Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout25 - 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments (PA2016-127)PO CITY OF 0� 5 NEWPORT BEACH 11F09 'X. City Council Staff Report November 22, 2016 Agenda Item No. 25 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Kimberly Brandt, Community Development Director - 949-644-3232, kbrandt@newportbeachca.gov PREPARED BY: Patrick J. Alford, Planning Program Manager, PAlford@newportbeachca.gov PHONE: 949-644-3235 TITLE: 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments (PA2016-127) ABSTRACT: The City Council will consider amendments to the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan to change the land use category from Public Facilities (PF) to Mixed -Use Horizontal (MU -H1) and an amendment to the Zoning Code to change the zoning from Public Facilities (PF) to Mixed -Use Mariners' Mile (MU -MM) for 191 Riverside Avenue. RECOMMENDATION: a) Conduct a public hearing; b) Find that the proposed project would not result in a potentially significant impact on the environment as documented in Negative Declaration ND2016-004 by adoption of Resolution No. 2016-123, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Adopting Negative Declaration ND2016-004 (SCH No. 2014011028) for Land Use and Zoning Amendments Located at 191 Riverside Avenue, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act; c) Adopt Resolution No. 2016-124, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Approving General Plan Amendment No. GP2016-002 and Local Coastal Plan Amendment No. LC2016-003 for Property Located at 191 Riverside Drive; and d) Waive full reading, direct the City Clerk to read by title only, introduce Ordinance No. 2016-21, An Ordinance of the City Council of the City Of Newport Beach, California, Approving Code Amendment No. CA2016-005 for Property Located at 191 Riverside Avenue, and pass to second reading on December 13, 2016. 25-1 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments November 22, 2016 Page 2 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: No fiscal impact analysis was conducted for this project. However, it can be assumed that a change in land use to commercial would generate more sales tax and business license fee revenues than the previous public institutional land use. Also, the anticipated tenant improvements necessary to support commercial land uses would likely result in increased property tax revenue. INTRODUCTION: Prosect Setting The project site is located within the Mariners' Mile commercial district, which is fully developed with a variety of residential, office, and commercial land uses. The project site consists of approximately 0.52 acres bounded by Avon Street to the north, Mariner's Center to the south and west, and Riverside Avenue to the east. The project site is developed with a one-story institutional building, previously used as a United States Post Office. The structure is currently vacant. The 9,242 square -foot building is constructed of concrete block. A surface parking lot containing 20 spaces surrounds the building to the south and west. Project Description The Project consists of applications for a General Plan Amendment (GP2016-002) and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment (LC2016-002) to change the land use category from Public Facilities (PF) to Mixed -Use Horizontal (MU -H1) and a Zoning Code Amendment (CA2016-005) to change the zoning from Public Facilities (PF) to Mixed - Use Mariners' Mile (MU -MM) for the project site. No demolition or new construction is proposed at this time. Background On March 6, 2014, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the same set of amendments (PA2013-210) to the City Council. On September 9, 2014, the City Council denied the amendments without prejudice. A discussion on basis of the City Council denial is provided in a following section of this report. On July 11, 2016, the applicant resubmitted the application. On October 20, 2016, the Planning Commission recommended to City Council approval of the amendments (5 ayes, 1 noes, 1 abstain). 25-2 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments November 22, 2016 Page 3 DISCUSSION: Analysis Land Use Consistency The General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan vision for the Mariners' Mile Commercial District calls for parcels on the inland side of Coast Highway to "evolve as a pedestrian - oriented mixed-use `village' containing retail businesses, offices, services, and housing". The proposed change from public facilities to mixed use would be a continuation of the mixed-use designation on the properties abutting and adjacent to the project site. The proposed land use and zoning changes are therefore consistent with the mixed-use village vision for this area of Mariners' Mile by providing the opportunity for commercial and residential development. Development Potential Although no demolition or new construction is proposed at this time, the proposed project would allow land uses and property development that are not allowed under the current land use and zoning designations. Under the current PF (Public Facilities) Zoning, land uses are limited to public facilities, such as community centers, cultural institutions, government facilities, libraries, public hospitals, public utilities, and public schools. All land uses, with the exception of minor utilities, require either a conditional use permit or a minor use permit. Floor area, height, and parking standards are established also by conditional use permits. The proposed MU -MM (Mixed -Use Mariners' Mile) Zoning would allow retail and service uses. Some uses, such as commercial recreation and entertainment, eating and drinking establishments, and vehicle sales require either a minor use permit or a conditional use permit. Non-residential development would be limited to a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.50, which would result in a maximum floor area of approximately 11,326 square feet on this project site. The MU -MM designation would also allow residential uses as part of a mixed-use development. A minimum of 10 and a maximum of 13 dwelling units would be permitted. Site Development Review approval is required for any mixed-use project. Mixed-use projects are also subject to the site planning, development, and operational standards of the Zoning Code. A mixed-use development would have to provide a minimum FAR of 0.25 (5,663 square feet) and the maximum FAR would be 0.50 (approximately 11,326 square feet). The maximum residential FAR would be 1.0 (22,651 square feet). Under the current PF District, height limits are established by a use permit; however, development could not exceed the 35 -foot height limit of the Shoreline Height Limit Zone. Any future development on the project site would have to conform to the 26- foot/31-foot (flat roof and sloped roof, respectively) Height Limit Area and 35 -foot Shoreline Height Limit Zone. For purposes of comparison, the existing former Post Office building is approximately 20 feet high. New development within these height 25-3 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments November 22, 2016 Page 4 limits would be consistent with the development pattern in the area and would not significantly impact the visual quality and charter of the surrounding area. The project site is under the same ownership as the abutting Mariner's Center which is currently undergoing exterior renovations. The property owner has stated that the building will be incorporated into a remodel of the retail center. Traffic and Parking The City's Traffic Engineer conducted a traffic analysis. As no specific land uses are proposed at this time, the City's Traffic Engineer conducted the analysis based on the existing Post Office use and the maximum development of the site under the proposed mixed-use land use and zoning: • 10,000 sq. ft. Post Office (existing) • 13 Apartment Dwelling Units • 11,326 sq. ft. of General Commercial Trip generation rates were taken from the updated Newport Beach Traffic Model (NBTM) because there is no Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip rate for General Commercial. The NBTM trip generation is: • 10,000 sq. ft. Post Office - 216 trips /day • 13 Apartment Dwelling Units - 80 trips /day • 11,326 sq. f.t. General Commercial - 433 trips /day With credit for the existing Post Office trips, a project under the maximum development scenario would result in a net increase of 297 trips per day. Using Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) standards, no intersection impacts were identified. Required parking for the current PF District is established by conditional use permit. Currently, the project site has 20 surface parking spaces. The ITE fourth edition of Parking Generation sets the peak period parking demand for a United States Post Office at 33.2 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area or 2.01 spaces per employee. The 9,242 square foot building therefore would have a peak period parking demand of 307 parking spaces using the ITE standard. Under the proposed MU -MM District, the Zoning Code off-street parking requirement would be two spaces per dwelling unit and one space per 250 square feet of retail floor area. As no development is proposed at this time, it is unknown if future development will be strictly commercial or a mixed-use project. However, under maximum development scenarios, a project would have to provide 46 parking spaces for a strictly commercial development and 72 spaces for a mixed-use development. Therefore, parking demand would be considerably lower under either the commercial, mixed use, or reuse scenarios than the previous post office use. 25-4 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments November 22, 2016 Page 5 The Zoning Code allows a building with nonconforming parking to be occupied with new uses without providing additional parking, provided there is no intensification or enlargement (e.g., increase in floor area, or lot area), and the new use requires a parking rate not higher than one space per 250 square feet of gross building area. Therefore, under the proposed MU -MM District, the existing building could be occupied with new uses that would have a Zoning Code -based parking demand of 37 parking spaces; as there are 20 existing spaces on site, there is the potential for a 17 -space parking deficit under these circumstances. Therefore, reuse of the structure would have a lower parking demand as compared to the previous Post Office. Table 1 Parking Demand Requirement Use Required Parking Assumptions Post Office 307 Spaces Based on ITE Rates. Reuse of Existing Structure 37 Spaces Reuse to require no more the 1 space per 250 square feet Redevelopment 46 to 72 Spaces Maximum Development Scenario Charter Section 423 Charter Section 423 requires an analysis of the density, intensity, and peak hour traffic associated with a proposed General Plan amendment. When increases in density, intensity, and peak hour traffic of a proposed General Plan amendment along with 80 percent of the increases of prior amendments exceed specified thresholds, the proposed amendment is considered to be a "major amendment" that requires voter approval. The specified thresholds are 100 dwelling units (density), 40,000 square feet of floor area (intensity), and 100 peak hour trips (traffic). City Council Policy A-18 establishes the Guidelines for implementation of Charter Section 423 and provides specific guidance as to the density, intensity, and traffic thresholds for the analysis. The proposed project does not exceed the specified thresholds established by Charter Section 423; therefore, the proposed General Plan amendment would not require voter approval. The full Charter Section 423 analysis is provided in the Planning Commission staff report dated October 20, 2016 (Attachment D). Tribal Consultation California Environmental Quality Act requires a local government to provide notice to Native American tribes of an opportunity to consult on projects within 14 days of a determination that a project application is complete. The City sent letters to tribal organizations on August 8, 2016, which initiated the 30 -day period when a consultation on the project can be requested. The City received one late reply from Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation. This organization requested that a certified Native American Monitor be onsite during any and all ground disturbances to protect any cultural resources that may be impacted during construction or development. 25-5 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments November 22, 2016 Page 6 Section 65352.3 of the California Government Code requires a local government to contact the appropriate tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) each time it considers a proposal to adopt or amend the General Plan. If requested by any tribe, the local government must consult for the purpose of preserving or mitigating impacts to cultural resources. The City sent letters to NAHC-identified tribal organizations with a request for a 45 -day response period. The response period will end on November 20, 2016. As of the publication of this report, the City received one response; the Tribal Manager/Cultural Resource Director of the Juaneno Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen Nation stated that they had no concerns at this time, but requested that they be notified of any changes. The project site is located in an urbanized area and is currently developed. Ground disturbances from the previous development in the last century likely would have uncovered or inadvertently destroyed any unknown archeological resources. No known recorded archeological resources are located in the project site. Therefore, it is highly unlikely the proposed project would disturb any unknown archaeological resources. A full analysis of applicable General Plan policies, the property's development potential, Charter Section 423, and tribal consultation are provided in the Planning Commission staff report dated October 20, 2016 (Attachment D). Planning Commission Action The Planning Commission supported taking the property out of the PF designation. However, the Planning Commission split on whether the property should be designated MU -MM (Mixed -Use Mariners' Mile) or General Commercial (CG). The Commissioners supporting CG indicated that commercial without a residential component was more suitable for the site, noting that the properties to the west, north and northeast are designed CG. However, after an alternative motion supporting CG failed, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the amendments to the City Council (5 ayes, 1 noes, 1 abstain; see Attachment E). Alternatives The City Council has the option to apply the General Commercial (CG) land use designation and zoning to the subject property. The land use and property development regulations for CG Zoning District are almost the same as MU -MM Zoning District. However, the CG Zoning District also allows Corporate Offices, Catering Services, Communication Facilities, and Laboratories by right and Outpatient Surgery Facilities, Ambulance Services, Animal Boarding/Kennels, Bars/Lounges/Nightclubs, Funeral Homes/Mortuaries, Timeshares, SRO Residential Hotels, and Vehicle/Equipment Sales with the approval of use permits. The City Council also has the option of denying the proposed amendments. A resolution for denial is provided as Attachment F. 25-6 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments November 22, 2016 Page 7 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Initial Study/Negative Declaration ND2016-004 (Exhibit A of Attachment A) was prepared, in accordance with the implementing guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K-3. The Negative Declaration (ND) does not identify any component of the proposed project that would result in a "potentially significant impact" on the environment per CEQA guidelines. A copy of the ND was made available on the City's website, at each branch of the Newport Beach Public Library, and at the Community Development Department at City Hall. The ND was made available for public review for a 30 -day comment period, which ended October 20, 2016. The City received comment letters (Attachment G) from Mr. David J. Tanner, Still Protecting Our Newport, California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance, and United Coalition to Protect Panhe (UCPP). The Planning Commission considered the comments and found that the comments did not include substantial evidence that a potential environmental effect may occur. NOTICING: Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to all owners of property within 300 feet of the boundaries of the site (excluding intervening rights-of-way and waterways) including the applicant and posted on the subject property at least 10 days before the scheduled meeting, consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Negative Declaration Resolution Attachment B — General Plan/CLUP Amendment Resolution Attachment C — Code Amendment Ordinance Attachment D — October 20, 2016 Planning Commission Staff Report Attachment E — Draft October 20, 2016 Planning Commission Minutes Attachment F — Draft Resolution for Denial Attachment G — Negative Declaration Comment Letters Attachment H — Other Correspondence Attachment I — Applicant's Responses to Tanner and SPON Comment Letters Attachment J — Parking Analysis Report for 191 Riverside Avenue 25-7 ATTACHMENT A RESOLUTION NO. 2016- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA ADOPTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. ND2016-004 (SCH NO. 2014011028) FOR LAND USE AND ZONING AMENDMENTS LOCATED AT 191 RIVERSIDE AVENUE WHEREAS, an application was filed by Pacific Coast Architects, with respect to property located at 191 Riverside Avenue, and legally described as Lot F of Tract 919, requesting approval of amendments to the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan to change the land use category from Public Facilities (PF) to Mixed -Use Horizontal (MU - H1) and an amendment to the Zoning Code to change the zoning from Public Facilities (PF) to Mixed -Use Mariners' Mile (MU -MM) (collectively, Project); WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on October 20, 2016, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC). Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this public hearing. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted (5 ayes, 1 noes, 1 abstain) to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2032 recommending City Council adoption of Negative Declaration ND2016-004 (SCH NO. 2014011028) and approval of General Plan Amendment No. GP2016-002, Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2016-002 and Code Amendment No. CA2016-005; WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the City Council on November 22, 2016, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the City Council at this public hearing; WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq. (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code of Regulations, Sections 15000 et seq.), and City Council Policy K-3, the Project is such subject to environmental review; WHEREAS, the City thereafter caused to be prepared an Initial Study/Negative Declaration (SCH No. 2014011028) (ND) in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and City Council Policy K-3; WHEREAS, notice of the availability of the draft ND was given in accordance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and City Council Policy K-3. The draft ND was made available for public review for a 30 -day comment period beginning on September 20, 2016, and ending October 20, 2016. The City received four comments letters during the public review period and the comments were considered during consideration of the 25-8 Resolution No. 2016 - Page 2 of 3 Project and the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, found that the comments contained did not include substantial evidence that a potential environmental effect may occur; WHEREAS, on the basis of the entire environmental review record, the Project will have a less than significant impact upon the environment; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In addition, project opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges. As project applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate that such applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial challenge, and bear the responsibility for any costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which may be awarded to a successful challenger. Therefore, to the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant and property owner shall defend, indemnify, release and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to the Project, the Project's approval based on the City's CEQA determination and/or the City's failure to comply with the requirements of any federal, state, or local laws, including, but not limited to, CEQA, General Plan and zoning requirements. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, or proceeding whether incurred by applicant, City, and/or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, hereby resolves as follows: Section 1: The City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby adopts Negative Declaration No. ND2016-004 (SCH NO. 2014011028), which is attached hereto as Exhibit 'A" and incorporated herein by reference. Section 2: The recitals provided in this resolution are true and correct and are incorporated into the operative part of this resolution. Section 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall 25-9 Resolution No. 2016 - Page 3 of 3 not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this resolution. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this resolution, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Section 4: This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting the resolution. PASSED AND ADOPTED on the 22"d day of November, 2016, by the following vote, to -wit: AYES, COUNCILMEMBERS NOES, COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS DIANE B. DIXON, MAYOR ATTEST: LEILANI I. BROWN, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATT OFFICE l � AARON C. H—AftP, CITY ATTORNEY 25-10 Exhibit "A" Negative Declaration SCH No. 2014011028 25-11 NEGATIVE DECLARATION for 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments General Plan Amendment No. GP2016-002 Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2013-003 Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2016-005 (PA2016-127) Lead Agency Contact: Patrick J. Alford City of Newport Beach Community Development Department Planning Division 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 SEPTEMBER 16, 2016 25-12 Declaration 1.0 Introduction 1.0 Introduction The City of Newport Beach (hereafter "City") received applications from Mariners Center M2, LLC (hereafter "Project Applicant") for amendments to the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan to change the land use category from Public Facilities (PF) to Mixed -Use Horizontal (MU - H1) and an amendment to the Zoning Code to change the zoning from Public Facilities (PF) to Mixed -Use Mariners Mile (MU -MM) for a 0.52 -acre site located at 191 Riverside Avenue (hereafter "Project" or "proposed Project"). The proposed Project is the subject of analysis in this document pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This Negative Declaration (ND) was compiled by the City of Newport Beach, serving as the Lead Agency for the proposed Project pursuant to CEQA §21067 and CEQA Guidelines Article 4 and §15367. "Lead Agency" refers to the public agency that has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project. This introduction is included to provide the reader with general information regarding: 1) the location of the proposed Project and a summary of the Project's proposed discretionary actions; 2) standards of adequacy for a ND under CEQA; 3) a summary of Initial Study findings supporting the Lead Agency's decision to prepare a ND for the proposed Project; 4) a description of the format and content of this ND; and 5) the governmental processing requirements to consider the proposed Project for approval. 1.1 Document Purpose This document is a Negative Declaration (ND) prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), including all criteria, standards, and procedures of CEQA (California Public Resource Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Section 15000 et seq.). This ND is an informational document intended for use by the City of Newport Beach, Trustee and Responsible agencies, and members of the general public in evaluating the physical environmental effects of the proposed Project. 1.2 Proiect Location The subject property (hereafter, "proposed Project Site" or "Project Site") is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Riverside Avenue and Avon Street. The proposed Project Site comprises approximately 0.52 acres, located in the City of Newport Beach, Orange County, California in the Mariners Mile commercial district. Newport Bay is located approximately 650 feet to the southwest. Specifically, the subject property is bounded by Avon Street to the north, Mariners Center to the south and west, and Riverside Avenue to the east. The current addresses of the proposed Project Site are 149 and 191 Riverside Avenue, Newport Beach, California 92660. The assessor's parcel numbers (APNs) are 049-110-17 and 049-110-27. 1.3 Prosect Summary The proposed Project consists of applications for a General Plan Amendment (GP2016-002) and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment (LC2016-002) to change the land use category from Public Facilities (PF) to Mixed -Use Horizontal (MU -H1) and a Zoning Code Amendment (CA2016-005) to change the zoning from Public Facilities (PF) to Mixed -Use Mariners Mile (MU - 1191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments September 16. 2016 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 1-1 25-13 Declaration 1.0 Introduction MM) for a 0.52 -acre site located at 191 Riverside Avenue. No demolition or new construction is proposed at this time. If the Project is approved by the City Council, the Project's Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment would then require review by the California Coastal Commission (CCC). 1.4 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 1.4.1 CEQA Objectives CEQA is a statewide environmental law contained in Public Resources Code §§ 21000-21177 that applies to most public agency decisions to carry out, authorize, or approve actions that have the potential to adversely affect the environment. The overarching goal of CEQA is to protect the physical environment. To achieve that goal, CEQA requires that public agencies inform themselves of the environmental consequences of their discretionary actions and consider alternatives and mitigation measures that could avoid or reduce significant adverse impacts when avoidance or reduction is feasible. It also gives other public agencies and the general public an opportunity to comment on the information. If significant adverse impacts cannot be avoided, reduced, or mitigated to below a level of significance, the public agency is required to prepare an EIR and balance the project's environmental concerns with other goals and benefits in a statement of overriding considerations. The principal objectives of CEQA are to: 1) inform governmental decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of proposed activities; 2) identify the ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced; 3) prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in projects through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures when the governmental agency finds the changes to be feasible; and 4) disclose to the public the reasons why a governmental agency approved the project in the manner the agency chose if significant environmental effects are involved. 1.4.2 CEQA Requirements for Negative Declarations (NDs) A ND is a written statement by the Lead Agency briefly describing the reasons a proposed project, which is not exempt from the requirements of CEQA, will not have a significant effect on the environment and therefore does not require preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). (CEQA Guidelines § 15371) The CEQA Guidelines require the preparation of a ND if the Initial Study prepared for a project identifies no potentially significant effects. 1.4.3 Initial Study Findings Section 5.0 contains a copy of the Initial Study that was prepared for the proposed Project pursuant to CEQA and City of Newport Beach requirements. The Initial Study determined that implementation of the proposed Project would result in no impacts or less than significant environmental effects. Therefore, and based on the findings of the Initial Study, the City of Newport Beach determined that a ND shall be prepared for the proposed Project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15070(b). 1.4.4 CEQA Requirements for Environmental Setting and Baseline Conditions CEQA Guidelines § 15125 establishes requirements for defining the environmental setting to which the environmental effects of a proposed project must be compared. The environmental setting is defined as "...the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as 2191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments September 16. 2016 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 1-2 25-14 Declaration 1.0 Introduction they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation is published, at the time the environmental analysis is commenced..." (CEQA Guidelines § 15125[a]) In the case of the proposed Project, the Initial Study determined that a ND is the appropriate form of CEQA compliance document, which does not require a Notice of Preparation (NOP). Thus, the environmental setting for the proposed Project is the approximate date that the Project's environmental analysis commenced. The City of Newport Beach commenced environmental review of the proposed Project in September 2016. Accordingly, the environmental setting for the proposed Project is defined as the physical environmental conditions on the proposed Project Site and in the vicinity of the proposed Project as they existed in September 2016. Section 2.0 provides a summary of the existing physical environmental conditions of the proposed Project Site and surrounding areas as they existed in September 2016. 1.4.5 Format and Content of this Negative Declaration This document, including all Sections. Section 5.0 contains the completed Environmental Checklist/Initial Study and its associated analyses which document the reasons to support the findings and conclusions of the Initial Study. 1.4.6 Preparation and Processing of this Negative Declaration The City of Newport Beach Planning Division directed and supervised the preparation of this ND. The content contained within and the conclusions drawn by this ND reflect the sole independent judgment of the City. Following completion of this ND, A Notice of Intent (NOI) to adopt the ND will be distributed to the following entities: 1) organizations and individuals who have previously requested such notice in writing; 2) direct mailing to the owners of property contiguous to the Project and property owners within a 300 -foot radius as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll; 3) the Orange County Clerk; and 4) Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse for review by state agencies. The NOI will identify the location(s) where the ND, Initial Study is available for public review. In addition, notice of the public review period also will occur via posting of a notice on- and off-site (at City Hall, 100 Civic Center Drive) in the area where the Project is to be located and publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the Project area. The NOI also establishes a 30 -day public review period during which comments on the adequacy of the ND document may be provided to the City of Newport Beach Planning Division. Following the 30 -day public review period, the City of Newport Beach will review any comment letters received and will determine whether any substantive comments were provided that may warrant revisions to the ND document. If substantial revisions are not necessary (as defined by CEQA Guidelines §15073.5[b]), then the ND and Initial Study would be finalized and forwarded to the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council for review as part of their deliberations concerning the proposed Project. The City of Newport Beach Planning Commission has the authority to recommend or not recommend the Project for approval by the City Council. The Newport Beach City Council has the authority to approve or deny the Project. Accordingly, public hearings will be held before the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council to consider the proposed Project and the adequacy of this ND. Public comments will be heard and considered at the hearings. At the conclusion of the public hearing process, the City Council will take action to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the proposed Project. If approved, the City Council will adopt findings relative to the Project's environmental effects as disclosed in the ND and a Notice of 3191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments September 16. 2016 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 1-3 25-15 Declaration 1.0 Introduction Determination (NOD) will be filed with the Orange County Clerk. If the Project is approved by the City Council, the Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) amendment would then be considered by the California Coastal Commission. 4191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach September 16. 2016 Page 1-4 25-16 Declaration 2.0 Environmental Setting 2.1 Project Location 2.0 Environmental Setti As shown on Figure 2-1, Regional Location Map, and Figure 2-2, Vicinity Map, the proposed Project Site is located within the southwestern portion of the City of Newport Beach, in the Mariners Mile commercial district. Newport Bay is located approximately 650 feet to the southwest. Specifically, the subject property is bounded by Avon Street to the north, Mariners Center to the south and west, and Riverside Avenue to the east. The current addresses of the proposed Project Site are 149 and 191 Riverside Avenue, Newport Beach, California 92660. The assessor's parcel numbers (APNs) are 049-110-17 and 049-110-27 and is located in the southeast quadrant of Section 28 of Township 6 South, Range 10 West, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian. 2.2 Existing Site and Area Characteristics 2.2.1 Site Access The proposed Project Site is accessible by Riverside Avenue, a four -lane Local Road, and Avon Street, a two-lane Local Road. Riverside Avenue provides access to West Coast Highway (State Highway 1), a six -lane Major Road, located approximately 315 feet southwest of the proposed Project Site. Newport Boulevard (State Route 55) is located approximately 0.30 miles west of the proposed Project Site. 2.2.2 Existing Site Conditions Under existing conditions, the proposed Project Site is developed with an existing, one-story institutional building, currently used as a United States Post Office distribution facility. The institutional building is constructed of concrete block and has a footprint of 9,242 square feet. A surface parking lot containing 20 spaces surrounds the building to the south and west. Landscaping consists of trees and shrubs dispersed in the parking lot. The proposed Project Site's frontage at Riverside Avenue and Avon Street contains curb -adjacent sidewalks with parking meters and street lights. Figure 5-1, depicts the site's existing conditions as seen from above, while Figure 5-2 and Figure 5-3 depict views of the site. 2.2.3 Site Topography Under existing conditions, the proposed Project Site is fully developed and relatively flat exhibiting very little topographic variation. Elevations on the site range from approximately 16 to 14 feet above mean sea level (MSL). 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach September 16, 2016 Page 2-1 25-17 Negative Declaration 2.0 Environmental Setting Figure 2-1 Regional Location Map 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments September 16, 2016 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 2-2 25-18 Declaration Figure 2-2 Vicinity Map 2.0 Environmental Setti 1 COSTA REACH MMA C\ y E1 A P e rl vuar u� IRVINE ' t . ProjecA Site } a A w? 5f r' R C • t y } t�0 f � we � wr tsi i.santi, uA�,} •r �-y �dl�fft PEM qqq❑Geee � IR pR@IIT ff¢3}'T l� ' }Tl[I Pdn l Figure 2-3 Aerial Photograph 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments September 16, 2016 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 2-3 25-19 Declaration 2.0 Environmental Setti 2.2.4 Surrounding Land Uses and Development The proposed Project Site is located within a portion of the City of Newport Beach that is fully developed with a variety of residential, office, and commercial land uses. To the north, at the northwestern corner of Riverside Avenue and Avon Street, there is an existing three-story commercial office building currently occupied by a restaurant, offices, and retail sales; single - unit residences with access off of Cliff Drive are located on the bluffs above; beyond to the northeast is Cliff Drive Park and other single -unit residences. To the south and west is Mariners Center, a single -story commercial center, which is occupied with retail sales, restaurants, and personal services. To the east, across Riverside Avenue, are commercial and office buildings; beyond, to the southeast is Mariners Mile Square commercial center, which is occupied with retail sales, restaurants, and personal services. The Mariners Mile commercial corridor is located to the south along West Coast Highway (State Highway 1), which is developed with restaurants, automobile and yacht dealerships, retail sales, personal services, and marine - related retail sales and services. The Newport Heights residential community, which is predominately single -unit residences, is located on the mesa above the Mariners Mile commercial district. 2.3 Planning Context 2.3.1 On -Site General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, and Zoning Designations As shown on Figure 2-4, Existing General Plan Land Use Designations, under existing conditions the proposed Project Site is designated by the Newport Beach General Plan (hereafter, "General Plan") for "Public Facilities (PF)" land uses. The PF land use designation "...is intended to provide public facilities, including public schools, cultural institutions, government facilities, libraries, community centers, public hospitals, and public utilities" (Newport Beach 2006a). The City of Newport Beach has an adopted Coastal Land Use Plan prepared in accordance with the California Coast Act of 1976. As shown on Figure 2-5, Existing Coastal Land Use Plan Designations, the Newport Beach Coastal Land Use Plan also designates the proposed Project Site is for "Public Facilities (PF)" land uses. As stated in the Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan, the PF land use designation is intended to "...to provide public facilities, including public schools, cultural institutions, government facilities, libraries, community centers, public hospitals, and public utilities (Newport Beach, 2009). As shown on Figure 2-6, Existing Zoning Designations, under existing conditions, the proposed Project Site is zoned for "PF (Public Facilities)" (Newport Beach 2010a). The PF Zoning District "...is intended to provide for areas appropriate for public facilities, including community centers, cultural institutions, government facilities, libraries, public hospitals, public utilities, and public schools" (Newport Beach, 2010b). 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments September 16, 2016 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 2-4 25-20 Nmdm Declaration 2.0 Environmental Setting Figure 24 Existing General Plan £an§ Use Designations 13 ^ 4 + .. !q Riverside Avenue Lnd Use and Zoning Amendmen Lead Agency: City RNewport Beach FAU e mm September 16, 20 Page »s ■ Negative Declaration 2.0 Environmental Setting Figure 2-5 Existing Coastal Land Use Plan Designations p h rPi xm � i3 caQ 7L 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach September 16, 2016 Page 2-6 25-22 Negative Declaration Figure 26 Existing Zoning Designations 2.0 Environmental Se 191 Riverside Avenue Lnd Use and Zoning Amendmen September 16, 216 Lead Agency: City RNewport Beach Page 2-7 � .. w I � - ^^- :§ ©- ^ / . 2 . . a � - - � . s 4 di . - ' MU -PAM Z PF. ® 191 Riverside Avenue Lnd Use and Zoning Amendmen September 16, 216 Lead Agency: City RNewport Beach Page 2-7 Negative Declaration 2.0 Environmental Setting 2.3.2 Surrounding General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, and Zoning Designations As shown on Figure 2-4 and Figure 2-5, General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan designations surrounding the proposed Project Site are Mixed -Use Horizontal (MU -1-11), General Commercial (CG), Parks and Recreation (PR) and Single Unit Residential Detached (RS -D). As shown on Figure 2-6, Existing Zoning Designations, zoning designations surrounding the proposed Project Site are Mixed -Use Mariners Mile (MU -MM), General Commercial (CG), Parks and Recreation (PR), and Single -Unit Residential (R-1). 2.3.3 Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport According to the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for the John Wayne Airport (JWA), which is the nearest public airport to the proposed Project Site, the proposed Project Site is not located within the AELUP Notification Area for JWA, nor is the site subject to any impacts (safety or noise) due to airport operations. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not require review by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for Orange County. The proposed Project Site does, however, occur within the transitional flight path of the JWA Obstruction Imaginary Surfaces zone established pursuant to Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77, although review by the ALUC only would apply if a project is proposed that exceeds the height limits established by FAR Part 77 (OCALUC, 2008). 2.4 Existing Environmental Characteristics 2.4.1 Geology The proposed Project Site is located within the Orange County coastal plain and is underlain by Quaternary alluvial and fluvial sedimentary deposits. As with much of the Southern California region, the proposed Project Site is located in an area subject to seismic hazards, with the nearest fault (Newport -Inglewood Fault Zone) occurring approximately 0.5 mile to the southwest of the proposed Project Site. The proposed Project Site is not located in an Earthquake Fault Zone per the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Map. The proposed Project Site and the surrounding area is such to liquefaction (Newport Beach, 2006a). 2.4.2 Hydrology Under existing conditions, Storm water runoff surface flows off the site to the adjacent streets (Riverside Avenue and Avon Street), where water is collected in surface gutters and conveyed to the south. Flows are then conveyed to a catch basin where they empty into the Newport Bay. According to mapping by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the proposed Project Site is located outside of the 100 -year floodplain (Newport Beach, 2016). 2.4.3 Vegetation & Wildlife The proposed Project Site is fully developed with an existing building, a surface parking lot, sidewalks, ornamental landscaping, and hardscape. As indicated in the General Plan EIR, the Project Site is not identified as containing any sensitive biological resources and is not located within any Environmental Study Areas that have the potential to support sensitive biological resources. The Project Site therefore has no potential to contain sensitive vegetation habitats or sensitive plant or animal species (Newport Beach 2006b). 2.4.4 Historical, Archaeological, and Paleontological Resources According to General Plan EIR Figure 4.4-1, the proposed Project Site is not identified as containing any historical resources. None of the existing buildings are included on the National 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments September 16, 2016 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 2-8 25-24 Negative Declaration 2.0 Environmental Setting Register of Historic Places or on the California Register of Historical Resources, nor are they eligible for listing. As it is fully developed, the proposed Project Site is very unlikely to contain subsurface archaeological resources. The proposed Project Site also is not located within a portion of the City that is identified as having the potential to contain fossil -bearing soils or rock formations (Newport Beach 2006b). 2.4.5 Mineral Resources According to the City's General Plan EIR, which relies on mapping conducted by the California Geological Survey (CGS) for areas known as Mineral Resources Zones (MRZs), the proposed Project Site is mapped within MRZ-3. Areas mapped MRZ-3 are defined as "areas containing mineral deposits of undetermined significance" (Newport Beach 2006b). 2.4.6 Agricultural Resources The proposed Project Site is developed with urban uses and does contain agricultural uses. According to mapping conducted by the California Department of Conservation (CDC) as part of the Farmland Mapping & Monitoring Program (FMMP), the proposed Project Site is identified as containing "Urban and Built -Up Land." The proposed Project Site and surrounding areas do not contain any soils mapped by the CDC as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Local Importance. 2.4.7 Rare and Unique Resources As required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(c), "Special emphasis should be placed on resources that are rare or unique to that region and would be affected by the project." Based on the site's existing condition and developed nature, the proposed Project Site does not contain any resources that are rare or unique to the region. 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments September 16, 2016 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 2-9 25-25 Declaration 3.0 Project Description 3.0 Proiect Descri The Project evaluated by this ND is located in the City of Newport Beach, within the Mariners Mile Planning Sub -Area (Statistical Area H4) of the City's General Plan. The inland properties of the Mariners Mile Planning Sub -Area are developed predominantly for highway -oriented retail, neighborhood commercial services. A number of sites contain automobile dealerships and service facilities and neighborhood -serving commercial uses. The latter includes salons, restaurants, apparel, and other specialty shops ranging from wine stores to home furnishings stores. While single use free-standing buildings predominate, there are a significant number of multi -tenant buildings that combine a number of related or complementary uses in a single building or buildings that are connected physically or through design. The proposed Project Site consists of approximately 0.52 acres of developed land bounded by Avon Street to the north, Mariners Center to the south and west, and Riverside Avenue to the east. The proposed Project consists of applications for a General Plan Amendment and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment to change the land use category from Public Facilities (PF) to Mixed -Use Horizontal (MU -H1) and a Zoning Code Amendment (CA2016-005) to change the zoning from Public Facilities (PF) to Mixed -Use Mariners Mile (MU -MM). No demolition or new construction is proposed at this time. The Newport Beach City Council will consider the following actions requested by the Project Applicant. In advance of the City Council's consideration, advisory recommendations regarding the actions listed below will be considered by the City's Planning Commission. 1. General Plan Amendment No. GP2016-002; 2. Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2016-002; and 3. Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2016-005. Each of the proposed actions is described in more detail below. If the Project is approved by the City Council, the land use amendment would then be considered by the California Coastal Commission. 3.1 Proposed Discretionary Approvals 3.1.1 General Plan Amendment No. GP2016-002 The City of Newport Beach General Plan assigns land uses to all areas of the City. Under existing conditions, the General Plan designates the proposed Project Site for "Public Facilities Institutions (PF)" land uses. Proposed General Plan Amendment No. GP2016-002 would change the designation of the proposed Project Site from "Public Facilities (PF)" to "Mixed -Use Horizontal (MU -1-11)". As stated in the General Plan. The MU -H1 land use designation "...provides for a horizontal intermixing of uses". More specifically applicable to the proposed Project Site, the MU -H1 land use designation provides that "...portions of properties to the rear of the commercial frontage may be developed for free-standing neighborhood -serving retail, multi -family residential units, or mixed-use buildings that integrate residential with retail uses on the ground floor in accordance with the CN, RM, CV, or MU -V designations respectively" (Newport Beach, 2006a). 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments September 16, 2016 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 3-1 25-26 Declaration 3.0 Proiect Descri 3.1.2 Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2016-002 The City of Newport Beach has an adopted Coastal Land Use Plan, prepared in accordance with the California Coastal Act of 1976. Under existing conditions, the Newport Beach Coastal Land Use Plan designates the proposed Project Site for "Public Facilities Institutions (PF)" land uses. Proposed Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2016-002 would change the designation of the proposed Project Site from "Public Facilities (PF)" to "Mixed -Use Horizontal (MU -H)". As stated in the Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan, the MU -H land use designation is intended to "...provide for the development of areas for a horizontally distributed mix of uses, which may include general or neighborhood commercial, commercial offices, multi -family residential, visitor -serving and marine -related uses, and/or buildings that vertically integrate residential with commercial uses" (Newport Beach, 2009). 3.1.3 Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2016-005 The City of Newport Beach Zoning Code is contained as Title 20 "Planning and Zoning" of the City's Municipal Code. Under existing conditions, the proposed Project Site is zoned for "PF (Public Facilities)." The PF Zoning District "...is intended to provide for areas appropriate for public facilities, including community centers, cultural institutions, government facilities, libraries, public hospitals, public utilities, and public schools." Proposed Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2016-005 would change the zoning to the Mixed -Use Mariners Mile (MU -MM) Zoning District. According to City Municipal Code Section 20.22.010.13, the MU -MM Zoning District "...applies to properties located on the inland side of Coast Highway in the Mariners' Mile Corridor. Properties fronting on Coast Highway may be developed for nonresidential uses only. Properties to the rear of the commercial frontage may be developed for freestanding nonresidential uses, multi -unit residential dwelling units, or mixed-use structures that integrate residential above the ground floor with nonresidential uses on the ground floor."' 3.1.4 Development Potential Although no demolition or new construction is proposed at this time, the proposed Project would allow land uses and property development that are not allowed under the current land use and zoning designations. Under the current PF (Public Facilities) Zoning, land uses are limited to public facilities, such as community centers, cultural institutions, government facilities, libraries, public hospitals, public utilities, and public schools. All land uses, with the exception of minor utilities, require either a conditional use permit or a minor use permit. Floor area, height, and parking standards are established also by conditional use permits. The proposed MU -MM (Mixed -Use Mariners Mile), Zoning would allow retail and service uses. Some uses, such as commercial recreation and entertainment, eating and drinking establishments, and vehicle sales require either a minor use permit or a conditional use permit. Non-residential development would be limited to a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.50, which would result in a maximum floor area of approximately 11,326 square feet. The MU -MM designation would also allow residential uses as part of a mixed-use development. A minimum of 10 and a maximum of 13 dwelling units would be permitted. Site Development Review approval is required for any mixed-use project. Mixed-use projects are also subject to the site planning, development, and operational standards of Section 20.48.130 of the Zoning Code. A mixed-use development would have to provide a minimum FAR of 0.25 (5,663 square 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments September 16, 2016 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 3-2 25-27 Declaration 3.0 Proiect Descri feet) and the maximum FAR would be 0.50 (approximately 11,326 square feet). The maximum residential FAR would be 1.0 (22,651 square feet). 3.1.5 Approvals Required from Other Agencies Assuming that the City Council approves the Project's proposed Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2016-002, the Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment would require review and approval from the California Coastal Commission (CCC) as part of a noticed public hearing. 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach September 16, 2016 Page 3-3 25-28 ive Declaration 4.0 Project Information 1. Project Title 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments 2. Lead Agency Name and Address City of Newport Beach Community Development Department Planning Division 100 Civic Center Drive (P.O. Box 1768) Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 3. Contact Person and Phone Number Patrick Alford, Planning Manager Planning Division, (949) 644-3235 PAlfordC@newportbeachca.gov 4. Project Location 4.0 Prosect Information The proposed Project Site consists of an approximately 0.52 -acre site located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Riverside Avenue and Avon Street, within the City of Newport Beach's Mariners Mile Sub -Area (Statistical Area 1-14). The site's existing address is 191 Riverside Avenue, Newport Beach, CA 92663. Figure 2-2 and Figure 2-3 (previously presented) depict the proposed Project Site's location. 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address Mariners Center M2, LLC 2220 University Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 6. General Plan Designation The proposed Project Site is designated by the General Plan for "Public Facilities (PF)." 7. Zoning The proposed Project Site is zoned as "PF (Public Facilities) Zoning District." 8. Description of Project: Please refer to Section 4.0 for a detailed description of the proposed Project. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the Project's surroundings: As previously discussed and presented, the proposed Project Site is located within a portion of the City of Newport Beach that is fully developed with a variety of residential, office, and commercial land uses. To the north, at the northwestern corner of Riverside Avenue and Avon 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach September 16, 2016 Page 4-1 25-29 Declaration 4.0 Proiect Information Street, there is an existing three-story commercial office building currently occupied by a restaurant, offices, and retail sales; single -unit residences with access off of Cliff Drive are located on the bluffs above; beyond to the northeast is Cliff Drive Park and other single -unit residences. To the south and west is Mariners Center, a single -story commercial center, which is occupied with retail sales, restaurants, and personal services. To the east, across Riverside Avenue, are commercial and office buildings; beyond, to the southeast is Mariners Mile Square commercial center, which is occupied with retail sales, restaurants, and personal services. The Mariners Mile commercial corridor is located to the south along West Coast Highway (State Highway 1), which is developed with restaurants, automobile and yacht dealerships, retail sales, personal services, and marine -related retail sales and services. The Newport Heights residential community, which is predominately single -unit residences, is located on the mesa above the Mariners Mile commercial district. 10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement) The Project's proposed amendment to the City's Coastal Land Use Plan and subsequent issuance of a Coastal Development Permit would require discretionary review and approval by the California Coastal Commission. 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments September 16, 2016 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-2 25-30 Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis 5.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. There were no issues identified as a "Potentially Significant Impact." ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture and Forestry ❑ Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Greenhouse Gas ❑ Emissions ❑ Land Use and Planning ❑ Population and Housing ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Hydrology/ Water Quality ❑ Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Hazards & Hazardous will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or Materials ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Public Services ❑ Utilities/ Service Systems ❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Hydrology/ Water Quality ❑ Noise ❑ Recreation ❑ Mandatory Findings of will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or Significance 5.2 Determination (To Be Completed By the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or ❑ agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ❑ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact' or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has ❑ been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or ❑ mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Submitted by: Patrick Alford, Planning Manager, Planning Division (Signature) 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach 09/16/16 Date September 16, 2016 Page 5-1 25-31 Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis 5.3 City of Newport Beach Environmental Checklist Summary 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach September 16, 2016 Page 5-2 25-32 Potentially Less Than Significant with Less than No Significant Impact Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated I. AESTHETICS Would the Project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 historic buildings within a state scenic highway? C) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site ❑ ❑ 21 ❑ and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ affect day or nighttime views in the area? 11. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES Would the Project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 contract? C) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(8)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(8))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non- ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach September 16, 2016 Page 5-2 25-32 Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach September 16, 2016 Page 5-3 25-33 Potentially Less Than Significant with Less than No Significant Impact Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated III. AIR QUALITY Would the Project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ projected air quality violation? C) 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 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ D ❑ concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the Project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach September 16, 2016 Page 5-3 25-33 Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach September 16, 2016 Page 5-4 25-34 Potentially Less Than Significant with Less than No Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 migratory wildlife corridors, or impeded the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? tJ Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the Project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or ❑ ❑ D ❑ site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of ❑ ❑ D ❑ formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the Project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse ❑ ❑ Q ❑ effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ p ❑ 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach September 16, 2016 Page 5-4 25-34 Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach September 16, 2016 Page 5-5 25-35 Potentially Less Than Significant with Less than No Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact iii) Seismic -related ground failure, ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ D b) Result in substantial soil erosion or ❑ ❑ ❑ the loss of topsoil? C) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- ❑ ❑ D ❑ or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), ❑ ❑ D ❑ creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Would the Project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a ❑ ❑ D ❑ significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the Project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through ❑ ❑ Q ❑ routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach September 16, 2016 Page 5-5 25-35 Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach September 16, 2016 Page 5-6 25-36 Potentially Less Than Significant with Less than No Significant Impact Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated C) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, ❑ ❑ ❑ D or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites which complied pursuant to Government Code ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the Project: a) Violate any water quality standards ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach September 16, 2016 Page 5-6 25-36 Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach September 16, 2016 Page 5-7 25-37 Potentially Less Than Significant with Less than No Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact G) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a ❑ ❑ Q ❑ manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on - or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of a course of a stream or river, or ❑ ❑ Q ❑ substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater ❑ ❑ Q ❑ drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade ❑ ❑ Q ❑ water quality? g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or ❑ ❑ ❑ Q Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would ❑ ❑ ❑ Q impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including ❑ ❑ Q ❑ flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or ❑ ❑ Q ❑ mudflow? X. LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the Project: a) Physically divide an established ❑ ❑ ❑ Q community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local ❑ ❑ Q ❑ coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach September 16, 2016 Page 5-7 25-37 Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis C) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? XI. MINERAL RESOURCES Would the Project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 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? XII. NOISE Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use 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? 0 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the Project: Potentially Less Than Significant with Less than No Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ D 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach ❑ I ❑ I ❑ 1 0 ❑ I ❑ I ❑ 1 0 ❑ 1 ❑ 1 0 1 ❑ ❑ I ❑ 1 0 1 ❑ ❑ 1 ❑ 1 0 I ❑ ❑ I ❑ I 0 I ❑ ❑ 1 ❑ 1 ❑ 1 0 ❑ I ❑ I ❑ 1 0 September 16, 2016 Page 5-8 25-38 Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach September 16, 2016 Page 5-9 25-39 Potentially Less Than Significant with Less than No Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 construction of replacement housing elsewhere? C) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government 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: Fire protection? ❑ ❑ p ❑ Police protection? ❑ ❑ p ❑ Schools? ❑ ❑ p ❑ Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ p ❑ XV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of or expansion of ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Would the Project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ mass transit and non -motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach September 16, 2016 Page 5-9 25-39 Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach September 16, 2016 Page 5-10 25-40 Potentially Less Than Significant with Less than No Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standard and travel demand ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? C) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) ❑ ❑ D ❑ or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency ❑ ❑ Q ❑ access? t) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities? XVII. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the Project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of ❑ ❑ Q ❑ existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? C) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, ❑ ❑ D ❑ or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach September 16, 2016 Page 5-10 25-40 Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach September 16, 2016 Page 5-11 25-41 Potentially Less Than Significant with Less than No Significant Impact Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? 1J Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulation related ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 to solid waste? XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major period of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a ❑ ❑ Q ❑ project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) C) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach September 16, 2016 Page 5-11 25-41 Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis 5.4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 5.4.1 Aesthetics Discussion Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less -than -Significant Impact. The proposed project would not affect a scenic vista. Figure 5- 4 (Designated Public View Points) identifies the existing public view points and coastal view roads identified in the General Plan. The segment of West Coast Highway from the Newport Boulevard Bridge to Bay Shores is identified as a coastal view road; however, this segment is so designated for the intermittent views of Newport Bay. As the proposed Project Site is located on the inland side, the views of the Newport Bay from this segment of West Coast Highway will not be impacted. Cliff Drive Park and Ensign View Park are located on the bluffs above the proposed Project Site. These parks provide views of Newport Bay, the Pacific Ocean and Santa Catalina Island. As shown in Photos 1-4 of Figure 5-6, the proposed Project Site is visible from several areas in Cliff Drive Park and Ensign View Park. However, the building on the proposed Project Site, as well as those nearby, is not tall enough to block views of the water. Furthermore, any future development on the proposed Project Site would have to conform to the 26-foot/31-foot Height Limit Area and 35 -foot Shoreline Height Limit Zone. Since any future development would be restricted to these height limits, there would Be no substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista; impacts would be less than significant. There are also public view points across Newport Bay at the end of Central Avenue and on the Lido Isle Bridge. However, as shown in Photos 6-7 of Figure 5-6, the proposed Project Site is not visible from these viewpoints due to intervening development. 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments September 16, 2016 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-12 25-42 Potentially Less Than Significant with Less than No Would the Project: Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and ❑ ❑ ❑ D historic buildings within a state scenic highway? C) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ affect day or nighttime views in the area? Discussion Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less -than -Significant Impact. The proposed project would not affect a scenic vista. Figure 5- 4 (Designated Public View Points) identifies the existing public view points and coastal view roads identified in the General Plan. The segment of West Coast Highway from the Newport Boulevard Bridge to Bay Shores is identified as a coastal view road; however, this segment is so designated for the intermittent views of Newport Bay. As the proposed Project Site is located on the inland side, the views of the Newport Bay from this segment of West Coast Highway will not be impacted. Cliff Drive Park and Ensign View Park are located on the bluffs above the proposed Project Site. These parks provide views of Newport Bay, the Pacific Ocean and Santa Catalina Island. As shown in Photos 1-4 of Figure 5-6, the proposed Project Site is visible from several areas in Cliff Drive Park and Ensign View Park. However, the building on the proposed Project Site, as well as those nearby, is not tall enough to block views of the water. Furthermore, any future development on the proposed Project Site would have to conform to the 26-foot/31-foot Height Limit Area and 35 -foot Shoreline Height Limit Zone. Since any future development would be restricted to these height limits, there would Be no substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista; impacts would be less than significant. There are also public view points across Newport Bay at the end of Central Avenue and on the Lido Isle Bridge. However, as shown in Photos 6-7 of Figure 5-6, the proposed Project Site is not visible from these viewpoints due to intervening development. 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments September 16, 2016 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-12 25-42 Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis Figure 5-1 Aerial and Site Photos Key Map Figure 5-2 Site Photos 1-2 Photo 1 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Photo 2 September 16, 2016 Page 5-13 25-43 Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis Figure 5-3 Site Photos 3 through 8 Photo 3 Photo 4 Photo 5 Photo 6 Photo 7 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach norm- A Photo 8 September 16, 2016 Page 5-14 25-44 Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis Figure 5-4 Designated Public View Points 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments September 16, 2016 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-15 25-45 Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis Figure 5-7 Photos 3 through 5 Photo 3 Photo 4 Photo 5 Photo 7 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Photo 6 September 16, 2016 Page 5-17 25-47 Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings along a scenic highway? No Impact. There are no designated scenic highways in the vicinity of the proposed project (CalTrans, 2009). The segment of West Coast Highway from the Newport Boulevard Bridge to Bay Shores is identified as a coastal view road; however, this segment is so designated for the intermittent views of Newport Bay. As the proposed Project Site is located on the inland side, the views of the Newport Bay from this segment of West Coast Highway will not be impacted. Furthermore, the proposed Project Site does not consist of any rock outcroppings that are of significant visual quality or historic buildings on site. Therefore, the proposed project would not damage a scenic resource along a scenic highway and no impacts would occur. c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Less -than -Significant Impact. Photos in Figure 5-2 and Figure 5-3 show development in the immediate area. The proposed Project would not affect the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings because the proposed project is located in a developed commercial area and would not damage any scenic resources. The proposed Project Site is located in an area that is primarily developed with commercial buildings zoned for mixed-use development. The proposed Project Site does not provide scenic qualities. The proposed Project would include land use changes to either commercial or mixed-use development, which would be aesthetically consistent with the surrounding commercial per the Zoning Code and the Mariners Mile Design Framework. These land use changes and subsequent future development of the Project Site also would be consistent with the General Plan Land Use Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan designations for the surrounding properties; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area? Less -than -Significant Impact. As mentioned in Response 5.4.1 (c) above, the proposed Project is located in an area that is primarily developed with commercial buildings. Any lighting associated with the subsequent future development would not add significant amounts of lighting to the proposed Project area. All lighting would be developed in accordance to Zoning Code Section 20.30.070 (Outdoor Lighting), which requires all outdoor lighting fixtures to be designed, shielded, aimed, located, and maintained to shield adjacent properties and to not produce glare onto adjacent properties or roadways; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments September 16, 2016 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-18 25-48 Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis 5.4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources Discussion Would the project: a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. The proposed Project would not convert any farmland to a non-agricultural use. The proposed Project Site is not designated as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Local Importance (California Department of Conservation, 2012). The proposed Project Site and the surrounding land are identified as "urban and built-up land" by the California Department of Conservation's Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Furthermore, the proposed Project Site is located in a developed urban setting with no agricultural uses on or surrounding the site; therefore, no impacts would occur. 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach September 16, 2016 Page 5-19 25-49 Potentially Less Than Significant with Less than No Would the Project: Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 contract? C) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non- ❑ ❑ ❑ Q forest use e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? Discussion Would the project: a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. The proposed Project would not convert any farmland to a non-agricultural use. The proposed Project Site is not designated as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Local Importance (California Department of Conservation, 2012). The proposed Project Site and the surrounding land are identified as "urban and built-up land" by the California Department of Conservation's Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Furthermore, the proposed Project Site is located in a developed urban setting with no agricultural uses on or surrounding the site; therefore, no impacts would occur. 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach September 16, 2016 Page 5-19 25-49 Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or conflict with a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The proposed Project would not conflict with existing zoning or agricultural use. The proposed Project Site is currently zoned PF (Public Facilities), which does not allow agricultural uses. The Williamson Act applies to parcels consisting of least 20 acres of Prime Farmland or at least 40 acres of farmland not designated as Prime Farmland. The proposed Project Site is not located in a Prime Farmland designation, nor does it consist of more than 40 acres of farmland. Therefore, the site is not eligible to be placed under a Williamson Act Contract, and no impacts would occur. c. Involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? No Impact. The proposed Project would not result in the conversion of farmland to non- agricultural use. The proposed Project Site is not currently used for agriculture. The proposed Project Site is not located near or adjacent to any areas that are actively farmed. Therefore, the proposed Project would not disrupt or damage the operation or productivity of any areas designated as farmland, and no farmland could be affected by the proposed land use changes. No impacts would occur. 5.4.3 Air Quality 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach September 16, 2016 Page 5-20 25-50 Potentially Less Than Significant with Less than No Would the Project: Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air ❑ ❑ ❑ D quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or ❑ ❑ D ❑ projected air quality violation? c) 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 ❑ ❑ D ❑ ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ D ❑ concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ a substantial number of people? 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach September 16, 2016 Page 5-20 25-50 Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis Discussion Would the project: a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. The proposed Project Site is located in the South Coast Air Basin (Basin). The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is required, pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act, to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants for which the Basin is in nonattainment (i.e., ozone [03], and particulate matter equal to or less than 10 and less than 2.5 microns in diameter [PM10 and PM2.5, respectively]). As such, the Project would be subject to the SCAQMD's 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The AQMP contains a comprehensive list of pollution control strategies directed at reducing emissions and achieving ambient air quality standards. These strategies are developed, in part, based on regional population, housing, and employment projections prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). SCAG is the regional planning agency for Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Imperial Counties and addresses regional issues relating to transportation, economy, community development, and environment. With regard to air quality planning, SCAG has prepared the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP), which includes Growth Management and Regional Mobility chapters that form the basis for the land use and transportation control portions of the AQMP. These documents are used in the preparation of the air quality forecasts and consistency analysis included in the AQMP. Both the RCP and AQMP are based, in part, on projections originating with County and City General Plans. Emissions generated by subsequent construction and operation would not exceed thresholds as described in the analysis below in 5.4.3 (b) and 5.4.3 (c). The thresholds in 5.4.3 (b) and 5.4.3 (c) are based on the AQMP and are designed to bring the Basin into attainment for the criteria pollutants for which it is in nonattainment. Therefore, because the proposed project does not exceed any of the thresholds it will not conflict with SCAQMD's goal of bringing the Basin into attainment for all criteria pollutants and, as such, is consistent with the AQMP. Impacts would not occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less -than -Significant Impact. As discussed in Response 543 (a), the proposed Project Site is located in the Basin. State and federal air quality standards often are exceeded in many parts of the Basin. The proposed project involves amendments to the land use plans, which would not in themselves result in any construction or operational impacts. However, the proposed land use and zoning changes could result in the future construction of up to 11,326 square -feet for commercial floor area and 13 dwelling units. Subsequent construction activities are estimated to extend over a period of approximately twelve months. For the purpose of estimating emissions associated with the construction activities, a project time frame of January 2, 2017, through December 11, 2017 was assumed. Emissions were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CaIEEMod) Version 2013.2.2. As shown in Table 5-1 and Table 5-2 below, all criteria pollutant emissions would remain well below their respective SCAQMD daily significance thresholds; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments September 16, 2016 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-21 25-51 Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis Table 5-1 Overall Construction Emissions Activity NOx SOx PM,o PMs.s Maximum Daily 0.5255 2.3436 1.8438 2.8300 0.1814 0.1541 Emissions lbs/day SCAQMD Regional Emissions Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 lbs/day Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No ROG = reactive organic gas. NOX = oxides of nitrogen. CO = carbon monoxide. SOX = sulfur oxides. PM10 = particulate matter equal to or less than 10 microns in diameter. PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter. Table 5-2 Overall Operational Emissions Activity IROG NOx CO SOx PM,o PMz.s Maximum Daily 0.1531 2.7100 0.2192 1.4000 0.0131 0.0131 Emissions lbs/da SCAQMD Regional Emissions Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 (lbs/day) Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No ROG = reactive organic gas. NOX = oxides of nitrogen. CO = carbon monoxide. SOX = sulfur oxides. PM10 = particulate matter equal to or less than 10 microns in diameter. PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter. c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is a nonattainment area for an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Less -than -Significant Impact. SCAQMD's approach for assessing cumulative impacts is based on the AQMP forecasts of attainment of ambient air quality standards in accordance with the requirements of the Federal and State Clean Air Acts. As discussed earlier in Response 5.4.3 (a), the proposed project would be consistent with the AQMP, which is intended to bring the Basin into attainment for all criteria pollutants.2 In addition, the mass regional emissions calculated for the proposed project (Forecast of Regional Construction Emissions and Forecast of Regional Operational Emissions) are less than the applicable SCAQMD daily significance thresholds that are designed to assist the region in attaining the applicable state and national ambient air quality standards. The regional daily significance thresholds take into account other activity occurring in the region, and therefore, inherently address a project's contribution to cumulative air quality impacts. As such, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less -than -Significant Impact. As described in Response 5.4.3 (b) above, construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in any substantial localized or regional air 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments September 16, 2016 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-22 25-52 Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis pollution impacts and therefore would not expose any nearby sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Any subsequent development would not likely result in any land uses typically associated with emitting objectionable odors. Land uses generally associated with odor complaints include agricultural uses (livestock and farming), wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting operations, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding facilities, none of which are permitted under the proposed MU -MM Zoning District. The potential for odor sources associated with construction resulting from the proposed Project, which would be limited to construction equipment exhaust and the application of asphalt and architectural coatings during construction activities. Construction -related odors would be temporary and intermittent in nature and would cease upon completion of the respective phases of construction activity. These odors are common in urban and suburban areas and are generally not objectionable to a large majority of the population. Additionally, mandatory compliance with SCAQMD Rules would limit odor emissions from construction vehicles. For these reasons, temporary and intermittent construction -related odors would be less than significant. 5.4.4 Biological Resources 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach September 16, 2016 Page 5-23 25-53 Potentially Less Than Significant with Less than No Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Would the Project: Impact Incorporated Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 migratory fish or wildlife species or 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach September 16, 2016 Page 5-23 25-53 Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis Discussion Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special -status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. The proposed Project would not modify or have an adverse effect on existing habitat. The proposed Project Site is fully developed with an existing, one-story institutional building and a surface parking lot and is located in a fully urbanized setting. The General Plan and the Coastal Land Use Plan identify Environmental Study Areas (ESA) that provide an overview of known and potential biological resources. Figure NR2 of the General Plan Natural Resources Element and Map 4-1 of the Coastal Land Use Plan show that the proposed Project Site is not located in an ESA (Newport Beach 2006a, 2009a). The proposed Project Site is void of any native vegetation or wildlife habitat; therefore, the proposed Project would not modify habitat or adversely affect sensitive biological resources, and no impacts would occur. b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. The proposed Project would not have an adverse effect on any riparian habitat. According to Map 4-1 of the Coastal Land Use Plan and Figure NR2 of the General Plan Natural Resources Element, the proposed Project Site is not located in an ESA (Newport Beach 2006a, 2009a). The proposed Project Site is fully developed and void of any riparian habitat or other natural communities. Therefore, the proposed project would not accommodate riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community, and no impacts would occur. c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marshes, vernal pools, coastal wetlands, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments September 16, 2016 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-24 25-54 Potentially Less Than Significant with Less than No Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Would the Project: Impact Incorporated Impact with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impeded the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological Q resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 1J Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Discussion Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special -status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. The proposed Project would not modify or have an adverse effect on existing habitat. The proposed Project Site is fully developed with an existing, one-story institutional building and a surface parking lot and is located in a fully urbanized setting. The General Plan and the Coastal Land Use Plan identify Environmental Study Areas (ESA) that provide an overview of known and potential biological resources. Figure NR2 of the General Plan Natural Resources Element and Map 4-1 of the Coastal Land Use Plan show that the proposed Project Site is not located in an ESA (Newport Beach 2006a, 2009a). The proposed Project Site is void of any native vegetation or wildlife habitat; therefore, the proposed Project would not modify habitat or adversely affect sensitive biological resources, and no impacts would occur. b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. The proposed Project would not have an adverse effect on any riparian habitat. According to Map 4-1 of the Coastal Land Use Plan and Figure NR2 of the General Plan Natural Resources Element, the proposed Project Site is not located in an ESA (Newport Beach 2006a, 2009a). The proposed Project Site is fully developed and void of any riparian habitat or other natural communities. Therefore, the proposed project would not accommodate riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community, and no impacts would occur. c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marshes, vernal pools, coastal wetlands, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments September 16, 2016 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-24 25-54 Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis No Impact. The proposed Project Site is fully developed and does not have federal wetlands present on site nor are there wetlands in the general vicinity of the proposed Project Site. Furthermore, the proposed Project Site is completely lacking any jurisdictional waters; therefore, no impacts would occur. d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No Impact. The proposed Project would not interfere with the movement of fish or wildlife. The proposed Project Site is located in fully urbanized setting and is not connected to other undeveloped lands. According to Figures NR1 and NR2 of the City of Newport Beach General Plan Natural Resources Element, the proposed Project Site is not identified as a biological resources area or located in an ESA and is not connected to any wildlife corridors (Newport Beach 2006a). Therefore, the proposed Project Site does not act as a wildlife corridor that would facilitate movement of wildlife species. It does not support daily movement of species from breeding, roosting, and nesting sites nor does it provide stopover habitat for migratory bird species; therefore, no impacts would occur. e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact. The proposed Project Site does not contain any biological resources that are protected by local policies. The proposed Project Site has several ornamental trees. According to the City of Newport Beach General Plan Natural Resources Element, the proposed Project Site is not located in an area where sensitive and rare terrestrial and marine resources occur (Newport Beach 2006a). Furthermore, according to the County of Orange General Plan Resources Element, the proposed Project Site is not located within the boundaries of the Orange County Natural Communities Conservation Plan (County of Orange 2005). For additional details regarding local policies or ordinances, refer to Section IX, Land Use and Planning. The project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources; therefore, no impacts would occur. f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. The City of Newport Beach is a signatory to a Natural Resource Community Conservation Plan agreement. However, per Figure VI -5 of the Resources Element of the Orange County General Plan, the proposed Project Site is not located within a designated Natural Communities Conservation Plan area (Newport Beach, 2006a, County of Orange, 2005).. Therefore, it not subject to the provisions of any local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan or Natural Communities Conservation Plan area and no impacts would occur. 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments September 16, 2016 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-25 25-55 Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis 5.4.5 Cultural Resources Discussion Would the project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? No Impact. According to the City of Newport Beach General Plan Historical Resources Element, the proposed Project Site does not have any structures listed on local, state, or federal historic resource lists or structures that are eligible for such lists. There are no such historical structures adjacent to or in the general vicinity of the proposed Project Site. Furthermore, according to HR1 in the General Plan Historic Resources Element and Map 4-4 in the Coastal Land Use Plan there are no historical resources or structures located onsite or within the general vicinity of the proposed Project Site (Newport Beach 2006a, 2009); therefore, no impacts would occur. b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? Less -than -Significant Impact. The proposed Project Site is located in an urbanized area and is currently developed. Ground disturbances from the previous development in the last century likely would have uncovered or inadvertently destroyed any unknown archeological resources. No known recorded archeological resources are located in the proposed Project Site. The proposed project would involve minimal surface soil disturbance and grading. Therefore, it is highly unlikely the proposed project would disturb any unknown archaeological resources, and impacts would be less than significant. c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less -than -Significant Impact. As discussed above in 5.4.5 (b), the proposed Project Site is currently developed. There are no unique geological features currently on site. Ground 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments September 16, 2016 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-26 25-56 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the Project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? C) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or ❑ ❑ D ❑ site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of ❑ ❑ D ❑ formal cemeteries? Discussion Would the project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? No Impact. According to the City of Newport Beach General Plan Historical Resources Element, the proposed Project Site does not have any structures listed on local, state, or federal historic resource lists or structures that are eligible for such lists. There are no such historical structures adjacent to or in the general vicinity of the proposed Project Site. Furthermore, according to HR1 in the General Plan Historic Resources Element and Map 4-4 in the Coastal Land Use Plan there are no historical resources or structures located onsite or within the general vicinity of the proposed Project Site (Newport Beach 2006a, 2009); therefore, no impacts would occur. b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? Less -than -Significant Impact. The proposed Project Site is located in an urbanized area and is currently developed. Ground disturbances from the previous development in the last century likely would have uncovered or inadvertently destroyed any unknown archeological resources. No known recorded archeological resources are located in the proposed Project Site. The proposed project would involve minimal surface soil disturbance and grading. Therefore, it is highly unlikely the proposed project would disturb any unknown archaeological resources, and impacts would be less than significant. c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less -than -Significant Impact. As discussed above in 5.4.5 (b), the proposed Project Site is currently developed. There are no unique geological features currently on site. Ground 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments September 16, 2016 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-26 25-56 Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis disturbances from previous development likely would have either uncovered or inadvertently destroyed any unknown buried paleontological resources. Furthermore, the proposed Project Site is not listed as an area that has yielded archaeological and paleontological resources (Newport Beach 2006a). Any subsequent development resulting from the proposed Project would involve minimal surface soil disturbance and grading. Therefore, it is highly unlikely the proposed Project would disturb any unknown paleontological resources, and impacts would be less than significant. d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less -than -Significant Impact. The proposed Project Site is not a formal cemetery and it is not adjacent to a formal cemetery. The proposed Project Site is not known to contain human remains interred outside formal cemeteries. The proposed Project Site is not known to be located on a burial ground. The proposed Project Site is currently developed and has been disturbed in the past. Any subsequent development resulting from the proposed Project would likely involve grading and shallow soil disturbance. Discovery of human remains is governed by state law, which requires stopping work and reporting to authorities. Disturbance of human remains, including those of Native Americans, is possible. Should human remains be uncovered during construction, as specified by State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, no further disturbance will occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code 5097.98. If such a discovery occurs, excavation or construction will halt in the area of the discovery, the area will be protected, and consultation and treatment will occur as prescribed by law. If the Coroner recognizes the remains to be Native American, he or she will contact the Native American Heritage Commission, who will appoint the Most Likely Descendent (MLD). Additionally, if the bones are determined to be Native American, a plan will be developed regarding the treatment of human remains and associated burial objects, and the plan will be implemented under the direction of the MLD. 5.4.6 Geology and Soils 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach September 16, 2016 Page 5-27 25-57 Potentially Less Than Significant with Less than No Would the Project: Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ shaking? 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach September 16, 2016 Page 5-27 25-57 Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis Discussion Would the project: Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: a1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. No Impact. There are no Alquist-Priolo zones in the City of Newport Beach; therefore, no impacts would occur (Newport Beach, 2006b). Fault rupture impacts generally occur near the fault line where the fault shears or slips and the ground is offset in some way; therefore, no impact would occur. a2. Strong seismic groundshaking? Less -than -Significant Impact. All of Southern California, including the City of Newport Beach, is located in a seismically active area and is subject to strong seismic groundshaking. 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 highest risks originate from the Newport -Inglewood fault zone, the Whittier fault zone, the San Joaquin Hills fault zone, and the Elysian Park fault zone, each with the potential to cause moderate to large earthquakes that 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach September 16, 2016 Page 5-28 25-58 Potentially Less Than Significant with Less than No Would the Project: Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including ❑ ❑ Q ❑ liquefaction? iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q b) Result in substantial soil erosion or ❑ ❑ Q ❑ the loss of topsoil? C) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- ❑ ❑ Q ❑ or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), ❑ ❑ Q ❑ creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal ❑ ❑ ❑ Q systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Discussion Would the project: Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: a1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. No Impact. There are no Alquist-Priolo zones in the City of Newport Beach; therefore, no impacts would occur (Newport Beach, 2006b). Fault rupture impacts generally occur near the fault line where the fault shears or slips and the ground is offset in some way; therefore, no impact would occur. a2. Strong seismic groundshaking? Less -than -Significant Impact. All of Southern California, including the City of Newport Beach, is located in a seismically active area and is subject to strong seismic groundshaking. 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 highest risks originate from the Newport -Inglewood fault zone, the Whittier fault zone, the San Joaquin Hills fault zone, and the Elysian Park fault zone, each with the potential to cause moderate to large earthquakes that 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach September 16, 2016 Page 5-28 25-58 Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis would cause ground shaking in Newport Beach and nearby communities. Policies contained in the Newport Beach General Plan (Newport Beach, 2006a) would ensure that adverse effects caused by seismic and geologic hazards such as strong seismic ground shaking are minimized. For example, Policy S4.1 requires regular update to building and fire codes to provide for seismic safety and design, and Policies S4.4 and S4.5 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 California Building Code Chapter 33 for construction of new buildings and/or structures, and specific engineering design and construction measures would be implemented to anticipate and avoid the potential for adverse impacts (Newport Beach, 2006b). All proposed demolition and building would occur in accordance with building and safety standards as specific by the City Building Division. All buildings would be constructed in compliance with the latest earthquake -resistant design available and relevant codes. All project components would be in compliance with the most up- to-date building codes and plans would be reviewed and approved by City Building Division prior to construction. Furthermore, the dwelling units would be inspected by a trained and qualified building inspector under the supervision of the Building Official prior to occupation; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. a3. Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less -than -Significant Impact. Figure 5-8 (Existing Liquefaction and Seismic Hazard Areas) identifies areas of potential liquefaction in the City of Newport Beach. The proposed Project Site is located in an area identified as having a potential for soil liquefaction when subject to a seismic event (Newport Beach 2006a). Liquefaction is a geologic process that causes ground failure and typically occurs in loose, saturated sediments primarily of sandy composition (Newport Beach 2006a). It is likely that a nearby moderate to strong earthquake would cause extensive damage to buildings and infrastructure in the area. However, compliance with the standards set forth in the current California Building Code and City policies in its General Plan Safety Element would minimize risk of injury, loss of life, and property damage caused by earthquake hazards or geologic disturbances. Specifically, Policies S4.1 through S4.6 include requiring new development to be in compliance with the most recent seismic and other geologic hazard safety standards (Newport Beach 2006b). All proposed project components would occur in accordance with building and safety standards; furthermore, the foundations would be engineered to address liquefaction potential. Therefore, impacts on people or structures as a result of seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction, are less than significant. a4. Landslides? No Impact. The proposed Project would have no impact related to landslides. Figure 5-8 (Existing Liquefaction and Seismic Hazard Areas) identifies areas with landslide potential and the proposed Project Site is not located within any area with landslide potential. The proposed Project Site is generally flat and implementation of the Project would not require slope cuts that could result in landslides; therefore, no impacts associated with landslides would occur. 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments September 16, 2016 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-29 25-59 Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Ana Figure 5-8 Existing Liquefaction and Seismic Hazard Areas 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach September 16, 2016 Page 5-30 Cl i NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN Figure S2 SEISMIC HAZARDS Legend City Boundary Arom,. ih liquefaction potential Areaswith landslide potential Fault DLselosu re Zone for real -€Mae disclosure purposes Fnull Line M ojor fautt tro ces as mapped by Mortar& 1994 Pre timed active, +�= excepi where shown otherwise based on geological sludies Souihward prolectran of active faull traces based on asubsurfoce study on the west bank of the Santa Ana River O'er Highway ",— Local Road F7 County o as :��[cr wraeet: ras�ual rpx: ocm�� '. EI1n 25-60 as � r kny, IIIA K� � � „�uallllllllllll!i � Ic � ;+i. Illlllllllrlirl I II Al� 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach September 16, 2016 Page 5-30 Cl i NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN Figure S2 SEISMIC HAZARDS Legend City Boundary Arom,. ih liquefaction potential Areaswith landslide potential Fault DLselosu re Zone for real -€Mae disclosure purposes Fnull Line M ojor fautt tro ces as mapped by Mortar& 1994 Pre timed active, +�= excepi where shown otherwise based on geological sludies Souihward prolectran of active faull traces based on asubsurfoce study on the west bank of the Santa Ana River O'er Highway ",— Local Road F7 County o as :��[cr wraeet: ras�ual rpx: ocm�� '. EI1n 25-60 Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis b. Result insubstantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less -than -Significant Impact. The proposed Project Site does not contain substantial amounts of topsoil. The proposed Project Site is currently developed and consists of mostly impermeable surfaces (building and surface parking). Small amounts of exposed on-site soils would be prone to soil erosion during the construction phase of any subsequent development. However, any such development would likely involved minimal cut and fill and therefore loss of topsoil is greatly minimized. As required by the City's Municipal Code, grading activities will obtain a grading permit from the City's Building Official (Newport Beach 2006b). Chapter 15.10 contains grading, fill, drainage, and erosion control standards that will be applied to the corresponding construction activity (Newport Beach 2006b). Any subsequent development will implement standard erosion control measures and construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) that would minimize impacts; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in an on-site or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? Less -than -Significant Impact. The proposed Project Site has been developed and is located in an area identified by the City of Newport Beach General Plan as having a potential for soil liquefaction when subjected to a seismic event. As discussed above in 5.4.6 VI (a3), it is likely that a nearby moderate to strong earthquake would cause extensive damage to buildings and infrastructure in the area. However, compliance with the standards set forth in the current California Building Code and City policies in its General Plan Safety Element (Newport Beach 2006a) would minimize risk of injury, loss of life, and property damage caused by earthquake hazards or geologic disturbances. All proposed Project components would occur in accordance with building and safety standards. Furthermore, as discussed in Response 5.4.6 VI(a4), no impacts would occur on people or structures as a result of landslide. Impacts on people or structures as a result of seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction (as discussed in Response 5.4.6 VI (a3), lateral spreading, subsidence or collapse are less than significant. d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Less -than -Significant Impact. Fine-grained soils, such as silts and clays, may contain variable amounts of expansive clay minerals. These minerals can undergo significant volumetric changes as a result of changes in moisture content. The upward pressures induced by the swelling of expansive soils can have significant harmful effects upon structures and other surface improvements (Earth Consultants International, 2003). Most of the Newport Mesa area are underlain by marine terrace deposits and young alluvial/alluvial fan sediments that are compressed primarily of granular soils (silty sand, sand, and gravel) (Earth Consultants International, 2003 and USGS, 1965). Such units are typically in the low to moderately low range for expansion potential. However, thick soil profiles developed on the older marine deposits exposed west of Newport Bay are typically clay -rich and will probably fall in the moderately expansive range. Areas underlain by beach and dune sands have very little expansion potential (Earth Consultants International 2003). Any subsequent development would likely involve a minimal amount of cut and fill. As discussed in Response 5.4.6 V(b), the proposed Project Site is primarily underlain by nonnative soil and/or artificial fill with identified alluvial sediments (USGS 1965). Typically fill is made to have low expansive potential because it is designed to support the structures which are built upon it. Therefore, it is assumed that the proposed Project Site is located in an area with low expansive soil potential. Any subsequent 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments September 16, 2016 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-31 25-61 Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis development would occur in accordance with building and safety standards, and impacts would be less than significant. e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems in areas where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems are included as part of the proposed project. The proposed Project Site would tie into the existing sewer line; therefore, no impacts would occur. 5.4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a ❑ 0 El significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the El 11 El 0 purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Discussion Would the Project: a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? The City of Newport Beach considers projects emitting 3,000 metric tons of CO2e per year or less to be a less -than -significant contribution to greenhouse gasses, thereby not requiring further analysis. As discussed earlier in Response 5.4.3 (b), the amounts of GHG emissions that would result from development and operations of the proposed project are less than the applicable screening level threshold set by the City of Newport Beach. As such, any subsequent development would be consistent with the state's goals of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020; therefore, the proposed project's contribution to cumulative climate change GHG emissions would be less than significant. b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? No Impact. The proposed Project would comply with all applicable plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions; accordingly, no impact due to a conflict with any plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions would occur. 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments September 16, 2016 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-32 25-62 Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis 5.4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Would the Project: Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Less than Significant No Impact Mitigation Incorporated Impact Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and ❑ ❑ ❑ accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? G) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, ❑ ❑ ❑ D or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites which complied pursuant to Government Code ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach September 16, 2016 Page 5-33 25-63 Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis Discussion Would the Project: a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less than Significant Impact. Any subsequent development may involve remodeling or demolition of the existing building. Asbestos -containing building materials or lead-based paint may be present. However, the City of Newport Beach requires building permit applications to include a declaration of compliance with Code of Federal Regulations Part 61 of Title 40 and AQMD Rule 1403 to ensure proper disposal of any hazardous materials, if discovered. Impacts therefore are considered less than significant. b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less -than -Significant Impact. Any subsequent development or operation resulting from the proposed Project would not result in the reasonably foreseeable upset or release of any hazardous materials. The Newport Beach Fire Department is an all risk Fire Department. This means it has the resources to respond and provide services to all types of emergencies including: fires, medical emergencies, hazardous materials problems, beach rescues, traffic accidents, high rise incidents, wildland fires, major flooding and disaster (Newport Beach 2009). Furthermore, the Fire Department enforces city, state, and federal hazardous materials regulations for Newport Beach. City regulations include Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program, Chapter 9.04 of the City's Municipal Code, and implementation of the California Accidental Release Prevention Program (Newport Beach 2006b). Elements of these programs include spill mitigation and containment and securing of hazardous materials containers to prevent spills. Compliance with these requirements is mandatory as standard permitting conditions and would minimize the potential for the accidental release or upset of hazardous materials, helping to ensure public safety. Construction equipment that would be used in any development resulting from the proposed Project has the potential to release oils, greases, solvents, and other finishing materials through accidental spills. Spill or upset of these materials would have the potential to affect surrounding land uses. However, the consequences of construction -related spills are generally reduced in comparison to other accidental spills and releases because the amount of hazardous material released during a construction -related spill is small as the volume in any single piece of construction equipment is generally less than 50 gallons. Construction -related spills of hazardous materials are not uncommon, but the enforcement of construction and demolition standards, including BMPs by appropriate local and state agencies (e.g., Newport Beach Fire Department), would minimize the potential for an accidental release of petroleum products and/or hazardous materials or explosions during construction. Federal, state, and local controls have been enacted to reduce the effects of potential hazardous materials spills. Any construction and operation resulting from the proposed Project would not create significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments September 16, 2016 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-34 25-64 Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. The proposed Project would not emit hazardous emissions or require handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. The closest school to the proposed Project Site is Horace Ensign Intermediate School, located 0.40 miles northeast of the proposed Project Site at 2000 Cliff Drive. Therefore, the proposed project would not emit hazardous emissions within one-quarter mile of a school, and no impacts would occur. d. Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites that complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No Impact. The proposed Project Site is not included on any list of hazardous materials sites that complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. (Newport Beach 2006b). Furthermore, the proposed Project Site is not identified in any of the California hazardous materials databases. A search of 191 Riverside Avenue in the California Environmental Protection Agency (CaIEPA) Cortese List as a Department of Toxic Substances and Control Hazardous Waste site did not yield any results, and the proposed Project Site address is not in the EnviroStor database of hazardous substances release sites (CaIEPA 2009a, 2009b). Geotracker, the California database of leaking underground storage tanks, does not report any leaking underground storage tanks at the proposed Project Site or in the vicinity of the proposed Project Site (Geotracker 2009). Finally, there are no active Cease and Desist Orders or Clean Up and Abatement Orders for hazardous materials/facilities in the Project vicinity or at the proposed Project Site (CaIEPA 2009c). Therefore, the proposed Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment, and no impacts would occur. e. For a project within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The closest airport is John Wayne Airport, which is approximately 3.7 miles northeast of the proposed Project Site. The proposed Project Site is not located within the boundaries of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport. Furthermore, according to the City of Newport Beach General Plan Safety Element (Newport Beach, 2006a), the proposed Project Site is not located in the John Wayne Airport Accident Potential Zone. Therefore, no impacts would occur. f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. As described above in 5.4.8 (e) the John Wayne Airport is located approximately 3.7 miles northeast of the proposed Project Site. There is no private airstrip in the vicinity of the proposed Project. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing the project area; no impacts would occur, and impacts would be less than significant. 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments September 16, 2016 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-35 25-65 Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. The proposed Project would not impair or physically affect any adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan. The proposed Project would not require the closure of any public or private streets or roadways and would not impede access of emergency vehicles to the Project Site or any surrounding areas during construction or operation. In the event of any temporary closures of the private streets adequate access would be maintained for the residents and emergency vehicles. Further, the proposed Project would provide all required emergency access in accordance with the requirements of the Newport Beach Fire Department during plan review by the Fire Department. For additional information regarding the tsunami evacuation plan please refer to Section 5.4.9 Q), Hydrology and Water Quality. No impacts on emergency response would occur. h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No Impact. The proposed Project Site is not located in an area adjacent to or intermixed with wildlands. Furthermore, the City of Newport Beach General Plan Safety Element (Newport Beach, 2006b) identifies the proposed Project Site as Low/None Fire Susceptibility. Therefore, people or structures would not be exposed to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires as a result of the proposed Project. No impacts would occur. 5.4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Would the Project: Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Less than Significant No Impact Mitigation Incorporated Impact Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the El ❑ ❑ 0 production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? C) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on - or off-site? 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach September 16, 2016 Page 5-36 25-66 Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis Would the Project: Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Less than Significant No Impact Mitigation Incorporated Impact Impact d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of a course of a stream or river, or substantially increase ❑ ❑ Q ❑ the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or ❑ ❑ Q ❑ provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ quality? g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect ❑ ❑ ❑ Q flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death ❑ ❑ ❑ involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? P Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ mud flow? Discussion Would the project: a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? No Impact. The City of Newport Beach is included in four watersheds: Newport Bay, Newport Coast, Talbert, and San Diego Creek (Newport Beach 2006a). Each of these watershed areas is under the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) and subject to the objectives, water quality standards, and BMPs requirements established in the Sana Ana River Basin Plan and Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP). Under the provisions of City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 14.36 (Water Quality), any discharge that would result in or contribute to degradation of water quality via stormwater runoff is prohibited. New development or redevelopment projects are required to comply with provisions set forth in the DAMP, including the implementation of appropriate BMPs identified in the DAMP, to control stormwater runoff so as to prevent any deterioration of water quality that would impair subsequent or competing beneficial uses of water (Newport Beach 2006a). Newport Bay is designated as "water quality -limited" for four impairments under the Federal Clean Water Act's Section 303(d) List. Under Section 303(d), states, territories, and authorized tribes are required to develop lists of impaired waters, establish priority rankings for waters on the lists, and develop total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for these waters. For these water 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments September 16, 2016 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-37 25-67 Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis quality limited bodies, the SARWQCB and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have developed TMDLs for the following substances in Newport Beach: sediment, nutrients, fecal coliform, and toxic pollutants (Newport Beach 2009). Furthermore, a municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) permit is provided to the City by the SARWQCB under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) to regulate the amount of stormwater contaminants that are delivered into the City's waterways (Newport Beach 2009). MS4 permits require an aggressive water quality ordinance, specific municipal practices to maintain City facilities, and the use of BMPs in development activities to further reduce the amount of contaminants in urban runoff (City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006b). b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, resulting in a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level that would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? No Impact. The proposed Project Site is currently developed and is not considered a source for groundwater recharge (Newport Beach 2006b). The proposed Project would not increase the impervious area on the site. The proposed Project also would not directly withdraw groundwater from beneath the site. No impacts would occur. c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on site or off site? Less -than -Significant Impact. No streams or rivers are located on site, and therefore, the proposed Project would not directly affect the flow of a river or stream. Any subsequent development may involve some minor grading for construction. These activities would minimally alter the existing drainage pattern of the site. The proposed Project would not increase the impervious area on the site as the existing site fully developed with a building and pavement, save for a small 225 -square -foot landscaped area near the southeast corner of the Project Site. Therefore, impacts from erosion, either on site or off site would be less than significant. d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on site or off site? Less -than -Significant Impact. No streams or rivers are located on site, and therefore, the proposed Project would not directly affect the flow course of a river or stream. Because of the urban character of the area and the the proposed Project Site is almost fully -developed, substantial amounts of stormwater are not readily absorbed into the soil. Any subsequent development would minimally alter the existing drainage pattern of the site but would not increase the impervious area. e. Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less -than -Significant Impact. Any subsequent development would minimally alter the existing drainage pattern of the Project Site and would not increase the impervious area. 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments September 16, 2016 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-38 25-68 Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis Therefore, there would not be a substantial increase in runoff water that would exceed the capacity of the existing or planned stormwater drainage system. Therefore, increased runoff would not exceed the capacity of existing storm drain systems or generate polluted runoff. Impacts on stormwater, therefore, would be less than significant. f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less -than -Significant Impact. The proposed Project would not substantially degrade water quality. See Response 5.4.9 (e). Impacts on water quality would be less than significant. g. Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? No Impact. Figure 5-9 (Flood Hazards) identifies the flooding hazards in the City of Newport Beach. The proposed Project Site is not located in an area of a 500 -year flood or a 100 -year flood according to the City of Newport Beach General Plan (Newport Beach 2006a). Therefore, there would be no impact. h. Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact. As discussed in Section 5.4.9 (g), the proposed Project Site is not located in an area of a 100 -year flood (Newport Beach 2006a). Therefore, the proposed project would not impede or redirect 100 -year floodflows, and there would be no impacts. i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Less -than -Significant Impact. As discussed in Section 5.4.9 (g), the proposed Project Site is not flood area. Implementation of the flood protection policies contained in the General Plan and City Municipal Code would reduce impacts from flooding as a result of levee failure, and impacts would be less than significant. j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Less -than -Significant Impact. The proposed Project Site is located in a 100 -year zone for tsunami inundation at extreme high tide (City of Newport Beach 2006a). Figure 5-10 (Coastal Hazards) identifies the City of Newport Beach evacuation routes in the event of a tsunami. The City also has a tsunami contingency plan and evacuation routes in place (Newport Beach 2006a). Implementation of the land uses of the proposed Project could result in a maximum of 13 additional dwelling units within the identified tsunami inundation zone. This would not substantially increase exposure to existing hazards, or substantially affect evacuation of the Mariners Mile area in the event of a tsunami; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments September 16, 2016 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-39 25-69 Negative Declaration Figure 5-9 Flood Hazards 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Ana 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach September 16, 2016 Page 5-40 CIIYof MDIVPORiBEACH GENERAL PLAN Figure S3 FLOOD HAZARDS Legend - Yxrdath-d fb � Hrnstl N� ed by IOOI�rAocd Pr�sot 3t30 year Raod:.9>easat Ido yed' amd wihwxrq�e dtpH'rs dl�s Ywn I €aat v5dp1 lalnagear�slessfhonl b rcile; by Ie�ee frmm 100 yc>;v Wao3 �rz v� w�slal boy xne..im Hoary nanra <�rc«q case flo:.a aewtcna d21d<tvteci. 0 U45 u5 I OMIe se. €sHarrvz�rnezo=r,; moa SROJEC�NIMBBI. �0.5�901 Q]I2'. 03R]@5 4-p EIP 25-70 Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis Figure 5-10 Coastal Hazards 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach September 16, 2016 Page 5-41 CITYof NEWPORT BEACH G'ENER,NLPLAN Figure S1 COASTAL HAZARDS Legend Qaaslal Erosion Hazards _ Banc--beraf Monte y. fcamrrt'lort—t-a.. blurc "",g und. Prone to km65' ding w maw waetlrg where a nck. �^ut byw�aUe c�Fion, espeab Ily cff pai rRs. Fc� w large bbcks Si�h3one member of Mortrerey forrmlbn: very l'asiband r tolc .p,—.1aL3crmab— of ,b— ® Plesbaene m. a in° tem— depasbs: prase to knud srdkQ a brig t—p-dh {'re. ,ia hway l), —d 1. r®.n by of gond auq�+nq abnel blufftap] - Bexh and ,A— --..d my di the �aysbp gto tel bec,- - Continuo W rewo M. 9 by—ani wi rd ibn Tsunami I—d ian al E»eme W[jt Tide 1 m year Zone (Inr �fion EevaFon_1361 feet - aDyearZ.— {InlurdalionEbvdYlcrdl5? feel} 0 65 I MSv rA I'k'.MM tbxhmtl€aii hrt.4l]. TKUECY wrur AER' 3Lt5J461 Jatz� C'�.ggr05 r 25-71 Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis 5.4.10 Land Use and Planning Discussion Would the project: a. Physically divide an established community? No Impact. The proposed Project involves an amendment to the General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan and Zoning Code to change the land use category from Public Facilities (PF) to Mixed -Use Horizontal (MU -H1) and a Zoning Code Amendment (CA2016-005) to change the zoning from Public Facilities (PF) to Mixed -Use Mariners Mile (MU -MM). These amendments would be compatible with the adjacent commercial uses, all of which are designated for mixed- use development. Any subsequent development allowed under the proposed Project would not divide the existing community; therefore, no impacts would occur. b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, a general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less -than -Significant Impact. The proposed project involves amendments to the General Plan Land Use Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, and Zoning Code to change the land use and zoning categories of the proposed Project Site from institutional to mixed-use land use. This is consistent with the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan vision for the Mariners Mile Commercial District, which calls for parcels on the inland side of Coast Highway to "evolve as a pedestrian -oriented mixed-use `village' containing retail businesses, offices, services, and housing." Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in a conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect; impacts would be less than significant. 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments September 16, 2016 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-42 25-72 Potentially Less Than Significant with Less than No Would the Project: Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact a) Physically divide an established ❑ ❑ ❑ 171 community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local ❑ ❑ D ❑ coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 community conservation plan? Discussion Would the project: a. Physically divide an established community? No Impact. The proposed Project involves an amendment to the General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan and Zoning Code to change the land use category from Public Facilities (PF) to Mixed -Use Horizontal (MU -H1) and a Zoning Code Amendment (CA2016-005) to change the zoning from Public Facilities (PF) to Mixed -Use Mariners Mile (MU -MM). These amendments would be compatible with the adjacent commercial uses, all of which are designated for mixed- use development. Any subsequent development allowed under the proposed Project would not divide the existing community; therefore, no impacts would occur. b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, a general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less -than -Significant Impact. The proposed project involves amendments to the General Plan Land Use Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, and Zoning Code to change the land use and zoning categories of the proposed Project Site from institutional to mixed-use land use. This is consistent with the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan vision for the Mariners Mile Commercial District, which calls for parcels on the inland side of Coast Highway to "evolve as a pedestrian -oriented mixed-use `village' containing retail businesses, offices, services, and housing." Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in a conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect; impacts would be less than significant. 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments September 16, 2016 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-42 25-72 Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Impact. The proposed project is located in an urbanized setting, and no locally designated species or natural communities are known to exist in the project area. The site is not part of any habitat conservation plan or natural community preservation plan. No impacts would occur. 5.4.11 Mineral Resources Would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Discussion Would the project: a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact. According to the City of Newport Beach General Plan Natural Resources Element, the Mineral Resource Zones (MRZ) in the City are either classified as containing no significant mineral deposits (MRZ-1), or the significance of mineral deposits has not been determined (MRZ-3). The proposed Project Site is located in an area designated as MRZ-3 (USGS, 2015). The proposed Project Site is surrounded by land uses that are not compatible with pit mining (residential and roads), all of which would preclude it from being developed as a mine, even if there is indeed an extractable mineral resource present. Therefore, no impacts associated with the loss of a mineral resource would occur. 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. The site is not delineated in the City of Newport Beach General Plan as containing a locally important mineral resource (Newport Beach 2006a); therefore, no impacts would occur. 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments September 16, 2016 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-43 25-73 Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis 5.4.12 Noise Discussion Would the project result in: a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less -than -Significant Impact. Subsequent development of the proposed Project Site would expose sensitive receptors (i.e., schools, hospitals, residential) in the area. The nearest sensitive receptors are nearby single -unit residences in Newport Heights that would be subject to a temporary increase in noise from construction activities. However, the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code limits construction activities during specific hours. Operational noise would be regulated by the noise control ordinances of City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. Impacts would be less than significant. 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach September 16, 2016 Page 5-44 25-74 Potentially Less Than Significant with Less than No Would the Project result in: Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons toor generation of excessive ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? C) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 0 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working ❑ ❑ ❑ D in the project area to excessive noise levels? Discussion Would the project result in: a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less -than -Significant Impact. Subsequent development of the proposed Project Site would expose sensitive receptors (i.e., schools, hospitals, residential) in the area. The nearest sensitive receptors are nearby single -unit residences in Newport Heights that would be subject to a temporary increase in noise from construction activities. However, the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code limits construction activities during specific hours. Operational noise would be regulated by the noise control ordinances of City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. Impacts would be less than significant. 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach September 16, 2016 Page 5-44 25-74 Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less -than -Significant Impact. Future construction activities associated with grading and excavation may result in minor ground vibration. Construction of the project would not involve special construction methods such as pile driving or blasting. Vibration from conventional construction activity is typically below a level of human perception and well under levels that would cause damage to existing buildings, when the activity is more than approximately 50 feet from the receiver. Conventional construction activities from future development could take place at distances greater than 50 feet from sensitive receptors. c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less -than -Significant Impact. Noise associated with any subsequent development would be generated primarily by traffic. The City of Newport Beach General Plan Noise Element presents future noise conditions for roadways derived from projected traffic levels for the complete build -out of the General Plan. Primary site access is provided by Riverside Avenue, a four -lane Local Road. Riverside Avenue has a daily capacity ranging from 7,000 to 11,000 vehicles per day (VPD) with a typical daily capacity of 10,000 VPD. Currently, Riverside Avenue has a traffic count of 9,000 VPD (Newport Beach, 2006b). As described in the analysis below in 5.4.6 (a), subsequent development resulting from the proposed land use and zoning changes could generate between 233 and 313 additional average daily trips. Therefore, subsequent development would not cause Riverside Avenue to go over the anticipated capacity and it can be expected that future noise conditions will not change; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less -than -Significant Impact. As stated above, the construction of the proposed Project would result in a temporary increase in noise levels. These levels could be audible at the closest sensitive receptors. However, the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code limits construction activities during specific hours; therefore, impacts from construction would be less than significant. e. For a project located within an airport land use land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 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? No Impact. The proposed Project Site is not located within a 2 -mile radius of an airport or within an airport land use plan. The closest airport is John Wayne Airport located approximately 3.7 miles to the northeast (OCALUC, 2008). The proposed Project Site is located outside the noise contours of the airport, but may experience some distance airplane noise; therefore, no impacts would occur. f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments September 16, 2016 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-45 25-75 Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis No Impact. The proposed Project Site is not located within the vicinity of an airstrip, private or public; therefore, no impacts would occur. 5.4.13 Population and Housing Would the Project: Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Less than Significant No Impact Mitigation Incorporated Impact Impact a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the ❑ ❑ ❑ construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Would the project: a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure? Less -than -Significant Impact. The proposed land use and zoning amendments to the City of Newport Beach General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, and Zoning Code would allow up to 13 dwelling units in a mixed-use development. This could increase the total housing units available in the City of Newport Beach from 44,166 to 44,179. This is less than 1% (approximately 0.003%) of the current total housing available (California Department of Finance 2016). There are approximately 84,000 people in the City of Newport Beach and 2.2 persons per household in the City of Newport Beach; therefore, the proposed project would increase the local population by approximately 29 people (California Department of Finance, 2016). A less than 1% 0.003%) increase in population and housing is negligible to the overall growth of the City and is not considered substantially growth inducing. In addition, the proposed Project Site is surrounded by existing commercial development and would not result in growth inducing efforts caused by the extension of utilities, roads, or other infrastructure into undeveloped area. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The proposed project would amend the existing land use and zoning designations, which could allow for the construction and operation of a mixed-use development. The proposed Project Site is currently a post office facility and does not consist of housing. Therefore, the proposed project would not displace any housing and would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere; no impacts would occur. 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments September 16, 2016 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-46 25-76 Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. As discussed in 5.4.13 (b) above, the proposed Project Site is currently developed with a post office facility and no people currently live on the proposed Project Site. Therefore, the proposed Project would not displace any housing or people, and no impacts would occur. 5.4.14 Public Services Discussion Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with: a1. Fire protection? Less -than -Significant Impact. The proposed Project Site is located in the City of Newport Beach Fire Department service area. The City of Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD) is considered an "all risk" Fire Department. This means it has the resources to respond and provide services to all types of emergencies including: fires, medical emergencies, hazardous materials problems, beach rescues, traffic accidents, high rise incidents, wildland fires, major flooding and disaster operations (Newport Beach, 2009). The proposed Project Site is served by Lido Fire Station #2, which is located at 475 32nd Street at the intersection of 32nd Street and Via Oporto, approximately 0.44 miles to the southwest of the proposed Project Site. The existing post office facility generates minimal demand on fire and emergency services. It is currently open only for post office boxes and only has one employee for half a day, six days a week. Should an emergency or fire occur at the existing post office facility, the NBFD would be first responders. As discussed above, future development could add up to 11,326 square feet of commercial floor area with a potential employee population of approximately 25 people (SCAG, 2001) and 13 dwelling units with approximately 29 people (California Department of Finance, 2016). NBFD has determined that the City's existing fire protection services are adequate to serve the potential future population of the proposed Project Site. Additionally, any subsequent development would be constructed in accordance with current Fire Codes, and would replace an older building that was constructed prior to the enactment of current standards. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. a2. Police protection? Less -than -Significant Impact. The proposed Project Site is located in the City of Newport Beach Police Department (NBPD) service area. The NBPD is located at 870 Santa Barbara Drive, approximately 2.5 miles northeast of the proposed Project Site. As discussed above, the 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments September 16, 2016 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-47 25-77 Potentially Less Than Significant with Less than No Would the Project: Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government 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? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ b) Police protection? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ c) Schools? ❑ ❑ D ❑ d) Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ D ❑ Discussion Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with: a1. Fire protection? Less -than -Significant Impact. The proposed Project Site is located in the City of Newport Beach Fire Department service area. The City of Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD) is considered an "all risk" Fire Department. This means it has the resources to respond and provide services to all types of emergencies including: fires, medical emergencies, hazardous materials problems, beach rescues, traffic accidents, high rise incidents, wildland fires, major flooding and disaster operations (Newport Beach, 2009). The proposed Project Site is served by Lido Fire Station #2, which is located at 475 32nd Street at the intersection of 32nd Street and Via Oporto, approximately 0.44 miles to the southwest of the proposed Project Site. The existing post office facility generates minimal demand on fire and emergency services. It is currently open only for post office boxes and only has one employee for half a day, six days a week. Should an emergency or fire occur at the existing post office facility, the NBFD would be first responders. As discussed above, future development could add up to 11,326 square feet of commercial floor area with a potential employee population of approximately 25 people (SCAG, 2001) and 13 dwelling units with approximately 29 people (California Department of Finance, 2016). NBFD has determined that the City's existing fire protection services are adequate to serve the potential future population of the proposed Project Site. Additionally, any subsequent development would be constructed in accordance with current Fire Codes, and would replace an older building that was constructed prior to the enactment of current standards. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. a2. Police protection? Less -than -Significant Impact. The proposed Project Site is located in the City of Newport Beach Police Department (NBPD) service area. The NBPD is located at 870 Santa Barbara Drive, approximately 2.5 miles northeast of the proposed Project Site. As discussed above, the 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments September 16, 2016 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-47 25-77 Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis existing post office facility generates minimal demand for police services. However, the NBPD has determined that the City's existing police facilities are adequate to serve the future development and population at the proposed Project Site; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. a3. Schools? Less -than -Significant Impact. School services in the City are provided by the Newport -Mesa Unified School District (NMUSD). The demand for new schools is generally associated with population increases or impacts on existing schools. Future development could increase the number of children housed at the proposed Project Site, and therefore would increase the number of students attending schools. The 2006-2008 American Community Survey indicates there are 13,249 children between the ages of 5 and 19 living in Newport Beach; therefore, approximately 16% of the City population is school age children (USCB, 2008). In the City of Newport Beach, the average household size is 2.19 and approximately 19% of the households have an individual living in the household under 18 years of age (i.e., school-age child) (California Department of Finance 2016). The proposed Project could potentially result in up to 13 households and approximately 29 people (2.19 persons per household). Therefore, based on U.S. Census data, it is reasonable to assume the proposed project would generate approximately five school-age children (18% of the 29 persons in the 13 potential households would have school-age children). Although the proposed Project may increase the number of school age children in the City by five, this would not place a significant added burden to the Newport -Mesa Unified School District; therefore impacts would be less than significant. Furthermore, any future residential development would be required to contribute school fees in accordance with Public Education Code § 17072.10-18. a4. Parks? Less -than -Significant Impact. As discussed in 5.4.14 (a3) above, the proposed Project could result in the construction of 13 dwelling units. As such, the proposed Project could increase the number of people by 29, including five children. According to the Newport Beach General Plan Recreation Element, there are two parks in the vicinity of the proposed Project Site: Cliff Drive Park and Ensign View Park (Figure 5-11 Service Area 3 Recreation and Open Space Plan). It is expected that these two parks would be able to handle the increased demand, and the project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts on parks requiring the need for new facilities in order to maintain acceptable performance standards. See Section 5.4.15 (a) and (b) Recreation for additional discussion on parks and recreation. Impacts would be less than significant. a5. Other public facilities? Less -Than -Significant Impact. Other public facilities located in the City of Newport Beach include libraries and senior centers. The City of Newport has four libraries and one senior center. The closest library and senior center to the proposed Project Site are the Mariners Branch at 1000 Irvine Avenue and OASIS Senior Center at 800 Marguerite Avenue, approximately 1.4 miles northeast and 3.6 miles east from the proposed Project Site, respectively. Subsequent development would negligibly increase the local permanent population by 29 people (see Response 5.4.14 (a1) above). Therefore, the proposed project would not result in substantial adverse impacts on other public facilities or require new facilities to maintain acceptable performance standards. Finally, library services receive funding from property tax, a 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments September 16, 2016 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-48 25-78 Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis portion of which from the tax assessment of improvements on the proposed Project Site would be dedicated to the City's Library Fund. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 5.4.15 Recreation Discussion 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? Less -than -Significant Impact. Subsequent development would not significantly affect neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. The proposed Project Site is located in Service Area 3 (Newport Heights/Upper Newport Bay), which currently supports a total of 50.2 acres of combined park area, which is below the 64.3 acres of parkland "needs" based on the City's current requirements in the Recreational Element of the General Plan. An increase in the use of parks is generally associated with an increase of housing or population in an area. A potential increase in housing as a result of the proposed Project would increase the local population by up to 29 people, based on an average of 2.19 persons per household in Newport Beach. It is not known at this time that if any residential development resulting from the proposed Project will be subdivided or offered as rentals. Pursuit to Chapter 19.52 of the Subdivision Code, only residential subdivisions are be required to pay the requisite Quimby Act fees, which are used by the City to provide new parks and/or recreation facilities. The two neighborhood parks (Cliff Drive Park and Ensign View Park) in the general vicinity of the proposed Project Site as identified by Figure 5-11 could absorb the slight demand placed on them by as much as 29 new residents. Additionally, Service Area 3 has substantial school recreation facilities, including Newport Harbor High School, Ensign Junior High, Mariners Elementary, and Newport Heights Elementary that compensate for the deficiency in total park area. Finally, the 13.67 -acre Sunset Ridge Park opened in 2014. While Sunset Ridge Park is in Service Area 1 (West Newport), it is located less than a mile from the proposed Project Site. Impacts would be less than significant. b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments September 16, 2016 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-49 25-79 Potentially Significant Impact p Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact p No Impact a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of or expansion of 0 recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Discussion 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? Less -than -Significant Impact. Subsequent development would not significantly affect neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. The proposed Project Site is located in Service Area 3 (Newport Heights/Upper Newport Bay), which currently supports a total of 50.2 acres of combined park area, which is below the 64.3 acres of parkland "needs" based on the City's current requirements in the Recreational Element of the General Plan. An increase in the use of parks is generally associated with an increase of housing or population in an area. A potential increase in housing as a result of the proposed Project would increase the local population by up to 29 people, based on an average of 2.19 persons per household in Newport Beach. It is not known at this time that if any residential development resulting from the proposed Project will be subdivided or offered as rentals. Pursuit to Chapter 19.52 of the Subdivision Code, only residential subdivisions are be required to pay the requisite Quimby Act fees, which are used by the City to provide new parks and/or recreation facilities. The two neighborhood parks (Cliff Drive Park and Ensign View Park) in the general vicinity of the proposed Project Site as identified by Figure 5-11 could absorb the slight demand placed on them by as much as 29 new residents. Additionally, Service Area 3 has substantial school recreation facilities, including Newport Harbor High School, Ensign Junior High, Mariners Elementary, and Newport Heights Elementary that compensate for the deficiency in total park area. Finally, the 13.67 -acre Sunset Ridge Park opened in 2014. While Sunset Ridge Park is in Service Area 1 (West Newport), it is located less than a mile from the proposed Project Site. Impacts would be less than significant. b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments September 16, 2016 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-49 25-79 Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis Less -than -Significant Impact. The proposed Project does not include recreational facilities or require the construction of or expansion of recreation facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Impacts would be less than significant. 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach September 16, 2016 Page 5-50 25-80 Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis Figure 5-11 Service Area 3 Recreation and Open Space Plan 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach September 16, 2016 Page 5-51 CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN Figure R5 SERVICE AREA 3 REC REATION AND OPEN SPACE PLAN Fend r'Service Area J � Public Beach Upper N&. poet Eo NcgEml Resmv�- t� CiyBaundary County a2s W ewe: ek a raym emman [�e wcm E i 25-81 Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis 5.4.16 Transportation/Traffic Discussion Would the project: a. Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non -motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments September 16, 2016 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-52 25-82 Potentially Less Than Significant with Less than No Would the Project: Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non -motorized ❑ ❑ Q ❑ travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standard and travel demand ❑ ❑ ❑ Q measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? C) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change ❑ ❑ ❑ Q in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) ❑ ❑ Q ❑ or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency ❑ ❑ Q ❑ access. f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public ❑ ❑ ❑ Q transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities? Discussion Would the project: a. Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non -motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments September 16, 2016 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-52 25-82 Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis Less -than -Significant Impact. As shown in Table 5-3, Comparison of Existing versus Proposed Daily Traffic, subsequent development would result in a net increase of 233 total daily trips if developed with commercial uses only or a net increase of 313 total daily trips if developed as a mixed-use project. Primary site access is provided by Riverside Avenue, a four - lane Local Road. Riverside Avenue has a daily capacity ranging from 7,000 to 11,000 vehicles per day (VPD) with a typical daily capacity of 10,000 VPD. Currently, Riverside Avenue has a traffic count of 9,000 VPD (XXX). Subsequent development resulting from the proposed land use and zoning changes would not cause Riverside Avenue to go over capacity. In addition, the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 15.40) requires mitigation for any traffic effects caused by new development; Section 15.40.030.0 (Exemptions) exempts projects that generate no more than 300 ADT. Impacts would be less than significant. Table 5-3 Comparison of Existing versus Proposed Daily Traffic Land Use Size Unit AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily Total Existing Post Office 9.242 1 TSF 14 5 19 7 12 19 200 Proposed Apartment 13 DU 2 6 8 5 3 7 80 General 11.33 TSF 20 9 29 17 23 40 433 Commercial TOTAL: 22 15 37 22 25 47 513 NET CHANGE (Proposed — 6 4 10 10 11 21 233 Existing) Commercial Only NET CHANGE (Proposed — 8 10 18 15 14 28 313 Existing) Mixed -Use TSF = Thousand Square Feet DU = Dwelling Unit Note: AM Peak Hour, PM Peak Hour, and Daily Total reflect the number of trips. The Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO), Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, was established by the City Council to ensure that the effects of new development projects are mitigated by developers as they occur. Specifically, the ordinance was established to provide a uniform method of analyzing and evaluating the traffic impacts of projects that generate a substantial number of average daily trips and/or trips during the morning or evening peak hour period; to identify the specific and near-term impacts of project traffic as well as circulation system improvements that will accommodate project traffic and ensure that development is phased with identified circulation system improvements; to ensure that project proponents, as conditions of approval, make or fund circulation system improvements that mitigate the specific impacts of project traffic on primary intersections at or near the time the project is ready for occupancy; and to provide a mechanism for ensuring that a project proponent's cost of complying with traffic related conditions of project approval is roughly proportional to project impacts. Section 15.40.030 (Standards for Approval — Findings — Exemptions) specifically exempts the following project types from compliance with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance: a) projects that generate three hundred (300) or fewer average daily trips; b) projects that do not increase trips by one percent or more on any leg of any primary intersection during any evening or morning peak hour; and c) any project that meets certain other criteria as specified in the Ordinance. A commercial -only project would be exempt from the TPO and mixed-use project would be required to conduct a traffic analysis to evaluate traffic impacts, identify circulation system improvements and condition the project to make or fund circulation system improvements. 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments September 16, 2016 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-53 25-83 Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis The Circulation Element of the General Plan identifies a Class II Bikeway on Riverside Avenue, which is a striped and stenciled lane for bicycle travel on a street or highway. Any subsequent development may involve relocating driveway access points; however, bicycles would continue to have access along the abutting roadway. No existing or planned mass transit facilities are located on or near the proposed Project Site or surrounding area. The nearest mass transit route is the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Route 1 on West Coast Highway. Less Than Significant Impact. b. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standard and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? No Impact. The proposed Project is not subject to the Orange County Congestion Management Plan (OCCMP). The OCCMP CMP requires that a traffic impact analysis be conducted for any project generating 2,400 or more daily trips, or 1,600 or more daily trips for projects that directly access the OCCMP highway System. The OCCMP system in Newport Beach consists of the following roadways: • MacArthur Boulevard (Jamboree Road to Coast Highway) • Jamboree Road (between city limit and MacArthur Boulevard) • Coast Highway (throughout) • Newport Boulevard (from north city limit to Coast Highway) As subsequent development resulting from the proposed Project would generate a maximum of 313 daily trips. No Impact. c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. The closest airport is John Wayne Airport (JWA), which is approximately 3.7 miles northeast of the proposed Project Site. According to the AELUP for the JWA, the proposed Project Site is not located within the Airport Planning Area, the Airport Impact Zones, the AELUP Notification Area for JWA, or the Airport Safety Zones (OCALUC, 2008, Figure 1 and Appendix D). Accordingly, and based on the AELUP, the Project would not occur in a location that results in a substantial safety risk for future Project residents. d. Substantially increase hazards because of a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less -than -Significant Impact. The proposed Project would not alter the shape of any of the adjacent roads. The City of Newport Beach Public Works Department would review and approve all driveway plans prior to any subsequent construction, and impacts would be less than significant. e. Result in inadequate emergency access? 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments September 16, 2016 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-54 25-84 Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis Less -than -Significant Impact. Any subsequent construction or operation would not affect streets or otherwise affect emergency access routes. The proposed Project would be designed to incorporate all required City of Newport Beach Fire Department standards to ensure that its implementation would not result in hazardous design features or inadequate emergency access to the site or areas surrounding the site; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? No Impact. The General Plan Circulation Element includes a number of goals and policies that support public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. However, these policies do not provide any guidance that directly applicable to the proposed Project. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, and no impact would occur. 5.4.17 Utilities and Service Systems 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach September 16, 2016 Page 5-55 25-85 Potentially Less Than Significant with Less than No Would the Project: Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, ❑ ❑ D ❑ or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity ❑ ❑ D ❑ to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? fl Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach September 16, 2016 Page 5-55 25-85 Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis Discussion Would the project: a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Less -than -Significant Impact. The proposed Project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The City of Newport Beach requires National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, as administered by the RWQCB according to Federal regulations, for both point source discharges and nonpoint source discharges to surface waters of the United States. In addition, wastewater service in the project vicinity is provided by the City of Newport Beach (Newport Beach 2006b). Wastewater from the City's sewer system is treated by the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). The majority of the City's wastewater flow is pumped to the OCSD Plant No. 2, which has a design capacity of 276 million gallons per day (mgd) and operates at under capacity (Newport Beach General 2006b). The existing post office land use currently generates wastewater and has existing sewer ties into OCSD sewer lines. Future land uses resulting from the proposed Project would increase wastewater generation above the current wastewater generation, but would not exceed the wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB and would comply with all provisions of the NPDES program and applicable wastewater discharge requirements issued by the State Water Resources Control Board as discussed in Section 5.4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality. Finally, since OCSD Plant No. 2 operates under capacity, the additional wastewater generated by the proposed project would be accommodated by OCSD. Therefore, the proposed Project would not cause any violation of standards set forth by OCSD, and impacts would be less than significant. b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less -than -Significant Impact. Water service for the proposed Project Site is provided by the City of Newport Beach. Domestic water for the City is supplied by imported water, groundwater and recycled water. No new or expanded water or wastewater treatment facilities would be required to accommodate the proposed Project. The proposed Project would connect to the existing OCSD sewer system. OCSD, as stated above, manages and oversees all wastewater in Orange County and is expected to be able to accommodate the wastewater generated by the proposed Project; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. c. Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments September 16, 2016 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-56 25-86 Potentially Less Than Significant with Less than No Would the Project: Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulation related ❑ ❑ ❑ Q to solid waste? Discussion Would the project: a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Less -than -Significant Impact. The proposed Project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The City of Newport Beach requires National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, as administered by the RWQCB according to Federal regulations, for both point source discharges and nonpoint source discharges to surface waters of the United States. In addition, wastewater service in the project vicinity is provided by the City of Newport Beach (Newport Beach 2006b). Wastewater from the City's sewer system is treated by the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). The majority of the City's wastewater flow is pumped to the OCSD Plant No. 2, which has a design capacity of 276 million gallons per day (mgd) and operates at under capacity (Newport Beach General 2006b). The existing post office land use currently generates wastewater and has existing sewer ties into OCSD sewer lines. Future land uses resulting from the proposed Project would increase wastewater generation above the current wastewater generation, but would not exceed the wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB and would comply with all provisions of the NPDES program and applicable wastewater discharge requirements issued by the State Water Resources Control Board as discussed in Section 5.4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality. Finally, since OCSD Plant No. 2 operates under capacity, the additional wastewater generated by the proposed project would be accommodated by OCSD. Therefore, the proposed Project would not cause any violation of standards set forth by OCSD, and impacts would be less than significant. b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less -than -Significant Impact. Water service for the proposed Project Site is provided by the City of Newport Beach. Domestic water for the City is supplied by imported water, groundwater and recycled water. No new or expanded water or wastewater treatment facilities would be required to accommodate the proposed Project. The proposed Project would connect to the existing OCSD sewer system. OCSD, as stated above, manages and oversees all wastewater in Orange County and is expected to be able to accommodate the wastewater generated by the proposed Project; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. c. Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments September 16, 2016 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-56 25-86 Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis Less -than -Significant Impact. The existing site is mostly impermeable to stormwater because of the impermeable surfaces on site. Any subsequent development would not increase the impervious area. Any subsequent development will implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) that would minimize impacts; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or would new or expanded entitlements be needed? Less -than -Significant Impact. Land uses resulting from the proposed Project would increase water demand over the current water use. The Urban Water Management Plan for the City identifies that the demand for water can be met; and therefore, the increase in the water demand by the proposed project would not result in a significant impact. Based on the City's evaluation and planning for reliability of water supplies and the anticipated proposed project water demand, no new or expanded entitlements would be required to serve the proposed Project Site, and impacts would be less than significant. e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that 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 Impact. See Response 5.4.17 (b) above. f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? Less -than -Significant Impact. The City of Newport Beach is under contract with Waste Management of Orange County for solid waste hauling and disposal. The Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill, located at 11002 Bee Canyon Access Road in Irvine, is the closest facility for solid waste disposal. The Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill, which is owned and operated by the Orange County Integrated Waste Management Department (IWMD), opened in 1990 and is scheduled to operate until approximately 2053. The current average disposal rate at the landfill is roughly 5,000 tons per day, and the maximum permitted disposal rate is 8,500 tons per day. The landfill's remaining capacity is approximately 200 million cubic yards or 107 million tons of solid waste. As shown in Table 5-4, Land uses resulting from the proposed project would generate an increase in solid waste production as a result of additional and more intense non-residential uses and potential dwelling units. An additional 151 pounds (0.0755 tons) per day of solid waste would be disposed of at the Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill, representing approximately 0.0009 percent of the amount of solid waste the landfill is allowed to accept daily. With the remaining capacity of approximately 107 million tons, as well as a 39 -year lifespan at the Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill, the increase in solid waste generated by the proposed development would not exceed the capacity of the landfill. No deficiencies currently exist at the Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill, as there is adequate daily surplus capacity to accept the additional solid waste generated from the proposed project. Therefore, impact will be less than significant. 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments September 16, 2016 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-57 25-87 Negative Declaration Table 5-4 Solid Waste Generation 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis Land Use Density/Intensity J Generation Rate Total Generation Existing Would the Project: Significant Mitigation Institutional 9,242 sq ft .007 lbs/sq ft/day 64.7 lbs/day Proposed Impact a) Does the project have the potential Commercial 11,326 sq ft 5 lbs/1000 sqft/day 56.6 lbs/day Residential MFR 13 DUs 12.23 lbs/unit/day 159 lbs/day Net Change in Solid Waste Generation environment, substantially reduce 150.9 lbs/day g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No Impact. Solid waste produced by the proposed project would be picked up by a commercial provider licensed by the City of Newport Beach The proposed Project would comply with all federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste, such as the California Integrated Waste Management Act and city recycling programs; therefore, no impacts would occur. 5.4.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach September 16, 2016 Page 5-58 Potentially Less Than Significant with Less than No Would the Project: Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to ❑ ❑ 0 0 eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major period of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) C) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach September 16, 2016 Page 5-58 Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis Discussion a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No Impact. The proposed Project Site is urban in character and does not contain biological resources that would be affected by subsequent development. Additionally, no cultural resources, either historic or prehistoric, are expected to be affected by any future construction or operation of the project; therefore, no impact would occur. b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) In order to evaluate the proposed Project's potential to result in cumulatively significant impacts, the City of Newport Beach Planning Division compiled a list of other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. The list of cumulative projects, along with a description of the proposed land uses, location of the projects, a description of the status of each project, and a list of discretionary actions associated with each, is provided in Appendix A. A total of 31 past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects were identified within the City. A discussion and analysis of the proposed Project's potential to result in cumulatively considerable effects to the various issue areas identified in this ND is provided below. Aesthetics Based on the list of projects included in Appendix A, no cumulative development projects are located within the Project's viewshed. Therefore, the proposed Project has no potential to contribute to cumulatively significant impacts. Agriculture and Forestry Resources As indicated in the discussion and analysis of Agriculture and Forestry Resources in Section 5.4.2, the proposed Project would have no impact on agricultural or forestry resources; accordingly, the proposed Project has no potential to contribute to cumulatively significant impacts. Air Quality As indicated under the discussion and analysis of Air Quality in Section 5.4.3, the proposed Project would be consistent with the SCAQMD 2016 AQMP, would not result in near- or long- term emissions that violate the SCAQMD thresholds, would not subject sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments September 16, 2016 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-59 25-89 Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis Biological Resources As indicated in the discussion and analysis of Biological Resources in Section 5.4.4, the proposed Project would have no impact on biological resources. Accordingly, the proposed Project would have no potential to contribute to a cumulatively significant impact to biological resources. Cultural Resources As indicated under the discussion and analysis of Cultural Resources in Section 5.4.5, the proposed Project would have no impact to historical resources. Accordingly, the proposed Project would have no potential to contribute to a cumulatively significant impact to historical resources. During any subsequent development, there is a remote possibility of uncovering archaeological or paleontological resources. Any subsequent development resulting from the proposed Project would involve minimal surface soil disturbance and grading. Therefore, it is highly unlikely the proposed Project would disturb any unknown cultural or paleontological resources, and impacts would be less than significant. Other developments within the City subject to CEQA and that have the potential for uncovering subsurface resources would similarly be required to incorporate measures to address the potential for uncovering such resources during ground disturbing activities. Accordingly, and assuming incorporation of the Project -specific mitigation, potential cumulative impacts to archaeological and paleontological resources would be reduced to less -than -significant levels. The Project and all cumulative developments would be required to comply with the provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(b), which would preclude cumulatively significant impacts to human remains. Geology and Soils Due to the site-specific nature of potential impacts associated with geology and soils, there is no potential for the proposed Project to contribute to cumulatively significant impacts associated with the site's geology and soil conditions. All development in the City is required to comply with the California Building Standards Code and follow the recommendations of project -specific geotechnical reports, adherence to which preclude cumulatively significant impacts. Greenhouse Gas Emissions As indicated in the discussion and analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Section 5.4.7, the amounts of GHG emissions that would result from development and operations of the proposed Project are less than the applicable screening level threshold set by the City of Newport Beach and would comply with all applicable plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Therefore, the proposed Project has no potential to contribute to a cumulatively significant impact due to greenhouse gas emissions. Hazards and Hazardous Materials The proposed Project Site does not contain any recognized environmental conditions under existing conditions, and therefore has no potential for cumulatively significant impacts to people 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments September 16, 2016 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-60 25-90 Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis or the environment associated with such conditions. Although construction of the proposed Project has the potential to expose nearby sensitive receptors and construction workers to hazards associated with asbestos -containing materials and lead-based paints, the City of Newport Beach requires building permit applications to include a declaration of compliance with Code of Federal Regulations Part 61 of Title 40 and AQMD Rule 1403 to ensure proper disposal of any hazardous materials, if discovered. Other cumulative developments that contain asbestos -containing materials and/or lead-based paints would similarly be required to dispose of such materials in accordance with applicable local, state, and federal laws and regulations. There are no other components of the proposed Project with a potential to create significant public health hazards; accordingly, the proposed Project's potential contribution toward cumulative impacts associated with asbestos and lead based paint abatement would be less than cumulatively considerable following the incorporation of mitigation. Future construction and operation resulting from the proposed Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school, and the proposed Project Site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5; accordingly, the proposed Project has no potential to contribute to cumulatively significant impacts associated with these thresholds. The proposed Project would replace an older building on the proposed Project Site with new construction, which would reduce the cumulative fire risk associated with the concentration of older structures in the Mariners Mile area that were not built to current fire codes. Similarly, other cumulative projects that replace older buildings with new construction would also assist in lowering cumulative fire risk. As such, the proposed Project has no potential to contribute to cumulatively significant fire risk associated with a potential aircraft accident that poses fire risk in Mariners Mile. Furthermore, the City's Emergency Management Plan incorporates an emergency evacuation plan that addresses cumulative effects associated with public airport operations to a level below significant. The proposed Project Site would have no impacts due to private airport -related hazards or interference with any emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans; accordingly, the proposed Project has no potential to contribute to cumulatively significant impacts associated with private airports or emergency evacuation plans. Although the proposed Project and other cumulative developments located in the Mariners Mile area could be exposed to fire hazards due to the generally older buildings that predominate the area (and their lack of fire resistant construction), the proposed Project and all cumulative development projects would be constructed in accordance with modern building codes, including fire protection measures that would attenuate the risk of fire hazards. As such, the proposed Project and cumulative projects in the Mariners Mile area would result in an incrementally reduced risk of fire hazards; accordingly, the proposed Project would result in a less -than -significant cumulative impact due to fire hazards. Hydrology and Water Quality The proposed Project would have no impacts to groundwater supplies, groundwater recharge areas, flood hazards, or flooding associated with the failure of a levee or dam; accordingly, the proposed Project has no potential to contribute to cumulatively significant impacts associated with these issues. 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments September 16, 2016 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-61 25-91 Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis Similar to the proposed Project, all cumulative developments in the City would be required to prepare and implement site-specific SWPPPs and WQMPs, which would ensure that any cumulatively considerable impacts to water quality are reduced to less -than -significant levels. Additionally, and as with the proposed Project, all cumulative developments would be required to prepare hydrology studies to demonstrate that any changes to runoff does not result in on- or off-site flooding; accordingly, any cumulative impacts associated with drainage would be less than significant. The proposed Project Site would not be subject to inundation by seiches or mudflow. Although the proposed Project Site and other areas of Mariners Mile are located within the City's tsunami inundation zone, the likelihood of a catastrophic -level tsunami impacting the City is considered remote. Additionally, the City has prepared an Emergency Management Plan, which identifies tsunami evacuation routes, tsunami evacuation sites, and response plans, and utilizes an outdoor emergency siren system to provide residents with advance warnings of potential tsunami emergencies. The proposed Project and cumulative development projects have no potential to adversely affect the implementation of the City's Emergency Management Plan, which would ensure that cumulatively considerable impacts due to tsunamis are reduced to less -than -significant levels. Land Use and Planning The proposed Project would have no impacts due to the physical division of an established community or a conflict with an applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan; accordingly, the proposed Project has no potential to contribute to a cumulatively significant impact associated with these issues. As indicated in the analysis presented under Land Use and Planning in Section 5.4.10, the proposed Project would be consistent with, or otherwise would not conflict with, any applicable land use plan, policies, or regulation of any agency that was adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Other cumulative development projects similarly have been shown to be consistent with all applicable plans, policies, and regulations, or would be required to demonstrate such consistency prior to approval. Accordingly, cumulatively significant impacts would be less than significant. Mineral Resources As indicated under the discussion and analysis of Mineral Resources in Section 5.4.11, the proposed Project would not result in any impacts to mineral resources. Accordingly, the proposed Project has no potential to contribute to a cumulatively significant mineral resource impact. Noise During construction of the proposed Project, there is a potential for exposing nearby sensitive receptors to loud noise levels. Project construction activities have the potential to occur simultaneous with off-site nearby construction activities, which would further increase the construction -related noise level. Construction noise is exempt from Municipal Code Section 10.26 (Community Noise Control), provided such activities adhere to the timing restrictions specified in Section 10.28 (Loud and Unreasonable Noise). As with the proposed Project, construction activities associated with cumulative developments would be required to comply 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments September 16, 2016 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-62 25-92 Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis with the timing restrictions of Section 10.28, thereby ensuring that cumulatively significant impacts do not occur. Future land uses resulting from the proposed Project have the potential substantial noise levels under long-term operational conditions. As with the proposed Project, operational noise associated with cumulative developments would be regulated by the noise control ordinances of City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, thereby ensuring that cumulatively significant impacts do not occur. The proposed Project would result in a net increase in vehicular traffic from the site as compared to existing conditions, which would thereby result in an increase in off-site noise impacts due to traffic. However, the additional traffic would not cause Riverside Avenue to go over capacity and it can be expected that future noise conditions will not change; Accordingly, under long-term operating conditions, the proposed Project's contribution of noise to the cumulative noise environment would not be cumulatively considerable. There would be no cumulatively significant impacts due to airport -related noise, as the proposed Project Site is not exposed to substantial airport -related noise and would have no effect on the level of exposure of other off-site properties. Population and Housing As indicated in the discussion and analysis of impacts to Population and Housing in Section 5.4.13, the proposed Project would have no impacts due to the displacement of substantial numbers of existing housing or people; accordingly, the proposed Project has no potential to contribute to cumulatively significant impacts associated with housing displacement. The Project could result in the construction and operation of up to 13 new multiple family dwelling units on-site, which would result in a projected population increase of approximately 29 persons. As indicated in the list of cumulative development projects provided in Appendix A, a number of other cumulative development projects also could result in the construction of new housing units and/or new or expanded housing units within the City, which, collectively, could result in a substantial increase in the City's population. However, as indicated in the analysis provided throughout this section, the proposed Project would not result in any cumulatively significant impacts, including cumulatively significant impacts that would result from the proposed Project's projected population increase. Accordingly, the approximately 29 new residents that would be generated by the proposed Project would not be cumulatively considerable in relation to associated environmental effects. Public Services As indicated in the discussion and analysis of proposed Project impacts to Public Services in Section 5.4.14, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in an increase in demand for fire protection or police protection services; accordingly, the proposed Project has no potential to contribute to cumulatively significant impacts to fire and police protection services. Other cumulative development projects proposing residential development would similarly be required to contribute school fees. Although the proposed Project could result in approximately five school-age children, any future residential development would be required to contribute school fees in accordance with Public 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments September 16, 2016 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-63 25-93 Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis Education Code § 17072.10-18. Furthermore, the NMUSD determined that its existing student capacity is adequate to serve the projected student population, and the District had no plans for expansion of its school facilities to accommodate projected population growth. Accordingly, cumulatively significant impacts to schools would be less than significant and the Project's contribution would be less than cumulatively considerable. The proposed Project's could increase in the City's population by approximately 29 residents, when considered in the context of population increases that would result from build -out of other cumulative developments, would result in an increased demand for library services. However, the growth of the City's population associated with the proposed Project's potential 29 residents and other cumulative projects would not create the need to construct a new future library or physically expand an existing library facility. Library services receive funding from property tax, a portion of which from the Project's tax assessment would be dedicated to the City's Library Fund. Recreation Subsequent development would not significantly affect neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. As indicated in the list of cumulative development projects provided in Appendix A, there are no development projects within Service Area 3 that would result in impacts on existing recreational facilities. Accordingly, the proposed Project would result in a less than cumulatively considerable impact to recreational resources. Transportation/Traffic As indicated in the discussion and analysis of Transportation/Traffic in Section 5.4.16, the proposed Project would not cause Riverside Avenue to go over capacity and, the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance requires mitigation for any traffic effects caused by any subsequent development. Nevertheless, the City's Traffic Engineer conducted an additional traffic analysis. As no specific land uses are proposed at this time, the City's Traffic Engineer conducted the analysis based on the existing post office use and the maximum development of the site under the proposed mixed-use land use and zoning: 10,000 sq. ft. Post Office (existing) 13 Apartment Dwelling Units 11,326 sq. ft. of General Commercial Trip generation rates were taken from the updated Newport Beach Traffic Model (NBTM). The NBTM trip generation is: 10, 000 sq. ft. Post Office — 216 trips /day 13 Apartment Dwelling Units — 80 trips /day 11,326 sq. f.t. General Commercial —433 trips /day With credit for the existing Post Office trips, the project would result in a net increase of 297 trips per day. Using Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) standards, no intersection impacts were identified. Required parking for the current PF District is established by conditional use permit. Currently, the Project Site has 20 surface parking spaces. Under the proposed MU -MM District, the Zoning Code off-street parking requirement would be two spaces per dwelling unit and one space per 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments September 16, 2016 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-64 25-94 Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis 250 square feet of retail floor area. As no development is proposed at this time, it is unknown if future development will be strictly non-residential or a mixed-use project. A The Zoning Code allows a building with nonconforming parking to be occupied with new uses without providing additional parking, provided there is no intensification or enlargement (e.g., increase in floor area, or lot area), and the new use requires a parking rate not higher than one space per 250 square feet of gross building area. Therefore, under the proposed MU -MM District, the existing building could be occupied with new uses that would have a Zoning Code - based parking demand of 37 parking spaces; as there are 20 existing spaces on site, there is the potential for a 17 -space parking deficit under these circumstances. Cumulative development projects provided in Appendix A have been accounted for in traffic forecasts. Accordingly, the proposed Project has no potential to contribute to cumulatively significant impacts associated with transportation/traffic. Utilities and Service Systems As indicated under the discussion and analysis of Utilities and Service Systems in Section 5.4.17, the proposed Project's impacts associated with wastewater, solid waste, and water supply would be less than cumulatively considerable. c. Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less -than -Significant Impact. Any subsequent development would have no impact or less - than -significant impacts on human beings, both directly and indirectly. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant. 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments September 16, 2016 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-65 25-95 Declaration 6.0 References 6.0 References Cited As Reference California Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2009a. DTSC's Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List—Site Cleanup (Cortese List). Available on-line at: CaIEPA, 2009a http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search.asp?cmd=search&reporttype =CORTESE&site_type=CSITES%2COPEN%2CFUDS%2CCLOSE&status =ACT%2CBKLG%2CCOM&reporttitle=HAZARDOUS%20WASTE%20A ND%20SUBSTANCES%20SITE%20LIST. California Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2009b. Find Cleanup Sites and Hazardous Waste Permitted Facilities. Available on-line at: CaIEPA, 2009b http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search.asp?cmd=search&city=New port%20Beach &zip=&county= Ora nge&federal_superfund=True&state_resp onse=True&voluntary_cleanup=True&school_cleanup=True&perm itted=Tru e&pc_permitted=True&hist_nonoperating=&corrective_action=True&displa y_results=Report&pub=True. California Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2009c. List of "active" CDO and CaIEPA, 2009c CAO from Water Board. Available on-line at: http://www.caIepa.ca.gov/SiteCleanuP/CorteseList/ California Department of California Department Finance, 2016. City/County Population and Finance, 2016 Housing Estimate, 1/1/2016. California Department of Transportation. List of Eligible and Officially Designated CalTrans, 2009 Scenic Highways, 2013. Available on-line at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic/cahisys.htm California Department of Conservation, 2012. State of California Williamson Act CDC, 2012 Contract Land. 2012. Available on-line at: ftp://ftp. consrv.ca.gov/pub/dIrp/WA/2012%20Statewide%20Map/WA 2012 8x11.pdf County of Orange, County of Orange. 2005. County of Orange General Plan. Available on-line at: 2005 http://ocplanning.net/planning/generalplan2005 Earth Consultants Earth Consultants International. 2003. Hazards Assessment Study City of International, 2003 Newport Beach, California. Geotracker. 2009. GeoTracker. Available: Geotracker, 2009 https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=20 00+east+balboa+blvd. Newport Beach, 2006a Newport Beach, 2006. City of Newport Beach General Plan. July 25, 2006. 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach September 16, 2016 Page 6-1 25-96 Declaration 6.0 References Cited As Reference Available online at: http://www.newportbeachca.gov/index.aspx?paqe=1 73 Newport Beach, 2006. City of Newport Beach Draft Environmental Impact Report, Newport Beach, General Plan 2006 Update (SCH No. 2006011119). July 25, 2006. Available on-line 2006b at: http://www.newportbeachca.qov/index.aspx?paqe=196 Newport Beach, 2009. City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Newport Beach, Use 2009 Plan. July 14, 2009. Available on-line at: http://www.newportbeachca.qov/index.aspx?page=1317 Newport Beach, 2010a Newport Beach, 2010. Newport Beach Zoning Map. Newport Beach, November 25, 2010. Available 2010a on-line at: http://www. newportbeachca.qov/index. aspx?page= 1689 Newport Beach, 2010a Newport Beach, 2010. Newport Beach Zoning Code. Newport Beach, November 25, 2010. Available 2010b on-line at: http://www.newportbeachca.qov/index.aspx?page=1689 Newport Beach, Newport Beach, 2013a, Newport Beach Geographic Information System 2013a Orange County Airport Land Use Commission, 2008. Airport Land Use Commission (OCALUC, 2008) Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport. April 17, 2008. Available on-line at: http://www.ocair.com/commissions/aluc/docs/JWA AELUP-April-17-2008.pdf Southern California Association of Governments, 2001. Employment Density Study SCAG, 2001 Summary Report. October 31, 2001. Available on-line at: http://www.mwcog.org/uploads/committee- documents/bl5aXl pa20091008155406.pdf United States Census Bureau, 2008. Newport Beach City, California—ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates: 2006-2008. 2006-2008 American Community Survey 3 -Year Estimates. Available on-line at: USCB, 2008 http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ ADPTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=16000US0651182&- qr_name=ACS_ 2008_3YR_G00_DP3YR5&- ds_name=ACS_2008_3YR_G00_&-_Iang=en&-_sse=on. USGS, 1965 United States Geological Survey, 1965. National Geologic Map Database Rogers, T.H., 1965 Geologic map 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach September 16, 2016 Page 6-2 25-97 Declaration 6.0 References Cited As Reference of California: Santa Ana sheet: California Division of Mines and Geology, scale 1:250000. United States Geological Survey, 2013. Mineral Resources On Line Spatial Data USGS, 2015 Orange County. Available on-line at: http://tin.er.usgs.gov/mrds/select.php?place=f06O59&div=fips. 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach September 16, 2016 Page 6-3 25-98 Negative Declaration 7.0 Persons Contributing to IS/ND Preparation 7.0 Persons Contributing to the ISM Preparation City of Newport Beach Patrick Alford, Planning Manager Tony Brine, City Traffic Engineer Laura Detweiler, Recreation and Senior Services Director 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach September 16, 2016 Page 7-1 25-99 Cumulative Projects List This list has three parts: Reasonably Foreseeable Projects, CIP (Capital Improvements Program) Reasonably Foreseeable Projects, and Approved Projects Reasonably Foreseeable Discretionary Projects with CEQA review or Traffic Study: Legend: Projects Pending Coastal Commission Review Project Proposed Land Uses/Project Description Location Determination/Status Discretionary Actions Project Planner General Plan Amendment, Planned General Plan Community Text Amendment, Amendment No. Conditional Use Permit, and Major Site GP2015-004 Development Review for a new Planned Community 109,633 -square -foot convalescent and Text Amendment No. Centecongregate P Senior care facility with 133 to 144 Application submitted on 11/23/2015. PD2015-005 Benjamin Living (PA2015-210) Living A20 beds (approximately 128 units). As 101 Bayview Place CEQA RFP sent — response Site Development Zdeba proposed, the facility will be developed received. Under evaluation. with one level of subterranean parking Review No. SD2015-007 and five levels of living area. The Conditional Use Permit project site is currently developed with No. UP2015-047 a single -story restaurant and supporting Mitigated Negative surface parking area. Declaration General Plan Amendment No. GP2015-001 Code Amendment No. CA2015-008 Planned Community Museum House 100 Unit residential tower to replace the NOP Released — Close of comment Text Amendment No. Gregg Residential Tower 24,000 square foot Orange County 850 San Clemente Drive period is March 7, 2016. Preparation PC2015-001 Ramirez (PA2015-152) Museum of Art. of the EIR is underway. Site Development Review Development Agreement Traffic Study Environmental Impact Report Rev: 2016-06-14-jc F:\Users\CDD\Shared\Admi n\Planning_Division\CEQA\Cumulative_Project_List\cumulative_ projects_current.docx 25-100 Project Proposed Land Uses/Project Location Determination/Status Discretionary Actions Project Description Planner Benjamin Mitigated Negative Zdeba Little Corona Infiltration (PA2015- Installation of a diversion and infiltration Little Corona Beach Draft MND issued for public comment Declaration John 096) (15X14) device on a public beach area. on January 15, 2016. Capital Improvement Kappeler, Program, City Council Public Works Site Development Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Traffic Study for the construction and operation of a 33,926 Use Permit No. UP2015- SF automobile sales and service facility Application resubmitted January 025 AutoNation including a showroom, outdoor vehicle display areas, offices, service facility, 320-600 West Coast Highway 2016. Application complete. T&B Site Development Jim (PA2015-095) and vehicle inventory storage and Planning to prepare a MND. Traffic Review No. SD2015-002 Campbell employee parking on the roof of the Consultant to be identified. Tentative Parcel Map building. Tentative Parcel Map to No. NP2015-010 consolidate 11 existing lots creating one lot. Variance for height withdrawn Planned Community Development Plan Amendment Site Development Plan Koll Newport Development of mixed use residential Application submitted and deemed Traffic Study Residential of up to 260 units, 3,000 sf. retail and 4400 Von Karman Ave. incomplete. EIR preparation is Tentative Tract Map Rosalinh (PA2015-024) one -acre park. underway. Development Ung Agreement Environmental Impact Report Rev: 2016-06-14-jc F:\Users\CDD\Shared\Admi n\Planning_Division\CEQA\Cumulative_Project_List\cumulative_ projects_current.docx 25-101 Project Proposed Land Uses/Project Location Determination/Status Discretionary Actions Project Description Planner General Plan Amendment Application submitted 12/05/2014. An Zoning Code The proposed project consists of the MND was prepared and distributed to Amendment demolition of an existing 8,500 -square- the public. Following a Planning Commission Study Session held on Planned Community 150 Newport Center foot car -wash and as station to g 150 Newport Center Drive October 8,2015, the applicant and Development Plan Site Development Makana (PA2014-213) accommodate the development of 49 staff agreed to prepare an EIR for Review Nova condominium dwelling units on a 1.3 this project. NOP Released — Close Tract Map acre site. of comment period is February 11, Development 2016. Preparation of the EIR is underway. Agreement Environmental Impact Report 1701 Corinthian Way, 1660 Application submitted. Draft MND is Planned Development Dove St., 4251, 4253, and completed and being circulated for Permit Newport Place A mixed-use residential project consisting 4255 Martingale Way, 4200, public comment. Planning Lot Merger Residential of up to 384 units and 5,677square feet 4220 & 4250 Scott Drive. Commission study session is Affordable Housing Rosalinh Ung (PA2014-150) of retail use on a 5.7 -acre property Generally bounded by scheduled for March 3, 2016 and Implementation Plan Corinthian Wy., Martingale Dr., public hearing is tentatively Mitigated Negative Dove St. and Scott Dr. scheduled for march 17, 2016. Declaration The project adds an additional southbound through lane along Newport Boulevard from Via Lido to 32nd Street, terminating as a right -turn Andy Tran, only lane at 32nd Street. Proposed Newport/32nd modifications include a raised, Newport Boulevard from Via p City approval in October 2014 Capital Improvement Public modification landscaped median, 6 -foot -wide bike Lido to 30th Street and 3201 Program, City Council Works (PA2014-134) lanes along both sides of the roadway, Newport Boulevard Coastal Development Permit issued Mitigated Negative and the relocation of 27 curbside public February 2016 Declaration Jim parking spaces on Newport Boulevard Campbell to a proposed new public parking lot the northwest corner of Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street and demolition of the former bank building. Rev: 2016-06-14-jc F:\Users\CDD\Shared\Admi n\Planning_Division\CEQA\Cumulative_Project_List\cumulative_ projects_current.docx 25-102 Project Proposed Land Uses/Project Description Location Determination/Status Discretionary Actions Project Planner General Plan Amendment Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment Demolition of an existing one-story, Zoning Code Amendment (Zone square foot commercial building 26,219 s q g Change) and a 55 -space subterranean parking Planned Community garage; and the construction of a Development Plan 70,295 square -foot, 4 -story ocean Adoption literacy facility located on the 600 East Transfer Development Bay parcel; removal of a 63 -metered 600 East Bay, 209 Allocation ExplorOcean space surface parking lot aka: Palm P P 9 ( Washington Street, 600 and 9 Application submitted 04/22/2014. On Site Development Review Rosalinh (PA2014-069) Street Parking Lot) located on the 209 608 Balboa Avenue, and 200 hold per applicant's request. Conditional Use Permit Ung Washington Street, 600 and 608 Palm Traffic Study pursuant to Balboa Avenue, and 200 Palm parcels City's Traffic Phasing and the construction of a 388 -space, Ordinance (TPO) 141,000 square foot, 5 -level off-site Tentative Parcel Map parking structure; and a 6,500 square and Alley Vacation footage floating classroom to be located Harbor Development on the waterside of the project. Permit Coastal Development Permit (by California Coastal Commission) Environmental Impact Report The project was approved by City Request for legislative approvals to Council on February 11, 2014. The General Plan accommodate the future redevelopment Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment Amendment of a portion of the property with a for the project was approved by the Coastal Land Use Plan mixed-use waterfront project. The 300 E. Coast Highway California Coastal Commission on Amendment Back Bay Landing Planned Community Development Plan Generally located at the December 10, 2015, subject to the Code Amendment Jaime (PA2011-216) would allow for the development of a northwesterly corner of east City accepting Suggested Planned Community Murillo new enclosed dry stack boat storage Coast Highway and Bayside Modifications to the amendment. Development Plan facility for 140 boats, 61,534 square Drive Planning Commission hearing Lot Line Adjustment feet of visitor -serving retail and scheduled for March 2016 and City Traffic Study recreational marine facilities, and up to Council in April 2016 to accept Environmental Impact 49 attached residential units. Suggested Modifications and related Report land use amendments. Rev: 2016-06-14-jc F:\Users\CDD\Shared\Admi n\Planning_Division\CEQA\Cumulative_Project_List\cumulative_ projects_current.docx 25-103 Project Proposed Land Uses/Project Location Determination/Status Discretionary Actions Project Description Planner City of Newport Beach Public Access Balboa Marina and Transient Docks and Expansion of IS/MND was approved by City IS/MND Expansion Balboa Marina Council on November 25, 2014. An Site Development (PA2012-103) 201 E. Coast Highway approval in concept was issued for Review Patrick (PA2015-113) 24 boat slips the waterside component. The Conditional Use Permit Alford 14,252 SF restaurant landside component was approved CDP (Coastal 664 SF marina restroom by the City in February 2016. Commission) Project approved by the City General Plan February 2014. Coastal Land Use Amendment Demolition of the approximately 20,500 720 West Bay Avenue, 800 Plan Amendment application Coastal Land Use Plan Newport Harbor square foot yacht club facility and West Bay Avenue, 711-721 withdrawn from California Coastal Amendment Jim Yacht Club construction of a new 23,163 square West Bay Avenue, and 710- Commission in September 2015. Zoning Code Campbell (PA2012-091) foot facility. The yacht club use will 720 Balboa Boulevard Coastal Commission considers a Amendment remain on the subject property. Coastal Development Permit for the Planned Development replacement yacht club on March10, Permit 2016. Conditional Use Permit Development Agreement General Plan Amendment to the Circulation Element The City Council approved the Code Amendment project and certified the Final EIR in Pre -annexation Zone Development of 1,375 residential July 2012. The applicant has a Change dwelling units, a 75 -room resort inn and Generally located north of complete coastal development permit Planned Community Newport Banning ancillary resort uses, 75,000 square West Coast Highway, south of application before the Coastal Development Plan Patrick Ranch feet of commercial uses, approximately 19th Street, and east of the Commission. As currently proposed, Master Development Alford (PA2008-114) 51.4 gross acres of parklands, and Santa Ana River the project consists of 895 residential Plan approximately 252.3 gross acres of dwelling units, a 75 -room coastal inn, permanent open space. a 20 -bed hostel, 45,100 square feet Tentative Tract Map of commercial use, and 323 acres of Affordable Housing permanent open space. Implementation Plan Traffic Phasing Ordinance Traffic Study Environmental Impact Report AELUP: Airport Environs Land Use Plan; CDP: Coastal Development Permit; CUP: Conditional Use Permit; cy: cubic yards; DA: Development Agreement; DTSP: Downtown Specific Plan; EIR: Environmental Impact Report; FAA: Federal Aviation Administration; GPA: General Plan Amendment; gsf: gross square feet; HBGS: Huntington Beach Generating Station; 1- 405: Interstate 405 freeway; IBC: Irvine Business Complex; IS: Initial Study; ITC: Irvine Technology Center; LAFCO: Local Agency Formation Commission; LCP: Local Coastal Program; MCAS: Marine Corps Air Station; MND: Mitigated Negative Declaration; ND: Negative Declaration; PA: Planning Area; PC: Planned Community; sf: square feet; SP: Specific Plan; SR -73: State Route 73; TDR: transfer of development rights; TPM: Tentative Parcel Map; TTM: Tentative Tract Map; VTTM: Vesting Tentative Tract Map; ZC: Zone Change Rev: 2016-06-14-jc F:\Users\CDD\Shared\Admi n\Planning_Division\CEQA\Cumulative_Project_List\cumulative_ projects_current.docx 25-104 CIP Projects with CEQA review: Project Proposed Land Uses/Project Location Determination/Status Discretionary Actions Project Description Planner Refurbishment or replacement of the Project design architect was selected Capital Improvement Peter West Newport West Newport Community Center. The in November of 2015. Project is on Program, City Council Tauscher, Community Center current center is one of several public TBD hold at the direction of City (15F17) buildings on the west side being Manager's Office. CEQA TBD, MND Public reviewed for appropriate use and is anticipated. Works potential relocation. Benjamin Mitigated Negative Zdeba Little Corona Infiltration (PA2015- Installation of a diversion and infiltration Little Corona Beach Draft MND issued for public comment Declaration John 096) (15X14) device on a public beach area. on January 15, 2016. Capital Improvement Kappeler, Program, City Council Public Works Widens the westbound side of West IS/Negative Declaration Coast Highway at Old Newport Consultant was selected for project Capital Improvement Patrick Old Newport Boulevard to accommodate a third Intersection of Old Newport design in March of 2016. Negative Program, City Council Arciniega, Blvd./West Coast through lane, a right turn pocket and a Boulevard and West Coast Declaration draft is under review. City Hwy Widening bike lane. Realignment of Old Newport Highway requesting lead agency status from Public (15R19) Boulevard maximizes the right turn Cal Trans. Works pocket storage length and improves roadway geometrics. Lower Sunset View Park Bridge, Parking possible pedestrian overcrossin s, p g Intersection of West Coast An RFP for design services was sent g Capital Improvement Andy Tran, Lot and Park parking and park uses for Lower Sunset Highway and Superior Avenue in December of 2015. CEQA Program, Cit Council 9 Y Public (15R09) View Park. determination TBD. Works Balboa Island Project initiated in 2011. A consultant Mitigated Negative Bob Stein, Seawall New seawall along the Grand Canal Balboa Island has been selected for the project Declaration Public Reconstruction and on the west end of Balboa Island. design. The RFP process has not yet Capital Improvement Works (15H11) been initiated for the MND. Program, City Council Rev: 2016-06-14-jc F:\Users\CDD\Shared\Admi n\Planni ng_Division\CEQA\Cumulative_Project_List\cumulative_ projects_current.docx 25-105 Project Proposed Land Uses/Project Location Determination/Status Discretionary Actions Project Description Planner Arches drain outlet is the endpoint for Capital Improvement two large storm drains that collect and Program, City Council deliver runoff from neighboring areas to Newport Harbor. The west storm drain collects runoff from Hoag Hospital and Project initiated in 2015. CEQA John Arches Storm Drain areas upstream and the east storm Newport Boulevard north of determination TBD (exemption?). Kappeler, Diversion drain runs along Old Newport Coast Highway Anticipated project start date, Public (16X11) Boulevard and into Costa Mesa September 2016. Works upstream of 15th Street. A conceptual plan to divert dry weather flows from these two subwatersheds to the sanitary sewer system has been prepared. Bayview Heights Restores a drainage reach subject to g City Council authorized project in May of 2015Agency permit Capital Improvement John Drainage Treatment erosion and creates a wetland at the Headlands area of Upper Bay . applications were submitted March of Program, Cit Council g y Kappeler, (15X11) end of the reach to benefit downstream of Mesa Drive 2016. CEQA determination TBD Public environmental water quality. (exemption?) Works Divert about one third of the dry- Mitigated Negative weather flow from the creek into a Declaration bioreactor. The bioreactor strips Capital Improvement selenium and other impurities from the Program, City Council flow. Clean flow is returned to the creek John Big Canyon Rehab to reduce the concentration of Big Canyon, downstream of Resource agency applications Kappeler, Project pollutants within the stream by 30-35 Jamboree Road and south of submitted March of 2016. Draft MND Public (15X12) percent. Storm flows from Jamboree Big Canyon Creek issued for public comment March 4, Works Road also will be directed to the top 2016. level of this bioreactor/wetlands to strip roadway pollutants from the flow before the flow rejoins the creek. Partial streambed and canyon restoration are components of this project. Bay Crossings Replaces deteriorating water Capital Improvement Patrick Water Main transmission mains pursuant to the Newport Harbor A consultant has been selected for Program, City Council Arciniega, Replacement Water Master Plan and Bay Crossing the project design. CEQA TBD Public (16W12) Water Transmission Study. Works Rev: 2016-06-14-jc F:\Users\CDD\Shared\Admi n\Planning_Division\CEQA\Cumulative_Project_List\cumulative_ projects_current.docx 25-106 Discretionary Projects with CEQA review and Traffic Study Approved by the City and Percent Occupied: Project Proposed Land Uses Location Determination/Status Discretionary Actions Project Planner Traffic Study Percent Occupied Minor Use Permit No. ENC Preschool Environmental Nature Center 745 Dover Drive Planning Commission Approved 01/21/2016. Class UP2015-020 Makana Nova Yes 0% (PA2015-079) Preschool 32 CEQA Exemption. Traffic Study No. TS2015-001 Park Avenue MND adopted/approved by Bridge Demolish and replace Park Avenue City Council November 25, Mitigated Negative bridge that connects Balboa Island Balboa Island 2014. Declaration No. Gregg Ramirez No 0% Replacement (PA2014-135) and Little Balboa Island. Tentative Construction Start ND2014-002 Date — March 2016 Site Development Review No. SD2014- 005 The project includes the re- Application submitted on Minor Use Permit No. subdivision of four lots into three lots 20350 & 20360 08/05/2014. UP2014-032 Birch Newport for commercial development and for Birch Street Application and Addendum to Traffic Study No. Executive condominium purposes, and the MND approved by Planning TS2014-006 Jaime Murillo Yes 0% Center construction of two, 2 -story medical (Formerly 20352 — Commission on 02/19/2015. Parcel Map No. (PA2014-121) office buildings totaling 64,000 20412 Birch St) Rough grading permits issued NP2014-017 square feet in gross floor area and a February 25, 2016. 324 -space surface parking lot. Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration (PA2006- 280) Rev: 2016-06-14-jc F:\Users\CDD\Shared\Admi n\Planni ng_Division\CEQA\Cumulative_Project_List\cumulative_ projects_current.docx 25-107 Project Proposed Land Uses Location Determination/Status Discretionary Actions Project Planner Traffic Study Percent Occupied The project includes a Tentative Tract Map application to subdivide a 4.7 acre site for 83 residential lots and a Site Development Review Tentative Tract Map application for the construction of 83 No. NT2014-002 single-unit residences, private Application submitted on Traffic Study No. streets, common open space, and 06/20/2014. TS2014-007 Ebb Tide landscaping. The Planned 1560 Placentia An MND was prepared. The Planned Development (PA2014-110) Community Development Plan is Drive project was approved and the Permit No. PL2015- Jim Campbell Yes 0% proposed to establish guidelines for MND was adopted by the development of the project site Planning Commission on 001 consistent with the General Plan. August 6, 2015. Mitigated Negative The Code Amendment is proposed to Declaration No. amend the Zoning Map to change the ND2015-002 Zoning District from Multiple-Unit Residential (RM) to Planned Community (PC). General Plan Amendment General Plan Amendment, Coastal Coastal Land Use Land Use Plan Amendment, and Project approved by the City Lido House Zoning Amendment to change site September 2014. Plan Amendment Hotel from Public Facilities to Visitor- 3300 Newport Zoning Code at the former serving commercial and increase the Boulevard and Coastal Development Permit Amendment Jim Campbell Yes 0% city hall allowable building height. Demolition 47532 nd Street issued February 2016. Site Development complex of former city hall buildings and the Review (PA2013-217) construction of a 130-room upscale Demolition and construction Conditional Use hotel. Fire Station #2 to remain at scheduled to start April 2016. Permit current location. Ground Lease Environmental Impact Report Construction of two building and a 2011, 2043, 2121, three-level parking structure, an and 2131 Class 32 CEQA exemption. p Site Development Westcliff addition to an existing building, and Westcliff Drive. June 19, 2014: Planning Review Medica Medical the demolition of 25,339 square feet Bounded by Commission Approved. Demo Fern Nueno Yes 0% 3-154) of building area. The project would Westcliff Drive, permit issued September Traffic Study result in four buildings totaling 73,722 Irvine Avenue, 2014. Lot Merger square feet. The total amount of off- and Sherington street parking would be 382 spaces. Place. Rev: 2016-06-14-jc F:\Users\CDD\Shared\Admi n\Planni ng_Division\CEQA\Cumulative_Project_List\cumulative_ projects_current.docx 25-108 Project Proposed Land Uses Location Determination/Status Discretionary Actions Project Planner Traffic Study Percent Occupied General Plan Amendment Application approved Coastal Land Use November 12, 2013. CLUP Plan Amendment Request for the demolition of an 3303 and 3355 Amendment approved by CCC Zoning Code Lido Villas existing church and office building Via Lido on March 12, 2014. CDP Amendment (DART) and legislative approvals for the Generally application Approved by CCC Planned Community Makana Nova No o 0/o (PA2012-146) development of 23 attached three- bounded by Via on 10/09/2014. Submitted for Development Plan story townhome condominiums. Lido, Via Oporto, plan check December 22, and Via Malaga. 2014, building permit approval Site Development pending recordation of tract Review map. IS/Mitigated Negative Declaration Tentative Tract Map Amendment to the North Newport Center Planned Community (NNCPC), which is the zoning document that establishes land uses, development standards, and Transfer of San Joaquin procedures for development within The project was approved by Development Plaza seven sub -areas of the Newport 1101 San Joaquin the City Council on August 14, Planned Community Apartments Center Area of the City. Primarily the Hills Road 2012. Text Amendment Jaime Murillo Yes o 0/o (PA2012-020) request involves increasing the Development residential development allocation Under construction. Agreement within the NNCPC from 430 dwelling Traffic Study units to a total of 524 dwelling units (increase of 94 units) and allocating the units to the San Joaquin Plaza sub -area. Rev: 2016-06-14-jc F:\Users\CDD\Shared\Admi n\Planning_Division\CEQA\Cumulative_Project_List\cumulative_ projects_current.docx 25-109 Project Proposed Land Uses Location Determination/Status Discretionary Actions Project Planner Traffic Study Percent Occupied PC Development PlanAmendment EIR, Tentative Tract Map, and Traffic Study, and AHIP were Adoption Uptown approved by City Council on Tentative Tract Map Newport Development of 1,244 residential 4311 & 4321 2/26/2013. The PC Development Plan andJamboree Traffic Study (TPO) Mixed Use units and 11,500 sf. of commercial Rd Development Agreement were AHIP Rosalinh Ung Yes 0% Development retail approved on 3/12/2013. Rough DA (PA2011-134) grading plans have been Airport Land Use issued for Phase 1 Commission development. Environmental Impact Report PC Development Plan Amendment Approved by the City Council Transfer of MacArthur at on October 25, 2011. PC Development Rights Dolphin -Striker Demolition of a 7,996-sf restaurant 4221 Dolphin- Development Plan approved Traffic Study (TPO) Way and development of 12,351 sf Striker Way on November 22, 2011. The CUP Rosalinh Ung Yes 90% (PA2010-135) commercial retail. project is completed. The Waiver of DA freestanding building pad is constructed but not occupied. Modification Permit Mitigated Negative Declaration 10 Big Canyon Mitigated Negative Declaration for IS/MND approved 12/20/2011. (PA2010-092) rough grading for development of a 10 Big Canyon Project has not been IS/MND Makana Nova No 0% single-family residence. constructed. Amendment to Bayview Planned On June 22, 2010 City Council Community (PC -32) text to add approved Resolution N o. D.I.S.C. 3501 outpatient surgery and medical office 2010-070 finding that Traffic Jamboree Rd as permitted uses and to add a parking requirement of 1/200 square 3501 Jamboree Study No. TS2010-002 PC Amendment and 301 feet for such uses. Includes Traffic Rd. and 301 complies with the TPO and on Traffic Study complies Melinda Whelan Yes 100% Bayview Circle study pursuant to TPO for conversion Bayview Circle July 6, 2010 approved with TPO (PA2010-062) of 38, 759 square feet of general Ordinance No. 2010-12 office and retail to outpatient surgical approving Planned Community center. Amendment No. PD2010-004. Rev: 2016-06-14-jc F:\Users\CDD\Shared\Admi n\Planning_Division\CEQA\Cumulative_Project_List\cumulative_ projects_current.docx 25-110 Project Proposed Land Uses Location Determination/Status Discretionary Actions Project Planner Traffic Study Percent Occupied Application approved by Planning Commission on 1/03/13. Staff Approval No. Site Development SA2013-015 (PA2013-245) Review Plaza Corona Development of 1,750 sf new office approved December 10, 2013 Variance del Mar space and six (6) detached 3900-3928 East and Staff Approval No. Conditional Use Makana Nova No 0% (PA2010-061) townhomes. Coast Highway SA2014-April 10 2015 to allow , Permit the reconstruction of Gallo's and reduction of commercial Tentative Tract Map scope. Submitted for plan Modification Permit check June 30, 2014. CEQA Class 32 exemption. General Plan 1600 -East Coast This project was approved by Amendment Newport Demolition of existing golf course and Highway; the City Council on 02/28/2012. CDP issued Planned Community (PC) Text Adoption Beach Country clubhouse to construct of a new northwest of Amended 09/3/14. Temporary Use Permit Club Inc 51,213 sf golf clubhouse and Pacific Coast U12, Under construction. Under Development Rosalinh Ung No 50% (PA2008-152) ancillary facilities including a cart Highway and Anticipated completion date is Agreement barn and bag storage. Newport Center at the end of 2015. Permits CDP (CCC) Drive issued December, 2014. Mitigated Negative Declaration Modification Permit Old Newport Demolition of 3 existing buildings to IS/MND and project approved Traffic Study GPA Project construct a new 25,000-sf medical 328, 332, and 340 on March 9, 2010. Demolition Use Permit Jaime Murillo Yes 0% (PA2008-047) office building. Old Newport Blvd and grading permits issued GP Amendment March 6, 2015. Mitigated Negative Declaration EIR Development includes a public park General Construction and beach with recreational facilities; The Final EIR was certified Activity Storm Water Marina Park restrooms; a new Girl Scout House; a 1600 Balboa Blvd; and the project approved by (NPDES) Permit Project public short-term visiting vessel west of 15th St the City on May 11, 2010. The (RWQCB) Rosalinh Ung Yes 100% (PA2008-040) marina and sailing center; and a new and east of 19th St project is complete. CDP (CCC) community center with classrooms, Section 401 and ancillary office space. Certification (RWQCB) 404 Permit (ACOS) Rev: 2016-06-14-jc F:\Users\CDD\Shared\Admi n\Planning_Division\CEQA\Cumulative_Project_List\cumulative_ projects_current.docx 25-111 Project Proposed Land Uses Location Determination/Status Discretionary Actions Project Planner Traffic Study Percent Occupied EIR Hoag GP Amendment Memorial Reallocation of up to 225,000 sf of 1 Hoag Dr; Final EIR certified and project Planned Community Hospital previously approved (but notnorthwest of West approved on May 13, 2008. No Development Plan Presbyterian constructed) square footage from the Coast Hwy and new major development has (PC) Text Amendment Jim Campbell Yes 0% Master Plan Lower Campus to the Upper Newport Blvd been constructed or is planned Development Update Project Campus. in the near future. Agreement (PA2007-073) Amendment CDP (CCC) General Plan Amendment Koll Center A request construct a 21,311 square MND and project approval in Planned Community Office Building foot, two-story office building over a 4450 MacArthur January 2007. Under Development Plan Rosalinh Ung No ° 100/° (PA2006-095) subterranean parking garage on a Boulevard construction, building permits Amendment (PA2007-046) 1.49 -acre site issued March, 2014. Tentative Parcel Map Mitigated Negative Declaration Residential development including 201-207 EIR the following: (a) the demolition of the Carnation Ave Final EIR was certified and GP Amendment existing residential structures on the and 101 Bayside project approved by the City Coastal Land Use AERIE Project 1.4 -acre site; (b) the development of PI; southwest of on July 14, 2009. A CDP has Plan (CLUP) (PA2005-196) 8 residential condominium units; and Bayside Drive been approved by the Coastal Amendment Jim Campbell No 0% (c) the replacement, reconfiguration, between Bayside Commission. Project is under Zone Change and expansion of the existing PI and Carnation construction with completion Tract Map gangway platform, pier walkway, and Ave, Corona del anticipated by the end of 2016. Modification Permit dock facilities on the site. Mar CDP (CCC) 79 condominium units totaling Santa Barbara IS/MND and project approved IS/MND Meridian approximately 205,232 net sf; Drive west of in January 2006. The CDP has GP Amendment (Santa approximately 97,231 gross sf of Fashion Island been approved by the Coastal CLUP Amendment Barbara) subterranean parking structures fora (900 Newport Commission. Phase 1 (26 Code Amendment Rosalinh Ung Yes 100% Condominium total of 201 parking spaces on site; Center Drive) and units) is completed. It is Parcel Map s Project approximately 79,140 sf of open 1001 Santa anticipated that Phase 2 (53 TTM (PA2004-169) space and approximately 21,300 sf of Barbara Drive units) to be completed by the Modification Permit recreational area. end of 2015. CDP (CCC) Rev: 2016-06-14-jc F:\Users\CDD\Shared\Admi n\Planning_Division\CEQA\Cumulative_Project_List\cumulative_ projects_current.docx 25-112 Project Proposed Land Uses Location Determination/Status Discretionary Actions Project Planner Traffic Study Percent Occupied Newport FEIR certified in February Site Plan Review Marina — A mixed use development consisting 2006. Tentative Tract Map Use Permit ETCO of 27 residential units and 2300 Newport extended in October 2010. The Tentative Tract Map Jim Campbell o 0 /o Development approximately 36,000 square feet of Boulevard project is under constructionand Environmental Impact (PA2001-210) retail and office uses is anticipated to be Report complete by the end of 2016. An IS/MND was released for public review on April 11, GP Amendment 2011. The MND was certified Code Amendment and the project approved by CUP Mariner's A 19,905-sf, two-story commercial 200-300 West the City Council on August 9, Variance Pointe building and a three-story parking Coast Highway 2011. Construction completed Site Development Jaime Murillo Yes 45% (PA2010-114) structure. on October 30, 2014, and Review tenants are beginning to Traffic Study occupy suites. (16% occupied, Mitigated Negative 29% TI in process, 55% Declaration vacant). Newport The City Council approved the GP Amendment Business Demolition of 2 existing connected 4699 Jamboree project on January 25, 2011. PC text amendment Plaza Project buildings to construct a new 46,044 Road and 5190 The project has not been Tentative Parcel Map Janet Brown 0% (PA2008-164) gross square foot business plaza. Campus Drive constructed. Mitigated Negative Declaration Increase the maximum allowable An IS/MND was released for PRES Office entitlement by 11,544 gross sf; public review on May 19, 2010. GP Amendment Building B increase the maximum allowable 4300 Von Karman The MND was certified and the PC Text Amendment Project entitlement in office suite B by 9,917 Ave project approved by the City Parcel Map Janet Brown 0% (PA2007-213) net sf to allow for development of a Council on February 22, 2011. Mitigated Negative new 2 -level office building over a Project has not been Declaration ground -level parking structure. constructed. AELUP: Airport Environs Land Use Plan; CDP: Coastal Development Permit; CUP: Conditional Use Permit; cy: cubic yards; DA: Development Agreement; DTSP: Downtown Specific Plan; EIR: Environmental Impact Report; FAA: Federal Aviation Administration; GPA: General Plan Amendment; gsf: gross square feet; HBGS: Huntington Beach Generating Station; 1-405: Interstate 405 freeway; IBC: Irvine Business Complex; IS: Initial Study; ITC: Irvine Technology Center; LAFCO: Local Agency Formation Commission; LCP: Local Coastal Program; MCAS: Marine Corps Air Station; MND: Mitigated Negative Declaration; ND: Negative Declaration; PA: Planning Area; PC: Planned Community; sf: square feet; SP: Specific Plan; SR -73: State Route 73; TDR: transfer of development rights; TPM: Tentative Parcel Map; TTM: Tentative Tract Map; VTTM: Vesting Tentative Tract Map; ZC: Zone Change Rev: 2016-06-14-jc F:\Users\CDD\Shared\Admi n\Planning_Division\CEQA\Cumulative_Project_List\cumulative_ projects_current.docx 25-113 ATTACHMENT B RESOLUTION NO. 2016- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GP2013-002 AND COASTAL LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. LC2013-003 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 191 RIVERSIDE AVENUE WHEREAS, an application was filed by Pacific Coast Architects, with respect to property located at 191 Riverside Avenue, and legally described as Lot F of Tract 919, requesting approval of amendments to the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan to change the land use category from Public Facilities (PF) to Mixed -Use Horizontal (MU - H1) and an amendment to the Zoning Code and the Local Coastal Program to change the zoning from Public Facilities (PF) to Mixed -Use Mariners' Mile (MU -MM) (collectively, Project); WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on October 20, 2016, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC). Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this public hearing. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted (5 ayes, 1 noes, 1 abstain) to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2032 recommending City Council adoption of Negative Declaration ND2016-004 (SCH NO. 2014011028) and approval of General Plan Amendment No. GP2016-002, Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2016-002 and Code Amendment No. CA2016-005; WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the City Council on November 22, 2016, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with the NBMC. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the City Council at this public hearing; WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq. (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code of Regulations, Sections 15000 et seq.), and City Council Policy K-3, the Project is subject to environmental review; WHEREAS, the City thereafter caused to be prepared an Initial Study/Negative Declaration (SCH No. 2014011028) (ND) in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and City Council Policy K-3; WHEREAS, notice of the availability of the draft ND was given in accordance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and City Council Policy K-3. The draft ND was made available for public review for a 30 -day comment period beginning on September 20, 2016, and ending October 20, 2016. The City received four comments letters during 25-114 Resolution No. 2016 - Page 2 of 4 the public review period and the comments were considered during consideration of the Project and the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, found that the comments did not include substantial evidence that a potential environmental effect may occur; WHEREAS, on the basis of the entire environmental review record, the Project will have a less than significant impact upon the environment; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In addition, project opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges. As project applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate that such applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial challenge, and bear the responsibility for any costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which may be awarded to a successful challenger; Therefore, to the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant and property owner shall defend, indemnify, release and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to the Project, the Project's approval based on the City's CEQA determination and/or the City's failure to comply with the requirements of any federal, state, or local laws, including, but not limited to, CEQA, General Plan and zoning requirements. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, or proceeding whether incurred by applicant, City, and/or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding; WHEREAS, the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan vision for the Mariners' Mile Commercial District calls for a pedestrian -oriented mixed-use "village" containing retail businesses, offices, services, and housing parcels on the inland side of Coast Highway; WHEREAS, the proposed zoning change is consistent with the mixed-use village vision for this area of Mariners' Mile by providing the opportunity for commercial and residential development; WHEREAS, the proposed change to mixed-use would be a continuation of the mixed land uses designated on the properties abutting and adjacent to the Project site; 25-115 Resolution No. 2016 - Page 3 of 4 WHEREAS, the Coastal Land Use Plan will be carried out fully in conformity with the California Coastal Act; WHEREAS, Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2013-003 shall not become effective until approval by the California Coastal Commission; WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 423 of the City of Newport Beach Charter and Council Policy A-18, proposed General Plan amendments were reviewed to determine if a vote of the electorate would be required if a project (separately or cumulatively with other projects in the same Statistical Area over the prior 10 years) exceeds certain thresholds. This is the fourth General Plan Amendment that affects Statistical Area H-4 since the General Plan update in 2006. The amendment would result in 13 units being added to the Statistical Area and when this is added to 80% of the increase in units of the three prior amendments, the total does not exceed 100 units. The amendment would result in a net increase of 1,426 square feet and when this is added to 80% of the increase in floor area of the three prior amendments, the total does not exceed 40,000 square feet. The amendment is projected to increase AM Peak trips by 39.68 trips and PM Peak trips by 52.85 trips and when this is added to the 80% of the increase in trips of the three prior amendments, the total does not exceed 100 trips for either the AM or PM Peak. As none of the thresholds specified by Charter Section 423 are exceeded, no vote of the electorate is required; WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 65352.3 of the California Government Code, the City provided notice regarding the proposed General Plan amendment to appropriate tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) each time it considers a proposal to adopt or amend the General Plan. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby resolves as follows: Section 1: The City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, hereby approves General Plan Amendment Permit No. GP2016-002 as depicted in Exhibit "A" and Local Coastal Program Amendment No. LC2016-002 as depicted in Exhibit "B", which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. Section 2: The Community Development Director is hereby directed to revise all applicable General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan figures to reflect the change in the land use designations upon the effective date of the amendments. Section 3: The City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, hereby authorizes submittal of the Local Coastal Program CLUP Amendment to the California Coastal Commission for review and approval. 25-116 Resolution No. 2010 - Page 4 of 4 Section 4: The City's certified Coastal Land Use Plan, including this amendment, shall be implemented in a manner fully in conformity with the Coastal Act. Section 5: These actions shall take effect automatically upon Coastal Commission action, unless the Coastal Commission proposes suggested modifications to the proposed Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment. In the event that the Coastal Commission approves the Amendment with suggested modifications, City approval of the modified Amendment shall require a separate action by the City Council fallowing Coastal Commission approval. In this case, the Amendment would become effective upon the effective date of the Coastal Commission certification of the modified Amendment. PASSED AND ADOPTED on the 22nd day of November, 2016, by the following vote, to -wit: AYES, COUNCILMEMBERS NOES, COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS DIANE B. DIXON, MAYOR ATTEST: LEILANI I. BROWN, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY A Y'S OFFICE F� (;�r) AARON C. HARP, CITY ATTORNEY 25-117 Exhibit "A" General Plan Land Use Map Amendment -5- 25-118 Land Use Change: Public Facilities (PF) to Mixed Use Horizontal (MU -H1) Exhibit "B" Coastal Plan Land Use Plan Amendment -6- 25-120 N ■ 0 150 300 LC2016-002 (PA2016-127) Feet Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment e 191 Riverside Avenue Document Name: PA2016-127 LC2016-002 Reso Exhibit 25-121 ATTACHMENT C ORDINANCE NO. 2016 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A ZONING CODE AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 191 RIVERSIDE AVENUE WHEREAS, an application was filed by Pacific Coast Architects, with respect to property located at 191 Riverside Avenue, and legally described as Lot F of Tract 919, requesting approval of amendments to the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan to change the land use category from Public Facilities (PF) to Mixed -Use Horizontal (MU - H1) and an amendment to the Zoning Code and the Local Coastal Program to change the zoning from Public Facilities (PF) to Mixed -Use Mariners' Mile (MU -MM) (collectively, Project); WHEREAS, the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan vision for the Mariners' Mile Commercial District calls for a pedestrian -oriented mixed-use "village" containing retail businesses, offices, services, and housing parcels on the inland side of Coast Highway; WHEREAS, the proposed zoning change is consistent with the mixed-use village vision for this area of Mariners' Mile by providing the opportunity for commercial and residential development; WHEREAS, the proposed change to mixed-use would be a continuation of the mixed land uses designated on the properties abutting and adjacent to the Project site; WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on October 20, 2016, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC). Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this public hearing. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted (5 ayes, 1 noes, 1 abstain) to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2032 recommending City Council adoption of Negative Declaration ND2016-004 (SCH NO. 2014011028) and approval of General Plan Amendment No. GP2016-002, Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2016-002 and Code Amendment No. CA2016-005; WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the City Council on November 22, 2016, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with the NBMC. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the City Council at this public hearing; 25-122 Ordinance No. 2016 - Page 2 of 2 WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq. (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code of Regulations, Sections 15000 et seq.), and City Council Policy K-3, the Project is subject to environmental review; WHEREAS, the City thereafter caused to be prepared an Initial Study/Negative Declaration (SCH No. 2014011028) (ND) in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and City Council Policy K-3; WHEREAS, notice of the availability of the draft ND was given in accordance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and City Council Policy K-3. The draft ND was made available for public review for a 30 -day comment period beginning on September 20, 2016, and ending October 20, 2016. The City received four comments letters during the public review period and the comments were considered during consideration of the Project and the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, found that the comments did not include substantial evidence that a potential environmental effect may occur; WHEREAS, on the basis of the entire environmental review record, the Project will have a less than significant impact upon the environment; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In addition, project opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges. As project applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate that such applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial challenge, and bear the responsibility for any costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which may be awarded to a successful challenger; Therefore, to the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant and property owner shall defend, indemnify, release and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to the Project, the Project's approval based on the City's CEQA determination and/or the City's failure to comply with the requirements of any federal, state, or local laws, including, but not limited to, CEQA, General Plan and zoning requirements. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, or proceeding whether incurred by applicant, City, and/or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. 25-123 Ordinance No. 2016 - Page 3 of 3 NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach ordains as follows: Section 1: The City's Zoning Map shall be amended from PF for 191 Riverside Avenue, to Mixed -Use Mariners' Mile (MU -MM), as provided in the map attached as Exhibit 'A," and incorporated herein by reference. All other provisions of the City's Zoning Map shall remain unchanged. This amendment to the City's Zoning Map shall not become effective until the effective date of approval of Local Coastal Program Amendment No. LC2016-002 by the California Coastal Commission. Section 2: The City's Coastal Zoning Map shall be amended from PF for 191 Riverside Avenue, to Mixed -Use Mariners' Mile (MU -MM), as provided in the map attached as Exhibit "B," and incorporated herein by reference. All other provisions of the City's Coastal Zoning Map shall remain unchanged. This amendment to the City's Coastal Zoning Map shall not become effective until the effective date of approval of Local Coastal Program Amendment No. LC2016-002 by the California Coastal Commission. Section 3: The City Council hereby authorizes staff to submit Local Coastal Program Amendment No. LC2016-002 to the California Coastal Commission for review and approval. The submittal to the California Coastal Commission shall not occur until the City's Local Coastal Program becomes effective. Section 4: The City's Local Coastal Program, including this amendment, shall be implemented in a manner fully in conformity with the Coastal Act. Section 5: The recitals provided in this ordinance are true and correct and are incorporated into the substantive portion of this ordinance. Section 6: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Section 7: The requirement for environmental review under CEQA is satisfied by Negative Declaration No. ND2016-004 (SCH NO. 2014011028). 25-124 Ordinance No. 2016 - Page 4 of 4 Section 8: The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance, or a summary thereof, to be published pursuant to City Charter Section 414. This ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held on the 22rd day of November, 2016, and adopted on the 13{x' day of December, 2016, by the following vote, to -wit: AYES, COUNCILMEMBERS NOES, COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS DIANE B. DIXON, MAYOR ATTEST: LEILANI 1. BROWN, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTQNEy'S OFFICE AARON C. HARP, CITY ATTORNEY 25-125 Exhibit "A" Zoning Map Amendment -5- 25-126 Zoning Change: Public Facilities (PF) to Mixed Use Mariners Mile (MU -MM) P � Attachment D October 20, 2016 Planning Commission Staff Report 25-128 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT October 20, 2016 Meeting Agenda Item No. 2 SUBJECT: 191 Riverside Land Use and Zoning Amendments (PA2016-127) 191 Riverside Avenue ■ Negative Declaration No. ND2016-004 ■ Code Amendment No. CA2016-005 ■ General Plan Amendment No. GP2016-002 ■ Local Coastal Plan Amendment No. LC2016-002 APPLICANT: Pacific Coast Architects OWNER: Mariners Center M2, LLC PLANNER: Patrick Alford, Planning Manager (949) 644-3235, palford@newportbeachca.gov PROJECT SUMMARY Amendments to the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan to change the land use category from Public Facilities (PF) to Mixed -Use Horizontal (MU -H1) and an amendment to the Zoning Code to change the zoning from Public Facilities (PF) to Mixed -Use Mariners Mile (MU -MM). RECOMMENDATION 1) Conduct a public hearing; and 2) Adopt Resolution No. recommending City Council adoption of Negative Declaration ND2016-004 (SCH No. 2014011028) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and City Council approval of Code Amendment No. CA2016-005, General Plan Amendment No. GP2016-002, and Local Coastal Plan Amendment LC2016-002 (Attachment No. PC 1). 25-129 191 Riverside Land Use and Zoning Amendments Planning Commission, October 20, 2016 Paqe 2 LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING CURRENT USE •"" .� L�. -._.._ flow NORTH General Commercial (CG) General Commercial (CG) Restaurant, Office, Retail Mixed -Use Horizontal Mixed -Use Mariners Retail, Restaurants, SOUTH (MU -H1) Mile (MU -MM) Personal Services FEAST i k � {moi _ � .°\,r ..,Sy_ �_ '� � •4 i� 4 y=~+ � ,(y�.� 7 `, �'�• Mixed-Use Horizontal Mixed -Use Mariners ~.r ��S:T:::I (MU -H1) Mile (MU -MM) M1 1 I°3 9� ,y 3F i 41 LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING CURRENT USE ON-SITE Public Facilities PF Public Facilities PF Vacant NORTH General Commercial (CG) General Commercial (CG) Restaurant, Office, Retail Mixed -Use Horizontal Mixed -Use Mariners Retail, Restaurants, SOUTH (MU -H1) Mile (MU -MM) Personal Services FEAST Mixed -Use Horizontal MU -H1 Mixed -Use Mariners Mile MU -MM Retail, Office Mixed-Use Horizontal Mixed -Use Mariners Retail, Restaurants, ��S:T:::I (MU -H1) Mile (MU -MM) Personal Services 25-130 191 Riverside Land Use and Zoning Amendments Planning Commission, October 20, 2016 Page 3 INTRODUCTION Proiect Settin The project site consists of approximately 0.52 acres bounded by Avon Street to the north, Mariners Center to the south and west, and Riverside Avenue to the east. The project site is developed with a one-story institutional building, previously used as a United States Post Office. The structure is currently vacant. The 9,242 square foot building is constructed of concrete block. A surface parking lot containing 20 spaces surrounds the building to the south and west. The project site is located within the Mariners' Mile commercial district, which is fully developed with a variety of residential, office, and commercial land uses. To the north, at the northwestern corner of Riverside Avenue and Avon Street, a three-story commercial office building is occupied by a restaurant, offices, and retail sales; single - unit residences with access off of Cliff Drive are located on the bluffs above; beyond to the northeast is Cliff Drive Park and other single -unit residences. To the south and west is Mariners Center, a single -story commercial center, which is occupied with retail sales, restaurants, and personal services. To the east, across Riverside Avenue, are commercial and office buildings; beyond, to the southeast is Mariners Mile Square commercial center, which is occupied with retail sales, restaurants, and personal services. The Mariners' Mile commercial corridor is located to the south along West Coast Highway (State Highway 1), which is developed with restaurants, automobile and yacht dealerships, retail sales, personal services, and marine -related retail sales and services. The Newport Heights residential community, which is predominately single - unit residences, is located on the mesa above the Mariners' Mile commercial district. Project Description The proposed project consists of applications for a General Plan Amendment (GP2016- 002) and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment (LC2016-002) to change the land use category from Public Facilities (PF) to Mixed -Use Horizontal (MU -H1) and a Zoning Code Amendment (CA2016-005) to change the zoning from Public Facilities (PF) to Mixed -Use Mariners Mile (MU -MM) for a 0.52 -acre site located at 191 Riverside Avenue. No demolition or new construction is proposed at this time. Background On March 6, 2014, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the same set of amendments (PA2013-210) to the City Council. On September 9, 2014, the City Council denied the amendments without prejudice. A discussion on basis of the City Council denial will be provided further in this report. 25-131 191 Riverside Land Use and Zoning Amendments Planning Commission, October 20, 2016 Page 4 DISCUSSION Analysis The General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan vision for the Mariners Mile Commercial District calls for parcels on the inland side of Coast Highway to "evolve as a pedestrian - oriented mixed-use `village' containing retail businesses, offices, services, and housing." Specifically, Policy LU 6.19.4 calls for the inland area of Mariner Mile (Sub -Area C) to be developed with a mix of visitor- and local -serving retail commercial, residential, and public uses. LU 6.19.4 Inland side of Coast Highway [designated as "MU -H1," "CG(0.3)," and "CG(0.5)" Sub -Areas B and C] Accommodate a mix of visitor- and local -serving retail commercial, residential, and public uses. The Coast Highway frontage shall be limited to nonresidential uses. On inland parcels, generally between Riverside Avenue and Tustin Avenue, priority should be placed on accommodating uses that serve upland residential neighborhoods such as grocery stores, specialty retail, small service office, restaurants, coffee shops, and similar uses. The proposed change from public facilities to mixed-use would be a continuation of the mixed use designation on the properties abutting and adjacent to the project site. The proposed land use and zoning changes are therefore consistent with the mixed-use village vision for this area of Mariners' Mile by providing the opportunity for commercial and residential development. Development Potential Although no demolition or new construction is proposed at this time, the proposed project would allow land uses and property development that are not allowed under the current land use and zoning designations. Under the current PF (Public Facilities) Zoning, land uses are limited to public facilities, such as community centers, cultural institutions, government facilities, libraries, public hospitals, public utilities, and public schools. All land uses, with the exception of minor utilities, require either a conditional use permit or a minor use permit. Floor area, height, and parking standards are established also by conditional use permits. The proposed MU -MM (Mixed -Use Mariners Mile) Zoning would allow retail and service uses. Some uses, such as commercial recreation and entertainment, eating and drinking establishments, and vehicle sales require either a minor use permit or a conditional use permit. Non-residential development would be limited to a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.50, which would result in a maximum floor area of approximately 11,326 square feet. 25-132 191 Riverside Land Use and Zoning Amendments Planning Commission, October 20, 2016 Page 5 The MU -MM designation would also allow residential uses as part of a mixed-use development. A minimum of 10 and a maximum of 13 dwelling units would be permitted. Site Development Review approval is required for any mixed-use project. Mixed-use projects are also subject to the site planning, development, and operational standards of the Zoning Code. A mixed-use development would have to provide a minimum FAR of 0.25 (5,663 square feet) and the maximum FAR would be 0.50 (approximately 11,326 square feet). The maximum residential FAR would be 1.0 (22,651 square feet). Under the existing PF District, height limits are established by use permit; however, development could not exceed the 35 -foot height limit of the Shoreline Height Limit Zone. Any future development on the proposed Project Site would have to conform to the 26-foot/31-foot (flat roof and sloped roof, respectively) Height Limit Area and 35 -foot Shoreline Height Limit Zone. For purposes of comparison, the existing former Post Office building is approximately 20 feet high. New development within these height limits would be consistent with the development pattern in the area and would not significantly impact the visual quality and charter of the surrounding area. The project site is under the same ownership as the abutting Mariners Center which is currently undergoing exterior renovations. The property owner has stated that the building will be incorporated into a remodel of the retail center. Traffic and Parking The City's Traffic Engineer conducted a traffic analysis. As no specific land uses are proposed at this time, the City's Traffic Engineer conducted the analysis based on the existing post office use and the maximum development of the site under the proposed mixed-use land use and zoning: • 10,000 sq. ft. Post Office (existing) • 13 Apartment Dwelling Units • 11,326 sq. ft. of General Commercial Trip generation rates were taken from the updated Newport Beach Traffic Model (NBTM) because there is no Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip rate for General Commercial. The NBTM trip generation is: • 10,000 sq. ft. Post Office — 216 trips /day • 13 Apartment Dwelling Units — 80 trips /day • 11,326 sq. f.t. General Commercial — 433 trips /day With credit for the existing Post Office trips, a project under the maximum development scenario would result in a net increase of 297 trips per day. Using Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) standards, no intersection impacts were identified. Required parking for the current PF District is established by conditional use permit. Currently, the Project Site has 20 surface parking spaces. The Institute of 25-133 191 Riverside Land Use and Zoning Amendments Planning Commission, October 20, 2016 Page 6 Transportation Engineers (ITE) fourth edition of Parking Generation sets the peak period parking demand for a United States Post Office at 33.2 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area or 2.01 spaces per employee. The 9,242 square foot building therefore would have a peak period parking demand of 307 parking spaces using the ITE standard. Under the proposed MU -MM District, the Zoning Code off-street parking requirement would be two spaces per dwelling unit and one space per 250 square feet of retail floor area. As no development is proposed at this time, it is unknown if future development will be strictly commercial or a mixed-use project. However, under maximum development scenarios, a project would have to provide 46 parking spaces for a strictly commercial development and 72 spaces for a mixed-use development. Therefore, parking demand would be considerably lower under either the commercial, mixed use, or reuse scenarios than the previous post office use. The Zoning Code allows a building with nonconforming parking to be occupied with new uses without providing additional parking, provided there is no intensification or enlargement (e.g., increase in floor area, or lot area), and the new use requires a parking rate not higher than one space per 250 square feet of gross building area. Therefore, under the proposed MU -MM District, the existing building could be occupied with new uses that would have a Zoning Code -based parking demand of 37 parking spaces; as there are 20 existing spaces on site, there is the potential for a 17 -space parking deficit under these circumstances. Therefore, reuse of the structure would have a lower parking demand as compared to the previous post office. Table 1 Parking Demand Requirement Use Required Parking Assumptions Post Office 307 Spaces Based on ITE Rates. Reuse of Existing Structure 37 Spaces Reuse to require no more the 1 space per 250 square feet Redevelopment 46 to 72 Spaces Maximum Development Scenario Charter Section 423 Section 423 of the Charter of the City of Newport Beach requires an analysis of the density, intensity, and peak hour traffic associated with a proposed General Plan amendment. When increases in density, intensity, and peak hour traffic of a proposed General Plan amendment along with 80% of the increases of prior amendments exceed specified thresholds, the proposed amendment is considered to be a "major amendment" that requires voter approval. The specified thresholds are 100 dwelling units (density), 40,000 square feet of floor area (intensity), and 100 peak hour trips (traffic). City Council Policy A-18 establishes the Guidelines for implementation of City Charter Section 423 and provides specific guidance as to the density, intensity and traffic thresholds for the analysis. 25-134 191 Riverside Land Use and Zoning Amendments Planning Commission, October 20, 2016 Page 7 The Land Use Element of the General Plan does not establish a density or intensity limit for the Public Facilities land use category. Therefore, to determine the amount of traffic and intensity/floor area allowed under the General Plan, this analysis uses the 9,900 square feet allotted to the project site by the General Plan traffic model. Per City Council Policy A-18, the Public, Semi -Public, and Institutional trip rate of 1.5 for the AM period and 1.5 for the PM period per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area was used. Table 2 identifies the density, intensity, and peak hour trip changes resulting from the proposed amendment. Table 2 GP2016-002 Section 423 Analysis Amendment Density (DU) Intensity (SF) Peak Hour Trip AM PM Existing PF 0 9,900 14.85 14.85 Proposed MU -MM 13 11,326 40.61 53.36 Change +13 +1,426 +25.76 +38.51 The project site is located within Statistical Area H-4 and the City has approved three prior amendments. Table 3 identifies the increases in density, intensity, and peak hour traffic associated with the three prior amendments and the proposed amendment. Table 3 Statistical Area H-5 — Section 423 Analysis Amendment Density (DU) Intensity (SF) Peak Hour Trip AM PM Prior Amendment Increases GP2010-004 0 0 0 0 GP2010-009 0 6,497 19.49 25.99 GP2011-008 0 10,019 30.1 40.1 Total 0 16,516 49.59 66.09 80% of Total Prior Increases 0 13,213 39.68 52.87 Proposed Amendment Increases GP2016-002 13 11426 25.76 38.51 TOTAL INCREASE 13 14,639 65.44 91.38 As none of the specified thresholds established by Charter Section 423 are exceeded, staff has concluded that the proposed General Plan amendment would not require voter approval. City Council Denial On September 9, 2014, the City Council denied the same set of amendments (PA2013- 210) without prejudice. 25-135 191 Riverside Land Use and Zoning Amendments Planning Commission, October 20, 2016 Page 8 The City Council found that removing the PF land use designation and zoning of the property could result in the loss of a public facility (i.e., the Post Office) that serves the needs of business of the Mariners' Mile Commercial District and the residents of Newport Heights and Cliff Haven communities. At that time, the Post Office had closed and there were concerns that the facility would relocate out of the area. Since that time, the Post Office relocated into the adjacent Mariners Center. The City Council also found that the proposed change in land use designation and zoning to Mixed -Use had the potential to introduce land uses with higher parking demand generation rates in an area with limited parking opportunities. Any new development would have to meet Zoning Code off-street parking requirements. As stated earlier in this report, there is the potential of reuse of the existing building without providing additional parking which would create a 17 -space parking shortfall. However, this demand would be less than projected for the previous post office use based on the ITE Parking Generation standards (see Table 1). Finally, the City Council found that the proposed change in land use designation and zoning to Mixed -Use could allow land uses with higher vehicle trip generation rates that could potentially further impact traffic and the deficient Riverside Avenue/West Coast Highway intersection. It was believed that the impact could trigger the need for a dual eastbound left turn lane on West Coast Highway. However, as stated earlier in this report, a project under the maximum development scenario would not result in intersection impacts using Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) standards. Tribal Consultation California Environmental Quality Act requires a local government to provide notice to Native American tribes of an opportunity to consult on projects within 14 days of a determination that a project application is complete. The City sent letters to tribal organizations on August 8, 2016, which initiated the 30 -day period when a consultation on the project can be requested. No replies were received. Section 65352.3 of the California Government Code requires a local government to contact the appropriate tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) each time it considers a proposal to adopt or amend the General Plan. If requested by any tribe, the local government must consult for the purpose of preserving or mitigating impacts to cultural resources. The City sent letters to NAHC-identified tribal organizations with a request for a 45 -day response period. The response period will end on November 20, 2016. As of the publication of this report, the City received one response; the Tribal Manager/Cultural Resource Director of the Juaneno Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen Nation stated that they had no concerns at this time, but requested that they be notified of any changes. The project site is located in an urbanized area and is currently developed. Ground disturbances from the previous development in the last century likely would have 25-136 191 Riverside Land Use and Zoning Amendments Planning Commission, October 20, 2016 Page 9 uncovered or inadvertently destroyed any unknown archeological resources. No known recorded archeological resources are located in the project site. Therefore, it is highly unlikely the proposed project would disturb any unknown archaeological resources. Alternatives The Commission has the option to recommend changes to the proposed amendments or continue consideration of the proposed amendments to a future date. The Commission also has the option of denying the proposed amendments. Pursuant to Zoning Code Section 20.66.040.13, if a proposed amendment is denied by the Commission, no further action shall be taken, unless appealed to the City Council. A resolution for denial is provided as Attachment No. PC 4). Environmental Review Initial Study/Negative Declaration ND2016-004 (Attachment No. PC 5) was prepared, in accordance with the implementing guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K-3. The Negative Declaration (ND) does not identify any component of the proposed project that would result in a "potentially significant impact" on the environment per CEQA guidelines. A copy of the ND was made available on the City's website, at each branch of the Newport Beach Public Library, and at the Community Development Department at City Hall. The ND was made available for public review for a 30 -day comment period, which will end October 20, 2016. As of the publication of this report, the City received one comment letter (Attachment PC 6) from Mr. David J. Tanner. Mr. Tanner challenged the environmental analysis and stated that the document did not meet CEQA requirements. Public Notice Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to all owners of property within 300 feet of the boundaries of the site (excluding intervening rights-of-way and waterways) including the applicant and posted on the subject property at least 10 days before the scheduled meeting, consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. 25-137 Prepared by: Patrick J. Alford, Planning Manager ATTACHMENTS 191 Riverside Land Use and Zoning Amendments Planning Commission, October 20, 2016 Page 10 Submitted by: Wisneski, AICP, Deputy Director PC 1 Draft Resolution recommending approval PC 2 Applicant's Project Description and Justification Statement PC 3 Site Plan PC 4 Draft Resolution for denial PC 5 Initial Study/Negative Declaration (ND2016-004) PC 6 IS/ND Comment Letter(s) 25-138 Attachment E Draft October 20, 2016 Planning Commission Minutes 125-139 VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO.2 191 RIVERSIDE LAND USE AND ZONING AMENDMENTS (PA2016-127) Site Location: 191 Riverside Avenue Planning Program Manager Patrick Alford reported the proposed amendments would change the General Plan, the Coastal Land Use Plan and the Zoning Code from Public Facilities (PF) to Mixed -Use (MU). He showed photos of the surrounding area. The Initial Study indicated no potentially significant impacts. He reviewed comments from a resident, SPON and two Native American organizations. Staff concluded public comments did not raise any substantial evidence of new impacts or additional mitigation measures. The Planning Commission could take action on the Negative Declaration. Issues associated with the amendments were generally land use compatibility and development potential. The proposed land use was consistent with the surrounding area and the vision for the Village portion of the Mariners' Mile area. He shared the analysis performed pursuant to Charter Section 423. No development was proposed at the current time. If the land use and zoning amendments were approved, development of 10-13 dwelling units and 5,663-11,326 square feet of commercial was possible. Site development review would be required for any mixed-use or project greater than 10,000 square feet. A comparison of traffic between the previous use and the maximum development potential showed a net increas of 297 average daily trips. The study showed no significant impacts to nearby intersections or to Riv de Drive. The site contained 20 parking spaces. Under the current PF Zoning District, parking stand re established by a use permit. Maximum development of a mixed-use project would require 46 p g ces for commercial and 26 spaces for residential for a total of 72 parking spaces. As long a ses we ual to or less than 1 space per 250 square feet of floor area, the existing building woul mply with Code requirements for off-street parking. The existing building was approximately eet in ight. Th : aximum height could be 35 feet under the current PF Zoning District. Under the pro a ed -Use Mariners' Mile District, the height limit would be 26 feet for a flat -roof building or 31 feet for oped-roof building. The Planning Commission's recommendation would be presented to t Cou on November 22, tentatively. If the Council approved the amendments, then staff woul u Loc oastal Program amendment to the Coastal Commission. gin, In response to Commissioner D p's i uiry, nning Program Manager Alford advised that the height restriction in the CG Zone was same a pr sed mixed-use, 26 feet for a flat roof. The Commission had the option of finding uses th ose provided in the Zoning Code, such as museums and cultural institutions. A pu liti signation was more limiting than a proposed mixed-use designation. The Commission coul tha ila lic facilities uses were consistent with the PF Zoning District. In response to Vice it Koetti s questions, Planning Program Manager Alford explained that the adjacent Mariners' Cente owed t it could be parked in conjunction with the project to meet the parking demand for the entire site. h the project was located on a separate parcel from Mariners' Center, they shared ownership and o ations. The applicant had indicated its intent to reuse the building with straight commercial development and did not propose mixed-use. The applicant filed an application for mixed-use because mixed-use was consistent with the abutting property and property across the street. In response to Secretary Zak's questions, Planning Program Manager Alford advised that minor use permits were discretionary at staff level and could be appealed to the Planning Commission. An example of a minor use was a smaller -scale food use. Vice Chair Koetting disclosed that he met on the site to view redevelopment of the property. He had little discussion concerning the project site. Commissioners Hillgren, Dunlap and Weigand also visited the site. Commissioner Lawler reported he met with the applicant who expressly stated he was not interested in dwelling units. Secretary Zak indicated he also met with the applicant but not at the site. 2of13 125-140 Susan Hori, on behalf of Mariners Center M2, commented that the purpose was to implement the General Plan vision for the village area. She and her team were available to answer questions. Gary Jabara, Mariners Center, stated the theme of Mariners Center was consistent with the General Plan and the vision of the City. His intention for the site was retail that complemented the area. The issue before the Planning Commission was community enhancement. He was committed to bringing new life to the site and Mariners' Mile. The proposed amendments would allow him to reuse the building for a mixed-use purpose that would serve the upland residential neighborhoods. In response to Commissioner Dunlap's question, Ms. Hori indicated a General Commercial Zone rather than an MU Zone was an option. Surrounding uses were commercial. The Planning Commission could recommend mixed-use or commercial as appropriate. Commissioner Dunlap noted properties to the west of the site were zoned general commercial. Residential did not seem appropriate for the site. Chair Kramer advised that he would not favor general commercial. Chair Kramer opened the public hearing. Joe Distill [phonetic] shared his experience with traffic at the, Extra units would result in increased parking, congestion and traffic accidents. David Tanner indicated he had submitted written comment " d " ested the Planning Commission inquire regarding the technical points raised in his comments. a share s experience with access from Avon Street. Approximately 50 additional parking spaces d have to b and for the site. If mixed-use was allowed, a future owner of the property could pl orda housing d request allowances under the Density Bonus Law. He recommended the Plann C ission continue the CEQA document until it provided a clearer picture of the project. _ Jim Mosher was disappointed that public co 6MQW,@§.noquested for approval of the minutes. He had additional comments he wanted to make regar g s. Chair Kramer advised Mr. Mosher to submit his comments to staff. Mr. Mosher is an nce o "a new property owner realizing a different zoning would increase the value of th ope He not aware of any policy to change zoning in order to maximize profits for the owner. ouncil c A- encouraged staff and applicants to prepare a complete package for a General Plan Ame the intended project. The area, specifically Avon Street, is subject to a planning is uld identify a need for property zoned as public facility. Page 10 of the staff report and t eso fo nial of the project conflicted with regard to actions following the Commission's denial he Droiec . Dennis Baker felt this p _ t is xample of spot zoning. The City, the Commission and the Council seemed to work hard to m i rofits for developers. That should not be the focus of the City Council and the Planning Commission.w� Allan Beek stated the area was under study for future planning. The Commission was considering one parcel and determining there would be no environmental impacts of an unknown project. That seemed like the wrong thing to do. Chair Kramer closed the public hearing. Ms. Hori remarked that this is the antithesis of spot zoning. The surrounding area is zoned mixed-use. Because the item was a General Plan and zoning action, no project had been proposed. Any proposed project would be subject to a discretionary review in terms of a site development review. Parking and circulation would be addressed in that review. The applicant's site plan, provided to the City Traffic Engineer, showed the parking field is adequate to park all square footage existing onsite, including the vacant Post Office building, and identified the circulation pattern within the parking lot. In response to Commissioner Lawler's inquiry, Planning Program Manager Alford reported information requested by Mr. Tanner is contained in the Negative Declaration document and the staff report. Many of the public comments are speculative in nature. Staff reviewed a worst case scenario and found no potential for significant impacts. 3of13 125-141 In response to Commissioner Weigand's question, Planning Program Manager Alford indicated land uses under the mixed-use designation are virtually the same as under General Commercial Zoning. A Mixed-use project horizontally or vertically would not be allowed. Commissioner Lawler remarked that the current zoning is not consistent with the Mixed-use village vision of Mariners' Mile. Commissioner Hillgren recalled the amendments were denied previously in order to preserve the Post Office. Motion made by Commissioner Lawler and seconded by Commissioner Hillgren to approve Land Use and Zoning Amendments PA2016-127, Negative Declaration ND2016-004, Code Amendment CA2016-005, General Plan Amendment GP2016-002 and Land Coastal Plan Amendment LC2016-002. Chair Kramer supported the motion. He could find no reason to deny the proposed amendments. Changing General Plan zoning separate from a project -specific application was not uncommon. Commissioner Dunlap concurred with prior comments. Public facilities are a very narrow window for development. Residential is not appropriate for the site. A gener I commercial designation and limiting the residential component would be consistent with the area. This d not limit the applicant, because he was not considering residential. Alternate motion made by Commissioner Dunlap and nded b mmissioner Weigand to zone the site General Commercial. Secretary Zak noted a minor use permit would a t ses described. If a future project proposed residential, it would be subject to site development a tanning Commission review. At that point, the Planning Commission could evaluate the vat .: the pr t. Commissioner Weigand stated the Planning oOld change before a project was proposed for the site. The current Planning Co wak a contemplating a residential use on the site, but a future Planning Commission might. Chair Kramer supported a Mixe a ecause the area was Mixed-use. He did not favor the alternate motion. Commissioner Hillgr Iso did n up the alternate motion. The one thing lacking in the village area was residential; theref he Plan Commission should encourage residential. Commissioner Lawler did'WWthe alternate motion. The site is suited for Mixed-use. If a project proposed residential, Commis ers at that time would have the background information. Commissioner Dunlap remarked that within the study of Mariners' Mile local residents expressed concerns about residential at this location. If the Commission did not want residential at the site, then it made no sense for the Commission to consider residential as part of a project in the future. The entire strip of land to the west of the site and the two adjacent corners were zoned general commercial. Assistant City Attorney Torres clarified that the Planning Commission should vote on the alternation motion first. Vote on the alternate motion: AYES: Dunlap, Weigand NOES: Kramer, Koetting, Zak, Hillgren, Lawler ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Commissioner Weigand would abstain because this was an important project and good for the community. 4of13 125-142 Vote on the motion: AYES: Kramer, Koetting, Zak, Hillgren, Lawler NOES: Dunlap ABSTAIN: Weigand ABSENT: None ITEM NO.3 THE VILLAGE INN OUTDOOR DINING USE PERMIT (PA2015-016) Site Location: 123 and 127 Marine Avenue Chair Kramer announced this item had been continued. ITEM NO.4 MUSEUM HOUSE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT (PA2015-152) Site Location: 850 San Clemente Drive Commissioner Lawler disclosed that as a private developer he had pursued development of the site, but was not selected. He had no legal or financial interest in the project. He had no bias regarding the project and would vote based on information presented during the meeting. Senior Planner Gregg Ramirez reported the site was the existin a of the Orange County Museum of Art. The proposed project was a condominium tower with 100 for- units. Gross floor area was approximately 392,000 square feet plus two levels of garage parking. The p building would be 25 stories high or 295 feet. The applicant proposed 250 parking spaces within garag well as surface parking. A proposed valet and parking management plan would add 38 par ' spaces. Th al parking management plan would be subject to review by the City Traffic Engineer. T rojec so propo shared open -space amenities for residents. The applicant proposed one pool, on the a he applicant designed the building to achieve LEED Silver certification. He reviewed the pro osed do nt amendments, adjacent properties, the site plan, and the main land use -related goal from the Plan. a proposed project was approved, Anomaly Area 49 would shrink and only include the adjacent ' e Sa 1 ement Drive. Residential developments were located on the northerly and westerly sides of w r. General Plan policy indicates reinforcing the design concept for Newport Center ntra • J greatest building mass off San Joaquin Hills Road and then scaling down toward Coast ay. ight its for Blocks 500 and 600 were 295 feet. An exception for the North Newport Center PI ed C unity owed an additional 20 feet of height for mechanical appurtenances. Map H-1 from th ws areas in the City where nonresidential buildings could reach 300 feet in height, ' ubject property. Therefore the site was contemplated for a high-rise building. TheZoning e e to nned Communities from height limits specified in the height limit section. However, t equired fin s to be made to exceed base height limits. Setbacks of the main building are 35 feet fro n Cleme Drive and 42 feet from the rear. The podium level would not be visible from the front. The parka reqs intained a 10 -foot setback from the left side and rear property lines. A materials board was availab eluded in the project plans. The City determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be uired for the project. Staff received many comments from a public scoping meeting held in February and considered those comments in preparing the EIR. The public comment period for the Draft EIR expired September 30th. Staff prepared responses to comments regarding the Draft EIR. The EIR included four alternatives. The Draft EIR concluded the project would have no long-term specific or cumulative impacts to traffic, public views, delivery of water or utilities or any other section studied in the EIR. The Draft EIR found the project was consistent with goals and policies of the General Plan. Mitigation measures were developed for five areas related to short-term impacts, construction and the structural design of the tower. Construction noise was deemed to be a significant and unavoidable impact due to the project's proximity to residential uses. The Final EIR included responses to all comments, an updated transit map, additional mitigations for the construction traffic management plan, and donation of the parcel at 856 San Clemente Drive to the City. There was no need to re -circulate the EIR. The existing Art Museum generated 108 average daily trips based on an actual traffic count. The proposed tower would generate 418 average daily trips for an increase of 310 average daily trips. He provided average daily trips for surrounding buildings and reviewed terms of the proposed Development Agreement including a per unit public benefit fee and the donation of the land and building at 856 San Clemente Drive to the City. The project would be presented to the Airport Land Use Commission on November 17th. Director Kim Brandt advised that two revocations were associated with the Museum building, a use permit and a modification permit. Those use permits would expire at the time demolition permits were issued for the structure. 5of13 125-143 ATTACHMENT F RESOLUTION NO. 2016- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA DENYING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GP2016-002, COASTAL LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. LC2016-002, AND CODE AMENDMENT NO. CA2016-005 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 191 RIVERSIDE AVENUE WHEREAS, an application was filed by Pacific Coast Architects, with respect to property located at 191 Riverside Avenue, and legally described as Lot F of Tract 919, requesting approval of amendments to the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan to change the land use category from Public Facilities (PF) to Mixed -Use Horizontal (MU -H1) and an amendment to the Zoning Code to change the zoning from Public Facilities (PF) to Mixed -Use Mariners' Mile (MU -MM) (collectively, Project); WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on November 22, 2016, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC). Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this public hearing; WHEREAS, the proposed Project site's Public Facilities (PF) land use designation and zoning are intended to provide public facilities, including public schools, cultural institutions, government facilities, libraries, community centers, public hospitals, and public utilities; WHEREAS, the proposed land use designation of Mixed -Use Horizontal (MU -H1) and the proposed amendment to the Zoning Code to change the zoning from Public Facilities (PF) to Mixed - Use Mariners' Mile (MU -MM) would authorize development of freestanding nonresidential uses, multi -unit residential dwelling units, or mixed-use structures; WHEREAS, Goal LU 6.1 of the General Plan Land Use Element is for "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"; WHEREAS, General Plan Land Use Element Policies LU 6.1.1 calls for the City of Newport Beach to provide adequate community supporting uses by accommodating "schools, government administrative and operational facilities, fire stations and police facilities, religious facilities, schools, cultural facilities, museums, interpretative centers, and hospitals to serve the needs of Newport Beach's residents and businesses"; WHEREAS, the proposed Project would be contrary to Goal LU 6.1 and Policy LU 6. 1.1 by removing a land use designation and zoning intended to accommodate public facility uses that serve the needs of business of the Mariners' Mile Commercial District and the residents of Newport Heights and Cliff Haven communities; and WHEREAS, the proposed change in land use designation and zoning from Public Facilities to Mixed -Use will introduce potential land uses with higher parking demand generation rates in an area of the City with limited parking opportunities. 125-144 Resolution No. 2016 - Page 2 of 3 NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach resolves as follows: Section 1: The City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby denies General Plan Amendment No. GP2016-002, Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2016-002 and Code Amendment No. CA2016-005 based upon the findings contained in the recitals and the evidence presented at the public hearing. Section 2: Pursuant to Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves are not subject to CEQA review. Section 3: The recitals provided in this resolution are true and correct and are incorporated into the operative part of this resolution. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this resolution. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this resolution, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Section 5: This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting the resolution. PASSED AND ADOPTED on the 22nd day of November, 2016, by the following vote, to -wit: AYES, COUNCILMEMBERS NOES, COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS DIANE B. DIXON, MAYOR 125-145 ATTEST: LEILANI I. BROWN, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTO Y'S OFFICE 4 r im AARON C. HARP, CITY ATTORNEY Resolution No. 2016 - Page 3 of 3 125-146 Attachment G Negative Declaration Comment Letters 25-147 Dav&J. Tanner 22362 d Street • Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 September 30, 2016 Mr. Patrick J. Alford City of Newport Beach Community Development Department Planning Division 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 Subject: NEGATIVE DECLARATION for 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments General Plan Amendment No. GP2016-002, Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2013-003, Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2016-005 (PA2016-127) Dear Mr. Alford, I am a 35+ year resident and homeowner in Newport Beach. I wanted to thank the City for providing the public the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed CEQA Negative Declaration for the Proposed Project (PA2016-127). I have the following comments on the adequacy of the proposed Negative Declaration for the Proposed Project. Section 2.2.1 Site Access The Initial Study states: "The proposed Project Site is accessible by Riverside Avenue, a four -lane Local Road, and Avon Street, a two-lane Local Road." This description is true, but incomplete and misleading for the following reasons: Avon Street consists of two segments both terminating at Riverside Avenue at different locations. a) The northern segment of Avon Street runs east/west terminating at Riverside Avenue at the northern boundary of the Project Site. At this location, Riverside Avenue is a 4 lane road south of this intersection and a 2 lane road north of this intersection. Access onto the Project Site is provided via this segment of Avon Street. b) The southern segment of Avon Street runs east/west terminating at Riverside Avenue southeast of the southern boundary of the Project Site. At this location Riverside Avenue is a 4 land road. It does not extend onto the Project Site. Page 1 of 6 25-148 In addition: C) Parallel to and west of the southern segment of Avon Street is a private (one-way) drive extending westward from Riverside Avenue along the southern boundary of the Project Site. This private drive provides access to the Project Site. This private drive and its intersection with Riverside Avenue is a problem intersection frequently experiencing illegal two way traffic. This private drive and it traffic problems are not addressed by the Initial Study. The private one way drive and northern segment of Avon Street provide the required primary and secondary access to the Project Site. Section 2.2.1 Site Access should be updated accordingly. 2.3.1 On -Site General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, and Zoning Designations tions While this Section identifies permitted land uses, this Section fails to identify the development potential of the Project Site under the existing General Plan and "PF" (Public Facilities) Zoning District regulations. Specifically, this Section fails to identify the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) permitted, maximum building height and required parking standards. This Section should make clear the fact that residential land use/affordable housing is not permitted within the "PF" zone. Section 2.3.1 On -Site General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, and Zoning Designations should be updated accordingly. Section 3.1.4 Development Potential This Section fails to identify the development potential of the Project Site under the existing the General Plan and "PF" Zoning District regulations (specifically, the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) permitted, building height and parking standards). This Section fails to identify the development potential of the Project Site under the Proposed Project (General Plan Amendment, Zone Change (MU -MM) and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment) and describe the development potential allowed should affordable housing be proposed on the Project Site. Section 3.1.4 Development Potential should be updated accordingly. Section 5.1 Environmental Factors Potentiallv Affected The Initial Study concludes the following: "The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. There were no issues identified as a "Potentially Significant Impact"." For reasons stated throughout this comment letter, there is insufficient data contained in this Initial Study to conclude there are no environmental factors identified as a "Potentially Significant Impact". Page 2 of 6 25-149 It is clear Transportation/Traffic should be identified as a "Potentially Significant Impact". Additional data/analysis is needed to determine if other environmental factors will experience a "Potentially Significant Impact". Section 5.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected should be updated accordingly. 5.4.1 Aesthetics a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? This Section should compare the existing building height allowed by the existing General Plan and "PF" Zoning designation with the Proposed Project (General Plan Amendment, Zone Change (MU -MM) and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment) and describe the potential additional Aesthetic impacts should an affordable housing density bonus and height variance be requested for development of the Project Site. The Initial Study contains the following statement: "Furthermore, any future development on the proposed Project Site would have to conform to the 26- foot/31-foot Height Limit Area and 35 -foot Shoreline Height Limit Zone." This statement is not true if affordable housing is proposed. If a single maximum height limit cannot be determined at this time, the circumstances under which different height limits can apply should be explained. Importantly, this Section fails to identify the maximum density and building height should affordable housing be proposed on the Project Site and its impact on Aesthetics. Under this circumstance the reason for not using the worst case height limit in the analysis should be explained. The CEQA Lead Agency (City of Newport Beach) has a requirement to inform the public and project decision makers of a project's potential environmental impacts. The Lead Agency should inform the public and decision makers of the probable impacts to Aesthetics if affordable housing is a permitted land use by the Proposed Project. 5.4.1 Aesthetics should be updated accordingly. 5.4. 10 Land Use and Planning b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, a general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? This Section of the Initial Study should include the following statement: By definition, the Proposed Project requires a General Plan Amendment, Zoning Code Amendment and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment. Upon approval of the proposed Negative Declaration by the Lead Agency (City of Newport Beach) and discretionary approvals by the respective agencies, the Proposed Project will be consistent with applicable land use plans, policies and/or regulations having jurisdiction over the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project if approved will change the allowable uses on the Project Site from a range of public facilities to a mixture of commercial and residential uses. The proposed zone change from "PF" to "MU -MM" will allow residential uses on the Project Site permitting development of affordable housing on the Project Site. State laws entitle qualifying affordable housing projects a density bonus and exemptions from certain Municipal Code development standards (such as: a Page 3 of 6 25-150 reduction in on-site parking standards, increased building height limit, decreased building setbacks, etc,) as an incentive for the provision of qualifying affordable housing projects. A density bonus and exemptions from certain Municipal Code development standards, if requested, are not subject to City discretion. 5.4. 10 Land Use and Planning should be updated accordingly. Section 5.4.14 Public Services a3 Schools This Section relies on the "The 2006-2008 American Community Survey", and concludes "Although the proposed Project may increase the number of school age children in the City by five, this would not place a significant added burden to the Newport -Mesa Unified School District". The 2006-2008 American Community Survey is out of date. The Initial Study fails to consider the impact on Schools should the Proposed Project be developed with affordable housing and a density bonus be requested. There is no evidence in the Initial Study the Newport -Mesa Unified School District was contacted or that it agrees with the Initial Studies conclusion. The Newport -Mesa Unified School District should be contacted for its conclusion and to determine if in lieu mitigation fees are required. Section 5.4.14 Public Services should be updated accordingly. Section 5.4.16 Transportation/Traffic As stated, the description of Existing Conditions is not correct and/or complete in a number of instances. Therefore, the data upon which to conduct a Transportation/Traffic impact analysis for the Proposed Project is incomplete and inadequate to reach accurate and defensible conclusions. Below are reasons why: a) The two segments of Avon Street are not discussed, nor are the two access locations in the existing conditions or impact analysis. b) Neither is the transition of Riverside Avenue from a 4 land road to a 2 lane road adjacent to the Project Site discussed. c) The Project traffic analysis does not discuss traffic movement northbound on Riverside Avenue, a 2 lane road. d) The Project traffic analysis does not discuss traffic movements on the one-way private access drive along the southern boundary of the Project Site. Existing traffic movements on this one- way private drive have been problematic for years. It is a common daily occurrence that vehicles travel the wrong way to access Riverside Avenue. e) The Project traffic analysis does not discuss differences in parking standards/requirements between the existing General Plan and "PF" Zoning designation and the Proposed Project General Plan amendment and "MU -MM" Zoning designation. f) The Project traffic analysis does not discuss the additional Transportation/Traffic impacts should an affordable housing density bonus/parking variance be proposed for the Project Site. g) The Initial Study Traffic analysis fails to utilize current traffic counts, Level of Service (LOS) analysis of potentially impacted intersections (including Riverside Avenue at PCH), and conduct Page 4 of 6 25-151 other analysis routinely used by licensed traffic engineers in southern California as the basis for making conclusions on the Proposed Project's impact in the Initial Study. h) The Project traffic impact analysis is incorrect/incomplete when it uses the existing building size (9,242 square feet) as the existing condition instead of the maximum FAR allowed by the existing "PF" Zoning District regulations to compare build -out of the Project Site to build -out of the Proposed Project (General Plan Amendment and Zone Change) (for example: Table 5.3 Comparison of Existing versus Proposed Daily Traffic). i) Notwithstanding the inaccuracy stated above, Table 5.3 states the Proposed Project (a mixed-use project) will generate a net increase of 313 ADT. This ADT exceeds the 300 ADT exemption contained the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 15.40). j) The projected increase of 313 ADT will be further exceeded if the Proposed Project proposes to develop affordable housing and requests a density bonus. k) The Proposed Project is subject to the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The Ordinance requires mitigation for any traffic effects caused by new development. 1) While some Sections of this Initial Study analyze the impact of the potential Project developed as a mixed-use project (worst-case as required by CEQA) the Transportation/Traffic Section fails to do so. Rather it defers this analysis to a latter discretionary approval. CEQA requires the Lead Agency to address the "Whole of the Project" at the earliest time. City Staff informed me that it does not know if the worst-case development permitted by the Proposed Project will occur, at least for the Transportation/Traffic Section analysis in this Initial Study. CEQA prohibits deferral of the worst-case analysis when the worst case analysis can be determined. The Initial Study Transportation/Traffic analysis correctly determines the "mixed- use project would be required to conduct a traffic analysis to evaluate traffic impacts, identify circulation system improvements and condition the project to make or fund circulation system improvements." If the mixed use traffic analysis results in mitigation (such as: widening of Riverside Avenue north of Avon Street; or traffic control measures at Avon Street and Riverside Avenue at either of the Proposed Project access locations; or if parking or other variances are requested due to the provision of affordable housing for the Proposed Project; or needed mitigation measures are not funded by the Proposed Project if it were to propose affordable housing) the CEQA Lead Agency has the duty to inform public and decision makers of the "whole of the project" and the environmental impacts resulting from all mitigation measures at the earliest possible stage - this stage! Based on the information contained in the Initial Study there is no reliable data to support the conclusion the Proposed Project's Transportation/Traffic "Impacts would be less than significant." Without correctly describing the "existing conditions", thereby establishing a defensible environmental baseline and correctly identifying the Proposed Project's development potential, any assessment of potential environmental impacts is flawed. Even with its flaws, the Initial Study concluded the proposed mixed- use project is required to conduct a traffic analysis to evaluate traffic impacts, identify circulation system improvements and condition the project to make or fund circulation system improvements. Without such a traffic analysis no defensible conclusions can be drawn as to the Proposed Project's potential impacts on Transportation/Traffic. Section 5.4.16 Transportation/Traffic should be updated accordingly. Page 5 of 6 25-152 Other Sections The assumptions and data used in the Transportation/Traffic analysis are the base data used in the Noise, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Sections of the Initial Study. If the assumptions/data used in the analysis of the Proposed Project's Transportation/Traffic impact assessment change, the Noise, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Sections of the Initial Study should be updated accordingly. Conclusion Given the inaccuracies and omissions in the Initial Study pointed out herein, the proposed determination that a Negative Declaration is the appropriate CEQA document for the Proposed Project does not meet the requirements of CEQA and is not defensible. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Proposed Initial Study/Negative Declaration for the Proposed Project (PA2016-127). Respectfully, f' David J. Tanne Page 6 of 6 25-153 Still Protecting Our Newport Inspiring The Next Generation PO Box 102 I Balboa Island, CA 92662 1 949.864.6616 STOP o� )n -profit public education organization working to protect and preserve the residential and environmental y� !wport Beach. ti ? OUR www.SPON-NewportBeach.org I Info@SPON-NewportBeach.org FB SPON-Newport Beach I Twitter @SPONNewport 25-154 October 19, 2016 OFFICERS PRESIDENT Marko Popovich Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive VICE PRESIDENT Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dorothy Kraus SPON urges the Planning Commission to recommend denial of the Mitigated STOP o� )n -profit public education organization working to protect and preserve the residential and environmental y� !wport Beach. ti ? OUR www.SPON-NewportBeach.org I Info@SPON-NewportBeach.org FB SPON-Newport Beach I Twitter @SPONNewport 25-154 RE: Negative Declaration for 191 Riverside Drive (PA 2016-127) TREASURER Dennis Baker Dear Chair Kramer and Planning Commission: SECRETARY Allan Beek SPON urges the Planning Commission to recommend denial of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and a "No" vote to approve amendments to the 2006 voter -approved General Plan, the Coastal Land Use Plan, and Zoning Code BOARD MEMBERS for 191 Riverside Drive parcel. These actions are totally discretionary on your Nancy Alston part and SPON respectfully requests your careful consideration of our Bruce Bartram comments and objections below. Don Harvey Donald Krotee 1. Given the current, and not yet completed major planning effort regarding Andrea Lingle Elaine Linhoff Mariners Mile, including possible changes to the character of Avon Street, Bobby Lovell SPON feels it is premature to change the land use designation of this parcel Jennifer McDonald through the requested General Plan Amendment No. GP2016-002. In Jeanne Price Melinda Seely particular, it is possible a continuing need for land with a Public Facilities (PF) Jack Skinner designation -- such as public parking -- may be identified. Nancy Skinner Jean Watt Portia Weiss 2. SPON contends that the City and the developer have only provided a general Terry Welsh description of the project and are required to, more specifically; disclose the precise size and use of the development. As the development is urban and STOP o� )n -profit public education organization working to protect and preserve the residential and environmental y� !wport Beach. ti ? OUR www.SPON-NewportBeach.org I Info@SPON-NewportBeach.org FB SPON-Newport Beach I Twitter @SPONNewport 25-154 Still Protecting Our Newport Inspiring The Next Generation PO Box 102 I Balboa Island, CA 92662 1 949.864.6616 concentrated and undefined, the developer cannot be permitted such change(s) from the existing GP and yet be entitled to recite 'No Impact' for impacts in this MND. 3. SPON makes the same comment as number 2 above: that the developer should not be permitted such changes in a Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment as in this Amendment No. LC2013-003 and yet be entitled to recite 'No Impact' for any portions in a MND. 4. SPON makes the same comment as number 2 above and contends that the developer may not introduce such changes in a Zoning Code as asked in this Amendment No. CA2016-005 (PA2016-127), especially in that the project is not defined. 5. Additionally, item # 7, page 9 of Council Policy A-18, "Guidelines for Implementing Charter Section 423" (Greenlight) encourages requests for General Plan amendments to be accompanied by associated plans that are intended to be implemented under that new designation and is stated as follows: "Information about the Amendment, any associated project or land use approval and the environmental analysis that would help the Planning Commission and City Council make informed recommendations or decisions on the Amendment and help the public develop informed opinions about the Amendment." While the applicant's plan may be to create a "gourmet market of sorts", the proposed General Plan and Coastal Land Use amendments change the land use category from Public Facilities (PF) to Mixed -Use Horizontal (MU -H1), and the zoning code to Mixed -Use Mariners Mile (MU -MM) all of which introduces residential development, and the potential for environmental impacts not disclosed to the City or the public. STOP o� )n -profit public education organization working to protect and preserve the residential and environmental y� !wport Beach. ti ? OUR www.SPON-NewportBeach.org I Info@SPON-NewportBeach.org FB SPON-Newport Beach I Twitter @SPONNewport 25-155 Still Protecting Our Newport Inspiring The Next Generation PO Box 102 I Balboa Island, CA 92662 1 949.864.6616 6. In that some residential use, will make up part of the new land use and there is little parking, adding a story to the building and accommodating the onsite parking, must be found to have significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION should give way to precise planning and an EIR. 7. SPON finds that the development described in the scope would have periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity and would have great impact in the Newport Heights property because of the unique property. 8. SPON finds with the intensification of the property, that there will be a significant impacts on the local auto circulation system. 9. SPON contends that the existing property has no residential housing component and introducing that component on the scale requiring GP and zoning amendments, result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of those existing facilities and the construction of which will have significant environmental impacts. 10. SPON contends that the project, particularly as the scope is not defined, will not have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements (present resources, or new or expanded entitlements). In summary, the City and the developer have only provided a vague description of the project and should be required to provide the specifics for the proposed land use. To recommend approval of the MND and the proposed amendments in the absence of such critical information is very premature. STOP o� )n -profit public education organization working to protect and preserve the residential and environmental y� !wport Beach. ti ? OUR www.SPON-NewportBeach.org I Info@SPON-NewportBeach.org FB SPON-Newport Beach I Twitter @SPONNewport 25-156 J2 L Still Protecting Our Newport Inspiring The Next Generation PO Box 102 I Balboa Island, CA 92662 949.864.6616 Please recommend denial of the MND and proposed amendments to our General Plan, the Coastal Land Use Plan and zoning code. Thank you. Sincerely, Marko Popovich President Planning Commission City of Newport Beach Kory Kramer, Chair kl<ramer@newportbeachca.gov Peter Koetting, Vice Chair pkoetting@newportbeachca.gov Peter Zak, Secretary pzak @newportbeachca.gov Bill Dunlap bdunlap@newportbeachca.gov Bradley Hillgren bhillgren@newportbeachca.gov Ray Lawler rlawler@newportbeachca.gov Erik Weigand eweigand@newportbeachca.gov Cc: Patrick Alford, Planning Programs Manager palford@newportbeachca.gov Kimberly Brandt AICP, Community Development Director kbrandt@newportbeachca.gov Brenda Wisneski, Deputy Director, Community Development bwisneski@newportbeachca.gov STOP o` o )n -profit public education organization working to protect and preserve the residential and environmental ti 3!wport Beach. OUR www.SPON-NewportBeach.org I Info@SPON-NewportBeach.org FB SPON-Newport Beach I Twitter @SPONNewport 25-157 ccRPA California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance, ins. P.O. Box 54132 An alliance of American Indian and scientific communities working for Irvine, CA 92619-4132 the preservation of archaeological sites and other cultural resources. October 12, 2016 Patrick Alford, Planning Manager City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration for 191 Riverside Land Use and Zoning Amendments Dear Mr. Alford: Thank you for the opportunity to review the Negative Declaration for the above mentioned project. The Newport Beach coastal area was heavily occupied by indigenous people during prehistory and there is always the potential for the presence of buried cultural resources. This is partially recognized in the provisions for compliance with Public Resources Code 5097.98 and the State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 regarding the discovery of human remains on page 5-27. If there is the potential for human remains, there is also the potential for other buried cultural deposits to be present. This potential while unlikely due to modern development, is possible given that the ground disturbance was not deep, such as for a subterranean parking structure. The potential becomes greater if the development occurred prior to the passage of CEQA, which would have required an archaeological survey. Therefore, we strongly recommend that the Negative Declaration also contain mitigation measures regarding the discovery of cultural resources. Sincerely, Patricia Martz, Ph.D. President 25-158 Nati'' GAE)RIL.LL.NO P)AND Or MISSION INDIANS - KIZH NATION historically known as The San Gabriel t)and of Mission Indians recognized 6y the State of California as the aboriginal tribe of the Los Angeles basin RE: AB52 consultation response for the property located at 191 Riverside Avenue (PA2016-127) No. GP20126-002 Dear Patrick J. Alford October 21 , 2016 Please find this letter in response to your request for consultation dated Ocvtober 5, 2016. I have reviewed the project site and do have concerns for cultural resources. Your project lies in an area where the Ancestral territories of the Kizh (Kitc) Gabrieleno's villages adjoined and overlapped with each other, at least during the Late Prehistoric and Protohistoric Periods. The homeland of the Kizh Gabrieleno was probably the most influential Native American group in aboriginal southern California (Bean and Smith 1978a:538), was centered in the Los Angeles Basin, and reach ed as far east as the San Bernardino -Riverside area. The homeland of our neighbors the Serranos was primarily the San Bernardino Mountains, including the slopes and lowlands on the north and south flanks. Whatever the linguistic affiliation, Native Americans in and around the project area exhibited similar organization and resource procurement strategies. Villages were based on clan or lineage groups. Their home/ base sites are marked by midden deposits often with bedrock mortars. During their seasonal rounds to exploit plant resources, small groups would migrate within their traditional territory in search of specific plants and animals. Their gathering strategies of ten left behind signs of special use sites, usually grinding slicks on bedrock boulders, at the locations of the resources. Due to the project location and the high sensitivity of the area location, we would like to request one of our certified Native American Monitor to be on site during any and all ground disturbances (including but not limited to pavement removal, post holing, auguring, boring, grading, excavation and trenching) to protect any cultural resources which may be effected during construction or development. In all cases, when the Native American Heritage Commission states there are "no records of sacred sites in the project area " the NAHC will always refer lead agencies to the respective Native American Tribe because the NAHC is only aware of general information and are not the experts on each California Tribe. Our Elder Committee & Tribal Historians are the experts for our Tribe and are able to provide a more complete history (both written and oral) regarding the location of historic villages, trade routes, cemeteries and sacred/religious sites in the project area. While the property may be located in an area that has been previously developed, numerous examples can be shared to show that there still is a possibility that unknown, yet significant, cultural resources will be encountered during ground disturbance activities. Please note, if they haven't been listed with the NAHC, it doesn't mean that they aren't there. Not everyone reports what they know. The recent implementation of AB52 dictates that lead agencies consult with Native American Tribes who can prove and document traditional and cultural affiliation with the area of said project in order to protect cultural resources. However, our tribe is connected Ancestrally to this project location area, what does Ancestrally or Ancestral mean? The people who were in your family in past times, Of, belonging to, inherited from, or denoting an ancestor or ancestors http://Www.theLreedictionag.com/ancestral. Our priorities are to avoid and protect without delay or conflicts —to consult with you to avoid unnecessary destruction of cultural and biological resources, but also to protect what resources still exist at the project site for the benefit and education of future generations. At your convenience we can Consultation either by Phone or Face to face. Thank you CC: NAHC With respect, Andrew Salas, Chairman cell (626)926-4131 Andrew Salas, Chairman Albert Perez, treasurer I rO box 393 Covina, CA 9 1 725 Nadine Salas, Vice -Chairman Martha Gonzalez Lemos, treasurer II www.,ga6rielenoindian5O9akoo.com Christina Swindall Martinez, secretary Richard Gradias, Chairman of the council of Elders ga6rielenoindians@yahoo.com 25-159 ATTACHMENT H From: Peaav Palmer To: Campbell. James; Alford, Patrick Cc: Katherine Infantino; Mike and Dorothy Kraus Subject: 191 Riverside Meeting & Additional Projects Date: Tuesday, November 08, 2016 4:21:27 PM Jim and Patrick, I wanted to thank you for the courtesies that you extended to Dorothy Kraus, Katherine Infantino and myself yesterday. It was very generous of you both to take the time out of your busy schedules to discuss the 191 Riverside Project, in addition to the other projects in Vilest Newport. As the City moves forward with these collaborative projects, I would like to recommend that the City include the property owners that are located on Mariners' Mile to the upcoming workshops. The expansion of Pacific Coast Highway could have a direct impact to businesses and land owners on Mariners' Mile. At this point in time, the terms "`dedication", "discretionary actions" and "land offers" are extremely difficult to comprehend. I am resident who lives above PCH and I can tell you that the traffic flow is not a problem. It was a problem when the sewer pipe project was under construction. The problem is that the traffic is moving too fast through this particular area. I also mentioned yesterday, that I drove from Huntington Beach, Corona Del Mar, Laguna Beach, Dana Point through to San Clemente and all of these downtown corridors are two lanes in each direction. These are two lanes are for a reason, it slows traffic down and it is safe for pedestrians and bicyclist. (Please note that there are many children riding their bikes to and from the peninsula to get to the schools in Newport Heights, the duplication of Harbor Blvd. will just exacerbate the problem on PCN.) I would like to welcome you both to my home, so that you can view the movement of the traffic, as well as, the upcoming construction of the Maritime Training Center. I appreciate the open dialog and transparency regarding the current and upcoming projects along Mariners' Mile. If you have any additional questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. Peggy V. Palmer (949) 887-2471 25-160 ATTACHMENT I Davidl Tanner 22362 d Street • Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 September 30, 2016 Mr. Patrick J. Alford City of Newport Beach Community Development Department Planning Division 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 Subject: NEGATIVE DECLARATION for 191 Riverside Avenue Land Use and Zoning Amendments General Plan Amendment No. GP2016-002, Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2013-003, Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2016-005 (PA2016-127) Dear Mr. Alford, I am a 35+ year resident and homeowner in Newport Beach. I wanted to thank the City for providing the public the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed CEQA Negative Declaration for the Proposed Project (PA2016-127). A-1 I have the following comments on the adequacy of the proposed Negative Declaration for the Proposed Project. Section 2.2.1 Site Access The Initial Study states: "The proposed Project Site is accessible by Riverside Avenue, a four -lane Local Road, and Avon Street, a two-lane Local Road." This description is true, but incomplete and misleading for the following reasons: Avon Street consists of two segments both terminating at Riverside Avenue at different locations. a) The northern segment of Avon Street runs east/west terminating at Riverside Avenue at the A-2 northern boundary of the Project Site. At this location, Riverside Avenue is a 4 lane road south of this intersection and a 2 lane road north of this intersection. Access onto the Project Site is provided via this segment of Avon Street. b) The southern segment of Avon Street runs east/west terminating at Riverside Avenue southeast of the southern boundary of the Project Site. At this location Riverside Avenue is a 4 land road. It does not extend onto the Project Site. Page 1 of 6 25-161 In addition: C) Parallel to and west of the southern segment of Avon Street is a private (one-way) drive extending westward from Riverside Avenue along the southern boundary of the Project Site. This private drive provides access to the Project Site. This private drive and its intersection with Riverside Avenue is a problem intersection frequently Z-2 experiencing illegal two way traffic. This private drive and it traffic problems are not addressed cont. by the Initial Study. The private one way drive and northern segment of Avon Street provide the required primary and secondary access to the Project Site. Section 2.2.1 Site Access should be updated accordingly. 2.3.1 On -Site General Plan. Coastal Land Use Plan. and Zoning Designations While this Section identifies permitted land uses, this Section fails to identify the development potential of the Project Site under the existing General Plan and "PF" (Public Facilities) Zoning District regulations. Specifically, this Section fails to identify the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) permitted, A_3 maximum building height and required parking standards. This Section should make clear the fact that residential land use/affordable housing is not permitted within the "PF" zone. Section 2.3.1 On -Site General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, and Zoning Designations should be updated accordingly. Section 3.1.4 Development Potential This Section fails to identify the development potential of the Project Site under the existing the General Plan and "PF" Zoning District regulations (specifically, the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) permitted, building height and parking standards). A-4 This Section fails to identify the development potential of the Project Site under the Proposed Project (General Plan Amendment, Zone Change (MU -MM) and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment) and describe the development potential allowed should affordable housing be proposed on the Project Site. Section 3.1.4 Development Potential should be updated accordingly. Section 5.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The Initial Study concludes the following: "The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. There were no issues identified as a "Potentially Significant A-5 Impact"." For reasons stated throughout this comment letter, there is insufficient data contained in this Initial Study to conclude there are no environmental factors identified as a "Potentially Significant Impact". Page 2 of 6 25-162 It is clear Transportation/Traffic should be identified as a "Potentially Significant Impact". Additional data/analysis is needed to determine if other environmental factors will experience a "Potentially Significant Impact". Z-5 cont. Section 5.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected should be updated accordingly. 5.4.1 Aesthetics a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? This Section should compare the existing building height allowed by the existing General Plan and "PF" Zoning designation with the Proposed Project (General Plan Amendment, Zone Change (MU -MM) and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment) and describe the potential additional Aesthetic impacts should an affordable housing density bonus and height variance be requested for development of the Project Site. The Initial Study contains the following statement: "Furthermore, any future development on the proposed Project Site would have to conform to the 26- foot/31-foot Height Limit Area and 35 -foot Shoreline Height Limit Zone." This statement is not true if affordable housing is proposed. If a single maximum height limit cannot be determined at this time, the circumstances under which different height limits can apply should be A- 6 explained. Importantly, this Section fails to identify the maximum density and building height should affordable housing be proposed on the Project Site and its impact on Aesthetics. Under this circumstance the reason for not using the worst case height limit in the analysis should be explained. The CEQA Lead Agency (City of Newport Beach) has a requirement to inform the public and project decision makers of a project's potential environmental impacts. The Lead Agency should inform the public and decision makers of the probable impacts to Aesthetics if affordable housing is a permitted land use by the Proposed Project. 5.4.1 Aesthetics should be updated accordingly. 5.4. 10 Land Use and Planning b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, a general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? This Section of the Initial Study should include the following statement: By definition, the Proposed Project requires a General Plan Amendment, Zoning Code Amendment and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment. Upon approval of the proposed Negative Declaration by the Lead Agency (City of Newport Beach) and discretionary approvals by the respective agencies, the Proposed A-7 Project will be consistent with applicable land use plans, policies and/or regulations having jurisdiction over the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project if approved will change the allowable uses on the Project Site from a range of public facilities to a mixture of commercial and residential uses. The proposed zone change from "PF" to "MU -MM" will allow residential uses on the Project Site permitting development of affordable housing on the Project Site. State laws entitle qualifying affordable housing projects a density bonus and exemptions from certain Municipal Code development standards (such as: a Page 3 of 6 25-163 reduction in on-site parking standards, increased building height limit, decreased building setbacks, etc,) as an incentive for the provision of qualifying affordable housing projects. A density bonus and exemptions from certain Municipal Code development standards, if requested, are not subject to City A-7 discretion. cont. 5.4.10 Land Use and Planning should be updated accordingly. Section 5.4.14 Public Services a3 Schools This Section relies on the "The 2006-2008 American Community Survey", and concludes "Although the proposed Project may increase the number of school age children in the City by five, this would not place a significant added burden to the Newport -Mesa Unified School District". The 2006-2008 American Community Survey is out of date. A-8 The Initial Study fails to consider the impact on Schools should the Proposed Project be developed with affordable housing and a density bonus be requested. There is no evidence in the Initial Study the Newport -Mesa Unified School District was contacted or that it agrees with the Initial Studies conclusion. The Newport -Mesa Unified School District should be contacted for its conclusion and to determine if in lieu mitigation fees are required. Section 5.4.14 Public Services should be updated accordingly. Section 5.4.16 Transportation/Traffic As stated, the description of Existing Conditions is not correct and/or complete in a number of instances. Therefore, the data upon which to conduct a Transportation/Traffic impact analysis for the Proposed Project is incomplete and inadequate to reach accurate and defensible conclusions. Below are reasons why: a) The two segments of Avon Street are not discussed, nor are the two access locations in the existing conditions or impact analysis. b) Neither is the transition of Riverside Avenue from a 4 land road to a 2 lane road adjacent to the Project Site discussed. c) The Project traffic analysis does not discuss traffic movement northbound on Riverside Avenue, a 2 lane road. d) The Project traffic analysis does not discuss traffic movements on the one-way private access drive along the southern boundary of the Project Site. Existing traffic movements on this one- way private drive have been problematic for years. It is a common daily occurrence that vehicles A-9 travel the wrong way to access Riverside Avenue. e) The Project traffic analysis does not discuss differences in parking standards/requirements between the existing General Plan and "PF" Zoning designation and the Proposed Project General Plan amendment and "MU -MM" Zoning designation. f) The Project traffic analysis does not discuss the additional Transportation/Traffic impacts should an affordable housing density bonus/parking variance be proposed for the Project Site. g) The Initial Study Traffic analysis fails to utilize current traffic counts, Level of Service (LOS) analysis of potentially impacted intersections (including Riverside Avenue at PCH), and conduct Page 4 of 6 25-164 other analysis routinely used by licensed traffic engineers in southern California as the basis for making conclusions on the Proposed Project's impact in the Initial Study. h) The Project traffic impact analysis is incorrect/incomplete when it uses the existing building size (9,242 square feet) as the existing condition instead of the maximum FAR allowed by the existing "PF" Zoning District regulations to compare build -out of the Project Site to build -out of the Proposed Project (General Plan Amendment and Zone Change) (for example: Table 5.3 Comparison of Existing versus Proposed Daily Traffic). i) Notwithstanding the inaccuracy stated above, Table 5.3 states the Proposed Project (a mixed-use project) will generate a net increase of 313 ADT. This ADT exceeds the 300 ADT exemption contained the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 15.40). j) The projected increase of 313 ADT will be further exceeded if the Proposed Project proposes to develop affordable housing and requests a density bonus. k) The Proposed Project is subject to the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The Ordinance requires mitigation for any traffic effects caused by new development. 1) While some Sections of this Initial Study analyze the impact of the potential Project developed as a mixed-use project (worst-case as required by CEQA) the Transportation/Traffic Section fails to do so. Rather it defers this analysis to a latter discretionary approval. CEQA requires the Lead Agency to address the "Whole of the Project" at the earliest time. City Staff informed me that it does not know if the worst-case development permitted by the Proposed Project will occur, at least for the Transportation/Traffic Section analysis in this Initial Study. CEQA prohibits deferral of the worst-case analysis when the worst case analysis can be A-9 determined. The Initial Study Transportation/Traffic analysis correctly determines the "mixed- cont. use project would be required to conduct a traffic analysis to evaluate traffic impacts, identify circulation system improvements and condition the project to make or fund circulation system improvements." If the mixed use traffic analysis results in mitigation (such as: widening of Riverside Avenue north of Avon Street; or traffic control measures at Avon Street and Riverside Avenue at either of the Proposed Project access locations; or if parking or other variances are requested due to the provision of affordable housing for the Proposed Project; or needed mitigation measures are not funded by the Proposed Project if it were to propose affordable housing) the CEQA Lead Agency has the duty to inform public and decision makers of the "whole of the project" and the environmental impacts resulting from all mitigation measures at the earliest possible stage - this stage! Based on the information contained in the Initial Study there is no reliable data to support the conclusion the Proposed Project's Transportation/Traffic "Impacts would be less than significant." Without correctly describing the "existing conditions", thereby establishing a defensible environmental baseline and correctly identifying the Proposed Project's development potential, any assessment of potential environmental impacts is flawed. Even with its flaws, the Initial Study concluded the proposed mixed- use project is required to conduct a traffic analysis to evaluate traffic impacts, identify circulation system improvements and condition the project to make or fund circulation system improvements. Without such a traffic analysis no defensible conclusions can be drawn as to the Proposed Project's potential impacts on Transportation/Traffic. Section 5.4.16 Transportation/Traffic should be updated accordingly. Page 5 of 6 25-165 Other Sections The assumptions and data used in the Transportation/Traffic analysis are the base data used in the Noise, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Sections of the Initial Study. If the assumptions/data used in the analysis of the Proposed Project's Transportation/Traffic impact assessment change, the Noise, Air A-10 Quality and Greenhouse Gas Sections of the Initial Study should be updated accordingly. Conclusion Given the inaccuracies and omissions in the Initial Study pointed out herein, the proposed determination that a Negative Declaration is the appropriate CEQA document for the Proposed Project does not meet the requirements of CEQA and is not defensible. A-11 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Proposed Initial Study/Negative Declaration for the Proposed Project (PA2016-127). Respectfully, r G�� David J. Tanne Page 6 of 6 25-166 Planning Commission - October 20, 2016 Item No. 2f Additional Materials Received 191 Riverside Land Use and Zoning Amendments (PA2016-127) From: Alford, Patrick Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 7:25 AM To: 'dave@earsi.com' Cc: Kramer, Kory; Dunlap, Bill; Koetting, Peter; Hillgren, Bradley; Lawler, Ray; Weigand, Erik; Zak, Peter; Biddle, Jennifer; Campagnolo, Daniel Subject: RE: Comments on the Proposed Negative Declaration for Proposed Project PA2016-127 Mr. Tanner, Your letter is attached to the Planning Commission staff report. It is under Attachment No. PC 6 (IS/ND Comment Letter(s)) on handwritten Page 139. Your email with the additional comment will be distributed to the Planning Commission as Additional Materials Received. Please contact me if you need any further assistance. Patrick J. Alford Planning Program Manager City of Newport Beach Community Development C)epartrnentI Planning Division 100 Civic Center thrive ( Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949) 644-3235 ( (949) 644-3229 ( 1)alforcl@iiewportbeaclica.gov From: dave@earsi.com [mailto:dave@earsi.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 7:56 PM To: Alford, Patrick Cc: Kramer, Kory; Dunlap, Bill; Koetting, Peter; Hillgren, Bradley; Lawler, Ray; Weigand, Erik; Zak, Peter; Biddle, Jennifer; Campagnolo, Daniel Subject: FW: Comments on the Proposed Negative Declaration for Proposed Project PA2016-127 Hi Patrick, Why have my prior comments (attached) on the proposed Negative Declaration for PA2016-127 not been attached to the Planning Commission Agenda making them available for Commission and public review? I would appreciate a response. B-1 I have one additional comment on the proposed Negative Declaration for PA2016-127. Please forward this comment along with my prior comments to the Planning Commission to insure it is part of the administrative record. Existine vs. Reauired Parkin Page 6 of the staff report states the ITE manual requires a maximum of peak period parking demand of 307 spaces, however the existing onsite parking consists of 20 spaces (established by CUP). Page 6 of the staff report states under maximum development scenario the Proposed Project would have to provide 72 spaces for a mixed use development. 1 B-2 25-167 Planning Commission - October 20, 2016 Item No. 2f Additional Materials Received Page 6 of the staff report states the zoning code allMA2016-127) new uses without providing additional parking, provided there is no intensification or enlargement ... The paragraph goes on to state there is the potential for a 17 -space parking deficit. Page 6 of the staff report states: "Section 423 of the Charter of the City of Newport Beach requires an analysis of the density, intensity, and peak hour traffic associated with a proposed General Plan amendment. When increases in density, intensity, and peak hour traffic of a proposed General Plan amendment along with 80% of the increases of prior amendments exceed specified thresholds, the proposed amendment is considered to be a "major amendment" that requires voter approval." From a General Plan standpoint the Proposed Project will increase the density, intensity, and peak hour traffic. The conclusion that none of the specified thresholds established by Charter Section 423 will be exceeded may be correct, but the CEQA analysis must conclude the Proposed Project will increase the density, intensity, and peak hour traffic allowed by the existing General Plan land use classification. Furthermore, from a CEQA analysis, the Proposed Project has the potential to both intensify and enlarge the development of the site and result in a 17 space parking deficit making the Proposed Project inconsistent with the Zoning Code. Any conclusion based on reuse of the existing structure as contained in the proposed Negative Declaration is incorrect and inappropriate. The analysis must compare the existing condition (20 parking spaces) to that allowed by the B-2 Proposed Project (General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan to change the land use category to Mixed -Use Horizontal cont. (MU -H1) and an amendment to the Zoning Code to change the zoning to Mixed -Use Mariners Mile (MU -MM)) CEQA requires the analysis consider the whole of the project at the earliest time. As I previously stated, the worst-case scenario from a transportation and parking standpoint would be development of AFFORDABLE HOUSING on site which requests a density bonus and reduction in parking standards, which would be allowed by state law. There would be nothing the City could do to stop it! For these reasons and the reasons stated in my prior comment letter the proposed Negative Declaration is inadequate. A new/revised CEQA Initial Study should be prepared, followed by a new determination of the correct type of CEQA document for the Proposed Project. Thank You, Dave Tanner 223 62nd Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 From: dave@earsi.com [mailto:dave@earsi.com] Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 1:40 PM To: 'Alford, Patrick' Subject: RE: Comments on the Proposed Negative Declaration for Proposed Project PA2016-127 Hi Patrick, Please make sure I am notified of all public meetings/hearings, receive a copy of all staff reports and have access to public comments, etc. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. 25-168 Planning Commission - October 20, 2016 Item No. 2f Additional Materials Received Has a Planning Commission date been set? 191 Riverside Land Use and Zoning Amendments (PA2016-127) Thanks, Dave From: Alford, Patrick [mai Ito: PAlford@new ortbeachca.co_v] Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 1:11 PM To: 'dave@earsi.com' Subject: RE: Comments on the Proposed Negative Declaration for Proposed Project PA2016-127 Dave, Thank you for your comments. They will be included in the Planning Commission staff report. Patrick J. Alford ( Planning Program Manager City of Newport Beach Community Development Departnaentj Planning Division 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949) 644-3235 (949) 644-3229 1 palford@nowpot•theachca.gov From: dave@earsi.com [mailto:dave@earsi.com] Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 12:30 PM To: Alford, Patrick Subject: Comments on the Proposed Negative Declaration for Proposed Project PA2016-127 Hi Pat, Attached per your request are my comments on the proposed Negative Declaration. Thank you, Dave Dave Tanner 223 62nd Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 3 25-169 Responses to David Tanner's September 30, 2016 Comments Comment A -I The comment provides background on the commenter. Comment A-2 The comment asserts that the description of the Project location in the Negative Declaration (ND) is incomplete, and provides additional information regarding several segments of Avon Street and its relationship to Riverside Avenue. The ND's discussion of site accessibility is correct as the intersection of Avon Street and Riverside Avenue is directly southeast of the project site. Avon Street extends one-way across Riverside Avenue to provide access to the project site. The comment contends that the intersection of Avon Street and Riverside Avenue is a problem intersection as a result of illegal two-way traffic. The commenter does not provide any evidence of any illegal usage of these streets, if any, nor provides evidence of a significant impact at the intersection as a result of the street configuration. The project, however, does not propose any changes in existing development intensity. It only proposes amendment to the General Plan designation, Coastal Land Use Plan designation, and zoning. Comment A-3 The comment asserts that the ND should identify the development potential of the project site under the existing General Plan designation and zoning and the development potential of the site under the proposed project. The comment requests clarification that under the existing PF land use designation that residential development, including affordable housing, is not permitted. This is an accurate statement. Under the PF land use designation, public facilities such as a public school, government facilities, cultural institutions, libraries, hospitals, community centers and utilities may be developed. As the proposed project is requesting a General Plan Amendment, Coastal Land Use Plan amendment and zoning amendment, the ND discusses the development potential if the project were approved as compared to the baseline which is the existing conditions on site at present. Here, the baseline is existing conditions as of September 2016, when the project's environmental analysis commenced. (ND at 1-3.) The ND does specify that the existing General Plan designation and zoning do not permit residential uses, noting that under the existing zoning, "land uses are limited to public facilities, such as community centers, cultural institutions, government facilities, libraries...." (ND at 3-2.) Comment A-4 Please refer to response to Comment A-3 for a discussion of why the development potential under existing conditions need not be discussed in the ND. 25-170 The ND does provide, as requested by the comment an identification of the development potential of the project site. The ND notes that a non-residential development would be limited to a maximum floor area of approximately 11,326 square feet, and that a mixed-use project could also include a maximum of 13 dwelling units. (ND at 3-2.) The ND is not required to speculate as to the possible development of the project site or the number of affordable units should affordable housing be proposed in the future. It is well-settled that CEQA does not require speculation, and analysis of a maximum theoretical buildout (i.e., worst case scenario) is not required. (Save Round Valley Alliance v. County of Inyo (2007) 157 Cal.AppAth 1437, 1450 [CEQA does not require engaging in speculation in order to analyze a worst case scenario].) Comment A-5 The comment generally asserts that there is insufficient data to support the ND's statement that there are no environmental factors identified or that should be identified as "Potentially Significant." The ND analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the project which is a General Plan amendment, Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) amendment and zoning amendment, but which proposes no development at this time. The comment states that Transportation/Traffic should have been identified as potentially significant; however, the comment provides no specific evidence to support this assertion and, as discussed throughout the ND, the project would not result in any potentially significant impacts that would trigger preparation of an environmental impact report. (CEQA Guidelines § 15384(a) [substantial evidence does not include argument, speculation, or unsubstantiated opinion].) Therefore, the ND is proper. Comment A-6 Please see response to Comment A-3 regarding the ND's evaluation of project impacts against the baseline (existing conditions). The comment suggests that the ND analyze the project against the hypothetical buildout under the existing PF General Plan designation and zoning. This is not required under CEQA. CEQA requires that a proposed project be evaluated against the baseline physical conditions, not those conditions that could hypothetically be developed under existing zoning. (See CEQA Guidelines § 15125(a). See also Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 CalAth 310, 322 [a baseline that used permitted conditions rather than existing conditions was invalid].) Please refer to the response to Comment A-4 regarding why the ND need not speculate about the potential for development with a density bonus. Moreover, like any future development that includes a density bonus, the ND is not required to speculate about the potential for future development that could seek a height variance. CEQA does not require speculation about a possible worst case scenario, especially when such a scenario is remote and uncertain. Save Round Valley Alliance v. County of Inyo (2007) 157 Cal.AppAth 1437, 1450. Moreover, any future development of the project site with residential uses would require additional discretionary Site Development Review because residential uses are permitted in the MU -MM zone as part of FA 25-171 a mixed-use development. (See Footnote (1) of NBMC Table 2-8.) As noted in the ND, Site Development Review is required for any mixed-use project. (ND at 3-2) Comment A-7 The ND thoroughly discusses the impacts of the proposed project, which includes a General Plan Amendment, Zoning Code Amendment, and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment. All of those approvals are discussed in the ND, as well as the project's consistency with applicable plans and standards. As discussed in the ND, the proposed project would allow for commercial and residential uses that are not currently permitted on the project site. No demolition or new construction is proposed at this time. (See ND at 1-2.) The comment identifies that the proposed MU -MM zone could allow development of residential uses and describes current State law regarding affordable housing and density bonuses provided under State laws. However, as outlined in the responses to Comments A-4 and A-6, no new development, including residential or commercial development is proposed at this time, only a land use and zoning amendment. CEQA does not require an analysis of the possibility that a future applicant will seek a density bonus to develop the project site because such possibility is currently speculative. As noted by the comment, under State law the developer of affordable housing may, but is not required or obligated to request exemptions from certain development standards. It would be entirely speculative and premature at this time — when no proposed development, let alone a residential proposal is before the City — to assume an affordable housing project and imagine the range of potential exemptions, if any, that might be requested. CEQA does not require speculation about a possible worst case scenario, especially when such a scenario is remote and uncertain. Save Round Valley Alliance v. County of Inyo (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1437, 1450. Moreover, any such future development would be subject to further discretionary review by the City that would be subject to CEQA compliance. Comment A-8 The ND's reference to the 2006-2008 American Community Survey is proper because it gives a reference for the number of children between the ages of 5 and 19 living in the City. The comment does not provide any evidence that reliance on the survey is inappropriate or undermines the conclusions in the ND. Moreover, the ND relied on more recent data from the California Department of Finance as well to determine potential public service/school impacts. Please refer to responses to Comments A-4 and A-6 for an explanation of why CEQA does not require an analysis of possible development of residential uses or affordable residential uses under a density bonus at this time. Should any future development occur on the project site, that development would be responsible for payment of school fees in accordance with Public Education Code Section 17072.10-18. The Newport -Mesa School District, for example, has adopted specific developer fees of (1) $1.84 per square foot of residential development and (2) $0.30 per square foot of commercial development. 25-172 Comment A-9 The comment alleges that the ND's discussion of transportation and traffic impacts incomplete and inadequate because the ND's existing conditions description is incorrect. First, the project does not propose any new development on the project site. Nevertheless, and although not required by CEQA, the ND's traffic analysis considered whether the a mixed-use development allowed under the General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, zoning amendments (13 residential units and 11,326 square feet of commercial development) would result in traffic impacts. It should be noted that this worst-case analysis is not required by CEQA, especially when subsequent discretionary and environmental review would be required. (Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island v. City and County of San Francisco (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1036, 1061 [holding that a potential change in use need not be analyzed because it was unforeseeable and would be subject to further discretionary review].) Second, the ND provided an analysis of the traffic that could be generated by the maximum future buildout. Under that scenario, the project would generate a net increase in approximately 313 daily trips. (ND at 5-53.) However, any such project would require discretionary Site Development Review and, therefore, would be subject to further environmental review. Notwithstanding the fact that additional discretionary and environmental review would be required for any such maximum buildout project (as well as compliance with the City's TPO), the ND analyzed whether such a project would cause Riverside Avenue, the primary access to the project site, to exceed its daily capacity. According to the ND, Riverside Avenue is capable of accommodating a capacity ranging from 7,000 to 11,000 vehicles per day, with an average daily capacity of 10,000 vehicles per day. (ND at 5-53.) Riverside Avenue currently operates below these standards, accommodating approximately 9,000 daily trips (1,000 fewer trips than the established typical capacity). (Id.) The 313 daily trips that could be generated by a worst- case mixed-use development would not cause Riverside Avenue to exceed its capacity and, therefore, the project would not impact traffic movements on Riverside Avenue. Moreover, as discussed above, any such project would require additional discretionary Site Development Review and would be subject to further environmental review. Additionally, although the proposed project does not propose any new specific development, the maximum development that would be permitted under the project's requested entitlements (i.e., without additional discretionary review) would be an expansion of existing development to 11,326 square feet of commercial uses. Any such development would generate a net increase of approximately 233 daily trips above existing conditions. ND at 5-53. This would fall below the thresholds of the TPO, and is thus exempt as a project that would not generate a substantial number of average daily trips. (NBMC § 15.40.020.) The ND utilized a proper baseline to analyze the potential traffic impacts of the project. As discussed in responses to Comments A-3 and A-6, CEQA generally requires that the baseline be the existing conditions at the time environmental review is commenced. The commenter also does not provide any evidence that the analysis and conclusions in the ND are erroneous, or that the project would result in a significant transportation impact. (CEQA Guidelines § 15384(a) [substantial evidence does not include argument, speculation, or F. 25-173 unsubstantiated opinion].) Moreover, the ND's analysis complies with the informational disclosure requirements of CEQA, which requires that analysis of the environmental impacts of a project be reasonable and adequate to ensure informed decisionmaking. (Al Larson Boat Shop v. Board of Harbor Commissioners of the City of Long Beach (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 729, 748.) Here, the ND's analysis, which includes a discussion of multiple scenarios of potential development satisfies this standard. Please refer to response to Comment A-2 for a discussion of vehicular movement on Avon Street. Please refer to responses to Comments A-4 and A-6 for an explanation of why CEQA does not require an analysis of possible development under a density bonus or a variance. Comment A-10 As discussed in response to Comment A-9, the assumptions and baseline used to assess potential traffic impacts are proper and in accordance with CEQA. Comment A-11 The comment is a general summary of the comment's contention that the ND does not comply with CEQA and will be provided to the City decisionmakers for consideration. It does not, however, specifically identify any alleged deficiencies in the analysis of the ND. 25-174 Responses to David Tanner's October 18, 2016 Comments Comment B-1 The commenter's prior comments were attached to the Planning Commission's staff report under Attachment No. PC 6 (IS/ND Comment Letter(s)). Comment B-2 The commenter asserts that the ND's parking analysis is insufficient. First, it should be noted that parking is not an environmental impact requiring analysis under CEQA. San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City & County of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.AppAth 656. Second, the ND nevertheless adequately discusses future parking associated with the project. The deficit to which the commenter refers is acknowledged in the ND. (ND at 5-64.) However, as also discussed in the ND, this deficit would not create an inconsistency with the NBMC. The NBMC allows a building with nonconforming parking to be occupied with new uses without providing additional parking if there is no intensification and/or enlargement, and the new use requires a parking rate of not more than one space per 250 square feet of gross building area. NBMC § 20.38.060.B.1. The project does not propose any expansion of the existing building, or any new development, that would otherwise require new parking. However, should such expansion or new development be proposed, it would be required to comply with the parking standards applicable under the NBMC. NBMC § 20.40.020 [except as otherwise provided, "[a] use shall not be commenced and structures shall not be occupied until parking improvements required by this chapter are satisfactorily completed"]. It should be clarified that the parking demand of 307 spaces reflects what would be required if the existing structure on site were to be used for a post office under the PF land use designation. The project proposes to amend the General Plan to change PF to MU -H1 (Mixed Use - Horizontal) which, as described in the ND, the parking standards required for a future mixed-use project, would be; (1) two spaces per dwelling unit; and (2) one space per 250 square feet of retail floor area. However, as discussed in the ND, no such development is proposed and significant speculation would be required to try and analyze future project parking. CEQA does not require such speculation. (Save Round Valley Alliance v. County of Inyo (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1437, 1450 [CEQA does not require engaging in speculation in order to analyze a worst case scenario].) Moreover, here any future mixed-use development would be subject to discretionary Site Development Review. (Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island v. City and County of San Francisco (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1036, 1061 [holding that a potential change in use need not be analyzed because it was unforeseeable and would be subject to further discretionary review].) Subsequent to the City's circulation of the ND, the applicant provided the City with an analysis of the existing parking field on the project site and the adjacent lots (also owned and controlled by the applicant) which demonstrates that sufficient parking is available on site to meet City Code requirements for parking if the existing building on the proposed project site were used to commercial uses. 0 25-175 Finally, consistent with the above, the ND need not speculate as to potential impacts associated with a future development that includes an affordable housing component. Any such project is speculative and would require additional discretionary review because residential uses are only permitted as part of a mixed-use project within the MU -MM zone and all mixed-use projects are subject to Site Development Review. 7 25-176 Still Protecting P O B o x 1 0 2 1 Balboa Island, CA 9 2 6 6 2 1 9 4 9. 8 6 4. 6 6 1 6 OFFICERS PRESIDENT Marko Popovich VICE PRESIDENT Dorothy Kraus TREASURER Dennis Baker SECRETARY Allan Beek BOARD MEMBERS Nancy Alston Bruce Bartram Dori Harvey Donald Krotee Andrea Lingle Elaine Linhoff Bobby Lovell Jennifer McDonald Jeanne Price Melinda Seely Jack Skinner Nancy Skinner Jean Watt Portia Weiss Terry Welsh October 19, 2016 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 RE: Negative Declaration for 191 Riverside Drive (PA 2016-127) Dear Chair Kramer and Planning Commission: SPON urges the Planning Commission to recommend denial of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and a "No" vote to approve amendments to the 2006 voter -approved General Plan, the Coastal Land Use Plan, and Zoning Code for 191 Riverside Drive parcel. These actions are totally discretionary on your part and SPON respectfully requests your careful consideration of our comments and objections below. 1. Given the current, and not yet completed major planning effort regarding Mariners Mile, including possible changes to the character of Avon Street, SPON feels it is premature to change the land use designation of this parcel through the requested General Plan Amendment No. GP2016-002. In particular, it is possible a continuing need for land with a Public Facilities (PF) designation -- such as public parking -- may be identified. SPON-1 SPON-2 2. SPON contends that the City and the developer have only provided a general description of the project and are required to, more specifically; disclose the SPON-3 precise size and use of the development. As the development is urban and STOP Q` ® do :)n -profit public education organization working to protect and preserve the residential and environmental 'wport Beach. 2 n OUR www.SPON-NewportBeach.org I Info@SPON-NewportBeach.org FB SPON-Newport Beach I Twitter @SPONNewport 25-177 01,011Protecting P O Box 1 0 2 I Balboa Island, CA 9 2 6 6 2 1 9 4 9. 8 6 4. 6 6 1 6 concentrated and undefined, the developer cannot be permitted such change(s) from the existing GP and yet be entitled to recite 'No Impact' for impacts in this MND. 3. SPON makes the same comment as number 2 above: that the developer should not be permitted such changes in a Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment as in this Amendment No. LC2013-003 and yet be entitled to recite 'No Impact' for any portions in a MND. 4. SPON makes the same comment as number 2 above and contends that the developer may not introduce such changes in a Zoning Code as asked in this Amendment No. CA2016-005 (PA2016-127), especially in that the project is not defined. 5. Additionally, item # 7, page 9 of Council Policy A-18, "Guidelines for Implementing Charter Section 423" (Greenlight) encourages requests for General Plan amendments to be accompanied by associated plans that are intended to be implemented under that new designation and is stated as follows: "Information about the Amendment, any associated project or land use approval and the environmental analysis that would help the Planning Commission and City Council make informed recommendations or decisions on the Amendment and help the public develop informed opinions about the Amendment." While the applicant's plan may be to create a "gourmet market of sorts", the proposed General Plan and Coastal Land Use amendments change the land use category from Public Facilities (PF) to Mixed -Use Horizontal (MU -H1), and the zoning code to Mixed -Use Mariners Mile (MU -MM) all of which introduces residential development, and the potential for environmental impacts not disclosed to the City or the public. STOP U�` ® :)n -profit public education organization working to protect and preserve the residential and environmental a z �� wport Beach. Oua www.SPON-NewportBeach.org I Info@SPON-NewportBeach.org FB SPON-Newport Beach I Twitter @SPONNewport SPON-3 cont. SPON-4 25-178 PO Box 102 1 Balboa Island, CA 92662 1 949.864.6616 6. In that some residential use, will make up part of the new land use and there is little parking, adding a story to the building and accommodating the onsite parking, must be found to have SPON-5 significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION should give way to precise planning and an EIR. 7. SPON finds that the development described in the scope would have periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity and would have great impact in the Newport Heights SPON-6 property because of the unique property. 8. SPON finds with the intensification of the property, that there will be a significant impacts onSPON-7 the local auto circulation system. 9. SPON contends that the existing property has no residential housing component and introducing that component on the scale requiring GP and zoning amendments, result in the SPON-8 construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of those existing facilities and the construction of which will have significant environmental impacts. 10. SPON contends that the project, particularly as the scope is not defined, will not have sufficient SPON-9 water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements (present resources, or new or expanded entitlements). In summary, the City and the developer have only provided a vague description of the project and should be required to provide the specifics for the proposed land use. To recommend approval of SPON-10 the MND and the proposed amendments in the absence of such critical information is very premature. STOP "0:)n -profit o public education organization working to protect and preserve the residential and environmental Ic ...port Beach. OUR www.SPON-NewportBeach.org I Info@SPON-NewportBeach.org FB SPON-Newport Beach I Twitter @SPONNewport 25-179 Sill Protecting P O B o x 1 0 2 1 Balboa Island, CA 9 2 6 6 2 1 9 4 9. 8 6 4. 6 6 1 6 Please recommend denial of the MND and proposed amendments to our General Plan, the Coastal SPON-10 Land Use Plan and zoning code. cont. Thank you. Sincerely, Marko Popovich President Planning Commission City of Newport Beach Kory Kramer, Chair kkramer@newportbeachca.gov Peter Koetting, Vice Chair pkoetting@newportbeachca.ov Peter Zak, Secretary pzak @newportbeachca.gov Bill Dunlap bdunlap newportbeachca_gov Bradley Hillgren bhillgren@newportbeachca.gov Ray Lawler rlawler@newportbeachca.gov Erik Weigand eweigand@newioortbeachca..gov Cc: Patrick Alford, Planning Programs Manager palford@newportbeachca.gov Kimberly Brandt AICP, Community Development Director kbrandt@newportbeachca.gov Brenda Wisneski, Deputy Director, Community Development bwisneski@newportbeachca.gov STQP-11 Uo` ® Ap )n -profit public education organization working to protect and preserve the residential and environmental y ...port Beach. �2 t- 9 ouR www.SPON-NewportBeach.org I Info@SPON-NewportBeach.org FB SPON-Newport Beach I Twitter @SPONNewport 25-180 Responses to Still Protecting Our New ort's October 19 2016 Letter Response to Comment SPON-1 The comment states general opposition to the project and urges the Planning Commission to recommend denial of the project and the Negative Declaration (ND). This comment does not present an issue regarding the adequacy of ND and is be provided to the City decisionmakers for their consideration. Response to Comment SPON-2 The comment expresses the opinion that given current planning efforts for Mariners Mile, it may be premature to consider the proposed land use amendment. As planning for Mariners Mile is just underway, it would be speculative to try and anticipate future needs. The comment suggests that retaining the PF designation may be needed to provide public parking in the future. Parking facilities can be developed under the proposed Mixed -Use Horizontal land use designation and Mixed -Use Mariners Mile zoning as so there is no need to retain the PF land use simply to provide for parking in the future. Response to Comment SPON-3 The comment asserts that only a general description of the project in the ND has been provided and that the "precise size and use of the development" must be disclosed. The project consists solely of a General Plan Amendment, Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment, and zoning change, and does not propose any demolition or new construction. (ND at 1-2 to 1-2.) Thus, there is no "precise size and use of the development" that can be disclosed. To speculate as to the details of any such future development would not be in accordance with CEQA. Save Round Valley Alliance v. County of Inyo (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1437, 1450 [CEQA does not require engaging in speculation in order to analyze a worst-case scenario]. This is consistent with the well -accepted principle that CEQA requires a good faith effort at full disclosure. Association of Irritated Residents v. County of Madera (2003) 107 Cai.AppAth 1383, 1390. The ND, where warranted, considered whether a project built to the maximum permitted under the proposed General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, and zoning amendments would result in any impacts. Moreover, should future development of the project site be proposed with either the maximum non-residential development (11,326 square feet) or a mixed-use development (11,326 square feet of non-residential space and 13 dwelling units) that would be permitted with the proposed entitlements, that future development would require discretionary site development review pursuant to NBMC Section 20.52.080, and at which point, an environmental analysis of the impacts of the specific development proposal would be conducted by the City. 25-181 Response to Comment SPON-4 Please refer to response to Comment SPON-3, which discusses why the ND's analysis of the project, which does not propose specific development, is reasonable and proper under CEQA. The comment that the entitlements proposed by the project, including General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, and zoning amendments, would introduce residential development requiring analysis at this time is not correct. First, the project does not propose any specific development. (ND at 1-1 tot -2 [no demolition or new construction is proposed].) Second, to the extent the land use designation and zoning would be changed to permit residential development, the entitlements would not, by themselves, permit such development absent further discretionary approval and review by the City. The NBMC expressly states that residential uses are permitted in the MU -MM zone only as part of a mixed-use development. See NBMC Footnote (1) of NBMC Table 2-8. Section 20.52.080 specifically requires Site Development Review for any mixed-use project. See also ND at 3-2 ["Site Development Review approval is required for any mixed-use project"]. Therefore, any future project that includes residential development would be subject to additional discretionary and environmental review. Finally, the environmental impacts of the proposed project are thoroughly discussed and disclosed in the ND, and commenter presents no evidence to the contrary. Moreover, the ND represents sufficient information to ensure informed decisionmaking about the proposed project, as is required by CEQA. The ND, therefore, presents an environmental analysis that complies with the directive of Council Policy A-18. Response to Comment SPON-5 Please refer to responses to Comments SPON-3 and SPON-4, which discuss why the proposed project does not propose any new development, including new residential uses, at the project site requiring environmental analysis at this time. With respect to parking, the ND notes that the existing parking provided at the project site, while less than required under the NBMC should the existing use be changed, would comply with the NBMC's non -conforming use regulations. (ND at 5-64.) The NBMC permits, for example, a building with nonconforming parking to be occupied with new uses without providing additional parking if there is no intensification and/or enlargement, and the new use requires a parking rate of not more than one space per 250 square feet of gross building area. (NBMC § 20.38.060.B.1.) In addition to the analysis in the ND, the applicant has submitted to the City a parking analysis prepared by JR Parking Consultants demonstrating the sufficiency of the parking on site when added to the existing parking field for the adjacent lots. Response to Comment SPON-6 The comment asserts that the "development' described in the scope would have periodic increases in ambient noise that would impact Newport Heights. However, the comment provides no evidence to support this contention. (CEQA Guidelines § 15384(a) [substantial evidence does not include argument, speculation, or unsubstantiated opinion].) 01 25-182 The ND analyzes the potential noise impacts of the proposed project, which does not propose any demolition or development, concluding that noise impacts would be less than significant. To the extent operational noise could increase as a result of a change of use, the ND notes that such operational noise would be regulated by the NBMC's noise control provisions (NBMC Chapters 10.26 and 10.28). Depending upon the use that is proposed in the future, discretionary approvals will be required which will trigger compliance with CEQA and analysis of the environmental impacts of a specific development proposal. Response to Comment SPON-7 The comment asserts that the project would result in impacts on the local circulation system. First, the comment provides no evidence to support this contention. (CEQA Guidelines § 15384(a) [substantial evidence does not include argument, speculation, or unsubstantiated opinion].) Second, the ND evaluated whether the project could result in traffic and/or transportation impacts in Section 5.4.16. As discussed in Section 5.4.16, even under a scenario where the project site is developed to the maximum extent permitted by the proposed project entitlements, there would be no significant traffic impact. Moreover, any such project would be subject to additional discretionary and environmental review, as discussed in response to Comment SPON-4. Response to Comment SPON-8 The comment asserts that the entitlements sought by the project, particularly the General Plan and zoning amendments, will result in residential development that would require the construction and/or expansion of new water or wastewater facilities that will significantly impact the environment. The comment provides no evidence to support this contention. CEQA Guidelines § 15384(a) [substantial evidence does not include argument, speculation, or unsubstantiated opinion]. At this time, no demolition or new construction is proposed and no residential development of the site is proposed requiring environmental analysis. (ND at 1-1 tol- 2 [no demolition or new construction is proposed].) Second, the ND also evaluates the possibility for such an impact, concluding that the current wastewater treatment facility currently operates under capacity and the project will not increase treatment requirement beyond capacity. (ND at 5-56.) The ND similarly notes that City's Urban Water Management Plan provides that there would be sufficient water supply to serve the project. Moreover, as discussed in response to Comment SPON-3, the project does not propose any development of residential uses. To the extent any such development could be proposed in the future, that development would be subject to additional discretionary (Site Development Review) and environmental review. Response to Comment SPON-9 The comment contends that the project will not be adequately served by existing water supplies. The commenter provides no evidence to support this contention. (CEQA Guidelines § 15384(a) [substantial evidence does not include argument, speculation, or unsubstantiated opinion].) 25-183 As discussed in the ND, the City's Urban Water Management Plan has established that there is sufficient water supply to accommodate anticipated growth within the City. Nevertheless, as discussed in response to Comment SPON-3, the project does not proposed any demolition or development, such as residential uses, that would significantly increase water demand. Response to Comment SPON-10 The comment generally reasserts that the ND's project description is vague and invalid. Please see response to Comment SPON-3, which discusses why the project description is valid and appropriate under CEQA. 0 25-184 ATTACHMENT J Parking Consultants 300 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 400 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: 949-754-2884 Website: www.irparkingconsultants.com October 19, 2016 Mr. Daniel Walker Director, Project Management 2220 University Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject: Parking Analysis Report for 191 Riverside Avenue Newport Beach, California Dear Mr. Walker, As requested, J R Parking Consultants is pleased to submit this Parking Analysis Report for the 191 Riverside Avenue site located in Newport Beach, California. The site is located in the Mariners Mile Commercial District and is located on Riverside Avenue at the southwest corner of the intersection of Riverside Avenue and Avon Street. The site is comprised of a 9246 square foot building and 21 parking spaces. The building was formerly used as a Post Office Building. The City of Newport Beach Planning Commission is considering a change in land use from Public Facilities to Mixed -Use Horizontal and a Zoning Code Amendment to change the zoning from Public Facilities to Mixed -Use Mariners Mile. No demolition or new construction is proposed as part of the action being considered at this time by the Planning Commission. In addition to the 191 Riverside site being considered by the Planning Commission, your firm also owns the adjoining parcels which includes, 2902 West Coast Highway, 149 Riverside Avenue, and 177 Riverside Avenue. The purpose of this letter report is to review the existing site and its parking availability, as well as review the composition of the entire center and the required parking uses for the overall center to determine if parking inventories are available to meet proposed uses and to consider options of how all parking inventories may be shared for code required parking needs for all parcels in the center. AI&T Parking Consultants 25-185 Mr. Daniel Walker Parking Analysis Report —191 Riverside Avenue, Newport Beach, California October 19, 2016 Page 2 of 4 Staff Parking Review for Commission Action City staff has recommended to the Commission that the land use and zoning changes be approved. Their report noted that the parking for the site, when considered alone for the mixed- use zone will required 37 spaces for the stand alone building. The current site described in the staff report identifies a plan for 20 spaces, thus creating a 17 space shortfall. Parking Review of Entire Site While the entire site with all parcels under your ownership is not being considered as part of the action being considered by the Planning Commission at the October 20, 2016 meeting, our firm reviewed the site plan of the existing buildings and parking spaces on site, including the vacant, former post office at 191 Riverside, and analyzed the parking requirements based on existing development, approved, but not yet completed development for 177 Riverside, and required parking spaces. The entire existing site includes four buildings totaling 30,295 square feet. Based on mixed-use zoning, the parking requirements for the center would be 122 parking spaces. A summary of the of the existing square footages and the parking requirements are provided in Table 1 below. Table 1— Parking Requirements for Center Building Address Building Square Footage Parking Spaces Required* Proposed Parking to be Provided* 2902 W. Coast Hwy 8,188 32.75 12 149 Riverside Ave. 5,995 23.98 56 177 Riverside Ave. 6,866 27.47 37 191 Riverside Ave. 9,246 36.98 21 Total 30,295 121.18 126 *Based on 1 space/250 square feet. 40 �7#011_jkv Parking Consultants 25-186 Mr. Daniel Walker Parking Analysis Report —191 Riverside Avenue, Newport Beach, California October 19, 2016 Page 3 of 4 Based on the above analysis, the required number of spaces to be provided for the type of uses and the building square footages is 122 spaces. Your firm has prepared and provided a site plan (Attached as Exhibit A) which depicts a plan showing 126 total parking spaces for the center. This parking space inventory provides an excess parking inventory of 4 parking spaces. This parking inventory exceeds the parking requirements for the existing buildings at their current square footage when considered together. It is my understanding that it is also your desire for all these buildings to be able to share the entire parking inventory provided and for the parking inventory to operate as one seamless parking inventory. While all the parcels are owned by the same ownership at this time, they are still separate parcels. I understand that your firm and its ownership have prepared and recorded reciprocal easement agreements to allow all parking spaces to be shared between the parcels and for a single parking management system to exist for the entire center. Summary and Analysis In summary, the parking analysis for the 191 Riverside Avenue site indicates a deficit of 17 spaces on the parcel site for the existing 9,246 sf structure. When the 191 Riverside parcel's parking spaces are included and shared with the adjoining parcels as established through the reciprocal easement agreement for shared parking, the site will have sufficient parking spaces needed to support the parking requirements for this building if the land use and zoning are changed to mixed use (MU -H-1 and MU -MM). Additionally, based on our review of the proposed building site and your plans to provide 126 parking spaces for the entire center including all buildings - 2902 W. Coast Highway, 149 Riverside Avenue, 177 Riverside Avenue, and 191 Riverside Avenue, a surplus of four parking spaces is created. We appreciate the opportunity to prepare this analysis for Mobilitie Intelligent Infrastructure. Should you have questions or need additional assistance, please do not hesitate to call us at (949) 754-2884. Very truly yours, J a l,i,s R.h O es Janis Rhodes Principal 40�/,�-Jkv Parking Consultants 25-187 BLDG. 177 C BLDG. 177 A& B --- 2992 W. COA5T HWY. : I 4 � — iy�---�•• � — i ., ,. is na : im : J > .I m TTT s ,a en � se. a - u ;3 A i _� BLDG. 149 A -- BLDG. 149 B BLDG. 149 C CHINA PALACE I'SJ s u k 1 RIVERSIDE AVENUE Exhibit A - Proposed Site Plan Parking Consultants w w 25-188