11 & 12 - Attachment A - Exhibit C-J - Housing Element Update (2008-2014) - Addendums 1-8 — Newport Beach City Council, April 9, 2024 (part 8 of 33)

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
Table 7 Newport Beach General Plan Consistency Analysis Applicable Goals and Policies Project Consistent
for each parcel within defined Statistical Areas. Table LU1 (Land The proposed project would extent the MU-112 designation and upon Use Plan Categories) specifies the primary land use categories, approval would be consistent with this policy. types of uses, and, for certain categories, the densities/intensities to be permitted. See page 3-11 of the City's General Plan for the full policy.

Goal LU 5.1: Residential neighborhoods that are well -planned and designed contribute to the livability and quality of life of residents, respect the natural environmental setting, and sustain the qualities of place that differentiate Newport Beach as a special place in the Southern California region.

LU 5.1.1. Compatible but Diverse Development. Establish Consistent. property development regulations for residential projects to The PCDP includes development standards and residential design create compatible and high -quality development that contributes guidelines to create a compatible and high -quality development that to neighborhood character. contributes to the emerging urban neighborhood character of the Airport Area.

LU 5.1.2 Compatible Interfaces. Require that the height of Consistent. Newport Airport Village is not located near any lower - development in nonresidential and higher -density residential density residential areas, thus no compatibility conflicts would occur. areas transition as it nears lower -density residential areas to minimize conflicts at the interface between the different types of development.

Goal LU 5.3: Districts where residents and businesses are intermixed that are designed and planned to ensure compatibility among the uses, that they are highly livable for residents, and are of high quality design reflecting the traditions of Newport Beach.

LU 5.3.1 Mixed -Use Buildings. Require that mixed -use
Consistent. Development will be required to comply with the buildings be designed to convey a high level of architectural and development and design standards in the PCDP. Conceptual landscape quality and ensure compatibility among their uses in renderings of the proposed project are shown in Figure 10. The consideration of the following principles:
proposed buildings, landscaping, and other built elements have been • Design and incorporation of building materials and features designed to exhibit high quality design and complement the to avoid conflicts among uses, such as noise, vibration, surrounding urban context. As illustrated in the renderings, the project lighting, odors, and similar impacts
would integrate the nonresidential uses with the residential uses • Visual and physical integration of residential and
through a common design theme. For an additional evaluation of nonresidential uses
visual and aesthetic impacts generated by the proposed project, see • Architectural treatment of building elevations and modulation Section 5.1, Aesthetics, of this Addendum.
of their massing
• Separate and well-defined entries for residential units and nonresidential businesses
• Design of parking areas and facilities for architectural consistency and integration among uses
• Incorporation of extensive landscape appropriate to its location; urbanized streetscapes, for example, would require less landscape along the street frontage but integrate
landscape into interior courtvards and common open spaces.

LU 5.3.2 Mixed -Use Building Location and Size of Consistent. Within mixed -use buildings, ground floor nonresidential Nonresidential Uses. Require that 100 percent of the ground floor use is promoted through the Architectural Design Considerations street frontage of mixed -use buildings be occupied by retail and provided in Section IV of the PCDP. other compatible nonresidential uses, unless specified otherwise by policies LU 6.1.1 through LU 6.20.6 for a district or corridor.

LU 5.3.3 Parcels Integrating Residential and Nonresidential Uses. Require that properties developed with a mix of residential and nonresidential uses be designed to achieve high levels of architectural quality in accordance with policies LU 5.1.9 and LU

5.2.1 and planned to ensure compatibility among the uses and provide adequate circulation and parking. Residential uses should Consistent. As shown in Figure 10, the nonresidential component would be compatible with the residential uses. Given the AELUP safety zones for the project site and land use compatibility criteria, the residential use (limited to safety zone 6) is necessarily separated from the nonresidential uses in safety zone 3. Nevertheless, the commercial uses are allowed in the mixed -use potion of the project site identified May 2020

Page 145 ends

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
IaDle i Newport tseacn ueneral rlan toonsistenCy
Anal sls
Applicable Goals and Policies
Project Consistency
be seamlessly integrated with nonresidential uses through as Planning Area 1 in the PCDP. Future development would require architecture, pedestrian walkways, and landscape. They should not uses to be integrated through architecture, pedestrian walkways, and be completely isolated by walls or other design elements. landscaping.

LU 5.3.4. Districts Integrating Residential and Nonresidential Consistent. As described above under Policy LU 3.1, the Airport Area Uses. Require that sufficient acreage be developed for an is increasingly home to residential uses that are intermingled with individual use located in a district containing a mix of residential nonresidential uses. The project would develop sufficient acreage for and nonresidential uses to prevent fragmentation and ensure mainly residential uses to prevent fragmentation and ensure the each use's viability, quality, and compatibility with adjoining uses. viability of the residential uses. In addition, the project proposes some commercial uses that provide a connection to surrounding commercial areas. The addition of residential uses in the area will help ensure the viability of the remaining, existing retail uses in the vicinity.

LU 5.3.6 Parking Adequacy and Location. Require that
Consistent. Required number of parking spaces and parking location adequate parking be provided and is conveniently located to guidelines for development within the PC District are addressed in the serve tenants and customers. Set open parking lots back from Site Development Standards and Architectural Design Considerations public streets and pedestrian ways and screen with buildings, provided in Sections III and IV, respectively, of PCDP. architectural walls, or dense landscaping.

Goal LU 5.4: Office and business districts that exhibit a high quality image, are attractive, and provide quality working environments for employees.

LU 5.4.1 Site Planning. Require that new and renovated office Consistent. The development of the Planned Community will result in and retail development projects be planned to exhibit a high- high quality, cohesive development based upon the PCDP regulations. quality and cohesive "campus environment," characterized by the Pedestrian and bicycle connections are required between the following:
residential areas and non-residential areas, primary access to the • Location of buildings around common plazas, courtyards, residential buildings will face a public right-of-way or central courtyard, walkways, and open space
and signs will be reviewed to ensure compatibility with the • Incorporation of extensive on -site landscaping that
development.
emphasizes special features such as entryways
• Use of landscape and open spaces to break the visual
continuity of surface parking lots
• Common signage program for tenant identification and
wayfinding
• Common streetscapes and lighting to promote pedestrian activity
• Readily observable site access, entrance drives and building entries and minimized conflict between service vehicles, private automobiles, and pedestrians
LU 5.4.2 Development Form and Architecture. Require that Consistent. High quality, unified development, including mixed use, new development of business park, office, and supporting residential, office and retail uses, is addressed through the Site buildings be designed to convey a unified and high -quality Development Standards and Architectural Design Considerations character in consideration of the following principles:
provided in Sections III and IV, respectively, of the PCDP. • Modulation of building mass, heights, and elevations and articulation of building
• Avoidance of blank building walls that internalize uses with no outdoor orientation to public spaces
• Minimize the mass and bulk of building facades abutting streets
• Consistent architectural design vocabulary, articulation, materials, and color palette
• Clear identification of entries through design elements • Integration of signage with the building's architectural style and character

Page 146 ends

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
Table 7 Newport Beach General Plan Consistency Analysis Applicable Goals and Policies Project Consistency
• Architectural treatment of parking structures consistent with their Primary commercial or office buildinq
Goal LU 5.6: Neighborhoods, districts, and corridors containing a diversity of uses and buildings that are mutually compatible and enhance the quality of the City's environment.

LU 5.6.1. Compatible Development. Require that buildings and Consistent. The vicinity surrounding the project site contains a variety properties be designed to ensure compatibility within and as of nonresidential land uses at a variety of building intensities and interfaces between neighborhoods, districts, and corridors. scales. Although the height of the proposed project would be greater than some of the surrounding commercial and office buildings, the Airport Area is a district in transition with new projects —like the proposed project —introducing more street -facing urban building typologies. The design and scale of the proposed project will contribute to the evolving urban neighborhood that is gradually developing in the Airport Area. It includes features such as landscaped setbacks, street trees, outdoor retail -adjacent dining and lounging space, articulated facades with balconies and windows, and varying colors and material. These outward -facing features will add visual interest and integrate the project site with neighborhood activity on surroundina streets and buildinas.

LU 5.6.2. Form and Environment. Require that new and
Consistent. The project's design is typical for multifamily and mixed - renovated buildings be designed to avoid the use of styles, use projects in the city and nearby jurisdictions and would not colors, and materials that unusually impact the design character unusually impact the design character or quality of the area. The and quality of their location such as abrupt changes in scale, project's proposed material and color palette would not raise local building form, architectural style, and the use of surface materials temperatures or result in glare. See response to Policy LU 5.6.1. See that raise local temperatures, result in glare and excessive additional analysis in Section 5.1, which analyzes the proposed illumination of adjoining properties and open spaces, or project's potential impacts related to aesthetics, light, and glare. adversely modify wind patterns.

LU 5.6.3. Ambient Lighting. Require that outdoor lighting be located and designed to prevent spillover onto adjoining properties or significantly increase the overall ambient illumination of their location.

Consistent. All project -related exterior lighting would be designed, arranged, directed, or shielded in such a manner as to contain direct illumination on -site, in accordance with the provisions of Subsection

20.30.070.A (General Outdoor Lighting Standards) of the City's zoning code, thereby preventing excess illumination and light spillover onto adjoining land uses and/or roadways. For additional analysis, see Impact 5.1-3 in Section 5.1.

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

LU 6.2.1. Residential Supply. Accommodate a diversity of Consistent. See response to Policy LU 2.1. residential units that meets the needs of Newport Beach's population and fair share of regional needs in accordance with the Land Use Plan's designations, applicable density standards, design and development policies, and the adopted Housing Element.

LU 6.2.3. Residential Affordability. Encourage the Consistent. As described under Policy LU 2.1, up to 35 percent of the development of residential units that are affordable for those project would be affordable units (115 units reserved for lower -income employed in the City. households). This would be consistent with the City's housing element.

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.

Consistent. High quality, integrated development, including mixed use, residential, office, and retail uses, is addressed through the Land Use and Development Regulations (Section II), Architectural Design Considerations (Section III), and Residential Design Guidelines (Section IV) sections of the PCDP provide a comprehensive set of standards and auidelines to imDlement this
May 2020 Page 147

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
laale i Newport tseacn ueneral rlan toonsistenCy
Anal sis
Applicable Goals and Policies
Project Consistency
LU 6.15.2. Underperforming Land Uses. Promote the
Consistent.. The PCDP facilitates the reuse of underperforming redevelopment of sites with underperforming retail uses located properties by allowing the addition of mixed -use and residential use. on parcels at the interior of large blocks for other uses, with retail Land Use and Development Regulations (Section II), Architectural clustered along major arterials (e.g., Bristol, Campus, MacArthur, Design Considerations (Section III), and Residential Design Guidelines and Jamboree), except where intended to serve and be
(Section IV) provide a comprehensive set of standards and guidelines integrated with new residential development.
to promote high -quality new development.

LU 6.15.3. Airport Compatibility. Require that all development Consistent. The Project would be constructed in conformance with be constructed in conformance with the height restrictions set the FAA's height restrictions, and all residential development would be forth by Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Federal Aviation located outside the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour and outside the Regulations (FAR) Part 77, and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, boundaries of Safety Zone 3 where high density residential and that residential development be located outside of the 65 development is not allowed. The Applicant has received a dBA CNEL noise contour specified by the 1985 JWA Master determination of no hazard to aviation with development up to 85 feet Plan.
in height from the FAA.

LU 6.15.4 Priority Uses
Consistent. Office and commercial uses would be compatible with Accommodate office, research and development, and similar residential uses in accordance with the Land Use and Development uses that support the primary office and business park functions Regulations (Section II) and Architectural Design Considerations such as retail and financial services, as prescribed for the "CO- (Section III) of the PCDP. Residential uses would support local retail, G" designation, while allowing for the re -use of properties for the restaurants, and services. The PCDP design and connectivity development of cohesive residential villages that are integrated requirements would integrate residential and non-residential uses and with business park uses.
ensure adequate circulation and parking within the PC District.

LU 6.15.5 Residential and Supporting Uses
Consistent. The GPA and PCDP provides development capacity and Accommodate the development of a maximum of 2,200 multi- standards for mixed -use development. The proposed development family residential units, including work force housing, and mixed- limit is 329 dwelling units (plus up 115 density bonus when affordable use buildings that integrate residential with ground level office or housing is provided) and 297,572 square feet for commercial retail uses, along with supporting retail, grocery stores, and development. The Property is not located within the Conceptual parklands. Residential units may be developed only as the Development Plan Area depicted on Figure LU22, and therefore, any replacement of underlying permitted nonresidential uses. When a residential units allocated to the site are not any portion of the 550 infill development phase includes a mix of residential and
units allocated to the Conceptual Development Plan Area As nonresidential uses or replaces existing industrial uses, the described in Chapter 3 of the Addendum, the Project's residential uses number of peak hour trips generated by cumulative development would replace some of the permitted underlying commercial of the site shall not exceed the number of trips that would result development capacity. Specifically, the 329 units would replace 60,926 from development of the underlying permitted nonresidential square feet of permitted retail commercial uses using the City - uses. However, a maximum of 550 units may be developed as approved Airport Area Residential and Mixed -Use Adjustment factors infill on surface parking lots or areas not used as occupiable prepared by the City Traffic Engineer to ensure that the number of buildings on properties within the Conceptual Development Plan peak hour trips generated by the redevelopment of the Property would Area depicted on Figure LU22 provided that the parking is not exceed the number of trips attributable to the existing permitted replaced on site.
non-residential uses. Any density bonus units, up to 115 units in this case are above and beyond what the General Plan allocates in accordance with Chapter 20.32 (Density Bonus) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and State law.

Two (2) projects have been approved within the Airport Area to date.

Uptown Newport was approved for 632 replacement units, 290 additive units, and with a density bonus of 322 units for a total of 1,244 residential units. Newport Crossings was approved for 259 replacement units and 91 density bonus units. Therefore, the total remaining number of replacement units is 759 units and the 329 units requested by the applicant would not exceed the remaining units to be allocated pursuant to this policy. If approved, 430 replacement dwelling units would be available for other MU-H2 (Mixed -Use Horizontal 2) designated properties in the Airport Area.

Page 148 ends

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Table 7 Newport Beach General Plan
Goals and Policies
LU 6.15.6. Size of Residential Villages. Allow development of mixed -use residential villages, each containing a minimum of 10 acres and centered on a neighborhood park and other amenities (as conceptually illustrated in Figure LU23). The first phase of residential development in each village shall encompass at least 5 gross acres of land, exclusive of existing rights -of -way. This acreage may include multiple parcels provided that they are contiguous or face one another across an existing street. At the discretion of the City, this acreage may also include part of a contiguous property in a different land use category, if the City finds that a sufficient portion of the contiguous property is used to provide functionally proximate parking, open space, or other amenity. The "Conceptual Development Plan" area shown on Figure LU22 shall be exempt from the 5-acre minimum, but a conceptual development plan described in Policy LU 6.15.11 shall be required.

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 a 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

5. Environmental Analysis
Consistent. The Property is 16.46 acres in total area and does not include a centered public park. The Property is not identified on Figure LU22 or Figure LU23. The first phase, Planning Area 1, allows residential and mixed -use development is 7.14 acres and would be developed in one phase. The remaining area would be developed in subsequent phases after existing commercial leases expire. The Applicant requests the City Council waive the park dedication requirement pursuant to Policy LU 6.15.13 and instead, pay the park in -lieu fee . If the City Council waives the dedication requirement, the proposed project is consistent with this policy.

Consistent. The residential component of the Project is 329 units (without density bonus units) within the 16.46-acre residential village and the density is about 20 du/ac and below the minimum 30 du/ac standard. If the density bonus units were included, the result would be about 27 du/ac. To comply, additional units would need to be included and required to be replacement units pursuant to Policy LU 6.15.5, meaning the additional units would come at the expense of underlying permitted non-residential uses. The 16.46-acre Property is partially constrained by the JWA 65 dBA CNEL noise contour and all residential use is inconsistent in this high noise area. The Property is also partially constrained by JWA Safety Zones 3 that limits residential uses to very low densities if not deemed unacceptable because of noise. Planning Area 1 is 7.14 acres and the area outside both the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour and Safety Zone 3 where residential use would be allowed consistent with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for JWA is further limited to 6.02 acres. To comply with the Policy LU

6.15.7, 493 units would need to be constructed on 6.02 acres resulting in a density of 81.9 du/ac units per acre without including potential density bonus units which would exceed the maximum allowable density. However, California Government Code Section 65915(e)(1) prohibits a City from applying a development standard that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development for projects that propose a density bonus. Waiver of height standards, number of stories and setbacks to accommodate project amenities such as an interior courtyard, community plaza and high ceilings have been interpreted as physical constraints that warrant waiver under Section 65915(e)(1). Wollmer v. City of Berkeley, (2011)193 Cal. App. 4th 1329. With the waiver of LU 6.15.7 pursuant to Government Code §65915(e)(1), the 30-50 du/acre over the total area of each residential village would not be required. However, the Project would create a 46 du/acre development not including the density bonus units in Planning Area 1 which is within the density range of the Policy LU 6.15.7.

Consistent. The PCDP is divided into two (2) planning areas.

Planning Area 1 allows residential and mixed -use development and is

7.14 acres. Three hundred twenty-nine dwelling units constructed over

7.14 acres results in a density of 46 du/acre which is consistent with LU 6.15.8. Planning Area 2 allows commercial development only and is 9.32 acres.

May 2020 Page 149

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
lapse i Newport tseacn ueneral rlan toonsistenCy
Anal sis
Applicable Goals and Policies
Project Consistency
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
Consistent. The residential component of the PCDP in Planning Area Density
1 would be developed in one phase and checked for consistency with Subsequent phases of residential development shall abut the first this requirement. Planning Area 2 only includes non-residential phase or shall face the first phase across a street. The minimum development. Therefore, there would be no subsequent phases of density of residential development (including residential mixed- residential development.
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.

LU 6.15.12. Development Agreements. A Development
Consistent. The proposed project includes approval of a development Agreement shall be required for all projects that include infill agreement which will be implemented through the PCDP.
residential units. The Development Agreement shall define the improvements and public benefits to be provided by the
developer in exchange for the City's commitment for the number, density, and location of the housing units.

LU 6.15.13 Neighborhood Parks Standards. To provide a
Consistent. No park is proposed, and the Applicant asks the City focus and identity for the entire neighborhood and to serve the Council to waive the requirement. The Applicant believes the location daily recreational and commercial needs of the community within proximate to John Wayne Airport is inappropriate to serve the needs of easy walking distance of homes, require dedication and
the area and they have agreed to pay an in -lieu fee consistent with this improvement of at least 8 percent of the gross land area policy. A significant portion of the Property is impacted by high noise (exclusive of existing rights -of -way) of the first phase levels and within JWA Safety Zone 3 and locating a park in such areas development in each neighborhood, or acre, whichever is may not be appropriate or desirable. Additionally, predominant uses in greater, as a neighborhood park. This requirement may be Planning Area 2 are vehicle storage lots for car rental agencies waived by the City where it can be demonstrated that the operating with long-term leases. Air quality in the area and the limited development parcels are too small to feasibly accommodate the residential density planned for the Airport Area are also factors park or inappropriately located to serve the needs of local suggesting a new public park within the Property may not be desirable. residents, and when an in -lieu fee is paid to the City for the If the park dedication was required, the best potential location would acquisition and improvement of other properties as parklands to be within Planning Area 1 outside the 65 dBA noise contour and JWA serve the Airport Area.

Safety Zone 3 further reducing the available land for residential or mixed -use development. In this scenario, a 1-acre dedication of 6.02 In every case, the neighborhood park shall be at least 8 percent acres of relatively unconstrained land is a significant percentage of the of the total Residential Village Area or one acre in area, area potentially available for residential use. If the dedication were whichever is greater, and shall have a minimum dimension of required in conjunction with the first phase density bonus 150 feet. Park acreage shall be exclusive of existing or new development, the cost of the dedication could render the density bonus rights -of -way, development sites, or setback areas. A financially infeasible. These or other potential factors could provide neighborhood park shall satisfy some or all of the requirements sufficient grounds for the City Council to waive the dedication of the Park Dedication Ordinance, as prescribed by the
requirement. If the City Council chooses not to waive the parkland Recreation Element of the General Plan.
dedication requirement, development of the future park would be required in accordance with this policy. With either outcome the City Council chooses, neighborhood park dedication or waiver, the Project is consistent with LU 6.15.13.

LU 6.15.14 Location. Require that each neighborhood park is Consistent. No public park is proposed, and the Applicant askes the clearly public in character and is accessible to all residents of the City Council to waive the neighborhood park dedication requirement neighborhood. Each park shall be surrounded by public streets pursuant to Policy 6.15.13 and, instead, pay an in -lieu fee. If the City on at least two sides (preferably with on -street parking to serve Council acts to waive the park dedication, this policy would not apply. the park), and shall be linked to residential uses in its respective If the City Council chooses not to waive the parkland dedication, neighborhood by streets or pedestrian ways.
development of the future park would be posted as a public park in accordance with this policy.

Page 150 ends

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
hale i Newport tseacn ueneral rlan toonsistenCy
Anal sls
Applicable Goals and Policies
Project Consistent
LU 6.15.15. Aircraft Notification. Require that all neighborhood Consistent. The proposed project would comply with notification parks be posted with a notification to users regarding proximity to requirements related to aircraft overflight and noise if parks are John Wayne Airport and aircraft overflight and noise.
developed.

LU 6.15.16 On -Site Recreation and Open Space Standards.

Consistent. Section II of the PCDP requires 75 square feet of Require developers of multi -family residential developments on common open space per dwelling unit in a future residential or mixed - parcels 8 acres or larger to provide on -site recreational use project and it exceeds the minimum standard. Separate from the amenities. For these developments, 44 square feet of on -site City's park dedication and/or in -lieu requirement under the General recreational amenities shall be provided for each dwelling unit in Plan, Chapter 19.52 (Park Dedications and Fees) of the NBMC also addition to the requirements under the City's Park Dedication require park dedication and/or in -lieu fees in accordance with Ordinance and in accordance with the Parks and Recreation California Government Code Section 66477 et seq. also referred to as Element of the General Plan. On -site recreational amenities can the Quimby Act. However, Chapter 19.52 only applies to subdivisions consist of public urban plazas or squares where there is the or condominiums. While the Applicant plans the construction of capability for recreation and outdoor activity. These recreational apartments that would not generate a park dedication requirement, amenities may also include swimming pools, exercise facilities, condominium development would be allowed by the PCDP. Should a tennis courts, and basketball courts. Where there is insufficient condominium project be proposed, it would be subject to NBMC land to provide on -site recreational amenities, the developer shall Chapter 19.52. Should a future residential development include be required to pay cash in -lieu that would be used to develop or publicly accessible open space that meets the policy criteria, the upgrade nearby recreation facilities to offset user demand as Applicant could request a credit toward parkland dedication defined in the City's Park Dedication Fee Ordinance.
requirements (if any). Please refer to the discussion of Policy LU

6.15.13 for additional analysis regarding park dedication requirements.

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

LU 6.15.17 Street and Pedestrian Grid. Create a pattern of Consistent: Any new streets and pedestrian ways in the PC District streets and pedestrian ways that breaks up large blocks, would be designed to break up large blocks, improve connections and improves connections between neighborhoods and community links between uses and be scaled to the residential component of the amenities, and is scaled to the predominantly residential PC District in Planning Area 1, as described in the Land Use and character of the neighborhoods.

Development Regulations (Section ll) and Architectural Design Considerations (Section III), of the PCDP. The City would confirm compliance during future Site Development Review process.

LU 6.15.18 Walkable Streets. Retain the curb -to -curb dimension Consistent: A future applicant be required to retain the curb -to -curb of existing streets, but widen sidewalks to provide park strips and dimension of existing streets and would widen sidewalks to create park generous sidewalks by means of dedications or easements. strips and sidewalks in compliance with General Plan policy 6.15.18.

Except where traffic loads preclude fewer lanes, add parallel The City would confirm compliance with this General Plan policy parking to calm traffic, buffer pedestrians, and provide short-term during Site Development Review.
parking for visitors and shop customers.

LU 6.15.21 Required Spaces for Primary Uses. Consider
Consistent. Future development will be required to comply with City of revised parking requirements that reflect the mix of uses in the Newport Beach Municipal Code parking requirements, including neighborhoods and overall Airport Area, as well as the availability Section 20.32.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code for a density of on -street parking.
bonus project. The City will confirm compliance with this General Plan policy during Site Development Review.

LU 6.15.22 Building Massing. Require that high-rise structures Not Applicable. The PC District would include low- and mid -rise be surrounded with low- and mid -rise structures fronting public structures (85 feet maximum) in Planning Areas 1 and 2. No high-rise streets and pedestrian ways or other means to promote a more structures would be constructed in the PC District. Therefore, this pedestrian scale.

General Plan policy does not apply to the PC District.

LU 6.15.23. Sustainable Development Practices. Require that Consistent. The proposed project is a mixed -use development that, development achieves a high level of environmental
because of compliance with modern state regulations related to energy May 2020

Page 151 ends

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
Table 7 Newport Beach General Plan
Goals and Policies
sustainability that reduces pollution and consumption of energy, efficiency and climate change, would be more energy efficient than the water, and natural resources. This may be accomplished through project site's existing commercial uses. For more information about the mix and density of uses, building location and design, this topic see Section 5.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Future transportation modes, and other techniques. Among the
development would comply with the CALGreen Code, including its strategies that should be considered are the integration of water conservation measures and City water conservation codes and residential with jobs -generating uses, use of alternative standards.
transportation modes, maximized walkability, use of recycled materials, capture and re -use of storm water on -site, water conserving fixtures and landscapes, and architectural elements that reduce heat gain and loss.

Goal H 2: A balanced residential community, comprised of a variety of housing types, designs, and opportunities for all social and economic segments.

H 2.1. Encourage preservation of existing and provision of new Consistent. The proposed project would include affordable housing housing affordable to extremely low-, very low-, low-, and units in accordance with Chapter 20.32 of the Municipal Code. Upon moderate -income households.
provision of affordable housing units, the project would be eligible for up to a 35 percent density bonus (up to 115 additional units) H 2.2. Encourage the housing development industry to respond Consistent. The proposed project would help meet existing housing to existing and future housing needs of the community and to the needs in Newport Beach and Orange County, which are jobs -rich and demand for housing as perceived by the industry.
currently experiencing a housing shortage.

Housing Program 2.2.4. All required affordable units shall have Consistent. All proposed affordable units will be made available to low restrictions to maintain their affordability for a minimum of 30 income households for a minimum period of 30 years.
years.

Housing Program 2.2.8. Implement Chapter 20.32 (Density Consistent. The project utilizes a density bonus and will consider Bonus) of the Zoning Code and educate interested developers requests for incentives/waivers consistent with the City's zoning code about the benefits of density bonuses and related incentives for and Government Code Section 65915.
the development of housing that is affordable to very low-, low-, and moderate -income households and senior citizens.

H 2.3. Approve, wherever feasible and appropriate, mixed Consistent. The proposed project is a mixed -use project with both residential and commercial use developments that improve the residential and commercial uses.
balance between housing and jobs.

Goal H 3: Housing opportunities for as many renter- and owner -occupied households as possible in response to the demand for housing in the City.

H 3.1. Mitigate potential governmental constraints to housing Consistent. This policy addresses City strategy and not individual production and affordability by increasing the City of Newport development projects.

Beach role in facilitating construction of affordable housing for all income groups.

Housing Program 3.1.2. When a residential developer agrees to Consistent. The project utilizes a density bonus and requests construct housing for persons and families of very low-, low-, and incentives/waivers consistent with City's zoning code and Government moderate -income above mandated requirements, the City shall Code Section 65915. (1) grant a density bonus as required by state law and/or (2) provide additional incentives of equivalent financial value.

H 3.2. Enable construction of new housing units sufficient to Consistent. The proposed project aids the City in its goal to provide meet City quantified goals by identifying adequate sites for their new housing opportunities by including 444 housing units. As construction. Development of new housing will not be allowed discussed in Section 5.13, Noise, a portion of the project site is within within the John Wayne Airport (JWA) 65 dB CNEL contour, no the airport's 65 dB CNEL, and the PCDP restricts housing within this larger than shown on the 1985 JWA Master Plan. zone.

Goal H 4: Preservation and increased affordability of the City's housing stock for extremely low-, very low—, low-, and moderate - income households.

H 4.1. Continue or undertake the following programs to mitigate Consistent. The housing programs listed under Policy H 4.1 in the potential loss of "at risk" units due to conversion to market -rate Housing Element are identified as being the responsibility of the City. units. These efforts utilize existinq Citv and local resources. Thev However, the proposed protect would complv with all requirements

Page 152 ends

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
Table 7 Newport Beach General Plan Consistency Analysis Applicable Goals and Policies
Project Consistency
include efforts to secure additional resources from public and enforced by the City, including restrictions regarding maintenance of private sectors should they become available.
units as affordable.

H 4.2. Improve energy efficiency of all housing unit types Consistent. As discussed in Section 5.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, (including mobile homes).
and Section 5.6, Energy, the proposed project would be constructed to adhere to the California Building Energy and Efficiency Standards and the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen). The 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen were effective starting on January 1, 2017, and the 2019 standards were effective starting January 1, 2020. These standards achieve higher energy efficiency that most existing housing units.

Goal NR 1. Minimized water consumption through conservation methods and other techniques.

NR 1.1. Water Conservation in New Development. Enforce
Consistent. Section 5.19, Utilities and Service Systems, discusses the water conservation measures that limit water usage, prohibit numerous water conservation requirements applicable to the proposed activities that waste water or cause runoff, and require the use of project, including those found in the Newport Beach Municipal Code. water —efficient landscaping and irrigation in conjunction with new The proposed project would comply with these regulations. construction projects.

NR 1.6. Services for Lower Income Households. New
Consistent. The proposed project would include housing units developments which provide housing for lower income
affordable to lower -income households. Furthermore, because the households that help meet regional needs shall have priority for project is in an existing developed urban area, it is already well served the provision of available and future resources or services, by water, sewer, and other services.
including water and sewer supply and services.

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

NR 3.9. Water Quality Management Plan. Require new
Consistent. All development under the proposed project would have development applications to include a Water Quality
WQMPs in place and would implement post -construction BMPs to Management Plan (WQMP) to minimize runoff from rainfall maintain surface and groundwater quality.
events during construction and post -construction.

NR 3.11. Site Design and Source Control. Include site design Consistent. Section 5.10 includes analysis of the proposed project's and source control BMPs in all developments. When the
drainage and stormwater runoff impacts. Development would involve combination of site design and source control BMPs are not implementation of low -impact development BMPs, site design BMPs, sufficient to protect water quality as required by the National and structural and nonstructural source control BMPs that would Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), structural reduce the amount of runoff generated onsite and discharged off -site treatment BMPs will be implemented along with site design and as well as reduce the potential for pollutants to contaminate runoff. source control measures.

NR 3.14. Runoff Reduction on Private Property. Retain runoff Consistent. See response to Policy NR 3.11, above.
on private property to prevent the transport of pollutants into natural water bodies, to the maximum extent practicable.

NR 3.20. Impervious Surfaces. Require new development and Consistent. The proposed project's site design BMPs would minimize public improvements to minimize the creation of and increases in impervious surfaces wherever possible, as discussed in Section 5.10. impervious surfaces, especially directly connected impervious areas, to the maximum extent practicable. Require
redevelopment to increase area of pervious surfaces, where feasible.

Goal NR 6: Reduced mobile source emissions.

NR 6.1. Walkable Neighborhoods. Provide for walkable Consistent. The proposed project's context is Newport Beach's neighborhoods to reduce vehicle trips by siting amenities such as Airport Area, which features a variety of amenities (including services, parks, and schools in close proximity to residential restaurants, medical offices, and professional services) within walking areas. distance of the project site.

NR 6.2. Mixed -Use Development. Support mixed -use Consistent. As discussed throughout this section, the proposed development consisting of commercial or office with residential project is mixed -use project that would add housing units in an uses in accordance with the Land Use Element that increases employment -rich area.

May 2020

Page 153 ends

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
Table 7 Newport Beach General Plan Consistency Analysis Goals and Policies
and entertainment.

NR 6.3. Vehicle -Trip Reduction Measures. Support measures Consistent. The proposed project's introduction of residential uses in to reduce vehicle -trip generation such as at -work day care a largely nonresidential area with numerous services and amenities facilities, and on -site automated banking machines. nearby would reduce the need for off -site vehicle trips. See the response to Policy NR 6.1 for additional information.

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

NR 18.1. New Development. Require new development to
Consistent. This topic is discussed in Section 5.5, Cultural protect and preserve paleontological and archaeological Resources. The proposed project would be required to comply with resources from destruction, and avoid and minimize impacts to regulatory requirements and GPU policies regarding monitoring and such resources in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. discovery of paleontological and archaeological resources, and would Through planning policies and permit conditions, ensure the reduce potential impacts to less than significant.
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 Development to Impact Resources.

Consistent. This topic is discussed in Section 5.18, Tribal Cultural Notify cultural organizations, including Native American Resources.
organizations, of proposed developments that have the potential to adversely impact cultural resources. Allow qualified representatives of such groups to monitor grading and/or excavation of development sites.

Goal R 1. Provision of Facilities: Provision of adequate park and recreation facilities that meet the recreational needs of existing and new residents of the community
R 1.4. Density Bonuses. Consider development of incentives Consistent. The proposed project uses the City's density bonus such as density bonuses for private commercial, office, and other incentives, as discussed in this table.
developments to provide usable open space such as rooftop courts, pocket parks, public plazas, jogging trails, and pedestrian trails.

R 1.12. Aircraft Overflight and Noise. Require that all public Consistent. The proposed park will be posted with the required parks located within the noise impact zones as defined in the notification to park users. This will be ensured through the City's 1985 JWA Master Plan for John Wayne Airport be posted with a development review and plan check process.
notification to users regarding aircraft overflight and noise.

5.11.3 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.

5.11.4 Relevant General Plan Policies
Relevant 2006 General Plan goals and policies are reviewed in detail in Table 7, above. Applicable General Plan policies for specific environmental topics are listed in the topical analysis sections of this Addendum.

Page 154 ends

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis

5.12 MINERAL RESOURCES

5.12.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Program EIR

5.12.1.1 2006 GENERAL PLAN EIR
Based on the California Geological Survey, areas known as mineral resource zones (MRZs) are classified according to the presence or absence of mineral resources. All of Newport Beach is zoned either MRZ-1 or MRZ-3, areas with no significant mineral deposits and areas containing mineral deposits of undetermined significance, respectively. The City is required to evaluate potential impacts to mineral resource recovery areas designated MRZ-2, areas with significant mineral deposits; however, there are no areas zoned MRZ-2 in the city.

Furthermore, most of the active oil wells are in the West Newport and Newport production areas. Generally, these areas overlap with the Banning Ranch subarea, with a smaller portion of the Newport Oil Field within the Balboa Peninsula subarea.

Consequently, the EIR found that implementation of the 2006 GPU would not substantially alter the projected production or consumption of the city, county, or state and no impact occurred.

5.12.1.2 2014 LUE AMENDMENT SEIR
There are no regional, state, or locally important mineral resource recovery sites in the city. Furthermore, the active oil fields are in the Banning Ranch subarea, with a smaller portion in the Balboa Peninsula subarea. The 2014 LUE Amendment did not affect any land uses in the northwest area of the City. Therefore, there were no impacts to mineral resources.

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

Page 155 ends

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
Comments:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state?
No Impact.

Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR
All of Newport Beach is zoned either MRZ-1 or MRZ-3, and most active oil wells are in the Newport Oil Field and the West Newport Oil Field, in the northwest area of the city. Therefore, the proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2006 GPU, would have no impact to mineral resources, 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 not introduce new development into areas designated as MRZ-2. Furthermore, no development would affect active oil wells in the northwest area of the City. Therefore, the proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, would have no impact to potential mineral resources.. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact.

Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR
The City of Newport Beach 2006 GPU EIR states that there are no regional, state, or locally important mineral resource recovery sites in the city. Consequently, the proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2006 GPU, would have no impact on mineral resource recovery sites in the city, 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 not introduce development into areas with regional, state, or locally important mineral resources and no impacts would arise.

5.12.3 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.

Page 156 ends

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis

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

May 2020 Page 157

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis

5.13 NOISE

5.13.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Previous EIRs

5.13.1.1 2006 GENERAL PLAN EIR
The 2006 GPU EIR concluded that regional growth would create noise that would affect new and existing receptors. Most of this noise would be produced by increased traffic on local roads. Many of the General Plan policies, especially those associated with Goal N-2, Transportation Noise, would reduce the impact. However, existing receptors would still be exposed to new noise levels in excess of standards, and this impact, even with the proposed General Plan policies, was found to be significant and unavoidable.

The 2006 GPU EIR concluded that vibration impacts would potentially exceed the threshold of 72 VdB, if construction activities occurred within 150 feet of sensitive receptors (e.g., residences and schools). No feasible mitigation measures were identified, and this impact was found to be significant and unavoidable.

Construction noise was determined to be less than significant. Construction noise would be exempt from the City code during limited hours of the day and days of the week, and construction noise would comply with Municipal Code standards.

Impacts due to airport noise were also found to be less than significant. Receptors that would fall under the John Wayne Airport QWA) 60 dBA or 65 dBA CNEL noise contours would be required to be consistent with General Plan Policies N.3.1 and N.3.2. These policies ensure that new uses are compatible and achieve interior noise levels of 45 dBA CNEL or less for residential uses.

5.13.1.2 2014 LUE AMENDMENT SEIR
The 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR concluded that stationary, nontransportation noise would be less than significant. This was based on the traffic noise increase of the LUE Amendment in comparison to the 2006 General Plan buildout on study roadway segments. The SEIR also found that although some roadway segments could experience noise increases due to traffic, no roadway segments would exceed the City's transportation noise thresholds, so the impact of transportation noise was found to be less than significant.

Airport noise impacts from JWA were found to be less than significant with the application of Policy N 3.2 of the Noise Element and compliance with Title 21 of the California Code of Regulations, which ensure that new uses are compatible and residential uses achieve interior noise levels of 45 dBA CNEL or less.

The 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR concluded that construction noise impacts would not substantially differ from the 2006 GPU EIR and would be less than significant. However, like the 2006 GPU EIR, construction vibration could not be mitigated in all cases and would remain significant and unavoidable.

Page 158 ends

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis

5.13.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Would the proposed project result in:

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) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the vicinity of the project in excess of
standards established in the local general
X
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
b) Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
X
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public
X
use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
Comments:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR
Traffic Noise
Policy N 1.8 of the General Plan Noise Element requires the employment of noise mitigation measures for existing sensitive uses when a significant noise impact is identified for new development impacting existing sensitive uses, as presented in Table 8.

May 2020 Page 159

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
Table 8 City of Newport Beach Incremental Noise Impact Criteria for Noise -Sensitive Uses (dBACNEL)
No Project Noise Exposure
Allowable Noise Exposure Increment
55 3
60 2
65 1
70 1
75 0
Source: City of Newport Beach General Plan.

The proposed project would not increase the overall development capacity of the allowable uses as analyzed in the 2006 GPU EIR. In addition, redesignation of the project site from AO to MU-H2 would generate 327 fewer daily trips (Urban Crossroads 2020). Because the proposed project would generate fewer vehicle trips, its implementation would result in less overall traffic noise. Therefore, buildout of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in a substantial increase in traffic noise compared to what was previously analyzed in the 2006 GPU EIR. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and there are no changes or new significant information requiring the preparation of an EIR.

Stationary Noise
The proposed project would change the land use designation of the site from AO to MU-H2. The site is currently developed as office and commercial uses. Stationary noise sources associated with these uses include rooftop mechanical equipment such as HVAC equipment and truck loading and unloading. The land use re - designation would not introduce new types of noise sources that were not already anticipated under the existing land use designation. In general, stationary noise sources associated with the proposed residential uses are similar to or less than commercial uses. Stationary noise sources associated with residential uses include HVAC equipment, but would not require truck loading and unloading needed for retail uses. Future development would be subject to the City of Newport Beach exterior noise standards from the Municipal Code. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR.

Construction Noise
As discussed in Section 5.13.1, the 2006 GPU EIR concluded that construction noise would be less than significant. When compared to the land uses considered for the project site under the 2006 GPU EIR, the proposed project would accommodate land uses that would require similar construction processes and intensities. Though the proposed 2006 GPU EIR does not include residential uses for the proposed project area, 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.

Certain land uses are particularly sensitive to noise and vibration. These uses include residential, schools, libraries, churches, nursing homes, hospitals, hotels, and open space/recreation areas where quiet environments

Page 160 ends

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
are necessary for enjoyment, public health, and safety. Commercial and industrial uses are generally not considered noise and vibration sensitive unless noise and vibration would interfere with normal operations and business activities. The closest sensitive receptor to the site is the Hyatt Regency John Wayne Airport Hotel, approximately 80 feet east of the project boundary. Potential construction noise related to this use would be similar to noise as addressed in the 2006 GPU` EIR and would not represent a new impact.

Construction noise would be subject to General Plan Policy N 4.6, which would require enforcement of the noise ordinance limits and hours in the City's municipal code. Because the project's construction noise levels would not substantially differ from the 2006 GPU EIR, construction noise impacts with implementation of the proposed project would be less than significant. Therefore, there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR
Traffic Noise
Buildout of the proposed project would result in less commercial space and the same number of residential dwelling units compared to the 2014 LUE SEIR. Implementation of the proposed project is anticipated to result in a minimum of 3,899 fewer daily trips with density bonus units and an estimated 4,463 fewer daily trips without density bonus (Urban Crossroads 2020). Because the proposed project would generate fewer vehicle trips, its implementation would result in less overall traffic noise. Therefore, buildout of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in a substantial increase in traffic noise compared to what was previously analyzed in the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR. Therefore, there are no changes or new significant information requiring the preparation of an EIR.

Stationary Noise
The 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR concluded that stationary, non -transportation noise would be less than significant. Buildout of the proposed project would result in less commercial space and the same number of residential dwelling units. The proposed project would not introduce new types of noise sources that were not already anticipated under the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR. Because the proposed project would result in less commercial space, stationary noise impacts are anticipated to be less than what was previously analyzed. Future development would be subject to the City of Newport Beach exterior noise standards from the Municipal Code. Therefore, there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR.

Construction Noise
The proposed project would result in similar land use types and be within the land use amounts previously considered under the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR. Buildout of the proposed project would result in less commercial space and the same number of residential units. 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 similar to or less intensive than what was considered in the 2014 LUE May 2020 Page 161

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
Amendment SEIR. Therefore, there are no changes or new significant information that would require the preparation of an EIR.
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR
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, although the 2006 GPU EIR does not include residential uses for the proposed project area. Nevertheless, 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. The GPU EIR states that construction -related vibration levels could be problematic if sensitive uses are located within about 100 feet of potential project construction sites. There are no sensitive receptors (residents, school children, hospitals) within 100 feet of the project site. Given the potential that other site may not be able to be adequately mitigated for construction -related vibration, this impact was concluded to be potentially significant in the GPU EIR. Vibration impacts for the Airport Village Planned Community would be anticipated to be less than the potential impacts anticipated overall for the GPU. Therefore, there are no changes or new significant information that would require the preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR
The proposed project would result in similar land use types and be within the land use amounts previously considered under the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR. Buildout of the proposed project would result in less commercial space and the same number of residential dwelling units. 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 similar to or less intensive than what was considered in the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR. Therefore, there are no changes or new significant information that would require the preparation of an EIR.
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR
Policy N 3.2 of the Noise Element requires that residential development in the Airport Area be located outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour, which can be no larger than shown in the 1985 JWA Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP). In addition, it requires that residential developers notify prospective purchasers or tenants of aircraft overflight andnoise.

The Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) of Orange County adopted an AELUP, amended April 17, 2008, that included JWA. The AELUP is a land use compatibility plan that is intended to protect the public from

Page 162 ends

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
adverse effects of aircraft noise. The proposed project is within the "airport influence area" defined by the AELUP. In most instances, the airport influence area is designated by the ALUC as its planning area boundary for the airport, and the two terms can be considered synonymous. The aircraft noise contours that are used for planning purposes by the County of Orange and Airport Land Use Commission are found in the AELUP and derived from the 1985 Master Plan for JWA and the accompanying EIR 508. These noise contours are based on fleet mix and flight level assumptions developed in EIR 508.

The AELUP identifies noise impact zones based on the airport noise contour projections:
■ Noise Impact Zone "P' is the high noise impact that would occur in areas within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour. The ALUC does not support residential development within this zone. All residential units would be inconsistent in this area unless it can be shown that the interior 45 dBA CNEL noise level is not exceeded in interior areas with an accompanying avigation easement for noise. Commercial, industrial, and recreational uses may be acceptable in this zone providing that commercial and industrial structures are sufficiently sound attenuated to allow normal work activities. The 12-hour Leq interior noise standards due to exterior noise are measured from 7 am to 7 pm (or another approved time period):
• 45 dBA—private offices, church sanctuary, board room, conference room • 50 dBA—general office, reception, clerical
• 55 dBA—bank lobby, retail store, restaurant
• 65 dBA—manufacturing, kitchen, warehousing
■ Noise Impact Zone "2" is the moderate noise impact that would occur in areas within the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour. Even though residential units are not incompatible in this area, the ALUC strongly recommends that residential units be limited or excluded from this area unless sufficiently sound attenuated, that is, with a CNEL value not exceeding an interior level of 45 dBA.

Since the 2006 GPU EIR was approved, the 2014 John Wayne Airport Settlement Agreement Amendment EIR was approved. This amendment approved an increase in the number of passengers per year in three phases.

The EIR concluded that the CNEL noise increases due to Phases 1 and 2 would result in less than a 1 dBA CNEL increase, and that Phase 3 would result in noise level increases less than 1.5 dBA CNEL. These increases did not exceed FAA or County of Orange noise standards.

Figure 16, 2008 AELUP JVA Noise Exposure at the Project Site, shows how airport noise and noise impact zones affect the project site. Consistent with General Plan Policy N 3.2, the project does not propose residential uses in Noise Impact Zone 1. That is, the proposed residential uses would be outside the AELUP 65 dBA CNEL noise contour. The proposed project includes residential uses in Noise Impact Zone 2, which is the area in the AELUP 60 dBA CNEL noise contour. Consistent with Title 21 of the California Code of Regulations, which requires an interior noise level of 45 dBA CNEL, and with 45 dBA CNEL interior noise requirement for any residential uses proposed in Noise Impact Zone 2, project -level design review will be required prior to the issuance of a building permit, which demonstrates to the City per General Plan Policy N 1.2 that all residential units of the proposed project will meet the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise level.

May 2020 Page 163

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
Office uses within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour were already considered under the 2006 GPU EIR and would be "normally compatible" per General Plan land use compatibility standards and ALUC noise compatibility guidelines. Project -level design review prior to the issuance of a building permit demonstrates to the City, per General Plan Policy N 1.2, that the 12-hour Leq interior noise level due to exterior noise measured from 7 am to 7 pm —or another approved time period —does not exceed 50 dBA.

The noise contours associated with the settlement for Phases 1, 2, and 3 of the 2014 John Wayne Airport Settlement Agreement Amendment EIR show that the proposed residential development as part of the proposed project would remain outside the 65 CNEL contour. Therefore, there are no changes or new significant information that would require the preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR
The 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR concluded that with the application of Policy N 3.2 of the Noise Element and compliance with Title 21 of the California Code of Regulations, which ensure that new uses are compatible and achieve interior noise levels of 45 dBA CNEL or less for residential uses, airport noise impacts from JWA would be less than significant. Similar to the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR, the project proposes residential uses within the Airport Area near the intersection of Birch Street and MacArthur Boulevard. Consistent with General Plan Policy N 3.2, the project does not propose residential uses within Noise Impact Zone 1, but outside the AELUP 65 dBA CNEL noise contour. The proposed project includes residential uses in Noise Impact Zone 2, within the AELUP 60 dBA CNEL noise contour. Consistent with Title 21 of the California Code of Regulations, which requires an interior noise level of 45 dBA, and with the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise requirement for residential uses in Noise Impact Zone 2, project -level design review will be required prior to the issuance of a building permit to demonstrate to the City, per General Plan Policy N 1.2, that all residential units of the proposed project will meet the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise level.

Office uses as part of the proposed project were already considered under the 2006 GPU EIR and would be "normally compatible" per General Plan land use compatibility standards within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour. Office uses are "normally consistent" with the ALUC noise compatibility guidelines within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour and must demonstrate through project -level design review, prior to the issuance of a building permit, which demonstrates to the City per General Plan Policy N 1.2 that the 12-hour Leq interior noise level due to exterior noise measured from 7 am to 7 pm, or other appropriate, approved time periods does not exceed 50 dBA.

Page 164 ends

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Figure 16 - 2008 AELUP JWA Noise Exposure at the Project Site t

JOHN WAYNE

AIRPORT
ice- irpo (OA
Q� Use /Res enti I Us i
65 dBA CNEL Contour QJ
O 'iAirport (O
!• Uses/Reside tia`I Accessory
and Amenity U s
Unincorporated Orange County
v
60 dBA CNEL Contour
! Newport Beach
Q
m Q
/ Oo
`00 thigh ilk
Project Boundary Office -Airport (OA) Uses/Residential Accessory and Amenity Uses 65 dBA CNEL Contour 0 1,200
—••— City Boundary Office -Airport (OA) Uses/Residential Uses 60 dBA CNEL Contour Scale (Feet)
Source: Airport Land Use Commission, 2008
PlaceVorks

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
Tbis page intentionally left blank.

Page 166 ends

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis

5.13.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project No mitigation measures related to noise and vibration were outlined in the 2006 GPU EIR.

5.13.4 Relevant General Plan Policies
The General Plan includes several policies that would reduce noise associated with future development projects in the City.

Noise Element
Goal N 1: Noise Compatibility: Minimized land use conflicts between various noise sources and other human activities.
■ N 1.1 - Noise Compatibility of New Development: Require that all proposed projects are compatible with the noise environment through use of Table N2 of the Noise Element, and enforce the interior and exterior noise standards shown in Table N3 of the Noise Element.

N 1.2 - Noise Exposure Verification for New Development: Applicants for proposed projects that require environmental review and are, located in areas projected to be exposed to a CNEL of 60 dBA and higher, as shown on Figure N4, Figure N5, and Figure N6 of the Noise Element may conduct afield survey, noise measurements or other modeling in a manner acceptable to the City to provide evidence that the depicted noise contours do not adequately account for local noise exposure circumstances due to such factors as, topography, variation in traffic speeds, and other applicable conditions. These findings shall be used to determine the level of exterior or interior, noise attenuation needed to attain an acceptable noise exposure level and the feasibility of such mitigation when other planning considerations are taken into account.

N 1.4 - New Developments in Urban Areas: Require that applicants of residential portions of mixed - use projects and high density residential developments in urban areas (such as the Airport Area and Newport Center) demonstrate that the design of the structure will adequately isolate noise between adjacent uses and units (common floor/ceilings) in accordance with the California Building Code. ■ N 1.6 - Mixed Use Developments: Encourage new mixed -use developments to site loading areas, parking lots, driveways, trash enclosures, mechanical equipment, and other noise sources away from the residential portion of the development.

N 1.7 - Commercial/Entertainment Uses: Limit hours and/or requires attenuation of commercial/ entertainment operations adjacent to residential and other noise sensitive uses in order to minimize excessive noise to these receptors.

Goal N 2: Minimized motor vehicle traffic and boat noise impacts on sensitive noise receptors May 2020

Page 167 ends

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
■ N 2.1- New Development: Require that proposed noise -sensitive uses in areas of 60 dBA and greater, as determined the analyses stipulated by Policy N1.1, demonstrate that they meet interior and exterior noise levels.
■ N 2.2 - Design of Sensitive Land Uses: Require the use of walls, berms, and interior noise insulation, double paned windows, or other noise mitigation measures, as appropriate, in the design of new residential or other new noise sensitive land uses that are adjacent to major roads. Application of the Noise Standards in Table N3 of the Noise Element shall govern this requirement. ■ N 2.3 - Limiting Truck Deliveries: Limit the hours of truck deliveries to commercial uses abutting residential uses and other noise sensitive land uses to minimize excessive noise unless there is no feasible alternative. Any exemption shall require compliance with nighttime (10:00 PM. to 7:00 A.M.) noise standards.

Goal N 3: Protection of Newport Beach residents from the adverse noise impacts of commercial air carrier operations at John Wayne Airport as provided in the City Council Airport Policy. ■ N 3.1- New Development: Ensure new development is compatible with the noise environment by using airport noise contours no larger than those contained in the 1985 JWA Master Plan, as guides to future planning and development decisions.
■ N 3.2 - Residential Development: Require that residential development in the Airport Area be located outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour no larger than shown in the 1985 JWA Master Plan and require residential developers to notify prospective purchasers or tenants of aircraft overflight and noise. ■ N 3.3 - Avigation Easement: Consider requiting the dedication of avigation easements in favor of the County of Orange when noise sensitive uses are proposed in the JWA planning area, as established in the JWA Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP).

Goal N 4: Minimization of Nontransportation-Related Noise: Minimized nontransportation-related noise impacts on sensitive noise receptors.
■ N 4.1- Stationary Noise Sources: Enforce interior and exterior noise standards outlined in Table N3 of the Noise Element and in the Cites Municipal Code to ensure that sensitive noise receptors are not exposed to excessive noise levels from stationary noise sources, such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning egwpment.
■ N 4.2 - New Uses: Require that new uses such as restaurants, bars, entertainment, parking facilities, and other commercial uses where large numbers of people may be present adjacent to sensitive noise receptors obtain a use permit that is based on compliance with the noise standards in Table N3 of the Noise Element and the City's Municipal Code.
■ N 4.3 - New Commercial Developments: Require that new commercial developments abutting residentially designated properties be designed to minimize noise impacts generated by loading areas,

Page 168 ends

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
parking lots, trash enclosures, mechanical equipment, and any other noise generating features specific to the development to the extent feasible.
■ N 4.6 - Maintenance or Construction Activities: Require the enforcement of the Noise Ordinance noise limits and limits hours of maintenance or construction activity in or adjacent to residential areas, including noise that results from in -home hobby or work related activities.

Goal N 5: Minimized excessive construction -related noise. ■ N 5.1- Limiting Hours of Activity: Enforce the limits on hours of construction activity.

Land Use Element
Goal LU 5.3: Districts where residents and businesses are intermixed that are designed and planned to ensure compatibility among the uses, that they are highly livable for residents, and are of high quality design reflecting the traditions of Newport Beach.

LU 5.3.1- Mixed -Use Buildings: Require that mixed -use buildings be designed to convey a high level of architectural and landscape quality and ensure compatibility among their uses in consideration of the following principles:
• Design and incorporation of building materials and features to avoid conflicts among uses, such as noise, vibration, lighting, odors, and similar impacts
• Visual and physical integration of residential and nonresidential uses • Architectural treatment of building elevations and modulation of their massing • Separate and well-defined entries for residential units and nonresidential businesses • Design of parking areas and facilities for architectural consistency and integration among uses • Incorporation of extensive landscape appropriate to its location; urbanized streetscapes, for example, would require less landscape along the street frontage but integrate landscape into interior courtyards and common open spaces.

Goal LU 6.1: A diversity of governmental service, institutional, educational, cultural, social, religious, and medical facilities that are available for and enhance the quality of life for residents and are located and designed to complement Newport Beach's neighborhoods.

LU 6.1.3: Architecture and Planning that Complements Adjoining Uses: Ensure that the City's public buildings, sites, and infrastructure are designed to be compatible in scale, mass, character, and architecture with the district or neighborhood in which they are located, following the design and development policies for private uses specified by this Plan. Design impacts on adjoining uses shall be carefully considered in development, addressing such issues as lighting spillover, noise, hours of operation, parking, local traffic impacts, and privacy.

May 2020 Page 169

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

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

LU 6.2.5: Neighborhood Supporting Uses: Allow for the integration of uses within residential neighborhoods that support and are complementary to their primary function as a living environment such as schools, parks, community meeting facilities, religious facilities, and comparable uses. These uses shall be designed to ensure compatibility with adjoining residential addressing such issues as noise, lighting, and parking.

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 6.15.3 - 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 6.15.15 - Aircraft Notification: Require that all neighborhood parks be posted with a notification to users regarding proximity to John Wayne Airport and aircraft overflight and noise.

Page 170 ends

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis

5.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING

5.14.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Program EIRs

5.14.1.1 2006 GENERAL PLAN EIR
The 2006 GPU EIR projected that buildout of the 2006 GPU would add 31,131 residents and 14,215 residential units to the City —at buildout the population would be 103,753 and the number of residential units 54,394. In 2004, SCAG forecast that the city would have 94,167 residents and 43,100 residential units in regional projections. General Plan buildout added 8,192 more residents and 8,810 more households to the city in 2030 than the regional forecasts. Implementation of the General Plan was therefore concluded to result in a significant and unavoidable population growth impact. No mitigation measures were identified to reduce or eliminate this significant impact.

The 2006 GPU primarily planned development 1) on the sparse developable land the City had left, 2) by intensifying current land uses, and 3) through the conversion of land uses of economically underperforming and obsolete development. Also, new development could take place on the vacant Banning Ranch area if it could not be retained for open space. No substantial demolition of residential uses was proposed under the 2006 GPU. Since the 2006 GPU did not propose uses that would displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people, the EIR found no impact.

5.14.1.2 2014 LUE AMENDMENT SEIR
Population and Housing
Buildout of the General Plan as amended by the 2014 LUE Amendment added up to 1,729 more residential units in the city. This total assumed that the maximum number of units was developed, including potential density bonus units. In comparison to the 2006 GPU EIR and based on the 2013 average household of 2.22 for the city, this resulted in an additional 3,838 persons and a total population of 106,197 at General Plan buildout. This population exceeded the 2035 SCAG population projection for the City of 90,030 by 16,167 persons (approximately 18 percent). This impact was found to be significant.

Employment
The General Plan LUE Amendment resulted in a net increase of 388 employees in comparison to buildout of the 2006 GPU Estimated employment at buildout of the General Plan as amended was 85,905. Table 9, Projected Job -Hou ing Ratio, compares the resultant jobs -housing balance between buildout of the 2006 GPU and the 2014 LUE Amendment. Implementation of the LUE Amendment would reduce the jobs -housing ratio by 0.07, from 1.83 to 1.76 (a 3.8 percent reduction). Since the City was jobs -rich, this reduction was considered a beneficial impact.

May 2020 Page 171

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
Table 9 Projected Jobs -Housing Ratio
2006 General Plan
Buildout
General Plan LUE
Amendment Buildout
Change
Percent Change
Total Employees
85,517
85,905
388

0.04%
Housing Units
46,601
48,330
1729

3.7%
Jobs/Housing Ratio

1.84 1.78
-.0.06
-3.2%
The 2014 LUE Amendment involved changes in land use designations and increasing or reducing development capacities within subareas of the city. The areas proposed for decreased development capacities were Westcliff Plaza, Newport Coast Center, Newport Coast Hotel, Bayside Center, Harbor View Center, The Bluffs, Gateway Park, and Newport Ridge. The majority of these areas are commercial shopping centers with reduced square footage or, in the case of Newport Coast Hotel, a reduction in allowable hotel rooms. The only residential use subarea with reduced allowable dwelling units was Newport Ridge. However, the reduction was in the allowable development capacity of existing dwelling units in Newport Ridge. Thus, the 2014 LUE Amendment was found not to displace any existing housing in the city or necessitate the need to construct replacement housing elsewhere, resulting in no impact.

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

Page 172 ends

PlaceWorks

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
Comments:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
No Impact.

Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR
Population and Housing
As detailed in Chapter 3, Project Description, buildout of the proposed project would result in up to 444 more residential units on the project site. This total assumes that the maximum number of units are developed, including the potential for density bonus units. Based on the 2019 average household of 2.27 for the city (Census Bureau 2019), this would result in an additional 1,008 persons on the project site. In comparison to the 2006 GPU, the proposed project adds this population to the project site but does not result in a net increase in population for the Airport Area. The proposed 329 units and up to 115 density bonus units would be introduced to the project site under the proposed MU-142 land use classification. A total of 2,200 units are allowed in the Airport Area, and the project would involve a redistribution of these future units, not a net increase. Therefore, the proposed project would not exceed the 2040 SCAG population projection for the city.

Employment
Implementation of the proposed project would result in a decrease of 61,000 square feet of nonresidential space in comparison to buildout of the 2006 General Plan. Using the employment density factor of one retail and service -use job per 617 square feet (Natelson 2001), the proposed project would result in a decrease of 98 jobs. Therefore, the proposed project would not induce population growth through job creation.

Since the proposed project would not result in an increase in population compared to the 2006 GPU and would result in a decrease in the number of employees, there would not be substantial unplanned population growth.

Therefore, 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
The 2014 LUE Amendment allocated 596,575 square feet of office uses and 444 dwelling units to the proposed project site. Under the LUE Amendment, the new residential units were additive to the 2,200 units allocated to the Airport Area under the General Plan. Since the proposed project would use a portion of the 2,200 units allocated to the MU-112 designated areas, it would not increase housing units. Therefore, in comparison to the LUE Amendment, the proposed project would reduce housing units by 444 units.

Compared to the 2014 LUE Amendment, the proposed project would reduce nonresidential space. The proposed project would reduce impacts related to induced growth in comparison to the 2104 LUE Amendment for both housing and employment.

May 2020 Page 173

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact.

Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR
There was no housing on the site at the time the 2006 General Plan was adopted. As with existing conditions for the 2006 GPU EIR, there are no residential units currently on the project site, and project development would not displace any existing housing. Therefore, 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
The proposed project would be developed on a site with no current housing units. Therefore, there are no impacts and no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR.

5.14.3 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..

5.14.4 Relevant General Plan Policies
The City of Newport Beach's General Plan Housing Element was updated in 2013. This is in accordance with the state's requirement to update housing elements every five years in response to the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). Goals and policies particularly relevant to the proposed project, including affordable housing and airport -area -related policies, are reproduced below.

Housing Element (2013)
■ H 1.1- Support all reasonable efforts to preserve, maintain, and improve availability and quality of existing housing and residential neighborhoods, and ensure full utilization of existing City housing resources for as long into the future as physically and economically feasible. ■ H 2.1 - Encourage preservation of existing and provision of new housing affordable to extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderate -income households.
■ H 2.2 - Encourage the housing development industry to respond to existing and future housing needs of the community and to the demand for housing as perceived by the industry. ■ H 3.1 - Mitigate potential governmental constraints to housing production and affordability by increasing the City of Newport Beach role in facilitating construction of affordable housing for all income groups.

Page 174 ends

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
■ H 3.2 - Enable construction of new housing units sufficient to meet City quantified goals by identifying adequate sites for their construction. Development of new housing will not be allowed within the John Wayne Airport QWA) 65 dB CNEL contour, no larger than shown on the 1985 JWA Master Plan.

May 2020 Page 175

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis

5.15 PUBLIC SERVICES

5.15.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Program EIRs

5.15.1.1 2006 GENERAL PLAN EIR
Fire Protection
The Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD) is responsible for reducing loss of life and property from fire, medical, and environmental emergencies. The GPU` EIR noted that new Airport Area residential uses would increase demands for 24-hour medical service and than an increase in density by both infill and conversion of low rise properties to mid and high rise would necessitate the addition of a ladder truck company to the Santa Ana Heights fire station. To support the needs of future growth, the GPU included policies that ensure development would only occur with the provision of adequate infrastructure. Thus, fire staffing and facilities would expand commensurately to serve the needs of new development and maintain response times. The 2006 GPU EIR found that buildout of the GPU would have a less than significant impact on fire services.

Police Protection
Buildout of the 2006 GPU was determined to have a less than significant impact on police services. In order to maintain acceptable levels of service, the GPU includes policies to ensure adequate law enforcement is provided as the City experiences future development (Policy LU 2.8). Furthermore, to maintain the ratio of 1.7 officers per 1,000 residents (148 officers and 85,120 residents) at the time the 2006 GPU EIR was prepared, the Newport Beach Police Department (NBPD) would have had to provide an additional 53 officers upon GPU buildout. Maintaining NBPD's ratio of 0.60 nonsworn personnel per sworn officer would result in the addition of 32 nonsworn personnel. The addition of 85 police personnel would require NBPD to expand police facilities. However, since NBPD did not have near -term plans for expansion of police facilities, staff, or equipment inventory, it was speculative to determine whether a new substation would be considered.

Furthermore, all new development would be subject to the City's project -specific environmental review under CEQA. Thus, impacts were determined to be less than significant.

Schools
The 2006 GPU EIR analyzed school capacity in Newport -Mesa Unified School District (NMUSD), Santa Ana Unified School District (SAUSD), and Laguna Beach Unified School District (LBUSD), comparing existing enrollment to projected enrollment at GPU buildout. At buildout, the student population in the City was estimated to increase by approximately 6,230 students, using the assumption that approximately. The Airport Area is served by the SAUSD. The GPU EIR projected that the Airport Area would experience an increase of 4,300 residential units and contribute approximately 1,883 students (of the total 6,230 students generated City- wide under GPU buildout). The GPU EIR also noted that anticipated growth within the Irvine Business Complex (IBC) would have the potential to cumulatively impact Airport Area schools.

Page 176 ends

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
The 2006 GPU included goals and policies to address capacity issues for NMUSD and SAUSD. Buildout would likely require construction of new school facilities; however, the EIR concluded that compliance with 2006 General Plan policies would reduce impacts to less than significant.

Parks
(Note that the following information is excerpted from the GPU EIR Section 4.12, Parks and Open Space.

Inclusion of this analysis is included under Public Services in this Addendum for consistency with the updated CEQA Guidelines Appendix G checklist, as adopted December 2018.) The 2006 GPU EIR found that there was an existing deficit of approximately 38.8 acres of combined park and beach acreage citywide, with 7 of the 12 service areas experiencing the deficit. An increase in population in accordance with buildout of the GPU would potentially generate a higher demand on recreational facilities.

The 2006 GPU includes goals and policies to address the potential increase in demand and accelerated deterioration of existing facilities. Goal R 2 requires the maintenance and preservation of existing parks and recreation facilities. More specifically, Policy R 2.1 promotes the City's Park Dedication Fee Ordinance, which requires new development to pay fees or dedicate land as parkland. Policy R 2.2 protects public parkland from nonrecreational uses, requiring in -kind replacement of any parkland lost through governmental action. Goal R 1 strives to provide adequate park and recreational facilities to existing and future residents of the City.

Specifically, Policy R 1.1 requires future development to dedicate land or pay in -lieu fees to maintain a minimum of five acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, per Section 19.52.040 (Parkland Standard) of the City's municipal code. Policy R 1.4 requires park fees to be updated regularly for new residential developments, and Policy R 1.5 promotes development of incentives for private projects to provide usable open space to the public. High - density residential developments on parcels eight acres or larger are required to provide on -site recreational amenities per Policy R 1.3. Lastly, Policy R 1.10 provides additional park and recreational facilities that meet the needs as identified by direct feedback from residents, analysis of trends, and observation by City staff. The 2006 GPU EIR concludes that these goals and policies would ensure that increased demand from the larger population would not significantly accelerate the deterioration of existing recreational facilities, and new parks and facilities would be constructed to meet the needs of the growing population.

Based on the 2006 GPU EIR, future development of parks and recreational facilities to meet the parkland ratio of five acres per 1,000 residents may adversely impact the existing environment. For example, lighted sports fields may cause light and glare impacts in communities, biological habitats may be impacted, or hydrology and drainage may be altered due to new park development. Nevertheless, significant new development would be subject to the City's environmental review process, which includes project -specific environmental review under CEQA. Thus, future provisions of new or improved parks and recreational facilities would not result in substantial adverse impacts and would be less than significant.

May 2020 Page 177

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis

5.15.1.2 2014 LUE AMENDMENT SEIR
Fire Protection
NBFD indicated that there were no deficiencies in the level of fire protection service provided to the city and that the proposed changes within the 2014 LUE Amendment were minor and incremental in scope relative to overall NBFD service demand levels. Therefore, increases to fire services were found to be less than significant.

Police Protection
In order to maintain the ratio of officers to residents at the buildout of the 2014 LUE Amendment, NBPD would have to provide an additional 5 sworn officers upon buildout. The 2014 LUE Amendment EIR found that NBPD did not have near -term plans for expansion of police facilities, staff, or equipment inventory.

Though an increase in population and structures, whether residential or commercial, would require an increase in police presence, the department stated that the 2014 LUE Amendment would not have an adverse impact on its existing level of service. Furthermore, not knowing the exact types and locations of new structures makes it difficult to determine how much, if any, additional police facilities, personnel, or equipment would be needed.

As development occurs, property and sales tax revenue would grow in rough proportions and provide more funding for the City's general funds, which would allocate funding to NBPD as necessary to ensure the department has enough facility space, personnel, and equipment to maintain a high -quality level of service for its residents.

Schools
The 2014 LUE Amendment EIR found that buildout would have no impact on SAUSD and LBUSD, and that NMUSD had enough capacity to accommodate the growth associated with the 2014 LUE Amendment buildout.

Parks
The 2014 LUE Amendment EIR found that the Airport Area does not have any existing parkland because there are currently no residential developments in the area. Within the Airport Area, the 2014 LUE Amendment would allow for the development of up to 329 dwelling units on Saunders Properties, 850 replacement units on Lyon Communities, and a land use designation for Congregate Care use on UAP Companies property. The future residents in the Airport Area would most likely use existing park facilities in the closest service areas — Santa Ana Heights, Eastbluff, and Big Canyon. Eastbluff and Big Canyon have substantial surpluses of 38.1 and 21.96 acres, respectively. In addition, future residential developments in the Airport Area would be required to comply with the same policies outlined in the 2006 GPU FIR to address potential park and recreation facilities, and Chapter 19.52 of the municipal code requires parkland dedication or payment of in -lieu fees for all new developments, which would ensure park and recreation facilities are simultaneously developed with residential dwelling units in the Airport Area.

Furthermore, the new and/or revised land use policies proposed under the General Plan LUE Amendment ensured the availability and maintenance of City parkland. Thus, impacts on the demand of existing park and recreational facilities in Newport Beach were less than significant.

Page 178 ends

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
Library Services
The land use changes in the 2014 LUE Amendment allowed for increased development capacity in some areas of the city; these changes had the potential to affect library services to the general Newport Beach population if demands substantially increased. However, increased development in the City does not necessarily immediately equate to an increase in total volumes or square feet of library space, especially given the growing need for electronic resources rather than physical library collection items. Therefore, library service impacts due to the 2014 LUE Amendment were found to be less than significant.

5.15.2 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
Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
a) Fire protection?
X
b) Police protection?
X
c) Schools?
X
d) Parks?
X
e) Other public facilities?
X
Comments:
a) Fire protection?
Less than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR
The proposed project would result in an increase of 444 dwelling units on the project site and a decrease of 61,000 square feet of nonresidential space. The 444 proposed project housing units, however, are well within the 4,300 units anticipated for the Airport Area in the General Plan Update. GPU Policy LU 3.2 would ensure that fire staffing and facilities would expand commensurately to serve the needs of new development and maintain current response times. Furthermore, the proposed project complies with all applicable federal, state, May 2020 Page 179

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
and local regulations governing fire protection services, such as adequate fire and emergency access, fire flows, and number of fire hydrants. Therefore, impacts from the proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2006 GPU, 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
As shown in Table 3, development under the 2014 LUE Amendment would increase residential units for the project site (and Airport Area) up to an additional 444 units and would also increase allowable nonresidential development for the project site (by approximately 238,000 square feet). Therefore, the proposed project would reduce potential fire protection service impacts compared to the 2014 LUE Amendment.. b) Police protection?
Less than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR
The proposed project would result in an increase of 444 dwelling units on the project site and a decrease of 61,000 square feet of nonresidential space. The number of residential units within the Airport Area as a whole, however, would not increase in comparison to the GPU. To maintain acceptable levels of service, the GPU included policies to ensure adequate law enforcement is provided as the City experiences development (Policy LU 2.8). Furthermore, property and sales tax revenue from the proposed project would provide more funding for the City's general funds, which would allocate funding to NBPD. Therefore, impacts from the proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2006 GPU, 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
As shown in Table 3, development under the 2014 LUE Amendment would increase residential units for the project site (and Airport Area) up to an additional 444 units. The proposed units under the LUE Amendment were additive to the 4,300 units evaluated in the GPU EIR for the Airport Area. Nonresidential development for the project site was also contemplated to be greater under the 2014 LUE Amendment than under the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would reduce potential police protection services relative to the proposed site uses under the LUE Amendment. .
c) Schools?
Less than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR
The proposed project is within the service area of SAUSD, which services the entire Airport Area (CSCD 2020). The proposed project would result in an increase of 444 dwelling units at the project site but would not increase the number of households within the Airport Area.

Page 180 ends

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
Table 10 shows the estimated student generation (K-12) from an additional 444 dwelling units in accordance to the proposed project. Student generation rates are used by school districts to estimate the number of students generated by new development in order to determine whether or not existing school facilities would be adequate for future student enrollment. The estimates use student generation rates specific to SAUSD.

Table 10 Projected Student Population in SAUSD
Grade Level
Student Generation Rate
Proposed Project Buildout
Estimated Buildout Generated
Students
K-5

0.194
444 DU
86 6-8

0.111
49 9-12

0.143
64 Project Total
177
Existing District Enrollment
51,482
Total District Enrollment + Project
51,659
Total District Capacity
62,672
Remaining Capacity
11,013
Source: CDE 2020; SAUSD 2018; SAUSD 2020a.

According to Table 10, buildout of the proposed project would generate 177 more students. Using SAUSD's current capacity and enrollment, SAUSD would have enough capacity to accommodate 11,013 additional students beyond those generated from buildout of the proposed project.

Also, the need for additional services is addressed through compliance with the school impact fee assessment.

SB 50 (Chapter 407 of Statutes of 1998) set a state school facilities construction program that restricts a local jurisdiction's ability to condition a project on mitigation of school impacts in excess of fees in Education Code Section 17620. These fees are collected by school districts at the time building permits are issued for commercial, industrial, and residential projects. SAUSD charges $3.79 per square foot of residential development greater than 500 square feet, and $0.61 per square foot of commercial development. It would collect these fees from individual developers, pursuant to SB 50 (SAUSD 2020b). The State Legislature has declared that the payment of school impact fees constitutes full mitigation for the impacts of new development, per Government Code Section 65995.

Furthermore, Chapter 19.48 (School Sites and Fees) of the City's municipal code may require, as a condition of approval, dedication of land within a subdivision development for the construction of elementary and high schools necessary to ensure that residents of the subdivision have adequate public school service.

Thus, impacts from implementation of the proposed project on school services would be less than significant and 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 would reduce student generation in comparison to uses allowed under the LUE Amendment, and reduce potential impacts to the SAUSD..
d) Parks?
Less than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR
Refer to Section 5.16.2. 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
Compared to the 2014 LUE Amendment, the proposed project would reduce nonresidential space and reduce the number of residential dwelling units allowed within the Airport Area (see Table 3) Therefore, the proposed project would reduce potential impacts to park services relative to the LUE Amendment. e) Other public facilities?
Less than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR
As summarized in Table 3, the proposed project would reduce nonresidential development by approximately 60,000 square feet and would not increase the number of residential units within the Airport Area or city. It would introduce up to 444 residential units on the project site, but these units are already allocated in the 2,200 allowable units in MU-H2 designated areas in the Airport Area. The GPU EIR analyzed a total of 4,300 units within the Airport Area. The proposed project, therefore, would not increase the demand on other public facilities, including library services. It would not increase population in the city and would reduce nonresidential, airport/office land use. Residents of the proposed project would be served by the Newport Beach Public Library (NBPL); the nearest NBPL facility to the project site is the Crean Mariners Library at 1300 Irvine Avenue, approximately three miles southwest of the project site. The proposed project would pay a property excise tax per City municipal code Chapter 3.12, part of which is designated for libraries, and would generate additional tax revenues supporting the City's General Fund. Therefore, impacts on library facilities and services would be less than significant and no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR
As shown in Table 3, development under the 2014 LUE Amendment increased residential units for the project site (and Airport Area) up to an additional 444 units. The proposed units under the LUE Amendment were additive to the 4,300 units evaluated in the GPU EIR for the Airport Area. Nonresidential development for the project site was also greater under the 2014 LUE Amendment in comparison to the proposed project.

Therefore, the proposed project would reduce potential impacts to other public service, including library services, in comparison to proposed site uses under the LUE Amendment.

Page 182 ends

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis

5.15.3 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..

5.15.4 Relevant General Plan Policies
The 2006 General Plan includes the following goals and policies that are relevant to public services.

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 6.15.15 - Aircraft Notification: Require that all neighborhood parks be posted with a notification to users regarding proximity to John Wayne Airport and aircraft overflight and noise.

Goal R 1: Provision of Facilities —Provision of adequate park and recreation facilities that meet the recreational needs of existing and new residents of the community.

R 1.4 - Density Bonuses: Consider development of incentives such as density bonuses for private commercial, office, and other developments to provide usable open space such as rooftop courts, pocket parks, public plazas, jogging trails, and pedestrian trails.

R 1.12 - Aircraft Overflight and Noise: Require that all public parks located within the noise impact zones as defined in the 1985 JWA Master Plan for John Wayne Airport be posted with a notification to users regarding aircraft overflight and noise.

May 2020 Page 183

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis

5.16 RECREATION

5.16.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Program EIRs

5.16.1.1 2006 GENERAL PLAN EIR
Although impacts related to physical deterioration of recreational facilities were considered less than significant for the majority of the city, there was a greater possibility for impacts in the Airport Area. At the time of the 2006 GPU, the Airport Area had no residential units and no park facilities. The 2006 GPU added up to 4,300 multifamily residential units to this area. Policy LU 6.15.15 of the 2006 GPU required residential developers to dedicate and develop a neighborhood park of at least 8 percent of gross land area, with a minimum size of one acre, in the first phase of development in each residential neighborhood or pay in -lieu fees when development is inappropriately located to serve the needs of the residents. This was in addition to the private recreational facilities required in Policy R 1.3. The recreational facilities provided by these policies was at the neighborhood level, and there was the potential for additional use and deterioration of existing sports fields at Bonita Creek and Bonita Canyon Sports Park. However, the policies under Goal R 2 helped ensure that existing parks and recreation facilities were maintained and preserved. Implementation of Policy R 2.1 would maintain existing facilities, thereby reducing impacts related to deterioration, by using funding from the City's Park Dedication Fee Ordinance to enhance existing parks and facilities such as Bonita Canyon Sports Park.

With implementation of Policy R 2.1, impacts related to deterioration of parks and recreation facilities in the Airport Area were less than significant. Through the environmental review process, the future provision of new or physically altered parks or recreational facilities would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts and this impact was found to be less significant.

5.16.1.2 2014 LUE AMENDMENT SEIR
The intensification of some land uses pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment could result in an increased demand for parks and recreational facilities. However, the increase in demand was determined not to result in an acceleration of deterioration of existing facilities.

The 2014 LUE Amendment did not include changes to parks or recreational facilities that had the potential to have an adverse physical effect on the environment. The proposed increased development capacity included increases in dwelling units and hotel rooms, which would lead to an increase in visitors and overall population and related increase in park demands and consequently, the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. However, as stated in the 2006 General Plan EIR, all significant new development of recreational facilities would be subject to the City's environmental review process, which includes project -specific environmental review under CEQA. Thus, the future provision of new or expanded parks or recreational facilities would result in a less than significant impact.

Page 184 ends

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis

5.16.2 Impacts Associated with 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) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
X
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
X
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
Comments:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
No Impact.

Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR
Development of up to 329 residential units (444 with density bonus) would be within the number of units projected and analyzed for the Airport Area within the GPU EIR. Development would be required to comply with the 2006 GPU policies and Chapter 19.52 of the municipal code, which requires parkland dedication or payment of in -lieu fees. This would ensure park and recreation facilities are simultaneously developed with residential dwelling units. Thus, the proposed project would have no impact relative to the impacts as analyzed in the GPU EIR.

Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR
The project proposes the same number of residential units as analyzed in the 2014 LUE SEIR. The proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, would implement Policies LU 6.15.15, R 1.1, R 1.2, and R 1.3 in addition to the requirements of Chapter 9.52 of the City's municipal code. Adherence to the 2006 GPU policies and the municipal code would ensure park and recreation facilities are simultaneously developed with residential dwelling units. Thus, impacts of the proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, would be less than significant.

May 2020 Page 185

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact.

Project Comparison to the 2006 General Plan EIR
The proposed project does not include development of any recreational facilities. It would also not result in the need for construction or expansion of recreational facilities relative to the GPU EIR. The proposed project would introduce up to 444 new residential units to the project site, but these units are already accommodated within the Airport Area under the GPU EIR analysis of up to 4,300 units. The proposed project, therefore, would not have the potential to require recreational facilities that could have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Thus, the future provision of new or expanded parks or recreational facilities associated with the proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2006 GPU, would result in no impact, and there are no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR
The proposed project does not include development of any recreational facilities. It would reduce residential units by up to 444 units in comparison to the 2014 LUE Amendment (see Table 3), and therefore would not result in the need for construction or expansion of recreational facilities relative to the LUE Amendment.

There would be no impacts.

5.16.3 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.

5.16.4 Relevant General Plan Policies
The 2006 General Plan includes the following goals and policies that are relevant to recreation.

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.

Goal R 1: Provision of Facilities —Provision of adequate park and recreation facilities that meet the recreational needs of existing and new residents of the community. ■ R 1.1 - Provision of Parkland: Require future development to dedicate land or pay in -lieu fees at a minimum of 5 acres of parkland per 1,000 persons.
■ R 1.3 - High -Density Residential Developments: Require developers of new high -density residential developments on parcels eight acres or larger, to provide on -site recreational amenities. For these developments, 44 square feet of on -site recreational amenities shall be provided for each dwelling unit in addition to the requirements under the City's Park Dedication Ordinance. On -site recreational amenities

Page 186 ends

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
can consist of public urban plazas or squares where there is the capability for recreation and outdoor activity. These recreational amenities can also include swimming pools, exercise facilities, tennis courts, and basketball courts. Where there is insufficient land to provide on -site recreational amenities, the developer shall be required to pay the City of Newport Beach cash in -lieu that would be used to develop or upgrade nearby recreation facilities to offset user demand as defined in the City's Park Dedication Fee Ordinance.

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

May 2020 Page 187

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis

5.17 TRANSPORTATION
This section, in part, has been excerpted from the analysis in the following study prepared for this Addendum:
■ NezvportAirport Village Trip Making
Assessment, Urban Crossroads, March 5, 2020
This report is included in its entirety as Appendix B to this Addendum.

5.17.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Program EIRs

5.17.1.1 2006 GENERAL PLAN EIR
With respect to transportation/circulation impacts, the 2006 General Plan EIR concluded:
■ Implementation of the 2006 General Plan would contribute to a substantial impact at freeway ramps that exceeds thresholds and would result in operational deficiencies. This would be a significant and unavoidable impact.
• Implementation of the 2006 General Plan would result in a substantial increase in the number of vehicle trips, volume -to -capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections compared to existing conditions.

With improvements proposed in the Circulation Element, growth related to buildout of the proposed 2006 General Plan alone would be reduced to less than significant levels. The improvements included in the City of Newport Beach Circulation Element are detailed in the GPU EIR. • The 2006 General Plan would not result in a substantial impact to CMP arterials in Newport Beach.

Impacts related to CMP facilities would be less than significant. • Circulation improvements would be implemented, and no improvements would introduce new safety hazards at intersections or along roadway segments. Implementation of Circulation and Land Use policies in the 2006 General Plan would provide for increasing safety of roadways, balancing safety, quality of life, and efficiency in the design of circulation and access. Impacts would be less than significant. • The 2006 General Plan would provide adequate emergency access to the project area, and impacts would be less than significant.
• The 2006 Circulation Element contained new policies to encourage alternatives modes of transportation, use of intelligent transportation systems, and the development of waterfront walkways. Intersection improvements would not affect implementation of these policies. The 2006 General Plan did not conflict with existing policies regarding alternative transportation, and impacts would be less than significant.

Page 188 ends

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis

5.17.1.2 2014 LUE AMENDMENT SEIR
Trip Generation and Intersection Performance
The LUE Amendment altered, intensified, and redistributed land uses in certain subareas of the city, including major areas such as Newport Center/Fashion Island, Newport Coast, and the Airport Area near John Wayne Airport. The changes were projected to result in a citywide increase of 260 morning peak hour inbound trip ends, 521 morning peak hour outbound trip ends, 434 evening peak hour inbound trip ends, 324 evening peak hour outbound trip ends, and 8,221 daily trip ends.

The Airport Area land use changes were described in the LUE Amendment EIR as follows:

Airport Area: The Airport Area is another subarea proposed for considerable changes from the existing land use plan. The project proposes changes to four properties within the subarea: Saunders Properties, The Hangars, Lyon Communities, and UAP Companies. Currently, the four properties only consist of office buildings. The proposed project would allow for increased square footage for retail and office uses as well as residential units and hotel rooms. As with Newport Center/Fashion Island, the Airport Area would allow for denser infill development and an estimated additional 10,771 daily trips.

Table 11, Project Trip Generation - LUE Amendment Airport Area Change Areas, shows the trip changes anticipated within the proposed change areas in the Airport Area (see Figure 6, Airport Area Proposed Changes, 2014 LUE Amendment).

Table 11 Project Trip Generation - LUE Amendment Airport Area Change Areas AM
PM
In
Out
In
Out
Area
Area Name
Land Use Change
ADT
Saunders Pro a
p ty
329 du Apartment
239
220
211
221
4,651
238.077 TSF General Office
The Hangars

11.8 TSF General Commercial
13 6
14 17
340
-10 TSF General Office
42 850 du Apartment (High -Rise)
Lyon Homes
150 room Hotel
103
352
321
210
5,780
85 TSF General Commercial
-250.176 TSF General Office
UAP Companies
trip neutral land uses
0 0
0 0
0 Citywide Total
355
578
546
448
10,771
Source: Urban Crossroads 2014.

TSF = thousand square feet
The General Plan LUE Amendment would result in the redistribution of peak hour directional traffic movements, which generally would not degrade roadway system performance in comparison to the 2006 General Plan. In summary, based on the intersection impact criteria described, there would be no significant impacts with the planned improvements at study -area intersections.

May 2020 Page 189

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
Congestion Management Program Intersections
The Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP) was established in 1991 to reduce traffic congestion and to provide a mechanism for coordinating land use and development decisions. Compliance with CMP requirements ensures a city's eligibility to compete for state gas tax funds for local transportation projects.

For OCTA CMP intersections, the acceptable LOS is E. If the intersection would operate at unacceptable LOS and the project increases the volume -to -capacity (V/C) ratio by 0.03 or greater, mitigation is required to bring the intersection back to an acceptable level of service or to no -project conditions. CMP intersections in the vicinity of the LUE Amendment consist of:
■ I-405 Northbound Ramps/Jamboree Road
■ I-405 Southbound Ramps/Jamboree Road
■ MacArthur Boulevard/Jamboree Road
■ MacArthur Boulevard/Coast Highway
• Newport Boulevard/Coast Highway
Implementation of the LUE Amendment would not cause a CMP intersection to fall below LOS E and would not cause a cumulative increase of more than 0.03 in the V/C ratio at any CMP intersection with an established LOS standard worse than LOS E for any scenario. The LUE Amendment's contribution to trips at CMP intersections would be less than significant.

Alternative Transportation Consistency
Implementation of the LUE Amendment would have no impact on policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. Development in accordance with the LUE Amendment would not result in changes to the circulation system and would not conflict with the design of pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Development of each site would have to comply with policies in the Land Use Element and Circulation Element related to alternative transportation.

5.17.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Would the 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 a program, plan, ordinance or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle and
X
pedestrian facilities?
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
X

Page 190 ends

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) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
X
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
X
Comments:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR
The proposed project would comply with General Plan policies and ordinances, as well as regional programs addressing the circulation system. It would not impact transit, roadway, bicycle or pedestrian facilities.

The Urban Crossroads study (in Appendix B) evaluated the project's potential impact on trip generation and intersection performance in comparison to development of the site under the 2006 General Plan land use designations. Table 12 summarizes allowed site uses for the project site that were evaluated using the Newport Beach Traffic Model (NBTM) for the 2006 General Plan traffic study in comparison to the proposed land uses for the project.

Table 12 2006 General Plan U
date Traffic Anal sis — Land
Use Comparison to Proposed Project
TAZ 1377
TAZ 1378
Total Studied
2006project
Adjustment for smaller
area: 62.7%1
Proposed Project Studied
General Commercial
79,715
91,476
171,191
107,336
46,4102
General Office
172,715
198,198
370,913
232,562
232,562
Industrial
19,929
22,869
42,798
26,834
18,6003
Apartments
0 0
0 3294
(444 w/density bonus)
1 Proposed project area is 62.7% (16.46 acres) of TAZs 1377 and 1378 combined (26.24 acres). 2 60,926 sq. ft. converted into 329 dwelling units per Airport Area Conversion Rates (107,336 — 60,926 = 46,410). 3 Total floor area studied overestimated allowed capacity so industrial was reduced by 8,234. 4 Proposed project requests a GPA to allow 329 of the 1,650 replacement dwelling units already allowed by the general plan in the MU-H2 land use category.

As shown, in comparison to the 2006 land uses analyzed for the project site, the proposed project reduces commercial and industrial building space and introduces up to 444 residential units. Table 13 compares the trip May 2020 Page 191

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
generation, including AM and PM peak hour trips and average daily trips (ADT) for the proposed project in comparison to the 2006 General Plan land uses for the site.

Table 13 Project Site Trip Generation - 2006 GPA vs Proposed Pro NBTM I I AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land Use Code I Quantity In Out Total In I Out I Total I Daily 2006 General Plan Update (Approved General Plan) Trip Generation Results General Commercial
10a
107.366 TSF
191
86 277
164
217
381
4,105
General Office
23a
232.562 TSF
195
60 255
91 151
242
2,577
Industrial
26 26.834 TSF
13 3
16 5
9 14
147
TOTAL
399
149
548
260
377
637
6,829
Proposed Project Trip Generation Results
Apartment (High -Rise)
3c
329 DU
33 125
158
95 53
148
1,612
General Commercial
10a

46.41 TSF
83 37
120
71 94
165
1,775
General Office
23a
232.562 TSF
195
60 255
91 151
242
2,577
Industrial
26 18.6 TSF
9 2
11 3
6 9
102
TOTAL Density without Bonus
320
224
544
260
304
564
6,066
Apartment (High -Rise) I 3c 115 DU
12 44
56 33
18 51
564
TOTAL with Density Bonus
332
2681
600
2931
322
615
6,630
Difference without Density Bonus
-79
75 -4
0 -73
-73
-763
Difference without Density Bonus
1 -67
119
521
33 -55
-22
-199
DU = dwelling unit
TSF = thousand square feet
As shown, in comparison to the 2006 GPU land uses for the project site, the proposed project would reduce daily trip generation even with full buildout of the 115 additional units under the density bonus (199 fewer daily trips than the GPU land uses). It would result in a decrease of 22 total PM peak hour trips, but increase total AM peak hour trips by 33.

The projected inbound and outbound trip distribution for the proposed project is shown on Exhibits A and B, respectively, of the traffic report. The peak hour trip differences were applied to the trip distributions to develop AM and PM peak hour intersection volume changes. Exhibits showing the AM and PM peak trip difference with the proposed project (with and without the density bonus) are included in Appendix B, Exhibits C through E Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) changes due to the project were calculated. The performance changes at area intersections due to the proposed project are shown in Table 14. The analysis conservatively assumes that buildout of the proposed project includes all potential density bonus units (total 444 residential units).

Page 192 ends

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
Table 14 Intersection Level of Service - 2006 GPU vs Proposed Project Intersection
Approved GP
Approved GP with Project DB
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
ICU
LOS'
ICU
LOS'
ICU
LOS'
ICU
LOS'
9 MacArthur BI. & Campus Dr.

0.58 A

0.67 B

0.58 A

0.67 B
10 MacArthur BI. & Birch St.

0.53 A

0.65 B

0.54 A

0.65 B
11 Von Karman Av. & Campus Dr.

0.69 B

0.74 C

0.69 B

0.74 C
12 MacArthur BI. & Von Karman Av.

0.64 B

0.56 A

0.64 B

0.56 A
15 Campus Dr. & Bristol St. N.

0.51 A

0.75 C

0.51 A

0.75 C
16 Birch St. & Bristol St. N.

0.64 B

0.63 B

0.64 B
17 Campus Dr. & Bristol St. S.

0.81 D

0.59 A

0.81 D

0.59 A
18 Birch St. & Bristol St. S.

0.49 A

0.53 A

0.50 A

0.53 A
29 MacArthur BI. & Jamboree Rd..

0.62 B

0.88 D

0.62 B

0.88 D
69 MacArthur BI. & 1-405 NB Ramps

0.68 B

0.67 B

0.68 B

0.67 B
70 MacArthur BI. & 1-405 SB Ramps

0.61 B

0.77 C

0.61 B

0.76 C
71 MacArthur BI. & Michelson Dr.

0.68 B

0.88 D

0.69 B

0.88 D
LOS is a qualitative description of traffic flow based on such factors as speed, travel time, delay, and freedom to maneuver. Six levels are defined from LOS "A", representing completely free -flow conditions, to LOS "P', representing breakdown in flow resulting in stop -and -go conditions.

As shown, implementation of the proposed project would have a nominal effect on the performance of intersections surrounding the project site in comparison to the 2006 GPU land uses. The impact of the project would be less than significant, and no changes or new information require preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR
The proposed project would comply with General Plan policies and ordinances as well as regional programs addressing the circulation system. It would not impact transit, roadway, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities given the net decrease in development compared to development anticipated in the 2014 LUE SEIR.

The Urban Crossroads study in Appendix B evaluated the project's potential impact on trip generation and intersection performance in comparison to development of the site under the 2014 LUE Amendment. Table 15 summarizes allowed site uses for the project site that were evaluated using the Newport Beach Traffic Model (NBTM) for the 2014 LUE Amendment traffic study in comparison to the proposed land uses for the project.

May 2020 Page 193

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
1 aD1e i o ZU14 L`Ut Amenament 1 raTTIC Analysis - Lana use uom arlSon to rro osea
rro ect
TAZ 1377
TAZ 1378
Total Studied
2014
Adjustment for
smaller project
area: 62.7%1
Proposed Project
Studied
General Commercial
79,715
91,476
171,191
107,336
46,4102
General Office
243,262
347,115
590,377
370,166
232,5623
Industrial
19,929
22,869
42,798
26,834
18,6004
Apartments
297
147
444
N/A5
329 (444 w/density
bonus)
Proposed project area is 62.7% (16.46 acres) of TAZs 1377 and 1378 combined (26.24 acres). 2 60,926 sq. ft. converted into 329 dwelling units per Airport Area Conversion Rates (107,336 — 60,926 = 46,410). 3 2014 study included an increase of 238,077 square feet of office in TAZs 1377 and 1378. No increase in the allowed office development for the proposed project. 4 Total floor area studied in 2014 overestimated allowed capacity so industrial was reduced by 8,234 sq. ft. 5 All 444 dwelling units were planned to go into the same general area as the current proposed project.

As shown, in comparison to the 2014 LUE Amendment land uses analyzed for the project site, the proposed project reduces commercial, office, and industrial uses on the project site and includes development of the same number of residential units. Table 16 compares the trip generation, including AM and PM peak hour trips, and ADT for the proposed project in comparison to the 2014 LUE Amendment uses for the project site.

Table 16 Project Site Trip Generation - 2014 LUE Amendment vs Pro NBTM I AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily
Land Use Code I Quantity' In Out I Total I In Out I Total 2014 LUE Amendment Trip Generation Results
Apartment (High -Rise)
3c
444 DU
44 169
213
129
71 200
2,176
General Commercial
10a
107.336 TSF
191
86 277
164
217
381
4,105
General Office
23a
370.166 TSF
311
96 407
144
241
385
4,101
Industrial
26 26.834 TSF
13 3
16 5
9 14
147
TOTAL
1 559
354
913
442
5381
9801
10,529
Proposed Project Trip Generation Results
Apartment (High -Rise)
3c
329 DU
33 125
158
95 53
148
1,612
General Commercial
10a

46.41 TSF
83 37
120
71 94
165
1,775
General Office
23a
232.562 TSF
195
60 255
91 151
242
2,577
Industrial
26 18.6 TSF
9 2
11 3
6 9
102
TOTAL Density without Bonus
320
224
544
260
304
564
6,066
Apartment (High -Rise) I 3c 115 DU
12 44
56 33
18 51
564
TOTAL with Density Bonus
332
2681
600
293
322
615
6,630
Difference without Density Bonus
-239
-130
-369
-182
-234
-416
-4,463
Difference with Density Bonus
227
86 313
149
-216
-365
-3,899
DU = dwelling unit
TSF = thousand square feet
As shown, in comparison to the 2014 LUE Amendment land uses for the project site, the proposed project would reduce AM and PM peak hour trips and daily trip generation even with full buildout of the 115 additional units. It would decrease ADT by 3,899 trips, PM trips by 365, and AM peak trips by 313.

Page 194 ends

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
The traffic study evaluated the potential changes to intersection performance for the proposed project in comparison to the LUE Amendment. Table 17 shows the resulting ICU values and levels of service.

Table 17 Intersection Level of Service - 2014 LUE Amendment vs Proposed Project Intersection
LUE
LUE Update with Project DB
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
ICU
LOSS
ICU
LOSS
ICU
LOSS
ICU
LOSS
9 MacArthur BI. & Campus Dr.

0.62 B

0.70 B

0.62 B

0.70 B
10 MacArthur BI. & Birch St.

0.57 A

0.71 C

0.57 A

0.71 C
11 Von Karman AV. & Campus Dr.

0.66 B

0.74 C

0.66 B

0.73 C
12 MacArthur BI. & Von Karman Av.

0.62 B
j 0.58
A

0.62 B

0.57 A
15 Campus Dr. & Bristol St. N.

0.50 A

0.73 C

0.50 A

0.73 C
16 Birch St. & Bristol St. N.

0.60 A

0.64 B

0.60 A

0.64 B
17 Campus Dr. & Bristol St. S.

0.79 C

0.59 A

0.79 C

0.59 A
18 Birch St. & Bristol St. S.

0.49 A

0.53 A

0.49 A

0.53 A
29 MacArthur BI. & Jamboree Rd..

0.64 B

0.89 D

0.64 B

0.89 D
69 MacArthur BI. & 1-405 NB Ramps

0.69 B

0.66 B

0.69 B

0.66 B
70 MacArthur BI. & 1-405 SB Ramps

0.63 B

0.79 C

0.63 B

0.79 C
71 MacArthur BI. & Michelson Dr.

0.70 B

0.90 D

0.70 B

0.90 D
LOS is a qualitative description of traffic flow based on such factors as speed, travel time, delay, and freedom to maneuver. Six levels are defined from LOS "A", representing completely free -flow conditions, to LOS T", representing breakdown in flow resulting in stop -and -go conditions.

As shown, implementation of the proposed project would have a nominal effect on the performance of intersections surrounding the project site in comparison to the LUE Amendment land uses. The impact of the project would be less than significant, and no changes or new information require preparation of an EIR. b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines S 15064.3, subdivision (b)? No Impact.

Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR
This Appendix G checklist question and the referenced CEQA Guidelines section were added to the CEQA Guidelines updates in 2018, and therefore were not addressed in the 2006 GPU EIR.

The legislature found that with the adoption of the SB 375, the state had signaled its commitment to encourage land use and transportation planning decisions and investments that reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, as required by the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32). Additionally, AB 1358 (Complete Streets Act) requires local governments to plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users.

May 2020 Page 195

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
On September 27, 2013, SB 743 was signed into law and started a process that could fundamentally change transportation impact analysis as part of CEQA compliance. These changes include the elimination of auto delay, level of service (LOS), and similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as a basis for determining significant environmental impacts. On January 20, 2016, OPR released revisions to its proposed CEQA guidelines for the implementation of SB 743, and final review and rulemaking for the new guidelines were completed in December 2018. OPR allows agencies an opt -in period to adopt the guidelines, and they become mandatory on July 1, 2020.

In Citi.Zens for Positive Growth & Preservation a City of Sacramento (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 609, 625-626, the Third District Court of Appeal refused to address the merits of a pending CEQA appeal involving the sufficiency of an EIR's LOS-based analysis of transportation -related impacts. The court found that this particular challenge was moot, in that, if the court were to find problems with the analysis and remand the matter back to the respondent city, the city would be under no obligation to undertake additional LOS-based analysis. After noting that section 15064.3 was "[t]he regulation was promulgated, in part, pursuant to section 21099 and certified by the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency before being approved by the Office of Administrative Law on December 28, 2018," the court reasoned as follows:

In mandamus proceedings like this one, "the law to be applied is that which is current at the time of judgment in the appellate court" [Citations.] Under section 21099, subdivision (b)(2), existing law is that "automobile delay, as described solely by level of service or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment" under CEQA, except for roadway capacity projects. Accordingly, the 2035 General Plan's impacts on LOS (i.e., automobile delay) cannot constitute a significant environmental impact, as Citizens argues, rendering Citizens's traffic impacts argument moot.

In short, as of December 28, 2018, "automobile delay, as described solely by level of service or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment" under CEQA, except for roadway capacity projects. Thus, the former obligation under CEQA to address LOS in transportation analyses ceased to exist as of that date, except (at agencies' discretion) with respect to transportation projects.

The City of Newport Beach has not implemented VMT metrics yet and currently uses the established LOS criteria. The guidelines are not yet mandatory. Therefore, no new significant impacts result from project modification or changed circumstances, and no revisions to the 2006 GPU EIR are necessary. No changes or new information would require preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR
The referenced section of the CEQA Guidelines and Appendix G checklist question were added in 2018, and therefore not addressed in the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR. As described above, the City of Newport Beach has not implemented VMT metrics yet and currently uses the established LOS criteria. The guidelines are not yet mandatory. Therefore, no new significant impacts result from project modification or changed circumstances, and no revisions to the 2014 LUE SEIR are necessary. No changes or new information would require preparation of an EIR.

Page 196 ends

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No Impact.

Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR
The project site is already developed, and the proposed development would be accessed from the existing arterials fronting the project site. The project would not introduce roadway hazards or incompatible uses. It would not increase transportation hazards in comparison to the 2006 GPU. Impacts would be less than significant.

Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR
The proposed project site is already developed and the proposed development would be accessed from the existing arterials fronting the project site. The project would not introduce roadway hazards or incompatible uses. It would not increase transportation hazards in comparison to the 2014 LUE Amendment. Impacts would be less than significant.
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
No Impact.

Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR
The proposed project would not modify any public road or introduce features that would affect vehicular, pedestrian, or bicycle circulation in the vicinity of the site. In addition, project traffic would not result in substantial delays and congestion that would affect the circulation of emergency vehicles in the study area compared to the 2006 General Plan EIR because the project would reduce the total number of onsite trips.

The proposed project would not result in new impacts in comparison to the 2006 GPU EIR.

Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR
The proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access and would not introduce impacts in comparison to the 2014 LUE Amendment.

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

5.17.4 Relevant General Plan Policies
The 2006 General Plan includes the following goals and policies from the Circulation Element that are relevant to transportation/traffic impacts of the proposed project.

May 2020 Page 197

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
Goal CE 1.1: An overall transportation system that facilitates the movement of people and goods within and through the City of Newport Beach and accommodates conservative growth within the City of Newport Beach, but is not expanded primarily to accommodate growth in the surrounding region.
• CE 1.1.1 - Comprehensive Transportation System: Provide a diverse transportation system that provides mobility options for the community.
• CE 1.1.2 - Integrated System of Multiple Modes: Provide an integrated transportation system that supports the land use plan set forth in the Land Use Element. • CE 1.1.3 - Levels of Service Related to Community Character: Establish level of service standards that reflect the character of the various unique districts and neighborhoods of Newport Beach.

Goal CE 1.2: Reduced summertime visitor traffic impacts. • CE 1.2.4 - Public Transit: Support and encourage OCTA efforts to provide/fund summertime expanded bus service and/or local shuttle services to reduce visitor traffic.

Goal CE 2.1: A roadway system that provides for the efficient movement of goods and people in the City of Newport Beach, while maintaining the community's character and its residents' quality of life.
• CE 2.1.1- Level of Service Standards: Plan the arterial roadway system to accommodate projected traffic at the following level of service standards:
a. Level of Service (LOS) "D" throughout the City, unless otherwise noted b. LOS "E" at any intersection in the Airport Area shared with Irvine c. LOS "E" at Coast Highway (E\V) and Dover Drive (NS) due to right-of-way Limitations d. LOS "E" at Marguerite Avenue (NS) and Coast Highway (EW) in the pedestrian oriented area of Corona del Mar
e. LOS "B" at Goldenrod Avenue (NS) and Coast Highway (EW) in the pedestrian oriented area of in Corona del Mar
• CE 2.1.2 - Street and Highway Network: Construct the circulation system described on the map entitled Newport Beach Circulation Element -Master Plan of Streets and Highways shown in Figure CE1 and Figure CE2 (cross-section).
• CE 2.1.4 - Roadway Improvements: Pursue construction of intersection improvements shown on Figure CE3 or alternate improvements that achieve an acceptable level of service.

Page 198 ends

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
• CE 2.1.6 - Protection of Right -of -Way: Protect right-of-way for designated future streets and highways through all practicable means.

Goal CE 2.3: Optimal roadway system operation.
• CE 2.3.4 - Improvements to Reflect Changing Traffic Conditions: Based on the monitoring of traffic conditions, consider additional improvements in areas with operations issues, such as intersections with heavy turn volumes (e.g. additional turn lanes, traffic signal progression, etc.).

Goal CE 5.1: Convenient trail systems that satisfy recreational desires and transportation needs. • CE 5.1.2 - Pedestrian Connectivity: Link residential areas, schools, parks, and commercial centers so that residents can travel within the community without driving. • CE 5.1.3 - Pedestrian Improvements in New Development Projects: Require new development projects to include safe and attractive sidewalks, walkways, and bike lanes in accordance with the Master Plan, and, if feasible, trails.
• CE 5.1.4 - Linkages to Citywide Trail System and Neighborhoods: Require developers to construct links to the planned trail system, adjacent areas, and communities where appropriate. • CE 5.1.5 - Bikeway System: Cooperate with state, federal, county, and local agencies to coordinate bikeways and trails throughout the region.
• CE 5.1.6 - Bicycle Supporting Facilities: Incorporate bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the design plans for new streets and highways and, where feasible, in the plans for improving existing roads. • CE 5.1.7 - Bicycle Safety: Provide for safety of bicyclists, equestrians, and pedestrians by adhering to current national standards and uniform practices.
• CE 5.1.8 - Bicycle Conflicts with Vehicles and Pedestrians: Minimize conflict points among motorized traffic, pedestrians, and bicycle traffic.
• CE 5.1.9 - Integrated Bicycle Improvements: Coordinate community bicycle and pedestrian facilities in a citywide network for continuity of travel.

Goal CE 6.2: Reduced automobile travel through the use of travel demand management strategies. • CE 6.2.1 - Alternative Transportation Modes: Promote and encourage the use of alternative transportation modes, such as ridesharing, carpools, vanpools, public transit, bicycles, and walking; and provide facilities that support such alternate modes.

May 2020 Page 199

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
• CE 6.2.2 Support Facilities for Alternative Modes: Require new development projects to provide facilities commensurate with development type and intensity to support alternative modes, such as preferential parking for carpools, bicycle lockers, showers, commuter information areas, rideshare vehicle loading areas, water transportation docks, and bus stop improvements. • CE 6.2.3 - Project Site Design Supporting Alternative Modes: Encourage increased use of public transportation by requiring project site designs that facilitate the use of public transportation and walking.

Goal CE 8.1: Adequate funding for needed transportation infrastructure and operations. • CE 8.1.9 - Right -of -Way Dedication: Require the dedication of needed right-of-way in conjunction with approval of subdivision maps or other discretionary approvals. • CE 8.1.10 - Development Requirements: Require development to provide the needed roadway improvements adjacent to a site, commensurate with project impact and in accordance with the Master Plan of Streets and Highways.
• CE 8.1.11 -joint Funding with Adjoining jurisdictions: Pursue joint funding of improvements in areas (such as the Airport Area) where traffic growth and/or needed improvements are demonstrably based upon traffic contributions or improvements that are a joint responsibility of Newport Beach and one or more adjacent jurisdictions/agencies.
• CE 8.1.12 - Measure M Restrictions: Measure M sales tax revenues shall not be used to replace private developer funding that has been committed for any project or normal subdivision obligations. • CE 8.1.13 - Transportation Improvement or Special Assessment District: Establish a transportation improvement or special assessment district to fund improvements needed in the Airport Area.

Page 200 ends

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis

5.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
The City of Newport Beach has a long cultural history and is known to have been home to Native American groups prior to settlement by Euro-Americans. Archaeological materials associated with occupation of the city are known to exist and have the potential to provide important scientific information regarding history and prehistory. Archaeological resources are often of cultural or religious importance to Native American groups, particularly if the resource includes human and/or animal burials. Consequently, ground -disturbing activities, particularly in areas that have not previously been developed with urban uses, have the potential to damage or destroy Native American resources that may be present on or below the ground surface.

AB 52, which took effect July 1, 2015, requires analysis of tribal cultural resources (TCR) in CEQA documents.

Tribal cultural resources are sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either included or eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historic Resources or included in a local register of historical resources. Or the lead agency, supported by substantial evidence, chooses at its discretion to treat the resource as a tribal cultural resource.

AB 52 requires consultation with tribes at an early stage to determine whether the project would have an adverse impact on TCRs. Consultation concludes when both parties have agreed on measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect to a tribal cultural resource, or a party, after a reasonable effort in good faith, decides that mutual agreement cannot be reached. Consultation only applies to CEQA documents that require public circulation; however, the CEQA document must disclose significant impacts to TCRs and discuss feasible alternatives or mitigation that avoid or lessen the impact.

Although this Addendum does not require public review and therefore does not require consultation with Native American tribes, impacts to TCRs are analyzed in this section for consistency with the updated CEQA Guidelines, adopted December 2018.

5.18.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Program EIRs

5.18.1.1 2006 GENERAL PLAN EIR
Impacts related to tribal cultural resources were not analyzed in the 2006 GPU EIR because this analysis was not required in environmental documents until AB 52 became effective in 2015, long after the 2006 GPU EIR was certified.

5.18.1.2 2014 LUE AMENDMENT SEIR
Impacts related to tribal cultural resources were not analyzed in the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR because this analysis was not required in environmental documents until AB 52 became effective in 2015, after the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR was certified.

However, Senate Bill (SB) 18, which went into effect on March 1, 2005, required local jurisdictions to provide opportunities for involvement of California Native Americans tribes in the land planning process during this time. The City did consult with applicable tribes, pursuant to SB 18, on the 2014 LUE Amendment. The May 2020 Page 201

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
Cultural Resources section of the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR included a Sacred Lands File search from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC recommended contact with 14 Native American tribes or individuals who might have additional knowledge of the religious and cultural significance of historic properties within or immediately adjacent to the study area. Upon implementation of GPU policies, the requests of the tribes, and regulatory requirements, impacts to Native American resources were found to be less than significant.

5.18.2 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
Would the project cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074
as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape
that is geographically defined in terms of the size
and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object
with cultural value to a California Native American
tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in
X
Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in
its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code § 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth
X
in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code §
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California
Native American tribe.

Comments:

Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

Page 202 ends

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? Less than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR
The proposed project would alter land uses and intensities on the project site. The entire site, however, is previously developed, and project implementation would not result in disturbing new areas. The proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2006 GPU, would adhere to the GPU policies under Goals HR 2 and NR 18 in case future development requires ground -disturbing activities that may impact previously undisturbed ground. Furthermore, the proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2006 GPU, would comply with the City's "Archaeological Guidelines (K-5)." 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.

No impact would occur in comparison to the GPU EIR, which was assessed as 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
On October 14, 2013, the NAHC replied that there were no known Native American cultural resources within the planned land use change areas within the LUE Amendment, including the proposed project site (Saunders Property). The proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, would be required to implement the requirements of the "Archaeological Guidelines (K-5)" and policies in the 2006 GPU under Goals HR 2 and NR 18. Therefore, there would be no impact to tribal cultural resources relative to the conclusions in the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR.
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code § 5024.1.

In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code 5 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe? Less than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to the 2006 General Plan EIR
See Impact 5.17.2 (a).

Project Comparison to the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR
See Impact 5.17.2 (a).

May 2020

Page 203 ends

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis

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

5.18.4 Relevant General Plan Policies
The 2006 General Plan includes the following goals and policies that are relevant to tribal 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 impact cultural resources. Allow qualified representatives of such groups to monitor grading and/or excavation of development sites.

Page 204 ends

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
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 205

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis

5.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

5.19.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Previous EIRs

5.19.1.1 2006 GENERAL PLAN EIR
Wastewater Treatment and Collection
The 2006 GPU EIR concluded that the 2006 GPU would have no impact on wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) because the City requires National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. The permits contain limits on allowable concentrations and mass discharge of pollutants from both point and nonpoint sources. Development in accordance with the 2006 GPU would be required to comply with all provisions of the NPDES program, as enforced by RWQCB. In addition, the City's municipal code mandates dwelling units and businesses to connect to the City's public sewer and prohibits the discharge of polluting substances into public sewers. Furthermore, the NPDES Phase I and Phase II requirements regulate discharge from construction sites. Policies in the 2006 GPU also specify minimal adverse effects to water quality from sanitary sewer outflows (Policies HB 7.6, NR

4.1, NR 5.1, NR 5.3, NR 5.4). Thus, no impact to the City's wastewater treatment quality would occur.

Using the City's 1996 Master Plan of Sewer's wastewater generation factors, buildout of the 2006 GPU was estimated to produce an additional 4.12 million gallons per day (mgd) of wastewater. The additional 4.12 mgd of wastewater would be distributed between Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) Reclamation Plants Nos. 1 and 2. Reclamation Plant No. 1 was found to have a capacity of 174 mgd and treated an average flow of 90 mgd, approximately 52 percent of its design capacity. Reclamation Plant No. 2 was found to have a capacity of 276 mgd and treated an average of 153 mgd, approximately 55 percent of its design capacity. The additional 4.12 mgd from buildout of the 2006 GPU was nominal compared to the capacities of the two plants.

In addition, policies within the 2006 General Plan require adequate wastewater facilities and conveyance systems to be available to the City residents through renovations, installations, and improvements when needed. Thus, impacts were determined less than significant.

Lastly, according to the 2006 EIR, the City served approximately 1,200 acre-feet per year (afy) of irrigation demand using potable recycled water. Policy NR 2.1 of the 2006 General Plan encourages the use of recycled water in the City by continuing to provide financial incentives, staff assistance, and training opportunities for customers, and expanding recycled water infrastructure and programs, when feasible. Future recycled water infrastructure developments, if necessary, would require further environmental review when project -level details are known. Thus, impacts associated with the construction of new recycled water conveyance systems within the City were considered less than significant.

Water Supply and Distribution
The City's surface water supply comes from the City, the Mesa Consolidated Water District (MCWD), and the Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD), which source their imported water from the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC). In addition, all three service providers use groundwater and recycled water to supplement their supply. Development in accordance with the 2006 GPU would increase water demand within

Page 206 ends

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
the City; however, the 2006 EIR concluded that impacts to existing water supply and infrastructure would be less than significant.

The 2006 General Plan buildout would increase the City's water demands by approximately 998 afy; however, MWDOC, the City's imported water supplier, indicated that its 2030 projected availability of imported water supply exceeds the 2030 projected regionwide demand for imported water supply by at least 155,000 acre-feet.

Thus, MWDOC would be able to meet 100 percent of the City's imported water needs through 2030. Beyond 2030, additional water transfers, local projects, conservation efforts, and State Water Project improvements may be necessary to meet Newport Beach's future demand requirements. Groundwater supplies were also identified to meet demands through 2030. Various policies in the 2006 General Plan Natural Resource Element aimed to increase the use of recycled water, provide financial incentives for reduced water use, offer alternative water resources through advance water treatment processes, and implement water conservation measures.

Furthermore, the 2006 General Plan buildout would increase water demand by 270 afy in the IRWD service area. The additional water demand, however, would not change IRWD's urban water management plan (UWMP) conclusions with respect to projected water supply reliability. IRWD identified surplus water supplies under normal, single dry year, and multiple dry year scenarios for both imported and groundwater supplies.

The MCWD service area would experience an increase in water demand by approximately 58.6 afy. However, Mesa indicated that they had adequate water supply sources to supply the additional demand.

In addition, any new development would be subject to site -specific evaluation of existingwater system's capacity to service the development. If improvements are required, developers are required to pay its share of costs of all or portions of the needed improvements. Environmental impacts associated with these improvements would be evaluated at a project -level. Policy LU 2.8 of the 2006 General Plan also directs the City to accommodate land uses that can be adequately supported by infrastructure, including water treatment and conveyance facilities. Thus, overall impacts to the three water suppliers were found to be less than significant.

Storm Drainage Systems
The 2006 GPU EIR found that development would have a less than significant impact on Newport Beach's storm drainage system capacity. Buildout would generally result in infill development or redevelopment, which would not substantially alter drainage patterns because these areas are already developed with existing uses and impervious surfaces. The City's Storm Drain Master Plan was completed in 2000 and addressed drainage deficiencies. However, no upgrades were proposed as necessary with implementation of the 2006 GPU. Several GPU policies addressed stormwater. Section 15.50.160 of the City's municipal code also regulates flood hazards resulting from drainage alterations. By complying with the General Plan policies and City's municipal code, impacts to existing drainage system capacities would be less than significant.

Solid Waste
The 2006 EIR found that impacts on existing solid waste facilities from project -generated solid waste were less than significant. Development of the 2006 GPU would result in an additional 21,659 tons per year of solid waste to be disposed of at the Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill, which represented approximately 0.68 May 2020 Page 207

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
percent of the amount of solid waste the landfill accepts annually. Given the landfill's 16-year lifespan and remaining capacity of approximately 44.6 million tons at the time the 2006 EIR was prepared, the increase in solid waste generated from buildout of the 2006 GPU was considered less than significant.

Other Utilities
The projected electrical demand for buildout under the GPU was found to be within the SCE's 2016 load forecast. Though SCE's total system demand was expected to continue to increase annually, excluding any unforeseen problems, SCE's plans for new distribution resources would be adequate to serve all existing and new customer loads throughout the coming decade. However, to reduce any potential impacts associated with buildout of the proposed GPU, SCE recommended the use of energy efficient and high-performance design for nonresidential and residential building design and construction. SCGC also indicated the natural gas level of service provided to the City would not be impaired by buildout under the GPU.

5.19.1.2 2014 LUE AMENDMENT SEIR
Wastewater Treatment and Collection
The 2014 LUE Amendment would result in an additional 431,340 gallons per day (gpd) of wastewater in the City's service area when compared with the buildout of the 2006 GPU buildout. According to OCSD, the growth would not necessitate new or expanded treatment facilities. Furthermore, if development under the General Plan LUE Amendment required additional sewer flow connections to the OCSD sewer lines or pump stations, then OCSD design guidelines would apply. Additionally, a sewer connection fee would be required prior to issuance of building permits, pursuant to Chapter 14.24 of the City's municipal code (Leon 2013).

Developers are also required to pay for infrastructure expansions or improvements, including sewer improvements, if their projects could have a significant adverse impact on existing conditions. Therefore, impacts to the sewer system were found to be less than significant.

Water Supply and Distribution
The 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR found that buildout under this amendment would increase water demand within the City's service area by an additional 422 afy when compared to the 2006 GPU buildout. According to the City's 2010 UWMP, the 2035 projected availability of imported water supply from MWDOC meets the 2035 projected imported water demand.

Due to its active efforts in promoting water conservation and water use efficiency to residents, the City is projecting a flattening demand trend in the next 25 years despite a projected 11 percent population growth.

Projects pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment would comply with the requirements of the City's municipal code Chapter 14.16, Water Conservation and Supply Level Regulations, and Chapter 14.17, Water -Efficient Landscaping; the policies of the 2006 GPU; and the requirements of the 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan.5 Therefore, the City's existing and future water supply could accommodate the increased water demand 5 The 20x2O2O Water Conservation Plan was issued by the California Department of Water Resources in 2010 pursuant to the Water Conservation Act of 2009 (SBX7-7), and established a statewide water conservation target of 20 percent reduction in water use by 2020 compared to the State's 2005 baseline use.

Page 208 ends

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
associated with the 2014 LUE Amendment. Furthermore, IRWD's water system was found to be sufficient and operating at a high level of service. According to IRWD's 2010 UWMP, the water supply was 100 percent reliable and able to accommodate normal years, single dry years, and multiple dry -year events, if needed.

IRWD's 2035 projected availability exceeds the projected water demands by at least 51,082 afy. IRWD also indicated that there is adequate existing and planned water supply to accommodate future development and its associated water demands. Lastly, the LUE Amendment proposed only one land use designation change within the MCWD at King's Liquor Store,1526 Placentia Avenue. All subsequent developments on the property would be required to go through a project -level environmental review by the City to determine adequate water supply to future development. Therefore, impacts to water supply and delivery systems were found to be less than significant.

Storm Drainage System
Implementation of the LUE Amendment would allow for development in various subareas proposed for changes in land use designation and/or development capacities. Since the City of Newport Beach is almost entirely built out, development would occur only in areas with existing storm drainage infrastructure. The Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan requires new developments to create and implement a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), which would ensure pollutant discharges are reduced to the maximum extent practicable and do not exceed existing storm drainage capacities. Thus, any additional stormwater runoff expected at buildout of the LUE Amendment would not exceed existing storm drainage capacities, and impacts were found to be less than significant.

Solid Waste
The buildout of the General Plan LUE Amendment was estimated to generate an additional 66,615 pounds of solid waste per day (approximately 12,157 tons per year) when compared to the 2006 General Plan buildout.

The two landfills accepting nearly all solid waste landfilled from Newport Beach —Frank R. Bowerman Landfill and Olinda Alpha Landfill —had residual capacities of 192,300,000 and 43,900,000 cubic yards and estimated closure dates of 2053 and 2021, respectively. For a more conservative approach, if all 66,615 pounds generated per day (approximately 33.3 tons per day) from the buildout of the LUE Amendment were sent to the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill, it would represent only 0.30 percent of its maximum daily permitted tonnage. If all 12,157 tons generated per year were sent to the Olinda Alpha Landfill, it would represent only 0.42 percent of its maximum daily permitted tonnage. Thus, both landfills, individually, would be able to take in the complete amount of solid waste generated, and impacts were found to be less than significant.

Other Utilities
Similar to the 2006 GPU EIR, implementation of the General Plan LUE Amendment was found not to increase energy demands to exceed forecast energy supplies through 2030. Development in accordance with the 2014 LUE Amendment resulted in a net increase for electricity demand of approximately 8,026,488 kilowatt hours (KWh) per year. SCE forecast that it would have adequate electricity to meet the expected growth in its service area through 2022. Using SCE's anticipated consumption in 2022 in a high -demand consumption scenario, electricity demand was expected to be 116,637 gigawatt hours (GWh). The increase in electricity demand from the 2014 LUE Amendment would be 0.006 percent of overall demand in SCE's service area. The increase in May 2020 Page 209

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
demand would be nominal from that expected from the 2006 General Plan buildout. Therefore, no additional electricity production facilities would be needed.

Furthermore, implementation of the LUE Amendment would result in a net increase for natural gas demand of 380,043 KBTU per year, approximately 1,014 cubic feet per day, in comparison to the 2006 General Plan buildout. The increase in natural gas demand from the LUE Amendment would be less than 0.0001 percent of overall demand in SCGCs' service area. Thus, the increase in demand would be nominal from that expected from the 2006 GPU buildout, and no additional natural gas facilities would be needed.

5.19.2 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) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded
wastewater treatment the construction or
X
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
b) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project's projected
X
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
c) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water
facilities, the construction or relocation of
X
which could cause significant environmental
effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during
X
normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
e) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded storm
water drainage facilities, the construction or
X
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?

Page 210 ends

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
f) Generate solid waste in excess of state or
local standards, or in excess of the capacity
of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair
X
the attainment of solid waste reduction
goals?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
X
regulations related to solid waste?
h) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
X
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
Comments:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater treatment the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR
The proposed project would include the redesignation of the project site from AO to MU-142, thus expanding the overall geographic area designated as MU-H2 within the Airport Area. The proposed project would include up to 297,572 square feet of nonresidential uses and up to 444 residential units. For purposes of the traffic study and analyzing potential utility impacts, the following breakdown of the nonresidential uses was assumed:
232,562 square feet of office use, 46,410 square feet of commercial use, 18,600 square feet of industrial use.

In comparison to the 2006 GPU, the proposed project reduces commercial square footage and adds units to the project site but does not result in a net increase in units for the Airport Area.

Using the City's wastewater generation factors from the 2010 Sewer Master Plan, the proposed project would generate 123,560 gallons per day (gpd), as shown in Table 18. The net change in wastewater generation for the project site compared to what is allowed for the site under the 2006 GPU is also shown in Table 18. It should be noted that even though the 329 units were accommodated within the airport MU-112 area in the 2006 GPU, these units were considered to be new for purposes of this analysis to provide a conservative estimate of impacts.

May 2020 Page 211

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
Table 18 Net Increase in Wastewater Generation
Projected
Projected
Wastewater
Wastewater
Generation
Wastewater
Generation
Wastewater
For the 2006
Total Buildout
Generation
For the Proposed
Total Buildout
Generation
GPU
Net Increase
Land Use
Proposed Project
Factor
Project (gpd)
2006 GPU
Factor
(gpd)
(gpd)
Residential — Single and
444 du
240 gpd/du
106,560
0 240
0 106,560
Multifamily
gpd/du

6.8 ac
2,500

8.2 ac
2,500
Office/commercial/industrial
(297,572 SF)
gpd/ac'
17,000
(358,572 SF)
gpd/ace
20,500
(3,500)
Total
-
123,560
-
-
20,500
1 103,060
Source: Uty of Newport [teach Jewer master Flan, August Zulu. 1 The 2010 Sewer Master Plan does not have a wastewater generation factor for Office land use; therefore, a conservative generation factor of 2,500 gpd/ac, currently used for Commercial, Industrial, Public Facilities, and Private Institutions, is used for Office. A single wastewater generation rate is used for the office, commercial, and industrial uses proposed for the project.
ac — acres
SF — square feet
du — dwelling unit
gpd — gallons per day
Wastewater collected by the City would be treated at OCSD's two reclamation plants, with a small portion of wastewater treated at IRWD's treatment plant. Reclamation Plant No. 1 has a capacity of 208 mgd and an estimated average daily influent of 120 mgd. Reclamation Plant No. 2 has a capacity of 168 mgd and an estimated average daily influent of 65 mgd (OCSD 2018). Collectively, the two plants have a residual capacity of 191 mgd. Given that the proposed project would generate an additional 103,060 gpd (0.10 mgd) of wastewater, this increase is nominal compared to the combined residual capacity of both treatment plants.

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

Furthermore, if development under the proposed project requires new sewer flow connections through OCSD, all connections are required to comply with current OCSD design guidelines and pay a sewer connection fee.

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 2014 LUE Amendment allocated 596,575 square feet of office uses and 444 dwelling units to the proposed project site. Compared to the 2014 LUE Amendment, the proposed project would reduce nonresidential space and maintain the number of residential dwelling units allowed for the project site (although reduce overall residential uses within the Airport Area). The wastewater generation rate for office uses is equivalent to other non-residential uses (i.e., commercial and industrial) (see Table 18); therefore, the wastewater generation factor used for office in the 2014 LUE Amendment would be the same generation factor that would apply to the project's non-residential uses. Thus, the proposed project would generate less wastewater and would reduce wastewater -related impacts in comparison to the 2014 LUE Amendment.

Page 212 ends

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
b) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR
As mentioned above, implementation of the proposed project would not result in an increase in wastewater that cannot be accommodated by OCSD's treatment plants. Furthermore, the City requires NPDES permits, which set limits on allowable concentrations in any wastewater discharge. The City's municipal code also requires dwelling units and commercial uses to connect to the City's public sewer network and prohibits certain polluting substances from being discharged into a public sewer. The proposed project, similar to development in accordance with the 2006 GPU, would be required to comply with all provisions of the NPDES program and the municipal code and would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements. Therefore, 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
Implementation of the proposed project would generate less wastewater than the buildout proposed for the project site under the 2014 LUE Amendment. Furthermore, both the proposed project and development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment would need to comply with the requirements of the NPDES permit and the City's municipal code and would not exceed the wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB.

Thus, impacts would be less than significant.
c) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR
Buildout of the proposed project is estimated to generate a water demand of approximately 211,084 gpd, or 236 afy (see Table 19). Residential water demand calculations are based on 202 gallons per capita per day (gpcd), which is the City's target goal for year 2020 (Arcadis 2018). The number of persons expected to reside in each residential unit is 2.22 persons, which is the average cited by the Department of Finance for Newport Beach for 2019 (DOF 2020).

Table 19 shows the net change in water demand for the project site compared to what is allowed for the site under the 2006 GPU. As shown, the net increase in water demand is 195,672 gpd (219 afy). It should be noted that even though the 329 units (or 444 units with density bonus) were accommodated within the airport MU- H2 area in the 2006 GPU, these units were assumed to be new for purposes of this analysis to provide a conservative approach.

May 2020 Page 213

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
Table 19 Net Increase in Water Demand
Projected Water
Projected Water
Total Buildout
Demand
Demand
Proposed
Water
For the Proposed
Total Buildout
Water Demand
For the 2006 GPU
Net Increase
Land Use
Project
Demand Factor
Project d
2006 GPU
Factor
d
d
Residential —
986 persons
Single and
(444 du)
202 gpcd
199,172
0 202 gpcd
0 199,172
Multifamily
Office
1,757 gpad
9,312
1,757 gpad
9,312
0 (232,562 SF)
(232,562 SF)
Commercial
a
2,200 gpad
2,200
2,200 gpad
5,500
(3,300)
(46,1 SF)
(107,336 SF)
Industrial

0.4 ac
1,000 gpad
400
1,000 gpad
600
(200)
(18, SF)
(26 834 SF)
Total
211,084
15,412
195,672
Source: Arcadis, August 2019.

SF — square feet
du — dwelling unit
ac -acres
gpd — gallons per day
gpcd — gallons per capita per day
gpad — gallons per acre per day
The proposed project is within the City of Newport Beach's water service area. According to the City's 2015 UWMP, the 2040 projected availability of water supply meets the 2040 projected water demand for its residents during normal years, single dry years, and multiple dry -year events. The 2040 projected water demand for normal years is 16,973 afy. The 195,672 gpd (219 acre-feet/year) net increase for the project site water demand equates to 1.3 percent of the total water demand for the City. Since the residential units for the project, however, are already allocated within the Airport Area, placing the units on the project site would not increase water demand relative to another location within the Airport Area. The net, citywide water demand for the project, therefore, would be due to the reduction in non-residential square footage, resulting in a decrease of 3,500 gpd (3.9 afy). Therefore, the City's existing and future water supply is able to accommodate the increased water demand associated with the proposed project. Additionally, if development of the proposed project requires improvements to the existing water system capacity, the developer would be required to pay their share of costs for all or portions of the needed improvements. Thus, overall impacts to the water supply are less than significant. Overall, buildout of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in new or increase the severity of impacts to the water service. Therefore impacts are 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
Compared to the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR, the proposed project would reduce nonresidential space and result in the same number of residential dwelling units allowed for the project site. Thus, the proposed project would reduce water demand, and impacts would be less than significant.

Page 214 ends

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR
As detailed above, the proposed project would generate an increase in water demand of 55.6 afy for the project site, but a net 3.9 afy decrease in water demand compared to the city-wide 2006 GPU buildout. The City's 2015 UWMP found that water supplies are sufficient to meet the 2040 projected water demand for its residents during normal years, single dry years, and multiple dry -year events. Therefore, the City's existing and future water supply is able to accommodate the increased water demand associated with the proposed project. Impacts are less than significant, and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR
Implementation of the proposed project would require less water supply than the buildout proposed for the project site under the 2014 LUE Amendment. Since the City has sufficient water supply for the future water demand and can accommodate the 2014 LUE Amendment, water supplies would also be able to accommodate the proposed project and impacts would be less than significant. e) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded storm water drainage facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR
Development of the proposed project would alter the on -site drainage patterns with the development of the buildings, roadways, and associated site improvements. However, the proposed project, similar to other projects developed pursuant to the 2006 General Plan, would be required to implement a WQMP. The WQMP would reduce discharge of stormwater into urban runoff from the operational phase by managing site runoff volumes and flow rates through application of appropriate best management practices. BMWs would be designed in accordance with the NPDES requirements. Any drainage facilities would also be designed in accordance with Section 19.28.080 of the City's municipal code. Thus, stormwater runoff expected at buildout of the proposed project would not exceed existing storm drainage capacities. 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
Both the implementation of projects pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment and the proposed project would implement WQMPs to manage post -construction runoff. The goal of the WQMP is to ensure that new development and significant redevelopment does not contribute to increased urban runoff flow rates and velocities to the maximum extent practicable. Furthermore, any new drainage facilities would be designed pursuant to the requirements of the City's municipal code, and impacts would be less than significant.

May 2020 Page 215

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
f) Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR
Buildout of the proposed project is estimated to generate approximately 26,740 pounds of solid waste per day, shown in Table 20, which also shows the net change in solid waste generation for the project site. Buildout of the proposed project is estimated to generate a net increase of approximately 4,119 pounds per day (2.05 tons/day) of solid waste compared to the 2006 GPU buildout. It should be noted that even though the 329 units (444 with density bonus) were accommodated within the airport MU-H2 area in the 2006 GPU, these units are considered new for purposes of this analysis for a conservative estimate of impacts.

The Frank R. Bowerman Landfill and Olinda Alpha Landfill have residual capacities of 3,600 tons/day and 867 tons/day and estimated closure dates of 2053 and 2021, respectively (CalRecycle 2019c, 2019d). Thus, both landfills, individually, would be able to take in the complete amount of additional solid waste generated by the proposed project. Furthermore, the proposed project, similar to other projects developed pursuant to the 2006 General Plan, would comply with the California Green Building Standards, Assembly Bill (AB) 341, and AB 1826. The 2019 California Green Building Standards Code requires that at least 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste from nonresidential construction operations be recycled and/or salvaged for reuse. AB 341 mandates a statewide solid waste diversion rate of 75 percent by 2020. AB 1826 requires businesses to recycle their organic waste on and after April 1, 2016, depending on the amount of waste they generate per week. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR.

Table 20 Net Increase in Solid Waste Generation
Projected Solid
Waste
Projected Solid
Generation
Waste
for the
Generation
Total Buildout
Proposed
For the 2006
Net
Proposed
Solid Waste
Project
Total Buildout
Solid Waste
GPU
Increase
Land Use
Project
Generation Factor
(Ibslday)
2006 GPU
Generation Factor
(Ibslday)
(Ibslday)
Residential - Single
444 du

12.23 5,430
0 12.23
0 5,430
and Multifamily
Ibs/household/day
Ibs/household/day
Office
232,562 SF

0.084 Ibs/SF/day
19,535
232,562 SF

0.084 Ibs/SF/day
19,535
0 Commercial
46,410 SF

0.013 Ibs/SF/day
603
107,336 SF

0.013 Ibs/SF/day
1,395
(792)
Industrial
18,600 SF

0.063 Ibs/SF/day
1,172
26,834 SF

0.063 Ibs/SF/day
1,691
(519)
Total
-
1 1 26,740
1 -
22,621
4,119
Source: CalRecyle 2019a.

SF — square feet
du — dwelling unit
Ibs - pounds

Page 216 ends

PlaceWorks

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR
Implementation of the proposed project would generate less solid waste than the buildout proposed for the project site under the 2014 LUE Amendment. Since the Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill can accommodate the 2014 LUE Amendment, the landfill can also accommodate the proposed project.

Additionally, the proposed project, similar to other projects developed pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, would comply with the California Green Building Standards, AB 341, and AB 1826. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR.
g) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR
AB 939, the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (California Public Resources Code §§ 40000 et seq.) requires all local governments to develop source reduction, reuse, recycling, and composting programs to reduce tonnage of solid waste going to landfills. Cities must divert at least 50 percent of their solid waste generation into recycling. Compliance with AB 939 is measured for each jurisdiction, in part, as actual disposal amounts compared to target disposal amounts. Target disposal rates for the City are 9.6 pounds per day (ppd) per resident and 11.5 ppd per employee. Actual disposal rates in 2018 were 6.9 ppd per resident and 7.4 ppd per employee (CalRecycle 2019b). Thus, solid waste diversion in Newport Beach is consistent with AB 939 and the project's solid waste generation would be consistent with AB 939.

AB 1327, the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991 (California Public Resources Code §§ 42900 et seq.) required the California Integrated Waste Management Board to develop a model ordinance requiring adequate areas for the collection and loading of recyclable materials in development projects. Local agencies were then required to adopt and enforce either the model ordinance or an ordinance of their own by September 1, 1993. The City's municipal code includes waste recycling requirements in conformance with AB 1327. Therefore, the project's solid waste generation would be consistent with AB 1327.

Furthermore, the proposed project, similar to all projects pursuant to the 2006 GPU, is required to recycle construction waste in compliance with the 2019 California Green Building Code, store and collect recyclable materials in compliance with AB 341 and handle green waste in accordance with AB 1826. Overall, 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
As mentioned above, the proposed project, similar to projects pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, would be in compliance with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations and impacts would be less than significant.

May 2020 Page 217

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
h) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded electric power or natural gas facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR
Buildout of the proposed project is expected to use approximately 5.9 million kilowatt hours (kWhr) of electricity per year (see Table 21). When compared to the buildout allocated for the project site in the 2006 GPU, development on the project site would result in an increase of approximately 1.1 million kWhr per year in electricity use. It should be noted that even though the 329 units (444 units with density bonus) were accommodated within the airport MU-H2 area in the 2006 GPU, these units were considered new for purposes of this analysis to provide a conservative approach.

Total mid -electricity consumption in SCE's service area is forecast to increase by approximately 12,723 GWh between 2015 and 2027. SCE forecasts that it will have sufficient electricity supplies to meet demands in its service area, and impacts would be less than significant (CEC 2018).

Table 21 Annual Net Increase in Electricity Use — Project Site Projected
Electricity Use
Projected
for the
Electricity Use
Proposed
For the 2006
Total Buildout
Electricity
Project
Total Buildout
GPU
Net Increase
Land Use
Proposed Project
Use Factor
kWhr) ear
2006 GPU
Electricity Use Factor
kWhr) ear
kWhr) ear
Residential —
Single and
444 du
4,230 kWhr/du
1,878,120
0 4,230 kWhr/du
0 1,878,120
Multifamily
Office
232,562 SF

14.34 kWh r/S F
3,334,939
232,562 SF

14.34 kWhr/SF
3,334,939
0 Commercial
46,410 SF

11.72 kWhr/SF
543,925
107,336 SF

11.72 kWhr/SF
1,257,978
(714,053)
Industrial
18,600 SF

8.62 kWhr/SF
160,332
26,834 SF

8.62 kWhr/SF
231,309
(70,977)
Total
-
5,917,316
-
4,824,226
1,093,090
Source: CaIEEMod 2016.

Climate Zone 8 was used for Newport Beach ZIP Code 92660. The electricity use factors for T24 Electricity, NT24 Electricity, and Lighting Electricity were summed up. Since the buildings would be new construction, nonhistorical factors were used. For the dwelling units, the factors for high-rise apartments were used.

SF — square feet
du — dwelling unit
kWh — kilowatt hours
For natural gas, the proposed project is estimated to use about 9.0 million kilo British Thermal Units (kBTU) annually (see Table 22). When compared to the buildout allocated for the project site in the 2006 GPU, the project site would generate about an additional 5.9 million kBTU annually.

SCGC's residual supplies were forecast to remain constant at 3,775 MMCF/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

Page 218 ends

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
to 2,313 MMCF/day in 2035. SCGC forecasts that it will have sufficient natural gas supplies to meet gas demands, and the proposed project would not require SCGC to obtain new or expanded gas supplies. Impacts would be less than significant (CGEU 2018).

Table 22 Annual Net Increase in Natural Gas Use
Projected
Natural Gas Use
Projected
forthe
Natural Gas Use
Total Buildout
Proposed
For the 20067ke
Proposed
Natural Gas Use
Project
Total Buildout
Natural Gas Use
GPU
Land Use
Project
Factor'
kBTUI ear
2006 GPU
Factor
kBTUI ear
Residential —
Single and
444 du
14,046 kBTU/du
6,236,424
0 14,046 kBTU/du
0 6,236,424
Multifamily
Office
232,562 SF
10 kBTU/SF
2,325,620
232,562 SF
10 kBTU/SF
2,325,620
0 Commercial
46,410 SF
2 kBTU/SF
92,820
107,336 SF
2 kBTU/SF
214,672
(121,852)
Industrial
18,600 SF
21 kBTU/SF
390,600
26,834 SF
21 kBTU/SF
563,514
(172,914)
Total
9,045,464
-
3,103,806
5,941,658
Source: CaIEEMod 2016.

Climate Zone 8 was used for Newport Beach ZIP Code 92660. The electricity use factors for T24 Natural Gas, and NT24 Natural Gas were summed up. Since the buildings would be new construction, non -historical factors were used. For the dwelling units, the factors for high-rise apartments were used. For the office land use, factors for general office building were used. For industrial land use, factors for general light industrial were used. For commercial land use, factors for a strip mall were used.

SF — square feet
du — dwelling unit
kBTU — kilo British thermal units
Furthermore, the proposed project would comply with the requirements of the current California Building Energy and Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6) and the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen). All new appliances would comply with the 2012 Appliance Efficiency Regulations (Title 20, CCR Sections 1601 through 1608). Therefore, 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 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 not result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded electric power or natural gas facilities.

Furthermore, the proposed project would comply with the electricity and natural gas efficiency requirements as mentioned above and impacts would be less than significant. There are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR.

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

May 2020 Page 219

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis

5.19.4 Relevant General Plan Policies
The General Plan includes several policies that would reduce impacts to utilities and service systems associated with future development projects in the City, including:

Goal HB 8: Enhancement and protection of water quality of all natural water bodies, including coastal waters, creeks, bays, harbors and wetlands.
■ HB 8.4 - Storm Drain 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.
■ HB 8.9 - Water Quality Management Plan: Require new development applications to include a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to minimize runoff from rainfall events during construction and post - construction.
■ HB 8.11 - Site Design and Source Control: Include site design and source control BMPs in all developments. When the combination of site design and source control BMPs are not sufficient to protect water quality as required by the National Pollutant Elimination System, structural treatment BMPs will be implemented along with site design and source control measures. ■ HB 8.14 - Runoff Reduction on Private Property: Retain runoff on private property to prevent the transport of pollutants into recreational waters, to the maximum extent practicable. ■ HB 8.20 - Impervious Surfaces: Require new development and public improvements to minimize the creation of and increases in impervious surfaces, especially directly connected impervious areas, to the maximum extent practicable. Require redevelopment to increase area of pervious surfaces, where feasible.

Goal NR 1: Minimized water consumption through conservation methods and other techniques. ■ NR 1.1 - Water Conservation in New Development: Enforce water conservation measures that limit water usage, prohibit activities that waste water or cause runoff, and require the use of water —efficient landscaping and irrigation in conjunction with new construction projects.

Page 220 ends

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis

5.20 WILDFIRE

5.20.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Program EIRs

5.20.1.1 2006 GENERAL PLAN EIR
Impacts related to wildfire were not analyzed in the 2006 GPU EIR because the requirement to analyze wildfire in CEQA documents did not become effective until January 1, 2019, after of the 2006 GPU EIR by the Newport Beach City Council Quly 25, 2006). However, the 2006 General Plan identified areas with high and moderate fire susceptibility (Figure S4, Wildfire Hazards). Nonetheless„ the analysis of wildfire impacts is new in this Addendum.

5.20.1.2 2014 LUE AMENDMENT SEIR
The 2015 LUE Amendment SEIR did not analyze impacts related to wildfire. The requirement to analyze wildfire in environmental documents came into effect on January 1, 2019, after the SEIR certification date Quly 22, 2014).

5.20.2 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) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
X
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire
X
or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks,
emergency water sources, power lines or other
utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may
X
result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope
X
instability, or drainage changes?
May 2020 Page 221

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
Comments:

According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones.

Wildland fire protection in California is the responsibility of the state, local, and federal governments. In state responsibility areas (SRA), the State of California has the primary financial responsibility for the prevention and suppression of wildland fires. SRAs cover over 31 million acres, for which the State Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) provides a basic level of wildland fire prevention and protection services.

Fire protection for local responsibility areas (LRA) is typically provided by city fire departments, fire protection districts, counties, and by CAL FIRE under contract to local government (CAL FIRE 2012). CAL FIRE is mandated by California Public Resources Code Sections 4201 to 4204 and California Government Code Sections 51175 to 51189 to identify fire hazard severity zones (FHSZ) for all communities in California. Local governments accept CAL FIRE's determination or make other, local determinations.

If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact.

Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR
The City of Newport Beach is nearly built out, and the proposed project consists mainly of infill and intensification of development on the project site. New development would occur in urbanized and developed areas far from the City's eastern grassy hillsides and brush -covered areas, which are more susceptible to wildfire.

The project site is not within areas designated as High or Moderate fire susceptibility per the 2006 General Plan (Figure S4, Wildfire Hazards). Therefore, 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
The project site is not in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as a very high FHSZ. Therefore, there are no impacts.
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
No Impact

Page 222 ends

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR
The project site is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high FHSZ.

Therefore, the proposed project would not exacerbate wildfire risks and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. No impacts would arise and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR
The project site is not within areas designated as High or Moderate fire susceptibility per the 2006 General Plan (Figure S4, Wildfire Hazards). Therefore, there are no impacts. c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? No Impact.

Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR
The project site is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high FHSZ.

Therefore, the proposed project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. No impacts would arise 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 would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. Therefore, no impacts would arise.
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes? No Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.

Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR
The project site is not within areas designated as High or Moderate fire susceptibility per the 2006 General Plan (Figure S4, Wildfire Hazards). Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes. No impacts would arise and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR.

May 2020 Page 223

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

5. Environmental Analysis
Project Comparison to the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR
As noted above, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes. Therefore, no impacts would arise.

5.20.3 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.

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

Page 224 ends

6. Summary
This document is Addendum No. 3 to the previously — certified City of Newport Beach General Plan EIR and Addendum No. 1 to the previously certified General Plan Land Use Element Amendment Final Supplemental EIR, May 2014. As such, this Addendum analyzes the potential differences between the environmental impacts identified in each of the previous Program EIRs and the impacts anticipated for the proposed project (Airport Village PCDP).

CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(a) states that a Program EIR is appropriate for a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and are related either:

1. Geographically,

2. A logical part in the chain of contemplated actions,

3. In connection with issuance of rules, regulations, plans, or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program, or

4. As individual activities carried out under the same authorizing or statutory or regulatory authority and having generally similar environmental effects which can be mitigated in similar ways.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c) states that subsequent activities undertaken pursuant to a Program EIR must be examined in the light of the Program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c)(4), Where the subsequent activities involve site specific operations, the agency should use a written checklist or similar device to document the evaluation of the site and the activity to determine whether the environmental effects of the operation were covered in the Program EIR."
This EIR Addendum provides the environmental information necessary for the City to make an informed decision about the proposed project, as more fully described in Section 3, Project Description. The City has determined that an Addendum to the above -referenced Program EIRs is appropriate, rather than a Supplement or Subsequent EIR, based on the following:
a. As demonstrated in Section 5, Environmental Analysis, the proposed project would not require major revisions to the previously -certified EIRs because the project would not result in any new significant impacts to the physical environment nor would it create substantial increases in the severity of the environmental impacts previously disclosed in the respective programmatic EIRs.

May 2020 Page 225

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

6. Summary
b. There have been no substantial changes in circumstances subsequent to the certification of the 2006 GPU EIR and 2014 LUE Amendment EIR that would require major EIR revisions. The topical analysis in Section 5 of this Addendum describes updated regulatory requirements and conditions that could affect the potential significance of impacts associated with the proposed project. Existing, surrounding land uses have been described. Moreover, the project -related land use changes in comparison to both previous Program EIRs (square footage by use and number of residential uses) have been quantified, and the analysis for these changes, quantified as applicable. The incremental environmental impact due to the project would not combine with other related projects to result in new significant cumulative impacts.
c. There is no known 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 EIRs that would result in increased significant impacts.

Page 226 ends

7. References
AKM. August 2010. City of Newport Beach Sewer Master Plan.

Arcadis. 2019, April 29. 2019 Water Master Plan.
https://www.newportbeachca.gov/home/showdocument?id=64184 . 2018, March. 2015 Amended Urban Water Management Plan.
https://www.newportbeachca.gov/home/showdocument?id=58831 .

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2017, December 19. Area Designations Maps/State and National. http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/desig.htm .
2017a, November. California's 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan: The Strategy for Achieving California's 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2030sp— pp—final.pdf. 2017b, November. Final 2017 Scoping Plan Update: The Strategy for Achieving California's 2030 GHG Target. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf .

California Department of Conservation (CDC). 2015. CGS Information Warehouse: Regulatory Maps.

Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation Tustin Quadrangle. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/ .

California Department of Education (EDU). 2020, March 17 (accessed). 2018-2019 Enrollment by Garda Santa Ana Unified Report.
https: / /datal .cde.ca.gov/dataquest/dgcensus/EnrGrdLevels.aspx?cds=3066670&agglevel=district& year=2018-19.

California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). 2016, September. Appendix D Default Data Tables. http: / / www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/upgrades/2016.3/05_appendix-d2016-3-

1.pdf.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2012. Frequently Asked Questions. http://calfire.ca.gov/fireprevention/ fire_prevention_wildland_fags.php#modelO2.

California Gas and Electric Utilities (CGEU). 2018. 2018 California Gas Report. https://www.socalgas.com/regulatory/documents/cgr/2018_Cahfornia_Gas_Report.pdf .

CalRecyle. 2019a. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. https: / /www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/ WasteCharacterization/ General/Rates.

May 2020 Page 227

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

7. References
2019b. Jurisdiction Review Report.
https: / /www2. calrecycle. ca.gov/LGCentral/AnnualReporting/ReviewReports /PerCapitaDisposalTr ends.
2019c. SWIS Facility/Site Search. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/swfacilities/directory .

California Energy Commission (CEC). 2018. News Release: Energy Commission Adopts Standards Requiring Solar Systems for New Homes, First in Nation.
http: / / www.energy.ca.gov/releases/2018_releases/2018-05-09_building_standards_adopted_nr.html . 2016, December 5. California Energy Demand Updated Forecast, 2017-2027. https:/ /efihng.energy ca.gov/getdocument.aspx?tn=214635.

California School Campus Database (CSCD). 2020, March 17 (accessed). http: / / www.mapcollaborator.org/mapcollab_cscd/?base=map&y=33.72320&x=- 117.89566&z=12&layers=notes%2Cpolygons%2Cschoolboundaries%2Cdistricts_uni%2Cdistricts_e lem%2Cdistricts_sec%2Ccides&opacs=100%2C25%2C 100%2C 100%2C 100%2C 100%2C 100.

Cogstone. 2014, February. Cultural Resources Assessment for the Newport Land Use Element.

Department of Finance (DOF). 2020. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 2011-2019, with 2010 Benchmark.
http://www.dofca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/e-5/ .

Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2020. EnviroStor. http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/ .

Natelson Company, The. 2001, October 31. Employment Density Study Summary Report. http://www.scag.ca.gov/pdfs/Employment— Density—Study.pdf.

Newport Beach, City of 2014. Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan. https://www.newportbeachca.gov/Home/ShowDocument?id=19735 .

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2015, February. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/2015/2015GuidanceManual.pdf .

Orange County Sanitary District (OCSD). 2018, June 27. Proposed Budget Fiscal Years 2018-19 and 2019-20. https://www.ocsd.com/Home/ShowDocument?id=24974 .

Orange County Water District (OCWD). 2015, June 17. Orange County Water District Groundwater Management Plan. https://www.ocwd.com/what-we-do/groundwater-management/groundwater- management-plan/.

Page 228 ends

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

7. References
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (Santa Ana RWQCB). 2008. Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin.
https: / / www.waterboards . ca.gov/ santaana/water_is sues /programs /basin_plan/index.html.

Santa Ana Unified School District (SAUSD). 2018. Facilities Master Plan. https://www.sausd.us/cms/lib/CA01000471 /Centricity/Domain/47/ 18- 0710%20SAUSD_Master%20Plan_FINAL%20-%20REDUCED.pdf
2020a. SAUSD Residential Development School Fee Justification Study. 2020b. SAUSD Developer Fees. https://www.sausd.us/page/1133 .

South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD). 1992. Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide.
1993. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Handbook. 2003. Final 2003 Air Quality Management Plan. https://www.agmd.gov/home/air-quality/clean-air- plans/air-quality-mgt-plan/2003-aqmp.
2008, July. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. 2017, March 4. Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan. https://wwwagmd.gov/docs/default- source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management-plans/2016-air-quality-management-plan/ final-2016- agmp/ final20l 6agmp.pdf?sfvrsn= l 5.

Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2016, April 7. Final 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS): A Plan for Mobility, Accessibility, Sustainability, and a High Quality of Life. http://scagrtpscs.net/Pages/FINAL2016RTPSCS.aspx .

Southern California Edison. 2019, July. 2018 Power Content Label. https://www.sce.com/sites/default/files/inline-files/2018SCEPCL.pdf .

US Census Bureau (Census Bureau). 2019, July 1. QuickFacts Newport Beach. https:/ / www.census.gov/quickfacts/ fact/table/newportbeachcitycalifornia,US/PST045219.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2020. EnviroMapper for EnviroFacts. http://www.epa.gov/emefdata/em4ef home.

May 2020 Page 229

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

7. References
Tbis page intentionally left blank.

Page 230 ends

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Appendices
Appendix A Newport Village Planned Community
Development Plan
May 2020

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Appendices
Tbis page intentionally left blank.

PlaceWorks

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE

PLANNED COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT PLAN
PC-60
Adopted XXXXXX, 2020
Ordinance No. XX-2020

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION
PAGE
I.

INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE............................................................................................... 1 A.

Introduction......................................................................................................................... 1 B.

Location................................................................................................................................1 C.

Surrounding Area................................................................................................................. 3 D.

Purpose and Objective......................................................................................................... 4 E.

Relationship to Other Regulations....................................................................................... 4 II.

LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS....................................................................... 5 A.

Permitted Uses..................................................................................................................... 6 B.

Prohibited Uses.................................................................................................................... 7 C.

Existing Legal Nonconforming Uses and Structures............................................................ 7 D.

Land Use Concept................................................................................................................ 7 E.

Development Standards — Planning Area 1 (Mixed -Use Residential Area) ......................... 8 F.

Development Standards — Planning Area 2 (Non -Residential Area) ................................. 12 G.

Additional Development Standards................................................................................... 13 III.

ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS......................................................................... 16 A.

General Principles.............................................................................................................. 16 B.

Mixed-Use..........................................................................................................................16 C.

Residential Uses................................................................................................................. 16 D.

Office/Commercial Uses.................................................................................................... 17 E.

Conceptual Images to Guide Development....................................................................... 17 IV.

RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES......................................................................................... 21 A.

Architectural Variety.......................................................................................................... 21 B.

Windows and Entries......................................................................................................... 21 C.

Massing and articulation.................................................................................................... 21 V.

PLAN ADMINISTRATION and implementation...................................................................... 22 A.

Permit Review Procedures................................................................................................. 22 B.

Parcel or Tract Maps.......................................................................................................... 22 C.

Amendments to Planned Community Development Plan ................................................. 22 D.

Administrative Responsibility............................................................................................ 22 E.

Enforcement...................................................................................................................... 22 Newport Airport Village

TABLE OF CONTENTS
FIGURE
PAGE
Figure1
- Vicinity Map.................................................................................................................... 2 Figure2
- Airport Area.................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 3
- Newport Airport Village Planned Community................................................................ 3 Figure4
- Land Use Map................................................................................................................. 5 Figure 5
- Conceptual Development Plan..................................................................................... 10 Figure 6
- Mixed -Use Conceptual Images................................................................................... 188
Figure 7
- Multi -Unit Residential Conceptual Images................................................................... 19 Figure 8
- Office/Commercial Conceptual Images........................................................................ 20 Newport Airport Village

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE

PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PCDP)
I. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
A. Introduction
The Newport Airport Village Planned Community Development Plan (PCDP) (PC-60) is envisioned to be a horizontal mixed -use development on an approximately 16.46-acre site that is located in the northern portion of the City, near Macarthur Blvd and Campus Drive. The City of Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) allows a Planned Community Development Plan to address land use designations and regulations in Planned Communities. The PCDP serves as the controlling zoning ordinance for the site and is authorized and intended to implement the provisions of the Newport Beach General Plan.

The maximum buildout of the PCDP would result in 329 residential dwelling units, exclusive of any density bonus as allowed pursuant to California Government Code Section 65915; and 297,572 square feet of office, retail, and commercial use.

The Newport Airport Village Planned Community (PC) consists of approximately 16.46 acres and prior to the development pursuant to this PCDP, a variety of commercial services, including: retail, restaurants, offices, rental car agencies, and other similar uses were developed. The Newport Airport Village Design Guidelines (contained herein) provide a conceptual vision of the physical implementation of the project and have been drafted to assist the City and community to visualize the architectural theme and desired character of the development. The Design Guidelines also provides the visual and mental imagery of what the current property owner and City see for the future development of the PC.

B. Location
As shown in Figures 1 and 2, the PC District is generally located southeast of John Wayne Airport and within the "Airport Area" Sub -Area as defined by the Newport Beach General Plan. The Airport Area includes 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. The Airport Area initially was a light industrial and commercial office area of Newport Beach, but is gradually redeveloping into a mixed -use community integrating residential development with existing non-residential uses consistent with the 2006 Newport Beach General Plan.

I. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
PlT'nxrmNrt [nM1T.v�'.1EM . `. �' s . yi
/ \ Newport Beach
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
Figure 2 -Airport Area
Newport Airport Village 2

I. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
More specifically, the PC is located west of MacArthur Boulevard, south of Campus Drive, north of Birch Street, and about 550 feet north of Dove Street, as shown in Figure 2.

Susie: C�[y ufNcwWrrt G15 `
qm«
Figure 3 - NenportAirbort Village Planned Community
As also noted in Figure 3, the 65-dBA CNEL noise contour line for John Wayne Airport (JWA) transects the site. Areas east of (i.e., outside) the 65 dBA CNEL line are "Clearly Compatible" or "Normally Compatible" with multi -family residential and mixed -use development under General Plan Table N2 (Land Use Noise Compatibility Matrix). Areas west of (i.e., inside) the 65 dBA CNEL line are "Normally incompatible" or "Clearly incompatible" with multi -family residential and mixed -use development under General Plan Table N2. Under the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport (AELUP), this means that areas west of the 65 dBA CNEL line are deemed suitable for residential uses and other noise -sensitive uses if the interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL can be maintained with an accompanying dedication of a avigation easement for noise.

Additionally, building heights west of the 65 dBA CNEL line are restricted for aviation safety.

C. Surrounding Area
John Wayne Airport, a commercial and general aviation airport that is owned and operated by the County of Orange, is located to the west and north of the site (across Newport Airport Village 3

I. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
Campus Dr). To the immediate northeast of the site, on the southwest corner of MacArthur Blvd and Campus Dr, is a five -story office building and a small multi -tenant commercial building. Across MacArthur Boulevard, on the northeast corner of MacArthur Blvd and Campus Dr, is a nine -story office building that contains professional and medical office uses; a five -story apartment building at the intersection of Douglas and Martin Court; and multiple hotels and restaurants along MacArthur Blvd. To the east (across Birch St) are several multi -story office buildings that range from three to fourteen stories, hotels, and retail and restaurant uses. Commercial services, including vehicle sales and repairs and a pharmacy; restaurants; and office uses, including medical offices occupy the properties to the south of the PC.

D. Purpose and Objective
The purpose of the PCDP is to establish appropriate zoning regulations that govern the land use and development of the PC in a manner that is consistent with the City of Newport Beach General Plan. Implementation of the PCDP will:
— Provide a quality mixed -use development that includes residential and supporting commercial uses; as well as, commercial uses that support or benefit from the proximity to the airport.
— Create two planning areas to guide the development of the PC District (see Figure 4). Planning Area 1 will include the residential and, potentially, a complimentary retail or service commercial component of the PC District. Planning Area 2 will consist exclusively of non-residential uses.
— Provide new housing opportunities in response to increased demand for housing, reduction of vehicle trips, and an encouragement of an active lifestyle by increasing the opportunity for residents to live in proximity to jobs, services, and entertainment. Such housing will be proximate to, and interconnected with, commercial development through pedestrian walkways provided by future development within the PCDP.
— Ensure all residential units are located outside the John Wayne Airport 65 dBA CNEL noise contour and Safety Zone 3.

E. Relationship to Other Regulations
Whenever the provisions of this PCDP conflict with the regulations of the NBMC, the regulations contained herein will prevail. The NBMC including the Zoning Code apply and shall also regulate this development whenever regulations are not provided within this PCDP. Unless otherwise defined herein, all words and phrases used in this PCDP shall have the same meaning and definition as used in the NBMC.

Newport Airport Village 4

II. LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
II. LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
The PC is subdivided into two planning areas. Figure 4 shows the Land Use Map for the PC District with the 65 d6A CNEL noise contour separating the residential use area from the non-residential use area.
■
John Wayne'Airport
o
-
n
�4 G ► .

Planning Area 1
{ f
a
1Planning Area 2�f
fstYZor"co
U !
R h
� 5
Al
!
Airport Village Land Use * NE
Planning Area 1 - Mixed -Use Residential 7-14 acres
Planning Area 2 - Commercial 9.32 acres M roo,�
Figure 4 -Land Use Map
Newport Airport Village 5

II. LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
A. Permitted Uses
Table 1 lists the permitted uses for each planning area of the Planned Community. The uses identified within the table are not intended to be a comprehensive list, but rather major use categories. The Community Development Director may determine other uses not specifically listed herein are allowed or allowed pursuant to a MUP or CUP, provided they are consistent with the purpose of the planning areas, are compatible with surrounding uses, and are not listed as a prohibited use.

Table 1
Permitted Uses
Uses
Planning
Area 1
Planning
Area 2
Additional
Regulations
Residential
Multi -unit dwellings
P
-
Live/work units
P
-
Mixed -use development
P
-
Accessory dwelling units
P
-
NBMC 20.48.200
Home Occupations
P
-
NBMC 20.48.110
Residential accessory uses
and amenities
P
P
Food, alcohol, entertainment
Alcohol sales (off -site)
MUP
MUP
NBMC 20.48.030
Alcohol Sales (on -site)
CUP
CUP
NBMC 20.48.030
Bars, lounge, nightclub
CUP
CUP
NBMC 20.48.030 & 20.48.090
Food service, no late hours
MUP
MUP
NBMC 20.48.030 & 20.48.090
Food service, late hours
CUP
CUP
NBMC 20.48.030 & 20.48.090
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.)
P
P
Other uses
Uses not listed herein, but
allowed in the OA zone
A
A
Subject to applicable NBMC
requirements
Newport Airport Village 6

II. LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
Table 1 Continued
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
B. Prohibited Uses
The following uses shall be expressly prohibited from the PCDP:

1. Any use not authorized by this PCDP unless the Community Development Director determines a particular use consistent with the purpose and intent of the PCDP,

2. Residential dwelling units within (i.e., west of) the 65 dBA CNEL (or above) noise contour from John Wayne Airport (residential accessory uses, and amenities are allowed),

3. Residential dwelling units within John Wayne Airport Safety Zone 3 (residential accessory uses, and amenities are allowed),

4. The following uses, if said structure within 250 feet of any residential dwelling unit:
a. Handicraft Industry
b. Industry, Small (less than 5,000 sq. ft.)
C. Emergency Health Facilities/Urgent Care
d. Ambulance Services
e. Funeral Homes and Mortuaries
f. Maintenance and Repair Services.

C. Existing Legal Nonconforming Uses and Structures
Existing legally established use and structures that no longer conform to the provisions of this PCDP shall be subject to NBMC Chapter 20.38.

D. Land Use Concept
Figure 5 depicts the conceptual development plan for Newport Airport Village Planned Community. Multi -story residential structures would be located nearthe north side of the site in Planning Area 1 and may have a retail/commercial component. Office, commercial and other non-residential buildings would be located south of the residential buildings in Planning Area 2. A landscaped esplanade with open space areas, pedestrian pathways with areas for passive seating, and bicycle facilities will be provided to create an efficient and safe pedestrian -friendly environment interconnecting the various land uses through - Newport Airport Village 7

II. LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
out the site with surrounding properties and public ways. Although the PC may not be developed exactly as depicted in the conceptual land use development map, it serves as a demonstration of what could be achieved through the application of the site development standards of this PCDP.

E. Development Standards — Planning Area 1(Mixed-Use Residential Area)

1. Permitted Height of Residential or Mixed -Use Structures: No structure, nor any portion of any structure, architectural feature, elevator penthouse, or mechanical equipment shall exceed a height of 85 feet measured consistent with the Zoning Code.

2. Permitted Height of Nonresidential Structures: No structure, nor any portion of any structure, architectural feature, elevator penthouse, or mechanical equipment shall exceed a height of 37 feet measured consistent with the Zoning Code, unless a Site Development Review is approved pursuant to NBMC Section

20.52.080, in which case the maximum shall be 55 feet.

3. Setbacks: Minimum setbacks shall be as follows:
a. Buildings, or portion thereof, that are under 20 feet in height shall be setback a minimum of 10 feet from any street property line and a minimum of 5 feet from any internal property line.
b. Buildings, or portion thereof, that are 20 feet or greater in height shall be setback a minimum of 20 feet from any street property line and a minimum of 5 feet from any internal property line.

4. 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.

5. Residential Development Limit: A maximum of 329 dwellings units shall be permitted, exclusive of any density bonus as allowed pursuant to California Government Code Section 65915. In addition, residential development (excluding density bonus units) shall be subject to the maximum development allocation for the Airport Area established by General Plan Land Use Policy 6.15.5, or any successor policy or development limit resulting from a future General Plan Update/Amendment, provided that such allocation does not result in a reduction of the 329 permitted dwelling units in Planning Area 1.

6. Floor Area Limit: Floor area for nonresidential uses shall not exceed 94,583 square feet. This floor area limit is based on the conversion of commercial development allowed by the general plan to residential dwelling units pursuant to General Plan Newport Airport Village 8

II. LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
Policy LU6.15.5. The 2006 General Plan allowed a 0.5 FAR (155,509 square feet) that is reduced by 60,926 square feet and converted to allow 329 dwelling units.

7. Common Open Space: All residential development shall incorporate common open space in the amount of 75 square feet per unit with minimum dimensions of 15 feet in any direction. At least half of the common open space shall consist of recreational amenities, including but not limited to the following:
a. Swimming pools/spas and adjacent lounging decks
b. Exercise facilities
C. Tennis courts
d. Basketball courts
e. Clubhouse rooms
f. Roof deck recreation areas
g. Community gardens
h. Barbecue and other active (e.g. bocce ball) or passive (e.g., reading) courtyards
i. Other amenities as deemed appropriate by the Community Development Director
Outdoor common areas or recreational areas shall be posted with an outdoor notification sign to users regarding the proximity to John Wayne Airport and presence of operating aircraft.

Newport Airport Village 9

II. LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
p T m
N
�0
C
T'
o
w
°i.

CD
= m
m
C)
.
o M.

CD
vCD
0 CD O
m
w' m
m
1 z
rn
O
O
0 0
,--r
= �o
c�
CD
�
C
r
G7
rn
-
4-
I
om - -
�
C' Z
MacAltur
!v�
—_
h '
B -
Figure S - Conceptual Development Plan
Newport Airport Village 10

II. LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS

8. Private Open Space: All residential development shall incorporate private open space in the amount of 5% of the gross floor area (minimum) for each unit with a minimum dimension of 6 feet in any direction.

9. Affordability Requirements: Residential development shall include affordable housing as follows: a minimum of 5% of units for very -low income households, or a minimum of 10% of units for low-income households, or a minimum 10%of units for moderate -income households within a common -interest development. The following requirements also apply:
a. Affordable units shall be provided on -site.
b. Affordable units shall be designed and distributed within the residential as follows:
i. Number of Bedrooms. Affordable units shall reflect the range of numbers of bedrooms provided in the residential development project as a whole.
ii. Comparable Quality and Facilities. Affordable units shall be comparable in the facilities provided (e.g., laundry, recreation, etc.) and in the quality of construction and exterior design to the market -rate units. iii. Size. Affordable units may be smaller and have different interior finishes and features than the market -rate units, and
iv. Location. Affordable units shall be dispersed throughout the residential development, unless clustering is allowed by the review authority.

C. An Affordable Housing Implementation Plan (AHIP) shall be prepared and submitted with any site development review application seeking approval of a residential development within the PC District. The AHIP shall clearly demonstrate how the proposed residential development project will meet the affordability requirements of this PCDP and any applicable provisions of the State Density Bonus Law and the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The AHIP shall specify eligible income categories, the amount of the requested density bonus, any concession/incentives requested, and any development standards waivers or modifications sought and justifications for said concessions/incentives or development standard relief.
d. Density bonuses/incentives or development standard concessions shall be provided pursuant to NBMC Chapter 20.32 and Section 65915 et. seq of the California Government Code.

10. Sound Mitigation: The interior ambient noise level of all new residential dwelling units shall meet applicable standards of the City's Community Noise Ordinance (NBMC Section 10.26.030). An acoustical analysis report, prepared by an acoustical engineer, shall be submitted describing the acoustical design features of the structure that will satisfy the interior noise standard. The residential units shall be constructed, and noise attenuated in compliance with the report.

Newport Airport Village 11

II. LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS

11. Residential Design: Unless otherwise deemed appropriate by the City's Review Authority all residential and mixed -use buildings shall be generally consistent with the residential design guidelines as set forth in Section IV of the PCDP.

12. Notification to owners and tenants: A written disclosure statement shall be prepared prior to sale, lease, or rental of a residential unit within the development. The disclosure statement shall indicate that the occupants will be living in an urban type of environment adjacent to an airport and that the noise, odor, and outdoor activity levels may be higher than a typical suburban residential area. The disclosure statement shall include a written description of the potential impacts to residents of both the existing environment (e.g., noise from planes, commercial activity on the site and vehicles streets) and potential nuisances based upon the allowed uses in the zoning district. Each and every buyer, lessee, or renter shall sign the statement acknowledging that they have received, read, and understand the disclosure statement. A covenant shall also be included within all deeds, leases or contracts conveying any interest in a residential unit within the development that requires: (1) the disclosure and notification requirement stated herein; (2) an acknowledgment by all grantees or lessees that the property is located within an urban type of environment and that the noise, odor, and outdoor activity levels may be higher than a typical suburban residential area; and (3) acknowledgment that the covenant is binding for the benefit and in favor of the City of Newport Beach.

13. Deed notification: A deed notification shall be recorded with the County Recorder's Office, the form and content of which shall be satisfactory to the City Attorney. The deed notification document shall state that the residential unit is located in a mixed -use development and that an owner may be subject to impacts, including inconvenience and discomfort, from lawful activities occurring in the project or zoning district (e.g., noise, lighting, odors, high pedestrian activity levels, etc.).

14. Park Dedications and Fees: All residential subdivisions shall comply with all park dedications and fees, as required in NBMC Chapter 19.52.

F. Development Standards — Planning Area 2 (Non -Residential Area) In addition to the additional development standards listed in Section II(F) of this PCDP, the following standards apply to all development in Planning Area 2.

1. 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 Newport Airport Village 12

II. LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
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.

2. Setbacks: Minimum setbacks shall be 15 feet from any street property line and 5 feet from any internal property line.

3. 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.

4. Lot Size and Dimensions: Newly created lots shall meet the minimum standards for lots provided in NBMC Section 20.20.030 for the OA (Office —Airport) Zoning District.

G. Additional Development Standards
In addition to the planning area specific development standards listed in Sections II(D) and II(E) of this PCDP, the following standards apply to all development within the Newport Airport Village Planned Community.

1. Maximum Intensity: The total area of all office, retail, and other commercial uses within the Newport Airport Village PC shall not exceed 297,572 square feet.

2. Parking and Circulation: Parking and on -site circulation shall comply with NBMC Chapter 20.40. All proposed development is required to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division, Public Works Department, the City Traffic Engineer, Fire Department and Building Division. On -site circulation, including but not limited to, driveway location, sight distance, parking lot design, drive aisles, emergency vehicle access and access the disabled shall meet applicable codes, polices and design standards. All approved vehicle entry points to the PC District shall comply with applicable City of Newport Beach Public Works and Fire Department requirements regarding safe and convenient vehicular access.

3. Landscaping: A detailed landscape and irrigation plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted with the Site Development Review application. Landscaping shall be designed, installed, and maintained in consistent with all requirements of NBMC Chapters 14.17 (Water Efficient Landscaping) and

20.36 (Landscaping Standards). Landscape shall also be maintained in a healthy, weed -free condition, free of litter and consistent with NBMC Section 20.30.130 (Traffic Safety Visibility Area).

4. Pedestrian and Bicycle Connection: All uses in the PC shall be interconnected through safe and efficient pedestrian and bicycle paths, including a pedestrian Newport Airport Village 13

II. LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
connection feature between the residential and non-residential components of the PC District.

5. Lighting: A detailed lighting plan with lighting fixtures and standard designs shall be submitted with the Site Development Review application and shall comply with NBMC Section 20.30.070. The lighting system shall be designed and maintained to conceal the light source and minimize light spillage and glare outside of the boundary of the PC District. A minimum average 0.5 foot-candle shall be provided on all driving or walking surface during the hours of operation and one hour thereafter. All lighting shall comply with NBMC Section 20.30.070.

6. Utilities: A Utilities Plan shall be submitted with the Site Development Review application. The final alignment and location of utilities shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. Adequate access for maintenance vehicles shall be provided. All utilities on private property shall be privately maintained and operated.

7. Air Conditioning Units: The use of individual through -window or through -wall air conditioning units any commercial or residential unit is prohibited.

Signs: A comprehensive sign program with sign materials and lighting details shall be submitted with the Site Development Review application. All signage shall comply with the Chapter 20.42 of the Municipal Code. Should a future neighborhood public park be constructed in either Planning Area, the park shall be posted with a notification to users regarding the proximity to John Wayne Airport and aircraft overflight and noise. Outdoor common areas or recreational areas shall also be posted with an outdoor notification sign to users regarding the proximity to John Wayne Airport and presence of operating aircraft.

8. Fences, Hedges, & Walls: Fences, hedges, and walls shall be limited to the following heights, subject to the exceptions contained in NBMC Section 20.30.040:
a. Street setback areas — 42 inches
b. Interior setback areas — 6 feet
C. Between residential uses and nonresidential uses and parking areas — 8 feet

9. Buffering and Screenin
a. General Requirements: Mechanical equipment must be located so that the impact of noise on residential uses is minimized to the greatest extent feasible. Screening shall be maintained in good condition at all times.

Landscaping used as screening shall provide a dense, year-round screen.

Newport Airport Village 14

II. LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
b. Roof -mounted Mechanical Equipment and Appurtenances: Roof -mounted mechanical equipment and appurtenances may not be visible in any direction (360 degrees) from a public right-of-way or adjacent residential property, as may be seen from a point six feet above ground level. Methods of screening may include mechanical roof wells recessed below the roof line or by solid and permanent roof -mounted screens. Screening must be compatible with the architectural style, materials, and color of the building on which the equipment is located. Supports for window washing equipment are permitted and are not required to be screened from view. No setbacks are required for rooftop mechanical equipment or appurtenances. All roof - mounted mechanical equipment and appurtenances shall be at or below all applicable height limits.

C. Ground -mounted Mechanical Equipment: Ground -mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from public rights -of -way and/or public property as seen from a point six feet above ground level. Methods of screening may include fences, walls, solid hedges, or other similar methods.

Chain link fencing is not permitted with or without slats is not allowed. d. Outdoor Storage: Where equipment, material, or merchandise is allowed to be stored outdoors, these items shall be screened from public view and adjacent residential areas using fences, walls, solid hedges, or other methods. Chain link fencing with or without slats is not allowed. e. Solid Waste Storage Areas: New development shall provide adequate, enclosed areas with solid roofs for collecting, storing, and loading solid waste and recyclable materials. The square footage provided for solid waste and recyclable materials storage must be in compliance with NBMC Section

20.30.120. Solid waste and recyclable materials storage areas must be adequate in distribution to serve the project and be screened from public rights -of -way and/or public property as seen from a point six feet above ground level. Screening may consist of solid masonry walls, metal gates, landscaping, or similar methods. Structures used for solid waste screening must be visually compatible with the surrounding structures and must be properly secured to prevent access by unauthorized persons, while allowing authorized persons access for disposal of materials.

Newport Airport Village 15

III. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
III. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
A. General Principles
The following general principles shall be considered when siting and designing new development within Newport Airport Village.

1. Development should be designed to convey a unified and high -quality character with use of consistent architectural design vocabulary, materials, and color palette.

2. Building elevations should employ architectural treatments, articulation and modulation of mass to avoid the appearance of monolithic box -like buildings.

3. High -quality doors, windows, moldings, and finishes should be used on elevations visible from streets and pedestrian paths.

4. Roof profiles should be articulated to reduce the appearance of large structures and provide visual interest.

5. Streetscape design and plant materials should reflect the street's location and nature.

6. Abundant use of landscape within interior courtyards, open spaces, and parking areas should be encouraged.

7. The design of parking areas and parking facilities should consider architectural consistency and physical integration with nearby buildings.

8. Open parking lots should be set back from public streets and screened using buildings, decorative walls, berms or dense landscaping.

B. Mixed -Use
The following principles shall be considered when siting and designing new mixed -use development.

1. Residential uses should be seamlessly integrated with nonresidential uses through pedestrian connections, landscape, and other physical connections.

2. Conflicts between different uses, such as noise, vibration, glare, odors, and similar impacts, should be minimized through careful siting, building design and incorporation of appropriate building materials.

3. Entries for residential units and nonresidential businesses should be separate and well-defined.

C. Residential Uses
The following principles shall be considered when new development includes residential use.

Newport Airport Village 16

III. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

1. Private open space for each residential unit should be usable and functional.

2. Common residential open space should create opportunities for recreation and promote an attractive living environment.

D. Office/Commercial Uses
The following principles shall be considered when siting and designing new office or commercial development.

1. Building siting should be oriented around public spaces such as plazas, courtyards, walkways, and open spaces.

2. On -site landscaping should emphasize special features such as entryways.

3. Landscape and other amenities should be used to provide visual relief within surface parking lots.

4. A common signage program that reflects the architectural style and character of the development should be prepared to address tenant identification and wayfinding.

5. Common streetscape and lighting programs should be developed to promote pedestrian activity.

6. Site design should provide clear site access, entrance drives and building entries as well as minimize conflicts between service vehicles, private automobiles, and pedestrians.

E. Conceptual Images to Guide Development
The following images provide general direction to convey the desired quality for new development through architectural massing, detail, variety in building materials and integration of pedestrian -orientation. These images are meant to inspire designers and do not indicate the precise design of future development within Newport Airport Village.

The images are grouped by land use type: mixed use, multi -unit residential buildings, and office/commercial development.

Newport Airport Village 17

IV. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES
IV. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES
The Newport Airport Village Residential Design Guidelines are intended to set parameters for the design of residential buildings and ensure an appropriate aesthetic quality is provided on all residential buildings. All residential and mixed -use buildings within Newport Airport Village PC should be generally consistent with the guidelines contained in this section of the PCDP.

A. Architectural Variety

1. Buildings should utilize more than a single -color on all facades.

2. Buildings should utilize more than a single finished material on all facades. For the purpose of this requirement, windows are not considered a finished material.

3. Building should have more than one roof height. The change in roof height shall be at least 5 feet for buildings with a height under 30 feet tall and 10 feet for buildings with a height of 30 feet or more.

4. Buildings should not have blank facades. For the purpose of these guidelines a blank fagade shall mean, any portion of the fagade that is above the ground level and does not have a window or balcony 15 feet in any direction.

B. Windows and Entries

1. The primary pedestrian entry into the building should lead into a common lobby or corridor and shall face the street or a common open space.

2. Ground level dwelling units are encouraged to have an individual primary entry on the exterior fagade of the building.

3. Rain protection should be provided above all pedestrian entries through the use of awnings, porticos, arcades, or the like.

4. Exterior windows and doors should be inset a minimum 2-% inches from the adjoining wall.

C. Massing and articulation

1. The first three floors of a building should have a plane -break to divide all street facing facades into segments no more than 30 feet wide. Plane -breaks shall have a minimum depth and width of 5 feet.

2. The fourth floor and above of a building should have a plane -break on all street facing facades. Plane -breaks shall have a minimum depth of 5 feet and be across 25% of the width of the building.

Newport Airport Village 21

V. PLAN ADMINISTRATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
V. PLAN ADMINISTRATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
A. Permit Review Procedures
Approval of the Site Development Review application by the City -designated Review Authority consistent with NBMC Chapter 20.52 shall be required prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit for the construction of any new structure within the boundaries of the PCDP. The application shall include all materials necessary to clearly determine consistency with this PCDP and applicable requirements of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The applicant shall include a descriptive narrative supported by facts, exhibits, or diagrams that clearly show how a proposed development generally conforms to the PCDP design guidelines.

B. Parcel or Tract Maps
No parcel or tract map shall be recorded prior to the approval of the Site Development Review for the entire project or significant phase so that the responsibility for performance of, and payment for, maintenance are clear.

C. Amendments to Planned Community Development Plan
Applications for amendments to this Planned Community Development Plan shall follow the process identified in the NBMC Section 20.56.050(E).

D. Administrative Responsibility
All property within this PCDP shall be subject to NBMC Chapter 20.60 that prescribes the authority and responsibilities of the Newport Beach City Council, Planning Commission, Hearing Officer, Zoning Administrator, and Community Development Director (Planning Director) in the administration of this PCDP and the Zoning Code.

E. Enforcement
All property within this PCDP shall be subject to NBMC Chapter 20.68 that establishes provisions intended to ensure compliance with this PCDP and the Zoning Code.

Newport Airport Village 22

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Appendices
Appendix B Newport Village Trip Making Assessment
May 2020

NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Appendices
Tbis page intentionally left blank.

PlaceWorks

OURBAN

CROSSROADS
April 23, 2020
Ms. JoAnn Hadfield

PLACEWORKS
3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100
Santa Ana, CA 92707
Ofc: 1001 Dove St. I Suite 260 1 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Main: 260 E. Baker St. I Suite 200 1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 SUBJECT: NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE TRIP -MAKING ASSESSMENT Dear Ms. JoAnn Hadfield:

Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to provide this assessment of Trip Generation, Distribution, and Intersection Volume Shifts for the proposed Newport Airport Village mixed -use (residential and office/commercial) Project located in the City of Newport Beach.

The Project is located on the northwest corner of MacArthur Boulevard (NS) at Birch Street (EW) as shown on Exhibit A. Newport Beach Transportation Model (NBTM) Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) 1377 and 1378 encompass the Project, and also surrounding parcels, with extents to MacArthur Boulevard, Campus Drive, Birch Street, and Dove Street.

It is our understanding that the residential portion of the Project includes up to 329 residential dwelling units plus 115 density bonus units with accessory uses (such as open space and parking). The non- residential portion of the Project includes 297,572 square feet of non-residential facilities.

BACKGROUND LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION
Urban Crossroads, Inc. has compiled previous land use and trip generation information for the Project and related area from the transportation analysis documents prepared in support of the 2006 General Plan EIR and the 2014 Land Use Update EIR.

The Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element Amendment Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) (Urban Crossroads, March 12, 2014) studied proposed city wide changes to land us element including a sub -area identified as "Saunders Properties". The Saunders Properties land use change studied increases of horizontal mixed -use land uses consisting of 329 Apartment dwelling units (plus 115 density bonus units) and 238,077 square feet of office. The result was a total of 4,651 additional daily trips. The Saunders Property area was 26.24 acres and included TAZs 1377 and 1378 in their entirety, including the proposed project site.

Since the proposed project site area is 16.46 acres of the of 26.24 acres of the area studied in 2014, trip generation was calculated by using 62.7% (16.46 acres of 26.24 acres) of allowed land uses (0.5 FAR) in TAZs 1377 and 1378 plus the proposed increase of 62.7% of the additional 238,077 square feet of office studied in the 2014 Land Use Amendment. The 329 dwelling and 115 density bonus dwelling units were 12907-02 Letter - revised - 2020.04.23.docx

Ms. JoAnn Hadfield

PLACEWORKS
April 23, 2020

Page 2 of 3 ends

all included in the proposed project analysis as the location of those units contemplated in 2014 was within the proposed project area. Please refer to Table 1 for more information.

The City of Newport Beach General Plan Transportation Study (Urban Crossroads, March 22, 2006) provides trip rate adjustment for specific types and locations of land uses, including vertical mixed -use developments. On page 3-4, the study indicates that in the Airport Area, the 20% high rise apartment reduction has been applied with no accompanying reduction for mixed use.

Pursuant to the Airport Area Residential & Mixed -Use Adjustment Factors for Traffic Analysis in Newport Beach (City of Newport Beach, July 2009), the Airport Area land use conversion factor for commercial uses being demolished for conversion to residential is 5.40 DU/KSF.

Similarly, a conversion factor of 2.29 DU/KSF would be used for office conversion to residential or 1.16 for industrial conversion to residential.

PROJECT LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION
The 2006 General Plan Update (Approved General Plan) included 107,336 square feet of commercial uses, 232,562 square feet of office uses, and 26,834 square feet of industrial uses. The 2013 LUE amendment included 107,336 square feet of commercial uses, 26,834 square feet of industrial uses, 444 dwelling units, and 370,166 square feet of office uses on the Project site.

The Project proposes to include a total of 297,572 square feet of non-residential uses (which is represented as 46,410 square feet of commercial, 232,562 square feet of office, and 18,600 square feet of industrial uses for purposes of this analysis). The Project proposes to convert 61,000 square feet to accommodate the 329 dwelling units, which is based upon the commercial conversion factor.

An additional 35% of residential units (115 additional units) are proposed as density bonus units, for which a non-residential reduction is not proposed. The total residential on -site would therefore be 444 dwelling units.

NBTM trip generation calculations for the site for General Plan conditions are shown in Table 2. The worksheets that calculate trips for individual land use categories are shown in Attachment 1.

As shown on Table 2, the greatest directional Project increase (in comparison to approved land uses) without the density bonus is 75 vehicles in the outbound direction for the AM peak hour. With density bonus, the AM peak hour outbound direction Project increase is 119 trips. Table 3 presents a comparison of the Project to the Land Use Element scenario.

PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRAFFIC VOLUME CHANGES
Exhibit A shows the anticipated outbound Project trip distribution pattern. The inbound trip distribution pattern is shown on Exhibit B.
12907-02 Letter - revised - 2020.04.23.docx
LO► URBAN

Ms. JoAnn Hadfield

PLACEWORKS
April 23, 2020

Page 3 of 3 ends

The Project trip difference based upon NBTM rates is applied to these trip distribution patterns to develop AM and PM peak hour intersection volume changes.

Exhibits C and D show the resulting AM and PM peak hour Project difference volumes without density bonus, respectively. Peak hour Project difference volumes with density bonus are shown on Exhibits E and F, respectively.

PERFORMANCE REVIEW OF NEARBY INTERSECTIONS
The Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element Amendment Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) includes two relevant attachments. The first attachment includes intersection analysis data for the approved General Plan (the 2006 Project). Attachment 2 of this letter provides Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) calculation sheets for General Plan buildout conditions at study area intersections. Intersection analysis worksheets with the previously proposed Citywide Land Use Element Amendment are provided in Attachment 3 of this letter.

Because the density bonus units within the Newport Airport Village Project represent conservative "worst case" conditions, the potential traffic volume changes associated with this scenario have been applied to the background traffic volumes in Attachments 2 and 3.

Intersection analysis worksheets for Newport Airport Village Project volume changes from approved General Plan conditions are included in Attachment 4. Attachment 5 includes study area intersection analysis worksheets for Newport Airport Village Project volume changes from the former Citywide Land Use Element Amendment.

The results of these changes in ICU values associated with the Newport Airport Village Project are summarized in Table 4. As shown in Table 4, potentially impacted study area intersections continue to experience acceptable operations for long range future conditions with the Newport Airport Village Project.

Respectfully submitted,
URBAN CROSSROADS, INC.

John Kain, AICP
Principal
r
Marlie Whiteman, P.E.

Senior Associate
12907-02 Letter - revised - 2020.04.23.docx
LO► URBAN

Newport Airport Village
EXHIBIT A: PROJECT OUTBOUND TRIP DISTRIBUTION
12907 - 01 - study area. dwg URBAN

CROSSROADS

Newport Airport Village
EXHIBIT B: PROJECT INBOUND TRIP DISTRIBUTION
I-
12907 - 01 - study area. dwg URBAN
CROSSROAnS

Newport Airport Village
EXHIBIT C: PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR

INTERSECTION VOLUME DIFFERENCES

WITHOUT DENSITY BONUS
9 MacArthur BI. (NS) /
10 MacArthur BI. (NS) /
11 Von Karman Av. (NS) /
12 MacArthur BI. (NS) /
Campus Dr. (EW)
Birch St. (EW)
Campus Dr. (EW)
Von Karman Av. (EW)
10 �12
—12
�
vv 8
��
`15-11}f
7ff'
-4-41f
�I}f'
+11—
•12
•11�
•7—
v
N
15 Campus Dr. (NS) /
16 Birch St. (NS) /
17 Campus Dr. (NS) /
18 Birch St. (NS) /
Bristol St. N (EW)
Bristol St. N (EW)
Bristol St. S (EW)
Bristol St. S (EW)
.or.- �--4
vl- �---4
4 n,v
My
i �•4
� i �
� �►
i �►
1 }
•8-4
}
-3-1
4 , 4 —
29 Jamboree Rd. (NS) /
69 MacArthur BI. (NS) /
MacArthur BI. (EW)
1-405 NB Ramps (EW)
i 9
i ►f---5
I f f?
f
7�
,4--*
70 MacArthur BI. (NS) /
71 MacArthur Bl. (NS) /
1-405 SB Ramps (EW)
Michelson Dr. (EW)
QQ
10 fT
'ff
LEGEND:

Q = INTERSECTION ID
•10 = VOLUME INCREASE ASSOCIATED WITH

PROPOSED PROJECT WITHOUT DENSITY BONUS

IN COMPARISON TO APPROVED PROJECT
-10 = VOLUME DECREASE ASSOCIATED WITH THE

PROPOSED PROJECT WITHOUT DENSITY BONUS

IN COMPARISON TO APPROVED PROJECT
12907 - 01 - study area. dwg
URBAN

CROSSROADS

Newport Airport Village
EXHIBIT D: PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR

INTERSECTION VOLUME DIFFERENCES

WITHOUT DENSITY BONUS
9 MacArthur BI. (NS) /
10 MacArthur BI. (NS) /
11 Von Karman Av. (NS) /
12 MacArthur BI. (NS) /
Campus Dr. (EW)
Birch St. (EW)
Campus Dr. (EW)
Von Karman Av. (EW)
:;-
I f f'
15 Campus Dr. (NS) /
16 Birch St. (NS) /
17 Campus Dr. (NS) /
18 Birch St. (NS) /
Bristol St. N (EW)
Bristol St. N (EW)
Bristol St. S (EW)
Bristol St. S (EW)
.off �.4
M-T
'1 f
' f
f f
f f
-4-
29 Jamboree Rd. (NS) /
69 MacArthur BI. (NS) /
MacArthur BI. (EW)
1-405 NB Ramps (EW)
.7-
70 MacArthur BI. (NS) /
71 MacArthur Bl. (NS) /
1-405 SB Ramps (EW)
Michelson Dr. (EW)
OQ
f�
�7tI-
LEGEND:

Q = INTERSECTION ID
'10 = VOLUME INCREASE ASSOCIATED WITH

PROPOSED PROJECT WITHOUT DENSITY BONUS

IN COMPARISON TO APPROVED PROJECT
-10 = VOLUME DECREASE ASSOCIATED WITH THE

PROPOSED PROJECT WITHOUT DENSITY BONUS

IN COMPARISON TO APPROVED PROJECT
12907 - 01 - study area. dwg
URBAN

CROSSROADS

Newport Airport Village
EXHIBIT E: PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR

INTERSECTION VOLUME DIFFERENCES

WITH DENSITY BONUS
9 MacArthur BI. (NS) /
10 MacArthur BI. (NS) /
11 Von Karman Av. (NS) /
12 MacArthur BI. (NS) /
Campus Dr. (EW)
Birch St. (EW)
Campus Dr. (EW)
Von Karman Av. (EW)
�10
�10
ao
—
TT�7
• 4-#
} f
' f f'
;;�
'1 f '
�
'1 f f'
�
•is�
•Ism
�
�
�
15 Campus Dr. (NS) /
16 Birch St. (NS) /
17 Campus Dr. (NS) /
18 Birch St. (NS) /
Bristol St. N (EW)
Bristol St. N (EW)
Bristol St. S (EW)
Bristol St. S (EW)
c%jrj 4-3
'ON �---3
.o.o
1010
i �•6
� i � 3
� �►
i �►
} f ,6-
f f
.4—
29 Jamboree Rd. (NS) /
69 MacArthur BI. (NS) /
MacArthur BI. (EW)
1-405 NB Ramps (EW)
i 9
N
i ►f---3
70 MacArthur BI. (NS) /
71 MacArthur Bl. (NS) /
1-405 SB Ramps (EW)
Michelson Dr. (EW)
QQ
QJ`'
C
��8
��►�
0\�L
LEGEND:

Q = INTERSECTION ID
•10 = VOLUME INCREASE ASSOCIATED WITH

PROPOSED PROJECT WITH DENSITY BONUS

IN COMPARISON TO APPROVED PROJECT
-10 = VOLUME DECREASE ASSOCIATED WITH THE

PROPOSED PROJECT WITH DENSITY BONUS

IN COMPARISON TO APPROVED PROJECT
12907 - 01 - study area. dwg
URBAN

CROSSROADS

Newport Airport Village
EXHIBIT F: PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR

INTERSECTION VOLUME DIFFERENCES

WITH DENSITY BONUS
9 MacArthur BI. (NS) /
10 MacArthur BI. (NS) /
11 Von Karman Av. (NS) /
12 MacArthur BI. (NS) /
Campus Dr. (EW)
Birch St. (EW)
Campus Dr. (EW)
Von Karman Av. (EW)
�_
�_
10�_
NN
P
9-
'1 } f
.y-
' f
:6-
'1
I f f
.yam
Ln
Ln
15 Campus Dr. (NS) /
16 Birch St. (NS) /
17 Campus Dr. (NS) /
18 Birch St. (NS) /
Bristol St. N (EW)
Bristol St. N (EW)
Bristol St. S (EW)
Bristol St. S (EW)
4•2
�--•2
3 ±2
� �►
i �►
11 f
' f
+2�
f �'
.3-4
f f
29 Jamboree Rd. (NS) /
69 MacArthur BI. (NS) /
MacArthur BI. (EW)
1-405 NB Ramps (EW)
3 i �► f-•
N
i �- f--•2
-3�
70 MacArthur BI. (NS) /
71 MacArthur Bl. (NS) /
1-405 SB Ramps (EW)
Michelson Dr. (EW)
QQ
�.
v
.o
eQ
i �► f-*2
j i l► -
f�
�'ff
LEGEND:

Q = INTERSECTION ID
•10 = VOLUME INCREASE ASSOCIATED WITH

PROPOSED PROJECT WITH DENSITY BONUS

IN COMPARISON TO APPROVED PROJECT
-10 = VOLUME DECREASE ASSOCIATED WITH THE

PROPOSED PROJECT WITH DENSITY BONUS

IN COMPARISON TO APPROVED PROJECT
12907 - 01 - study area. dwg
URBAN

CROSSROADS

TABLE 1: NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE TRAFFIC LAND USE DATA
2014 Land Use Element — Land Uses Studied in NBTM
TAZ 1377
TAZ 1378
Total Studied
Adjustment
Proposed
(2014)
for smaller
Project
project
Studied
area: 62.7%1
General
79,715
91,476
171,191
107,336
46,4102
Commercial
General Office
243,262
347,115
590,377
370,166
232,5623
Industrial
19,929
22,869
42,798
26,834
18,6004
Apartments
297
147
444
N/A5
329 (444
w/density
bonus)
' Proposed project area is 62.7% (16.46 acres) of TAZs 1377 and 1378 combined (26.24 acres) z 60,926 sq. ft. converted into 329 dwelling units per Airport Area Conversion Rates (107,336-60,926 = 46,410) '2014 study included an increase of 238,077 square feet of office in TAZs 1377 and 1378. No increase in the allowed office development for the proposed project.
°Total floor area studied in 2014 overestimated allowed capacity so industrial was reduced by 8,234 sq. ft. 'Tall 444 dwelling units were planned to go into the same general area as the current proposed project. 2006 General Plan Update — Land Uses Studied in NBTM
TAZ 1377
TAZ 1378
Total
Adjustment
Proposed
Studied
for smaller
Project
(2006)
project area:

Studied

62.7 % 1
General
79,715
91,476
171,191
107,336
46,4102
Commercial
General Office
1721715
198,198
370,913
232,562
232,562
Industrial
19,929
22,869
42,798
26,834
18,6003
Apartments
0 0
0 3294(444
w/density
bonus)
' Proposed project area is 62.7% (16.46 acres) of TAZs 1377 and 1378 combined (26.24 acres) Z 60,926 sq. ft. Converted into 329 dwelling units per Airport Area Conversion Rates (107,336-60,926 = 46,410) 'Total floor area studied overestimated allowed capacity so industrial was reduced by 8,234 "Proposed project requests a GPA to allow 329 of the 1,650 replacement dwelling units already allowed by the general plan in the MU-1-12 land use category.
10 TABLE 2: NBTM TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON
NBTM Trip Generation Rates
NBTM
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
Land Use
Code
Units
Daily
Apartment (High -Rise)
3c
DU

0.10 0.38

0.48 0.29

0.16 0.45

4.90 General Commercial
10a
TSF

1.78 0.80

2.58 1.53

2.02 3.55

38.24 General Office
23a
TSF

0.84 0.26

1.10 0.39

0.65 1.04

11.08 Industrial
1 26
1TSF

0.48 0.13
1 0.61
1 0.18
1 0.33
1 0.51
1 5.48
2006 General Plan Update (Approved General Plan) Trip Generation Results AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
NBTM
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
Land Use
Code
Quantity'
Daily
General Commercial
10a
107.336 TSF
191
86 277
164
217
381
4,105
General Office
23a
232.562 TSF
195
60 255
91 151
242
2,577
Industrial
26 26.834 TSF
13 3
16 5
9 14
147
TOTAL
399
149
548
260
1 377
1 637
6,829
Proposed Project Trip Generation Results
NBTM
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
In
I Out
Total
In
Out
Total
Land Use
Code
Quantity'
Daily
Apartment (High -Rise)
3c
329 DU
33 125
158
95 53
148
1,612
General Commercial
10a

46.41 TSF
83 37
120
71 94
165
1,775
General Office
23a
232.562 TSF
195
60 255
91 151
242
2,577
Industrial
26 18.6 TSF
9 2
1 11
3 1 6
9 102
TOTAL without Density Bonus
320
224
544
260
304
564
6,066
Apartment (High -Rise)
3c
115 DU
12 44
56 33
18 51
564
TOTAL with Density Bonus
332
268
600
293
322
615
6,630
DU = Dwelling Unit, TSF = Thousand Square Feet
Difference without Density Bonus
-79
75 1 -4
0 -73
-73
-763
Difference with Density Bonus
-67
119
52 33
-55
-22
-199
R:IUXRjobsL12600-130001129071Excel [Trip Gen.x1sxJNBTM-Rev(20200227) 11 TABLE 3: NBTM LAND USE ELEMENT (LUE) TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON NBTM Trip Generation Rates
NBTM
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
Land Use
Code
Units
Daily
Apartment (High -Rise)
3c
DU

0.10 0.38

0.48 0.29

0.16 0.45

4.90 General Commercial
10a
TSF

1.78 0.80

2.58 1.53

2.02 3.55

38.24 General Office
23a
TSF

0.84 0.26

1.10 0.39

0.65 1.04

11.08 Industrial
1 26
1TSF

0.48 0.13
1 0.61
1 0.18
1 0.33
1 0.51
1 5.48
2014 LUE Update Trip Generation Results
NBTM
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
Land Use
Code
Quantity'
Daily
Apartment (High -Rise)
3c
444 DU
44 169
213
129
71 200
2,176
General Commercial
10a
107.336 TSF
191
86 277
164
217
381
4,105
General Office
23a
370.166 TSF
311
96 407
144
241
385
4,101
Industrial
1 26
126.834 TSF
13 3
1 16
1 5
1 9
1 14
147
TOTAL
559
1 354
1 913
1 442
1 538
1 980
1 10,529
Proposed Project Trip Generation Results
NBTM
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
Land Use
Code
Quantity'
Daily
Apartment (High -Rise)
3c
329 DU
33 125
158
95 53
148
1,612
General Commercial
10a

46.41 TSF
83 37
120
71 94
165
1,775
General Office
23a
232.562 TSF
195
60 255
91 151
242
2,577
Industrial
26 18.6 TSF
9 2
1 11
3 1 6
9 102
TOTAL without Density Bonus
320
224
544
260
304
564
6,066
Apartment (High -Rise)
3c
115 DU
12 44
56 33
18 51
564
TOTAL with Density Bonus
332
268
600
293
322
615
6,630
DU = Dwelling Unit, TSF = Thousand Square Feet
Difference without Density Bonus
-239
-130
-369
-182
-234
-416
-4,463
Difference with Density Bonus
-227
-86
-313
-149
-216
-365
-3,899
R:�UXRjobsL12600-13000�12907�Excel�[Trip Gen.x1sx1LUE-Rev (20200227) 12 TABLE 4: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY
Intersection
Approved GP
Approved GP with Project DB
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
ICU
LOS
ICU
LOS
ICU
LOS
ICU
LOS
9 MacArthur BI. & Campus Dr.

0.58 A

0.67 B

0.58 A

0.67 B
10 MacArthur BI. & Birch St.

0.53 A

0.65 B

0.54 A

0.65 B
11 Von Karman Av. & Campus Dr.

0.69 B

0.74 C

0.69 B

0.74 C
12 MacArthur BI.& Von Karman Av.

0.64 B

0.56 A

0.64 B

0.56 A
15 Campus Dr. & Bristol St. N.

0.51 A

0.75 C

0.51 A

0.75 C
16 Birch St. & Bristol St. N.

0.64 B

0.63 B

0.64 B
17 Campus Dr. & Bristol St. S.

0.81 D

0.59 A

0.81 D

0.59 A
18 Birch St. & Bristol St. S.

0.49 A

0.53 A

0.50 A

0.53 A
29 MacArthur BI. & Jamboree Rd.

0.62 B

0.88 D

0.62 B

0.88 D
69 MacArthur BI. & 1-405 NB Ramps

0.68 B

0.67 B

0.68 B

0.67 B
70 MacArthur BI. & 1-405 SB Ramps

0.61 B

0.77 C

0.61 B

0.76 C
71 MacArthur BI. & Michelson Dr.

0.68 B

0.88 D

0.69 B

0.88 D
Intersection
LUE Update
LUE Update with Project DB
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
ICU
LOS
ICU
LOS
ICU
LOS
ICU
LOS
9 MacArthur BI. & Campus Dr.

0.62 B

0.70 B

0.62 B

0.70 B
10 MacArthur BI. & Birch St.

0.57 A

0.71 C

0.57 A

0.71 C
11 Von Karman Av. & Campus Dr.

0.66 B

0.74 C

0.66 B

0.73 C
12 MacArthur BI.& Von Karman Av.

0.62 B

0.58 A

0.62 B

0.57 A
15 Campus Dr. & Bristol St. N.

0.50 A

0.73 C

0.50 A

0.73 C
16 Birch St. & Bristol St. N.

0.60 A

0.64 B

0.60 A

0.64 B
17 Campus Dr. & Bristol St. S.

0.79 C

0.59 A

0.79 C

0.59 A
18 Birch St. & Bristol St. S.

0.49 A

0.53 A

0.49 A

0.53 A
29 MacArthur BI. & Jamboree Rd.

0.64 B

0.89 D

0.64 B

0.89 D
69 MacArthur BI. & 1-405 NB Ramps

0.69 B

0.66 B

0.69 B

0.66 B
70 MacArthur BI. & 1-405 SB Ramps

0.63 B

0.79 C

0.63 B

0.79 C
71 MacArthur BI. & Michelson Dr.

0.70 B

0.90 D

0.70 B

0.90 D
R: �UXRjobsL12600-13000�12907�ExceA[ICU review.x1sxjSheet1 13 Attachment 1
14 Attachment 1, Item 1
Model Trip Generation for Approved General Plan
NBTM
Land
Use
Code
NBTM Land Use Description
Quantity
Units
Trips
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
In
F Out
Total
In
Out
Total
Daily
1 a
Res -Low (SFD)-Balboa
0 DU
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 1 b
Res -Low (SFD)
0 DU
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 2a
Res -Medium (SFA)-Balboa
0 DU
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 2b
Res -Medium (SFA)
0 DU
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 3a
Apartment -Balboa
0 DU
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 3b
Apartment
0 DU
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 3c
Apartment (High -Rise)
0 DU
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 3d
Apartment (Res -over -Retail)
0 DU
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 3e
Apartment (Mid -Rise Newport Center)
0 DU
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 4
Elderly Residential
0 DU
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 5a
Mobile Home -Balboa
0 DU
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 5b
Mobile Home
0 DU
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 6
Motel
0 ROOM
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 7
1 Hotel
0 ROOM
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 9
Regional Commercial
0 TSF
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 10a
General Commercial
107.336
TSF
191
86 277
164
217
381
4105
10b
Comm (Res -over -Retail)
0 TSF
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 11
Comm./Recreation
0 ACRE
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 13
Restaurant
0 TSF
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 15
Fast Food Restaurant
0 TSF
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 16
jAuto Dealer/Sales
0 TSF
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 17
Yacht Club
0 TSF
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 18
Health Club
0 TSF
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 19
Tennis Club
0 CRT
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 20
Marina
0 SLIP
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 21
Theater
0 SEAT
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 22
Newport Dunes
0 ACRE
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 23a
General Office
232.562
TSF
195
60 255
91 151
242
2577
23b
Office (>300K block Newport Center)
0 TSF
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 24
Medical/Government Office
0 TSF
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 25
R& D
0 TSF
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 26
1 Industrial

26.834
TSF
13 3
16 5
9 14
147
27 Mini-Storage/Warehouse
0 TSF
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 28
Pre-School/Day Care
0 TSF
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 29
Elementary/Private School
0 STU
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 30
Junior/High School
0 STU
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 31
Cultural/Learning Center
0 TSF
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 32
Library
0 TSF
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 33
Post Office
0 TSF
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 34
Hospital
0 BEDS
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 35
Nursing/Conv. Home
0 BEDS
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 36
Church
0 TSF
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 37
Youth Ctr/Service
0 TSF
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 38
Park
0 ACRE
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 39
Regional Park
0 ACRE
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 40
Golf Course
0 ACRE
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 41
Resort Golf Course
0 ACRE
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 Total
1 399
149
548
260
377
637
6829
\UXRjobs\_12600-13000\12907\Excel\[TG-Calculator.xlsx]TG-Approved 15 Attachment 1, Item 2
Model Trip Generation with Proposed Project
NBTM
Land
Use
Code
NBTM Land Use Description
Quantity
Units
Trips
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
In
F Out
Total
In
Out
Total
Daily
1 a
Res -Low (SFD)-Balboa
0 DU
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 1 b
Res -Low (SFD)
0 DU
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 2a
Res -Medium (SFA)-Balboa
0 DU
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 2b
Res -Medium (SFA)
0 DU
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 3a
Apartment -Balboa
0 DU
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 3b
Apartment
0 DU
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 3c
Apartment (High -Rise)
329
DU
33 125
158
95 53
148
1612
3d
Apartment (Res -over -Retail)
0 DU
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 3e
Apartment (Mid -Rise Newport Center)
0 DU
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 4
Elderly Residential
0 DU
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 5a
Mobile Home -Balboa
0 DU
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 5b
Mobile Home
0 DU
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 6
Motel
0 ROOM
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 7
1 Hotel
0 ROOM
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 9
Regional Commercial
0 TSF
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 10a
General Commercial

46.41 TSF
83 37
120
71 94
165
1775
10b
Comm (Res -over -Retail)
0 TSF
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 11
Comm./Recreation
0 ACRE
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 13
Restaurant
0 TSF
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 15
Fast Food Restaurant
0 TSF
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 16
JAuto Dealer/Sales
0 TSF
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 17
Yacht Club
0 TSF
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 18
Health Club
0 TSF
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 19
Tennis Club
0 CRT
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 20
Marina
0 SLIP
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 21
Theater
0 SEAT
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 22
Newport Dunes
0 ACRE
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 23a
General Office
232.562
TSF
195
60 255
91 151
242
2577
23b
Office (>300K block Newport Center)
0 TSF
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 24
Medical/Government Office
0 TSF
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 25
R& D
0 TSF
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 26
1 Industrial

18.6 TSF
9 2
11 3
6 9
102
27 Mini-Storage/Warehouse
0 TSF
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 28
Pre-School/Day Care
0 TSF
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 29
Elementary/Private School
0 STU
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 30
Junior/High School
0 STU
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 31
Cultural/Learning Center
0 TSF
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 32
Library
0 TSF
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 33
Post Office
0 TSF
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 34
Hospital
0 BEDS
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 35
Nursing/Conv. Home
0 BEDS
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 36
Church
0 TSF
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 37
Youth Ctr/Service
0 TSF
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 38
Park
0 ACRE
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 39
Regional Park
0 ACRE
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 40
Golf Course
0 ACRE
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 41
Resort Golf Course
0 ACRE
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 Total
i 320
224
544
260
304
564
6066
\UXRjobs\_12600-13000\12907\Excel\[TG-Calculator.XISX]TG-Proposed In

Attachment 1, Item 3
Model Trip Generation for Density Bonus Units
NBTM
Land
Use
Code
NBTM Land Use Description
Quantity
Units
Trips
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Daily
In 7
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
1a
Res -Low (SFD)-Balboa
0 DU
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 1 b
Res -Low (SFD)
0 DU
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 2a
Res -Medium (SFA)-Balboa
0 DU
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 2b
Res -Medium (SFA)
0 DU
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 3a
Apartment -Balboa
0 DU
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 3b
Apartment
0 DU
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 3c
Apartment (High -Rise)
115
DU
12 44
55 33
18 52
564
3d
Apartment (Res -over -Retail)
0 DU
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 3e
Apartment (Mid -Rise Newport Center)
0 DU
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 4
Elderly Residential
0 DU
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 5a
Mobile Home -Balboa
0 DU
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 5b
Mobile Home
0 DU
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 6
Motel
0 ROOM
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 7
Hotel
0 ROOM
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 9
Regional Commercial
0 TSF
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 10a
General Commercial
0 TSF
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 10b
Comm (Res -over -Retail)
0 TSF
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 11
Comm./Recreation
0 ACRE
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 13
Restaurant
0 TSF
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 15
Fast Food Restaurant
0 TSF
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 16
Auto Dealer/Sales
0 TSF
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 17
Yacht Club
0 TSF
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 18
Health Club
0 TSF
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 19
Tennis Club
0 CRT
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 20
Marina
0 SLIP
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 21
Theater
0 SEAT
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 22
Newport Dunes
0 ACRE
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 23a
General Office
0 TSF
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 23b
Office (>300K block Newport Center)
0 TSF
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 24
Medical/Government Office
0 TSF
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 25
R&D
0 TSF
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 26
Industrial
0 TSF
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 27
Mini-Storage/Warehouse
0 TSF
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 28
Pre-School/Day Care
0 TSF
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 29
Elementary/Private School
0 STU
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 30
Junior/High School
0 STU
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 31
Cultural/Learning Center
0 TSF
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 32
Library
0 TSF
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 33
Post Office
0 TSF
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 34
Hospital
0 BEDS
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 35
Nursing/Conv. Home
0 BEDS
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 36
Church
0 TSF
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 37
Youth Ctr/Service
0 TSF
0 0
1 0
0 0
0 0
38 Park
0 ACRE
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 39
Regional Park
0 ACRE
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 40
Golf Course
0 ACRE
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 41
Resort Golf Course
0 ACRE
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 Total
12 44
55 33
18 52
564
\UXRjobs\_12600-13000\12907\Excel\[TG-Calculator.xlsx]DB Res 17 Attachment 2
18 9 . MacArthur B1 at Campus Dr
GP Baseline
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES

CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
2 3200
220
.069
185
.058*
NBT
4 6400
987
154*
1221
.191
NBR
1 1600
90 .056
46 .029
SBL
1 1600
193
.121*
143
.089
SBT

3.5 8000
925
.193
1106
.225*
SBR

1.5 673
210
697
EBL
2 3200
546
.171*
461
.144*
EBT
3 4800
1057
.220
622
.130
EBR
d
1600
128
.080
163
.102
WBL
2 3200
57 .018
83 .026
WBT
3 4800
638
.133*
1160
.242*
WBR
f
57 131
Right
Turn Adjustment
SBR
004*

TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION
10 . MacArthur Bl at Birch St
GP Baseline
583 .669
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES

CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
1 1600
35 .022
142
.089*
NBT
3 4800
878
.183*
854
.178
NBR
1 1600
81 .051
60 .038
SBL
1 1600
106
.C66*
114
.071
SBT
4 6400
726
.151
1138
.222*
SBR
0 0
265
.166
280
EBL

1.5 190
314
EBT

1.5 4800
514
.165*
426
_161*
EBR
0 87
34 WBL
1 1600
47 .029
108
.068
WBT
2 3200
380
.119*
569
.178*
WBR
f
162
202
Note:

Assumes
E/W Split
Phasing

TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION
.533 .650
19 11 . Von Karman Av at Campus
GP Baseline
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES

CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
1 1600
39 .024
50 .031*
NBT
2 3200
853
.292*
564
.223
NBR
0 0
82 148
SBL
1 1600
93 .058*
224
.140
SBT
2 3200
641
.263
815
.370*
SBR
0 0
201
368
EBL
2 3200
274
.086*
234
.013*
EBT
2 3200
526
.185
791
.272
EBR
0 0
66 79
WBL
1 1600
124
.078
78 .049
WBT
2 3200
703
.256*
745
.265*
WBR
0 0
116
104

TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION
12 . MacArthur Bl at Von Karman
GP Baseline
692 .739
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR

LANES CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
1 1600
44 .028
40 .025*
NBT
3 4800
915
191*
806
.168
NBR
1 1600
768
.480
191
.119
SBL
1 1600
74 .046*
48 .030
SBT
3 4800
573
.119
1248
.260*
SBR
1 1600
135
.084
68 .043
EBL
1 1600
13 .008*
103
.064
EBT
2 3200
89 .028
213
.067*
EBR
f
19 135
WBL
2 3200
157
.049
663
.207*
WBT
1 1600
171
.107*
102
.064
WBR
f
52 143
Right
Turn
Adjustment
NBR
.289*

TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION
.641 .559
07,

15 . Campus Dr at Bristol St(N)
GP Baseline
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR

LANES CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
2 3200
518
.162
488
.153*
NBT
4 6400
2110
.330*
1036
.162
NBR
0 0
0 0
SBL
0 0
0 0
SBT
4 6400
547
.085
1317
.206*
SBR
3 4800
229
.048
1191
.248
EBL
a
0 0
0 EBT
0 0
0 0
EBR
a
0 0
0 WBL
1 1600
283
.177*
303
.189
WBT
5 8000
1193
.168
2671
.347*
WBR
0 0
150
104
Right
Turn
Adjustment
SBR
042*

TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION
16 . Birch St at Bristol St(N)
GP Baseline
.507 .748
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES

CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
2 3200
85 .027
164
.051*
NBT
2 3200
1214
.379*
466
.146
NBR
0 0
0 0
SBL
0 0
0 0
SBT

1.5 6400
264
.083
562
.231*
SBR

2.5 245
.077
918
EBL
0 0
0 0
EBT
0 0
0 0
EBR
0 0
0 0
WBL

1.5 376
578
WBT

3.5 8000
1300
.257*
2058
.354*
WBR
0 376
194
Note:

Assumes
E/W Split
Phasing

TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION
.636 .636
21 17 . Campus Dr at Bristol St(S)
GP Baseline
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES

CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
0 0
0 0
NBT
5 8000
1362
.206*
1002
_157*
NBR
0 0
287
309
.193
SBL
1 1600
171
.107*
258
.161*
SBT
3 4800
658
.137
1361
.284
SBR
0 0
0 0
EBL

1.5 1272
518
EBT

2.5 6400
1914
.498*
973
.233*
EBR
2 3200
534
.167
569
.178
WBL
0 0
0 0
WBT
0 0
0 0
WBR
0 0
0 0
Right
Turn Adjustment
NBR
_036*
Note:

Assumes
E/W Split
Phasing
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .811 .587
18 . Birch St at Bristol St(S)
GP Baseline
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES

CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
0 0
0 0
NBT

2.5 6400
538
.156*
438
.097
NBR

1.5 462
182
SBL
2 3200
110
.053*
17D
.053
SBT
2 3200
470
.147
973
.304*
SBR
0 0
0 0
EBL

1.5 752
194
.121
EBT

3.5 8000
1378
.285*
1315
.223*
EBR
0 150
110
WBL
0 0
0 0
WBT
0 0
0 0
WBR
0 0
D
0 Note:

Assumes
E/W Split
Phasing
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .494 .527
22 29 . MacArthur Bl at Jamboree Rd
GP Baseline
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES

CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
2 3200
345
.108*
380
.119*
NBT
4 6400
1136
.178
492
.077
NBR
1 1600
385
.241
336
.210
SBL
3 4800
54 .011
210
.044
SBT
3 4800
523
.109*
1445
.301*
SBR
f
196
517
EBL
2 3200
536
.168*
EBT
4 6400
1361
.213
EBR
1 1600
497
311
WBL
3 4800
440
.092
WBT
3 4800
1089
.227*
WBR
1 1600
88 .055
Right
Turn
Adjustment
EBR
.008*
Note:

Assumes Right -Turn
Overlap
for NBR

TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION
30 . Jamboree Rd at Bristol St{N
GP Baseline
415 .130*
1085 .170
127 .079
638 .133
1572 .328*
213 .133
.620 .878
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES

CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
2 3200
743
.232
803
.251*
NBT

2.5 6400
2320
.483*
1510
.377
NBR

1.5 690
.431
900
SBL
0 0
0 0
SBT

3.5 8000
1040
.203
1270
.265*
SBR

1.5 587
1327
.415
EBL
0 0
0 0
EBT
0 0
0 0
EBR
0 0
0 0
WBL
0 0
0 0
WBT
0 0
0 0
WBR
0 0
0 0
Right
Turn Adjustment
SBR
.150*

TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION
.483 .666
23 69 . MacArthur Bl. at I-405 NB Ramps
GP Baseline (IRVINE ISEC)

AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR

LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C
NBL 0 0 0 0
NBT 4 6800 2009 .30* 2177 .32*
NBR 2 3400 358 .11 1115 33
SBL 2 3400 162 .05* 495 .15*
SBT 4 6800 1431 .21 2042 .30
SBR 0 0 0 0
EBL 0 0 0 0
EBT 0 0 0 0
EBR 0 0 0 0
i
WBL 2 3400 889 .26* 518 .15*
WBT 0 0 0 0
WBR 2 3400 1091 .32 423 .12
Right Turn Adjustment WBR 02*
Clearance Interval .05* .05*
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 68 .67
71 . MacArthur B1. at Michelson Dr.

GP Baseline (IRVINE ISEC)
# AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR

LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C I
1 I
NBL 1 1700 254 .15 212 .12
NBT 4 6800 1319 .19* 1759 .26* j
NBR 1 1700 300 .18 119 .07
SBL 2 3400 973 .29* 619 .18*
SBT 4 6800 1590 .24 1520 .23
SBR 0 0 14 12
EBL 2 3400 347 .10* 385 .11
EBT 1 1700 78 .05 112 .07*
EBR 1 1700 86 .05 134 .08
WBL 2 3400 95 .03 517 .15*
WBT 1 1700 92 .05* 107 .06
WBR 1 1700 264 .16 776 .46
� I
Right Turn Adjustment WBR 17*
Clearance Interval .05* .05*
Note: Assumes Right -Turn Overlap for WBR �
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 68 -88
70 . MacArthur B1. at I.405 SB Ramps
GP Baseline (IRVINE ISEC)

AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR

LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C
NBL 0 0 0 0
NBT 4 6800 1499 .22* 2390 .43*
NBR 1 1700 432 .25 676 .4C
SBL 2 3400 160 .05* 477 .14*
SBT 4 6800 1692 .25 1719 .25
SBR 1 1700 475 .28 384 .23
I
EBL 0 0 0 0
LBT 0 0 0 0
EBR 0 0 0 0
WBL 2 3400 994 .29* 507 .15*
WBT 1 1700 138 .0B 157 .09
WBR f 809 369 E
Clearance Interval .05* .05*
Note: Assumes Right -Turn Overlap for NBR j
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .61 .77
72 . Von Karman Av. at Barranca Pkwy.

GP Baseline (IRVINE ISEC)

AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR

LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C
NBL 2 3400 183 .05* 319 .09
NBT 2 3400 576 .17 1445 .43*
NSR d 1700 152 .09 377 .22
SBL 2 3400 285 .08 441 .13*
SBT 2 3400 1131 .33* 661 .19
SBR 2 3400 347 .10 388 .11
EBL 2 3400 224 .07* 507 .15
EBT 3 5100 552 -11 1193 .23*
EBR 1 1700 235 .14 200 .12
WBL 2 34no 544 .16 159 .05*
WBT 4 6800 1480 .22* 833 .12
WBR 1 1700 510 .30 408 .24
Right Turn Adjustment WBR .01*
Clearance Interval .05* 05*
Note. Assumes Right -Turn Overlap for SBR
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .72 .90
24 Attachment 3
25 9 . MacArthur Bl at Campus Dr
GP Project
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES

CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
2 3200
245
.077
189
.059*
NBT
4 6400
1072
.168*
1268
.198
NBR
1 1600
83 .052
47 .029
SBL
1 1600
170
.106*
157
.098
SBT

3.5 8000
849
.177
1283
.254*
SBR

1.5 718
.224
752
EBL
2 3200
610
.209*
482
.151*
EBT
3 4800
1106
.230
646
.135
EBR.
d
1600
139
.087
180
.113
WBL
2 3200
42 .013
87 .027
WBT
3 4800
547
.114*
1129
.235*
WBR
f
47 130
Right
Turn Adjustment
SBR
.027*

TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION
10 . MacArthur Bl at Birch St
GP Project
.624
699
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES

CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
1 1600
34 .021
151
.094*
NBT
3 4800
911
.190*
872
.182
NBR
1 1600
67 .042
63 .039
SBL
1 1600
85 .053*
136
.085
SBT
4 6400
687
.143
1249
.248*
SBR
0 0
255
.159
336
EBL

1.5 261
338
EBT

1.5 4800
567
.196*
472
.176*
EBR
0 112
34 WBL
1 1600
51 .032
107
067
WBT
2 3200
420
.131*
613
.192*
WBR
f
188
210
Note:

Assumes
E/W Sp1lt
Phasing

TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION
570 .710

11 . Von Karman Av at Campus
GP Project
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES

CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
1 1600
47 .029
50 .031*
NBT
2 3200
885
.308*
567
.226
NBR
0 0
101
155
SBL
1 1600
91 .057*
216
.135
SBT
2 3200
724
_288
845
.369*
SBR
0 0
196
335
EBL
2 3200
263
.082*
228
.071
EBT
2 3200
597
.214
809
.280*
EBR
0 0
87 87
WBL
1 1600
120
.075
88 .055*
WBT
2 3200
586
.209*
735
.262
WBR
0 0
82 104

TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION
12 . MacArthur B1 at Von Karman
GP Project
.656
735
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR

LANES CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
1 1600
46 .029
51 .032*
NBT
3 4800
906
.189*
833
.174
NBR
1 1600
735
.459
201
.126
SBL
1 1600
64 .040*
49 .031
SBT
3 4800
601
.125
1282
.267*
SBR
1 1600
128
.080
84 .053
EBL
1 1600
23 .014*
102
.064
EBT
2 3200
151
.047
212
.066*
EBR
f
40 137
WBL
2 3200
179
.056
672
.210*
WBT
1 1600
176
.110*
125
.018
WBR
f
51 141
Right
Turn
Adjustment
NBR
.270*

TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION
623 ,575
27 15 . Campus Or at Bristol St(N)
GP Project
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR

LANES CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
2 3200
546
.171
467
.146*
NBT
4 6400
2042
.319*
1060
.166
NBR
0 0
0 0
SBL
0 0
0 0
SBT
4 6400
552
.086
1269
.198*
SBR
3 4800
244
.051
1141
.238
EBB
0 0
0 0
EBT
0 0
0 0
EBR
0 0
0 0
WBL
1 1600
288
.180*
301
.188
WBT
5 8000
1281
.179
2632
.343*
WBR
0 0
148
110
Right
Turn
Adjustment
SBR
.040*

TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION
16 . Birch St at Bristol St(N)
GP Project
.499 .727
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES

CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
2 3200
84 .026
174
.054*
NBT
2 3200
1111
347*
496
.155
NBR
0 0
0 0
SBL
0 0
0 0
SBT

1.5 6400
315
.098
560
.225*
SBR

2.5 314
.098
880
EBL
0 0
0 0
EBT
0 0
0 0
EBR
0 0
0 0
WBL

1.5 357
602
WBT

3.5 8000
1326
.255*
2062
.357*
WBR
0 353
195
Note:

Assumes
E/W Split
Phasing

TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION
602 .636
28 17 . Carpus Dr at Bristol St(S)
GP Project
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES

CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
0 0
0 0
NBT
5 8000
1386
.210*
988
.154*
NBR,
0 0
295
303
.189
SBL
1 1600
170
.106*
255
.159*
SBT
3 4800
669
.139
1314
.274
SBR
0 0
0 0
EBL

1.5 1204
532
EBT

2.5 6400
1825
.473*
992
.238*
EBR
2 3200
521
.163
566
.177
WBL
0 0
0 0
WBT
0 0
0 0
WBR
0 0
0 0
Right
Turn Adjustment
NBR
.035*
Note:

Assumes
E/W Split
Phasing

TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION
18 . Birch St at Bristol St(S)
GP Project
.789 .586
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES

CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
0 0
0 0
NBT

2.5 6400
524
.161*
462
.100
NBR

1.5 506
178
SBL
2 3200
170
.053*
177
.055
SBT
2 3200
501
.157
983
.307*
SBR
0 0
0 0
EBL

1.5 666
208
.130
EBT

3.5 8000
1374
.275*
1315
.222*
EBR
0 159
107
WBL
0 0
0 0
WBT
0 0
0 0
WBR
0 0
0 0
Note:

Assumes
E/W Split
Phasing

TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION
.489 .529
29 29 . MacArthur B1 at Jamboree Rd
GP Project
AM PK
HOUR
LANES

CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
NBL
2 3200
365
.114*
NBT
4 6400
1093
.171
NBR
1 1600
400
.250
SBL
3 4800
59 .012
SBT
3 4800
548
.114*
SBR
f
216
EBL
2 3200
524
.164*
EBT
4 6400
1434
.224
EBR
1 1600
505
.316
WBL
3 4800
450
.094
WBT
3 4800
1173
.244*
WBR
1 1600
86 .054
Right
Turn Adjustment
EBR
.002*
Note:

Assumes
Right -Turn
Overlap
for NBR

TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION
30 . Jamboree Rd at Bristol St(N
GP Project

PM PK HOUR

VOL V/C
384 .120*
513 .080
352 .220
221 .046
1467 .306*
524
431 .135*
1138 .118
128 .080
638 .133
1566 .326*
218 .136
.638 .887
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES

CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
2 3200
730
.228
805
.252*
NBT

2.5 6400
2370
.494*
1610
.392
NBR

1.5 690
.431
900
SBL
0 0
0 0
SBT

3.5 8000
1110
.218
1280
.267*
SBR

1.5 630
1345
.420
EBL
0 0
0 0
EBT
0 0
0 0
EBR
0 0
0 0
WBL
0 0
0 0
WBT
0 0
0 0
WBR
0 0
0 0
Right
Turn Adjustment
SBR
.153*

TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION
.494 .672
30 69 . MacArthur Bl. at I.405 NB Ramps
GP Project (IRVINE ISEC)

AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR

LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C
I
J NBL 0 0 0 0
NBT 4 6800 2105 .31* 2183 .32*
NBR 2 3400 392 .12 1206 .35
� I
SBL 2 3400 159 .05* 479 .14*
SBT 4 6800 1386 .20 2105 .31
SBR 0 0 0 0
EBL 0 0 0 0 J
EBT 0 0 0 0 j
EBR 0 0 0 0
I �
WBL 2 3400 914 .27* 517 .15*
J WBT 0 0 0 0
WBR 2 3400 1087 .32 428 .13
Right Turn Adjustment WBR .01*
Clearance Interval .05* .05*
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .69 .66
71 . MacArthur B1. at Michelson Dr.

GP Project (IRVINE ISEC)

AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR

LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C
NBL 1 1700 275 .16 158 .09
NBT 4 6800 1427 .21* 1864 .27*
NBR 1 1700 315 .19 122 .07
SBL 2 3400 1024 .30* 619 .18*
SBT 4 6800 1631 .24 1626 _24
SBR 0 0 14 12
I
EBL 2 3400 355 .10* 361 .11
EBT 1 1700 77 .05 83 .05*
EBR 1 1700 85 .05 140 .08
WBL 2 3400 106 .03 550 .16*
WBT 1 1700 69 .04* 91 .05
WBR 1 1700 263 .15 794 .47
I
Right Turn Adjustment WBR .19*
Clearance Interval 05* .05*
Note: Assumes Right -Turn Overlap for WBR I
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .70 .90
70 . MacArthur B1. at I-405 SB Ramps
GP Project (IRVINE ISEC)

AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR

LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C
NBL 0 0 a 0
NBT 4 6800 1628 .24* 2990 .44* j
NBR 1 1700 447 .26 682 .40
I
SBL 2 3400 156 .05* 468 .14*
SBT 4 6800 1764 .26 1788 .26
SBR 1 1700 387 .23 387 .23
I
EBL 0 0 0 0 J
EBT 0 0 0 0 J
EBR 0 0 0 0
I
WBL 2 3400 987 .29* 535 .16*
WBT 1 1700 148 .09 158 .09
WBR f 810 366
I
Clearance Interval .05* .05*
Note: Assumes Right -Turn Overlap for NBR +
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .63 .79
72 . Von Karman Av. at Barranca Pkwy.

GP Project (IRVINE ISEC)

AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR

LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C
NBL
2 3400
177
.05*
332
.10
NBT
2 3400
571
.17
1463
.43*
NBR
d
1700
164
.10
376
.22
SBL
2 3400
225
.07
428
.13*
SBT
2 3400
1133
.33*
678
.20
SBR
2 3400
341
.10
388
.11
EBL
2 3400
223
.07*
506
I
.15
EBT
3 5100
578
.11
1183
.23*
EBR
1 1700
231
.14
186
.11
WBL
2 3400
539
16 162
.05*
WBT
4 6800
1483
.22*
839
12 WBR
1 1700
532
.31
393
.23
Clearance
Interval
.05*
I
.05*
Note:

Assumes
Right -Turn
Overlap
for SBR
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .72 .89
31 Attachment 4
32 9 . MacArthur B1 at Campus Dr
GP
Baseline
wDB
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES

CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
2 3200
220
.069
185
.058*
NBT
4 6400
987
.154*
1221
.191
NBR
1 1600
90 .056
46 .029
SBL
1 1600
193
.121*
143
.089
SBT

3.5 8000
925
.193
1106
.226*
SBR

1.5 660
.206
703
EBL
2 3200
570
.178*
450
.141*
EBT
3 4800
1074
.224
613
.128
EBR
d
1600
128
.080
163
.102
WBL
2 3200
57 .018
83 .026
WBT
3 4800
628
.131*
1165
.243*
WBR
f
57 131

TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION
10 . MacArthur Bl at Birch St
GP Baseline wDB
.584 .668
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES

CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
1 1600
24 .015
147
.092*
NBT
3 4800
878
.183*
854
.178
NBR
1 1600
81 .051
60 .038
SBL
1 1600
106
.066*
114
.071
SBT
4 6400
726
.151
1138
.222*
SBR
0 0
265
.166
280
EBL

1.5 190
314
EBT

1.5 4800
532
.172*
417
.158*
EBR
0 105
25 WBL
1 1600
47 .029
108
.068
WBT
2 3200
370
.116*
574
.179*
WBR
f
162
202
Note:

ASSLImes
E/W Split
Phasing

TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION
537 .651
33 11 . Von Karman Av at Campos
6P
Baseline
wDB
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES

CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
I
1600
39 .024
50 .031*
NBT
2 3200
859
.294*
561
.222
NBR
0 0
82 148
SBL
1 1600
93 .058*
224
.140
SBT
2 3200
638
.293
817
.371*
SBR
0 0
298
370
EBL
2 3200
280
.088*
231
.072*
EBT
2 3200
537
.188
785
.270
EBR
0 0
66 79
WBL
1 1600
124
.078
78 .049
WBT
2 3200
696
.254*
748
.266*
WBR
0 0
116
104

TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION
12 . MacArthur B1 at Von Karman
GP Baseline wDB
.694
740
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR

LANES CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
1 1600
44 .028
40 .025*
NBT
3 4800
904
.188*
811
.169
NBR
1 1600
768
.480
191
.119
SBL
1 1600
74 .046*
48 .030
SBT
3 4800
591
.123
1239
.258*
SBR
1 1600
135
.084
68 .043
EBL
1 1600
13 .008*
103
.064
EBT
2 3200
89 .028
213
.067*
EBR
f
19 135
WBL
2 3200
157
.049
663
.207*
WBT
1 1600
171
.107*
102
.064
WBR
f
52 143
Right
Turn
Adjustment
NBR
.292*

TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION
.641 .557
34 15 . Campus Dr at Bristol St(N)
GP Baseline wDB
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR

LANES CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
2 3200
518
.162
488
.153*
NBT
4 6400
2100
.328*
1041
.163
NBR
0 0
0 0
SBL
0 0
0 0
SBT
4 6400
559
.087
1313
.205*
SBR
3 4800
241
.050
1186
.247
EBL
0 0
0 0
EBT
0 0
0 0
EBR
0 0
0 0
WBL
1 1600
283
.177*
303
.189
WBT
5 8000
1199
.168
2668
.347*
WBR
0 0
147
106
Right
Turn
Adjustment
SBR
042*
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .505 .747
16 . Birch St at Bristol St(N)
GP Baseline wDB
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES

CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
2 3200
85 .027
164
.051*
NBT
2 3200
1207
.377*
469
.147
NBR
0 0
0 0
SBL
0 0
0 0
SBT

1.5 6400
276
.086
558
.230*
SBR

2.5 251
.078
915
EBL
0 0
0 0
EBT
0 0
0 0
EBR
0 0
0 0
WBL

1.5 376
578
WBT

3.5 8000
1297
.256*
2060
.354*
WBR
0 373
195
Note:

Assumes
E/W Split
Phasing

TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION
.633 .635
35 17 . Campus Dr at Bristol St(S)
GP Baseline wDB
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES

CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
0 0
0 0
NBT
5 8000
1359
.206*
1006
.157*
NBR
0 0
287
309
.193
SBL
1 1600
177
.111*
255
.159*
SBT
3 4800
662
.138
1360
.283
SBR
0 0
0 0
EBL

1.5 1265
517
EBT

2.5 6400
1910
.496*
974
.233*
EBR
2 3200
534
.167
570
.178
WBL
0 0
0 0
WBT
0 0
0 0
WBR
0 0
0 0
Right
Turn Adjustment
NBR
.036*
Note:

Assumes
E/W Split
Phasing
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION B13 .585
18 . Birch St at Bristol St(S)
GP Baseline wDB
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LAMES

CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
0 0
0 0
NBT

2.5 6400
535
.156*
439
.097
NBR

1.5 462
182
SBL
2 3200
176
.055*
167
.052
SBT
2 3200
476
.149
972
.304*
SBR
0 0
0 0
ESL

1.5 748
198
.124
EBT

3.5 8000
1384
.285*
1317
.223*
EBR
0 150
110
WBL
0 0
0 0
WBT
0 0
0 0
WBR
0 0
0 0
Note:

Assumes
E/W Split
Phasing
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .496 .527
36 29 . MacArthur Bl at Jamboree Rd
GP Baseline wDB
AM PK
HOUR
LANES

CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
NBL
2 3200
342
.107*
NBT
4 6400
1136
.178
NBR
1 1600
385
.241
SBL
3 4800
54 .011
SBT
3 4800
523
.109*
SBR
f
196
EBL
2 3200
536
.168*
EBT
4 6400
1373
.215
EBR
1 1600
503
.314
WBL
3 4800
440
.092
WBT
3 4800
1080
.225*
WBR
1 1600
88 .055
Right
Turn Adjustment
EBR
.013*
Note:

Assumes
Right -Turn
Overlap
for NBR
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .622

PM PK HOUR

VOL V/C
382 .119*
492 .077
336 .210
210 .044
1445 .301*
517
415 .130*
1079 .169
124 .078
638 .133
1575 .328*
213 .133
37 79 MacArthur Bl. at I-405 NB Ramps
GP Baseline wDB(IRVINE
ISEC)
3 AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR

LANES CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
0 0
0 0
NBT
4 6800
2015
.30*
2174
.32*
NBR
2 3400
371
.11
1111
.33
SBL
2 3400
162
.05*
495
.15*
SBT
4 6800
1429
.21
2045
.30
SBR
0 0
0 0
EBL
0 0
0 0
EBT
0 0
0 0
EBR
0 0
0 0
WBL
2 3400
886
.26*
519
.15*
WBT
0 0
0 0
WBR
2 3400
1088
.32
423
.12
Right
Turn Adjustment
WBR
.02*
Clearance Interval
.05*
.05*
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .68 .67
82 MacArthur Bl. at Michelson Dr.

GP Baseline wDB(IRVINE
ISEC)
3 AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR

LANES CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
1 1700
254
.15
212
.12
NBT
4 6800
1343
.20*
1749
.26*
NBR
1 1700
300
.18
119
.07
SBL
2 3400
973
.29*
619
.18*
SBT
4 6800
1577
.23
1528
.23
SBR
0 0
14 12
EBL
2 3400
347
.10*
385
.11
EBT
1 1700
78 .05
112
.07*
EBR
1 1700
86 .05
134
.08
WBL
2 3400
95 .03
517
.15*
WBT
1 1700
92 .05*
107
.06
WBR
1 1700
264
.16
776
.46
Right
Turn Adjustment
WBR
.17*
Clearance Interval
.05*
.05*
Note:

Assumes Right -Turn Overlap
for WBR
80 MacArthur Bl. at I-405 SB Ramps
GP Baseline wDB(IRVINE ISEC)
3 AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES

CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
0 0
0 0
NBT
4 6800
1518
.22*
2883
.42*
NBR
1 1700
437
.26
673
.40
SBL
2 3400
160
.05*
477
.14*
SBT
4 6800
1687
.25
1723
.25
SBR
1 1700
475
.28
384
.23
EBL
0 0
0 0
EBT
0 0
0 0
EBR
0 0
0 0
WBL
2 3400
986
.29*
511
.15*
WBT
1 1700
138
.08
157
.09
WBR
f
809
369
Clearance Interval
.05*
.05*
Note:

Assumes
Right -Turn
Overlap
for NBR
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .61
76 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .69 .88
Thursday, March 05, 2020 38 Page 1

Attachment 5
39 9 . MacArthur B1 at Campus Dr
GP Project wDB
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES

CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
2 3200
245
.077
189
.059*
NBT
4 6400
1072
.168*
1268
.198
NBR
1 1600
83 .052
47 .029
SBL
1 1600
170
.106*
157
.098
SBT

3.5 8000
849
.177
1283
.255*
SBR

1.5 705
.220
758
EBL
2 3200
684
.214*
471
.147*
EBT
3 4800
1123
.234
637
.133
EBR
d
1600
139
.087
180
.113
WBL
2 3200
42 .013
87 .027
WBT
3 4800
537
.112*
1134
.236*
WBR
f
47 130
Right
Turn Adjustment
SBR
.023*

TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION
10 . MacArthur B1 at Birch St
GP Project wDB
.623 .697
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES

CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
1 1600
23 .014
156
.098*
NBT
3 4800
911
.190*
872
.182
NBR
1 1600
67 .042
63 .039
SBL
1 1600
85 .053*
136
.085
SBT
4 6400
687
.143
1249
.248*
SBR
0 0
255
.159
336
EBL

1.5 261
338
EBT

1.5 4800
585
.203*
463
.172*
EBR
0 130
25 WBL
1 1600
51 .032
107
.067
WBT
2 3200
410
.128*
618
.193*
WBR
f
188
210
Nate:

Assumes
E/W Split
Phasing

TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION
.574 .711
40 11 . Von Karman Av at Campus
GP
Project wDB
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES

CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
1 1600
47 .029
50 .031*
NBT
2 3200
891
.310*
564
.225
NBR
0 0
101
155
SBL
1 1600
88 .055*
216
.135
SBT
2 3200
721
.287
847
.370*
SBR
0 0
196
337
EBL
2 3200
269
.084
225
.070*
EBT
2 3200
608
.217*
803
.278
EBR
0 0
87 87
WBL
1 1600
120
.075*
88 .055
WBT
2 3200
579
.207
738
.263*
WBR
0 0
82 104

TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION
12 . MacArthur Bl at Von Karman
GP Project wDB
657
734
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR

LANES CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
1 1600
46 .029
51 .032*
NBT
3 4800
895
.186*
838
.175
NBR
1 1600
735
.459
201
.126
SBL
1 1600
64 .040*
49 .031
SBT
3 4800
619
.129
1273
.265*
SBR
1 1600
128
.080
84 .053
EBL
1 1600
23 .014*
102
.064
EBT
2 3200
151
.047
212
.066*
EBR
f
40 137
WBL
2 3200
179
.056
672
.210*
WBT
1 1600
176
.110*
125
.678
WBR
f
51 141
Right
Tura
Adjustment
NBR
.273*

TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION
623
573
41 15 . Campus Dr at Bristol St(N)
GP Project wDB
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR

LANES CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
2 3200
546
.171
467
.146*
NBT
4 6400
2032
.318*
1065
.166
NBR
0 0
0 0
SBL
0 0
0 0
SBT
4 6400
564
.088
1265
.198*
SBR
3 4800
256
.053
1136
.237
EBL
0 0
0 0
EBT
0 0
0 0
EBR
0 0
0 0
WBL
1 1600
288
.180*
301
.188
WBT
5 8000
1287
.179
2629
.343*
WBR
0 0
145
112
Right
Turn
Adjustment
SBR
.039*

TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION
16 . Birch St at Bristol St(N)
GP Project wDB
Im
726
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES

CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
2 3200
84 .026
174
.054*
NBT
2 3200
1104
.345*
499
.156
NBR
0 0
0 0
SBL
0 0
0 0
SBT

1.5 6400
327
.102
556
.224*
SBR

2.5 320
.100
877
EBL
0 0
0 0
EBT
0 0
0 0
EBR
0 0
0 0
WBL

1.5 357
602
WBT

3.5 8000
1323
.254*
2064
.358*
WBR
0 350
197
Note:

Assumes
E/W Split
Phasing

TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION
599 .636
42 17 . Campus Dr at Bristol St(S)
GP Project wpB
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES

CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
0 0
0 0
NBT
5 8000
1383
.210*
990
.155*
NBR
0 0
295
303
.189
SBL
1 1600
176
.110*
252
.158*
SBT
3 4800
673
.140
1313
.274
SBR
0 0
0 0
EBL

1.5 1193
535
EBT

2.5 6400
1821
.471*
994
.239*
EBR
2 3200
521
.163
566
.177
WBL
0 0
0 0
WBT
0 0
0 0
WBR
0 0
0 0
Right
Turn Adjustment
NBR
.034*
Note:

Assumes
E/W Split
Phasing

TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION
18 . Birch St at Bristol St(S)
GP Project wOB
.791
-M.

AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES

CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
0 0
0 0
NBT

2.5 6400
521
.160*
464
.100
NBR

1.5 506
177
SBL
2 3200
176
.055*
174
.054
SBT
2 3200
507
.158
982
.307*
SBR
0 0
0 0
EBL

1.5 663
210
.131
EBT

3.5 8000
1380
.275*
1312
.222*
EBR
0 159
107
WBL
0 0
0 0
WBT
0 0
0 0
WBR
0 0
0 0
Note:

Assumes
E/W Split
Phasing

TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION
.490 .529
43 29 . MacArthur B1 at Jamboree Rd
GP Project wDB
AM PK
HOUR
LANES

CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
NBL
2 3200
362
.113*
NBT
4 6400
1093
.171
NBR
1 1600
400
.250
SBL
3 4800
59 .012
SBT
3 4800
548
.114*
SBR
f
216
EBL
2 3200
524
.164*
EBT
4 6400
1446
.226
EBR
1 1600
511
.319
WBL
3 4800
450
.094
WBT
3 4800
1164
.243*
WBR
1 1600
86 .054
Right
Turn Adjustment
EBR
.006*
Note:

Assumes
Right -Turn
Overlap
for NBR
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .640

PM PK HOUR

VOL V/C
386 .121*
513 .080
352 .220
221
.046
1467
.306*
524
431
.135*
1132
.177
125
.078
638
.133
1569
.327*
218
.136
02 44

79 MacArthur Bl. at I-405 NB Ramps
GP Project
LUE wDB(IRVINE
ISEC)
3 AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES

CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
0 0
0 0
NBT
4 6800
2111
.31*
2178
.32*
NBR
2 3400
405
.12
1202
.35
SBL
2 3400
159
.05*
479
.14*
SBT
4 6800
1384
.20
2107
.31
SBR
0 0
0 0
EBL
0 0
0 0
EBT
0 0
0 0
EBR
0 0
0 0
WBL
2 3400
911
.27*
519
.15*
WBT
0 0
0 0
WBR
2 3400
1087
.32
428
.13
Right
Turn
Adjustment
WBR
.01*
Clearance
Interval
.05*
.05*
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .69 .66
82 MacArthur Bl. at Michelson Dr.

GP Project
LUE wDB(IRVINE
ISEC)
3 AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES

CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
1 1700
275
.16
158
.09
NBT
4 6800
1451
.21*
1853
.27*
NBR
1 1700
315
.19
122
.07
SBL
2 3400
1024
.30*
619
.18*
SBT
4 6800
1618
.24
1632
.24
SBR
0 0
14 12
EBL
2 3400
355
.10*
361
.11
EBT
1 1700
77 .05
83 .05*
EBR
1 1700
85 .05
140
.08
WBL
2 3400
106
.03
550
.16*
WBT
1 1700
69 .04*
91 .05
WBR
1 1700
263
.15
794
.47
Right
Turn
Adjustment
WBR
.19*
Clearance
Interval
.05*
.05*
Note:

Assumes Right -Turn
Overlap
for WBR
80 MacArthur Bl. at I-405 SB Ramps
GP Project LUE
wDB(IRVINE
ISEC)
3 AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES

CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
0 0
0 0
NBT
4 6800
1647
.24*
2981
.44*
NBR
1 1700
452
.27
680
.40
SBL
2 3400
156
.05*
468
.14*
SBT
4 6800
1759
.26
1792
.26
SBR
1 1700
387
.23
387
.23
EBL
0 0
0 0
EBT
0 0
0 0
EBR
0 0
0 0
WBL
2 3400
979
.29*
537
.16*
WBT
1 1700
148
.09
158
.09
WBR
f
810
366
Clearance Interval
.05*
.05*
Note:

Assumes
Right -Turn
Overlap
for NBR
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .63
79 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .70 .90
Thursday, March 05, 2020 45 Page 1

RESIDENCES AT 4400 VON KARMAN
ADDENDUM NO. 4 TO THE

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN
UPDATE

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(SCH NO. 2006011 119)
PA2020-061
Prepared for City of Newport Beach
Community Development Department
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
Prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
765 The City Drive, Suite 200
Orange, California 92868
Date October 2020

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION
1 1.1
Project Location
1 1.2
California Environmental Quality Act
1 1.3
Background
3 1.4
Conclusion
6 2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT
7 2.1
Project Location
7 2.2
Existing Land Uses
7 2.3
City of Newport Beach Land Use Categories
8 2.3.1 General Plan Designation
8 2.3.2 Zoning Designation
16 2.4
Project Characteristics
17 2.4.1 Residential Uses
17 2.4.2 Vehicular and Non -Vehicular Circulation
18 2.4.3 Parking
26 2.4.4 Park, Recreation, and Open Space Amenities
29 2.4.5 Landscaping and Architecture
29 2.5
Utilities and Infrastructure
29 2.6
Construction Phasing
30 2.7
Intended Uses of the Addendum
31 3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
33 3.1
Aesthetics
34 3.2
Air Quality
40 3.3
Biological Resources
51 3.4
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
57 3.5
Energy
62 3.6
Geology and Soils
68 3.7
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
77 3.8
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
83 3.9
Hydrology and Water Quality
89 3.10
Land Use and Planning
97 3.11
Mineral Resources
123

3.12 Noise
125

3.13 Population and Housing
137
Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum

Table of Contents

3.14 Public Services
140

3.15 Recreation
150

3.16 Transportation
155

3.17 Utilities and Service Systems
176

3.18 Wildfire
186
4 DETERMINATION OF APPROPRIATE CEQA DOCUMENTATION
188
5 PREPARERS
191
6 REFERENCES
192

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Regional Location Map
9 Figure 2: Local Vicinity
11 Figure 3: Airport Area Planning Designations
13 Figure 4: Airport Business Area ICDP
19 Figure 5: Existing Zoning Designation
21 Figure 6: Site Plan
23 Figure 7: Vehicular Circulation
27 LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1. Airport Business Area ICDP Residential Dwelling Unit Allocation 16 Table 2-2. Residential Development Summary
18 Table 2-3. Parking Summary
26 Table 2-4. Parking Supply By Project Phase
32 Table 3.2-1. Construction -Related Emissions
43 Table 3.2-2. Operational Emissions
43 Table 3.2-3. Equipment -Specific Grading Rates
45 Table 3.2-4. Localized Significance Of Construction Emissions 46 Table 3.2-5. Localized Significance Of Operational Emissions 47 Table 3.5-1. Estimated Project Electricity And Natural Gas Generation 64 Table 3-7.1. Construction -Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions 78 Table 3.7-2. Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions
78 Table 3.9-1. Runoff Volume Summary (2-Year, 24-Hour Storm Event) 92 Table 3.10-1. General Plan Consistency Analysis
99 Table 3.12-1. Incremental Noise Impact Criteria For Noise -Sensitive Uses (Dba Cnel) 125
Table 3.12-2. Existing And Project Traffic Noise
126
Table 3.12-3. Opening Year And Project Traffic Noise
127
Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Table of Contents
Table 3.12-4. Project Construction Noise Levels
130
Table 3.12-5. Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels 133
Table 3.14-1. Student Generation
144
Table 3.16-1. Traffic Study Area Intersections
156
Table 3.16-2. Level Of Service Descriptions
157
Table 3.16-3. Intersection Operations: Existing Conditions 160
Table 3.16-4. Interstate Highway Intersection Operations 161
Table 3.16-5. Project Trip Generation
162
Table 3.16-6. Traffic Analysis Cumulative Projects
163
Table 3.16-7. Intersection Operations: Year 2025 Without Project 165
Table 3.16-8. Intersection Operations: Year 2025
167
Table 3.16-9. Post-2030 General Plan Buildout Plus Project Conditions 169
Table 3.17-1. Projected Potable Water Supply And Demand (2005 UWMP) 176
Table 3.17-2. Irwd Current And Projected Water Supplies (Afy) 177
Table 3.17-3. Potable Water Demand
177
Table 3.17-4. Irwd Current And Projected Water Demand (Afy) 178
Table 3.17-5. Wastewater Generation
178
Table 3.17-6. Single Dry Year Supply And Demand (Af)
181
Table 3.17-7. Multiple Dry Year Supply And Demand (Af)
181
Table 3.17-8. Estimated Solid Waste Generation
183

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Modeling Data Appendix B Geotechnical Report
Appendix C Phase I Environmental Assessment
Appendix D
Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan
Appendix E
Noise Data
Appendix F
Traffic Impact Analysis
Appendix G
Utility Will Serve Letters
iii Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Table of Contents
This page intentionally left blank.

Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 1
Introduction
1 INTRODUCTION
The project applicant, The Picerne Group, is requesting the City of Newport Beach's consideration of the approval of a residential development at 4400 Von Karman Avenue in the City of Newport Beach. The project includes a residential building with 5-story, 312 multi -family rental units — 299 market -rate units and 13 very -low income affordable units— with structured parking; a 1.1-acre public park, and a free- standing parking structure on an approximately 13-acre site.

1.1 Project Location
The proposed Residences at 4400 Von Karman Project (proposed Project) would be developed at 4400 Von Karman Avenue in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, California. The approximately 13-acre, irregularly -shaped property is relatively flat at an approximate elevation of 46 to 52 feet above mean sea level (msl).

The project site is generally bordered by Birch Street to the northeast, Von Karman Avenue to the west, and existing office uses with surface parking lots and parking structures to the east and south within Koll Center Newport. Koll Center Newport is an approximately 154-acre mixed -use development area generally bordered on the northeast by Campus Drive, on the southeast by Jamboree Road, and on the west by MacArthur Boulevard.

Regional access to the project site is from State Route 73 (SR-73) via Jamboree Road to the south and Interstate 405 (1-405) via Jamboree Road to the north. Vehicular access to the site is provided from Birch Street and Von Karman Avenue. There are three driveways on Birch Street and two driveways on Von Karman Avenue. All driveways are currently unsignalized gated.

The site is approximately 0.5 mile southwest of John Wayne Airport, 0.5 mile northwest of the San Joaquin Freshwater Marsh Reserve, and 1.5 miles northwest of the University of California, Irvine (UCI).

1.2 California Environmental Quality Act
This Addendum has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code [PRC] §§21000 et seq.); the State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, California Code of Regulations [CCR] §§15000 et seq.); and the rules, regulations, and procedures for implementing CEQA as set forth by the City of Newport Beach (City). Pursuant to the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, Newport Beach is the Lead Agency charged with the responsibility of deciding whether to approve the proposed Project.

Section 15164(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that "the lead agency or a responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in PRC Section 21166 and Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred." Pursuant to Section 15162(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, a subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or Negative Declaration is only required when:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 1 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 1
Introduction
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

As part of its decision -making process, the City is required to review and consider whether the proposed Project would create new significant impacts or significant impacts that would be substantially more severe than those disclosed in the City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update Program Environmental Impact Report and City of Newport Beach Housing Element Initial Study/Negative Declaration (herein referred to collectively as the General Plan Program EIR). Additional CEQA review beyond this Addendum would only be triggered if the proposed Project creates new significant impacts or impacts that are more severe than those disclosed in the General Plan Program EIR used to approve the City of Newport Beach General Plan Update in 2006 and the 2014-2021 Housing Element (Housing Element) in 2013 such that major revisions to the General Plan Program EIR would be required.

The following describes the requirements of an addendum, as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164:
(a) The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an Addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a Subsequent EIR have occurred. (b) An Addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred. (c) An Addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the Final EIR.
(d) The decision -making body shall consider the Addendum with the Final EIR prior to making a decision on the project.
2 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 1
Introduction
(e) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a Subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included in an Addendum to an EIR, the lead agency's findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence.

If none of these circumstances are present, and only minor technical changes or additions are necessary to update the previously certified EIR, an addendum may be prepared, consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164.

1.3 Background
On July 25, 2006, the City of Newport Beach General Plan Update (General Plan) was adopted and the Final Program EIR was certified by the Newport Beach City Council. At the General Municipal Election held on November 7, 2006, the City electorate approved increased density and intensity of development and associated increased peak hour traffic trips provided in the Land Use Element of the General Plan, pursuant to City Charter Section 423. On September 24, 2013, the City Council adopted the City of Newport Beach 2014-2021 Housing Element and an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, which is an update and revision to the 2008-2014 Housing Element. The land use opportunity areas identified in the General Plan remain the same.

The General Plan contains the following elements: Land Use; Harbor and Bay; Housing; Historical Resources; Circulation; Recreation; Arts and Cultural; Natural Resources; Safety; and Noise. The comprehensive General Plan Program EIR analyzed the potential impacts of a citywide comprehensive update to the land use plan, and goals and policies for General Plan elements.

The following summarizes the findings of the General Plan Program EIR associated with the adoption and long-term implementation of the General Plan. The General Plan Program EIR does not identify mitigation measures. Rather it relies on General Plan policies adopted in the General Plan to mitigate potential environmental impacts. Existing enforcement and monitoring mechanisms are in place to ensure that all measures will be implemented, including conditions of approval and mitigation monitoring.

Less Than Significant: Compliance with General Plan Policies and Applicable Regulations and Conditions
■ Aesthetics: Obstruction of scenic vistas;
■ Aesthetics: Changes to visual character;
■ Air Quality: Exposure of sensitive receptors to carbon monoxide concentrations; ■ Air Quality: Objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people; ■ Biological Resources: Direct or indirect effects to candidate, sensitive, or special status plant and wildlife species through habitat modification;
■ Biological Resources: Adverse effects on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities; ■ Biological Resources: Wildlife movement and wildlife corridors; ■ Cultural Resources: Damage to or destruction of archaeological and/or Native American cultural resources;
■ Cultural Resources: Damage to or destruction of unique paleontological resources; ■ Cultural Resources: Damage to or destruction of human burial grounds; 3 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 1
Introduction
■ Geology and Soils: Exposure of people and structures to adverse effects from strong seismic ground shaking;
■ Geology and Soils: Exposure of people and structures to adverse effects from seismic -related ground failure or landslides;
■ Geology and Soils: Substantial soil erosion and loss of topsoil; ■ Geology and Soils: Hazards associated with lateral spreading, subsidence, collapse, differential settlement, or heaving;
■ Geology and Soils: Substantial risk to people and structures caused by construction on expansive soils;
■ Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Routine transport, use, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials;
■ Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Release of hazardous materials, including lead and asbestos, during construction activities and operational activities; ■ Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Existing oil wells (Newport Oil Field and West Newport Oil Field) and the five methane gas mitigation districts;
■ Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Hazardous emission at schools within one -quarter mile of a project site;
■ Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Listed hazardous materials sites; ■ Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Interference with the City of Newport Beach Emergency Management Plan;
■ Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Fire risk associated with development near wildlands; ■ Hydrology and Water Quality: Violation of water quality standards and discharge requirements during construction activities and operations;
■ Hydrology and Water Quality: Interference with groundwater recharge or depletion of groundwater supplies;
■ Hydrology and Water Quality: Alteration of drainage patterns resulting in substantial erosion or siltation;
■ Hydrology and Water Quality: Alteration of drainage patterns resulting in flooding ■ Hydrology and Water Quality: Exceedance of stormwater drainage infrastructure or require new infrastructure, or cause substantial polluted runoff;
■ Hydrology and Water Quality: Degradation of groundwater quality; ■ Hydrology and Water Quality: Development in 100-year flood zones and exposure to flood risks; ■ Land Use and Planning: Physically divide an established community; ■ Land Use and Planning: Consistency with applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations, including habitat conservation plans;
■ Noise: Construction activities;
■ Public Services: Fire, Police, Schools, Libraries;
4 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 1
Introduction
■ Recreation and Open Space: Deterioration of park and recreational facilities, and park deficiencies;
■ Transportation/Traffic: Intersection operation's levels of service; ■ Transportation/Traffic: Impacts to Congestion Management Plan (CMP) arterials; ■ Transportation/Traffic: Air traffic patterns;
■ Transportation/Traffic: Roadway design features causing safety hazards; ■ Transportation/Traffic: Emergency access;
■ Transportation/Traffic: Inadequate parking accommodation; ■ Transportation/Traffic: Applicable policies; and
■ Utilities and Service Systems: Water Treatment, Water Supply, Wastewater Treatment and Facilities, Solid Waste Disposal, Energy Use.

Significant Unavoidable Impacts: Compliance with General Plan Policies and Applicable Regulations and Conditions
■ Aesthetics — New sources of light and glare. Note: this finding only applies to new development in the Banning Ranch subarea and is therefore not applicable to the proposed Project; ■ Air Quality; Land Use and Planning: Conflict or obstruct implementation of the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP); population levels exceeding 2003 AQMP (no feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce impacts to a less than significant level); ■ Air Quality: Construction emissions (no feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce impacts to a less than significant level);
■ Air Quality: Cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria pollutants within the nonattainment area (no feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce impacts to a less than significant level)
■ Cultural Resources: Demolition of historic structures (no feasible mitigation measures are identified to reduce impacts to a less than significant level). Note: the project site is a parking lot and does not contain any historic structures. Therefore, this finding is not applicable to the proposed Project;
■ Hazards and Hazardous Materials; Land Use and Planning: Residential development constructed in the Airport Area within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour specified by the Airport Land Use Commission's Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport. Note, the project site is not within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour;
■ Noise: Potential exposure of persons to roadway noise exceeding standards established in the General Plan and Municipal Code;
■ Noise: Vibration associated with specific construction activities. The General Plan Program EIR notes that these significant impacts are not citywide and instead take into consideration land uses, activities, and sensitive receptors;
■ Population and Housing: Exceedance of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) population projections;
■ Transportation/Traffic: Deficient freeway mainline segments and ramps; 5 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 1
Introduction
The General Plan Program EIR found that implementation of the General Plan would have no impact to the remaining topical areas evaluated in accordance with CEQA Statutes and the State CEQA Guidelines.

1.4 Conclusion
The Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum finds that potential impacts associated with this proposed Project would either be the same or not substantially greater than those described in the General Plan Program EIR. As discussed in this Addendum, these conclusions are supported by substantial evidence, including project -specific analyses of potential impacts. In addition, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the proposed Project would be undertaken that would result in more severe environmental impacts than previously addressed in the General Plan Program EIR. No new information of substantial importance shows that mitigation measures or alternatives that were previously found not to be feasible or that are considerably different from those analyzed for the General Plan Program EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment.

Therefore, no conditions described in Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines has occurred. For these reasons, an Addendum is the appropriate document that will comply with CEQA requirements for the proposed Project.

In taking action on any of the approvals forthe proposed Project, the decision -making body must consider the whole of the data presented in the General Plan Program EIR, the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the adoption of the General Plan; and the previously adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), as applicable to the proposed Project. 6 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 2
Description of Proposed Project
2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT

2.1 Project Location
The Residences at 4400 Von Karman Project (proposed Project) would be developed at 4400 Von Karman Avenue in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, California. The approximately 13.00-acre, irregularly -shaped property is relatively flat at an approximate elevation of 46 to 52 feet above mean sea level (msl).

The project site is generally bordered by Birch Street to the northeast, Von Karman Avenue to the west, and existing office uses and associated surface parking lots and parking structures to the east and south within Koll Center Newport. Koll Center Newport is an approximately 154-acre mixed -use development area generally bordered on the northeast by Campus Drive, on the southeast by Jamboree Road, and on the west by MacArthur Boulevard. Figure 1, Regional Location Map, and Figure 2, Local Vicinity, depict the project site in a regional and local context, respectively.

Regional access to the site is from State Route 73 (SR-73) via Jamboree Road to the south and 1-405 via Jamboree Road to the north. Vehicular access to the site is provided from Birch Street and Von Karman Avenue. Currently, there are three driveways on Birch Street and two driveways on Von Karman Avenue.

2.2 Existing Land Uses
The project site is a part of Koll Center Newport, which includes low-rise, mid -rise, and high-rise office buildings, hotels, and a private club. The project site is currently developed with common area surface parking for office tenants in Koll Center Newport.

There are three office buildings located within the boundaries of the project site, none of which are part of the proposed Project.
■ 4490 Von Karman Avenue is a two-story (33 feet) office building located southeast of the intersection of Birch Street at Von Karman Avenue.
■ 4440 Von Karman Avenue is a three-story (62 feet) office building located south of the 4490 Von Karman Avenue office building.
■ 4910 Birch Street is a four-story (60 feet) office building located adjacent to and east of the 4490 Von Karman building.

Existing land uses adjacent and near the project site include the following:

Northwest Extended Stay America Hotel (4 stories, 50 feet) is northwest of the intersection of Birch Street at Von Karman Avenue
Marriott Renaissance Newport Beach Hotel (10 stories, 112 feet) is southwest of the intersection of Birch Street at Von Karman Avenue
Northeast Birch Street
7 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 2
Description of Proposed Project
Newport Corporate Plaza low-rise, office buildings (one story) and surface parking north of Birch Street
South 4340 Von Karman Avenue office building (4 stories, 63 feet) 4350 Von Karman Avenue office building (4 stories, 63 feet) TowerJazz Semiconductor manufacturing facility (two to three stories, 88 feet) at 4321 Jamboree Road
Uptown Newport mixed -use development: residential apartments, retail uses, and a park (up to 75 feet)
Southeast Birch Street Center office building at 5000 Birch Street (10 stories, 154 feet) with an associated free-standing parking structure adjacent to and south of the office building. The office building is immediately adjacent to the project site.

California Superior Court Harbor Justice Center — Newport Beach (two stories) is on the northwest corner of Birch Street at Jamboree Road.

Low-rise office buildings (two stories) with surface parking are on the south side of Birch Street. The surface parking for the office buildings is adjacent to the Uptown Newport apartments.

Fast-food restaurants along Jamboree Road in Koll Center Newport abut the Uptown Newport project site
Southwest/West Von Karman Avenue
West of Von Karman Avenue, land uses include but are not limited to a private club and an office building (9 story, 140 feet)

2.3 City of Newport Beach Land Use Categories

2.3.1 General Plan Designation
The project site is in the Airport Area' planning subarea. As depicted on Figure 3, Airport Area Planning Designations, the Airport Area is approximately 360 acres bordered by Jamboree Road to the southeast, Campus Drive to the northeast and west, and Bristol Street to the southwest. The project site is in a Mixed - Use District, and the General Plan land use category for the project site is "Mixed Use Horizontal 2 (MU- H2)" (see Figure 3). The MU-H2 category specifically applies to some properties in the Airport Area. As stated in the General Plan Land Use Element, the category "provides for a horizontal intermixing of uses that may include regional commercial office, multi -family residential, vertical mixed -use buildings, industrial, hotel rooms, and ancillary neighborhood commercial uses." No non-residential uses are proposed as a part of the Project. Project implementation does not require a change to the existing General Plan land use category.
i "Airport area' means an area of the City that encompasses the properties adjacent to John Wayne Airport and that is in close proximity to the Irvine Business Complex and University of California, Irvine as depicted on General Plan Figure LU22 (Airport Area)." Source: City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 20.70, Definitions. Accessed September 21, 2020. 8 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

�
r
-' — --
� � r. �' JOHN WAYNE :�' � • a#+L.1
1•
*
'
i AIRPORT
..�
{ � �' i ..
�.u-sip,._._
�
- '+ �
.• r�
� V{ � } x +r+� .:f. - , � � �.
'` ��' `.
.. - .�... . '�-•. -. -- fir'
„
,"- y
"�
-
♦`♦

HUNTINGTON
_�
#;:t` , ,2.

BEACHff
'
,
,
♦��

COSTA MESA
,'�

UC IRVINE
IRVINE
NEWPORT"
BEACH
IT 11TIN
e Eacn '� � inviNE
cOSia rytESa
'* �= NEWPORT
CENTER
lb !w-
LEGEND:
- - - - City Boundary
4 F+ ♦
f T Y • 1 \ ♦ _ _
I `
I
•_Y tia

UNINCORPORATED

ORANGE COUNTY

Section 2
Description of Proposed Project
This page intentionally left blank.
10 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

:Xt1�♦ r y L;�=�i� �R �� i�:i[ � � 1 M[ e � j : �� h� • > '� �t�. � tea► •fir s �.
.,-..,,yam '�«»;;�� is• � .? '. ,>� � _ �}i �•�`'

BIRCH STREET
? ;+e
*, t• - ' 4490 Von i
Karman
4910 Birch
4440 Von 5000 Birch
n ' , Karman
Existing Parking
Structure D 4
O
'L,F m
_ r aCd q,Q2i
�.... . O
4350 Von 7°
Karman gym"
,` LF 4340 Von o
Karman o
,
i >� Uptown im-4"
:: Newport ,..xa:•:.

FIGURE 2: Local Vicinity
The Residences at 4400 Von Karman Not to scale Kimley >> Horn }

Section 2
Description of Proposed Project
This page intentionally left blank.
12 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Source: City of Newport Beach, 2006
FIGURE 3: Airport Area Planning Designations
Residences at 4400 Von Karman
LEGEND:

Commercial
CG - Commercial General
Commercial Office
CO-G - Commercial Office General
Airport Supporting Districts
AO - Airport Office
Mixed -Use Districts
W Mixed -Use Horizontal
Public, Semi -Public and Institutional
Public Facilities
Sub -Area
m Conceptual Development Plan Area
'\.Land Use Delineator Line
tiHighway
0%,.*65 CNEL Noise Contour
Refer to anomaly table

LAND USE POLICY
(A) Underlying Uses: Office, Hotel, Supporting Retail,
�� Residential Village: Housing and Mixed -Use
(with Guidelines for Design and Development)
© Airport -Supporting Businesses
© Commercial and Office
O0 250 500 1,000 Kimley>>> Horn

Section 2
Description of Proposed Project
This page intentionally left blank.
14 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 2
Description of Proposed Project
Although the adopted General Plan approved a maximum of 2,200 multi -family residential units in the Airport Area at a maximum density of 50 units per net acre (du/ac), the General Plan Program EIR evaluated 4,300 multi -family residential units for the Airport Area. As set forth in the General Plan, of the 2,200 multi -family dwelling units, 1,650 units must replace existing office, retail, and/or industrial uses in order that there is no net gain in vehicular trips. A maximum of the remaining 550 units are "additive" units that "may be developed as infill on existing surface parking lots or areas not used as occupiable buildings on properties within the Conceptual Development Plan Area as depicted on Figure LU22 provided that parking is replaced on-site".Z
General Plan Land Use Element policies for Mixed -Use Districts are included in the General Plan as Policy LU 6.15.4 through Policy 6.15-23. Policy LU 6.15.7 requires residential units to be developed at a minimum density of 30 units and a maximum of 50 units per net acre (prior to any affordable housing density bonus) as averaged by the total area of a residential village. The net density for 260 "base" units would be 44 dwelling units per net acre based on 5.9 net acres, and would be 53 dwelling units per acre for 312 units inclusive of the density bonus. As noted, the density range is prior to the application of an affordable housing density bonus.

General Plan Land Use Element Policy LU 6.15.10 requires a regulatory plan for each ten -acre minimum residential village in order to coordinate the location of new parks, streets, and pedestrian ways, and requires a strategy to accommodate neighborhood serving commercial uses and other amenities.

General Plan Land Use Element Policy LU 6.15.11 requires the preparation of one Conceptual Development Plan for the area depicted on Figure LU22 of the General Plan if residential units are proposed on any property within the area. The Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan is addressed in the following discussion.

Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan As noted, General Plan Policy LU 6.15.11 requires a conceptual development plan when residential units are proposed in the defined area of the Airport Area. The approval of a conceptual development plan is a prerequisite to the consideration of development projects with residential uses within the Airport Area.

In September 2010, the Newport Beach City Council approved the Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (ICDP) for that portion of the Airport Area generally bordered by MacArthur Boulevard, Jamboree Road, and Birch Street as depicted in Figure 4, Airport Business Area ICDP. The Airport Business Area ICDP is approximately 37.7 acres of which approximately 25 acres is the Uptown Newport site, and approximately 12.7 additional acres in Koll Center Newport. The project site is within this 12.7-acre area of Koll Center Newport.

The Airport Business Area ICDP identifies 1,244 units on the Uptown Newport site and 260 units on the surface parking area of Koll Center Newport Office Site B, where the Residences at 440 Von Karman Project is proposed. All of the 260 residential units were identified as "additive" units in the Airport Business Area ICDP because no existing development would be removed. With respect to the 1,244 units on the Uptown Newport site, the Airport Business Area ICDP notes that 632 units would replace existing industrial and office uses; 290 units would be additive; and 322 units would be density bonus units.

Together, the approved Uptown Newport Project and the proposed Project would use all of the 550 z Figure LU22 from the General Plan Land Use Element is depicted as Figure 4 in this Addendum. 15 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 2
Description of Proposed Project
additive units allocated to Airport Business Area ICDP. As proposed, the Project includes 312 multi -family rental units: 260 additive units and 52 density bonus units inclusive of 13 very -low-income affordable units. Table 2-1, Airport Business Area ICDP Residential Dwelling Unit Allocation, provides a summary of residential unit allocation within the Airport Business Area ICDP.

Table 0-1. Airport Business Area ICDP Residential Dwelling Unit Allocation Sites
Additive
Replacement
Density Bonus
Total
Uptown Newport
290
632
322
1,244
Residences at 440 Von Karman
(Proposed Project)
260
0 0
260
Total (du)
550
632
374
1,504
du = dwelling unit
As noted, the adopted Airport Business Area ICDP does not provide project -specific approvals. The ICDP is a conceptual plan and its approval by the City did not convey any rights to develop. All proposed site - specific development, such as the proposed Project, must be in substantial compliance with the intent of the Airport Business Area ICDP, and is subject to City approval.

2.3.2 Zoning Designation
The City of Newport Beach Municipal Code (Municipal Code) Chapter 20.56 allows a "Planned Community District" to address land use designation and regulations in the form of Planned Communities. A Planned Community (PC) District, as stated in Municipal Code Section 20.56.010, is intended to:

A. Provide for the classification and development of parcels of land as coordinated, comprehensive projects in order to take advantage of the superior environment which can result from large-scale community planning.

B. Allow diversification of land uses as they relate to each other in a physical and environmental arrangement while ensuring substantial compliance with the spirit, intent, and provisions of this Zoning Code.

C. Include various types of land uses, consistent with the General Plan through the adoption of a development plan and text materials that identify land use relationships and associated development standards.

As depicted in Figure 5, Existing Zoning Designation, the project site is zoned "Koll Center Newport Planned Community (PC-15 Koll Center)". Specifically, the site is within Professional and Business Offices Site B of PC-15 Koll Center (Site B). PC-15 Koll Center includes all parcels bordered by Campus Drive to the northeast, Jamboree Road to the southeast, and MacArthur Boulevard to the southwest. PC-15 zoning permits professional and business offices, hotels and motels, retail, restaurants and entertainment, a courthouse, private clubs, and auto detailing and service stations. Currently, Site B allows professional and business offices, restaurants, and support commercial uses; residential is not currently allowed.

Zoning regulations are provided in the Koll Center Planned Community Development Standards (PC Text) adopted by Ordinance No. 1449 in 1972, as subsequently amended. As a part of the proposed Project, PC-15 Koll Center would be amended to create a Residential overlay zone, allowing for residential development consistent with the City of Newport Beach General Plan and the Airport Business Area ICDP. 16 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 2
Description of Proposed Project
The amendment to PC-15 Koll Center would also include the identification of permitted uses and their development standards.

2.4 Project Characteristics
The site plan for the proposed Project is depicted on Figure 6, Site Plan. As proposed, the Project would allow for the development of a residential building with structured parking, a public park, a free-standing parking structure, and the reconfiguration of some of the existing surface parking areas.

Implementation of the Project would require the demolition of existing surface parking and landscaping within the limits of disturbance. All residential parking would be provided in the residential building's parking structure. Office parking removed during construction and by the proposed development would be provided in a new free-standing parking structure, structured parking associated with the residential building, and surface parking areas.

2.4.1 Residential Uses
As discussed, the Airport Business Area ICDP identifies 260 units on the surface parking area of Koll Center Newport where the Project is proposed. The 260 residential units were identified as "additive" units in the Airport Business Area ICDP because no existing development would be removed. As proposed, the Project includes 312 multi -family rental units: 260 additive units and 52 density bonus units inclusive of 13 very -low-income affordable units. Very Low Income Households are defined as households whose gross income does not exceed 50 percent of area median income adjusted for household size. The 299 units are proposed as market -rate rental units. The Applicant is requesting a 20 percent density bonus to provide affordable housing as a part of the Project pursuant to Government Code Section 65915 and Chapter 20.32 of the Municipal Code.

The residential building is proposed as a five -story podium building with three levels of structured parking (one level on -grade and two levels below ground ). The majority of the residences would be on the second through fifth stories over the one level of on -grade parking. Five units are proposed on the ground level of the building. The building would be approximately 71 feet to the top of the rooftop parapet. The PC Text would allow for a maximum height of 75 feet.

Table 0-2, Residential Development Summary identifies the type of residential units that would be provided. As proposed, the Project would include 55 studios (3 affordable), 149 one -bedroom units (9 affordable), and 108 two -bedroom units (1 affordable), for a total of 312 units. The studios would range in size from 515 to 628 sf; one -bedroom units would range from 665 to 1,025 sf; and two -bedroom units would range from 1,000 to 1,413 sf. All units would have balconies with decks ranging from 26 to 71 sf, with the exception of the studio units which would have Juliet balconies (no deck or seating area). 17 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 2
Description of Proposed Project
Table 0-0. Residential Development Summary
Unit Type
Total No.

Units
% of Unit
Mix
Net SF
Balcony/
Deck (sf)
Required
Balcony (sf)
Total Net
Rentable SF
Avg. SF
Studio
S100
8 2.56
515
0 26
4,120
S400
40 12.82
575
0 29
23,000
ES400: Affordable
3 0.96
574
0 29
1,725
S500
4 1.28
628
0 31
2,512
Subtotal
55 17.6%
N/A
N/A
N/A
31,357
570
1 Bedroom
A111
36 11.54
665
57 33
23,940
A200
21 6.73
657
30 33
13,797
EA200: Affordable
9 2.88
657
30 33
5,913
A400
29 9.29
744
62 37
14,880
A501
27 8.65
848
148
42 22,896
A731
36 11.54
1,025
72 51
36,900
Subtotal
149

47.8%
N/A
N/A
N/A
118,326
794
2 Bedroom
B101
11 3.53
1,000
60 50
11,000
EB101: Affordable
1 0.32
1,000
60 50
1,000
B400
22 7.05
1,106
56 55
24,332
B423
12 3.85
1,061
57 53
12,732
B500
12 3.85
1,061
43 53
12,732
B705
20 6.41
1,392
69 70
27,840
B935
30 9.61
1,413
65 71
42,390
Subtotal
108

34.6%
N/A
N/A
N/A
132,026
1,222
Total
312
100%
N/A
N/A
N/A
281,709
903
N/A = not applicable
Source: TCA Architects, 2020.

2.4.2 Vehicular and Non -Vehicular Circulation
Vehicular Access
Vehicular access to office buildings Koll Center Newport near the project site is most directly provided by three driveways on Birch Street and two driveways on Von Karman Avenue. Cross access throughout the site currently allows motorists to access any parking area within Koll Center Newport from any of the site driveways. All driveways are unsignalized and gated. Drivers enter either by key card or parking ticket. To exit the site, key card users use their card to raise the gate; others must have a validated ticket or pay at the gate.
18 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

,f ❑ Existing Office Buildings
❑Park A&AL
Source: City of Newport Beach, 2010
FIGURE 4: Airport Business Area ICDP
Residences at 4400 Von Karman + 0 125 250 500Feet Kimley>>> Horn

Section 2
Description of Proposed Project
This page intentionally left blank.
20 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

0.5 i.

0.5 Source: City of Newport Beach, 2008
Project Site
PC-15
LEGEND:
�♦` Single -Unit Residential
❑ R-A
�♦ R-1-6000
�♦ R-1-7200
♦ R-1-10000
♦ Commercial
i E CG - Commercial General
CV - Commercial Visitor -Serving
Commercial Office
CIA - Office - Airport
Special Purpose Zoning Districts
CG OS - Open Space

0.5 PC - Planned Community
Specific Plans
SP-7 - Santa Ana Heights

SAN DIEGO CREEK
FIGURE 5: Existing Zoning Designations
Residences at 4400 Von Karman 0 Not to scale Kimley >> Horn

Section 2
Description of Proposed Project
This page intentionally left blank.
22 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

�9
lillf•�,_
-
1 u
� �
Imo-
••
u'kI
11 I�!IIIII.I.II19Ca1�s9911llulll�l�lpl;l�l;l�
I �I I I I �� I� I �
^!�!MIJ°L �.
1 5• 1
r
IIIIIIIIS"I I I
1111 ��.
�1
11111i1iti1111191 'i19IY!rii�►.1�
�®
t1\
FIGURE 6: Site Plan Kimley ))Horn
Residences at 4400 Von Karman NEW

Section 2
Description of Proposed Project
This page intentionally left blank.
24 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 2
Description of Proposed Project
Existing gates along the primary internal access street crosses the property from Birch Street to Von Karman Avenue would be relocated as necessary to facilitate efficient site circulation. Gates would be removed at the middle driveway ("Driveway 2") on Birch Street to allow for ungated vehicular movement from Birch Street to the internal access street to Von Karman Avenue. Vehicular circulation is depicted on Figure 7, Vehicular Circulation.

Driveway 1: The westernmost driveway on Birch Street is a full -movement driveway. As a part of the Project, office parking displaced by the Project would be provided in the residential building's parking structure, in a new, free-standing parking structure, and in surface parking areas. An entry to the residential parking structure for office parking would be provided near the 4910 Birch Street office building using Driveway 1.

Driveway 2: The middle driveway on Birch Street is a full -movement driveway. As noted, the entry gate into the site from Birch Street would be removed. A gated entry into the residential parking structure from the drive aisle off of Birch Street would be provided. From Driveway 2, motorists can either continue to the internal access road to Von Karman Avenue where there is an entrance to the residential parking structure (access for resident and office parking), or access gated parking on both sides of the internal street. Driveway 2 would be widened to provide one inbound lane and two outbound lanes, with one left - turn and one right -turn lane.

Driveway 3: The easternmost driveway on Birch Street is a full -movement driveway. Existing entry gates to the internal access road and parking areas would remain in their existing locations. From Driveway 3, motorists would have access to the parking areas on either side of the internal access road, including surface parking east of the 5000 Birch Street office building and the proposed free-standing office parking structure. No changes to the ingress/egress are proposed.

Driveway 4: The northernmost driveway on Von Karman Avenue is an exit -only driveway. Motorists can make both right and left turns from Driveway 4. No changes would be made at this location.

Driveway 5: The southernmost driveway on Von Karman Avenue is a full -movement driveway. This driveway is the southwestern access point of the internal street that connects Von Karman Avenue and Birch Street through the site. The entry gate from Von Karman Avenue would be removed and replaced with a parking gate on the east side of the internal street to provide access to the surface parking areas and the existing parking structure and new free-standing parking structure. Gated access into the residential parking structure would be provided from the internal street for residential and office parking.

Driveway 5 would be reconfigured to provide one inbound lane and two outbound lanes, with one left - turn and one right -turn lane.

Gated access is also provided further south of the project site on Von Karman between the office buildings at 4220 and 4300 Von Karman Avenue. Access to parking areas east of the internal street would be available.

Pedestrian
There are existing sidewalks along Birch Street and Von Karman Avenue. Additionally, there is a sidewalk along one side of Driveways 2 and 3 at Birch Street and Driveway 5 on Von Karman Avenue. The sidewalk at Driveway 5 extends to and fronts onto the 5000 Birch Street office building. As a part of the Project, walkways would be provided within the site, including along the internal street residential building 25 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 2
Description of Proposed Project
frontage and within the proposed park and open space areas, connecting to existing sidewalks. Access to the park and the existing office buildings north of the residential building would be available via the parking garage and pedestrian access into the residential building off of the internal street. Additionally, pedestrian connections would be provided to the Uptown Newport planned community, which is to the east of the project site. These connections are to be provided from the project site and through and adjacent to areas. The connections would include landscaping, pavers, and benches.

2.4.3 Parking
Table 2-3, Parking Summary identifies the parking assumptions for the proposed Project. All residential parking would be provided in the residential building's parking structure. Office parking displaced by the Project would be provided in a new, free-standing parking structure, the residential building's parking structure, and surface parking areas. Visitors to the public park can use surface parking east of the residential building.

Table 0-3. Parking Summary
Residential Building Parking Garage
Level
Office
EV Stalls
Office
Accessible
Resident
EV Stalls
Resident
Accessible
Total
Ground Level
135
17 3
5 0
5 165
Subterranean Level 1
117
0 4
160
29 9
319
Subterranean Level 2
0 0
0 313
28 0
341
Garage Total
252
17 7
478
57 14
825
Surface Parking
Parallel
75 0
0 0
0 10
85 Free -Standing Office Parking Structure
3 levels
284
284
Total Office
635
Total Residential
559
Total Parking
1,194
Source: TCA Architects, 2020.

Free -Standing Office Parking Structure
A new free-standing office parking structure would be built as Phase 1, in advance construction of the residential building to account for the loss of 106 surface parking spaces east of the internal street. The 284-stall parking structure would have four levels of above -ground parking, inclusive of rooftop parking.

The height of the parking structure would be 40 feet.

Residential Building Parking Structure
The Project requires 420 residential parking spaces and would provide 559 residential parking spaces, inclusive of guest spaces. All residential parking would be provided in the building's parking structure and along the internal street. Office parking would also be provided in the structure. 26 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

0 0
LEGEND
•............ ), 4.••••••• • F
' ' EXISTING TICKET KIOSK WITH MAN BOOTH TO REMAIN
.............. . J- "' EXISTING TICKET KIOSK WITH MAN BOOTH TO BE RELOCATED it

TICKET KIOSK WITH MAN BOOTH

NEW GARAGE TICKET KIOSK
�' IL

VEHICLE TRAFFIC OUTSIDE OF GATING SYSTEM
.•...> VEHICLE TRAFFIC INSIDE OF GATING SYSTEM
,,
k S ---� VEHICLE TRAFFIC WITHIN NEW STRUCTURES
4*.
� � NEW FIRE ACCESS ONLY LANE
FIGURE 7: Vehicular Circulation
Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Kimley >> Horn

Section 2
Description of Proposed Project
This page intentionally left blank.
28 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 2
Description of Proposed Project

2.4.4 Park, Recreation, and Open Space Amenities
Public Park
The Project includes a 1.1-acre park to be dedicated to the City and that would be accessible to the public during daytime hours. The ground level park would be located between and north of the proposed residential building and the existing office buildings located at 4910 Birch Street and 4440 Von Karman Avenue, and extend from Birch Street to Von Karman Avenue. The proposed park would be improved and maintained by the Applicant, and accessible to the residents and public during daylight hours. The park would have active and passive uses which may include a multi -purpose lawn for recreation and bocce court, and shade pavilion, lounge areas with seating, and tables for group gatherings. The park would be landscaped with grasses, groundcover, trees, shrubs, and succulents. Walkways would be provided connecting the residential building, existing sidewalks on Birch Street and Von Karman Avenue, and to existing office buildings.

On -Site Recreational Amenities
The Project would provide on -site recreational amenities as a part of the residential development. General Plan Policy 6.15.16 requires developers of multi -family residential developments on parcels that are 8 acres or larger to provide 44 sf of on -site recreational amenities for each dwelling unit. The Project would be required to provide a minimum of 13,728 sf. The Project would provide 44,757 sf of on -site recreational amenities (an average of 143 sf per unit), inclusive of a clubroom, dog wash, fitness center, podium courtyards and roof deck, bike shop and private balconies for most of the residential units. In addition to the public park, the Project includes approximately 0.6 acre of open space areas and walkways.

2.4.5 Landscaping and Architecture
Landscaping would be provided bordering and within the project site, including the surface parking areas.

The park would be landscaped with a variety of grasses, trees, shrubs, groundcover, and succulents.

Landscaping would also be provided along the perimeter of the site, within the surface parking areas, and bordering the free-standing parking structure. Landscaping materials would include a mix of trees, vines, shrubs, and groundcover.

Two landscape areas would be provided on the podium level. One area is landscaping around the recreational uses, including the swimming pool. This area would include trees and shrubs with hardscape areas for seating, barbeques, and fire pits. The other podium level area includes outdoor dining with a barbeque and fire pit. Landscaping would include trees, shrubs, and ground cover, as well as hardscape areas for seating with seating and dining.

The residential building's architecture is proposed to be complementary to both the non-residential and residential land uses proximate to the project site. The contemporary, articulated facades would include a mix of stucco and cement siding with stone or tile veneer fa4ade accents. The color pallet is proposed to be tans, dark greys, beige, white, and blues. All paint, coating and building materials would comply with regulatory requirements with respect to hazardous materials.

2.5 Utilities and Infrastructure
Implementation of the proposed Project would require the construction of new on -site utility infrastructure to serve the residences and related uses. These utilities would be connected to existing 29 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 2
Description of Proposed Project
utility infrastructure in adjacent roadways, with the final sizing and design of on -site facilities to occur during final building design and plan check. The Project would connect to existing utility systems.

Water Service
The project site is within the service area of the Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) which provides both potable and non -potable water to its customers. IRWD has existing potable distribution lines adjacent to and within the site. The Project would construct a new water system with connections to an existing 10- inch IRWD main in Von Karman Avenue and a 10-inch main in Birch Street to provide potable and fire flow water service to the project site. IRWD maintains a non -potable water main immediately adjacent to the project site in Von Karman Avenue.

Wastewater Collection and Disposal
The City would provide sanitary sewer service to the project site. There are three, 8-inch service connections in Birch Street and Von Karman Avenue. The proposed Project would connect to existing service connections through sanitary sewer lines or laterals. Discharge from the sewer system would be directed to the Orange County Sanitation District's treatment plants.

Drainage and Water Quality Treatment
The site currently drains toward Von Karman Avenue and Birch Street and connects to the City's stormwater system. With buildout of the project site, the Project would continue to connect to the City's stormwater system through an on -site storm drain system.

There is an existing underground storm drain in the location of the proposed free-standing parking structure. Two feasible options are proposed to address constructing a parking structure over a storm drain. Option A retain a storm drain under the parking structure. This option would remove approximately 200 linear feet of the existing 60-inch/66-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) within the disturbance area for the free-standing parking structure. Additionally, a new 66-inch RCP storm drain would be constructed in the same alignment to match the hydraulic capacity of the existing system while also matching the ultimate design life of the proposed parking structure. Option B would remove and relocate the storm drain so that it is not under the parking structure or other permanent buildings or structures.

The site's runoff would be collected and treated through a proprietary biotreatment system, including a Modular Wetlands System as a part of the landscape treatment for the project site.

Dry Utilities and Services
Public infrastructure and utility buildings, structures, and facilities including, but not limited to, electrical, gas, telephone, and cable television would be extended to the proposed land uses. All new public utilities would be placed underground within the development area. Utilities would be principally located in road rights -of -way.

2.6 Construction Phasing
Implementation of the proposed Project occur over an approximately 2.7-year period with demolition and construction activities anticipated to commence in the third quarter of 2021 and conclude in the first quarter of 2024. The proposed Project would be constructed in three phases. 30 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 2
Description of Proposed Project
The proposed Project's site grading, foundation excavation, and on -site infrastructure improvements would require the export of removal of approximately 114,000 cubic yards (cy) of material. Grading assumptions for each phase of development is provided in the subsequent discussion.

Phase 1: Free -Standing Parking Structure
Construction of the free-standing parking structure requires the demolition of 106 surface parking spaces and associated landscaping, as well as the reconstruction of a segment of the storm drain. A 284-stall parking structure would be constructed prior to initiating grading or construction of the remainder of the proposed Project in order to replace surface parking temporarily or permanently displaced by site development. The parking structure would have four levels of above -ground parking, inclusive of rooftop parking. At the completion of Phase 1, there would be a net increase of 178 parking spaces from 1,643 existing spaces to 1,821 spaces. Construction activities are anticipated to occur over approximately six months.

Phase 2A: Residential Building
Upon completion of the free-standing parking structure, approximately 443 surface parking spaces would be demolished to allow for the construction of the Project. At the completion of Phase 2A, there would be 559 parking spaces for the Project residences and guests and 1,579 spaces for office uses (includes existing parking, the free-standing parking structure, and parking in the residential building). Construction activities are anticipated to occur over approximately 24 months.

Phase 2113: Completion Activities
Phase 2B includes the demolition of 75 surface parking spaces to allow for the reconfiguration of on -site surface parking and access. No additional grading is assumed. Phase 2B construction activities would be concurrent with Phase 2A and are anticipated to occur over approximately three months.

Table 2-4, Parking Supply by Project Phase, identifies the number of parking spaces that would be provided during each phase of the Project; both during the construction of the phase when the surface parking has been removed, and at the completion of the phase when the replacement parking or the new parking has been completed. During the construction of the new free-standing parking structure (Phase 1) and the construction of the residential building (Phase 2A), parking shuttles would be provided for the use of office employees of and visitors to the office buildings.

2.7 Intended Uses of the Addendum
The City of Newport Beach is the Lead Agency as set forth in CEQA Section 21067 and is responsible for reviewing and approving the Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the 2006 General Plan Program EIR. The City will consider the following discretionary approvals for the project:
■ Planned Community Development Plan Amendment: An amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development Plan 15 (Koll Center Newport Planned Community) for the creation of a residential overlay zone to allow for residential uses in Professional and Business Offices Site B.
■ Lot Line Adjustment. A lot line adjustment to reconfigure the underlying parcels that comprise the site pursuant to Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 19.76 (Lot Line Adjustments) in order to facilitate the development of the proposed project.
31 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 2
Description of Proposed Project
Table 2-4. Parking Supply by Project Phase
Starting Parking Supply
Parking Loss /Gain
Ending Parking Supply
Existing
Proposed
Existing
Proposed
Existing
Proposed
Phase
Office
Residences
Office
Residences
Office
Residences
Existing
1,643`
0 N/A
N/A
1,643
0 Phase 1 - During Construction
1,643
0 -106b
0 1,537
0 Phase 1 - At Phase 1 Completion
1,537
0 284`
0 1,821
0 Phase 2A - During Construction
1,812
0 -443b
0 1,378
0 Phase 2A - At Phase 2A
Completion
1,378
0 276`
559
1,654
559
Phase 2B - During Construction
1,654
559
-75b
0 1,579
559
Phase 26 - At Phase 213
Completion
1,579
559
75 0
1,654
559
Net Change
+11
n/a
N/A = not applicable
a. Refers to the office building parking supply for the portion of the Koll Center Newport that will be impacted by the Residences at 4400 Von Karman Project.
b. Removed parking spaces.

C. Added or replaced parking spaces.

Source: The Picerne Group, 2020.
■ Affordable Housing Implementation Plan. A program specifying how the proposed project would meet the City's affordable housing requirements, in exchange for a request of 20 percent density bonus and includes a request for one development concession related to the bedroom mix of the affordable units.
■ Development Agreement: A Development Agreement between the Applicant and the City describing development rights and public benefits for the residential development pursuant to Newport Municipal Code Section 15.45.020.A.2.a (development of 50 or more residential units). ■ Traffic Phasing Ordinance Study: A traffic study pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 15.40 (Traffic Phasing Ordinance).
■ Site Development Review: Site development must be in accordance with applicable Planned Community, as amended, and Municipal Code development standards and regulations pursuant to Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 20.52.80 (Site Development Reviews) for the construction of the Project.

In addition to the approvals identified above, the proposed Project would be subject to other approvals and ministerial actions by the City as part of project implementation. Additional approvals include but are not limited to grading permits, sign permits, and building permits. 32 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The scope of the City's review of the proposed Residences at 4400 Von Karman Project is limited by provisions set forth in CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, CCR §§15000 et seq.). This review is limited to evaluating the environmental effects associated with the proposed Project to the environmental effects of the City of Newport Beach General Plan Update as set forth in the General Plan Update EIR. This Addendum also reviews new information, if any, of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable due diligence at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified. This evaluation includes a determination as to whether the changes proposed for the project would result in any new significant impacts or a substantial increase in a previously identified significant impact.

Although State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 does not stipulate the format or content of an Addendum, the topical areas addressed in the General Plan Program EIR were used as guidance for this Addendum.

This comparative analysis provides the City with the factual basis for determining whether any changes in the project, any changes in circumstances, or any new information since the General Plan Program EIR was certified would require additional environmental review or preparation of a Subsequent EIR or Supplemental EIR.

As previously discussed, pursuant to PRC Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, when an EIR has been previously certified for a project, no subsequent or supplemental EIR shall be prepared for the project unless the lead agency determines that one or more of the following three conditions are met: changes in the proposed Project result in new or substantially more severe impacts than were disclosed in the previous EIR; changes in the circumstances surrounding the project result in new or substantially more severe impacts than were disclosed in the previous EIR; or new information has come to light showing that new or substantially more severe impacts than were disclosed in the previous EIR.

With respect to cumulative impacts, the General Plan Program EIR states "In many cases, development under the General Plan Update serves as the context for cumulative analysis, as it includes all development within the Planning Area over the next 25 years. For some environmental resource areas, however, the cumulative context extends beyond the borders of the Planning Area and may be the boundaries of a particular service provider (such as the Irvine Ranch Water District) or the entire County." This methodology is appropriate for the Addendum analysis. Where a specific cumulative study area is assumed, it is addressed in the respective sections of this Addendum.

The General Plan Program EIR does not identify mitigation measures. Rather it relies on General Plan policies adopted in the General Plan to mitigate potential environmental impacts. As applicable, in addition to General Plan policies, this Addendum documents required regulatory requirements and City conditions of approval that reduce potential environmental impacts. Existing enforcement and monitoring mechanisms are in place to ensure that all measures will be implemented, including but not limited to permit conditions, plan check, and site inspections.
33 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis

3.1 Aesthetics
Threshold (a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? General Plan Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR noted that there are no officially designated scenic vistas in the City but that natural features such as the Pacific Ocean and the bay provide coastal views. It is also noted that coast views are provided from identified roadway segments. The General Plan Program EIR also notes that parks and viewing areas throughout the City can provide significant views.

The General Plan Program EIR identifies that development projects would undergo a subsequent environmental review on a project -specific basis to "ensure that scenic vistas and resources are not adversely affected." With respect to scenic vistas, the General Plan Program EIR findings that potential impacts would be less than significant with compliance with applicable General Plan policies, the City's Municipal Code, and the Local Coastal Plan.

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

The project site is generally flat and is bordered by office buildings and roadways. The City of Newport Beach General Plan does not identify any scenic vistas or view points in the Airport Area, including or proximate to the site. The nearest public view point to the project site identified in the General Plan is approximately 1.1 miles south of State Route (SR) 73 at Bayview Park. The nearest coastal view designated portion of Jamboree Road to the project site is south of SR-73; it is approximately 0.6 mile south of the site. Due to the distance, intervening development, and highly urbanized nature of the project area, public coastal views along this view corridor would not be impacted by the proposed Project.

Accordingly, no new impacts relative to adverse effects on a scenic vista or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of less than significant impact.

Threshold (b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? General Plan Significance Determination: No Impact. The General Plan Program EIR noted that there are no officially designated State Scenic Highways in the City. State Route 1, also known as Coast Highway, is identified as eligible for State Scenic Highway designation, but the City would need to adopt a scenic corridor protection program and apply for scenic approval from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to officially designate the highway. Because there are no designated State Scenic Highways in the City, the General Plan Program EIR found that implementation of the General Plan would have no impact.

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

There are no State scenic highways adjacent to or proximate to the project site. The site is not within a State scenic highway, nor is it visible from any officially designated or eligible scenic highway. Additionally, 34 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
there are no rock outcroppings, historic buildings, or any other scenic resources on the project site. There are ornamental trees located in landscaped areas, but the trees are not considered scenic resources.

Accordingly, no new impacts relative to adverse effects on State scenic highways or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known atthe time the General Plan Program EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of no impact.

Threshold (c) Would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
General Plan Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR noted that development of new residential and mixed -use developments in the Newport Center/Fashion Island area, the Airport Area, and West Newport Mesa would alter the visual characteristics of the City.

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 City's planning process includes the review of developments for conformance with the General Plan standards, the City's Municipal Code, and as applicable, the Local Coastal Plan. General Plan Policy NR 22.1 regulates the visual and physical mass of structures consistent with the unique character and visual scale of Newport Beach. Therefore, the visual character and scenic quality would change as development intensity increased but the impact would not be considered significantly adverse. Conflicts with regulations governing scenic quality would be less than significant.

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

The Project is consistent with the General Plan and zoning designations for the project site. As a part of the proposed project, the zoning text would be amended so that the PC-15 Koll Center Site B would include a Residential overlay zone, allowing for residential development consistent with the City of Newport Beach General Plan and the Airport Business Area ICDP. Project implementation would change the visual character of the site from a parking lot to a multi -family residential development. The overall character of the surrounding environment is urbanized with office buildings and the Uptown Newport Mixed -Use development to the southeast along Jamboree Road.

The proposed Project would be required to comply with the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 20.52.080, Site Development Review, which requires specific development projects to be reviewed to ensure consistency with the General Plan policies related to the preservation of established community character and expectations of high -quality development, and to ensure that the Project respects the physical and environmental characteristics of the site. The proposed Project would comply with General Plan Policy LU 5.6.2, which requires that new buildings be designed to "avoid the use of styles, colors, and materials that unusually impact the design character and quality of their location such as abrupt changes in scale, building form, architectural style, and the use of surface materials that raise local temperatures, result in glare and excessive illumination of adjoining properties and open space, or adversely modify wind patterns."
The residential building is proposed to have a contemporary architectural style complementary to both surrounding office developments. The articulated facades would include a mix of stucco and cement siding 35 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
with stone or tile veneer fat ade accents. The color pallet is proposed to be tans, dark greys, beige, white, and blues. The proposed residential building would be five stories (71 feet to the top of the parapet) and the proposed free-standing parking structure would be four levels inclusive of the rooftop parking (40 feet). The three office buildings within the project site boundaries that are not a part of the proposed Project are two to four stories (33 to 62 feet).

Accordingly, no new impacts relative to applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of less than significant.

Threshold (d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
General Plan Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. As identified in the General Plan Program EIR, impacts related to light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area, were considered less than significant. New development would introduce new sources of light and glare from these commercial, business park and residential uses. General Plan Policy LU 5.6.2 would require that new and renovated buildings be designed to avoid the use of styles, colors, and materials that unusually impact the design character and quality of their location such as the use of reflective surfaces that increase heat gain of adjoining buildings and ambient glare. LU Policy 5.6.3 requires that outdoor lighting be located and designed to prevent spillover onto adjoining properties or significantly increase the overall ambient illumination of their location. General Update Policies LU 5.6.2 and 5.6.3 would ensure that lighting impacts associated with the buildout of the General Plan land uses would be less than significant.

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

The project site is an existing surface parking lot with light standards in an urbanized area with both non- residential and residential land uses that have various sources of lighting. Project implementation would result in additional lighting at the project site for the residential building, the free-standing parking structure, the park and common areas, and walkways. The recreational and landscaped areas of the site would have lighting to allow for nighttime use; lighting for security; and landscape accent lighting.

The free-standing parking structure would be constructed in the southeast portion of the project site, proximate to the future Phase 2 of the Uptown Newport development. To minimize the visibility of lighting on each floor of the structure, the facades of the above -ground levels of the structure would have a wall system to obscure the lighting and reduce noise from within the structure. The design of the structure would be subject to the review and approval of the City. With respect to the upper (roof) level of the free- standing parking structure, light standards not to exceed 25 feet above the driving surface.

The Project would comply with General Plan Policy LU 5.6.2 by incorporating non -reflective textured surfaces on building exteriors, as well as avoidance of the use of reflective glass. Additionally, the Project would comply with Municipal Code Chapter 20.30.070 "Outdoor Lighting" that requires that light be shielded and confined within site boundaries to prevent spillage. Since the project site and surrounding area are largely developed, and with the anticipation of Uptown Newport phase 2 development, the 36 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
lighting associated with the proposed Project would not substantially increase light and glare within the site or surroundings. Compliance with General Plan policies and Municipal Code 20.30.070 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, 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.

Accordingly, no new impacts relative to adverse effects related to lighting or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of less than significant.

Cumulative Impacts
While impacts are minimized with implementation of General Plan policies, impacts related to aesthetics were considered less than significant and no mitigation was required under the General Plan Program EIR.

As identified in the General Plan Program EIR, the General Plan would change the visual aspect of and views from, to, and across the City, add new development to viewsheds, bring urban development to previously undeveloped areas resulting in a less than significant on scenic vistas, scenic resources within a State scenic highway, and visual character. However, the project site is urbanized with existing development and was already envisioned with residential use as part of the General Plan. As discussed above, the proposed Project would not cause a new significant aesthetic impact to occur. Therefore, the proposed Project would not cause either a new cumulative impact to occur, nor an increase in the severity of a cumulative impact previously disclosed. Implementation of the proposed Project would not alter the conclusions of the General Plan Program EIR analysis and would not result in a new or substantially more severe project -specific or cumulative aesthetic impact than those already analyzed.

Mitigation Program
General Plan Policies
The General Plan Program EIR identifies General Plan policies that would "directly or indirectly minimize the visual quality effects of prospective growth within the City." The following policies are applicable to the proposed Project and would be made conditions of approval. ■ LU 5.6.2 Form and Environment: Require that new and renovated buildings be designed to avoid the use of styles, colors, and materials that unusually impact the design character and quality of their location such as abrupt changes in scale, building form, architectural style, and the use of surface materials that raise local temperatures, result in glare and excessive illumination of adjoining properties and open spaces, or adversely modify wind patterns. ■ LU 5.6.3 Ambient Lighting: Require that outdoor lighting be located and designed to prevent spillover onto adjoining properties or significantly increase the overall ambient illumination of their location. ■ 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 37 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
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 6.15.22 - 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.
■ NR 22.1 - Regulation of Structure Mass: Continue to regulate the visual and physical mass of structures consistent with the unique character and visual scale of Newport Beach.

Standard Conditions and Requirements
SC AESTH-1 The following City -adopted standard operating conditions of approval would be made conditions of the Site Development Review and would apply to the Project as follows:
a. Lighting shall be in compliance with applicable standards of the Zoning Code. Exterior on -site lighting shall be shielded and confined within site boundaries. No direct rays or glare are permitted to shine onto public streets or adjacent sites or create a public nuisance. "Walpak" type fixtures are not permitted. Parking area lighting shall have zero -cut-off fixtures and light standards shall be the minimum height required to effectively illuminate the parking area and eliminate spillover of light and glare to the adjacent property.
b. The site shall not be excessively illuminated based on the luminance recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, or, if in the opinion of the Community Development Director, the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources.

The Community Development Director may order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated. c. To minimize the visibility of lighting on each floor of the free-standing structure, the facades of the above -ground levels of the structure would have a wall system to obscure the lighting and reduce noise from within the structure. Rooftop parking lot light standards would not to exceed 25 feet above the driving surface. 38 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
d. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall prepare a photometric study in conjunction with a final lighting plan for approval by the Community Development Department.
e. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or of final building permits, the Applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare specified in conditions of approval.
f. Public areas shall be illuminated with a minimum maintained 0.5-foot candle on the driving or walking surface during hours of operation and one hour thereafter.

Conclusion
Accordingly, no new impacts relative to adverse aesthetic impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would occur. With regard to PRC Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts, with respect to aesthetics.

Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of less than significant. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not warranted.
39 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis

3.2 Air Quality
Threshold (a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
General Plan Significance Determination: Significant and Unavoidable Impact. The General Plan Program EIR concluded that implementation of the General Plan would result in new emissions that may exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) thresholds. The 2003 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) was prepared to accommodate growth, to reduce the high levels of pollutants within the areas under the jurisdiction of SCAQMD, to return clean air to the region, and to minimize the impact on the economy. Projects considered to be consistent with the AQMP would not interfere with attainment because growth projection were accounted for in the formulation of the AQMP. Therefore, projects, uses, and activities that are consistent with the applicable assumptions used in the development of the AQMP would not jeopardize attainment of the air quality levels identified in the AQMP, even if they exceed the SCAQMD's recommended daily emissions thresholds. General Plan implementation estimated a net increase of 14,215 residential units and a population increase of approximately 31,131 residents, resulting a total population of 103,753 persons at General Plan buildout. The SCAG-projected population for Newport Beach was 94,167 by 2030. This represents a 43 percent increase in population over prior SCAG assumptions for the City. Therefore, General Plan implementation would result in approximately ten percent higher growth projections than what was accounted for in SCAG's projections or the AQMP.

Therefore, implementation of the General Plan would not be consistent with AQMP attainment forecasts and attainment of the standards could be delayed. The General Plan Program EIR identified this inconsistency as a significant and unavoidable impact.

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

AQMPs use regional growth projections that are based on the land use designations in the local General Plans. Therefore, the land uses assumed and the growth anticipated in the General Plan Program EIR are incorporated into the current 2016 AQMP, which supersedes the prior AQMP.

Criteria for determining consistency with the AQMP are defined by the following indicators:

1. Whether a project will result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP.

2. Whether a project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP based on the year of project buildout and phase.

With respect to the first criterion, based on the air quality modeling analysis conducted for the proposed Project summarized later in this Addendum section, the Project would not exceed any SCAQMD thresholds for construction. Operation of the Project would not result in significant impacts based on the SCAQMD thresholds of significance. Therefore, the Project would not increase the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations. The proposed Project would be consistent with the first criterion and would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or delay timely attainment of air quality standards.
40 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
Concerning the second criterion, the 2016 AQMP contains air pollutant reduction strategies based on SCAG's latest growth forecasts, and SCAG's growth forecasts are defined in consultation with local governments and with reference to local general plans. Projections for achieving air quality goals are based on assumptions regarding population, housing, and growth trends. Therefore, the SCAQMD's second criterion for determining project consistency focuses on whether the proposed Project exceeds the assumptions used in preparing the forecasts presented in the 2016 AQMP.

With respect to SCAQMD's 2016 AQMP, several sources of data form the basis for the projections of air pollutant emissions including the General Plan, SCAG's Growth Management Chapter of the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP), and SCAG's Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). SCAG's RTP/SCS also provides socioeconomic forecast projections of regional population growth. The project is consistent with the City's land use designations and no change would be required.

The Project would construct an infill residential development with a total of 312 multi -family apartment units inclusive of a 20 percent density bonus, a structured parking garage, and a 1.1-acre public park. The Project is consistent with the MU-H2 land use designation for the project site and would implement the City's General Plan goals and policies for this portion of the Airport Area because it would integrate residential uses, as well as a park into Koll Center Newport to allow for a greater diversity of land uses. As a part of the proposed Project, the PC Text would be amended so that PC-15 Koll Center would include a Residential Overlay zone in Professional and Business Office Site B allowing for residential development consistent with the City of Newport Beach General Plan and the Airport Business Area ICDP. The amendment to PC-15 Koll Center would include development standards and the identification of permitted uses and parking standards. No change to the existing General Plan land use designation is required as a part of the City's consideration of the proposed Project.

The Project is generally consistent with the types, intensity, and patterns of land use envisioned for the area in the RCP. The population, housing, and employment forecasts, which are adopted by SCAG's Regional Council, are based on the local plans and policies applicable to the cities; these are used by SCAG in all phases of implementation and review. Additionally, as SCAQMD incorporated these same projections into the 2016 AQMP, it can be concluded that the Project would be consistent with the projections. As a result, the Project would not exceed growth assumptions in the City's General Plan.

Therefore, the Project would be consistent with the 2016 AQMP and would not conflict with the second criterion.

The proposed residential development would be within the development capacity assumed in the General Plan Program EIR, and therefore implementation would not result in increasing growth and would be within the growth assumptions of the 2016 AQMP. The proposed Project would be consistent with the 2016 AQMP compared to the General Plan Program EIR's finding of significant and unavoidable. Project 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 General Plan Program EIR. Therefore, there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. 41 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
Threshold (b) Would the project 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?
General Plan Significance Determination: Significant and Unavoidable Impact. The General Plan Program EIR noted that some projects that would be implemented under the General Plan could individually exceed the SCAQMD thresholds and that the total amount of construction assumed in the General Plan could also exceed the SCAQMD's recommended thresholds of significance. Impacts were considered significant. General Plan Policies NR 8.1 through NR 8.5 were identified to reduce air pollutant emissions from construction activities. These policies call for the maintenance of construction equipment, the use of non-polluting and non -toxic building equipment, and minimizing fugitive dust. However, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

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

Construction associated with the proposed Project would generate criteria air pollutant emissions.

Construction -generated emissions are relatively short term and of temporary duration, lasting only as long as construction activities occur. They are considered a significant air quality impact if the volume of pollutants generated exceeds the SCAQMD's thresholds of significance.

Construction results in the temporary generation of emissions resulting from demolition, site grading and excavation, road paving, motor vehicle exhaust associated with construction equipment and worker trips, and the movement of construction equipment, especially on unpaved surfaces. Emissions of airborne particulate matter are largely dependent on the amount of ground disturbance associated with site preparation activities as well as weather conditions and the appropriate application of water.

The duration of construction activities for the Project is estimated to be approximately 2.7 years with demolition and construction activities anticipated to commence in the third quarter of 2021 and conclude in the first quarter of 2024. The proposed Project would be constructed in three continuous phases. Phase 1 includes the demolition of some surface parking and landscaping and the construction of a free-standing parking structure; Phase 2A includes the construction of the 312 unit residential building; and Phase 2B includes the reconfiguration of existing surface parking. Phases 2A and 2B would overlap. The project site would be graded, and foundation excavation would require the export of approximately 114,000 cubic yards (cy) of material.

Construction -generated emissions were calculated using CaIEEMod, which is designed to model emissions for land use development projects based on typical construction requirements. Predicted maximum daily construction -generated emissions for the proposed Project are identified in Table 3.2-1, Construction - Related Emissions. As shown, all criteria pollutant emissions would remain below their respective thresholds for all construction years.

While PMlo and PM2.5 emissions would not exceed thresholds, the proposed Project would be subject to SCAQMD Rules 402, 403, and 1113, as set forth in Standard Condition (SC) AQ-1 and SC AQ-2 to further reduce specific construction -related emissions.
42 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
Table 3.2-1. Construction -Related Emissions
Emissions (pounds per day)','
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
PMlo
PM2.5
Construction Year
2021 (Parking Structure)

2.21 25.45

16.49 0.04

4.18 1.60
2022 (Parking Structure)

4.89 22.33

25.61 0.05

1.82 1.19
2022 (Residential Structure)

4.11 52.74

33.88 0.11

8.50 5.21
2023 (Residential Structure)

39.06 43.36

51.34 0.14

16.30 5.55
2024 (Residential Structure)

38.80 34.00

50.16 0.14

8.28 3.02
SCAQMD Threshold
75 100
550
150
55 150
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold?
No
No
No
No
No
No
ROG: reactive organic gases; NOx: nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; S02 = sulfur dioxide; PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns in diameter or less; PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less a. Emissions were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model version 2016.3.2 (CalEEMod), as recommended by the SCAQMD. Worst -case seasonal maximum daily emissions are reported. b. SCAQMD Rule 403 Fugitive Dust applied for construction emissions. The Rule 403 reduction/credits include the following:
properly maintain mobile and other construction equipment; replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly; water exposed surfaces three times daily; replace ground cover of area disturbed; water all haul roads twice daily; and limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. Reductions percentages from the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook (Tables XI -A through XI-E) were applied. No mitigation was applied to construction equipment. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs.

Source: CalEEMod version 2016.3.2. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs.

Regional Operational Emissions
Project -generated emissions would be associated with mobile source emissions from motor vehicle use, energy emissions from energy consumption, and area sources generated by the use of natural -gas -fired appliances, landscape maintenance equipment, consumer products, and architectural coatings.

Operational emissions attributable to the Project are summarized in Table 3.2-2, Operational Emissions.

Table 3.2-2. Operational Emissions
Construction Year
Emissions (pounds per day)'
ROG
NOx
CO
502
PMlo
PM2.5
Parking Structure
Area Source Emissions

0.05 0.00

0.01 0.00

0.00 0.00
Residential Structure
Area Source Emissions

13.71 4.70

27.63 0.03

0.50 0.50
Energy Emissions

0.11 0.90

0.38 0.01

0.07 0.07
Mobile Emissions

2.17 8.05

28.90 0.12

12.38 3.37
Total Emissions

16.03 13.65

56.92 0.16

12.95 3.94
SCAQMD Threshold
1 55
1 55
1 550
1 150
1 150
55 Exceeds Threshold?
No
No
No
No
No
No
ROG: reactive organic gases; NOx: nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; S02 = sulfur dioxide; PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns in diameter or less; PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less a. Emissions were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model version 2016.3.2 (CalEEMod), as recommended by the SCAQMD. Worst -case seasonal maximum daily emissions are reported.

Source: CalEEMod version 2016.3.2. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs. 43 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
Mobile Source Emissions. Mobile sources are emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative emissions. Depending upon the pollutant, the potential air quality impact may be of regional or local concern. For example, ROG, NOx, SOx, PMlo, and PM2.5 are all pollutants of regional concern (NOx and ROG react with sunlight to form 03 [photochemical smog], and wind currents readily transport SOx, PMlo, and PM2.5). However, CO tends to be a localized pollutant, dispersing rapidly at the source.

Project -generated vehicle emissions have been estimated using CaIEEMod. This model predicts ROG, NOx, PMlo, and PM2.5 emissions from motor vehicle traffic associated with new or modified land uses. The Traffic Impact Study (Kimley-Horn, 2020) notes that the proposed Project would generate approximately 1,697 daily trips, with 112 morning peak hour trips (29 inbound and 83 outbound) and 138 evening peak hour trips (84 inbound and 54 outbound) at buildout.

Area Source Emissions. Area source emissions would be generated due to an increased demand for consumer products, use of architectural coatings, and landscaping.

Energy Source Emissions. Energy source emissions would be generated as a result of electricity and natural gas use associated with the proposed Project. The primary use of electricity and natural gas by the Project would be for space heating and cooling, water heating, ventilation, lighting, appliances, and electronics.

The Project's net emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for any criteria air pollutants.

Therefore, regional operations emissions would result in a less than significant long-term regional air quality impact.

As discussed above, the proposed Project's construction and operational activities would not exceed the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds. Construction activities associated with buildout of the proposed Project would result in a less significant impact compared to the regional air quality impacts as identified in the General Plan Program EIR. Therefore, there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR.

Threshold (c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? General Plan Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR found that implementation of the General Plan would not expose existing or future sensitive uses within the City to substantial CO concentrations. Impacts were considered less than significant.

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

The proposed Project could expose sensitive receptors to elevated pollutant concentrations during construction activities if it would cause or contribute significantly to elevated levels. Unlike the construction emissions shown in the regional emissions analysis, localized concentrations refer to an amount of pollutant in a volume of air (ppm or µg/m3) and can be correlated to potential health effects.

Exposure to pollutant concentrations in exceedance of the NAAQS or CAAQS are generally considered substantial.

Carbon Monoxide Hotspots. A CO hot spot is an area of localized carbon monoxide pollution that is caused by severe vehicle congestion on major roadways, typically near intersections. The purpose of the analysis is to verify that a project would not cause or contribute to a violation of the CO standard at intersections 44 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
for which a significant impact would occur. It should be noted that the air basin is designated as an attainment area for State and federal CO standards; and that there has been a decline in CO emissions even though vehicle miles traveled on urban and rural roads have increased. The SCAQMD studied the four most congested intersections within the Air Basin in 2003 in order to support their CO "attainment" demonstration to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). The modeled intersections experienced more than 100,000 average daily trips, and SCAQMD found that even these highly -congested intersections would not cause a CO hot spot to result. Therefore, it can be reasonably inferred that CO hot spots would not be experienced at any vicinity intersections as a result of 1,697 additional vehicle trips attributable to the Project. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Localized Construction Emissions. The SCAQMD developed Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) for emissions of NO2, CO, PM1o, and PM2.5 generated at new development sites (off -site mobile source emissions are not included in the LST analysis). LSTs represent the maximum emissions that can be generated at a project site without expecting to cause or substantially contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent national or State ambient air quality standards. LSTs are based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant within the Project source receptor area (SRA), as demarcated by the SCAQMD, and the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. An LST analysis is applicable for all projects that disturb 5.0 acres or less on a single day. The City of Newport Beach is within SCAQMD SRA 18 (North Coastal Orange County).

The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are the multi -family residences in Uptown Newport, located approximately 1,410 feet southeast of the site. These receptors would be adjacent to the construction area. The SCAQMD LST methodology states that "off -site mobile emissions from the project should not be included in the emissions compared to LSTs." Therefore, for purposes of the construction LST analysis, only emissions included in the CaIEEMod "on -site" emissions outputs were considered. LST thresholds are provided for distances to sensitive receptors of 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500 meters. In order to be conservative, LSTs for receptors located at 25 meters were used (according to the SCAQMD LST guidance, the 25-meter threshold should be used for receptors located 25 meters away or less). The construction acreage is determined based daily acreage disturbed and the LSTs increase as acreages increase. Table 3.2-3, Equipment -Specific Grading Rates, shows that the grading rates used for the LST analysis assumed 3.5 acres graded per day.

Table 3.2-3. Equipment -Specific Grading Rates
Construction
Phase
Equipment Type
Equipment
Quantity
Acres Graded
per 8-Hour Day
Operating
Hours per
Day
Acres Graded
per Day
Rubber Tired Dozers
3 0.5
8 1.5
Site
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
4 0.5
8 2
Preparation
Graders
0 0.5
8 0
Scrapers
0 1
8 0
Total Acres Graded per Day

3.5 Source: CalEEMod version 2016.3.2. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs.

Table 3.2-4, Localized Significance of Construction Emissions, presents the results of localized emissions during construction activity. The LSTs reflect a maximum disturbance of 3.5 acres daily assumed for the 45 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
proposed Project. Using a 3.5-acre LST threshold (Table 3.2-3) is conservative as it discounts the dispersion factor inherent with a bigger site. Table 3.2-4 shows that the emissions of these pollutants on the peak day of construction would not exceed any thresholds. Therefore, localized impacts would not be significant.

Table 3.2-4. Localized Significance of Construction Emissions Construction Activity
Emissions (pounds per day)','
NOx
CO
PM10
PM2.5
Parking Structure
Demolition (2021)

19.70 14.49

2.82 1.24
Grading (2021)

14.33 6.33

2.46 1.52
Building Construction (2021)

13.64 12.90

0.60 0.16
Building Construction (2022)

12.50 12.73

0.59 0.57
Paving (2022)

6.77 8.81

0.35 0.32
Architectural Coating (2022)

1.41 1.81

0.08 0.08
Residential Structure
Demolition (2022)

25.72 20.59

4.75 1.69
Site Preparation (2022)

33.08 19.70

8.31 5.16
Grading (2022)

38.84 29.04

4.87 2.84
Grading (2023)

34.52 28.05

4.66 2.65
Building Construction (2023)

14.38 16.24

0.70 0.66
Building Construction (2024)

13.44 16.17

0.61 0.06
Paving (2023)

10.19 14.58

0.51 0.47
Paving (2024)

9.52 14.63

0.47 0.43
Architectural Coating (2023)

1.30 1.18

0.07 0.07
Architectural Coating (2024)

1.22 1.81

0.06 0.06
Maximum Daily Emissions

38.84 29.04

8.31 5.16
SCAQMD LST Screening Threshold
(adjusted for 3.5 acres at 25 meters)
164
1,328
11 7
Maximum Daily Emissions Exceed
SCAQMD Threshold?
No
No
No
No
ROG: reactive organic gases; NOX: nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; S02 = sulfur dioxide; PMlo = particulate matter 10 microns in diameter or less; PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less a. Emissions were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model version 2016.3.2 (CalEEMod), as recommended by the SCAQMD. Worst -case seasonal maximum daily emissions are reported. b. SCAQMD Rule 403 Fugitive Dust applied for construction emissions. The Rule 403 reduction/credits include the following:
properly maintain mobile and other construction equipment; replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly; water exposed surfaces three times daily; replace ground cover of area disturbed; water all haul roads twice daily; and limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. Reductions percentages from the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook (Tables XI -A through XI-E) were applied. No mitigation was applied to construction equipment. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs.

Source: CalEEMod version 2016.3.2. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs.

Localized Operational Emissions. As noted above, the Project is located in SRA 18 (North Coastal Orange County) and the 25-meter threshold is used (according to the SCAQMD LST guidance, the 25-meter threshold should be used for receptors located 25 meters away or less). The operational LST acreage is 46 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
based on the total area of the project site. Although the project site is greater than five acres, the 5-acre operational LSTs are conservatively used to evaluate the Project as the LSTs increase as acreages increase.

Table 3.2-5, Localized Significance of Operational Emissions, presents the results of localized emissions during Project operations. The table shows that the emissions of these pollutants during Project operations would not exceed any thresholds. Therefore, localized impacts would not be significant.

Table 3.2-5. Localized Significance of Operational Emissions Source
Emissions (pounds per day)a
NOx
CO
PM10
PM2.5
On -Site Emissions (Area and Energy Sources)
Parking Structure

0.00 0.01

0.00 0.00
Residential Structure

5.60 28.01

0.57 0.57
Total

5.60 28.02

0.57 0.57
SCAQMD LST Analysis Screening Threshold
(5 acres at 25 meters)
197
1,711
4 2
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold?
No
No
No
No
a. Emissions were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model version 2016.3.2 (CalEEMod), as recommended by the SCAQMD. Worst -case seasonal maximum daily emissions are reported.

Source: CalEEMod version 2016.3.2. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs.

Diesel Particulate Matter. Construction would result in the generation of diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions from the use of off -road diesel equipment required for grading and excavation, paving, and other construction activities. The amount to which the receptors are exposed (a function of concentration and duration of exposure) is the primary factor used to determine health risk (i.e., potential exposure to toxic air contaminant emission levels that exceed applicable standards). Health -related risks associated with diesel -exhaust emissions are primarily linked to long-term exposure and the associated risk of contracting cancer.

The use of diesel -powered construction equipment would be temporary and episodic. The duration of exposure would be short and exhaust from construction equipment dissipates rapidly. Current models and methodologies for conducting health risk assessments are associated with chronic exposure periods of 9, 30, and 70 years, which do not correlate with the temporary and highly variable nature of construction activities. Construction would be subject to and would comply with California regulations (e.g., CCR Title 13, Division 3, Article 1, Chapter 10, Sections 2485 and 2449), which reduce DPM and criteria pollutant emissions from in -use off -road diesel -fueled vehicles and limit the idling of heavy-duty construction equipment to no more than five minutes. These regulations further reduce nearby sensitive receptors' exposure to temporary and variable diesel particulate matter emissions.

Given the temporary and intermittent nature of construction activities likely to occur within specific locations in the project site (i.e., construction is not likely to occur in any one location for an extended time), the dose of DPM of any one receptor is exposed to would be limited. Therefore, considering the relatively short duration of DPM-emitting construction activity at any one location of the plan area and the highly dispersive properties of DPM, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial concentrations of construction -related TAC emissions. Therefore, the Project would not cause nor expose persons to significant levels of toxic air contaminants. Impacts are less than significant. This would not be 47 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
a new specific impact or an increase in the severity of an impact that was identified in the General Plan Program EIR and would therefore be consistent with the effects of implementation of the General Plan and no further analysis is required.

Threshold (d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
General Plan Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR concluded that constructions odors are limited to the number of people living and working nearby the source and due to the temporary nature of such odors, impacts were considered less than significant.

Trash receptacles would be stored in areas and in containers as required by City and Health Department regulations, and be emptied on a regular basis, before potentially substantial odors have a chance to develop. General Plan implementation would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people within the City and potential impacts would be less than significant.

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

The proposed Project is a residential development, and which is not land uses typically associated with the generation of highly objectionable odors. In addition, the Project would be subject to SCAQMD Rule 402, which would contribute to minimizing odor -related nuisances, as set forth in SC AQ-1. 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. Therefore, consistent with the findings of the General Plan Program EIR, implementation of the proposed Project would result in a less than significant odors impact. 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 General EIR.

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

Mitigation Program
General Plan Policies
The General Plan Program EIR identifies General Plan policies that would "address issues related to existing and future air quality within the City of Newport Beach." The following policies are applicable to the proposed Project and would be made conditions of approval. ■ NR 6.1— Walkable Neighborhoods. Provide for walkable neighborhoods to reduce vehicle trips by siting amenities such as services, parks, and schools in close proximity to residential areas. ■ NR 6.2 — Mixed -Use Development. Support mixed -use development consisting of commercial or office with residential uses in accordance with the Land Use Element that increases the opportunity for residents to live in proximity to jobs, services, and entertainment. ■ NR 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.
48 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
■ NR 7.1— Fuel Efficient Equipment: Support the use of fuel efficient heating equipment and other appliances.
■ NR 7.2 — Source Emission Reduction Best Management Practices: Require the use of Best Management Practices (BMP) to minimize pollution and to reduce source emissions. ■ NR 8.1— Management of Construction Activities to Reduce Air Pollution: Require developers to use and operate construction equipment, use building materials and paints, and control dust created by construction activities to minimize air pollutants.
■ NR 24.1— 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.

Standard Conditions and Reauirements
SC AQ-1 Dust Control. During construction, the Applicant shall require all construction contractors to comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD's) Rules 402 and 403 in order to minimize construction emissions of dust and particulates. SCAQMD Rule 402 requires that air pollutant emissions not be a nuisance off -site. Rule 402 prohibits the 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.

SCAQMD Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with Best Available Control Measures so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible beyond the property line of the emission source. This rule is intended to reduce PMlo emissions from any transportation, handling, construction, or storage activity that has the potential to generate fugitive dust. This requirement shall be included as notes on the contractor specifications. Table 1 of Rule 403 lists the Best Available Control Measures that are applicable to all construction projects. The measures include, but are not limited to, the following:
a) Portions of a construction site to remain inactive longer than a period of three months shall be seeded and watered until grass cover is grown or otherwise stabilized. b) All on -site roads shall be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or chemically stabilized.
c) All material transported off -site shall be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
d) The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations shall be minimized at all times.
49 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
e) Where vehicles leave a construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the streets shall be swept daily or washed down at the end of the workday to remove soil tracked onto the paved surface.

SC AQ-2 Architectural Coatings. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAMMD) Rule 1113 requires manufacturers, distributors, and end -users of architectural and industrial maintenance coatings to reduce reactive organic gas (ROG) emissions from the use of these coatings, primarily by placing limits on the ROG content of various coating categories. Architectural coatings shall be selected so that the volatile organic compound (VOC) content of the coatings is compliant with SCAQMD Rule 1113. This requirement shall be included as notes on contractor specifications.

Cumulative Impacts
The Project would not result in significant operational air quality impacts including nonattainment criteria pollutants. The Project would not exceed SCAQMD construction thresholds. The Project would be consistent with the General Plan and not required any land use designation changes, and would therefore comply with the 2016 AQMP, which is intended to bring the air basin into attainment for all criteria pollutants. Therefore, the Project's contribution to regional pollutant concentrations would not be cumulatively considerable. As discussed above, the proposed Project would not cause a new air quality impact to occur. Therefore, the proposed Project would not cause either a new cumulative impact to occur, nor an increase in the severity of a cumulative impact previously disclosed. Implementation of the proposed Project would not alter the conclusions of the General Plan Program EIR analysis and would not result in a new or substantially more severe project -specific or cumulative air quality impact than those already analyzed.

Conclusion
Accordingly, no new impacts relative to adverse air quality impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would occur. With regard to PRC Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts, with respect to air quality.

Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of less than significant. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not warranted.
50 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis

3.3 Biological Resources
Threshold (a) Would the project 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? General Plan Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR identified citywide biological resources, including habitat types; sensitive biological resources, including special status species; marine resources; and sensitive marine sources. Development 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. Federal and State regulations, including the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Federal Endangered Species Act, and California Endangered Species Act, restrict activities that may result in the "take" (kill, harm, harass, etc.) of certain species, including active nests. Actions, such as pre - construction surveys, may be necessary to ensure General Plan implementation does not result in the "take" of such species as a result of vegetation removal. General Plan Goal NR 10 and Policies NR 10.1 through NR 10.13 identify the actions that may be necessary during project -specific analysis and development. The General Plan Program EIR determined that compliance with these policies and federal and State laws would mitigate potential impacts to a less than significant level.

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

The project site is an existing surface parking with ornamental landscape areas; there are no native habitat areas on the site nor is the site adjacent to native habitat areas. The site is bordered on all sides by developed urban uses. Project implementation would require the demolition of the surface parking areas including the existing ornamental landscaping in the parking areas. The proposed Project includes site landscaping including groundcover, shrubs, vines, succulents, grasses, and trees. The existing parking area does not provide habitat for any known special -status species or listed plants. Given the site's and surrounding area developed nature, no new impacts to special species are expected.

General Plan policies would further restrict development within wetland areas and environmentally sensitive areas (ESA). The project site is not within a wetland area or ESA, and therefore these policies would not be applicable to the Project. While there is no suitable habitat for any special -status wildlife species on the project site, some of the existing trees could provide nesting habitat for native birds.

Nesting birds are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC §703 et seq.) and the California Fish and Game Code (§3503 et. seq.). Federal regulations prohibit any person to "pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture, or kill, possess, offer for sale, sell, offer to barter, barter, offer to purchase, [or] purchase" any migratory bird, including parts of birds, as well as eggs and nests. The California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5 and 3512 also prohibit the take of birds and active nests. The Project would comply with federal and State regulations as set forth in SC 131O-1. No new impact would result, nor would the impact previously identified be any more severe as a result of the proposed Project.

Threshold (b) Would the project 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? 51 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
General Plan Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR noted several General Plan goals which would protect wetlands and riparian vegetation. Policies NR 10.9 and NR 10.10 would specifically protect the existing or potential riparian habitats, and encourage restoration of the ESAs. Policies NR 13.1 and NR 13.2 would serve to protect wetlands and their riparian habitat, and require a survey and analysis of future development within a delineated wetland area under the General Plan. The California Department of Fish and Game, under Section 1600 of the Fish and Game Code of California, regulate impacts to lakes, streams, and associated riparian (streamside or lakeside) vegetation through the issuance of a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement. The General Plan policies would serve to regulate indirect impacts future development could have on riparian habitats. Therefore, the impacts associated with riparian habitats would be less than significant.

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

There are no native habitat areas on the site nor is the site adjacent to native habitat areas. The project site is not within a wetland area or ESA. The only potential riparian habitat near the project site is the Upper Newport Bay, approximately one mile south. Because there is no riparian habitat on the project site, the proposed Project would not have an adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community than what was previously analyzed in the General Plan Program EIR. This finding is consistent with the impact conclusions of the General Plan Program EIR. No new project -specific impact would result, nor would the impact previously identified be any more severe as a result of the proposed Project. No impact would occur.

Threshold (c) Would the project 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? General Plan Significance Determination: No Impact. The General Plan Program EIR identified several wetland habitats include Upper Newport Bay, the developed channels, beaches, and hardscape of Lower Newport Bay (Newport Harbor), and the intertidal and subtidal landforms (sandy beaches, rocky intertidal, sandy subtidal, and subtidal reefs) along the coast of Newport Beach between the Santa Ana River and the boundary between the City and unincorporated Orange County.

The General Plan Program EIR notes that development would be confined to previously developed areas and would not be located near wetland areas. However, should development be proposed within or adjacent to wetland areas, the project would be required to comply with State and federal laws and regulations to protect wetland resources. General Plan Policies NR 13.1 and NR 13.2 were proposed to protect, maintain, and enhance the City's wetlands. Policies NR 14.1 through NR 14.4 would maintain and enhance deep water channels and ensure they remain navigable by boats through the management of dredging and maintaining the capacity of wetlands and estuaries. Policies NR 15.1 through NR 15.3 would ensure the proper disposal of dredge spoils to avoid disruption to natural habitats through monitoring and management of sediment. Adherence to the identified State and federal laws and regulations would result in mitigate impacts on jurisdictional waters and wetlands.

Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from previous analysis.
52 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
The project site does not include any jurisdictional wetlands. No federal waters under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are on or proximate to the project site. The proposed Project would redevelop an existing urbanized property in the City. Therefore, the proposed Project would not affect jurisdictional wetlands. This is consistent with the impact conclusions of the General Plan Program EIR. No new impact would result, nor would the impact previously identified be any more severe as a result of the proposed Project.

Threshold (d) Would the project 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? General Plan Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR found that impacts to wildlife nursery sites and corridors would be less than significant. General Plan Policies NR 10.3 and NR 10.4 would protect and prohibit development in nature preserves, conservation areas, and designated open space areas, and would require a site -specific study be prepared where development would occur within or contiguous to such areas. General Plan Policies NR 10.5, NR 10.7, and NR 10.8 would prevent disruption, and ensure protection of sensitive habitat though siting and design requirements, along with sufficient buffer sizes and shielding from direct exterior lighting. Policies NR 12.1 through NR 12.3 would serve to protect coastal dune habitats, which serve as movement corridor for coastal wildlife species. Policies NR 13.1 and NR 13.2 would protect, maintain, and enhance the City's wetlands, another movement corridor for a variety of aquatic, terrestrial, and avian species. With implementation of the policies, new urban uses within the developed areas of the City would not have a substantial effect on the movement of native resident of migratory wildlife species or corridors.

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

The project site is a surface parking lot with ornamental landscaping that does not support State or federally -listed flora or fauna. The site is bordered by existing urban development and does not function as a wildlife movement corridor. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impact on the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. This determination is consistent with the impact conclusions of the General Plan Program EIR. No new impact would result, nor would the impact previously identified be any more severe as a result of the proposed Project. Therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent with the effects of implementation of the General Plan.

Threshold (e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? General Plan Significance Determination: No Impact. The General Plan Program EIR concluded that implementation of the General Plan would not impact to local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. City Council Policy G-1 establishes and maintains appropriate diversity in tree species and age classes to provide a stable and sustainable urban forest with an inventory that the City can reasonably maintain in a healthy and non -hazardous condition. Chapter 7.26 of the City's Municipal Code recognizes and strives to maintain the value of natural habitat for migratory waterfowl and other birds such as ducks, gulls, terns, and pelicans. In addition, General Plan Policy NR 10.1 states that future development shall cooperate with State and federal agencies, and private organizations in the protection of the City's biological resources, and Policy NR 10.3 is intended to protect, and prohibit development in, nature preserves, conservation areas, and designated open space areas in order to minimize urban impacts upon 53 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
resources in identified ESAs. The General Plan policies and City Council Policy G-1 would ensure that future development within the City would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, and therefore no impact would occur.

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

The City does not have a tree preservation ordinance applicable to trees on private property. Chapter

13.09 (Parkway Trees) of the City's Municipal Code requires new developments to plant trees in the parkway abutting the building site. The trees are to be at least 36-inch-box trees of the type, variety, and/or species determined by the City in accordance with the City Street Tree Designation List. The Project would be required to comply with SC BIO-2 which requires compliance with Municipal Code 13.09. No new impacts relative to adverse effects on local policies protecting biological resources or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would occur.

Threshold (f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
General Plan Significance Determination: No Impact. The City is a signatory agency of the Orange County Central and Coastal Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) Habitat Conservation Plan. The NCCP is included as part of the General Plan policies. Policy NR 10.2 states that future development must comply with the policies of the Orange County NCCP. In addition, Policy NR 10.1 states that future development shall cooperate with State and federal agencies, and private organizations, in the protection of the City's biological resources. This includes local, regional, or State habitat conservation plans. The General Plan Program EIR concluded no impacts to provisions to an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan.

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

The project site is an existing surface parking lot in Koll Center Newport. Because the project site contains no sensitive biological resources, Policies NR 10.1 and 10.2 are not applicable to the Project. The proposed Project would not change or contradict any policies within the Orange County Central -Coastal NCCP/HCP.

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

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

Standard Conditions and Requirements
SC 131O-1 Prior to the commencement of any proposed actions (e.g., site clearing, demolition, grading) during the breeding/nesting season (September 1 through February 15), a qualified biologist contracted by the Applicant shall conduct a preconstruction survey(s) 54 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
to identify any active nests in and adjacent to the project site no more than three days prior to initiation of the action. If the biologist does not find any active nests that would be potentially impacted, the proposed action may proceed. However, if the biologist finds an active nest within or directly adjacent to the action area (within 100 feet) and determines that the nest may be impacted, the biologist shall delineate an appropriate buffer zone around the nest using temporary plastic fencing or other suitable materials, such as barricade tape and traffic cones. The buffer zone shall be determined by the biologist in consultation with applicable resource agencies and in consideration of species sensitivity and existing nest site conditions, and in coordination with the construction contractor. The qualified biologist shall serve as a construction monitor during those periods when construction activities occur near active nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent impacts on these nests occur. Only specified construction activities (if any) approved by the qualified biologist shall take place within the buffer zone until the nest is vacated. At the discretion of the qualified biologist, activities that may be prohibited within the buffer zone include but not be limited to grading and tree clearing. Once the nest is no longer active and upon final determination by the biologist, the proposed action may proceed within the buffer zone.

The qualified biologist shall prepare a survey report/memorandum summarizing his/her findings and recommendations of the preconstruction survey. Any active nests observed during the survey shall be mapped on a current aerial photograph, including documentation of GPS coordinates, and included in the survey report/memorandum. The completed survey report/memorandum shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach Community Development Department prior to construction -related activities that have the potential to disturb any active nests during the nesting season.

SC 1131O-2 The Applicant shall be responsible for planting trees in the parkway abutting the building site in accordance with City rules, regulations and policies in compliance with the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 13.09 (Parkway Trees). The parkway trees shall be at least a 36-inch box of the type, variety and/or species determined by the City in accordance with the City Street Tree Designation List. If the City determines that because of the location, terrain, or condition of the property that required tree planting is impractical at the abutting parkway, the Applicant shall plant the 36-inch box tree at a location designated by the City.

Cumulative Impacts
Past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects are required to implement measures, as set forth in their respective CEQA documents, consistent with federal, State, and local regulations to avoid adverse effects to existing biological resources or to mitigate for significant impacts to these resources. The types of measures required for projects impacting protected habitat, species, and regulated resources can include avoidance, project design features, regulatory approvals, best management practices (BMPs), and mitigation measures. The project site does not contain riparian habitat or any other water resources.

Additionally, the site does not contain waters, including wetland waters, that are subject to federal jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The site is not located within a designated ESA, which may support species and habitats that are sensitive and rare within the region or may function as a migration corridor for wildlife. The Project would not contribute to a cumulative effect on biological 55 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
resources including sensitive species, protected habitat, or wetland resources. The proposed Project would not cause a new biological impact to occur, nor an increase in the severity of a biological impact previously disclosed in the General Plan Program EIR. Implementation of the proposed Project would not alter the conclusions of the General Plan Program EIR analysis and would not result in a new or substantially more severe project -specific or cumulative biological resources impact than those already analyzed.

Conclusion
Accordingly, no new impacts relative to biological resources or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would occur. With regard to PRC Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of less than significant with mitigation. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not warranted.
56 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis

3.4 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Threshold (a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
General Plan Significance Determination: Significant and Unavoidable Impact. The General Plan Program EIR noted that the City has 11 properties listed or designated eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), or otherwise listed as historic or potentially historic in the California Historic Resources Inventory System (CHRIS) maintained by the Office of Historic Preservation. The City Historical Register also recognizes five structures or properties of local historical or architectural significance, most of which are not listed in the NRHP and CRHR. In addition to the formally recognized resources, the City's Historic Resource Inventory includes 61 properties, while not officially adopted, which serves as a guide to potentially historic properties that may have historic or cultural significance to the City. General Plan build out could result in the demolition of historic or potentially historic structures. General Plan Policies HR 1.1 through HR 1.5 protect historically significant landmarks, sites, and structures through requiring that the Historical Resources Inventory be maintained and updated, encouraging the preservation and adaptive reuse of historic structures, promoting the placement of historical landmarks throughout the City, encouraging adaptive reuse, and mandating the incorporation of historical elements in new redevelopment projects in the City. The Airport Area, Newport Center, West Newport Mesa and Mariners' Mile do not have historic resources. Since General Plan policies offer only limited protection to historic structures and would not ultimately prevent the demolition of a historic structure, and that demolition of a historic structure constitutes a physical effect on the environment, the General Plan Program EIR found that impacts to historical resources were significant and unavoidable.

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

There are no historical resources on or near the project site that have been listed or are eligible for listing on the NRHP, the CRHR, California landmarks, or local registers. The office buildings located within the boundaries of the project site (4490 Von Karman Avenue and 4910 Birch Street), or immediately contiguous to the site (5000 Birch Street, 4340 Von Karman Avenue, 4350 Von Karman Avenue) are not a part of the proposed development and were constructed between the 1970s and 2000s. Consequently, the surrounding buildings do not meet the criteria of a historical resource under CEQA and would not be impacted. Therefore, no impacts would occur. The proposed Project would not result in any new adverse impacts or increase the severity of any previously identified impacts on historical resources. No new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified that would impact the prior finding under this threshold.

Threshold (b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR concluded that impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant. General Plan Goal HR 2 and NR 18 would protect archaeological resources by requiring that any new development protect and preserve archaeological resources from destruction, and that potential impacts to such resources be avoided and minimized through planning policies and permit conditions. The Newport Beach City Council 57 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
also established "Archaeological Guidelines (K-5)" requiring the City to prepare and maintain sources of information regarding archaeological sites. Therefore, impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant.

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

Although the project site has been disturbed, the area is potentially sensitive for archaeological and tribal cultural resources; three archaeological resources have been recorded within a half -mile of the project site. The Project would be required to comply with the City Council Policy K-5 which requires preservation of significant archeological and tribal cultural resources, as set forth in SC CULT-1. Compliance with General Plan Policy HR 2.1 and Policy NR 18.1 would require that any new development protect and preserve archaeological and tribal resources from destruction, and that potential impacts to such resources be avoided and minimized through planning policies and permit conditions. Therefore, compliance with these regulations would ensure impacts to archaeological resources remain less than significant. The proposed Project would not result in any new adverse impacts or increase the severity of any previously identified impacts on archaeological resources. No new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified that would impact the prior finding under this threshold.

Threshold (c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. Human burials, in addition to being potential archaeological resources, have specific provisions for treatment in Section 5097 of the California Public Resources Code. Disturbing human remains would destroy the resources and could potentially violate the health code. The California Health and Safety Code (§§7050.5, 7051, and 7054) contain specific provisions for the protection of human burial remains. PRC Section 5097.98 addresses the disposition of Native American burials, protects such remains, and established the Native American Heritage Commission to resolve any related disputes.

General Plan Policies HR 2.1 and NR 18.1 require that any new development under the General Plan protect and preserve archaeological resources from destruction, and that potential impacts to such resources be avoided and minimized through planning policies and permit conditions. Other policies under Goal HR2 and Goal NR 18 ensure that information resources are maintained regarding these resources, such that all grading and excavation activities where there is a potential to affect cultural or archaeological resources be monitored by a qualified archaeologist; that cultural organizations, including Native American organizations, are notified of all developments that have the potential to adversely impact these resources; and that any new development donates scientifically valuable archaeological resources to a responsible public or private institution. The General Plan Program EIR concluded that impacts to human remains would be less than significant.

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

The project site has been previously disturbed and currently is developed with surface parking and landscape areas. There is no indication that there are burials present at the project site and it is unlikely that human remains would be discovered during project development. In the event that human remains 58 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
are discovered during grading activities, the Project would adhere to all State and local regulations and policies, such as California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, CEQA Section 15064.5, and PRC Section 5097.98, to addresses procedures to follow the discovery of suspected human remains (SC CULT-2).

Compliance with existing law would ensure that impacts to human resources would not occur. This is consistent with the impact conclusions of the General Plan Program EIR. No new impact would result, nor would the impact previously identified be any more severe as a result of the proposed Project. Therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent with the effects of implementation of the General Plan.

Mitigation Program
General Plan Policies
The General Plan Program EIR identifies General Plan policies that would address potential impacts to cultural resources. The following policies are applicable to the proposed Project and would be made conditions of approval.
■ 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/archaeologist, 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.
■ 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 impact cultural resources. Allow qualified representatives of such groups to monitor grading and/or excavation of development sites.
59 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
■ NR 18.4 - Donation of Materials: Require new development, where on -site preservation and avoidance are not feasible, to donate scientifically valuable paleontological or archaeological materials to a responsible public or private institution with a suitable repository, located within Newport Beach or Orange County, whenever possible.

Standard Conditions and Requirements
SC CULT-1 In compliance with City Council Policy K-5, prior to the issuance of a grading permit by the City of Newport Beach, the Applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to periodically monitor ground -disturbing activities onsite and provide documentation of such retention to the City of Newport Beach Community Development Director. The archaeologist shall train project construction workers on the types of archaeological resources that could be found in site soils. The archaeologist shall periodically monitor project ground -disturbing activities. During construction activities, if Native American resources (i.e., Tribal Cultural Resources) are encountered, a Cultural Resource Monitoring and Discovery Plan (CRMDP) shall be created and implemented to lay out the proposed personnel, methods, and avoidance/recovery framework for tribal cultural resources monitoring and evaluation activities within the project area. A consulting Native American tribe shall be retained and compensated as a consultant/monitor for the project site from the time of discovery to the completion of ground disturbing activities to monitor grading and excavation activities. If archaeological resources are encountered, all construction work within 50 feet of the find shall cease, and the archaeologist shall assess the find for importance and whether preservation in place without impacts is feasible. Construction activities may continue in other areas. If, in consultation with the City and affected Native American tribe (as deemed necessary), the discovery is determined to not be important, work will be permitted to continue in the area. Any resource that is not Native American in origin and that cannot be preserved in place shall be curated at a public, nonprofit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton.

SC CULT-2 California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 mandate the process to be followed in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery. California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that in the event that human remains are discovered within the project site, disturbance of the site shall be halted until the coroner has conducted an investigation into the circumstances, manner and cause of 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. 60 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
Cumulative Impacts
As discussed above, the proposed Project would not cause a new cultural resources impact to occur, nor an increase in the severity of a cultural resources impact previously disclosed in the General Plan Program EIR, with adherence to State and local regulations and General Plan policies discussed in this section.

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

Conclusion
Accordingly, no new impacts relative to cultural resources or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would occur. With regard to PRC Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of less than significant with mitigation. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not warranted.
61 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis

3.5 Energy
Impacts related to energy were not analyzed in the General Plan Program EIR because they were not on the State CEQA Guidelines' Appendix G checklist until January 1, 2019, which was subsequent to the certification of the General Plan Program EIR in 2006. Therefore, the analysis of energy is new in this Addendum.

However, the General Plan Program EIR did include an analysis of the impacts on other public services and utilities, which included electricity and natural gas. Specifically, the analysis was in General Plan Program EIR Section 4.14, Utilities and Service Systems. As concluded in the General Plan Program EIR, impacts to electricity and natural gas services were found to be less than significant. The electricity and natural gas analysis in the General Plan Program EIR 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.

Threshold (a) Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
General Plan Significance Determination: No Impact. Although a stand-alone Energy analysis was not included in the General Plan Program EIR, as previously noted, it did analyze impacts related to public services and utilities. The General Plan Program EIR concluded that impacts related to the relocation or construction of new electrical power or natural gas facilities would have no impact. Additional energy demands resulting from implementation of the General Plan would be adequately met by current and planned infrastructure during most of the year as well as compliance with the energy conservation measures contained in Title 24, which would reduce the amount of energy needed for the operation of any buildings. The projected electrical demand for buildout under the General Plan was expected to be within Southern California Edison's (SCE's) then -current ten-year load forecasts. Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) indicated that an adequate supply of natural gas was available to serve additional development, and that the natural gas service provided to the City would not be impaired by buildout under the General Plan. Any expansion of service necessitated by the General Plan implementation would be in accordance with SoCalGas policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission at the time contractual agreements are made. Natural gas demand projected for the General Plan would not exceed available or planned supply and no new infrastructure would be required.

Therefore, no impact would result.

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

Fuel
During construction, transportation energy use depends on the type and number of trips, vehicle miles traveled (VMT), fuel efficiency of vehicles, and travel mode. Transportation energy use during construction would come from the transport and use of construction equipment, delivery vehicles and haul trucks, and construction employee vehicles that would use diesel fuel and/or gasoline. The use of energy resources by these vehicles would fluctuate according to the phase of construction and would be temporary. Most construction equipment during demolition and grading would be gas -powered or diesel - powered, and the later construction phases would require electricity -powered equipment. Idling of in -use 62 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
off -road heavy-duty diesel vehicles in California are limited to five minutes per Title 13, CCR Section 2449(d)(3). Project construction equipment would also be required to comply with the latest U.S. EPA and CARB engine emissions standards. These engines use highly efficient combustion engines to minimize unnecessary fuel use.

The Project would have construction activities that use energy, primarily in the form of diesel fuel (e.g., mobile construction equipment) and electricity (e.g., power tools). Contractors would be required to monitor air quality emissions of construction activities using applicable regulatory guidance such from SCAQMD CEQA Guidelines. This requirement indirectly relates to construction energy conservation because when air pollutant emissions are reduced from the monitoring and the efficient use of equipment and materials, energy use is reduced. There are no aspects of the Project that would foreseeably result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary use of energy during construction activities.

Due to increasing transportation costs and fuel prices, contractors and owners have a strong financial incentive to avoid wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary use of energy during construction. There is growing recognition among developers and retailers that sustainable construction is not prohibitively expensive and that there is a significant cost -savings potential in green building practices. The use of battery -powered tools and equipment that do not rely on gas to operate are also becoming more common.3 Impacts related to transportation energy use during construction would be temporary and would not require expanded energy supplies or the construction of new infrastructure; impacts would not be significant.

During operations, energy consumption would be associated with resident and visitor trips; delivery and supply trucks; and trips by maintenance and repair crews. The Project is an infill residential development within Koll Center Newport and near other large employment areas, such as the Irvine Business Center and Newport Center, thereby potentially reducing the need to travel long distances for some residents.' The project site is also near public transportation (bus routes) access, further reducing the need to drive.

The City and surrounding areas are highly urbanized with numerous gasoline fuel facilities and infrastructure. Consequently, the proposed Project would not result in a substantial demand for energy that would require expanded supplies or the construction of other infrastructure or expansion of existing facilities.

The gasoline and diesel fuel associated with on -road vehicular trips is calculated based on total VMT. The total gasoline and diesel fuel associated with on -road trips would be approximately 146,621 gallons per year and 20,108 gallons per year, respectively. Orange County's annual gasoline fuel use in 2020 was 1,180,213,295 gallons and diesel fuel use was 144,020,787 gallons.' Expected Project operational use of gasoline and diesel would represent 0.012 percent of current gasoline use and 0.014 percent of current diesel use in the County. None of the Project energy uses exceed one percent of their corresponding County use. Project operations would not substantially affect existing energy or fuel supplies or resources.

The Project would comply with applicable energy standards and new capacity would not be required. Fuel 3 Jobsite, Construction's Electric Future, June 11, 2018, available at https://jobsite.procore.com/construction-s-electric-future , accessed October 2, 2020.
4 The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association document, Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures (August 2010), identifies that infill developments, such as the proposed Project reduce vehicle miles traveled which reduces fuel consumption. Infill projects such as the proposed Project would have an improved location efficiency. 5 California Air Resources Board, EIVFAC2017.
63 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
consumption associated with vehicle trips generated by the proposed Project would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary.

Electricity and Natural Gas
Project implementation would increase demand for electricity and natural gas services provided by SCE and SoCalGas. Table 3.5-1, Estimated Project Electricity and Natural Gas Generation identifies the Project's total estimated electricity and natural gas generation. As shown in the table, the Project would use approximately 1,624,857 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year. In comparison, the project site uses very little electricity as it is currently used for surface parking. The proposed Project would represent an increase in electricity usage over existing uses.

Table 3.5-1. Estimated Project Electricity and Natural Gas Generation Units/Square Feet
Generation Rate
Total Generation
Electricity
312 units MFR (approx. 683 residents)
2,379 kWh/capita/year
1,624,857 kWh/year
Natural Gas
312 units MFR (approx. 683 residents)
13,700 kBTU/capita/year
4,274,400 kBTU/year
MFR = multi -family residential; sf = square feet; BTU: British Thermal Unit Sources: California Energy Commission (CEC) 2006; CEC 2011.

The increased demand is expected to be adequately served by the existing SCE electrical facilities on the project site currently serving Koll Center Newport. SCE forecasts that it would have adequate electricity to meet the expected growth in its service area through 2026. Using SCE's anticipated consumption in 2026 in a high -demand consumption scenario, electricity demand is expected to be 123,828 gigawatt- hours.6 The increase in electricity demand from the Project would be 0.0008 percent of overall demand in SCE's service area. Therefore, projected electrical demand would not significantly impact SCE's level of service. Project design features include high -efficiency wall assemblies and windows to reduce heating and cooling loads; Energy Star appliances; high -efficiency heating and cooling systems; high efficiency domestic hot water systems; and high -efficiency light -emitting diode (LED) lighting in residential units, common areas, and landscape design. Impacts to electrical service would be less than significant.

Based on California Energy Commission assumptions, residential land uses generate the need for approximately 13,700 kBTU (kilo -British thermal unit) of natural gas per capita per year.' Therefore, as shown in Table 3.5-1, the Project would use approximately 4,274,400 kWh per year. The proposed Project would represent an increase in natural gas usage over existing uses.

The increased demand is expected to be adequately served by the existing SoCalGas facilities. Total supplies of natural gas available to SoCalGas are expected to remain stable at 3.875 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day (bcfd), that is, 1,414,375 billion BTU per year, between 2023 and 2035.8 Total natural 6 California Energy Commission, 2018, Electricity and Natural Gas Demand Forecast Figure 49, Available at:
http://caIenergycommission.blogspot.com/2019/01/caIifornias-economic-growth-outpaces.htm1 , Accessed Sept. 22, 2020.

Ibid.
8 California Gas and Electric Utilities (CGEU), 2019, 2019 California Gas Report. https://www.socalgas.com/regulatory/documents/cgr/2019_CGR_Su pplement_7-1-19.pdf. 64 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
gas consumption in SoCalGas' service area is forecast to be 2.647 bcfd (966,155 billion BTU per year) in 2035. Therefore, the natural gas demand from the proposed Project would represent a nominal percentage of overall demand in SoCalGas' service area. SoCalGas facilities that currently provide natural gas to Koll Center Newport can also serve the proposed Project. SoCalGas can provide additional connections if necessary once utility plans are finalized for the Project and are required to do so by the California Public Utilities Commission to meet additional demand. Impacts to natural gas service would be less than significant.

It should also be noted that the Project design and materials would comply with the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which took effect on January 1, 2020. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the City of Newport Beach Building Division would review and verify that the Project plans demonstrate compliance with the current version of the Building and Energy Efficiency Standards. The Project would also be required adhere to the provisions of CALGreen, which establishes planning and design standards for sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code requirements), water conservation, material conservation, and internal air contaminants.

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

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

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

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

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

SCAG's 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (Connect SoCal) (RTP/SCS) establishes GHG emissions reduction goals for automobiles and light -duty trucks for 2020 and 65 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
2035. The project is consistent with regional strategies to reduce passenger VMT. The project site is in a major employment center and is proximate to several major employers. Orange County is traditionally jobs -rich. Transit stops along Von Karman Avenue and Birch Street connect the project site to the rest of the City as well as the cities of Irvine and Tustin. Increasing residential land uses near major employment centers is a key strategy to reducing regional VMT, which also reduces transportation fuel consumption.

Therefore, in addition to being an efficient infill development, the Project would be consistent with regional goals to reduce trips and VMT by locating the residential development adjacent to business uses, which reduces vehicle trip lengths and transportation fuel use. The Project would not conflict with the stated goals of the RTP/SCS. Therefore, the Project would not interfere with SCAG's RTP/SCS.

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

Executive Order 5-14-08, signed in November 2008, expanded the State's RPS to 33 percent renewable power by 2020. This standard was adopted by the legislature in 2011 (SB X1-2). SB 350 was signed into law in September 2015 and established tiered increases to renewable energy resources of 40 percent by 2024, 45 percent by 2027, and 50 percent by 2030. SB 350 also sets a new goal to double the energy - efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas through energy -efficiency and -conservation measures.

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

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

Electrical service is provided to the project site and surrounding area by SCE, which obtains electricity from conventional and renewable sources. In 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 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 General Plan, is anticipated to be within the service capabilities of SCE and would not impede SCE's ability to implement California's renewable energy goals. Therefore, the proposed Project would not obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy. Thus, impacts would be less than significant and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. 9 Southern California Edison. 2019, July. 2018 Power Content Label. https://www.sce.com/sites/default/files/inline- fi les/2018SCEPCL.pdf.
66 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
Mitigation Program
General Plan Policies
The General Plan Program EIR identifies General Plan policies that would address potential impacts to energy use. The following policy is applicable to the proposed Project and would be made a condition of approval.
■ NR 24.2 — Energy -Efficient Design Features: Promote energy -efficient design features.

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

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

Conclusion
Accordingly, no new impacts relative to energy or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would occur. With regard to PRC Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of less than significant with mitigation. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not warranted. 67 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis

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

General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR concluded that implementation of the General Plan would not expose people or structures to adverse effects involving rupture of a fault located in an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone. The City of Newport Beach is located in the northern part of the Peninsular Ranges Province, an area that is exposed to risk from multiple earthquake fault zones. The Newport -Inglewood fault zone, the Whittier fault zone, the San Joaquin Hills fault zone, and the Elysian Park fault zone, all have potential to cause moderate to large earthquakes that would cause ground shaking in Newport Beach and nearby communities. However, none of these faults has been zoned under the guidelines of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act.

There are no Alquist-Priolo zones in the City and no impact would result. Impacts were considered less than significant.

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

According to the Geotechnical report prepared for the proposed Project, the project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and no known active faults cross the site. Several active faults are near the project site, including the San Joaquin Hills Fault approximately 1.7 miles, the Newport Inglewood Fault Zone approximately 5.5 miles, and the Newport Inglewood (offshore segment) located approximately 6 miles from the site. Potential for surface fault rupture was considered low.

Construction of the proposed Project would be required to conform to the seismic design requirements of the 2019 California Building Code (CBC) (or applicable adopted code at the time of plan submittal or grading and building permit issuance for construction) which would reduce anticipated impacts related to the proximity of earthquake faults by requiring structures to be built to withstand seismic ground shaking.

Additionally, the Project would need to comply with the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, Chapter 15.10, Excavation and Grading Code, which requires approval of soil engineering and engineering geology report, as set forth in SC GEO-1. The Excavation and Grading Code also requires that recommendations included in the reports and approved by the building officials be incorporated in grading plans or specifications.

Compliance with SC GEO-1 and applicable CBC requirements would not expose persons or structures to seismic hazards and impacts associated with the proposed Project would be less than significant. The proposed Project would not result in a new specific impact or an increase in the severity of an impact that was identified in the General Plan Program EIR and would therefore be consistent with the effects of implementation of the General Plan and no further analysis is required. 68 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
Strong seismic ground shaking?
General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The General Plan policies ensures that adverse effects caused by seismic and geologic hazards such as strong seismic ground shaking are minimized. Policy S 4.1 requires regular update to building and fire codes to provide for seismic safety and design; Policy S 4.2 encourages the seismic retrofitting and strengthening of essential facilities such as hospitals and schools to minimize damage; and Policies S 4.4 and S 4.5 ensure that new development is not located in areas that would be affected by seismic hazards. Additionally, new development would be required to comply with the building design standards of the CBC Chapter 33 for the construction of new buildings and/or structures, specific engineering design and construction measures would be implemented to anticipate and avoid the potential for adverse impacts. Compliance with applicable regulations and the policies contained in the General Plan would ensure that impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking remain at a less than significant level.

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

Project construction would be required to conform to the seismic design requirements of the 2019 CBC (or applicable adopted code at the time of plan submittal or grading and building permit issuance for construction) which would reduce anticipated impacts related to the proximity of earthquake faults and ground shaking by requiring structures to be built to withstand seismic ground shaking. Additionally, the Project would need to comply with the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, Chapter 15.10, Excavation and Grading Code, which requires approval of soil engineering and engineering geology report (SC GEO-1). The Excavation and Grading Code also requires that recommendations included in the reports and approved bythe building officials be incorporated in grading plans or specifications. The Project would also be required to adhere to General Plan policies related to seismic and geologic hazards standards (SC GEO-2). The geotechnical study noted that potential for surface fault rupture is low. With implementation of the requirements of the CBC and the General Plan, the proposed Project would not expose persons or structures to strong ground shaking and impacts associated with the proposed Project would be less than significant. The proposed Project would not result in a new specific impact or an increase in the severity of an impact that was identified in the General Plan Program EIR and would therefore be consistent with the effects of implementation of the General Plan and no further analysis is required.
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. Portions of the City are susceptible to liquefaction and related ground failure (i.e., seismically induced settlement) include areas along the coastline that includes Balboa Peninsula, in and around the Newport Bay and Upper Newport Bay, in the lower reaches of major streams in Newport Beach, and in the floodplain of the Santa Ana River.

A considerable part of the City mapped liquefiable areas (West Newport, Balboa Peninsula, the harbor islands and vicinity) are already built upon, mostly with residential and commercial development. The City Safety Element Policies S 4.1 through S 4.6 require new development to be in compliance with the most recent seismic and other geologic hazard safety standards, and the protection of community health and safety through the implementation of effective, state of the art standards for seismic design of structures in the City. Additionally, if any development on steep terrain were to occur upon implementation of the General Plan, site -specific slope stability design would be required to ensure adherence to the standards 69 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
contained in Appendix Chapter A33, Excavation and Grading, of the City Building Code, as well as by California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH, CAL/OSHA) requirements for shoring and stabilization. With compliance of applicable regulations as well as policies identified in the General Plan, impacts were determined to be less than significant, and no mitigation was required.

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

The project site is not located within the areas susceptible to liquefaction and related ground failure. The site is within a developed and urbanized area of the City. The geotechnical evaluation indicated that localized and isolated sandy layers within the old paralic deposits that underlie the site are susceptible to relatively minor amounts of liquefaction as a result of a potential earthquake along a nearby fault and the historical high groundwater level of 10 feet below existing grades. Overall seismic induced liquefaction settlement would be reduced with removal of materials for the subterranean parking structure excavation. The estimated settlements appear to be limited to isolated and localized relatively thin zones generally between 12 and 49 feet below existing grades during seismic events. Typical construction methods and protocols for remedial grading would replace unsuitable materials with suitable engineered fill materials prior to re -compaction with paralic deposits and/or other non -expansive materials. The resulting configuration would not be subject to liquefaction. There are no known geologic conditions on the project site that would render development infeasible. Compliance with the City's Municipal Code and General Plan Policies SC 3.6-1 and SC 3.6-2 would reduce the risk associated with seismic -related ground failure and associated liquefaction, lateral spreading, or subsidence to a less than significant level. The proposed Project would not result in a new specific impact or an increase in the severity of an impact that was identified in the General Plan Program EIR and would therefore be consistent with the effects of implementation of the General Plan and no further analysis is required. iv) Landslides?
General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. Many of the areas in central and eastern Newport Beach have been identified as vulnerable to seismically induced slope failure, due to steep terrain. Compliance with the standards set forth in the current CBC would require an assessment of hazards related to landslides and liquefaction and the incorporation of design measures into structures to mitigate this hazard if development were considered feasible. The City has included policies in its Safety Element to achieve the goal of minimizing the risk of injury, loss of life, and property damage caused by earthquake hazards or geologic disturbances (SC 3.6-2). Adherence to the standards contained in Appendix ChapterA33, Excavation and Grading, City Building Code, and California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH, CAL/OSHA) requirements for shoring and stabilization would reduce impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

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

The project site is located at an elevation of approximately 46 to 52 feet above msl. In general, the overall ground surface is relatively level with a gentle slope to the west. Due to the level topography on the project site and in area surrounding the site, landslides are not anticipated. According to the Seismic Hazard Zones Map for the Tustin Quadrangle, the site is not located within a Zone of Required Investigation for earthquake -induced landslides. Additionally, no historic landslides have been mapped 70 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
within or adjacent to the site, nor were there any indications of landslides due to the developed nature of the area. The proposed Project would be required to adhere to all applicable building code regulations and engineering design standards related to shaking hazards and geologic stabilization, as set forth in SC GEO-1 and SC GEO-2. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in a new impact or an increase in the severity of an impact that was identified in the General Plan Program EIR and would therefore be consistent with the effects of implementation of the General Plan and no further analysis is required.

Threshold (b) Would the project result insubstantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR concluded that implementation of the General Plan would have a less than significant impact associated with soil erosion or topsoil. All demolition and construction activities within the City would be required to comply with CBC Chapter 70 standards, which ensure implementation of appropriate measures during grading activities to reduce soil erosion. General Plan Policies NR 3.11, NR 3.12, and NR 3.13 would require compliance with applicable local, State, or federal laws. Compliance with the CBC and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits would minimize effects from erosion and ensure consistency with the RWQCB Water Quality Control Plan. Implementation of the General Plan would have a less than significant impact associated with soil erosion or topsoil. No mitigation is required.

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

The project site is currently developed with surface parking areas and landscaping. Grading and earthwork activities during construction would expose soils to potential short-term erosion by wind and water. The project site would be graded, and foundation excavation would require the export of approximately 114,000 cy.

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 NPDES Phase II regulations concerning the discharge of eroded materials and pollutants from construction sites. Compliance with policies in the General Plan would further ensure that the proposed Project 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. Implementation of the General Plan policies would have a less than significant impact associated with soil erosion or topsoil. The proposed Project's impact on soil erosion would be less than significant, similar to those impacts previously analyzed in the General Plan Program EIR. This would not be a new specific impact or an increase in the severity of an impact that was identified in the General Plan Program EIR and would therefore be consistent with the effects of implementation of the General Plan and no further analysis is required.
71 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
Threshold (c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR concluded that implementation of the General Plan would have a less than significant impact related to unstable soils, or compressible and expansive soils, as a result of collapse, subsidence, differential settlement, lateral spreading, or heaving. Adherence to the City's codes and General Plan policies would ensure the maximum practicable protection available for users of buildings and infrastructure and associated trenches, slopes, and foundations. Compliance with General Plan Policies S 4.4 and S 4.6 would ensure that development is not located on unstable soils or geologic units. In view of these requirements, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact associated with the exposure of people or structures to hazards associated with unstable geologic units or soils. No mitigation is required.

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

Similar to the General Plan Program EIR, the proposed Project would have the potential to be located on a geologic unit or soil that would become unstable and potentially result in on- or off -site impacts related to landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction and/or collapse. The geotechnical evaluation concluded that the project site had a very low to high expansion potential. Liquefaction -induced ground displacements are relatively minor overall and typical reinforced concrete structural mat foundation system for the support of the proposed apartment building and parking structure would further reduce impacts. The proposed Project would be required to comply with General Plan policies and CBC regulations set forth in SC GEO-1 and SC GEO-2. With adherence to these standard conditions, impacts would be less than significant, similar to the previously certified General Plan Program EIR. This would not be a new specific impact or an increase in the severity of an impact that was identified in the General Plan Program EIR and would therefore be consistent with the effects of implementation of the General Plan and no further analysis is required.

Threshold (d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property? General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR concluded that implementation of the General Plan would have a less than significant impact related to unstable soils, or geologic units. Development under the General Plan would be required to comply with all applicable provisions of the CBC related to soil hazard -related design. The City's Building Code requires a site -specific foundation investigation and report for each construction site that identifies potentially unsuitable soil conditions and contains appropriate recommendations for foundation type and design criteria that conform to the analysis and implementation criteria described in the City's Building Code, Chapters 16, 18, and A33. Further, General Plan Policies S 4.4 and S 4.6 would require that development not be located on unstable soils or geologic units. This impact is considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
72 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

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

As discussed in the General Plan Program EIR, the City contains soils that are highly expansive and compressive, and subject to significant volume changes due to moisture fluctuations. The proposed Project would be required to adhere to the City's Building Code and General Plan Policies S 4.4 and S 4.6 require that development not be located on unstable soils or geologic units, as set forth in SC GEO-1 and SC GEO-2. Compliance with State and local regulations described in the standard conditions would reduce impacts related to expansive soils to less than significant. This would not be a new specific impact or an increase in the severity of an impact that was identified in the General Plan Program EIR and would therefore be consistent with the effects of implementation of the General Plan and no further analysis is required.

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

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

The project site is within a fully developed commercial office complex. The Project would connect to utility infrastructure and would not use septic tanks. As a result, no impacts associated with the use of septic tanks would occur as part of the proposed Project's implementation. Therefore, no further analysis is required.

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

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

General Plan Policy HR 2.1 and Policy NR 18.1 require any new development to protect and preserve archaeological resources from destruction, and that potential impacts to such resources be avoided and minimized through planning policies and permit conditions. Other policies under Goal HR 2 and Goal NR 18 ensure that information resources are maintained regarding these resources and that grading and excavation activities where there is a potential to affect cultural or archaeological resources be monitored by a qualified archaeologist. Additionally, the Newport Beach City Council Paleontological Guidelines (K-4) requires the City to prepare and maintain sources of information regarding paleontological sites. 73 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
Compliance with policies within Goal NR 18 and the policies under Goal HR 2 would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

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

There are no known unique paleontological resources of unique geologic features on the project site. The proposed Project would adhere to the General Plan policies under Goals HR 2 and NR 18 should ground - disturbing activities that may impact previously undisturbed grounds. The proposed Project would comply with the City's "Paleontological Guidelines (K-5)." Set forth in SC GEO-3. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR.

Mitigation Program
General Plan Policies
The General Plan Program EIR identifies General Plan policies that would address potential impacts to soils and geological resources. The following policies are applicable to the proposed Project and would be made conditions of approval.
■ S 4.7 — New Development: Conduct further seismic studies for new development in areas where potentially active faults may occur.
■ NR 3.9 - Water Quality Management Plan: Require new development applications to include a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to minimize runoff from rainfall events during construction and post -construction.
■ NR 3.10 - Best Management Practices: Implement and improve upon Best Management Practices (BMPs) for residences, businesses, development projects, and City operations. ■ NR 3.11 - Site Design and Source Control: Include site design and source control BMPs in all developments. When the combination of site design and source control BMPs are not sufficient to protect water quality as required by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), structural treatment BMPs will be implemented along with site design and source control measures.
■ NR 3.12 - Reduction of Infiltration: Include equivalent BMPs that do not require infiltration, where infiltration of runoff would exacerbate geologic hazards. ■ NR 3.15 - Street Drainage Systems: Require all street drainage systems and other physical improvements created by the City, or developers of new subdivisions, to be designed, constructed, and maintained to minimize adverse impacts on water quality. Investigate the possibility of treating or diverting street drainage to minimize impacts to water bodies. ■ NR 3.20 - Impervious Surfaces: Require new development and public improvements to minimize the creation of and increases in impervious surfaces, especially directly connected impervious areas, to the maximum extent practicable. Require redevelopment to increase area of pervious surfaces, wherefeasible.
74 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
■ 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.
■ 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.
■ 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 Developmentto 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. ■ NR 18.4 - Donation of Materials: Require new development, where on -site preservation and avoidance are not feasible, to donate scientifically valuable paleontological or archaeological materials to a responsible public or private institution with a suitable repository, located within Newport Beach or Orange County, whenever possible.

Standard Conditions and Requirements
SC GEO-1 The Project is required to comply with City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, Chapter

15.10, Excavation and Grading Code. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the City of Newport Beach Deputy Community Development Director/Building Official or his/her designee shall review the grading plan for conformance with the conceptual grading shown on the approved site development plan submittal. The grading plans shall be accompanied by geological and soils engineering reports and shall incorporate all information as required by the City.

SC GEO-2 The Project is required to comply with General Plan Safety Element Policies S 4.1 through S 4.6, which require new development to be in compliance with the most recent seismic and other geologic hazard safety standards, and help protect community health and 75 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
safety through the implementation of effective, state-of-the-art standards for seismic design of structures.

SC GEO-3 In compliance with City Council Policy K-4, prior to the issuance of a grading permit by the City of Newport Beach, the Applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist to be available on -call during ground -disturbing activities onsite and provide documentation of such retention to the City of Newport Beach Community Development Director. If fossils are encountered, all construction work within 50 feet of the find shall cease, and the paleontologist shall assess the find for importance. Construction activities may continue in other areas. If, in consultation with the City, the discovery is determined to not be important, work will be permitted to continue in the area. Any resource shall be curated at a public, nonprofit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County or the Cooper Center (a partnership between California State University, Fullerton and the County of Orange).

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

Conclusion
Accordingly, no new impacts relative to geology and soils or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would occur. With regard to PRC Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of less than significant with mitigation. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not warranted.
76 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis

3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Threshold (a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
General Plan Significance Determination: The General Plan Program EIR did not evaluate the effects of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission generation. At the time of approval of the General Plan Program EIR, the contribution of GHG emissions to climate change was a prominent issue of concern. On March 18, 2010, amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines took effect which set forth requirements for the analysis of GHG emissions under CEQA. Since the EIR has already been certified, the determination of whether GHG emissions and climate change needs to be analyzed for this specific development is governed by the law on supplemental or subsequent EIRs (PRC §21166 and CEQA Guidelines §§15162 and 15163). GHG emissions and climate change are not required to be analyzed under those standards unless it constitutes "new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time" the General Plan Program EIR was approved (State CEQA Guidelines §15162(a)(3)).

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

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

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

Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: Less than significant impact.

The Project would allow for 312 residential apartments, including 299 market -rate units and 13 very -low income affordable units. The proposed Project would not include any acreage changes or increase the overall development capacity of the allowable uses in the MU-H2 designated areas as analyzed in the General Plan Program EIR. Therefore, the proposed land uses would be within the development capacity analyzed in the General Plan Program EIR.

Construction GHG Emissions
The proposed Project would result in direct emissions of GHGs from construction activities. The approximate quantity of daily GHG emissions generated by construction equipment associated with the Project is identified in Table 3.7-1, Construction -Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions. As shown in the table, Project construction would result in the generation of approximately 3,250 metric tons of CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalent) over the course of construction. Once construction is complete, the generation of these GHG emissions would cease. The SCAQMD recommends that construction emissions be amortized over a 30-year project lifetime. Therefore, projected GHGs from construction have been quantified and amortized over 30 years. The amortized construction emissions are added to the annual average operational emissions.
77 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
Table 3-7.1. Construction -Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions Construction Year
MTCO2e
2021 (Parking Structure)
139
2022 (Parking Structure)
30 2022 (Residential Building)
1,208
2023 (Residential Building)
1,308
2024 (Residential Building)
395
Total Construction
3,250
30-Year Amortized Construction
103
Source: CalEEMod version 2016.3.2. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs.

Operations GHG Emissions
Table 3.7-2, Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions summarizes the GHG emissions associated with Project operations. As shown, the proposed Project would generate approximately 2,585 metric tons of CO2e annually.

Table 3.7-2. Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Emissions Source
MTCO2e per Year
Construction Amortized Over 30 Years (Parking and Residential Building) 103
Energy (Parking Structure)
146
Area Source (Residential Building)
69 Energy (Residential Building)
890
Mobile (Residential Building)
1,233
Waste (Residential Building)
36 Water and Wastewater (Residential Building)
107
Total
2,585
Bright Line Threshold
3,000
Source: CalEEMod version 2016.3.2. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs.

As identified in Table 3.7-2, the SCAQMD's interim screening level numeric bright -line threshold of 3,000 metric tons of CO2e annually would not be exceeded. The proposed Project's cumulative contribution to GHG emissions is therefore less than significant. Water demand, wastewater generation and solid waste generation, and energy demand would increase due to the introduction of up to 312 multi -family rental units at the Koll Center Newport. However, the units would be within the overall 2,200 maximum multi- family units for the Airport Area identified in the General Plan. As previously addressed in this Addendum, the General Plan evaluated 4,300 multi -family units in the Airport Area. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in a substantial increase in GHG emissions had the evaluation been provided in the General Plan Program EIR.
78 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

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

The proposed Project would be required to comply with all building codes in effect at the time of construction which include energy conservation measures mandated by Title 24 of the California Building Standards Code — Energy Efficiency Standards (refer to SC GHG-1) and the California Green Building Standards (refer to SC GHG-2). Because Title 24 standards require energy conservation features in new construction (e.g., high -efficiency lighting, high -efficiency heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning (HVAC) systems, thermal insulation, double -glazed windows, water -conserving plumbing fixtures), these standards indirectly regulate and reduce GHG emissions. California's Building Energy Efficiency Standards are updated on an approximately three-year cycle. The most recent 2019 standards went into effect January 1, 2020. Although the City's Energy Plan is primarily focused on reducing municipal energy consumption, the proposed Project would not conflict with the community -wide energy use goals of the plan. As discussed in Section 3.5, Energy, the Project's energy impacts would be less than significant.

Further, the Project would be below the SCAQMD's GHG threshold and would comply with the City's General Plan policies, and State Building Code provisions designed to reduce GHG emissions. In addition, the proposed Project would comply with all SCAQMD applicable rules and regulations during construction of the operational phase and would not interfere with the State's goals of reducing GHG emission to 1990 levels by 2020 as stated AB 32. In addition, when the Housing Element was updated in 2013, the City analyzed GHG emissions and found that the Housing Element would have less than significant impacts with respect to this threshold.

In accordance with AB 32 and 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. 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 SB 350, which expands the Renewables Portfolio Standard to 50 percent by 2030 and doubles energy efficiency savings; expanding the Low Carbon Fuel Standard to 18 percent by 2030; implementing the Mobile Source Strategy to deploy zero -electric vehicle buses and trucks; implementation of the Sustainable Freight Action Plan; implementation of the Short -Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy, which reduces methane and hydrofluorocarbons 40 percent below 2013 79 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
levels by 2030 and black carbon emissions 50 percent below 2013 levels by 2030; continuing to implement SB 375; creation of a post-2020 Cap -and -Trade Program; and development of an Integrated Natural and Working Lands Action Plan to secure California's land base as a net carbon sink. Statewide GHG emissions reduction measures that are being implemented as a result of the Scoping Plan would reduce the proposed Project's GHG emissions.

Additionally, approximately 91 percent of the project's emissions are from energy and mobile sources which would be further reduced by the 2017 Scoping Plan measures described above. It should be noted that the City has no control over vehicle emissions (approximately 60 percent of the project's total emissions). However, these emissions would decline in the future due to statewide measures including the reduction in the carbon content of fuels, CARB's advanced clean car program, CARB's mobile source strategy, fuel efficiency standards, cleaner technology, and fleet turnover. Additionally, SCAG's RTP/SCS is also expected to help California reach its GHG reduction goals, with reductions in per capita transportation emissions of 8 percent by 2020 and 19 percent by 2035.10 The Project is an infill residential development within Koll Center Newport and near other large employment areas such as Newport Center and the Irvine Business Center, which could reduce the need to travel long distances for some residents and reducing associated GHG emissions."
Regarding goals for 2050 under Executive Order S-3-05, at this time it is not possible to quantify the emissions savings from future regulatory measures, as they have not yet been developed. Nevertheless, it can be anticipated that operation of the proposed Project would benefit from the implementation of current and potential future regulations (e.g., improvements in vehicle emissions, SB 100/renewable electricity portfolio improvements, etc.) enacted to meet an 80 percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2050.

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

Impacts would be less than significant.

The GHG emissions associated with the land uses assumed in the General Plan Program EIR would be reduced through compliance with statewide measures that have been adopted since AB 32 and SB 32 were adopted, inclusive of the proposed Project. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with the above statewide strategies identified to implement the CARB Scoping Plan. Therefore, there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. 10 Southern California Association of Governments, 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, September 3, 2020, p. 9.
11 The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures (August 2010) identifies that infill developments, such as the proposed Project reduce vehicle miles traveled which reduces fuel consumption. Infill projects such as the proposed Project would have an improved location efficiency. 80 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
Mitigation Program
General Plan Policies
The following policies are applicable to the proposed Project and would be made conditions of approval. ■ NR 6.1— Walkable Neighborhoods: Provide for walkable neighborhoods to reduce vehicle trips by siting amenities such as services, parks, and schools in close proximity to residential areas. ■ NR 6.2 — Mixed -Use Development: Support mixed -use development consisting of commercial or office with residential uses in accordance with the Land Use Element that increases the opportunity for residents to live in proximity to jobs, services, and entertainment. ■ NR 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 7.1 — Fuel Efficient Equipment: Support the use of fuel -efficient heating equipment and other appliances.
■ NR 7.2 — Source Emission Reduction Best Management Practices: Require the use of Best Management Practices (BMP) to minimize pollution and to reduce source emissions. ■ NR 8.1— Management of Construction Activities to Reduce Air Pollution: Require developers to use and operate construction equipment, use building materials and paints, and control dust created by construction activities to minimize air pollutants.
■ NR 24.1— 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.

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

SC GHG-2 Prior to issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall be required to demonstrate to the Community Development Department, Building Division that building plans meet the applicable California Green Building Standards (CalGreen) Code (24 CCR 11). 81 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

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

Conclusion
As discussed above, the proposed Project would not cause a new GHG impact nor an increase in the severity of GHG impacts. Therefore, the proposed Project would not cause either a new cumulative impact to occur, nor an increase in the severity of a cumulative impact previously disclosed. 82 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Therefore, similar to the General Plan Program EIR, impacts would be less than significant and there are no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR. No new impact would result, nor would the impact previously identified be any more severe as a result of the proposed Project. Therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent with the effects of implementation of the General Plan.

Threshold (b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment?
General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR concluded that compliance with existing regulations of the County Environmental Health Division, County Department of Toxic Substances Control, and Regional Water Quality Control Board and General Plan 83 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR

Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
Policies S 7.1 and S 7.4 would reduce impacts related to the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Compliance with Titles 8, 22, 26, and 49 of the CCR, and their enabling legislation in Chapter 6.95 ofthe 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.

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

A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (EMS, June 2020) was prepared for the proposed Project. No recognized environmental conditions at the project site were identified. One historical recognized environmental condition (HREC) was identified for a leaking underground storage tank associated with 4910 Birch Street parking lot in 1993. Remediation occurred and the case was closed in 2002. A Controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions (CREC) was identified at 4311 Jamboree Road at the TowerJazz Semiconductor (formerly Conexant Systems, Inc.) site, approximately 0.5 mile south of the project site.

Remediation efforts were ongoing between 2005 and 2016. That property is also undergoing a pilot test study for enhanced in -place bioremediation for remediation of contaminants of concern in groundwater.

The Phase I concluded that the TowerJazz Semiconductor facility is a CREC in connection with the project site. The proposed Project would not impact or otherwise hinder remediation efforts at the TowerJazz Semiconductor site and would not exacerbate risk of exposure to hazards associated with that off -site property.

No new impact would result, nor would the impact previously identified be any more severe as a result of the proposed Project. Therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent with the effects of implementation of the General Plan.

Threshold (c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR noted that areas of concerns for hazardous materials sites near schools were Hixson Metal Finishing, Big Canyon Reservoir, and San Joaquin Reservoir. Although hazardous materials and waste generated from future development may pose a health risk to nearby schools, all businesses that handle or have on -site transportation of hazardous materials would be required to comply with the provisions of the City's Fire Code and any additional elements as required in the California Health and Safety Code Article 1 Chapter

Newport Beach City CouncilApril 9, 2024

Newport Beach City Council
April 9, 2024