses. The PCDP would allow for the same massing for nonresidential land uses when compared to the 2006 GPU The PCDP also includes general principles for architectural design and additional principles by land use: mixed use, residential, and nonresidential. Development would be designed to convey a unified character with abundant use of landscape. Figure 10, ConceptualArchitecture, shows PCDP renderings by land use type to guide development with respect to architectural massing, detail, building material variety, and pedestrian -orientation integration. The project's conceptual architecture is typical for multifamily and mixed - May 2020 Page 57

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
use projects in the city and nearby jurisdictions and would not unusually impact the design character or quality of the area.

Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on the visual character of the site, and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR
Compared to the 2014 LUE Amendment, the proposed project would reduce the maximum allowed nonresidential use by 210,200 square feet and permit the same number of residential dwelling units (maximum 444 units with density bonus) (see Table 3). The proposed PCDP land use designation (MU-H2) would be the same as proposed under the 2014 LUE Amendment. The proposed project, therefore, would reduce site development intensity compared to the 2014 proposed land use. In addition, the project would improve the visual quality of the site through implementation of the PCDP principles for architectural design. Overall, development of the proposed project would be similar to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE proposal and would have a less than significant impact on the visual character of the site. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
No Impact.

Project Comparison to the 2006 General Plan EIR
The Airport Area is nearly built out, and a significant amount of ambient light already exists due to urban uses.

General Plan policies and regulatory requirements per the City's municipal code Title 20, Chapter 20.60, Section

20.30.070 "Outdoor Lighting," includes general outdoor lighting standards, parking lot lighting standards, and outdoor lighting (spotlighting and floodlighting). The PCDP provides standards beyond existing regulatory requirements. The PCDP would require that the lighting system be designed and maintained to conceal the light source and minimize light spillage and glare outside of the boundary of the PC District. Walkways accessing buildings and parking areas would be illuminated with a minimum maintained 0.5 foot-candle average on the driving or walking surface during the hours of operation and one hour thereafter. The project site is in a highly urban area with existing sources of light and glare. The replacement of existing uses with new sources of light and glare would not substantially alter the amount of lighting or glare on the site.

Municipal code and PCDP requirements would ensure that lighting impacts associated with the proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2006 GPU, would be less than significant. Thus, the proposed project would not adversely affect day or nighttime views, and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR
The proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, would comply with General Plan policies and regulatory requirements. Light and glare impacts for the proposed project would be

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
similar to the development intensity contemplated in the LUE Amendment and would therefore be less than significant.

5.1.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project There were no mitigation measures in the 2006 GPU EIR or the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR.

5.1.4 Relevant General Plan Policies
The 2006 General Plan includes the following goals and policies that relate specifically to potential aesthetics and visual character impacts of the proposed Airport Village project.

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. ■ LU 6.15.1 - Land Use Districts and Neighborhoods: Provide for the development of distinct business park, commercial, and airport serving districts and residential neighborhoods that are integrated to ensure a quality environment and compatible land uses.
■ LU 6.15.3 - Airport Compatibility: Require that all development be constructed in conformance with the height restrictions set forth by Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77, and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, and that residential development be located outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour specified by the 1985 JWA Master Plan.

LU 6.15.7 - Overall Density and Housing Types: Require that residential units be developed at a minimum density of 30 units and maximum of 50 units per net acre averaged over the total area of each residential village. Net acreage shall be exclusive of existing and new rights -of -way, public pedestrian ways, and neighborhood parks. Within these densities, provide for the development of a mix of building types ranging from townhomes to high-rises to accommodate a variety of household types and incomes and to promote diversity of building masses and scales.
■ LU 6.15.8 - First Phase Development Density: Require a residential density 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. ■ LU 6.15.9 - Subsequent Phase Development Location and Density: Subsequent phases of residential development shall abut the first phase or shall face the first phase across a street. The minimum density of residential development (including residential mixed -use development) shall be 30 units per net acre and shall not exceed the maximum of 50 units per net acre averaged over the development phase.

May 2020 Page 59

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
■ LU 6.15.22 - Building Massing: Require that high-rise structures be surrounded with low- and mid -rise structures fronting public streets and pedestrian ways or other means to promote a more pedestrian scale.

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis

5.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES

5.2.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Program EIRs

5.2.1.1 2006 GENERAL PLAN EIR
The 2006 General Plan Initial Study (IS) indicated that the City of Newport Beach does not contain any significant agricultural resources as the city is almost entirely built out. The IS concluded that there would be no impacts to agricultural and forestry resources and did not discuss the topic in the EIR.

5.2.1.2 2014 LUE AMENDMENT SEIR
The 2014 LUE Amendment IS referenced the California Resource Agency's Department of Conservation "Orange County Important Farmland 2010" map, substantiating that the city does not have any significant agricultural resources. Therefore, the IS concluded that no impacts to farmland were found due to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, and the topic was not discussed in the EIR.

5.2.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Would the proposed project:

Less Than
Significant
Substantial
Impacts/No
Substantial
Change in
New
Changes or
Change in
Circum-
Information
New
Project
stances
Showing New
Information
Requiring
Requiring
or Increased
Requiring
Major EIR
Major EIR
Significant
Preparation of
Environmental Issues
Revisions
Revisions
Effects
an EIR
No Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping
X
and Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, with a designated Agricultural
Opportunity Area, or with a Williamson Act
X
contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public Resources
X
Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code Section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non -forest use?
X
May 2020

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
Less Than
Significant
Substantial
Impacts/No
Substantial
Change in
New
Changes or
Change in
Circum-
Information
New
Project
stances
Showing New
Information
Requiring
Requiring
or Increased
Requiring
Major EIR
Major EIR
Significant
Preparation of
Environmental Issues
Revisions
Revisions
Effects
an EIR
No Impact
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
X
Farmland to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non -forest use?
Comments:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact.

Project Comparison to the 2006 General Plan EIR
The proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2006 General Plan, would have no impact on Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance because it is not on a site that is designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Thus, there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR
Since the City does not have any significant agricultural resources, the proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, would have no impact on Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, with a designated Agricultural Opportunity Area, or with a Williamson Act contract?
No Impact.

Project Comparison to the 2006 General Plan EIR
The City of Newport Beach does not have any land designated or zoned for agricultural use, used for agriculture, or subject to a Williamson Act contract. Thus, the proposed project, similar to all development pursuant to the 2006 GPU, would have no impacts to agricultural zoning or a Williamson Act contract. No impacts would occur, and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR.

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
Project Comparison to the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR
The conclusions regarding agricultural zoning, opportunity areas and/or a Williamson Act contract in the 2014 LUE Amendment were consistent with the 2006 GPU EIR, and no impacts would occur. c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? No Impact.

Project Comparison to the 2006 General Plan EIR
The City of Newport Beach does not have any land designated or zoned for forestland, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. Thus, the proposed project, similar to all development pursuant to the 2006 GPU, would have no impacts, and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR
Since the City of Newport Beach does not have any land designated or zoned for foresdand, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production, the proposed project, similar to all development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, would have no impacts.
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? No Impact.

Project Comparison to the 2006 General Plan EIR
See response to Section 5.2.2(c), above.

Project Comparison to the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR
See response to Section 5.2.2(c), above.
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use?
No Impact.

Project Comparison to the 2006 General Plan EIR
See responses to Sections 5.2.2(a), (b), and (c), above.

May 2020

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
Project Comparison to the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR
See responses to Sections 5.2.2(a), (b), and (c), above.

5.2.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the Program EIR and Applicable to the Proposed Project
There were no mitigation measures specified in the 2006 GPU EIR and the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR, and no mitigation measures are required for the proposed project.

5.2.4 Relevant General Plan Policies
There were no relevant General Plan policies in the 2006 GPU EIR or the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR.

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis

5.3 AIR QUALITY

5.3.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Previous EIRs

5.3.1.1 2006 GENERAL PLAN EIR
Air Quality Management Plan Consistency
The 2006 GPU EIR concluded that the project (General Plan Update) would potentially conflict with implementation of South Coast Air Quality Management District's (South Coast AQMD) 2003 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The 2006 GPU EIR identified that the land plan would increase residential growth projections slightly over what was projected by Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) for Orange County in 2030. Since preparation of the 2006 GPU EIR, South Coast AQMD has adopted the 2016 AQMP, which is the current AQMP for the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB).

Regional Construction Impacts
The 2006 GPU EIR concluded that, even after mitigation, construction air emissions could exceed South Coast AQMD's significance thresholds as a result of the amount of development activity that is anticipated in the City.

Regional Operational Impacts
The 2006 GPU EIR concluded that the operational emissions would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the SoCAB. At the time of the 2006 GPU EIR, the SoCAB was designated as nonattainment for ozone (03), carbon monoxide (CO) Jos Angeles County only), and coarse particulate matter (PM10).

Localized Impacts
The 2006 GPU EIR demonstrated that there would be no CO exceedances caused by vehicular emissions idling at intersections, and therefore localized CO hot spot impacts would be less than significant.

Odors
The 2006 GPU EIR identified that odors generated within the City would not affect a substantial number of people, and impacts would be less than significant.

5.3.1.2 2014 LUE AMENDMENT SEIR
Air Quality Management Plan Consistency
The 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR determined that air quality impacts would be less than significant because the incremental increase in emissions associated with the LUE Amendment compared to the project as analyzed under the 2006 GPU EIR would not exceed the South Coast AQMD's regional significance threshold.

May 2020 Page 65

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
Regional Construction Impacts
The 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR concluded that the construction emissions and resulting impacts would be similar to the those analyzed in the 2006 GPU EIR and impacts would be less than significant.

Regional Operational Impacts
The 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR concluded that the incremental increase in operational emissions from the 2006 GPU EIR would not exceed the South Coast AQMD regional significance thresholds. Therefore, operation -related regional air quality impacts were determined to be less than significant.

Localized Impacts
The Initial Study prepared for the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR determined that it would result in similar CO hotspot impacts as the 2006 General Plan, and impacts would be less than significant. In addition, the 2014 SEIR determined that with implementation of mitigation, which would require installation of maximum efficiency rating value filters, localized impacts on new sensitive receptors would be less than significant.

Odors
The Initial Study prepared for the 2014 SEIR concluded that odor impacts would be similar to those analyzed in the 2006 EIR, and impacts would be less than significant.

5.3.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.

Would the proposed project:

Less Than
Significant
Substantial
ImpactslNo
Substantial
Change in
New
Changes or
Change in
Circum-
Information
New
Project
stances
Showing New
Information
Requiring
Requiring
or Increased
Requiring
Major EIR
Major EIR
Significant
Preparation of
Environmental Issues
Revisions
Revisions
Effects
an EIR
No Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan?
X
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non -attainment under
X
an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
X

PlaceWorks

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
Less Than
Significant
Substantial
Impacts/No
Substantial
Change in
New
Changes or
Change in
Circum-
Information
New
Project
stances
Showing New
Information
Requiring
Requiring
or Increased
Requiring
Major EIR
Major EIR
Significant
Preparation of
Environmental Issues
Revisions
Revisions
Effects
an EIR
No Impact
d) Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a
X
substantial number of people?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan?
X
Comments:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.

A consistency determination with an AQMP plays an important role in local agency project review by linking local planning and individual projects to the AQMP. It fulfills the CEQA goal of informing decision makers of the environmental efforts of the project under consideration early enough to ensure that air quality concerns are fully addressed. It also provides the local agency with ongoing information as to whether they are contributing to the clean air goals in an AQMP. The South Coast AQMD is the responsible in developing AQMPs for the SoCAB region.

The current air quality plan for the SoCAB region is the 2016 AQMP, which was adopted March 2017 (SCAQMD 2017). Regional growth projections are used by South Coast AQMD to forecast future emission levels in the SoCAB. For southern California, these regional growth projections are provided by SCAG and are partially based on land use designations included in city/county general plans. Projects that are consistent with the local general plan are considered consistent with the air quality -related regional plan.

Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR
As stated, AQMPs utilize regional growth projections that are based on the land use designations in the local general plans. Thus, the land uses assumed and the growth anticipated in the 2006 GPU EIR have been incorporated into the current 2016 AQMP. The proposed project would redesignate the project site from AO to MU-H2, which would expand the overall geographic area designated as MU-H2 in the Airport Area.

Although the overall geographic area designated MU-H2 would be expanded in the Airport Area, the proposed project would not increase the overall development capacity in the MU-1­12-designated areas as analyzed in the 2006 GPU EIR. Additionally,, the proposed project would reduce the amount of allowable nonresidential land uses both within the project site and Airport Area. Because the land uses allowed under the proposed project would be within the development capacity assumed in the 2006 GPU EIR, its implementation would not result in increasing growth and would be within the growth assumptions of the 2016 AQMP. Additionally, and as discussed in Section 5.3(b), below, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in a substantial increase in operation -phase emissions compared to what was previously analyzed in the 2006 GPU EIR and could result May 2020 Page 67

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
in a reduction in emissions. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the 2016 AQMP and its implementation is not anticipated to result in new or increase the severity of impacts as it pertains to consistency with the AQMP when compared to the 2006 GPU EIR. Therefore, there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR
Compared to the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR, the proposed project would result in less commercial space and the same number of residential dwelling units allowed for the project site. Thus, because the proposed project would include less commercial space, it would generate fewer emissions from area, mobile, and energy sources compared to the land uses assumed for the project site as considered in the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR. Therefore, buildout of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in new impacts or increase the severity of impacts as it pertains to consistency with the AQMP compared to what was previously analyzed in the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR. Overall, there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR.
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.

The SoCAB is designated nonattainment for 03 and PM2.5 under the California and National AAQS, nonattainment for lead (Los Angeles County only) under the National AAQS, and nonattainment for PMio under the California AAQS (CARB 2017a). According to South Coast AQMD methodology, any project that does not exceed or can be mitigated to less than the daily threshold values would not add significantly to a cumulative impact (South Coast AQ)M 1993). The following describes changes in regional impacts from short- term construction activities and long-term operation of the proposed project.

Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR
Regional Construction Impacts
Construction activities would result in the generation of air pollutants. These emissions would primarily be 1) exhaust emissions from off -road diesel -powered construction equipment; 2) dust generated from demolition, site preparation, earthmoving, and other construction activities; 3) exhaust emissions from on -road vehicles; and 4) off -gas emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from application of asphalt, paints, and coatings.

When compared to the land uses considered for the project site under the 2006 GPU EIR, the proposed project would accommodate similar types of land uses. While the proposed 2006 GPU EIR does not include residential uses on the project site, the project would not result in an increase in residential units within the Airport Area in comparison to the General Plan. Overall, it is anticipated that the required construction processes and activities needed to develop the land uses accommodated under both the proposed project and the 2006 GPU EIR would be similar.

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
The 2006 GPU EIR determined that construction activities would generate short-term emissions that would exceed the South Coast AQMD regional significance thresholds. Thus, construction activities associated with buildout of the proposed project would result in similar regional air quality impacts as identified in the 2006 GPU EIR. Therefore, buildout of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in a substantial increase in construction emissions compared to what was previously analyzed in the 2006 GPU EIR. Overall, there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR.

Development of individual land uses accommodated under the proposed project would adhere to General Plan Policy NR 8.1 and regulatory measures (e.g., South Coast AQMD Rule 201, Rule 403, Rule 1113, Rule 1403, and California Air Resources Board Rule 2840), which would minimize construction -related regional air quality impacts.

Regional Operational Impacts
The proposed project would result in the land use redesignation of the project site from AO to MU-H2.

However, though the overall geographic area designated MU-H2 would be expanded in the Airport Area, the proposed project would not increase the overall development capacity of the allowable uses in the MU-H2- designated areas as analyzed in the 2006 GPU EIR. In addition, redesignation of the project site from AO to MU-H2 would generate slightly fewer average daily vehicle trips (ADT)-6,630 ADTs compared to 6,829 ADTs (see Table 1, Appendix B). The estimated 6,630 trips is also conservative since it assumes buildout of the maximum number of density bonus units for a total of 444 residential units. Because the proposed project would reduce allowable non-residential building square footage on the project site, and overall Airport Area and generate fewer vehicle trips, its implementation would reduce emissions from area, mobile, and energy sources compared to the land uses assumed in the 2006 GPU EIR. Therefore, buildout of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in an increase in operation -phase emissions compared to what was analyzed in the 2006 GPU EIR. Overall, there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR
Regional Construction Impacts
The proposed project would result in similar land use types as the previously considered under the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR, but would reduce the intensity of these uses (see Table 3). Thus, it is anticipated that the types of construction activities and construction processes associated with the land use development projects accommodated under the proposed project would be less than what was considered in the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR. Similar to the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR, development of individual land uses accommodated under the proposed project would adhere to General Plan Policy NR 8.1 and regulatory measures (e.g., South Coast AQMD Rule 201, Rule 403, Rule 1113, Rule 1403, and California Air Resources Board Rule 2840), which would contribute to minimizing construction -related regional air quality impacts.

The 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR determined that construction activities would generate short-term emissions that would exceed the South Coast AQMD regional significance thresholds. Thus, construction activities associated with buildout of the proposed project would result in similar regional air quality impacts as identified May 2020 Page 69

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
in the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR. Therefore, buildout of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in an increase in construction emissions compared to what was analyzed in the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR.

Overall, there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR.

Regional Operational Impacts
Buildout of the proposed project would result in less commercial space and the same number of residential dwelling units on -site. In comparison to the proposed project, however, the 329 residential units (plus up to 115 density bonus units) are already allocated for the Airport Area as within the MU-112 uses. Overall, similar to what was identified in the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR, operation of the land uses accommodated under the proposed project could generate daily long-term emissions that exceed the South Coast AQMD long-term regional emissions thresholds. However, because the proposed project would include less commercial space, it would generate less emissions from area, mobile, and energy sources compared to the land uses assumed for the project site in the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR. Therefore, buildout of the proposed project would decrease operation -phase emissions compared to what was analyzed in the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR. There are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.

The following describes changes in localized impacts from short-term construction activities and long-term operation of the proposed project.

Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR
Localized Construction Impacts
Localized Significance Thresholds
The localized significance thresholds (LSTs) are the amount of project -related emissions at which localized concentrations (ppm or µg/m3) would exceed the ambient air quality standards for criteria air pollutants for which the SoCAB is designated a nonattainment area (SCAQMD 2008). Per the LST methodology, information regarding specific development projects and the locations of receptors would be needed in order to quantify the levels of localized operation and construction -related impacts associated with future development projects.

Due to the programmatic nature of the General Plan Update, it was not possible to calculate individual, project - related operation and construction emissions at this time. The LST analysis can only be conducted at a project level. Per South Coast AQMD methodology, quantification of LSTs was not applicable for this program -level environmental analysis.

When compared to the land uses considered for the project site under the 2006 GPU EIR, the proposed project would result in a reduction in commercial square footage and an increase in residential dwelling units on the project site. The proposed project, however, would not increase residential units within the Airport Area (see Table 3 comments). Overall, the amount of development would require approximately equivalent construction activities as those anticipated in the 2006 GPU EIR. Additionally, the proposed project would not result in developing a new area because the project site was considered for development under the 2006 GPU EIR.

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
Thus, it is not anticipated that development of the land uses accommodated under the proposed project would result in new or increase the severity of construction -related LST impacts compared to the land uses considered for the project site in the 2006 GPU EIR.

Off -Site Health Risk
Similar to the LST evaluation, construction health risk can only be conducted at a project level; therefore, quantification of construction -related health risk was found inapplicable for this program -level environmental analysis conducted for the General Plan update.

The South Coast AQMD currently does not require health risk assessments to be conducted for short-term emissions from construction equipment. Emissions from construction equipment primarily consist of diesel particulate matter (DPM). The Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment (OEHHA) issued new guidance for the preparation of health risk assessments in March 2015 (OEHHA 2015). The OEHHA has developed a cancer risk factor and non -cancer chronic reference exposure level for DPM, but these levels are based on continuous exposure over a 30-year time frame. No short-term acute exposure levels have been developed for DPM.

It is not anticipated that any individual land use development projects accommodated under the proposed project would have a construction duration of 30 years or more, which would limit the exposure to on -site and off -site receptors. It is likely that construction of individual developments accommodated under the plans would be spread out incrementally over this period of time, which would also limit the exposure of on- and off -site receptors to elevated concentrations of DPM. Furthermore, improvements under the proposed project would not introduce new types of construction processes or activities compared to what was previously considered in the 2006 GPU EIR. Thus, it is not anticipated that construction of the land uses accommodated under the proposed project would result in new or increase the severity of construction -related health risk impacts compared to the land uses considered for the project site in the 2006 GPU EIR. Therefore, no changes or new information would require preparation of a subsequent EIR.

Localized Operational Impacts
Off -Site LSTs and Health Risks
Because a quantified LST analysis can only be conducted at a project level it was not possible to calculate individual, project -related, operation emissions for the General Plan Update. Types of land uses that typically generate substantial quantities of criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants (TAC) include industrial (stationary sources) and warehousing (truck idling) land uses. The types of land uses planned for the proposed project include 297,572 square feet of office, commercial, and auto rental facilities and up to 444 residential dwelling units. Thus, the types of land uses proposed under the proposed project would not be expected to generate substantial quantities of criteria air pollutants and TACs. Development of the commercial land uses may result in stationary sources of TAC emissions—e.g., dry cleaners, restaurants with char -broilers, or buildings with emergency generators and boilers. However, these sources are not considered large emitters by South Coast AQMD. Furthermore, they are subject to South Coast AQMD's new source review through their permitting requirements and would be subject to further study and health risk assessment prior to the issuance of any necessary air quality permits under South Coast AQMD Rule 1401. The permitting process ensures that May 2020 Page 71

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
stationary source emissions would be below the South Coast AQMD significance thresholds of 10 in a million cancer risk and 1 for acute risk at the maximally exposed individual.

When compared to the land uses considered for the project site under the 2006 GPU EIR, the proposed project would accommodate similar types of non-residential land uses and introduce residential uses. The proposed project would not result in developing a new area as the project site was considered for development under the 2006 GPU EIR. Thus, overall, it is not anticipated that development of the land uses accommodated under the proposed project would result in new or increased severity of operation -related localized air quality impacts compared to the land uses considered in the 2006 GPU EIR.

CO Hotspot
The 2006 GPU EIR conducted a carbon monoxide (CO) hotspot analysis to identify whether the General Plan would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. At that time, the SoCAB was designated nonattainment under the California AAQS and National AAQS for CO. With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of control technology on industrial facilities, CO concentrations in the SoCAB and the state have steadily declined. In 2007, the South Coast AQMD was designated in attainment for CO under both the California AAQS and National AAQS. As identified in South Coast AQMD's 2003 AQMP and the 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide (1992 CO Plan), peak carbon monoxide concentrations in the SoCAB were a result of unusual meteorological and topographical conditions and not a result of congestion at a particular intersection (SCAQMD 1992; SCAQMD 2003).

The 2006 GPU EIR identified less than significant impacts related to CO hotspots. Compared to the land uses for the project site analyzed in the 2006 GPU EIR, the proposed project would result in minor changes to peak hour vehicle trips-615 evening peak hour trips compared to 637 evening peak hour trips, and 660 morning peak hour trips compared to 548 for the 2006 GPU EIR uses (note that these estimates conservatively assume maximum bonus density units for the proposed project). Given the reduction in trips compared to the 2006 GPU EIR, CO hotspot impacts related to mobile -source emissions from implementation of the proposed project would be reduced compared to the 2006 GPU EIR and would be less than significant. Therefore, compared to what was previously analyzed in the 2006 GPU EIR, buildout of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in new significant impacts or impacts of greater severity pertaining to CO hotspots. Overall, there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR
Localized Construction Impacts: LSTs and Health Risks
The land use types accommodated under the proposed project would be the same as the uses analyzed for the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR for the project site, but the overall intensity of these uses would be reduced.

Thus, for the same reasons in the discussion of construction LSTs and health risk in comparison to the 2006 GPU EIR, it is not anticipated that development of the land uses accommodated under the proposed project would result in new or increase the severity of construction -related LST and health risk impacts compared to the land uses considered for the project site in the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR. Therefore, there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR.

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
Localized Operational Impacts
Off -Site LSTs and Health Risks
The land uses accommodated under the proposed project would be less than the development capacity considered for the project site in the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR. Thus, implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in new or increase the severity of operation -related localized air quality impacts related to criteria air pollutants and TACs compared to the land uses considered in the 2014 LUE EIR.

Therefore, there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR.

On -Site LSTS and Heath Risks
The 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR analyzed potential localized impacts related to siting sensitive land uses near sources of emissions. The proposed project proposes a similar amount and type of development in the same footprint as development anticipated on the site in the 2014 LUE SEIR. Therefore, the project would not alter the localized impacts related to siting sensitive land uses near sources of emissions. In general, residential, commercial, office, and institutional uses (such as the hospital land uses) do not use substantial quantities of TACs and typically do not exacerbate existing hazards.

CO Hotspot
The project as considered in the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR was determined to result in less than significant CO hotpot impacts overall. Because the proposed project would result in similar land use types, but overall less development capacity compared to the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR, its implementation would generate fewer peak hour trips. Thus, similar to the project considered in the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR, the proposed project would not result in significant CO hotpot impacts, but would result in slightly less CO htspot impacts when compared to the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR. Therefore, compared to what was previously analyzed in the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR, buildout of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in new significant impacts or impacts of greater severity as it pertains to CO hotspots. Overall, there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.

Nuisance odors from land uses in the SoCAB are regulated under South Coast AQMD Rule 402, Nuisance, which states:

A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.

The provisions of this rule shall not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals.

May 2020 Page 73

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
The type of facilities that are considered to have objectionable odors include wastewater treatments plants, chemical manufacturing, sanitary landfill, fiberglass manufacturing, transfer station, painting/coating operations (e.g., autobody shops), composting facility, food processing facility, petroleum refinery, feed lot/dairy, asphalt batch plant, and rendering plant.

Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR
The types of land uses that would be accommodated under the proposed project would consist of office, commercial, auto rental facilities, and residential. These types of uses do not usually generate significant or highly objectionable odors. In addition, land uses accommodated under the proposed project would be subject to South Coast AQMD Rule 402, which would contribute to minimizing odor -related nuisances. In addition to operation -related generation of odors, emissions from construction equipment, such as diesel exhaust, and from volatile organic compounds from architectural coatings and paving activities, may generate odors.

However, these odors would be temporary and intermittent, and are not expected to affect a substantial number of people. Thus, similar to the 2006 GPU EIR, implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant odors impacts. Furthermore, compared to the land uses considered for the project site in the 2006 GPU EIR, the types of land uses accommodated under the proposed project would result in similar construction odors. It is not anticipated that the proposed project would introduce or require any new construction processes that would generate substantial odors compared with what was previously considered in the 2006 GPU EIR. Therefore, buildout of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in new significant impacts or impacts of greater severity pertaining to objectionable odors compared to the 2006 GPU EIR.

Overall, there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR
The land uses accommodated under the proposed project would be within the development capacity considered for the project site as analyzed in the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR. Thus, the odors impacts discussion provided above comparing the proposed project and the 2006 GPU EIR is applicable, and for the same reasons, implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in new or increase the severity of odor - related impacts compared to the land uses in the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR. Therefore, there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR.

5.3.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project No mitigation measures related to air quality were outlined in the 2006 GPU EIR.

5.3.4 Relevant General Plan Policies
The General Plan includes several policies that would reduce air quality emissions associated with future development projects in the City:
■ 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.

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
■ 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 6.3 — Vehicle -Trip Reduction Measures: Support measures to reduce vehicle -trip generation such as at -work day care facilities, and on -site automated banking machines. ■ NR 6.4 — Transportation Demand Management Ordinance: Implement the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance, which promotes and encourages the use of alternative transportation modes, and provides those facilities such as bicycle lanes that support such alternate modes. ■ NR 6.5 — Local Transit Agency Collaboration: Collaborate with local transit agencies to: develop programs and educate employers about employee rideshare and transit; establish mass transit mechanisms for the reduction of work -related and non -work -related vehicle trips; promote mass transit ridership through careful planning of routes, headways, origins and destinations, and types of vehicles; and develop bus shelters, bicycle lanes, and other bicycle facilities. ■ NR 6.6 — Traffic Signal Synchronization: Encourage synchronization of traffic signals throughout the City and with adjoining cities and counties to allow free flow of traffic. ■ NR 6.7 — City Fleet Vehicles: Implement the program to replace existing vehicles in the City fleet with clean vehicles that are commercially available and will provide needed services. ■ NR 6.8 — Accessible Alternative Fuel Infrastructure: Support the development of alternative fuel infrastructure that is available and accessible to the public, and provide incentives for alternative fuel vehicles.
■ NR 6.9 — Education on Mobile Source Emission Reduction Techniques: Provide education to the public on mobile source emission reduction techniques such as using alternative modes of transportation. ■ 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 7.3 — Incentives for Air Pollution Reduction: Provide incentives to promote siting or to use clean air technologies and building materials (e.g., fuel cell technologies, renewable energy sources, UV coatings, hydrogen fuel).
■ 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.

May 2020 Page 75

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
■ NR 24.1 — Incentives for Energy Conservation: Develop incentives that encourage the use of energy conservation strategies by private and public developments. ■ 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.
■ NR 24.4 — Incentives for Provision of LEED Certified Buildings: Provide incentives for implementing Leadership in Environmental and Energy Design (LEED) certified building such as fee waivers, bonus densities, and/or awards recognition programs.

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis

5.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

5.4.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Program EIRs

5.4.1.1 2006 GENERAL PLAN EIR
The GPU EIR identifies City-wide biological resources, including habitat types; sensitive biological resources, including special status species; marine resources; and sensitive marine sources. Identified biological resources are mapped in the GPU EIR (Figure 4.3-1) and reproduced here as Figure 13, 2006 General Plan Biological Resources. The EIR also delineates Environmental Study Areas (ESAs), as shown on Figure 14, Environmental Study Areas (ESAs). As shown, there are no identified biological resources on the project site, and the project site is not within an ESA.

The GPU would allow infill development throughout the City. A variety of plant and animal species are present within the GPU planning area, including, but are not limited to, California least tern (Sterna antillarum broivni), yellow warbler (Dendroica petecbia bremsten), Belding's savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwicbensis beldinga), golden eagle (Aquila cbrysaetos), light-footed clapper rail (Rallus longitrostris levipes), and western snowy plover (Cbaradrius alexandrinus nivosus).

Numerous GPU-identified goals and policies would aid in protecting sensitive habitats and species. These policies provide protection to habitats containing candidate and special status plant and wildlife species and increase the level of protection of these plant and wildlife species within the City's regulatory framework.

Compliance with federal and California Environmental Species Act and CEQA, and implementation of proposed GPU goals and policies would reduce potential impacts on sensitive plant and wildlife species to less than significant.

Development under the proposed GPU could also result in the removal of mature trees that may serve as perching or nesting sites for migratory birds and raptors in both developed and undeveloped areas. Several federal and state regulations restrict activities that may result in the "take" (kill, harm, harass, etc.) of certain species, including active nests. During the project -level analysis of development proposed under the GPU, project -specific mitigation, such as preconstruction surveys, may be necessary to ensure that development under the GPU does not result in the "take" of such species as a result of vegetation removal.

The General Plan includes policies restricting development within wetland areas and ESAs. The project site is not within a wetland area or ESA, and therefore these policies would not be directly applicable to the project site.

The Orange County Central -Coastal Subregional Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP) is the applicable habitat conservation plan for the GPU planning area. In July of 1996, the City became a signatory agency in this plan. As a signatory agency, the City is responsible for enforcing mitigation measures and other policies identified in the NCCP/HCP Implementation Agreement for properties within the City limit that are part of the NCCP Subregional Plan. The 2006 GPU IS found that impacts resulting from the implementation of the GPU to this plan were less than significant. The 2006 GPU May 2020 Page 77

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
IS also found that the GPU would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources.

5.4.1.2 2014 LUE AMENDMENT SEIR
As explained in the 2014 LUE SEIR, the City of Newport Beach is nearly built out, and the 2014 LUE Amendment consists mainly of infill development and intensification and increases/reductions in allowable development capacity. The land use changes considered in the SEIR for the project at that time reflected consideration that the site was in an urban developed areas with a number of existing buildings, structures, and other hardscape improvements already in place. The City is known to have special -status and sensitive wildlife and plant species, and Newport Beach is also located along the coast where there are natural riparian areas, wetlands, and wildlife corridors that may be affected by intensification and infill development. However, any development under the 2014 LUE Amendment would only be concentrated in urbanized areas and would not involve habitat modifications on any candidate, sensitive, or special -status species identified to occur or have the potential to occur within the City of Newport Beach. The land use changes proposed would also preclude most sites containing riparian habitats or wetland from being developed, and do not include any undeveloped areas that may currently be used as wildlife corridors or nursery sites for native and migratory wildlife. Impacts were found to be less than significant.

Furthermore, new developments would have to adhere to policies under the federal and California Environmental Species Acts, state regulations by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife that protect stream beds and nearby riparian communities, and state and federal laws and regulations that protect wetlands through the Corps Section 404 permitting process and the California Wetlands Conservation Policy. New development also needs to complete CEQA environmental reviews on a project- by -project basis. Additionally, the 2006 General Plan policies require site -specific biological studies and compliance with the Orange County Central -Coastal Subregional NCCP/HCP. Therefore, the IS for the 2014 LUE Amendment found that impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special status species; riparian habitats; and wildlife movement, corridors, and nursery sites would be less than significant. The IS found that there would be no impacts on wetlands.

Furthermore, the City of Newport Beach has local policies and ordinances protecting biological resources within its neighborhoods. Council Policy G-1 (Retention or Removal of City Trees) and Chapter 7.26 (Protection of Natural Habitat for Migratory and Other Waterfowl) of the City's municipal code regulate new development to ensure local biological resources are preserved. Specifically, Council Policy G-1 acts as the City's tree preservation policy to enhance and maintain appropriate tree diversity in the City's urban forest. Chapter

7.26 of the municipal code protects the natural habitat of migratory waterfowl and other birds. The 2014 LUE Amendment would not conflict with any of these local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, and there would be no impact. The LUE Amendment would also not change or contradict any policies within the Orange County Central -Coastal NCCP/HCP, and all future development would be required to comply with these policies.

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

COSTA MESA
PIER

PACIFIC OCEAN
6Sl
John Wayne Airport
UPPER

NEWPORT
BAY
1 YFASHION

ISLAND /

PROJECT SITE
IRVINE
NEWPORT � � / I COAST

CRYSTAL COVE

STATE PARK

CRYSTAL COVE

STATE PARK
Figure 13 - 2006 General Plan Biological Areas
— — — —
Project Boundary
City Boundary
_
Eelgrass Bed
_
Giant Kelp Bed
_
Historic Grunion Spawning Area
0 Upper Newport Bay Nature Preserve
0 Upper Newport Beach State Marine Park
0 County
0 1
Scale (Miles)
Source: EIP Associates, 2006
PlaceWlorks

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
Tbis page intentionally left blank.

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Source: General Plan, 2006
John Wayne Airport
V"F
Figure 14 - Environmental Study Areas
— Project Boundary
�� �❑ PROJECT SITE
❑ ,-, © Seminuik Slough
Northstar Beach
COSTA MESA ❑� ❑� © West Bay
O Upper Newport Bay State Marine Park
❑ 0 and Upper Newport Bay Nature Preserve
O UPPER © De Anza Bayside Marsh Peninsula

NEWPORT IRVINE
i�JO�O�Ju F7 BAY 0 San Diego Creek
❑�❑❑o��DO ElOQO�� /�� O Eastbluff Remnant
❑�� ❑�%❑ ❑ ❑❑D O Big Canyon
❑OC%���� ��� O Newporter North
❑�❑�� ❑ �0��� ❑DD o9P"" L Buck Gully
o �<j \ ❑❑ r�ul 1 Morning Canyon
❑ �0�❑00�© o o ® Newport Beach Marine Life Refuge
o
����❑�0�0 0 0� ; l o0 0
® Castaways
❑''""" ���❑ ® © O�O Banning Ranch
IAI
FASHION OO Cam❑ O ej x NEWPORT
A,D
SLAND O Newport Coast
Los Trancos, Pelican Hill
e DD o ,e..x o0❑ oo �QJ �� Ridge Park
® , ISLE A"
O
a�����i T �!`�'�__. �0❑ D❑ Irvine Coast Marine Life Refuge a "LaoA ISLAND ❑ ❑
10 Giant Kelp Bed in Newport Harbor
��❑��m" I - ✓ Entrance Channel
" �� m❑�❑m O O Bonita Canyon Creek Watershed
��� n➢ mmm �❑mm '
����. SJuin Reservoir
PACIFIC OCEAN����� ®an oa q
a� ® Arroyo Park
❑❑❑ ® Coyote Canyon NEWPORT
0 MacArthur and Bison
® MacArthur/San Miguel
CRYSTAL COVE ®' MacArthur/San Joaquin

STATE PARK
® Spyglass Hill
0 Non -Coastal Buck Gully
0 1
Scale (Miles)
PlaceWorks

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
Tbis page intentionally left blank.

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis

5.4.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Would the proposed project:

Less Than
Significant
Substantial
Impacts/No
Substantial
Change in
New
Changes or
Change in
Circum-
Information
New
Project
stances
Showing New
Information
Requiring
Requiring
or Increased
Requiring
Major EIR
Major EIR
Significant
Preparation of
Environmental Issues
Revisions
Revisions
Effects
an EIR
No Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local
X
or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or
by the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the
X
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state
or federally protected wetlands (including,
but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
X
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
X
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a
X
tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
X
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
May 2020

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
Comments:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact.

Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR
The project site is fully developed and there is no natural habitat on -site. As shown in Figures 13 and 14, the General Plan did not identify biological resources in the project area and did not designate the area as an Environmental Study Area. Vegetation is limited to ornamental species, including trees and bushes. In comparison to the General Plan, the proposed project would reduce nonresidential building square footage by approximately 60,000 square feet and introduce up to 444 residential units to the site. None of the project's land use changes —in comparison to the uses permitted in the General Plan —would affect the potential impact of biological resources on the site. There are no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR
Development under the proposed project is reduced under the proposed project (see Table 3). The project site is fully developed, and biological resources are limited to ornamental vegetation. As with development under the LUE Amendment proposed land uses, the proposed project would not impact sensitive biological resources.

There would be no new significant adverse impacts.
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact.

Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR
Riparian habitats and sensitive natural communities can be found in the City, particularly along the coast and in the Upper and Lower Newport Bay. The project site is approximately 5.5 miles from the coast and 1.15 miles from Upper Newport Bay and would not impact these habitats. Thus, no impacts would occur, and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR
The proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment in the Airport Area, would preclude sites containing riparian habitats. Thus, no impacts would occur.

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No Impact.

Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR
Areas within the GPU planning area containing wetland habitat include Upper Newport Bay, Lower Newport Bay (Newport Harbor), and the coast of Newport Beach between the Santa Ana River and the boundary between the City and unincorporated Orange County. Additionally, Banning Ranch contains federally restored wetlands. The project site is approximately 5.5 miles from the coast, 1.15 miles from Upper Newport Bay, and

5.4 miles from Banning Ranch. Thus, no impacts would occur, and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR
The proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment in the Airport Area, would preclude sites containing wetlands from being developed. Thus, no impacts would occur. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
No Impact.

Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR
Banning Ranch is the only site in the City that provides wildlife with a significantly large, diverse area for foraging, shelter, and movement. The project site is approximately 5.4 miles from Banning Ranch. Furthermore, the proposed project would allow for development in an area that is currently almost fully built out and does not include any undeveloped areas that may currently be used as wildlife corridors or nursery sites for native and migratory wildlife. No habitat fragmentation would occur because there would be no disturbances of undeveloped areas under the proposed project; any new development would occur only within urbanized areas of the City.

Migratory nongame native bird species are protected by the California Fish and Game Code, Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513, which prohibit the take of all birds and their active nests. The proposed project would comply with the California Fish and Game Code, which would ensure that if construction occurs during the avian breeding season, appropriate measures would be taken to avoid impacts to nesting birds. Compliance would involve preconstruction surveys. The surveys would be conducted no more than three days prior to construction activities. If an active bird nest is observed, the surveyor/biologist shall determine the appropriate buffer around the nest. Buffers are determined on species -specific requirements and nest location. No construction activity would occur within the buffer zone until the nest is vacated, juveniles have fledged, and May 2020 Page 85

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting. With mandatory compliance with California Fish and Game Code, impacts to nesting birds would be less than significant.

Thus, no impacts would occur and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR
The proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment in the Airport Area, does not include any undeveloped areas that may currently be used as wildlife corridors or nursery sites for native and migratory wildlife. Thus, no impacts would occur. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No Impact.

Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR
The proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2006 GPU, would adhere to GPU policies, the Orange County Central -Coastal Subregional NCCP/HCP, the City's Council Policy G-1 (Retention or Removal of City Trees) and Chapter 7.26 (Protection of Natural Habitat for Migratory and Other Waterfowl) of the City's municipal code. The proposed project would not conflict with any of these local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, and there would be no impact. Thus, there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR
The proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, would implement the GPU policies and adhere to the requirements of the Orange County Central -Coastal Subregional NCCP/HCP, the City's Council Policy G-1, and Chapter 7.26 of the City's municipal code. Thus, no impacts would occur. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact.

Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR
The proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2006 General Plan, would not change or contradict any policies within the Orange County Central -Coastal NCCP/HCP, and all future development would be required to comply with these policies. Thus, no impacts would occur, and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR.

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR
The proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, would adhere to the policies of the Orange County Central -Coastal NCCP/HCP. Thus, no impacts would occur.

5.4.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the Program EIR and Applicable to the Proposed Project
There were no mitigation measures in the 2006 GPU EIR or the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR.

5.4.4 Relevant General Plan Policies
The 2006 General Plan includes the following goals and policies that are relevant to biological resources.

Goal NR 10: Protection of sensitive and rare terrestrial and marine resources from urban development. ■ NR 10.2 - Orange County Natural Communities Conservation Plan: Comply with the policies contained within the Orange County Natural Communities Conservation Plan. ■ NR 10.5 - New Development Siting and Design Require: that the siting and design of new development, including landscaping and public access, protect sensitive or rare resources against any significant disruption of habitat values.
■ NR 10.7 - Use of Buffers: Maintain a buffer of sufficient size around significant or rare biological resources, if present, to ensure the protection of these resources. Require the use of native vegetation and prohibit invasive plant species within these buffer areas. ■ NR 10.8 - Exterior Lighting: Shield and direct exterior lighting away from significant or rare biological resources to minimize impacts to wildlife.

May 2020 Page 87

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis

5.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES

5.5.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Program EIRs

5.5.1.1 2006 GENERAL PLAN EIR
Historic Resources
The City of Newport Beach has 11 properties listed or designated eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Resources (NRHP) or California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), or otherwise listed as historic or potentially historic in the California Historic Resources Information System (CHRIS) maintained by the Office of Historic Preservation. The City has listed five additional properties in the City Register in recognition of their local historical or architectural significance. The locations of these resources are mapped on GPU EIR Figure 4.4-1, Historic Resources. None of these recognized resources is located within or proximate to the proposed project site.

Archaeological Resources
Archaeological resources were also analyzed in the 2006 GPU EIR, which concluded that impacts would be less than significant. Archaeological resources that are often culturally or religiously important to Native American groups would be protected; information resources would be maintained; grading and excavation activities where there is a potential to affect archaeological resources would be monitored by a qualified archaeologist; cultural organizations, including Native American groups, would be notified of all potentially adverse impacts; and all scientifically valuable archeological resources would be donated to responsible public or private institutions (per Goal HR 2 and NR 18 of the 2006 General Plan). The Newport Beach City Council also established "Archaeological Guidelines (K-5)" requiring the City to prepare and maintain sources of information regarding archaeological sites. Thus, impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant.

Excavation during construction activities consistent with the 2006 General Plan has the potential to disturb human burial grounds, including Native American burials, in underdeveloped areas of the City. Human burials have specific provisions for treatment in Section 5097 of the California Public Resources Code, which authorizes the Native American Heritage Commission to resolve any disputes related to the disposition of Native American burials. The California Health and Safety Code (Sections 7050.5, 7051, and 7054) also have provisions protecting human burial remains from disturbance, vandalism, or destruction. Therefore, compliance with these regulations would ensure impacts to human burial grounds remain less than significant.

5.5.1.2 2014 LUE AMENDMENT SEIR
There are 23 previously recorded cultural resource studies with 16 recorded resources in the subareas proposed for land use change under the 2014 LUE Amendment. However, there are no new impacts to archaeological resources relative to the 2006 GPU EIR. The 2014 LUE Amendment would only change development capacities or land use designations on already developed properties, and no new undisturbed areas are included.

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
In case future developments in accordance with the 2014 LUE Amendment require additional ground - disturbing activities (e.g., deeper excavation) that may impact previously undisturbed grounds, the City of Newport Beach City Council has established "Archaeological Guidelines (K-5)" to ensure that if cultural resources are found, the developer would be required to preserve any significant archaeological resources and mitigate any impacts. Furthermore, various policies within the 2006 GPU under Goals HR 2 and NR 18 specify requirements to identify, protect, and preserve important archaeological resources. Thus, compliance with the City's "Archaeological Guidelines (K-5)" and policies in the 2006 GPU would ensure that impacts to archaeological resources remain less than significant.

Furthermore, the IS for the 2014 LUE Amendment found that although soil -disturbing activities associated with development could result in the discovery of human remains, compliance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 would ensure that significant impacts to human remains would not occur.

5.5.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 provides direction on determining significance of impacts to archaeological and historical resources. Generally, a resource shall be considered "historically significant" if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources:
■ Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage;
■ Is associated the with lives of persons important in our past; ■ Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or ■ Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. (PRC § 5024.1; 14 CCR § 4852)
The fact that a resource is not listed in the California Register of Historical Resources, not determined to be eligible for listing, or not included in a local register of historical resources does not preclude a lead agency from determining that it may be a historical resource.

According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would:

May 2020 Page 89

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
Less Than
Significant
Substantial
Impacts/No
Substantial
Change in
New
Changes or
Change in
Circum-
Information
New
Project
stances
Showing New
Information
Requiring
Requiring
or Increased
Requiring
Major EIR
Major EIR
Significant
Preparation of
Environmental Issues
Revisions
Revisions
Effects
an EIR
No Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource
X
pursuant to § 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
X
pursuant to § 15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
X
Comments:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to S 15064.5?
No Impact.

Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR
The City of Newport Beach has properties listed or designated eligible for listing on the NRHP, the CRHR, and CHRIS. The City Register also recognizes properties of local historical or architectural significance that meet the definition of historical resources under Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. In addition, the City's Historic Resource Inventory includes properties with cultural significance to the City. However, none of the recognized sites are within the proposed project site boundaries. Thus, no impacts would occur and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR
There are 16 recorded resources in the subareas proposed for land use change under the 2014 LUE Amendment, and no new impacts to archaeological resources relative to the 2006 GPU EIR. None of these are located on the proposed site. Therefore, the proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, would have no impacts.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to S 15064.5?
Less than Significant/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.

PlaceWorks

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR
As with land uses permitted under the General Plan, the proposed project would involve redevelopment and land disturbance. It is anticipated that grading/earthwork impacts would be similar and have comparable potential impacts to any unknown, cultural resources. The proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2006 GPU, would adhere to applicable GPU policies listed under Section 5.5.4, Relevant General Plan Policies.

The proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2006 GPU, would also comply with the City's "Archaeological Guidelines (K-5)." Thus, impacts would be less than significant and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR
The intensity of land development permitted under the proposed project would be reduced in comparison to land uses under the 2014 LUE Amendment for the project site. The potential for disturbing unknown archaeological resources, however, would be similar because the project would disturb the same amount of the site as contemplated in the 2014 LUE Amendment. The proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, would comply with the City's "Archaeological Guidelines (K-5)" and policies within the 2006 GPU. Impacts would be less than significant and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR.
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? No Impact.

Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR
California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that if human remains are discovered within the project site, disturbance of the site shall remain halted until the coroner has conducted an investigation into the circumstances, manner and cause of any death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative, in the manner provided in Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and if the coroner recognizes or has reason to believe the human remains to be those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission.

The proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2006 GPU, would comply with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. Therefore, no impacts would occur, and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR
The proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, would comply with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. Therefore, no May 2020 Page 91

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
impacts would occur. There are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR.

5.5.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the Program EIR and Applicable to the Proposed Project
There were no mitigation measures in the 2006 GPU EIR or the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR.

5.5.4 Relevant General Plan Policies
The 2006 General Plan includes the following goals and policies that are relevant to cultural resources.

Goal HR 2: Identification and protection of important archeological and paleontological resources within the City.

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: 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/archeologist, subject to the approval of the City Planning Department.

HR 2.3 - Cultural Organizations: Notify cultural organizations, including Native American organizations, of proposed developments that have the potential to adversely impact cultural resources.

Allow representatives of such groups to monitor grading and/or excavation of development sites.

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.

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

NR 18.1 - New Development: Require new development to protect and 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.

NR 18.3 - Potential for New Development to Impact Resources: Notify cultural organizations, including Native American organizations, of proposed developments that have the potential to adversely

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
impact cultural resources. Allow qualified representatives of such groups to monitor grading and/or excavation of development sites.

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.

May 2020 Page 93

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis

5.6 ENERGY

5.6.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Program EIRs

5.6.1.1 2006 GENERAL PLAN EIR
Impacts related to energy were not analyzed in the 2006 GPU EIR because they were not officially part of the CEQA Guidelines' Appendix G checklist until January 1, 2019, long after the certification date Quly 25, 2006) of the 2006 GPU EIR by the Newport Beach City Council. Therefore, the analysis of energy impacts is new in this Addendum.

However, the 2006 GPU EIR did include an analysis of the impacts on other public services or utilities, which included electricity and natural gas. Specifically, the analysis was in Section 4.14, "Utilities and Service Systems." As concluded in the 2006 GPU EIR, impacts to electricity and natural gas services were found to be less than significant. The electricity and natural gas analysis in Section 4.14 did not respond to the specific questions in the new energy section, which are provided below; however, the analysis (as applicable) is carried through to this new energy section for context, discussion, and comparison purposes.

5.6.1.2 2014 LUE AMENDMENT SEIR
Impacts related to energy were also not analyzed in the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR, which was certified July 22, 2014. However, an analysis of the impacts on other public services or utilities, which included electricity and natural gas, was included in Section 5.12, "Utilities and Service Systems." Impacts to electricity and natural gas services were found to be less than significant. This analysis did not respond to the specific questions in the new energy section, but the analysis (as applicable) is carried through to this new energy section for context, discussion, and comparison purposes.

5.6.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Would the proposed project:

Less Than
Significant
Substantial
ImpactslNo
Substantial
Change in
New
Changes or
Change in
Circum-
Information
New
Project
stances
Showing New
Information
Requiring
Requiring
or Increased
Requiring
Major EIR
Major EIR
Significant
Preparation of
Environmental Issues
Revisions
Revisions
Effects
an EIR
No Impact
a) Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of
X
energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan
for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
X

PlaceWorks

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
Comments:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less than Significant/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR
Construction
As with the development pursuant to the 2006 GPU, construction of the proposed project would consume energy in the short term through electricity use, construction vehicles and equipment fuel consumption, and bound energy in construction materials (e.g., asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes, lumber, glass).

Electricity
Construction would require the use of equipment for grading, hauling, and building activities. Electricity use during construction would vary during different phases of construction —most of the construction equipment during grading would be gas or diesel powered, and the later construction phases would require electricity - powered equipment for interior construction and architectural coatings. The use of electricity would be temporary and would fluctuate according to the phase of construction. Neither the development pursuant to the 2006 GPU nor the proposed project would result in wasteful or unnecessary electricity demands. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact related to electricity use during the construction phase.

Transportation
Transportation energy use depends on the type and number of trips, vehicle miles traveled, fuel efficiency of vehicles, and travel mode. Transportation energy use during construction would come from the transport and use of construction equipment (off -road), delivery and haul trucks (on -road), and construction employee passenger vehicles (on -road). The majority of construction equipment during grading would be diesel powered.

Construction contractors are required to minimize idling of construction equipment during construction, per California Code of Regulations Section 2485. This code requires that nonessential idling for all diesel -fueled commercial motor vehicles must not exceed five consecutive minutes at any location. Such practices would limit wasteful and unnecessary energy consumption. Furthermore, the use of fuel by on -road and off -road vehicles would be temporary and would fluctuate according to the phase of construction. Construction fuel use for the proposed project would cease upon completion of project construction. No unusual project characteristics would necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy efficient than for development pursuant to the 2006 GPU. Therefore, it is expected that construction fuel consumption associated with the proposed project would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than the energy required for development contemplated in the 2006 GPU.

May 2020 Page 95

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
Construction Materials
Construction building materials may include recycled materials and products originating from nearby sources in order to reduce the costs of transportation. With increasing transportation costs and fuel prices, contractors and owners have a strong financial incentive to avoid wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy during construction. The type of construction for the proposed project is conventional and would be similar to development pursuant to the 2006 GPU. Substantial reductions in energy inputs for construction materials can be achieved by building with recycled materials, which require much less energy to produce.

The Newport Beach Municipal Code, Chapter 15.11, adopts the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen; Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 11). CALGreen Section 5.408, Construction Waste Reduction, Disposal, and Recycling, requires that at least 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste from nonresidential construction operations be recycled and/or salvaged for reuse. The incremental increase in the use of energy bound in construction materials, such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes, and manufactured or processed materials (e.g., lumber and gas), would not substantially increase demand for energy compared to overall local and regional demand for construction materials. It is reasonable to assume that production of building materials such as concrete, steel, etc. would employ reasonable energy conservation practices in the interest of minimizing the cost of doing business.

Therefore, it is expected that energy consumption associated with construction materials for the proposed project would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than development pursuant to the 2006 GPU.

Operation
Building Energy Use
Operation of the proposed project would increase electricity use by 1.1 million kilowatt hours per year and natural gas use by 9.2 million kilo —British thermal units in comparison to permitted land uses for the site under the General Plan (see Tables 21 and 22 in Section 5.19, Utilities and Service Systems). However, total mid -electricity consumption2 in Southern California Edison Company's (SCE's) service area is forecast to increase by approximately 12,723 gigawatt hours between 2015 and 2027 (CEC 2016), and SCE forecasts that it will have sufficient electricity supplies to meet demands in its service area. The Southern California Gas Company's (SCGC's) residual supplies are forecast to remain constant at 3,775 million cubic feet (MMCF) per day from 2020 through 2035. Total natural gas consumption in SCGC's service area is forecast to decline slightly from 2,591 MMCF/day in 2019 to 2,313 MMCF/day in 2035 (CGEU 2018). SCGC forecasts that it will have sufficient natural gas supplies to meet gas demands.

Additionally, the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, adopted on May 9, 2018, went into effect for new construction starting January 1, 2020. The 2019 standards focus on four key areas: 1) smart residential photovoltaic systems; 2) updated thermal envelope standards (preventing heat transfer from the interior to 2 The high electricity demand case incorporates relatively high economic/demographic growth, relatively low electricity rates, and relatively low committed efficiency program, self -generation, and climate change impacts. The low electricity demand case includes lower economic/demographic growth, higher assumed rates, and higher committed efficiency program and self -generation impacts. The mid case uses input assumptions at levels between the high and low cases.

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
exterior and vice versa); 3) residential and nonresidential ventilation requirements; 4) and nonresidential lighting requirements (CEC 2018). Under the 2019 standards, nonresidential buildings will be 30 percent more energy efficient than under the 2016 standards (CEC 2018). It should be noted that the electricity and natural gas demands shown in Tables 21 and 22 do not account for this 30 percent reduction in energy use and are therefore more conservative estimates. Furthermore, the proposed project would be in compliance with 2019 Energy Efficiency Standards as well as the 2019 CALGreen standards. All appliances would comply with the 2012 Appliance Efficiency Regulations. The proposed project would be consistent with the requirements of these energy -related regulations and would not result in wasteful or unnecessary electricity demands.

Therefore, the proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2006 GPU, would not result in a significant impact related to energy for building use.

Transportation
Redesignation of the project site from AO (2006 General Plan) to MU-H2 is projected to generate fewer average daily vehicle trips-6,630 ADTs compared to 6,829 (see Appendix B, New ort Airport Village Trip - Making Assessment). As shown in Appendix B, Table 1, the estimated 6,630 ADT for the proposed project is the higher estimate of potential trips and includes development of all 115 possible density bonus units for a total of 444 residential units.

Furthermore, fuel consumption in passenger vehicles and trucks is regulated by federal and state laws regarding average corporate fuel economy of vehicles. Additionally, one of the primary goals of the California Air Resources Board's (CARB) 2017 Scoping Plan is to provide clean transportation options for California residents. In January 2012, CARB approved the Advanced Clean Cars program for model years 2017 through 2025. The program combines the control of smog, soot, and global warming gases with requirements for greater numbers of zero -emission vehicles into a single package of standards. The proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2006 GPU, would be consistent with the requirements of these energy -related regulations and would not result in wasteful or unnecessary fuel demands. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact related to transportation energy during the operational phase.

Conclusion
As substantiated above, the proposed project, as with development pursuant to the 2006 GPU, would not result in potentially significant environmental impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation. Thus, impacts would be less than significant and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR
Construction
Refer to the discussion of construction related energy impacts above. Given that the proposed project would result in the same amount of residential as anticipated in the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR and reduced non- residential development compared to that anticipated in the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR, it is expected that energy consumption associated with electricity, transportation, and construction materials for the proposed May 2020 Page 97

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
project would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment.

Operation
Building Energy Use
The land uses accommodated under the proposed project would be within and less than the development capacity considered for the project site as analyzed in the 2014 LUE Amendment. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a decrease in electricity and natural gas demand.

Additionally, the proposed project would comply with the requirements of the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, and the 2019 CALGreen standards. All appliances would comply with the 2012 Appliance Efficiency Regulations. The proposed project would be consistent with the requirements of these energy -related regulations and would not result in wasteful or unnecessary electricity demands.

Therefore, the proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, would not result in a significant impact related to energy for building use.

Transportation
Nonresidential building square footage would be reduced for proposed project relative to the LUE Amendment proposal for the project site. Both the proposed project and LUE Amendment uses would include up to 444 residential units. The proposed project, therefore, would generate fewer vehicle trips, resulting in reduced energy use. Furthermore, the proposed project would be in compliance with CARB's Scoping Plan and the Advanced Clean Cars program and would not result in wasteful or unnecessary fuel demands. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact related to transportation energy during the operational phase.

Conclusion
As substantiated above, the proposed project would reduce development intensity in comparison with land uses under the proposed 2014 LUE Amendment and would not result in potentially significant environmental impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation. Thus, impacts would be less than significant. b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Less than Significant/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR
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.

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
Executive Order S-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). Senate Bill 350 (de Leon) was signed into law September 2015 and established tiered increases to renewable energy resources of 40 percent by 2024, 45 percent by 2027, and 50 percent by 2030. Senate Bill 350 also set a new goal to double the energy -efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas through energy -efficiency and -conservation measures. On September 10, 2018, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 100, which raised 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.

The project site is currently being serviced by SCE, which obtains electricity from conventional and renewable sources. In 2018, 36 percent of SCE's electricity was generated from eligible renewables; 6 percent from nuclear power; 4 percent from large hydroelectric generators; and 37 percent from unspecified sources (SCE 2019).

SCE is scheduled to reach 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 2006 GPU, 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.

Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR
Refer to the discussion above. It is expected that energy consumption associated with electricity, transportation, and construction materials for the proposed project would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment. The power demand associated with the proposed project, similar to the projects pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, 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.

5.6.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the Program EIR and Applicable to the Proposed Project
There were no mitigation measures in the 2006 GPU EIR or the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR.

5.6.4 Relevant General Plan Policies
The 2006 General Plan does not include any energy goals or policies that are relevant to the proposed project.

May 2020 Page 99

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis

5.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

5.7.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Program EIRs

5.7.1.1 2006 GENERAL PLAN EIR
Seismic Hazards
Newport Beach is exposed to risk from multiple earthquake fault zones. High risk fault zones include the Newport -Inglewood fault zone, Whittier fault zone, San Joaquin Hills fault zone, and Elysian Park fault zone.

However, none of these faults are zoned under the guidelines of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. Thus, there are no Alquist-Priolo fault zones within the vicinity of the City, and no impact would occur.

The GPU would allow infill development throughout the City, consistent with existing land use patterns, intensities, and building types. The fault zones located within the City each have the potential to cause moderate to large earthquakes that would cause ground shaking. Policies contained in the GPU would ensure that adverse effects caused by seismic and geologic hazards, such as strong seismic ground shaking, are minimized.

Additionally, the California Building Code (CBC) Chapter 33 includes building design standards for the construction of new buildings and/or structures and specific engineering design and construction measures to avoid the potential for adverse impacts. Site -specific geotechnical studies and hazards assessments would be required on a project -by -project basis to determine site -specific soil properties and potential for ground failure.

Furthermore, compliance with standards in the CBC requires implementation of design measures to mitigate any potential ground failure hazards. Standards related to site -specific slope stability by the City's Building Code and those related to shoring and stabilization by the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health would ensure seismic -related ground failure would be less than significant.

A considerable part of the City's mapped liquefiable areas (West Newport, Balboa Peninsula, the harbor islands and vicinity) are already built upon, mostly with residential and commercial development. A portion of the City's active oil field is also built on liquefiable soils. Furthermore, many of the areas in central and eastern Newport Beach have been identified as vulnerable to seismically induced slope failure due to steep terrain.

However, proposed project is not within an area vulnerable to liquefaction or landslides (see Figure 4.5-2 of the 2016 GPU EIR).

Compliance with the standards in the current CBC would also 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. Additionally, if any development on steep terrain were to occur upon implementation of the GPU, site -specific slope stability design would be required to ensure adherence to the standards in Appendix Chapter A33, Excavation and Grading, of the City Building Code, as well as to California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) requirements for shoring and stabilization. After compliance with applicable regulations as well as policies in the GPU, impacts would be less than significant.

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
Soil Erosion and Compressible Soils
Much of the City is built out and topsoil erosion is not an issue because there is no exposed topsoil or any agricultural or biological production that would be affected. Soil erosion is a significant problem in Newport Beach because wave actions along the coast cause sediment and coastal bluff erosion. However, the project site is not near the coast.

All demolition and construction activities within the City would be required to comply with CBC Chapter 70 standards, which would ensure implementation of appropriate measures 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 that is greater than five acres 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 employment of best management practices (BMPs) to limit the extent of eroded materials from a construction site. All development that is between one and five acres would be required to comply with the provisions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II regulations concerning the discharge of eroded materials and pollutants from construction sites.

Compliance with policies in the GPU would further ensure that new development would not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Compliance with the NPDES permit would minimize effects from erosion and ensure consistency with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Water Quality Control Plan. In view of these policies, implementation of the GPU would have a less than significant impact associated with soil erosion or topsoil.

Furthermore, compressible soils underlie a significant part of the City. Under the added weight of fill embankments or buildings, these sediments will settle, causing distress to improvements. Also, some of the geologic units in the Newport Beach area, including both surficial soils and bedrock, have fine-grained components that are moderate to highly expansive. These materials may be present at the surface or exposed by grading activities. Man-made fills can also be expansive, depending on the soils used. An acceptable degree of soil stability is required by the Building Code and can be achieved for expansive or compressible material by the incorporation of soil treatment programs (replacement, grouting, compaction, drainage control, etc.) in the excavation and construction plans to address site -specific soil conditions. A site -specific evaluation of soil conditions is required by the City's Building Code and must contain recommendations for ground preparation and earthwork specific to the site that become an integral part of the construction design. As part of the construction permitting process, the City requires completed reports of soil conditions at specific construction sites to identify potentially unsuitable soil conditions, including liquefaction, subsidence, and collapse.

Adherence to the City's codes and policies in the GPU would ensure the maximum practicable protection for users of buildings and infrastructure and associated trenches, slopes, and foundations, and impacts are less than significant.

Paleontological Resources
Paleontological resources were analyzed in the 2006 GPU EIR, which concluded that impacts would be less than significant. Grading and excavation activities where there is a potential to affect paleontological resources May 2020 Page 101

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
would be monitored by a qualified paleontologist, and all scientifically valuable paleontological resources would be donated to responsible public or private institutions (per Goal HR 2 and NR 18 of the 2006 General Plan).

The Newport Beach City Council also established "Paleontological Guidelines (K-4)" requiring the City to prepare and maintain sources of information regarding paleontological sites. Thus, impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant.

5.7.1.2 2014 LUE AMENDMENT SEIR
The 2014 LUE Amendment EIR reflects the geotechnical and paleontological conditions and the regulatory requirements summarized above for the 2006 GPU.

The 2014 LUE Amendment EIR did not find specific constraints relative to the Saunders property, which includes the project site, and concluded that compliance with regulatory requirements would reduce impacts to less than significant.

5.7.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Would the proposed project:

Less Than
Significant
Substantial
Impacts/No
Substantial
Change in
New
Changes or
Change in
Circum-
Information
New
Project
stances
Showing New
Information
Requiring
Requiring
or Increased
Requiring
Major EIR
Major EIR
Significant
Preparation of
Environmental Issues
Revisions
Revisions
Effects
an EIR
No Impact
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map, issued by the State Geologist for
the area or based on other substantial
X
evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
X
iii) Seismic -related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
X
iv) Landslides?
X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss
of topsoil?
X

PlaceWorks

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
Less Than
Significant
Substantial
Impacts/No
Substantial
Change in
New
Changes or
Change in
Circum-
Information
New
Project
stances
Showing New
Information
Requiring
Requiring
or Increased
Requiring
Major EIR
Major EIR
Significant
Preparation of
Environmental Issues
Revisions
Revisions
Effects
an EIR
No Impact
c) 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
X
in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial direct or indirect
X
risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
X
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
X
geologic feature?
Comments:
a) Directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

No Impact.

Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR
As mentioned above, there are no Alquist-Priolo fault zones within the City of Newport Beach.

Therefore, the proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2006 GPU, would have no impact. There are no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR
Since there are no faults zoned under the guidelines of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act within or in the vicinity of the City of Newport Beach, the proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, would have no impact.

May 2020 Page 103

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less Than Significant/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR
Relative to land uses under the General Plan, the proposed project would reduce potential noncommercial use (by approximately 60,000 square feet) and introduce up to 444 housing units on the project site. Seismic ground shaking caused by the Newport -Inglewood fault zone, Whittier fault zone, San Joaquin Hills fault zone, and Elysian Park fault zone could occur at the project site. All new development would implement the requirements of the 2019 CBC. Thus, similar to the 2006 GPU, seismic ground shaking impacts would be less than significant, and there are no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR
Similar to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, the proposed project would implement the requirements of the 2019 CBC, and seismic ground shaking impacts would be less than significant. There are no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR. iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR
The proposed project is not within an area vulnerable to liquefaction or landslides. Thus, there are no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR
The proposed project is not in an area susceptible to liquefaction or landslide, and no impacts would arise. There are no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR. iv) Landslides?
No Impact.

Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR
See response to Section 5.7.2 a(iii), above. The project site is not within a landslide zone, and no impacts would arise. Thus, there are no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR
See response to Section 5.7.2 a(iii), above. The project site is not within a landslide zone and no impacts would arise.

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than Significant/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR
Since the City is mostly built out, topsoil erosion is not an issue, especially in developed areas like the project site. However, soil erosion is a concern in Newport Beach. The demolition and construction of the proposed project, similar to all development in Newport Beach, would comply with CBC Chapter 70 standards, which would ensure implementation of appropriate measures during grading activities to reduce soil erosion. In addition, the proposed project, similar to applicable development pursuant to the 2006 GPU, would implement the requirements of the General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit, the RWQCB Water Quality Control Plan, and the provision of the NPDES Phase II regulations. The 2006 GPU also includes policies that address soil erosion. Compliance with policies in the 2006 GPU and regulatory requirements would reduce impacts to less than significant. Thus, there are no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR
Topsoil erosion is not an issue in the City. However, soil erosion is a concern in Newport Beach. Similar to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, all demolition and construction activities associated with the proposed project would comply with applicable local, state, and federal laws. These include regulations in CBC Chapter 70, the SWRCB's General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit and related BMPs, the NPDES Phase II regulations, and the RWQCB Water Quality Control Plan. By complying with these regulations and the policies of the 2006 GPU, soil erosion impacts from new developments would be less than significant.
c) 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.

Less than Significant/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR
Compressible soils underlie a significant part of the City, and some geologic units in the Newport Beach area are moderately to highly expansive. However, the proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2006 GPU, would comply with the requirements for expansive or compressible material in the 2019 CBC.

Furthermore, the City Building Code requires a site -specific evaluation of soil conditions that must contain recommendations for ground preparation and earthwork specific to the site that become an integral part of the construction design. As part of the construction permitting process, the City also requires completed reports of soil conditions at specific construction sites to identify potentially unsuitable soil conditions, including liquefaction, subsidence, and collapse. Compliance with the CBC, the City's codes, and policies in the GPU would ensure impacts would be less than significant. Thus, there are no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR.

May 2020 Page 105

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR
The proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, involves infill development that could potentially add weight of fill and foundation support that could decrease soil stability and lead to lateral spreading, subsidence, or collapse problems in the future. However, adherence to the City's codes, CBC standards, and GPU policies would ensure maximum protection against unstable soils, and these impacts would be less than significant.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 19-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
Less than Significant/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR
See response to Section 5.7.2 c, above.

Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR
See response to Section 5.7.2 c, above.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact.

Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR
The City of Newport Beach is almost entirely built out with established utility services. Therefore, the proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2006 GPU, would not require the use of septic tanks and no impacts would arise. There are no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR
The City of Newport Beach has established utility services throughout the City and does not use septic tanks.

Thus, the proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, would have no impact on soils incapable of adequately supporting septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.

There are no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR. f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less than Significant/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR
There are no known unique paleontological resources of unique geologic features on -site. The proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2006 GPU, would adhere to the GPU policies under Goals

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
HR 2 and NR 18 in case future development requires ground -disturbing activities that may impact previously undisturbed grounds. New development would:
■ Protect and preserve paleontological resources from destruction and avoid and mitigate impacts to such resources.

Require a qualified paleontologist to monitor all grading and/or excavation where there is a potential to affect paleontological resources. If these resources are found, the applicant shall implement the recommendations of the paleontologist, subject to the approval of the City Planning Department. ■ Donate any scientifically valuable paleontological materials to a responsible public or private institution with a suitable repository, located within Newport Beach, or Orange County, whenever possible.

Furthermore, the proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2006 GPU, would comply with the City's "Paleontological Guidelines (K-4)." Thus, impacts would be less than significant, and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR
The proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, would comply with the City's "Paleontological Guidelines (K-4)" and policies in the 2006 GPU. Thus, impacts would be less than significant.

5.7.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the Program EIR and Applicable to the Proposed Project
There were no mitigation measures in the 2006 GPU EIR or the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR.

5.7.4 Relevant General Plan Policies
The 2006 General Plan includes the following goals and policies that are relevant to geology and soils.

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

NR 3.5 - 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.
■ NR 3.10 - 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 3.11 - Best Management Practices: Implement and improve upon Best Management Practices (BMPs) for residences, businesses, development projects, and City operations.

May 2020 Page 107

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
■ NR 3.12 - 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 3.13 - Reduction of Infiltration: Include equivalent BMPs that do not require infiltration, where infiltration of runoff would exacerbate geologic hazards. ■ NR 3.16 - 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 3.18 - 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 3.21 - 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, where feasible.

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

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.

Goal HR 2: Identification and protection of important archeological and paleontological resources within the City.

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: 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/archeologist, 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.

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
Goal NR 18 Protection and preservation of important paleontological and archaeological resources.

NR 18.1 - New Development: Require new development to protect and 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.

NR 18.3 - Potential for New Development to Impact Resources: 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.

May 2020 Page 109

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis

5.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

5.8.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Previous EIRs

5.8.1.1 2006 GENERAL PLAN EIR
The 2006 GPU EIR did not evaluate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions impacts because it was prior to Senate Bill 97 (SB 97), which went into effect January 1, 2010. Thus, GHG was not included in the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G checklist, and the City did not have adopted thresholds at the time of preparation.

5.8.1.2 2014 LUE AMENDMENT SEIR
GHG Emissions Impacts
The 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR determined that the LUE Amendment would achieve South Coast AQMD's efficiency metric and would not conflict with plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions.

However, the SEIR concluded that additional statewide measures would be necessary to reduce GHG emissions to meet the long-term GHG reduction goals under Executive Order S-03-05, which identified a goal to reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent of 1990 levels by 2050. Because no additional statewide measures were available, GHG emissions impacts were determined to be significant and unavoidable.

Consistency with Plans to Reduce GHG
The 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR determined that the LUE Amendment was consistent with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Scoping Plan and SCAG's Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, and impacts were less than significant.

5.8.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Would the proposed project:

Less Than
Significant
Substantial
Impacts/No
Substantial
Change in
New
Changes or
Change in
Circum-
Information
New
Project
stances
Showing New
Information
Requiring
Requiring
or Increased
Requiring
Major EIR
Major EIR
Significant
Preparation of
Environmental Issues
Revisions
Revisions
Effects
an EIR
No Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
X
significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
X
gases?

PlaceWorks

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
Comments:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.

Global climate change is not confined to a particular project area and is generally accepted as the consequence of global industrialization over the last 200 years. A typical project, even a very large one, does not generate enough greenhouse gas emissions on its own to influence global climate change significantly; hence, the issue of global climate change is by definition a cumulative environmental impact.

Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR
The proposed project would redesignate the project site from AO to MU-H2 and allow a maximum of 297,572 square feet of office, retail, service, and auto rental facilities, along with 329 residential dwelling units with an additional 115 density bonus units. However, while the overall geographic area designated as MU-H2 would be expanded within the Airport Area, the proposed project would not increase the overall development capacity of the allowable uses in the MU-H2 designated areas as analyzed in the 2006 GPU EIR. Thus, the proposed land uses would be within the development capacity analyzed in the 2006 GPU EIR. In addition, redesignation of the project site from AO to MU-H2 as proposed would slightly reduce daily vehicle trip generation-6,630 ADTs compared to 6,829 ADTs (see Appendix B). Because the proposed project would reduce non-residential uses and generate slightly fewer vehicle trips, it would reduce area and mobile sources. As quantified in Section

5.19, water demand, wastewater generation and solid waste generation, and energy demand for the project site would increase relative to the 2006 General Plan due to the introduction of up to 444 units on the project site.

Since the 329 units (444 units with maximum density bonus) allocation for the site, however, would be within the overall 2,200 maximum units for the Airport Area for the MU-142 designation, the number of units in the Airport Area would not be increased. Overall, therefore, GHG emissions would be reduced because of the reduction in non-residential development. Furthermore, as discussed in Section 5.3(b), it is anticipated that the construction activities under the proposed project and 2006 GPU EIR would be similar. Thus, construction - related emissions between the proposed project and 2006 GPU EIR would also be similar. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in a substantial increase in GHG emissions compared to what was previously considered in the 2006 GPU EIR. Overall, there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR
Similar to potential impacts identified in the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR, implementation of the proposed project would generate GHG emissions that exceed the South Coast AQMD GHG threshold. However, because the proposed project would reduce non-residential uses, it would also reduce emissions from area, mobile, and energy sources in addition to emissions associated with water demand, wastewater generation, solid waste generation, and construction activities when compared to the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR permitted site land uses. Therefore, buildout of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in a substantial increase in operation -phase emissions compared to what was previously analyzed in the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR.

Overall, there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR.

May 2020 Page 111

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.

Applicable plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions include the CARB Scoping Plan and the SCAG's 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). A consistency analysis with these plans is presented below.

Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR
CARB's Scoping Plan
In accordance with Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) and Senate Bill 32 (SB 32), CARB's Scoping Plan outlines the State's strategy to achieve 1990 level emissions by year 2020 and a 40 percent reduction from 1990 emissions by year 2030 (CARB 2017a). 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 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan include implementing Senate Bill 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 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 Senate Bill 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 Revised Project's GHG emissions.

The GHG emissions associated with the land uses accommodated under the 2006 GPU EIR would be reduced through compliance with statewide measures that have been adopted since AB 32 and SB 32 were adopted.

Similarly, the land uses that would be accommodated under the proposed project would also be reduced through compliance with statewide measures that have been adopted since AB 32 and SB 32 were adopted. Thus, 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 preparation of an EIR.

SCAG's Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy The SCAG 2016-2040 RTP/SCS was adopted April 7, 2016 (SCAG 2016). It identifies that land use strategies that focus on new housing and job growth in areas served by high quality transit and other opportunity areas would be consistent with a land use development pattern that supports and complements the proposed transportation network. The overarching strategy in the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS is to plan for the southern California region to grow in more compact communities in existing urban areas; provide neighborhoods with efficient and plentiful public transit and abundant and safe opportunities to walk, bike, and pursue other forms

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
of active transportation; and preserve more of the region's remaining natural lands (SCAG 2016). The 2016- 2040 RTP/SCS contains transportation projects to help more efficiently distribute population, housing, and employment growth, as well as a forecast development that is generally consistent with regional -level general plan data. The projected regional development pattern, when integrated with the proposed regional transportation network identified in the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS, would reduce per capita vehicular travel -related GHG emissions and achieve the GHG reduction per capita targets for the SCAG region. The 2016-2040 RTP/SCS does not require that local general plans, specific plans, or zoning be consistent with the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS, but provides incentives for consistency for governments and developers.

As stated, the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS utilizes regional -level growth data from local general plans. Because the proposed project would be within the development capacity considered under the 2006 GPU EIR (it would result in a net decrease in commercial square footage and no net chance in residential units since the proposed 444 residential units are within the anticipated 2,200 replacement units allocated to the Airport Area in the GPU), its implementation would not result in additional growth compared to the growth forecasted in the 2006 GPU EIR. Thus, implementation of the proposed project would not interfere with SCAG's ability to implement the regional strategies outlined in the RTP/SCS. Therefore, there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR
CARB's Scoping Plan
The Scoping Plan consistency discussion provided above comparing the proposed project and the 2006 GPU EIR is applicable. For the same reasons outlined in the aforementioned discussion, implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in new or increase the severity of impacts as it pertains to consistency with the Scoping Plan when compared to the land uses considered for the project site in the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR. Therefore, there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of a subsequent EIR.

SCAG's Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy The SCAG 2016-2040 RTP/SCS consistency discussion provided above comparing the proposed project and the 2006 GPU EIR is applicable. For the same reasons outlined in the aforementioned discussion, implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in new or increase the severity of impacts as it pertains to consistency with the SCAG 2016-2040 RTP/SCS when compared to the land uses considered for the project site in the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR. Therefore, there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR.

5.8.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project No mitigation measures related to GHG emissions were outlined in the 2006 GPU EIR.

May 2020 Page 113

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis

5.8.4 Relevant General Plan Policies
The 2006 General Plan includes several policies that would reduce GHG emissions associated with future development projects in the City, including:
■ 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 6.3 — Vehicle -Trip Reduction Measures: Support measures to reduce vehicle -trip generation such as at -work day care facilities, and on -site automated banking machines. ■ NR 6.4 — Transportation Demand Management Ordinance: Implement the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance, which promotes and encourages the use of alternative transportation modes, and provides those facilities such as bicycle lanes that support such alternate modes. ■ NR 6.5 — Local Transit Agency Collaboration: Collaborate with local transit agencies to: develop programs and educate employers about employee rideshare and transit; establish mass transit mechanisms for the reduction of work -related and non -work -related vehicle trips; promote mass transit ridership through careful planning of routes, headways, origins and destinations, and types of vehicles; and develop bus shelters, bicycle lanes, and other bicycle facilities. ■ NR 6.6 — Traffic Signal Synchronization: Encourage synchronization of traffic signals throughout the City and with adjoining cities and counties to allow free flow of traffic. ■ NR 6.7 — City Fleet Vehicles: Implement the program to replace existing vehicles in the City fleet with clean vehicles that are commercially available and will provide needed services. ■ NR 6.8 — Accessible Alternative Fuel Infrastructure: Support the development of alternative fuel infrastructure that is available and accessible to the public, and provide incentives for alternative fuel vehicles.
■ NR 6.9 — Education on Mobile Source Emission Reduction Techniques: Provide education to the public on mobile source emission reduction techniques such as using alternative modes of transportation. ■ 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.

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
■ NR 7.3 — Incentives for Air Pollution Reduction: Provide incentives to promote siting or to use clean air technologies and building materials (e.g., fuel cell technologies, renewable energy sources, UV coatings, hydrogen fuel).
■ 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 24.1 — Incentives for Energy Conservation: Develop incentives that encourage the use of energy conservation strategies by private and public developments. ■ 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.
■ NR 24.4 — Incentives for Provision of LEED Certified Buildings: Provide incentives for implementing Leadership in Environmental and Energy Design (LEED) certified building such as fee waivers, bonus densities, and/or awards recognition programs.

May 2020 Page 115

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis

5.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

5.9.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Program EIRs

5.9.1.1 2006 GENERAL PLAN EIR
Hazardous Materials
The 2006 GPU EIR found that implementation of the GPU could result in an increase in commercial development that could increase the overall routine transport, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials within the City.

Construction activities associated with implementation of the GPU could result in the release of hazardous materials to the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions. Compliance with existing regulations and GPU policies would ensure that construction workers and the general public would not be exposed to any unusual or excessive risks related to hazardous materials during construction activities.

Therefore, impacts associated with the exposure of construction workers and the public to hazardous materials during construction activities would be less than significant.

Operation of future land uses that could be developed under the GPU could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Compliance with Titles 8, 22, 26, and 49 of the California Code of Regulations, 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.

Implementation of the GPU could emit hazardous emissions or handle acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The California Pacific Charter School is located 0.25 mile southwest of the project site at 4101 Birch Street. Businesses that handle hazardous materials would be required to comply with Article 1 of the California Health and Safety Code and would prepare and implement a business emergency plan. Development would also implement the provisions of the City's Fire Code. With the implementation of these regulatory requirements impacts were found to be less than significant.

Furthermore, the 2006 GPU EIR listed sites which were included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5; thus, implementation of the GPU could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. The 2006 GPU EIR found that hazard impacts arising from existing hazardous materials sites would be less than significant after implementation of the GPU policies.

Airport -Related Hazards
Newport Beach borders the southeastern portion of John Wayne Airport QWA) and lies under the approach path for Long Beach Airport. The 2006 GPU EIR found that the potential growth and development that could occur through implementation of the GPU could place people at risk for an aviation hazard. The northern

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
inland portions of the City to the south just past Fashion Island are in the AELUP's height restriction zone for JWA. The AELUP referenced in the 2006 GPU EIR was dated December 19, 2002. Airport -related hazards were found to be less than significant after implementation of General Plan policies.

5.9.1.2 2014 LUE AMENDMENT SEIR
Hazardous Materials
The 2014 LUE Amendment consisted of changes to land use designations and increases and reductions in development capacities in certain subareas of the City. These changes in land use and allowable development did not involve any industrial uses that could result in the use of hazardous materials and/or the generation of hazardous materials that were not considered in the 2006 GPU EIR. Additionally, all new developments that would handle or use hazardous materials would be required to comply with regulations and standards established by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and by the State, County, and City. Specifically, any new business is required to submit a full hazardous materials disclosure report, including an inventory of hazardous materials used, generated, stored, handled, or emitted; emergency response plans; evacuation plan; and a training program for personnel. The Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD) conducts yearly inspections of all businesses to ensure business plans are in order. Additionally, all businesses that handle or have on -site transportation of hazardous materials would be required to comply with the provisions of the City's Fire Code and the California Health and Safety Code, Article 1, Chapter 6.95 for a business emergency plan. By complying with federal, State, and City regulations, the 2014 LUE would result in a less than significant impact on the public or environment through the use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials.

Furthermore, compliance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) Rules and Regulations (pertaining to asbestos); Code of Federal Regulations; California Code of Regulations, Title 8 Party 61, Subpart M Construction Safety Orders 1529 (pertaining to asbestos) and 1532.1 (pertaining to lead); and the US Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) guidelines for lead exposure would ensure that construction workers and the general public are not exposed to any risks related to hazardous materials during demolition and construction activities. Cal/OSHA also has regulations concerning the use of hazardous materials, including requirements for safety training, exposure warnings, availability of safe equipment, and prepared emergency action/prevention plans. Existing contaminated sites would be required to be documented and remediated under the supervision of the State Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) before construction activities could begin. Furthermore, any existing old underground storage tanks (USTs) that may be disturbed during construction activities would be managed under the guidance of Orange County Department of Environmental Health regulations, and if groundwater contamination is identified, remediation activities would be required by the Santa Ana RWQCB. By complying with federal, State, and City regulations, the 2014 LUE would result in a less than significant impact on the public or environment during the construction and demolition phases of proposed development.

The NBFD Emergency Services Office published the City of Newport Beach Emergency Management Plan in 2004 and updates it every three years. The Emergency Management Plan guides responses to extraordinary emergency situations associated with natural disasters, technological incidents, and nuclear defense operations.

The City Manager is also responsible for updating, revising, publishing, and distributing the plan, with assistance May 2020 Page 117

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
from NBFD. Updating the emergency management plan every three years to incorporate changes to the City, including potentially increased traffic conditions from the 2014 LUE Amendment, would reduce impacts associated with emergency response and evacuation in the City to less than significant.

Furthermore, buildout of the 2014 LUE Amendment within the Airport Area was found to place 841 household residents, guests in 150 hotel rooms, and residents in congregate care in subareas with known hazardous materials releases on and next to those areas. However, upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, the impact was found to be less than significant.

Airport -Related Hazards
Subsequent to the adoption of the 2006 GPU, the 2008 AELUP was adopted on April 17, 2008, by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). The 2008 AELUP included Safety Zones —discussed in the 2014 LUE Amendment EIR—that depict which land uses are acceptable and which are unacceptable in various portions of airport environs. Safety zones in the City range from Zone 1 to Zone 6; land use restrictions are greatest in Zone 1 and least restrictive in Zone 6.

Most of the Airport Area is in Safety Zone 6 for the long runway (Runway 19R/1L) at JWA. However, some areas are within Safety Zone 3 for the short runway (Runway 19L/1R) (see Figure 12). Land use restrictions and compatibility for each zone are described in Table 4, Land Use Compatibility: Jobn Wayne Airport Safety Zones.

Safety Zone 3
General Plan Policy LU 6.15.7, Overall Density and Housing Types, for mixed use districts (MU-H2) stipulates that residential units be developed at a minimum density of 30 units and a maximum of 50 units averaged over the total area of each residential village. The placement of high -density housing is not consistent with the land use compatibility standards for Safety Zone 3. For consistency with the AELUP safety zones, the residential units for the proposed project would not be within Safety Zone 3.

Safety Zone 6
Restricted land uses in Safety Zone 6 consist of outdoor stadiums and similar uses with very high intensities— children's schools, large day care centers, hospitals, and nursing homes. Compatible land uses in the proposed MU-H2 zone include office; research and development; and similar uses that support the primary office and business park functions, such as retail and financial services, while allowing for the reuse of properties for the development of cohesive residential villages that are integrated with business park uses. Land uses permitted in the proposed MU-H2 zone would not conflict with prohibited land uses in Safety Zone 6.

By abiding by the standards of the Safety Zones, impacts were found to be less than significant.

FAR Part 77 Height Restrictions Compared to Maximum Permitted Building Heights The 2014 LUE does not propose changes to height limits under City of Newport Beach Planned Community regulations and Municipal Code Section 20.30.060(E). All existing height limits would remain.

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
The maximum permitted building heights in the Airport Area for subareas with proposed development capacity increases and/or changes in land use designations under the LUE Amendment are compared in Table 5. FAA height limitations and subareas are shown in Figure 15, FAA Part 77 Height Kestrictions — 2014 LUE Amendment Airport Area Change Areas.
ladle 5 txisting
iviaximum rerminea tsuiiaing neignts
Location
Existing Planned Community or Zoning'
Subarea
Maximum Permitted Height
Saunders Properties2
AO — Airport Office and Supporting Uses
All
The height limit for nonresidential and mixed -use
structure with flat roofs is 300 feet. However,
buildings and structures shall not penetrate Federal
Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77, Obstruction —
Imaginary Surfaces, for John Wayne Airport unless
approved by the Airport Land Use Commission
(ALUC). Height limit ranges from 150 to 206 feet
amsl.

The Hangars
Planned Community 11 - Newport Place
All
Six stories above ground level
Professional & Business Office — Site 9
Lyon Companies
Planned Community 15 -Koll Center
All
12 stories; must also comply with FAA height
Office D Area
restrictions
LAP Companies
Planned Community 15 -Koll Center
All
12 stories; must also comply with FAA height
4699 Jamboree Road
Office F Area
restrictions
and
5190 Campus Drive
Height limits for zoning districts, including District APF listed here, are set forth in Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 20.30.060(E). 2 The proposed project is located in this subarea.

The entire Airport Area is within the Height Restriction Zone designated in the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport (see Figure 11). In most of the Airport Area the height limit is 206 feet above mean sea level (amsl).

By abiding by the City of Newport Beach Planned Community regulations and the Height Restriction Zone in the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport, impacts were found to be less than significant.

5.9.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Would the project:

Less Than
Significant
Impacts/No
Substantial
Substantial
New Information
Changes or New
Change in
Change in
Showing New or
Information
Project Requiring
Circum-stances
Increased
Requiring
Major EIR
Requiring Major
Significant
Preparation of
Issues
Revisions
EIR Revisions
Effects
an EIR
No Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
X
disposal of hazardous materials?
May 2020

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
Less Than
Significant
Impacts/No
Substantial
Substantial
New Information
Changes or New
Change in
Change in
Showing New or
Information
Project Requiring
Circum-stances
Increased
Requiring
Major EIR
Requiring Major
Significant
Preparation of
Issues
Revisions
EIR Revisions
Effects
an EIR
No Impact
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
X
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
X
within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code § 65962.5 and, as a result, would
X
it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e) For a project 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,
X
would the project result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing or working in the
project area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
X
evacuation plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death X
involving wildland fires?
Comments:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, storage, production, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less than Significant/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Figure 15 -Height Restrictions per Federal Air Regulations Part 77 - 2014 LUE Amendment Airport Area Changes Q.
.. r Qi
/ 4A - Saunders
001 /
48 - The Hangars
Irvine
Newport Beach
Source: Orange County Airport Land Use Commission Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport, 2008; PlaceWorks, 2014 �r
fl Project Boundary
City Boundary
`eet AMSL Elevation Contours in feet above mean sea level (AMSL) Lyon Companies Airport Surfaces
0 Horizontal Surface - Elevation 206 Feet AMSL
0 Departure Surface - Slope 50:1 (Horizontal:Vertical)
0 D - UAP Companies Transitional Surface - Slope 7:1 (Horizontal:Vertical) 0 Conical Surface - Slope 20:1 (Horizontal:Vertical)
00 Runway - Elevation 54 Feet AMSL
0 2,400
Scale (Feet)
PlaceWorks

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
Tbis page intentionally left blank.

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
Project Comparison to the 2006 General Plan EIR
The proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2006 GPU, would comply with regulations and standards established by the EPA, the State, Orange County, the City of Newport Beach, and NBFD.

Furthermore, the proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2006 GPU, would implement the rules and regulations of the South Coast AQMD, HUD, Cal/OSHA, DTSC, the Orange County Department of Environmental Health, and the Santa Ana RWQCB. Compliance with regulatory requirements 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. Thus, similar to the 2006 GPU, impacts would be less than significant and there are no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR
By complying with federal, State, and City regulations, the proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, would result in a less than significant impact on the public or environment through the use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials. Therefore, there are no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less than Significant/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR
The proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2006 GPU, would be subject to the City of Newport Beach Emergency Management Plan. The emergency management plan would reduce impacts associated with emergency response and evacuation in the City.

Furthermore, the proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2006 GPU, would be constructed and operated with strict adherence to all emergency response plan requirements set forth by OC Environmental Health Department and the NBFD. The proposed project would also abide by the requirements of Title 22, Division 4.5, of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) and the California Fire Code (CCR Title 24 Part 9).

Title 22 specifies the requirements for transporting shipments of hazardous waste, including manifesting, vehicle registration, and emergency accidental discharges during transportation. The California Fire Code sets requirements pertaining to fire safety and life safety, including for building materials and methods, fire protection systems in buildings, emergency access to buildings, and handling and storage of hazardous materials. Additionally, commercial business within the proposed project would prepare business plans that must include emergency response plans and procedures to be used in the event of a significant or threatened significant release of a hazardous material.

With the implementation of the emergency management plan and regulatory requirements, impacts of the proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2006 GPU, would be less than significant. Therefore, there are no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR.

May 2020 Page 123

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR
The proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, would be subject to the City of Newport Beach Emergency Management Plan and would implement emergency response requirements of the OC Environmental Health Department; the NBFD; Title 22, Division 4.5, of the CCR; and the California Fire Code. Impacts would be less than significant, and there are no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less than Significant/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR
The California Pacific Charter School is located 0.25 mile southwest of the project site. As stated in the 2006 GPU EIR, all businesses that handle or have on -site transportation of hazardous materials would be required to comply with the provisions of the City's Fire Code and the California Health and Safety Code, Article 1, Chapter 6.95, for a business emergency plan. Therefore, compliance with City and State regulations would minimize the risks associated with exposure of sensitive receptors to hazardous materials and would result in a less than significant impact. There are no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR
As mentioned above, the California Pacific Charter School is within one -quarter mile of the project site. All businesses that handle or have on -site transportation of hazardous materials would be required to comply with the provisions of the City' Fire Code and the California Health and Safety Code, Article 1, Chapter 6.95 for a business emergency plan. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and there are no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Less than Significant/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR
The proposed project includes development in areas listed as hazardous materials sites on environmental databases. An updated data search was conducted for this Addendum as shown in Table 6. The table shows

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
areas on the project site listed on the GeoTracker3 and RCRAInf04 databases. The table also shows sites within

0.25 mile of the project site that are listed as hazardous materials sites.

All hazardous materials sites listed in Table 6 are known to regulatory agencies. The permitted UST and small quantity generator (SQG) listings document the presence of hazardous materials on those sites, but do not document hazardous releases. There are three open cases for leaking USTs and one open cleanup program case within 0.25 mile of the proposed project. Of the three open leaking UST cases, site assessment has occurred on one; remediation has occurred on the second; and verification monitoring to assess adequacy of site remediation is ongoing on the third. Site assessment has occurred on the open cleanup program site.

Regulatory requirements for hazardous issues related to the project site would be the same for 2006 General Plan uses as the currently proposed project. Preparation of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA) would be required for each project considered for approval on the project site. Where recognized environmental conditions are identified by the Phase I ESA, a Phase II ESA would be required. Recognized environmental conditions are the presence or likely presence of hazardous materials or petroleum products under conditions indicating an existing or past release or a material threat of a release. A Phase II ESA consists of sampling and testing of soil, soil vapor, and/or groundwater from the site for hazardous materials and a health risk assessment for any hazardous materials identified. Where a Phase II ESA identified human health risks from hazardous materials over regulatory thresholds for the proposed land use, site cleanup for hazardous materials would be required before occupancy of any proposed development on -site. These requirements would reduce impacts to less than significant. The changes due to the proposed project do not change the conclusions in the 2006 GPU EIR and there are no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR
Table 6 shows areas on the project site and within a 0.25-mile radius that are listed on the GeoTracker and RCRAInfo databases. There have been no changes since the 2014 LUE Amendment EIR other than the closure of the leaking UST case at the Beacon Bay Auto Wash. Any development associated with the proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, would prepare a Phase I and/or Phase II ESA, as applicable, and impacts would be less than significant. 3 GeoTracker is the Water Boards' data management system for sites that impact, or have the potential to impact, water quality in California, with emphasis on groundwater. GeoTracker contains records for sites that require cleanup, such as Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Sites, Department of Defense Sites, and Cleanup Program Sites. GeoTracker also contains records for various unregulated projects as well as permitted facilities including: Irrigated Lands, Oil and Gas production, operating Permitted USTs, and Land Disposal Sites.
4 RCRAInfo is EPA's comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984.

May 2020 Page 125

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
Table 6 GeoTracker and RCRA Info Sites
Area
Database
Site Name and Address'
Type of Site
Map ID No.

Onsite
GeoTracker
Texaco
Leaking Underground Storage Tank
8 4678 Campus
(LUST).

Gasoline release affected groundwater
other than drinking water
Case closed.

Alamo Rent A Car
Permitted Underground Storage Tank
21 4361 Birch St
(UST)
National Car Rental Inc
Permitted UST
20 4242 Campus Dr
Avis Rent A Car
Permitted UST
19 4201 Birch St
RCRAInfo
Orange County Business Journal
SQG
5 4590 Macarthur Blvd Suite 100
Sutton Place Hotel
SQG
6 4500 Macarthur
Within 0.25 miles
GeoTracker
Hertz Rent A Car
Permitted UST
34 4000 Campus Dr
Edler Industries
Permitted UST
39 2101 Dove St
Edler Industries
LUST. Release of Waste Oil / Motor /
36 2101 Dove St
Hydraulic / Lubricating oil affected Soil.

Case closed.

Beacon Bay Auto Wash #08
LUST
40 4200 Birch
Gasoline release affected groundwater
other than drinking water
Case closed.

Permitted UST
41 Koll Center Newport #8
Permitted UST
22 4590 Macarthur Blvd
Sheraton Hotel Newport
Permitted UST
43 4545 Macarthur Blvd
Reef Funds USA#1
Permitted UST
66 1301 Dove St
Westerly Place
LUST
69 1500 Quail St
Diesel release affected soil
Case closed.

Permitted UST
65 American Air Center
LUST
2 19461 S Airport Way
Gasoline release affected drinking water
Santa Ana
aquifer
Case closed.

Orange County Fire Station 27
Permitted UST
19459 Airport S
Santa Ana
3

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
Table 6 GeoTracker and RCRA Info Sites
Area
Database
Site Name and Address'
Type of Site
Map ID No.

Santa Ana Tower F.A.A.

LUST
18990 Ike Jones Rd
Heating Oil / Fuel Oil release affected
Santa Ana
drinking water aquifer
Case open: site assessment.
4 Tallmantz Aviation
LUST solvents release affected drinking
19711 S Airport Way
water aquifer
Santa Ana
Case closed.
17 Martin Aviation
Permitted UST
19331 Campus Dr
Santa Ana
38 UCO Air
Permitted UST
19461 Campus Dr
Santa Ana
33 Pan Western Fuel Farm JWA
Permitted UST
19711 Campus Dr
Santa Ana
32 John Wayne Airport
Cleanup Program site
3151 Airway Avenue
Contaminants of concern: Aviation,
Costa Mesa
Diesel, Gasoline, MTBE / TBA / Other
Fuel Oxygenates, Trichloroethylene
(TCE), Waste Oil / Motor / Hydraulic /
Lubricating oil.

Case Open - Site Assessment 2009
31 Amr Combs Fuel Farm
LUST
19301 Campus Dr
Aviation fuel release affected
Santa Ana
Groundwater other than drinking water
Case open, remediation 2010
59 Martin Aviation (Fuel Farm)
LUST
19331 S Airport Way
Kerosene release affected
Santa Ana
drinking water aquifer
Case open: verification monitoring
58 RCRAInfo
Execair Maintenance Inc
SQG
19301 Campus Ste 255
Santa Ana
4 Sunbird Aviation
SQG
19531 Campus Drive Suite 20
Santa Ana
4 Alaska Airlines Inc
SQG
18601 Airport Wy
Santa Ana
18 Newport Car Clinic
SQG
4360 Campus Dr
37 Atlantic Aviation Center
SQG
19711 Campus Drive
Santa Ana
60 Sunny Fresh Cleaners
SQG
4200 Campus Dr
60 Hertz Corp
SQG
61 May 2020 Page 127

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
Table 6 GeoTracker and RCRA Info Sites
Area
Database
Site Name and Address'
Type of Site
Map ID No.
4000 Campus Dr
SSO Medical Waste Management
Transporter
3720 Campus Dr
61 Edler Industries
SQG
2101 Dove St
35 Physician Care Walk In Medical
SQG
4030 Birch St 107
63 Cosmos Sport Cars
SQG
4001 Birch St
63 Jetronic Industries Inc -
SQG
Transchem Div
3767 Birch
62 Emerald Cleaners
SQG
4341 MacArthur Blvd
44 Macarthur Square Cleaners
SQG
1701 H Corinthian Way
42 Bacons Airport Photo Inc
SQG
4251-B Martingale Wy
42 Sources: GeoTracker 2020, RCRAInfo 2020.

Notes:

UST — Underground Storage Tank
LUST — Leaking Underground Storage Tank
SQG - Small Quantity Generators
e) For a project 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, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? Less than Significant/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR
The central portion of the proposed project, approximately 10 acres, is within Safety Zone 3 for the short runway (Runway 19L/1R) at JWA (see Figure 12, Airport Area Safety Zones). The rest of the property is within Safety Zone 6 for the long runway (Runway 19R/1L).

Land use restrictions in Safety Zone 3 include limiting residential uses to very low densities. General Plan Policy LU 6.15.7 stipulates that for MU-H2, residential units should be developed at a minimum density of 30 units and a maximum of 50 units averaged over the total area of each residential village. The placement of high - density housing is not consistent with the land use compatibility standards for Safety Zone 3. For consistency with the AELUP safety zones, the residential units on the project site would be within Safety Zone 6.

Furthermore, the project site is at an elevation of about 45 feet amsl. The FAA height restriction is at 206 feet amsl over approximately the eastern half of the project site (see Figure 11) and declines to 150 feet amsl at the southeast corner of at the intersection of Campus Drive and Dove Street. Pursuant to the AELUP land use

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
compatibility guidelines, buildings with more than three aboveground habitable floors are generally unacceptable in Safety Zone 3. Assuming that a three-story building would be 35 feet high, and given the elevation on -site of about 45 feet amsl, the top of such a building would be about 80 feet amsl. The lowest building height restriction is about 150 feet amsl; thus, within Safety Zone 3, the land use restriction in the safety zone is more restrictive than the FAA height restriction.

With implementation of regulations specified in the AELUP, the proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2006 GPU, would have a less than significant impact. Thus, there are no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR
As with the proposed project, the LUE Amendment included introducing up to 444 residential units within Airport Safety Zone 6. Only nonresidential uses would be allowed within Safety Zone 3. As shown in Table 4, Land Use Compatibility Zones: Tobn Mayne Airport Safety Zones, residential uses are a compatible land use within Zone 6 pursuant to the AELUP. The proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, would abide by the safety regulations of the AELUP. Impacts would be less than significant, and there are no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR. f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less than Significant/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR
The proposed project involves changes in land use designations and would result in a decrease of approximately 60,000 square feet of nonresidential uses and would introduce up to 444 residential units to the project site.

Since the residential units would be within the 2,200 housing units already allocated for the MU-1­12 area, it would not increase residential units within the overall Airport Area. As quantified in Section 5.17, Transportation/Traffic, the proposed project would result in nominal changes to traffic congestion (as demonstrated by the minimal changes in intersection levels of service).

The City of Newport Beach Emergency Management Plan guides responses to extraordinary emergency situations associated with natural disasters, technological incidents, and nuclear defense operations. Updating the emergency management plan every three years to incorporate changes to the City, including potential changes in traffic conditions from the proposed project, would reduce impacts associated with emergency response and evacuation in the City to less than significant. Thus, there are no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR
As noted above, the City's Emergency Management Plan would reduce impacts associated with the proposed project and development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment to less than significant. The project proposes May 2020 Page 129

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
no net increase in development compared to the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR land uses. Thus, there are no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR. g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
No Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR
Refer to Section 5.20. There are no impacts and no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR
Refer to Section 5.20. There are no impacts and no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR.

5.9.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the Program EIR and Applicable to the Proposed Project
There were no mitigation measures in the 2006 GPU EIR or the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR..

5.9.4 Relevant General Plan Policies
The 2006 General Plan includes the following goals and policies that are relevant to hazards and hazardous materials.

Goal LU 6.15: A mixed -use community that provides jobs, residential, and supporting services in close proximity, with pedestrian -oriented amenities that facilitates walking and enhance livability. ■ LU 6.15.24- Airport Compatibility: Require that all development be constructed within the height limits and residential be located outside of areas exposed to the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour specified by the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP), unless the City Council makes appropriate findings for an override in accordance with applicable law.

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.
■ S 7.1 - Known Areas of Contamination: Require 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, and if contamination exceeds regulatory action levels, require the proponent to undertake remediation procedures prior to grading and development under the supervision of the County Environmental Health

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
Division, County Department of Toxic Substances Control, or Regional Water Quality Control Board (depending upon the nature of any identified contamination). ■ 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.
■ S 7.5 - Siting of Sensitive Uses: Develop and implement strict land use controls, performance standards, and structure design standards including development setbacks from sensitive uses such as schools, hospitals, day care facilities, elder care facilities, residential uses, and other sensitive uses that generate or use hazardous materials.
■ S 7.6 - Regulation of Companies Involved with Hazardous Materials: Require all users, producers, and transporters of hazardous materials and wastes to 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.

May 2020 Page 131

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis

5.10 HYDROLOGY

5.10.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Program EIRs

5.10.1.1 2006 GENERAL PLAN EIR
The 2006 EIR found that development under the approved 2006 General Plan could increase pollutants in stormwater and wastewater, although water quality standards and waste discharge requirements would not be violated.

The 2006 EIR also found that development under the 2006 General Plan could change the existing drainage pattern of the planning area and substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site or exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. However, implementation of the GPU policies and compliance with NPDES regulations, the City's municipal code, and California Department of Fish and Wildlife regulations would reduce the risk of flooding resulting from drainage alterations to less than significant.

All new development in the city in areas that are subject to flood hazards would be required to comply with the flood damage prevention provisions of the City's municipal code, and impacts were less than significant.

5.10.1.2 2014 LUE AMENDMENT SEIR
The 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR found that enforcement of water quality standards by the Santa Ana RWQCB's NPDES program, in addition to implementation of General Plan policies, would reduce water quality impacts to less than significant.

Domestic water for the city is supplied by both groundwater and imported surface water sources. The operation of the proposed land uses under the 2014 LUE Amendment would not involve direct additions or withdrawals of groundwater or have the potential to lower the local groundwater table level or interfere with groundwater recharge.

None of the proposed land use changes in accordance with the 2014 LUE Amendment had the potential to substantially alter existing drainage patterns, including the course of a stream or river. Site -specific drainage improvements and erosion control would be subject to regulatory requirements, General Plan policies, and review at the time of specific project approval.

Because Newport Beach is largely built out, 2014 SEIR found that the increased development intensity in accordance with the 2014 LUE Amendment would only nominally increase the amount of runoff from impervious surfaces and did not have the potential to result in flooding on- or off -site. Moreover, compliance with General Plan policies and regulatory requirements rendered impacts less than significant.

None of the subareas proposed for change under the 2014 LUE Amendment are within a 100-year flood zone or a dam inundation area. The coastal city of Newport Beach overall is at risk of inundation by seiches and tsunamis, but the proposed LUE Amendment introduced a nominal increase of land use intensity in areas

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
potentially subject to these hazards, and these land uses would be subject to the same General Plan policies and flood hazard provisions in the City's municipal code. These impacts would be less than significant.

5.10.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Would the proposed project:

Less Than
Significant
Substantial
ImpactslNo
Substantial
Change in
New
Changes or
Change in
Circum-
Information
New
Project
stances
Showing New
Information
Requiring
Requiring
or Increased
Requiring
Major EIR
Major EIR
Significant
Preparation of
Environmental Issues
Revisions
Revisions
Effects
an EIR
No Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or ground
X
water quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the project
X
may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
c) 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.

X
ii) Substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or
X
offsite.
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing
or planned stormwater drainage
X
systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff.
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows.

X
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones,
risk release of pollutants due to project
X
inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
X
groundwater management plan?
May 2020 Page 133

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
Comments:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Less than Significant/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Areas that disturb one or more acres of land surface are subject to the Construction General Permit, 99-08-DWQ adopted by the SWRCB. Preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required for compliance with the NPDES General Construction Stormwater Activity Permit. Compliance with the permit would involve filing a Notice of Intent with the SWRCB and preparing and submitting a SWPPP prior to construction activities. The Construction General Permit requirements would need to be satisfied prior to beginning construction on any project located on a site greater than one acre. Furthermore, certain projects require the preparation of a water quality management plan (WQMP). Construction would also need to abide by the requirements of Chapter 14.36 of the City's municipal code. Under the provisions of this chapter, any discharge that would result in or contribute to degradation of water quality via stormwater runoff is prohibited.

Contractors constructing 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.

Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR
Construction of the proposed project, similar to construction associated with development under the 2006 GPU, would be subject to the Construction General Permit, the requirements of Chapter 14.36 of the City's municipal code, the Orange County DAMP, and the General Plan policies. Furthermore, operation of the proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2006 GPU, would comply with provisions in the DAMP, the NPDES permit, and GPU policies. Thus, impacts would be less than significant and there are no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR
The proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, would implement state and local regulations and General Plan polices that would reduce impacts from the construction and operational phases to less than significant. There are no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR. b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? No Impact.

Proposed Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR
The proposed project could create additional impervious surfaces; however, similar to the 2006 GPU, new development would be focused in areas that are currently developed and would not substantially decrease groundwater recharge.

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
As shown in Section 5.19.2 (d), the City's groundwater supply would be sufficient to meet the demand of the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2006 GPU, would not decrease groundwater supplies. Thus, there are no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR.

Proposed Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR
The proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, would not involve direct additions or withdrawals of groundwater or have the potential to lower the local groundwater table level or interfere with groundwater recharge.
c) 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.

Less than Significant /No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.

Proposed Project Comparison to the 2006 General Plan EIR Refer to Section 5.10(a) above. Impacts would be less than significant and there are no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR.

Proposed Project Comparison to the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR Refer to Section 5.10(a) above. Impacts would be less than significant. ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site.

Less than Significant /No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.

Proposed Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR
The proposed project site is currently developed and it is unlikely that redevelopment would increase the rate or amount of surface runoff so that it would result in flooding on- or off -site or exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. The proposed project, similar to applicable development pursuant to the 2006 GPU, would prepare a WQMP including measures to reduce the volume of runoff generated. Furthermore, compliance with Chapter 15.50 of the City's municipal code and NPDES regulations would also minimize flood hazards resulting from drainage alterations. Therefore, implementation of the General Plan policies and compliance with NPDES regulations and the City's municipal code would reduce the risk of flooding resulting from drainage alterations to less than significant.

Thus, no changes or new information require preparation of an EIR.

May 2020 Page 135

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR
The proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, would implement state and local regulations and General Plan policies that would reduce impacts from the construction and operational phases to less than significant.
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.

Less than Significant /No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.

Proposed Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR
Refer to Section 5.10.c(i) above. Impacts would be less than significant and there are no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR.

Proposed Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR
Refer to Section 5.10.c(i) above. Impacts would be less than significant. iv) Impede or redirect flood flows.

No Impact
Proposed Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR
The proposed project is not within a 100-year flood, a dam inundation area (Newport Beach 2014), or a tsunami inundation zone, or at risk of flooding from seiches (Newport Beach 2014). Moreover, project land uses, similar to development pursuant to the 2006 General Plan update, would be subject to the same General Plan policies and flood hazard provisions in the City's municipal code. There would be no impacts and no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR.

Proposed Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR
The proposed project is not at a risk of flooding and, similar to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, would implement state and local regulations and General Plan policies, and no impacts would arise.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? No Impact
Proposed Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR
The proposed project is not within a 100-year flood zone designated by FEMA or within a dam inundation area (Newport Beach 2014). Furthermore, the proposed project would not introduce land use intensity within areas potentially subject to tsunami or seiches (Newport Beach 2014). Moreover, these land uses, similar to

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
development pursuant to the 2006 General Plan update, would be subject to the same General Plan policies and flood hazard provisions in the City's municipal code. Therefore, there would be no impacts and no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR.

Proposed Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR
The proposed project would not be exposed to flood hazard due to a 100-year flood, dam inundation, tsunami, or seiches. Additionally, the proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, would be subject to the same General Plan policies and flood hazard provisions in the City's municipal code, and no impacts would arise.
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less than Significant/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.

Proposed Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR
The City of Newport Beach is under the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana RWQCB. RWQCBs adopt a water quality control plan, or basin plan, that recognizes and reflects regional differences in existing water quality, the beneficial uses of the region's ground and surface waters, and local water quality conditions and problems. The Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan is the plan adopted by the Santa Ana RWQCB. The 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. The term "water quality standards," as used in the federal Clean Water Act, includes both the beneficial uses of specific water bodies and the levels of quality that must be met and maintained to protect those uses. The water quality control plan includes an implementation plan describing the actions by the RWQCB, and others that are necessary to achieve and maintain the water quality standards (Santa Ana RWQCB 2008).

As indicated under Section 5.10 (a), the proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2006 General Plan update, 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.

The Orange County Water District (OCWD) is a special district formed to manage the Orange County Groundwater Basin, which supplies water to residents in north and central Orange County. OCWD adopted its first groundwater management plan in 1989. The latest update was completed in 2015. This plan sets basin management goals and objectives and describes how the basin is managed. Basin management goals are (1) to protect and enhance groundwater quality, (2) to protect and increase the sustainable yield of the basin in a cost- effective manner, and (3) to increase the efficiency of OCWD operations. (OCWD 2015). As indicated under Sections 5.10 (a) and (b), the proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2006 General Plan update, would not degrade groundwater quality, substantially decrease groundwater supplies, or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. Thus, impacts would be less than significant, and there are no changes or new information on requiring preparation of an EIR.

May 2020 Page 137

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
Proposed Project in Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR The proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, would not conflict with the Santa Ana RWQCB's Water Quality Plan or the OCWD's Groundwater Management Plan. Thus, impacts would be less than significant.

5.10.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the Program EIR and Applicable to the Proposed Project
There were no mitigation measures in the 2006 GPU EIR or the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR.

5.10.4 Relevant General Plan Policies
The 2006 General Plan includes the following goals and policies that are relevant to hydrology and water quality.

Goal NR 3: Enhancement and protection of water quality of all natural water bodies, including coastal waters, creeks, bays, harbors, and wetlands.
■ NR 3.2 - Chemical Use Impacts: Support regulations limiting or banning the use insecticides, fertilizers, and other chemicals which are shown to be detrimental to water quality. ■ NR 3.4 - 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 3.5 - 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 3.6 - Natural Water Bodies: Require that development does not degrade natural water bodies. ■ NR 3.10 - 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 3.11 - Best Management Practices: Implement and improve upon Best Management Practices (BMPs) for residences, businesses, development projects, and City operations. ■ NR 3.12 - 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.

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
■ NR 3.13 - Reduction of Infiltration: Include equivalent BMPs that do not require infiltration, where infiltration of runoff would exacerbate geologic hazards. ■ NR 3.16 - 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 - Siting of New Development: Require that development be located on the most suitable portion of the site and designed to ensure the protection and preservation of natural and sensitive site resources that provide important water quality benefits. ■ NR 3.18 - 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 3.20 -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 3.21 - 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, where feasible.

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

Goal NR 5: Sanitary Sewer Outflows —Minimal adverse effects to water quality from sanitary sewer outflows
NR 5.2 - Waste Discharge Permits: Require waste discharge permits for all food preparation facilities that produce grease.

May 2020 Page 139

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis

5.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING

5.11.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Program EIRs

5.11.1.1 2006 GENERAL PLAN EIR
The 2006 GPU EIR concluded that the General Plan update 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. Therefore, the 2006 GPU would not physically divide an established community and impacts were less than significant.

The 2006 GPU EIR also analyzed land use incompatibility with regard to introducing new land uses and structures that could result in intensification of development in the city. Analyzing subareas of the City, the 2006 GPU EIR concluded that the majority of land use changes proposed would not result in incompatibilities or nuisances that rose to a level of significance. Impacts were less than significant.

The 2006 GPU was found to be consistent with all applicable land use plans for the City. The General Plan Update was modified after preparation of the 2006 GPU Draft EIR to eliminate any potential residential development within the 65 dBA CNEL contour, and therefore was found to be consistent with John Wayne Airport AELUP. The City of Newport Beach is subject to policies within the Orange County Central and Coastal Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP). Future development was required to comply with policies within the plan, and therefore no impact occurred.

5.11.1.2 2014 LUE AMENDMENT SEIR
The 2014 LUE Amendment primarily increased or decreased development capacity of certain areas of the city.

However, it did not propose any extensions of roadways or other development features through areas that could physically divide an established community. Impacts were found to be less than significant.

The 2014 LUE Amendment was found to be consistent with the CLUP, the 2012-2035 SCAG's Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), the AELUP for JWA, the 2006 GPU policies, the University of California, Irvine Long Range Development Plan, and all Planned Community Development Plans.

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis

5.11.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Would the project:

Less Than
Significant
Impacts/No
Substantial
Substantial
New Information
Changes or New
Change in
Change in
Showing New or
Information
Project
Circum-stances
Increased
Requiring
Requiring Major
Requiring Major
Significant
Preparation of
Issues
EIR Revisions
EIR Revisions
Effects
an EIR
No Impact
a) Physically divide an established community?
X
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
X
environmental effect?
Comments:
a) Physically divide an established community?
No Impact.

Project Comparison to the 2006 General Plan EIR
The City of Newport Beach is nearly built out, and the proposed project consists of infill and intensification of development on the project site. The proposed project would not include any roadway extensions or other development features through currently developed areas. Therefore, the proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2006 GPU, would not physically divide an established community and there would be no impacts. Thus, there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR.

Proposed Project Comparison to the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR Similar to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, the proposed project would not introduce a physical barrier that would separate land uses that are not already separated. Vehicular and pedestrian connections and access for residential uses in the surrounding area would remain. Except for driveways accessing the project site, the proposed project would not physically change the neighborhood's street pattern or otherwise impede movement through the neighborhood. Therefore, there would be no impact. b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Proposed Project Comparison to the 2006 General Plan EIR Adopted land use regulations applicable to the proposed project include the AELUP for JWA, and the 2006 GPU policies.

May 2020 Page 141

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
SCAG's RTP/SCS is a long-range visioning plan that balances future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental, and public health goals. The proposed project is not considered a project of "regionwide significance" pursuant to the criteria in SCAG's Intergovernmental Review Procedures Handbook (November 1995) and Section 15206 of the CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, this section does not address the proposed project's consistency with SCAG's regional planning guidelines and policies.

The proposed project is within the following JWA zones:
■ Clear Zone/Runway Protection Zones and Accident Potential Zones ■ Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 Obstruction Imaginary Surfaces and Notification Area ■ 65 dBA CNEL aircraft operation noise contours of JWA
Potential project impacts associated with airport -related hazard impacts (Safety Zones and FAR Part 77) are addressed in Section 5.9, Ha.Zards and Ha.ZardousMaterials. Airport -related noise impacts are addressed in Section

5.13, Noise. By complying with the AELUP safety zone land use compatibility requirements, FAR Part 77 regulations, Policy N 3.2 of the General Plan, and CCR Title 21, the proposed project would be consistent with JWA's land use plan. Thus, impacts to airport -related hazards and noise are less than significant.

A detailed analysis of the proposed project's consistency with the applicable goals and policies of the various elements of the City's 2006 GPU is provided in Table 7, General Plan Consistency Analysis. The analysis in the table concludes that the proposed project would be consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the City's 2006 GPU, and the proposed project would not result in significant land use impacts related to the General Plan's goals and policies.

Table 7 Newport Beach General Plan Consistency Analysis Applicable Goals and Policies I Project Consistency
Goal LU 1: A unique residential community with diverse coastal and upland neighborhoods, which values its colorful past, high quality of life, and community bonds, and balances the needs of residents, businesses, and visitors through the recognition that Newport Beach is primarily a residential community.

LU 1.1. Unique Environment. Maintain and enhance the
beneficial and unique character of the different neighborhoods, business districts, and harbor that together identify Newport Beach. Locate and design development to reflect Newport Beach's topography, architectural diversity, and view sheds.

LU 1.4. Growth Management. Implement a conservative growth strategy that enhances the quality of life of residents and balances the needs of all constituencies with the preservation of open space and natural resources.

Consistent.. The PCDP enhances the distinct, urban character of the Airport Area by providing a means for replacing parking lots and small- scale commercial structures with attractive and functional mixed -use development, in line with the General Plan goal of transitioning the Airport Area to a mixed -use community. The Property is not in or near any of the City's areas featuring the harbor, unique topography, or view sheds. The proposed project would introduce a mix of land uses, including residential units to the Property consistent with the uses and urbanized character of the JWA area and the MU-1­12 designation.

Consistent: The Newport Airport Village Development Plan allows the City to meet the demand for additional housing without developing open space or natural areas, and without densification of existing residential areas. The PCDP enhances the quality of life for the community by improving the aesthetics of the PC District in accordance with the Site Development Standards and Architectural Design Considerations contained in Sections III and IV, respectively.

PlaceWorks

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
Table 7 Newport Beach General Plan
Applicable Goals and Policies I Project Consistency
LU 1.5. Economic Health. Encourage a local economy that Consistent. By developing a mix of residential and nonresidential provides adequate commercial, office, industrial, and marine- uses, the proposed project represents an investment in the economic oriented opportunities that provide employment and revenue to health of the City, including by adding residents to a mixed -use area support high -quality community services. that will help support other nearby commercial uses.

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.

LU 2.1. Resident -Serving Land Uses. Accommodate uses that Consistent. Consistent with housing needs demonstrated in the City's support the needs of Newport Beach's residents including housing element, the proposed project includes housing opportunities housing, retail, services, employment, recreation, education, in the form of 444 dwelling units, including 115 units reserved for culture, entertainment, civic engagement, and social and spiritual lower -income households.
activity that are in balance with community natural resources and The project also would provide office, industrial, and commercial space open spaces.
in a mixed -use setting..

LU 2.2. Sustainable and Complete Community. Emphasize
the development of uses that enable Newport Beach to continue as a self-sustaining community and minimize the need for residents to travel outside of the community for retail, goods and services, and employment.

Consistent. The project introduces 444 new residential units to the project site in an existing major employment center (the Airport Area, Irvine Business Complex, and surrounding areas), providing new opportunities for those working in the area to live near work. The project also provides office, industrial, and commercial space that will help to meet the needs of residents and employees.

The introduction and subsequent integration of a mixed -use development into a well -established neighborhood of primarily commercial, retail, and office uses would provide a greater balance between housing, employment, and retail opportunities within the Airport Area. Potential employment opportunities for future residents of the proposed project that may arise in the surrounding area would be within walking/bicycle riding distance of the proposed homes. In addition, those who are currently employed in the area would be afforded a rental housing opportunity within walking/bicycle riding distance of their place of employment.

LU 2.3. Range of Residential Choices. Provide opportunities Consistent. The PCDP allows for multi -family residential uses, for the development of residential units that respond to including affordable units, offering a variety of product types that can community and regional needs in terms of density, size, location, respond to market needs and diversify the City's housing stock. and cost. Implement goals, policies, programs, and objectives identified within the City's Housing Element.

LU 2.4. Economic Development. Accommodate uses that
maintain or enhance Newport Beach's fiscal health and account for market demands, while maintaining and improving the quality of life for current and future residents.

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).

Consistent. See response to Policy LU 1.5. The project
applicant/developer would pay the City's development impact fees, which are designed to ensure that new development does not have a negative fiscal impact on the City, and the school district's development impact fee. Additionally, a public benefit fee will be paid to the City as specified in the development agreement. The Newport Airport Village Development Plan facilitates the retention of commercial uses in the Airport Area while allowing residential uses that would enhance the economic viability of retail, restaurants, and commercial services.

Consistent. Because the proposed project involves redevelopment of existing urbanized parcels instead of developing on a greenfield (undeveloped) site, it would benefit from the efficiency of connecting to existing utility infrastructure and the existing street network. For more information about the provision of public services and utilities, see May 2020 Page 143

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
Table 7 Newport Beach General Plan Consistency Analysis Applicable Goals and Policies I Proiect Consistencv
Goal LU 3: A development pattern that retains and complements the City's residential neighborhoods, commercial and industrial districts, open spaces, and natural environment.

LU 3.1. Neighborhoods, Districts, Corridors, and Open
Consistent. The proposed project is a mixed use (residential and Spaces. Maintain Newport Beach's pattern of residential nonresidential) project that would be built in a mixed -use context of neighborhoods, business and employment districts, commercial commercial, industrial, and offices. Furthermore, consistent with long - centers, corridors, and harbor and ocean districts.
range planning efforts implemented by the cities of Newport Beach and Irvine designed to change the areas around JWA to provide residential uses, the project provides 444 residential units. Therefore, the proposed project would maintain the overall land use pattern of the Airport Area.

LU 3.2. Growth and Change. Enhance existing neighborhoods, Consistent. The proposed project would represent a substantial districts, and corridors, allowing for re -use and infill with uses that investment in an existing district (the JWA Airport Area) that is are complementary in type, form, scale, and character. Changes important to the City's economic health. The proposed housing units in use and/or density/intensity should be considered only in those would contribute toward Newport Beach accommodating its share of areas that are economically underperforming, are necessary to projected regional population growth. The proposed housing also accommodate Newport Beach's share of projected regional could reduce commuting distances and traffic by providing residences population growth, improve the relationship and reduce
in an employment -rich area. For more information about the provision commuting distance between home and jobs, or enhance the of public services and infrastructure to the project site, see Sections values that distinguish Newport Beach as a special place to live

5.15, Public Services, 5.18 Transportation and Traffic, and 5.19, for its residents. The scale of growth and new development shall Utilities and Service Systems, of this Addendum.
be coordinated with the provision of adequate infrastructure and The Newport Airport Village Development Plan facilitates reuse of public services, including standards for acceptable traffic level of existing underutilized properties and infill development that is service.
complementary to recent development in the Airport Area. The Development Plan enhances the economic viability of local retail, restaurants, and commercial services by allowing for residential uses that increases the residential population in the area.

LU 3.3.Opportunities for Change. Provide opportunities for Consistent. The premise of the proposed project is exactly what is improved development and enhanced environments for residents articulated by this policy —the project would redevelop and reuse a site in the following districts and corridors, as specified in Polices featuring underperforming commercial uses and would develop

6.3.1 through 6.22.7:
residential uses in a cohesive design near existing jobs and services.

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

LU 3.8 Project Entitlement Review with Airport Land Use Consistent. Development within Newport Airport Village will be Commission. Refer the adoption or amendment of the General subject to ALUC review.

Plan, Zoning Code, specific plans, and Planned Community development plans for land within the John 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.

LU 4.1. Land Use Diagram. Accommodate land use Consistent. Figure LU1 in the land use element shows that the Airport development consistent with the Land Use Plan. Figure LU1 Area is primarily intended for commercial and mixed uses. Figures depicts the general distribution of uses throughout the City and LU11 and LU22 show that adjacent parcels are designated MU-1­12.

Figure LU2 through Figure LU15 depict specific use categories