HomeMy WebLinkAboutAddendum No. 4 to General Plan Update EIR_Oct 2020
RESIDENCES AT 440 0 VON KARMAN
ADDENDUM NO. 4 TO THE
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN
UPDATE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(SCH NO. 2006011119)
PA2020-061
Prepared for City of Newport Beach
Community Development Department
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
Prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
765 The City Drive, Suite 200
Orange, California 92868
Date October 2020
Table of Contents
i Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Location
1.2 California Environmental Quality Act
1.3 Background
1.4 Conclusion
2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT
2.1 Project Location
2.2 Existing Land Uses
2.3 City of Newport Beach Land Use Categories
2.3.1 General Plan Designation
2.3.2 Zoning Designation
2.4 Project Characteristics
2.4.1 Residential Uses
2.4.2 Vehicular and Non-Vehicular Circulation
2.4.3 Parking
2.4.4 Park, Recreation, and Open Space Amenities
2.4.5 Landscaping and Architecture
2.5 Utilities and Infrastructure
2.6 Construction Phasing
2.7 Intended Uses of the Addendum
3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
3.1 Aesthetics
3.2 Air Quality
3.3 Biological Resources
3.4 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
3.5 Energy
3.6 Geology and Soils
3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
3.10 Land Use and Planning
3.11 Mineral Resources
3.12 Noise
3.13 Population and Housing
1
1
1
3
6
7
7
7
8
8
16
17
17
18
26
29
29
29
30
31
33
34
40
51
57
62
68
77
83
89
97
123
125
137
Table of Contents
ii Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
3.14 Public Services 140
3.15 Recreation 150
3.16 Transportation 155
3.17 Utilities and Service Systems 176
3.18 Wildfire 186
4 DETERMINATION OF APPROPRIATE CEQA DOCUMENTATION 188
5 PREPARERS 191
6 REFERENCES 192
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Regional Location Map 9
Figure 2: Local Vicinity 11
Figure 3: Airport Area Planning Designations 13
Figure 4: Airport Business Area ICDP 19
Figure 5: Existing Zoning Designation 21
Figure 6: Site Plan 23
Figure 7: Vehicular Circulation 27
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1. Airport Business Area ICDP Residential Dwelling Unit Allocation 16
Table 2-2. Residential Development Summary 18
Table 2-3. Parking Summary 26
Table 2-4. Parking Supply By Project Phase 32
Table 3.2-1. Construction-Related Emissions 43
Table 3.2-2. Operational Emissions 43
Table 3.2-3. Equipment-Specific Grading Rates 45
Table 3.2-4. Localized Significance Of Construction Emissions 46
Table 3.2-5. Localized Significance Of Operational Emissions 47
Table 3.5-1. Estimated Project Electricity And Natural Gas Generation 64
Table 3-7.1. Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions 78
Table 3.7-2. Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions 78
Table 3.9-1. Runoff Volume Summary (2-Year, 24-Hour Storm Event) 92
Table 3.10-1. General Plan Consistency Analysis 99
Table 3.12-1. Incremental Noise Impact Criteria For Noise-Sensitive Uses (Dba Cnel) 125
Table 3.12-2. Existing And Project Traffic Noise 126
Table 3.12-3. Opening Year And Project Traffic Noise 127
Table of Contents
iii Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Table 3.12-4. Project Construction Noise Levels 130
Table 3.12-5. Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels 133
Table 3.14-1. Student Generation 144
Table 3.16-1. Traffic Study Area Intersections 156
Table 3.16-2. Level Of Service Descriptions 157
Table 3.16-3. Intersection Operations: Existing Conditions 160
Table 3.16-4. Interstate Highway Intersection Operations 161
Table 3.16-5. Project Trip Generation 162
Table 3.16-6. Traffic Analysis Cumulative Projects 163
Table 3.16-7. Intersection Operations: Year 2025 Without Project 165
Table 3.16-8. Intersection Operations: Year 2025 167
Table 3.16-9. Post-2030 General Plan Buildout Plus Project Conditions 169
Table 3.17-1. Projected Potable Water Supply And Demand (2005 UWMP) 176
Table 3.17-2. Irwd Current And Projected Water Supplies (Afy) 177
Table 3.17-3. Potable Water Demand 177
Table 3.17-4. Irwd Current And Projected Water Demand (Afy) 178
Table 3.17-5. Wastewater Generation 178
Table 3.17-6. Single Dry Year Supply And Demand (Af) 181
Table 3.17-7. Multiple Dry Year Supply And Demand (Af) 181
Table 3.17-8. Estimated Solid Waste Generation 183
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Modeling Data
Appendix B Geotechnical Report
Appendix C Phase I Environmental Assessment
Appendix D Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan
Appendix E Noise Data
Appendix F Traffic Impact Analysis
Appendix G Utility Will Serve Letters
Table of Contents
iv Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
This page intentionally left blank.
Section 1
Introduction
1 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
INTRODUCTION
The project applicant, The Picerne Group, is requesting the City of Newport Beach’s consideration of the
approval of a residential development at 4400 Von Karman Avenue in the City of Newport Beach. The
project includes a residential building with 5-story, 312 multi-family rental units – 299 market-rate units
and 13 very-low income affordable units– with structured parking; a 1.1-acre public park, and a free-
standing parking structure on an approximately 13-acre site.
1.1 Project Location
The proposed Residences at 4400 Von Karman Project (proposed Project) would be developed at
4400 Von Karman Avenue in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, California. The approximately
13-acre, irregularly-shaped property is relatively flat at an approximate elevation of 46 to 52 feet above
mean sea level (msl).
The project site is generally bordered by Birch Street to the northeast, Von Karman Avenue to the west,
and existing office uses with surface parking lots and parking structures to the east and south within
Koll Center Newport. Koll Center Newport is an approximately 154-acre mixed-use development area
generally bordered on the northeast by Campus Drive, on the southeast by Jamboree Road, and on the
west by MacArthur Boulevard.
Regional access to the project site is from State Route 73 (SR-73) via Jamboree Road to the south and
Interstate 405 (I-405) via Jamboree Road to the north. Vehicular access to the site is provided from
Birch Street and Von Karman Avenue. There are three driveways on Birch Street and two driveways on
Von Karman Avenue. All driveways are currently unsignalized gated.
The site is approximately 0.5 mile southwest of John Wayne Airport, 0.5 mile northwest of the San Joaquin
Freshwater Marsh Reserve, and 1.5 miles northwest of the University of California, Irvine (UCI).
1.2 California Environmental Quality Act
This Addendum has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code [PRC] §§21000 et seq.); the State CEQA Guidelines
(Title 14, California Code of Regulations [CCR] §§15000 et seq.); and the rules, regulations, and procedures
for implementing CEQA as set forth by the City of Newport Beach (City). Pursuant to the provisions of
CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, Newport Beach is the Lead Agency charged with the responsibility
of deciding whether to approve the proposed Project.
Section 15164(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that “the lead agency or a responsible agency shall
prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none
of the conditions described in PRC Section 21166 and Section 15162 calling for preparation of a
subsequent EIR have occurred.” Pursuant to Section 15162(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, a subsequent
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or Negative Declaration is only required when:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous
EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
Section 1
Introduction
2 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is
undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to
the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity
of previously identified significant effects; or
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been
known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as
complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or
negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the
previous EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be
feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but
the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed
in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the
environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or
alternative.
As part of its decision-making process, the City is required to review and consider whether the proposed
Project would create new significant impacts or significant impacts that would be substantially more
severe than those disclosed in the City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update Program
Environmental Impact Report and City of Newport Beach Housing Element Initial Study/Negative
Declaration (herein referred to collectively as the General Plan Program EIR). Additional CEQA review
beyond this Addendum would only be triggered if the proposed Project creates new significant impacts
or impacts that are more severe than those disclosed in the General Plan Program EIR used to approve
the City of Newport Beach General Plan Update in 2006 and the 2014-2021 Housing Element (Housing
Element) in 2013 such that major revisions to the General Plan Program EIR would be required.
The following describes the requirements of an addendum, as defined by State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15164:
(a) The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an Addendum to a previously certified EIR if
some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162
calling for preparation of a Subsequent EIR have occurred.
(b) An Addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical
changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling
for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred.
(c) An Addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the
Final EIR.
(d) The decision‐making body shall consider the Addendum with the Final EIR prior to making a
decision on the project.
Section 1
Introduction
3 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
(e) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a Subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162
should be included in an Addendum to an EIR, the lead agency’s findings on the project, or
elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence.
If none of these circumstances are present, and only minor technical changes or additions are necessary
to update the previously certified EIR, an addendum may be prepared, consistent with State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15164.
1.3 Background
On July 25, 2006, the City of Newport Beach General Plan Update (General Plan) was adopted and the
Final Program EIR was certified by the Newport Beach City Council. At the General Municipal Election held
on November 7, 2006, the City electorate approved increased density and intensity of development and
associated increased peak hour traffic trips provided in the Land Use Element of the General Plan,
pursuant to City Charter Section 423. On September 24, 2013, the City Council adopted the City of
Newport Beach 2014-2021 Housing Element and an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, which is
an update and revision to the 2008-2014 Housing Element. The land use opportunity areas identified in
the General Plan remain the same.
The General Plan contains the following elements: Land Use; Harbor and Bay; Housing; Historical
Resources; Circulation; Recreation; Arts and Cultural; Natural Resources; Safety; and Noise. The
comprehensive General Plan Program EIR analyzed the potential impacts of a citywide comprehensive
update to the land use plan, and goals and policies for General Plan elements.
The following summarizes the findings of the General Plan Program EIR associated with the adoption and
long-term implementation of the General Plan. The General Plan Program EIR does not identify mitigation
measures. Rather it relies on General Plan policies adopted in the General Plan to mitigate potential
environmental impacts. Existing enforcement and monitoring mechanisms are in place to ensure that all
measures will be implemented, including conditions of approval and mitigation monitoring.
Less Than Significant: Compliance with General Plan Policies and Applicable Regulations and
Conditions
▪ Aesthetics: Obstruction of scenic vistas;
▪ Aesthetics: Changes to visual character;
▪ Air Quality: Exposure of sensitive receptors to carbon monoxide concentrations;
▪ Air Quality: Objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people;
▪ Biological Resources: Direct or indirect effects to candidate, sensitive, or special status plant and
wildlife species through habitat modification;
▪ Biological Resources: Adverse effects on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities;
▪ Biological Resources: Wildlife movement and wildlife corridors;
▪ Cultural Resources: Damage to or destruction of archaeological and/or Native American cultural
resources;
▪ Cultural Resources: Damage to or destruction of unique paleontological resources;
▪ Cultural Resources: Damage to or destruction of human burial grounds;
Section 1
Introduction
4 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
▪ Geology and Soils: Exposure of people and structures to adverse effects from strong seismic
ground shaking;
▪ Geology and Soils: Exposure of people and structures to adverse effects from seismic-related
ground failure or landslides;
▪ Geology and Soils: Substantial soil erosion and loss of topsoil;
▪ Geology and Soils: Hazards associated with lateral spreading, subsidence, collapse, differential
settlement, or heaving;
▪ Geology and Soils: Substantial risk to people and structures caused by construction on expansive
soils;
▪ Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Routine transport, use, storage, or disposal of hazardous
materials;
▪ Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Release of hazardous materials, including lead and asbestos,
during construction activities and operational activities;
▪ Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Existing oil wells (Newport Oil Field and West Newport Oil Field)
and the five methane gas mitigation districts;
▪ Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Hazardous emission at schools within one-quarter mile of a
project site;
▪ Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Listed hazardous materials sites;
▪ Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Interference with the City of Newport Beach Emergency
Management Plan;
▪ Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Fire risk associated with development near wildlands;
▪ Hydrology and Water Quality: Violation of water quality standards and discharge requirements
during construction activities and operations;
▪ Hydrology and Water Quality: Interference with groundwater recharge or depletion of
groundwater supplies;
▪ Hydrology and Water Quality: Alteration of drainage patterns resulting in substantial erosion or
siltation;
▪ Hydrology and Water Quality: Alteration of drainage patterns resulting in flooding
▪ Hydrology and Water Quality: Exceedance of stormwater drainage infrastructure or require new
infrastructure, or cause substantial polluted runoff;
▪ Hydrology and Water Quality: Degradation of groundwater quality;
▪ Hydrology and Water Quality: Development in 100-year flood zones and exposure to flood risks;
▪ Land Use and Planning: Physically divide an established community;
▪ Land Use and Planning: Consistency with applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations,
including habitat conservation plans;
▪ Noise: Construction activities;
▪ Public Services: Fire, Police, Schools, Libraries;
Section 1
Introduction
5 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
▪ Recreation and Open Space: Deterioration of park and recreational facilities, and park
deficiencies;
▪ Transportation/Traffic: Intersection operation’s levels of service;
▪ Transportation/Traffic: Impacts to Congestion Management Plan (CMP) arterials;
▪ Transportation/Traffic: Air traffic patterns;
▪ Transportation/Traffic: Roadway design features causing safety hazards;
▪ Transportation/Traffic: Emergency access;
▪ Transportation/Traffic: Inadequate parking accommodation;
▪ Transportation/Traffic: Applicable policies; and
▪ Utilities and Service Systems: Water Treatment, Water Supply, Wastewater Treatment and
Facilities, Solid Waste Disposal, Energy Use.
Significant Unavoidable Impacts: Compliance with General Plan Policies and Applicable Regulations
and Conditions
▪ Aesthetics ─ New sources of light and glare. Note: this finding only applies to new development
in the Banning Ranch subarea and is therefore not applicable to the proposed Project;
▪ Air Quality; Land Use and Planning: Conflict or obstruct implementation of the South Coast Air
Quality Management Plan (AQMP); population levels exceeding 2003 AQMP (no feasible
mitigation measures are available to reduce impacts to a less than significant level);
▪ Air Quality: Construction emissions (no feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce
impacts to a less than significant level);
▪ Air Quality: Cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria pollutants within the nonattainment
area (no feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce impacts to a less than significant
level)
▪ Cultural Resources: Demolition of historic structures (no feasible mitigation measures are
identified to reduce impacts to a less than significant level). Note: the project site is a parking lot
and does not contain any historic structures. Therefore, this finding is not applicable to the
proposed Project;
▪ Hazards and Hazardous Materials; Land Use and Planning: Residential development constructed
in the Airport Area within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour specified by the Airport Land Use
Commission’s Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport. Note, the project
site is not within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour;
▪ Noise: Potential exposure of persons to roadway noise exceeding standards established in the
General Plan and Municipal Code;
▪ Noise: Vibration associated with specific construction activities. The General Plan Program EIR
notes that these significant impacts are not citywide and instead take into consideration land
uses, activities, and sensitive receptors;
▪ Population and Housing: Exceedance of the Southern California Association of Governments
(SCAG) population projections;
▪ Transportation/Traffic: Deficient freeway mainline segments and ramps;
Section 1
Introduction
6 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
The General Plan Program EIR found that implementation of the General Plan would have no impact to
the remaining topical areas evaluated in accordance with CEQA Statutes and the State CEQA Guidelines.
1.4 Conclusion
The Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum finds that potential impacts associated with this proposed
Project would either be the same or not substantially greater than those described in the General Plan
Program EIR. As discussed in this Addendum, these conclusions are supported by substantial evidence,
including project-specific analyses of potential impacts. In addition, there are no substantial changes to
the circumstances under which the proposed Project would be undertaken that would result in more
severe environmental impacts than previously addressed in the General Plan Program EIR. No new
information of substantial importance shows that mitigation measures or alternatives that were
previously found not to be feasible or that are considerably different from those analyzed for the General
Plan Program EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment.
Therefore, no conditions described in Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines has occurred. For these
reasons, an Addendum is the appropriate document that will comply with CEQA requirements for the
proposed Project.
In taking action on any of the approvals for the proposed Project, the decision-making body must consider
the whole of the data presented in the General Plan Program EIR, the Findings of Fact and Statement of
Overriding Considerations for the adoption of the General Plan; and the previously adopted Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), as applicable to the proposed Project.
Section 2
Description of Proposed Project
7 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT
2.1 Project Location
The Residences at 4400 Von Karman Project (proposed Project) would be developed at 4400 Von Karman
Avenue in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, California. The approximately 13.00-acre,
irregularly-shaped property is relatively flat at an approximate elevation of 46 to 52 feet above mean sea
level (msl).
The project site is generally bordered by Birch Street to the northeast, Von Karman Avenue to the west,
and existing office uses and associated surface parking lots and parking structures to the east and south
within Koll Center Newport. Koll Center Newport is an approximately 154-acre mixed-use development
area generally bordered on the northeast by Campus Drive, on the southeast by Jamboree Road, and on
the west by MacArthur Boulevard. Figure 1, Regional Location Map, and Figure 2, Local Vicinity, depict
the project site in a regional and local context, respectively.
Regional access to the site is from State Route 73 (SR-73) via Jamboree Road to the south and I-405 via
Jamboree Road to the north. Vehicular access to the site is provided from Birch Street and Von Karman
Avenue. Currently, there are three driveways on Birch Street and two driveways on Von Karman Avenue.
The site is approximately 0.5 mile southwest of John Wayne Airport, 0.5 mile northwest of the San Joaquin
Freshwater Marsh Reserve, and 1.5 miles northwest of the University of California, Irvine (UCI).
2.2 Existing Land Uses
The project site is a part of Koll Center Newport, which includes low-rise, mid-rise, and high-rise office
buildings, hotels, and a private club. The project site is currently developed with common area surface
parking for office tenants in Koll Center Newport.
There are three office buildings located within the boundaries of the project site, none of which are part
of the proposed Project.
▪ 4490 Von Karman Avenue is a two-story (33 feet) office building located southeast of the
intersection of Birch Street at Von Karman Avenue.
▪ 4440 Von Karman Avenue is a three-story (62 feet) office building located south of the 4490 Von
Karman Avenue office building.
▪ 4910 Birch Street is a four-story (60 feet) office building located adjacent to and east of the 4490
Von Karman building.
Existing land uses adjacent and near the project site include the following:
Northwest Extended Stay America Hotel (4 stories, 50 feet) is northwest of the intersection of
Birch Street at Von Karman Avenue
Marriott Renaissance Newport Beach Hotel (10 stories, 112 feet) is southwest of the
intersection of Birch Street at Von Karman Avenue
Northeast Birch Street
Section 2
Description of Proposed Project
8 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Newport Corporate Plaza low-rise, office buildings (one story) and surface parking
north of Birch Street
South 4340 Von Karman Avenue office building (4 stories, 63 feet)
4350 Von Karman Avenue office building (4 stories, 63 feet)
TowerJazz Semiconductor manufacturing facility (two to three stories, 88 feet) at
4321 Jamboree Road
Uptown Newport mixed-use development: residential apartments, retail uses, and a
park (up to 75 feet)
Southeast Birch Street Center office building at 5000 Birch Street (10 stories, 154 feet) with an
associated free-standing parking structure adjacent to and south of the office
building. The office building is immediately adjacent to the project site.
California Superior Court Harbor Justice Center – Newport Beach (two stories) is on
the northwest corner of Birch Street at Jamboree Road.
Low-rise office buildings (two stories) with surface parking are on the south side of
Birch Street. The surface parking for the office buildings is adjacent to the Uptown
Newport apartments.
Fast-food restaurants along Jamboree Road in Koll Center Newport abut the Uptown
Newport project site
Southwest/West Von Karman Avenue
West of Von Karman Avenue, land uses include but are not limited to a private club
and an office building (9 story, 140 feet)
2.3 City of Newport Beach Land Use Categories
2.3.1 General Plan Designation
The project site is in the Airport Area1 planning subarea. As depicted on Figure 3, Airport Area Planning
Designations, the Airport Area is approximately 360 acres bordered by Jamboree Road to the southeast,
Campus Drive to the northeast and west, and Bristol Street to the southwest. The project site is in a Mixed-
Use District, and the General Plan land use category for the project site is “Mixed Use Horizontal 2 (MU-
H2)” (see Figure 3). The MU-H2 category specifically applies to some properties in the Airport Area. As
stated in the General Plan Land Use Element, the category “provides for a horizontal intermixing of uses
that may include regional commercial office, multi-family residential, vertical mixed-use buildings,
industrial, hotel rooms, and ancillary neighborhood commercial uses.” No non-residential uses are
proposed as a part of the Project. Project implementation does not require a change to the existing
General Plan land use category.
1 “Airport area’ means an area of the City that encompasses the properties adjacent to John Wayne Airport and that is in close
proximity to the Irvine Business Complex and University of California, Irvine as depicted on General Plan Figure LU22 (Airport
Area).” Source: City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 20.70, Definitions. Accessed September 21, 2020.
Not to scale
405
1
55
1
HUNTINGTON
BEACH
COSTA MESA
IRVINE
NEWPORT
BEACH
JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT
UC IRVINE
NEWPORT
CENTER
UPPERNEWPORT
BAY
UNINCORPORATED
ORANGE COUNTY
FIGURE 1: Regional Location Map
Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Project Site
Newport Beach
HUNTINGTON BEACH
COSTA MESA
IRVINE
LEGEND:
City Boundary
73
Section 2
Description of Proposed Project
10 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
This page intentionally left blank.
Not to scaleFIGURE 2: Local Vicinity
The Residences at 4400 Von Karman
BIRCH STREET
Uptown Newport
4340 Von Karman
4350 Von Karman
5000 Birch
4910 Birch
4440 Von Karman
4490 Von Karman
StructureVO
N
KAR
M
AN
AVENU
E JAMBOREE ROADM
ACARTHUR BOULEVARD
Project Site
Section 2
Description of Proposed Project
12 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
This page intentionally left blank.
!2!1
!8
!16
!4
!3
!13
!18
!15
!10
!17
!7
!9
!11 !5
!6
!14
!14
!12
!12
!19
!19
!2.1
BAYVIEWBAYVIEWBAYCRESTAVENUEDRIVE
CYPRESS STORC
H
ARD DR
ZEN
I
T
H
A
V
E
PLACECO
R
M
O
R
A
N
T CIRCLECTBAY
CREST
CT AVEDOLPHIN-STRIKER WAY
NEWPORT PLACE DR
QU
A
I
L
S
T
BOWSPRIT DRDOVE
JAMBOREES
T
R
E
E
T KARMANBIRC
H
S
T
TE LL ER AVE DRIVEBARDEEN AVECA
M
P
U
S
ROADJAMBOREEBIRCH STDO
V
E
S
T CAM P U S D R IVE
VON KARMAN AVEDRIVE
BIRC
H
S
T
BIRCH STREETWAY
CORINTHIAN
SCOTT DRDOVE STSPRUCEORCHIDAZUR
E
SHEARWATER
P
L ROADS/E
B
R
I
S
T
O
L
S
T
BRI
S
T
O
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
N
O
R
T
H
F A IR C H ILD
ST
R
EET
AV EN U E WESTERLY PLQUAILDRIVE
ORC
H
AR
D STREETSPRUCE STST
R
E
E
T
ST
R
E
E
T
NO
R
T
H
BRI
S
T
O
L
ST
R
E
E
T
BRI
S
T
O
L BIRCHBLVDMARTIN
GALE WAYMACARTHURSW BIRCH STSE
B
R
I
S
TO
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
SW BIRCH ST20250TELLER AVEMAR
TIN
DU
PO
N
T
D
R
JAMBOREE ROAD
CD
M
F
R
E
E
W
A
Y
V O NUP PER NE WPORT PLAZA RDBLVDCAMPUSCD
M
F
R
E
E
W
A
Y
ROADCAMPUS
CD
M FR
EE
W
A
Y MACARTHURMACARTHURORCH
I
DHILL
P
L STREETAVENUEDRIVEORCH
AR
D
DR
BRI
S
T
O
L
S
T
RE
E
T
N
CAMPUSCYPRESS STCYPRESS STC A M P U SD R I V E
C O R O N A D E L M A R F R E E W A Y
B
C
C
A
MU-H2
MU-H2
AO
MU-H2
CO-G
CO-G
MU-H2
CO-G
MU-H2
MU-H2
MU-H2
CG
CG CG
AO
AO
PF
CG
CO-G
C
!2!1
!8
!16
!4
!3
!13
!18
!15
!10
!17
!7
!9
!11 !5
!6
!14
!14
!12
!12
!19
!19
!2.1
BAYVIEWBAYVIEWBAYCRESTAVENUEDRIVE
CYPRESS STORC
H
ARD DR
ZEN
I
T
H
A
V
E
PLACECO
R
M
O
R
A
N
T CIRCLECTBAY
CREST
CT AVEDOLPHIN-STRIKER WAY
NEWPORT PLACE DR
QU
A
I
L
S
T
BOWSPRIT DRDOVE
JAMBOREES
T
R
E
E
T KARMANBIRC
H
S
T
TE LL ER AVE DRIVEBARDEEN AVECA
M
P
U
S
ROADJAMBOREEBIRCH STDO
V
E
S
T CAM P U S D R IVE
VON KARMAN AVEDRIVE
BIRC
H
S
T
BIRCH STREETWAY
CORINTHIAN
SCOTT DRDOVE STSPRUCEORCHIDAZUR
E
SHEARWATER
P
L ROADS/E
B
R
I
S
T
O
L
S
T
BRI
S
T
O
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
N
O
R
T
H
F A IR C H ILD
ST
R
EET
AV EN U E WESTERLY PLQUAILDRIVE
ORC
H
AR
D STREETSPRUCE STST
R
E
E
T
ST
R
E
E
T
NO
R
T
H
BRI
S
T
O
L
ST
R
E
E
T
BRI
S
T
O
L BIRCHBLVDMARTIN
GALE WAYMACARTHURSW BIRCH STSE
B
R
I
S
TO
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
SW BIRCH ST20250TELLER AVEMAR
TIN
DU
PO
N
T
D
R
JAMBOREE ROAD
CD
M
F
R
E
E
W
A
Y
V O NUP PER NE WPORT PLAZA RDBLVDCAMPUSCD
M
F
R
E
E
W
A
Y
ROADCAMPUS
CD
M FR
EE
W
A
Y MACARTHURMACARTHURORCH
I
DHILL
P
L STREETAVENUEDRIVEORCH
AR
D
DR
BRI
S
T
O
L
S
T
RE
E
T
N
CAMPUSCYPRESS STCYPRESS STC A M P U SD R I V E
C O R O N A D E L M A R F R E E W A Y
B
C
C
A
MU-H2
MU-H2
AO
MU-H2
CO-G
CO-G
MU-H2
CO-G
MU-H2
MU-H2
MU-H2
CG
CG CG
AO
AO
PF
CG
CO-G
C
LAND USE POLICY
CITY of NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN
PROJECT NUMBER:10579-01
Source: City of Newport Beach and EIP Associates
PACIFIC OCEAN
?sE
A°E
%&l(
FIGURE LU22AIRPORT AREA
0 500 1,000250Feet
7N
Commercial and OfficeCUnderlying Uses: Office, Hotel, Supporting Retail,
Residential Village: Housing and Mixed-Use
(with Guidelines for Design and Development)
A B Airport-Supporting Businesses
Land Use
Delineator Line
Highway
65 CNEL Noise
Contour
!Refer to anomalytable
ConceptualDevelopmentPlan Area
Sub-Area
Figure_LU22_Airport_Area.mxd February/2011
FIGURE 3: Airport Area Planning Designa�ons
Residences at 4400 Von Karman
!16
!13
!17
!14
BAYVIEWBAYVIEWBAYCRESTAVENUEDRIVE
CYPRESS ST
ORC
H
AR
D
D
R
ZEN
I
T
H
A
V
E
PLACECO
R
M
O
R
A
N
T CTBAY
CREST
CT
DO
V
E
S
T
SPRUCEORCHIDAZUR
E
SHEARWATER
PL
ST
R
E
E
T
AV E N U E WESTERLY PLQUAILDRIVE
ORC
H
AR
D STREETSPRUCE ST
ST
R
E
E
T
ST
R
E
E
T
NO
R
T
H
BRI
S
T
O
L
ST
R
E
E
T
BRI
S
T
O
L BIRCHSW
BIRCH ST
SE
B
R
I
S
TO
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
SW BIRCH ST20250UPPER NEW PORT PLAZACAMPUS
CD
M
F
R
E
E
W
A
Y
CD
M
F
R
EE
W
A
Y
ORCH
I
DHILL
P
L STREETAVENUEORCH
AR
D
DR
BRI
S
T
O
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
N
CAMPUSCYPRESS STCYPRESS STCAM PUSC
O
R
O
N
A
DEL
MAR
FREEW
A
Y
B
AO
CO-G
CO-G
AO
CO-G
C
!16
!13
!17
!14
BAYVIEWBAYVIEWBAYCRESTAVENUEDRIVE
CYPRESS ST
ORC
H
AR
D
D
R
ZEN
I
T
H
A
V
E
PLACECO
R
M
O
R
A
N
T CTBAY
CREST
CT
DO
V
E
S
T
SPRUCEORCHIDAZUR
E
SHEARWATER
PL
ST
R
E
E
T
AV E N U E WESTERLY PLQUAILDRIVE
ORC
H
AR
D STREETSPRUCE ST
ST
R
E
E
T
ST
R
E
E
T
NO
R
T
H
BRI
S
T
O
L
ST
R
E
E
T
BRI
S
T
O
L BIRCHSW
BIRCH ST
SE
B
R
I
S
TO
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
SW BIRCH ST20250UPPER NEW PORT PLAZACAMPUS
CD
M
F
R
E
E
W
A
Y
CD
M
F
R
EE
W
A
Y
ORCH
I
DHILL
P
L STREETAVENUEORCH
AR
D
DR
BRI
S
T
O
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
N
CAMPUSCYPRESS STCYPRESS STCAM PUSC
O
R
O
N
A
DEL
MAR
FREEW
A
Y
B
AO
CO-G
CO-G
AO
CO-G
C
LAND USE POLICY
Underlying Uses: Office, Hotel, Supporting Retail,
Residential Village: Housing and Mixed-Use
(with Guidelines for Design and Development)
A
Figure_LU22_Airport_Area.mxd February/2011
!2!1
!8
!16
!4
!3
!13
!18
!15
!10
!17
!7
!9
!11
!14
!14
!12
!12
!19
!19
!2.1
BAYVIEWBAYVIEW
BAYCR ESTAVENUEDRIVE
CYPRESS ST
ORC
H
AR
D
D
R
ZEN
I
T
H
A
V
E
PLACECO
R
M
O
R
A
N
T CIRCLECTBAY
CREST
CT AVEDOLPHIN-STRIKER
W
A
Y
NEWPORT
P
LACE
D
R
QU
A
I
L
S
T
BOWSPRIT
D
RDOVE
JAMBOREES
T
R
E
E
T KARMANBIRC
H
S
T
TE LL ER AV
E
CA
M
P
U
S
JAMBOREEBIRCH ST
DO
V
E
S
T VON KARMAN AVE
DRIVE
BIRC
H
S
T
BIRCH STREET
WAY
CORINTHIAN
SCOTT DRDOVE STSPRUCEORCHIDAZ
UR
E
SHEARWATER
PLROADS/E
B
R
I
S
T
O
L
S
T
BRI
S
T
O
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
N
O
R
T
H
F A IR C HILDST
R
E
E
T
A V E N U E WESTERLY PLQUAI
LDRIVE
ORC
H
AR
D STREETSPRUCE ST
ST
R
E
E
T
ST
R
E
E
T
NO
R
T
H
BRI
S
T
O
L
ST
R
E
E
T
BRI
S
T
O
L BIRCHBLVDMARTIN
GALE WAYMACARTHURSW BIRCH ST
SE
B
R
I
S
TO
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
SW BIRCH ST20250CD
M
F
R
E
E
W
A
Y VO NUPPER NEW POR T PLAZA
RDCAMPUSCD
M
F
R
E
E
W
A
Y
ROADCD
M
F
R
EE
W
A
Y MACARTHURMACARTHURORC
H
I
D
HILL
P
L STREETAVENUEDRIVEORC
H
AR
D
DR
BRI
S
T
O
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
N
CAMPUS
CYPRESS STCYPRESS STCAMPUSDRIVE
C
O
R
O
N
A
D
EL
MAR
FREE
W
AY
B
C
C
A
MU-H2
MU-H2
AO
MU-H2
CO-G
CO-G
MU-H2
CO-G
MU-H2
MU-H2
MU-H2
CG
CG CG
AO
AO
PF
CG
CO-G
C
!2!1
!8
!16
!4
!3
!13
!18
!15
!10
!17
!7
!9
!11
!14
!14
!12
!12
!19
!19
!2.1
BAYVIEWBAYVIEW
BAYCR ESTAVENUEDRIVE
CYPRESS ST
ORC
H
AR
D
D
R
ZEN
I
T
H
A
V
E
PLACECO
R
M
O
R
A
N
T CIRCLECTBAY
CREST
CT AVEDOLPHIN-STRIKER
W
A
Y
NEWPORT
P
LACE
D
R
QU
A
I
L
S
T
BOWSPRIT
D
RDOVE
JAMBOREES
T
R
E
E
T KARMANBIRC
H
S
T
TE LL ER AV
E
CA
M
P
U
S
JAMBOREEBIRCH ST
DO
V
E
S
T VON KARMAN AVE
DRIVE
BIRC
H
S
T
BIRCH STREET
WAY
CORINTHIAN
SCOTT DRDOVE STSPRUCEORCHIDAZ
UR
E
SHEARWATER
PLROADS/E
B
R
I
S
T
O
L
S
T
BRI
S
T
O
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
N
O
R
T
H
F A IR C HILDST
R
E
E
T
A V E N U E WESTERLY PLQUAI
LDRIVE
ORC
H
AR
D STREETSPRUCE ST
ST
R
E
E
T
ST
R
E
E
T
NO
R
T
H
BRI
S
T
O
L
ST
R
E
E
T
BRI
S
T
O
L BIRCHBLVDMARTIN
GALE WAYMACARTHURSW BIRCH ST
SE
B
R
I
S
TO
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
SW BIRCH ST20250CD
M
F
R
E
E
W
A
Y VO NUPPER NEW POR T PLAZA
RDCAMPUSCD
M
F
R
E
E
W
A
Y
ROADCD
M
F
R
EE
W
A
Y MACARTHURMACARTHURORC
H
I
D
HILL
P
L STREETAVENUEDRIVEORC
H
AR
D
DR
BRI
S
T
O
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
N
CAMPUS
CYPRESS STCYPRESS STCAMPUSDRIVE
C
O
R
O
N
A
D
EL
MAR
FREE
W
AY
B
C
C
A
MU-H2
MU-H2
AO
MU-H2
CO-G
CO-G
MU-H2
CO-G
MU-H2
MU-H2
MU-H2
CG
CG CG
AO
AO
PF
CG
CO-G
C
LAND USE POLICY
Commercial and OfficeCUnderlying Uses: Office, Hotel, Supporting Retail,
Residential Village: Housing and Mixed-Use
(with Guidelines for Design and Development)
A B Airport-Supporting Businesses
Figure_LU22_Airport_Area.mxd February/2011
!2!1
!8
!16
!4
!3
!13
!18
!15
!10
!17
!7
!9
!11 !5
!6
!14
!14
!12
!12
!19
!19
!2.1
BAYVIEWBAYVIEW
BAYCR ESTAVENUEDRIVE
CYPRESS ST
ORC
H
AR
D
D
R
ZE
N
I
T
H
A
V
E
PLACECOR
M
O
R
A
N
T CIRCLECTBAY
CREST
CT AVEDOLPHIN-STRIKER
W
A
Y
NEWPORT
P
L
A
C
E
D
R
QU
A
I
L
S
T
BOWSPRIT
D
RDOVE
JAMBOREEST
R
E
E
T KARMANBIRC
H
S
T
TE LL ER AV
E
DRIVEBARDEEN AVE
CA
M
P
U
S
ROADJAMBOREEBIRCH ST
DO
V
E
S
T CAMPUS
VON KARMAN AVE
DRIVE
BIRC
H
S
T
BIRCH STREET
WAY
CORINTHIAN
SCOTT DRDOVE STSPRUCEORCHIDAZ
UR
E
SHEARWATER
PLROADS/E
B
R
I
S
T
O
L
S
T
BRI
S
T
O
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
N
O
R
T
H
F A IR C HILDSTR
E
E
T
A V E N U E WESTERLY PLQU
A
I
LDRIVE
ORC
H
AR
D STREETSPRUCE ST
STR
E
E
T
ST
R
E
E
T
NO
R
T
H
BRI
S
T
O
L
ST
R
E
E
T
BRI
S
T
O
L BIRCHBLVDMARTINGALE WAYMACARTHURSW BIRCH ST
SE
B
R
I
S
TO
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
SW BIRCH ST20250TELLER AVE
DU
PO
N
T
D
R
JAMBOREE
ROAD
CD
M
F
R
E
E
W
A
Y VO NUPPER NEW POR T PLAZA
RDBLVDCAMPUSCD
M
F
R
E
E
W
A
Y
ROADCD
M
F
R
EE
WA
Y MACARTHURMACARTHURORC
H
I
D
HILL
P
L STREETAVENUEDRIVEORC
H
ARD
DR
BRI
S
T
O
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
N
CAMPUS
CYPRESS STCYPRESS STCAMPUSD
RIV
E
C
O
R
O
NA
D
EL
M
AR
FREE
W
AY
B
C
C
A
MU-H2
MU-H2
AO
MU-H2
CO-G
CO-G
MU-H2
CO-G
MU-H2
MU-H2
MU-H2
CG
CG CG
AO
AO
PF
CG
CO-G
C
!2!1
!8
!16
!4
!3
!13
!18
!15
!10
!17
!7
!9
!11 !5
!6
!14
!14
!12
!12
!19
!19
!2.1
BAYVIEWBAYVIEW
BAYCR ESTAVENUEDRIVE
CYPRESS ST
ORC
H
AR
D
D
R
ZE
N
I
T
H
A
V
E
PLACECOR
M
O
R
A
N
T CIRCLECTBAY
CREST
CT AVEDOLPHIN-STRIKER
W
A
Y
NEWPORT
P
L
A
C
E
D
R
QU
A
I
L
S
T
BOWSPRIT
D
RDOVE
JAMBOREEST
R
E
E
T KARMANBIRC
H
S
T
TE LL ER AV
E
DRIVEBARDEEN AVE
CA
M
P
U
S
ROADJAMBOREEBIRCH ST
DO
V
E
S
T CAMPUS
VON KARMAN AVE
DRIVE
BIRC
H
S
T
BIRCH STREET
WAY
CORINTHIAN
SCOTT DRDOVE STSPRUCEORCHIDAZ
UR
E
SHEARWATER
PLROADS/E
B
R
I
S
T
O
L
S
T
BRI
S
T
O
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
N
O
R
T
H
F A IR C HILDSTR
E
E
T
A V E N U E WESTERLY PLQU
A
I
LDRIVE
ORC
H
AR
D STREETSPRUCE ST
STR
E
E
T
ST
R
E
E
T
NO
R
T
H
BRI
S
T
O
L
ST
R
E
E
T
BRI
S
T
O
L BIRCHBLVDMARTINGALE WAYMACARTHURSW BIRCH ST
SE
B
R
I
S
TO
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
SW BIRCH ST20250TELLER AVE
DU
PO
N
T
D
R
JAMBOREE
ROAD
CD
M
F
R
E
E
W
A
Y VO NUPPER NEW POR T PLAZA
RDBLVDCAMPUSCD
M
F
R
E
E
W
A
Y
ROADCD
M
F
R
EE
WA
Y MACARTHURMACARTHURORC
H
I
D
HILL
P
L STREETAVENUEDRIVEORC
H
ARD
DR
BRI
S
T
O
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
N
CAMPUS
CYPRESS STCYPRESS STCAMPUSD
RIV
E
C
O
R
O
NA
D
EL
M
AR
FREE
W
AY
B
C
C
A
MU-H2
MU-H2
AO
MU-H2
CO-G
CO-G
MU-H2
CO-G
MU-H2
MU-H2
MU-H2
CG
CG CG
AO
AO
PF
CG
CO-G
C
LAND USE POLICY
PROJECT NUMBER:10579-01
Source: City of Newport Beachand EIP Associates
PACIFIC O
?sE
AIRPORT AREA
0 500 1,000250
7
Commercial and OfficeCUnderlying Uses: Office, Hotel, Supporting Retail,
Residential Village: Housing and Mixed-Use(with Guidelines for Design and Development)
A B Airport-Supporting Businesses
Land UseDelineator Line
Highway
65 CNEL NoiseContour
!Refer to anomalytable
Conceptual
DevelopmentPlan Area
Sub-Area
Figure_LU22_Airport_Area.mxd February/2011
0 250 500 1,000
Feet
LEGEND:
Commercial
CG - Commercial General
Mixed-Use Districts
Mixed-Use Horizontal
Sub-Area
Conceptual Development Plan Area
Land Use Delineator Line
Highway
65 CNEL Noise Contour
Refer to anomaly table
!2!1
!8
!16
!4
!3
!13
!18
!15
!10
!17
!7
!9
!11 !5
!6
!14
!14
!12
!12
!19
!19
!2.1
WBAYVIEWBAYCRESTAVENUEDRIVE
CYPRESS ST
ORC
H
AR
D
D
R
ZE
N
I
T
H
A
V
E
PLACEBAY
CREST
CT AVEDOLPHIN-STRIKER
W
A
Y
NEWPORT
P
L
A
C
E
D
R
QU
A
I
L
S
T
BOWSPRIT
D
RDOVE
JAMBOREEST
R
E
E
T KARMANBIRC
H
S
T TE LL ER
A
VE
DRIVEBARDEEN AVE
CA
M
P
U
S
ROADJAMBOREEBIRCH ST
DO
V
E
ST CAMPUSD R IV E
VON KAR
MAN
AVE
DRIVE
BIRC
H
S
T
BIRCH STREET
WAY
CORINTHIAN
SCOTT DRDOVE STSPRUCEORCHIDROADS/E
B
R
I
S
T
O
L
S
T
BRI
S
T
O
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
N
O
R
T
H
ST
R
E
E
T
AVE N U E
WESTERLY
PL
Q
U
A
I
LDRIVE
ORC
H
AR
D STREETSPRUCE ST
STR
E
E
T
ST
R
E
E
T
NO
R
T
H
BRI
S
T
O
L
ST
R
E
E
T
BRI
S
T
O
L BIRCHBLVDMARTIN
GALE WAYMACARTHURSW
BIRCH ST
SE
B
R
I
S
TO
L
S
TR
E
E
T
SW BIRCH ST20250TELLER AVE
MAR
TIN
DU
PO
N
T
D
R
JAMBOREE
ROAD
CD
M
F
R
E
E
W
A
Y
V O NUPPER N EWP OR T PLAZA
RDBLVDCAMPUSCD
M
F
R
E
E
W
A
Y
ROADCAMPUS
CD
M
F
R
EE
W
A
Y MACARTHURMACARTHURSTREETAVENUEDRIVEBRI
S
T
O
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
N
CAMPUSCYPRESS STCYPRESS STCAM PUSD
RIVE
C
OR
O
N
A
D
EL
MA
R
FREE
W
AY
B
C
C
A
MU-H2
MU-H2
AO
MU-H2
CO-G
CO-G
MU-H2
CO-G
MU-H2
MU-H2
MU-H2
CG
CG CG
AO
AO
PF
CG
CO-G
C
!2!1
!8
!16
!4
!3
!13
!18
!15
!10
!17
!7
!9
!11 !5
!6
!14
!14
!12
!12
!19
!19
!2.1
WBAYVIEWBAYCRESTAVENUEDRIVE
CYPRESS ST
ORC
H
AR
D
D
R
ZE
N
I
T
H
A
V
E
PLACEBAY
CREST
CT AVEDOLPHIN-STRIKER
W
A
Y
NEWPORT
P
L
A
C
E
D
R
QU
A
I
L
S
T
BOWSPRIT
D
RDOVE
JAMBOREEST
R
E
E
T KARMANBIRC
H
S
T TE LL ER
A
VE
DRIVEBARDEEN AVE
CA
M
P
U
S
ROADJAMBOREEBIRCH ST
DO
V
E
ST CAMPUSD R IV E
VON KAR
MAN
AVE
DRIVE
BIRC
H
S
T
BIRCH STREET
WAY
CORINTHIAN
SCOTT DRDOVE STSPRUCEORCHIDROADS/E
B
R
I
S
T
O
L
S
T
BRI
S
T
O
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
N
O
R
T
H
ST
R
E
E
T
AVE N U E
WESTERLY
PL
Q
U
A
I
LDRIVE
ORC
H
AR
D STREETSPRUCE ST
STR
E
E
T
ST
R
E
E
T
NO
R
T
H
BRI
S
T
O
L
ST
R
E
E
T
BRI
S
T
O
L BIRCHBLVDMARTIN
GALE WAYMACARTHURSW
BIRCH ST
SE
B
R
I
S
TO
L
S
TR
E
E
T
SW BIRCH ST20250TELLER AVE
MAR
TIN
DU
PO
N
T
D
R
JAMBOREE
ROAD
CD
M
F
R
E
E
W
A
Y
V O NUPPER N EWP OR T PLAZA
RDBLVDCAMPUSCD
M
F
R
E
E
W
A
Y
ROADCAMPUS
CD
M
F
R
EE
W
A
Y MACARTHURMACARTHURSTREETAVENUEDRIVEBRI
S
T
O
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
N
CAMPUSCYPRESS STCYPRESS STCAM PUSD
RIVE
C
OR
O
N
A
D
EL
MA
R
FREE
W
AY
B
C
C
A
MU-H2
MU-H2
AO
MU-H2
CO-G
CO-G
MU-H2
CO-G
MU-H2
MU-H2
MU-H2
CG
CG CG
AO
AO
PF
CG
CO-G
C
CITY of NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN
PROJECT NUMBER:10579-01
Source: City of Newport Beachand EIP Associates
PACIFIC OCEAN
?sE
A°E
%&l(
FIGURE LU22AIRPORT AREA
0 500 1,000250Feet
7N
Land UseDelineator Line
Highway
65 CNEL NoiseContour
!Refer to anomalytable
ConceptualDevelopmentPlan Area
Sub-Area
!2!1
!8
!16
!4
!3
!13
!18
!15
!10
!17
!7
!9
!11 !5
!6
!14
!14
!12
!12
!19
!19
!2.1
BAYVIEWBAYVIEWBAYCRESTAVENUEDRIVE
CYPRESS ST
ORC
H
AR
D
D
R
ZEN
I
T
H
A
V
E
PLACECOR
M
O
R
A
N
T CIRCLECTBAY
CREST
CT AVEDOLPHIN-STRIKER
W
A
Y
NEWPORT
P
L
A
C
E
D
R
QU
A
I
L
S
T
BOWSPRIT
D
RDOVE
JAMBOREEST
R
E
E
T KARMANBIRC
H
S
T TE LL ER
A
VE
DRIVEBARDEEN AVE
CA
M
P
U
S
ROADJAMBOREEBIRCH ST
DO
V
E
S
T CAMPUSD R IV E
VON KAR
MAN
AVE
DR
IVE
BIRC
H
S
T
BIRCH STREET
WAY
CORINTHIAN
SCOTT DRDOVE STSPRUCEORCHIDAZ
UR
E ROADS/E
B
R
I
S
T
O
L
S
T
BRI
S
T
O
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
N
O
R
T
H
F A IR C H ILDST
R
E
E
T
AVE N U E
WESTERLY
PLQU
A
I
LDRIVE
ORC
H
ARD STREETSPRUCE ST
ST
R
E
E
T
STR
E
E
T
NO
R
T
H
BRI
S
T
O
L
STR
E
E
T
BRI
S
T
O
L BIRCHBLVDMARTINGALE WAYMACARTHURSW
BIRCH ST
SE
B
R
I
S
TO
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
SW BIRCH ST20250TELLER AVE
MAR
TIN
DU
PO
N
T
D
R
JAMBOREE
ROAD
CD
M
F
R
E
E
W
A
Y
V O NUPPER N EWP OR T PLAZA
RDBLVDCAMPUSCD
M
F
R
E
E
W
A
Y
ROADCAMPUS
CD
M
F
R
EE
WA
Y MACARTHURMACARTHURSTREETAVENUEDRIVEORC
H
ARD
BRI
S
T
O
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
N
CAMPUSCYPRESS STCYPRESS STCAM PUSD
RIVE
C
O
R
O
N
A
DEL
M
A
R
FREEW
AY
B
C
C
A
MU-H2
MU-H2
AO
MU-H2
CO-G
CO-G
MU-H2
CO-G
MU-H2
MU-H2
MU-H2
CG
CG CG
AO
AO
PF
CG
CO-G
C
!2!1
!8
!16
!4
!3
!13
!18
!15
!10
!17
!7
!9
!11 !5
!6
!14
!14
!12
!12
!19
!19
!2.1
BAYVIEWBAYVIEWBAYCRESTAVENUEDRIVE
CYPRESS ST
ORC
H
AR
D
D
R
ZEN
I
T
H
A
V
E
PLACECOR
M
O
R
A
N
T CIRCLECTBAY
CREST
CT AVEDOLPHIN-STRIKER
W
A
Y
NEWPORT
P
L
A
C
E
D
R
QU
A
I
L
S
T
BOWSPRIT
D
RDOVE
JAMBOREEST
R
E
E
T KARMANBIRC
H
S
T TE LL ER
A
VE
DRIVEBARDEEN AVE
CA
M
P
U
S
ROADJAMBOREEBIRCH ST
DO
V
E
S
T CAMPUSD R IV E
VON KAR
MAN
AVE
DR
IVE
BIRC
H
S
T
BIRCH STREET
WAY
CORINTHIAN
SCOTT DRDOVE STSPRUCEORCHIDAZ
UR
E ROADS/E
B
R
I
S
T
O
L
S
T
BRI
S
T
O
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
N
O
R
T
H
F A IR C H ILDST
R
E
E
T
AVE N U E
WESTERLY
PLQU
A
I
LDRIVE
ORC
H
ARD STREETSPRUCE ST
ST
R
E
E
T
STR
E
E
T
NO
R
T
H
BRI
S
T
O
L
STR
E
E
T
BRI
S
T
O
L BIRCHBLVDMARTINGALE WAYMACARTHURSW
BIRCH ST
SE
B
R
I
S
TO
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
SW BIRCH ST20250TELLER AVE
MAR
TIN
DU
PO
N
T
D
R
JAMBOREE
ROAD
CD
M
F
R
E
E
W
A
Y
V O NUPPER N EWP OR T PLAZA
RDBLVDCAMPUSCD
M
F
R
E
E
W
A
Y
ROADCAMPUS
CD
M
F
R
EE
WA
Y MACARTHURMACARTHURSTREETAVENUEDRIVEORC
H
ARD
BRI
S
T
O
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
N
CAMPUSCYPRESS STCYPRESS STCAM PUSD
RIVE
C
O
R
O
N
A
DEL
M
A
R
FREEW
AY
B
C
C
A
MU-H2
MU-H2
AO
MU-H2
CO-G
CO-G
MU-H2
CO-G
MU-H2
MU-H2
MU-H2
CG
CG CG
AO
AO
PF
CG
CO-G
C
CITY of NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN
PROJECT NUMBER:10579-01
Source: City of Newport Beachand EIP Associates
PACIFIC OCEAN
?sE
A°E
%&l(
FIGURE LU22AIRPORT AREA
0 500 1,000250Feet
7N
Land UseDelineator Line
Highway
65 CNEL NoiseContour
!Refer to anomalytable
ConceptualDevelopment
Plan Area
Sub-Area
!2!1
!8
!16
!4
!3
!13
!18
!15
!10
!17
!7
!9
!11 !5
!6
!14
!14
!12
!12
!19
!19
!2.1
BAYVIEWBAYVIEWBAYCRESTAVENUE
DRIVE
CYPRESS ST
ORCH
ARD
D
R
ZEN
I
T
H
A
V
E
PLACECO
R
M
O
R
A
N
T CIRCLECTBAY
CREST
CT AVEDOLPHIN-STRIKER
W
A
Y
NEWPORT
P
L
A
C
E
D
R
QU
A
I
L
S
T
BOWSPRIT
D
RDOVE
JAMBOREEST
R
E
E
T KARMANBIRC
H
S
T TE LL ER
A
V
E
DRIVEBARDEEN AVE
CA
M
P
U
S
ROADJAMBOREEBIRCH ST
DO
V
E
S
T CAM PU S DRIV E
VON KARMAN AVE
DRIVE
BIRC
H
S
T
BIRCH STREET
WAY
CORINTHIAN
SCOTT D
R
DOVE STSPRUC EORCH ID
AZ
UR
E
SHEARWATER
PLROADS/E
B
R
I
S
T
O
L
S
T
BRI
S
T
O
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
N
O
R
T
H
F AI R C H IL DSTR
E
E
T
AVENU E WESTERLY PLQUAILDRIVE
ORC
H
ARD STREETSPR UCE ST
STR
E
E
T
ST
R
E
E
T
NO
R
T
H
BRI
S
T
O
L
ST
R
E
E
T
BRI
S
T
O
L BIRCHBLVDMARTIN
GALE
WAYMACARTHURSW
BIRCH ST
SE
B
R
I
S
TOL
S
T
R
E
E
T
SW BIRCH ST20250TELLER AVE
MAR
TIN
DU
PO
N
T
D
R
JAMBOREE ROAD
CD
M
F
R
E
E
W
A
Y
V O NUPPER NEWPORT PLAZA
RDBLVDCAMPUS
CD
M
F
R
E
E
W
A
Y
ROADCAMPUS
CD
M
F
R
EE
WA
Y MACARTHURMACARTHURORCH
I
D
HILL
P
L STREETAVENUE DRIVEORC
H
ARD
DR
BRI
S
T
O
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
N
CAMPUS
CYPRESS
STCYPRESS STCAM PUSDRIVE
C
O
R
O
NA
DEL
M
AR
FREEW
AY
B
C
C
A
MU-H2
MU-H2
AO
MU-H2
CO-G
CO-G
MU-H2
CO-G
MU-H2
MU-H2
MU-H2
CG
CG CG
AO
AO
PF
CG
CO-G
C
!2!1
!8
!16
!4
!3
!13
!18
!15
!10
!17
!7
!9
!11 !5
!6
!14
!14
!12
!12
!19
!19
!2.1
BAYVIEWBAYVIEWBAYCRESTAVENUE
DRIVE
CYPRESS ST
ORCH
ARD
D
R
ZEN
I
T
H
A
V
E
PLACECO
R
M
O
R
A
N
T CIRCLECTBAY
CREST
CT AVEDOLPHIN-STRIKER
W
A
Y
NEWPORT
P
L
A
C
E
D
R
QU
A
I
L
S
T
BOWSPRIT
D
RDOVE
JAMBOREEST
R
E
E
T KARMANBIRC
H
S
T TE LL ER
A
V
E
DRIVEBARDEEN AVE
CA
M
P
U
S
ROADJAMBOREEBIRCH ST
DO
V
E
S
T CAM PU S DRIV E
VON KARMAN AVE
DRIVE
BIRC
H
S
T
BIRCH STREET
WAY
CORINTHIAN
SCOTT D
R
DOVE STSPRUC EORCH ID
AZ
UR
E
SHEARWATER
PLROADS/E
B
R
I
S
T
O
L
S
T
BRI
S
T
O
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
N
O
R
T
H
F AI R C H IL DSTR
E
E
T
AVENU E WESTERLY PLQUAILDRIVE
ORC
H
ARD STREETSPR UCE ST
STR
E
E
T
ST
R
E
E
T
NO
R
T
H
BRI
S
T
O
L
ST
R
E
E
T
BRI
S
T
O
L BIRCHBLVDMARTIN
GALE
WAYMACARTHURSW
BIRCH ST
SE
B
R
I
S
TOL
S
T
R
E
E
T
SW BIRCH ST20250TELLER AVE
MAR
TIN
DU
PO
N
T
D
R
JAMBOREE ROAD
CD
M
F
R
E
E
W
A
Y
V O NUPPER NEWPORT PLAZA
RDBLVDCAMPUS
CD
M
F
R
E
E
W
A
Y
ROADCAMPUS
CD
M
F
R
EE
WA
Y MACARTHURMACARTHURORCH
I
D
HILL
P
L STREETAVENUE DRIVEORC
H
ARD
DR
BRI
S
T
O
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
N
CAMPUS
CYPRESS
STCYPRESS STCAM PUSDRIVE
C
O
R
O
NA
DEL
M
AR
FREEW
AY
B
C
C
A
MU-H2
MU-H2
AO
MU-H2
CO-G
CO-G
MU-H2
CO-G
MU-H2
MU-H2
MU-H2
CG
CG CG
AO
AO
PF
CG
CO-G
C
LAND USE POLICY
CITY of NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN
PROJECT NUMBER:10579-01
Source: City of Newport Beachand EIP Associates
PACIFICOCEAN
?sE
A°E
%&l(
FIGURE LU22AIRPORT AREA
0 500 1,000250Feet
7N
Commercial and OfficeCUnderlying Uses: Office, Hotel, Supporting Retail,
Residential Village: Housing and Mixed-Use
(with Guidelines for Design and Development)
A B Airport-Supporting Businesses
Land UseDelineator Line
Highway
65 CNEL NoiseContour
!Refer to anomalytable
ConceptualDevelopmentPlan Area
Sub-Area
!2!1
!8
!16
!4
!3
!13
!18
!15
!10
!17
!7
!9
!11 !5
!6
!14
!14
!12
!12
!19
!19
!2.1
BAYVIEWBAYVIEWBAYCRESTAVENUE
DRIVE
CYPRESS ST
ORC
H
ARD
D
R
ZEN
I
T
H
A
V
E
PLACECO
R
M
O
R
A
N
T CIRCLECTBAY
CREST
CT AVEDOLPHIN-STRIKER
W
A
Y
NEWPORT
P
L
A
C
E
D
R
QU
A
I
L
S
T
BOWSPRIT
D
RDOVE
JAMBOREEST
R
E
E
T KARMANBIRC
H
S
T TE LL ER
A
V
E
DRIVEBARDEEN AVE
CA
M
P
U
S
ROADJAMBOREEBIRCH ST
DO
V
E
S
T CAM PU S DRIV E
VON KARMAN AVE
DRIVE
BIRC
H
ST
BIRCH STREET
WAY
CORINTHIAN
SCOTT D
R
DOVE STSPRUC EORCH ID
AZUR
E
SHEARWATER
PLROADS/E
B
R
I
S
T
O
L
S
T
BRI
S
T
O
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
N
O
R
T
H
F AI R C H IL DSTR
E
E
T
AVENU E WESTERLY PL
QUA
I
LDRIVE
ORC
H
AR
D STREETSPR UCE ST
STR
E
E
T
ST
R
E
E
T
NO
R
T
H
BRI
S
T
O
L
ST
R
E
E
T
BRI
S
T
O
L BIRCHBLVDMARTIN
GALE WAYMACARTHURSW
BIRCH ST
SE
B
R
I
S
TO
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
SW BIRCH ST20250TELLER AVE
MARTIN
DU
PO
N
T
D
R
JAMBOREE ROAD
CD
M
F
R
E
E
W
A
Y
V O NUPPER NEWPORT PLAZA
RDBLVDCAMPUS
CD
M
F
R
E
E
W
A
Y
ROADCAMPUS
CD
M
F
R
EE
W
A
Y MACARTHURMACARTHURORCH
I
DHILL
P
L STREETAVENUE DRIVEORC
H
AR
D
DR
BRI
S
T
O
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
N
CAMPUS
CYPRESS
STCYPRESS STCAM PUSD
RIVE
C
O
R
O
NA
DEL
M
AR
FREEW
AY
B
C
C
A
MU-H2
MU-H2
AO
MU-H2
CO-G
CO-G
MU-H2
CO-G
MU-H2
MU-H2
MU-H2
CG
CG CG
AO
AO
PF
CG
CO-G
C
!2!1
!8
!16
!4
!3
!13
!18
!15
!10
!17
!7
!9
!11 !5
!6
!14
!14
!12
!12
!19
!19
!2.1
BAYVIEWBAYVIEWBAYCRESTAVENUE
DRIVE
CYPRESS ST
ORC
H
ARD
D
R
ZEN
I
T
H
A
V
E
PLACECO
R
M
O
R
A
N
T CIRCLECTBAY
CREST
CT AVEDOLPHIN-STRIKER
W
A
Y
NEWPORT
P
L
A
C
E
D
R
QU
A
I
L
S
T
BOWSPRIT
D
RDOVE
JAMBOREEST
R
E
E
T KARMANBIRC
H
S
T TE LL ER
A
V
E
DRIVEBARDEEN AVE
CA
M
P
U
S
ROADJAMBOREEBIRCH ST
DO
V
E
S
T CAM PU S DRIV E
VON KARMAN AVE
DRIVE
BIRC
H
ST
BIRCH STREET
WAY
CORINTHIAN
SCOTT D
R
DOVE STSPRUC EORCH ID
AZUR
E
SHEARWATER
PLROADS/E
B
R
I
S
T
O
L
S
T
BRI
S
T
O
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
N
O
R
T
H
F AI R C H IL DSTR
E
E
T
AVENU E WESTERLY PL
QUA
I
LDRIVE
ORC
H
AR
D STREETSPR UCE ST
STR
E
E
T
ST
R
E
E
T
NO
R
T
H
BRI
S
T
O
L
ST
R
E
E
T
BRI
S
T
O
L BIRCHBLVDMARTIN
GALE WAYMACARTHURSW
BIRCH ST
SE
B
R
I
S
TO
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
SW BIRCH ST20250TELLER AVE
MARTIN
DU
PO
N
T
D
R
JAMBOREE ROAD
CD
M
F
R
E
E
W
A
Y
V O NUPPER NEWPORT PLAZA
RDBLVDCAMPUS
CD
M
F
R
E
E
W
A
Y
ROADCAMPUS
CD
M
F
R
EE
W
A
Y MACARTHURMACARTHURORCH
I
DHILL
P
L STREETAVENUE DRIVEORC
H
AR
D
DR
BRI
S
T
O
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
N
CAMPUS
CYPRESS
STCYPRESS STCAM PUSD
RIVE
C
O
R
O
NA
DEL
M
AR
FREEW
AY
B
C
C
A
MU-H2
MU-H2
AO
MU-H2
CO-G
CO-G
MU-H2
CO-G
MU-H2
MU-H2
MU-H2
CG
CG CG
AO
AO
PF
CG
CO-G
C
LAND USE POLICY
CITY of NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN
PROJECT NUMBER:10579-01
Source: City of Newport Beachand EIP Associates
PACIFICOCEAN
?sE
A°E
%&l(
FIGURE LU22AIRPORT AREA
0 500 1,000250Feet
7N
Commercial and OfficeCUnderlying Uses: Office, Hotel, Supporting Retail,
Residential Village: Housing and Mixed-Use
(with Guidelines for Design and Development)
A B Airport-Supporting Businesses
Land UseDelineator Line
Highway
65 CNEL NoiseContour
!Refer to anomalytable
ConceptualDevelopmentPlan Area
Sub-Area
!2!1
!8
!16
!4
!3
!13
!18
!15
!10
!17
!7
!9
!11 !5
!6
!14
!14
!12
!12
!19
!19
!2.1
BAYVIEWBAYVIEWBAYCRESTAVENUE
DRIVE
CYPRESS ST
ORC
H
ARD
D
R
ZEN
I
T
H
A
V
E
PLACECO
R
M
O
R
A
N
T CIRCLECTBAY
CREST
CT AVEDOLPHIN-STRIKER
W
A
Y
NEWPORT
P
L
A
C
E
D
R
QU
A
I
L
S
T
BOWSPRIT
D
RDOVE
JAMBOREEST
R
E
E
T KARMANBIRC
H
S
T TE LL ER
A
V
E
DR
IVEBARDEEN AVE
CA
M
P
U
S
ROADJAMBOREEBIRCH ST
DO
V
E
S
T CAM PU S DRIV E
VON KARMAN AVE
DRIVE
BIRC
H
S
T
BIRCH STREET
WAY
CORINTHIAN
SCOTT D
R
DOVE STSPRUC EORCH ID
AZUR
E
SHEARWATER
PLROADS/E
B
R
I
S
T
O
L
S
T
BRI
S
T
O
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
N
O
R
T
H
F AI R C H IL DST
R
E
E
T
AVENU E WESTERLY PL
Q
UA
I
LDRIVE
ORC
H
AR
D STREETSPR UCE ST
STR
E
E
T
ST
R
E
E
T
NO
R
T
H
BRI
S
T
O
L
ST
R
E
E
T
BRI
S
T
O
L BIRCHBLVDMARTIN
GALE WAYMACARTHURSW
BIRCH ST
SE
B
R
I
S
TO
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
SW BIRCH ST20250TELLER AVE
MARTIN
DU
PO
N
T
D
R
JAMBOREE ROAD
CD
M
F
R
E
E
W
A
Y
V O NUPPER NEWPORT PLAZA
RDBLVDCAMPUS
CD
M
F
R
E
E
W
A
Y
ROADCAMPUS
CD
M
F
R
EE
W
A
Y MACARTHURMACARTHURORCH
I
DHILL
P
L STREETAVENUE DRIVEORC
H
AR
D
DR
BRI
S
T
O
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
N
CAMPUS
CYPRESS
STCYPRESS STCAM PUSD
RIVE
C
O
R
O
NA
D
EL
M
AR
FREEW
AY
B
C
C
A
MU-H2
MU-H2
AO
MU-H2
CO-G
CO-G
MU-H2
CO-G
MU-H2
MU-H2
MU-H2
CG
CG CG
AO
AO
PF
CG
CO-G
C
!2!1
!8
!16
!4
!3
!13
!18
!15
!10
!17
!7
!9
!11 !5
!6
!14
!14
!12
!12
!19
!19
!2.1
BAYVIEWBAYVIEWBAYCRESTAVENUE
DRIVE
CYPRESS ST
ORC
H
ARD
D
R
ZEN
I
T
H
A
V
E
PLACECO
R
M
O
R
A
N
T CIRCLECTBAY
CREST
CT AVEDOLPHIN-STRIKER
W
A
Y
NEWPORT
P
L
A
C
E
D
R
QU
A
I
L
S
T
BOWSPRIT
D
RDOVE
JAMBOREEST
R
E
E
T KARMANBIRC
H
S
T TE LL ER
A
V
E
DR
IVEBARDEEN AVE
CA
M
P
U
S
ROADJAMBOREEBIRCH ST
DO
V
E
S
T CAM PU S DRIV E
VON KARMAN AVE
DRIVE
BIRC
H
S
T
BIRCH STREET
WAY
CORINTHIAN
SCOTT D
R
DOVE STSPRUC EORCH ID
AZUR
E
SHEARWATER
PLROADS/E
B
R
I
S
T
O
L
S
T
BRI
S
T
O
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
N
O
R
T
H
F AI R C H IL DST
R
E
E
T
AVENU E WESTERLY PL
Q
UA
I
LDRIVE
ORC
H
AR
D STREETSPR UCE ST
STR
E
E
T
ST
R
E
E
T
NO
R
T
H
BRI
S
T
O
L
ST
R
E
E
T
BRI
S
T
O
L BIRCHBLVDMARTIN
GALE WAYMACARTHURSW
BIRCH ST
SE
B
R
I
S
TO
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
SW BIRCH ST20250TELLER AVE
MARTIN
DU
PO
N
T
D
R
JAMBOREE ROAD
CD
M
F
R
E
E
W
A
Y
V O NUPPER NEWPORT PLAZA
RDBLVDCAMPUS
CD
M
F
R
E
E
W
A
Y
ROADCAMPUS
CD
M
F
R
EE
W
A
Y MACARTHURMACARTHURORCH
I
DHILL
P
L STREETAVENUE DRIVEORC
H
AR
D
DR
BRI
S
T
O
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
N
CAMPUS
CYPRESS
STCYPRESS STCAM PUSD
RIVE
C
O
R
O
NA
D
EL
M
AR
FREEW
AY
B
C
C
A
MU-H2
MU-H2
AO
MU-H2
CO-G
CO-G
MU-H2
CO-G
MU-H2
MU-H2
MU-H2
CG
CG CG
AO
AO
PF
CG
CO-G
C
LAND USE POLICY
CITY of NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN
PROJECT NUMBER:10579-01
Source: City of Newport Beachand EIP Associates
PACIFICOCEAN
?sE
A°E
%&l(
FIGURE LU22AIRPORT AREA
0 500 1,000250Feet
7N
Commercial and OfficeCUnderlying Uses: Office, Hotel, Supporting Retail,
Residential Village: Housing and Mixed-Use
(with Guidelines for Design and Development)
A B Airport-Supporting Businesses
Land UseDelineator Line
Highway
65 CNEL NoiseContour
!Refer to anomalytable
ConceptualDevelopmentPlan Area
Sub-Area
!2!1
!8
!16
!4
!3
!13
!18
!15
!10
!17
!7
!9
!11 !5
!6
!14
!14
!12
!12
!19
!19
!2.1
BAYVIEWBAYVIEWBAYCRESTAVENUE
DRIVE
CYPRESS ST
ORCH
AR
D
D
R
ZEN
I
T
H
A
V
E
PLACECO
R
M
O
R
A
N
T CIRCLECTBAY
CR
EST
CT AVEDOLPHIN-STRIKER
W
A
Y
NEWPORT
P
L
A
C
E
D
R
QU
A
I
L
S
T
BOWSPRIT
D
RDOVE
JAMBOREEST
R
E
E
T KARMANBIRC
H
S
T TE LL ER
A
V
E
DRIVEBARDEEN AVE
CA
M
P
U
S
ROADJAMBOREEBIRCH ST
DO
V
E
S
T CAM PU S DRIV E
VON KARMAN AVE
DRIVE
BIRC
H
ST
BIRCH STREET
WAY
CORINTHIAN
SCOTT D
R
DOVE STSPRUC EORCH ID
AZ
UR
E
SHEARWATER
PLROADS/E
B
R
I
S
T
O
L
S
T
BRI
S
T
O
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
N
O
R
T
H
F AI R C H IL DSTR
E
E
T
AVENU E WESTERLY PLQUAI
LDRIVE
ORC
H
ARD STREETSPR UCE ST
STR
E
E
T
STR
E
E
T
NO
R
T
H
BRI
S
T
O
L
ST
R
E
E
T
BRI
S
T
O
L BIRCHBLVDMARTIN
GALE WAYMACARTHURSW
BIRCH ST
SE
B
R
I
S
TOL
S
T
R
E
E
T
SW BIRCH ST20250TELLER AVE
MAR
TIN
DU
PO
N
T
D
R
JAMBOREE ROAD
CD
M
F
R
E
E
W
A
Y
V O NUPPER NEWPORT PLAZA
RDBLVDCAMPUS
CD
M
F
R
E
E
W
A
Y
ROADCAMPUS
CD
M
F
R
EE
WA
Y MACARTHURMACARTHURORC
H
I
D
HILL
P
L STREETAVENUE DRIVEORCH
ARD
DR
BRI
S
T
O
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
N
CAMPUS
CYPRESS
STCYPRESS STCAM PUSDRIVE
C
O
R
O
NA
DEL
M
AR
FREEW
AY
B
C
C
A
MU-H2
MU-H2
AO
MU-H2
CO-G
CO-G
MU-H2
CO-G
MU-H2
MU-H2
MU-H2
CG
CG CG
AO
AO
PF
CG
CO-G
C
!2!1
!8
!16
!4
!3
!13
!18
!15
!10
!17
!7
!9
!11 !5
!6
!14
!14
!12
!12
!19
!19
!2.1
BAYVIEWBAYVIEWBAYCRESTAVENUE
DRIVE
CYPRESS ST
ORCH
AR
D
D
R
ZEN
I
T
H
A
V
E
PLACECO
R
M
O
R
A
N
T CIRCLECTBAY
CR
EST
CT AVEDOLPHIN-STRIKER
W
A
Y
NEWPORT
P
L
A
C
E
D
R
QU
A
I
L
S
T
BOWSPRIT
D
RDOVE
JAMBOREEST
R
E
E
T KARMANBIRC
H
S
T TE LL ER
A
V
E
DRIVEBARDEEN AVE
CA
M
P
U
S
ROADJAMBOREEBIRCH ST
DO
V
E
S
T CAM PU S DRIV E
VON KARMAN AVE
DRIVE
BIRC
H
ST
BIRCH STREET
WAY
CORINTHIAN
SCOTT D
R
DOVE STSPRUC EORCH ID
AZ
UR
E
SHEARWATER
PLROADS/E
B
R
I
S
T
O
L
S
T
BRI
S
T
O
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
N
O
R
T
H
F AI R C H IL DSTR
E
E
T
AVENU E WESTERLY PLQUAI
LDRIVE
ORC
H
ARD STREETSPR UCE ST
STR
E
E
T
STR
E
E
T
NO
R
T
H
BRI
S
T
O
L
ST
R
E
E
T
BRI
S
T
O
L BIRCHBLVDMARTIN
GALE WAYMACARTHURSW
BIRCH ST
SE
B
R
I
S
TOL
S
T
R
E
E
T
SW BIRCH ST20250TELLER AVE
MAR
TIN
DU
PO
N
T
D
R
JAMBOREE ROAD
CD
M
F
R
E
E
W
A
Y
V O NUPPER NEWPORT PLAZA
RDBLVDCAMPUS
CD
M
F
R
E
E
W
A
Y
ROADCAMPUS
CD
M
F
R
EE
WA
Y MACARTHURMACARTHURORC
H
I
D
HILL
P
L STREETAVENUE DRIVEORCH
ARD
DR
BRI
S
T
O
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
N
CAMPUS
CYPRESS
STCYPRESS STCAM PUSDRIVE
C
O
R
O
NA
DEL
M
AR
FREEW
AY
B
C
C
A
MU-H2
MU-H2
AO
MU-H2
CO-G
CO-G
MU-H2
CO-G
MU-H2
MU-H2
MU-H2
CG
CG CG
AO
AO
PF
CG
CO-G
C
LAND USE POLICY
CITY of NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN
PROJECT NUMBER:10579-01
Source: City of Newport Beachand EIP Associates
PACIFICOCEAN
?sE
A°E
%&l(
FIGURE LU22AIRPORT AREA
0 500 1,000250Feet
7N
Commercial and OfficeCUnderlying Uses: Office, Hotel, Supporting Retail,
Residential Village: Housing and Mixed-Use
(with Guidelines for Design and Development)
A B Airport-Supporting Businesses
Land UseDelineator Line
Highway
65 CNEL NoiseContour
!Refer to anomalytable
ConceptualDevelopmentPlan Area
Sub-Area
Figure_LU22_Airport_Area.mxd February/2011
Source: City of Newport Beach, 2006
Project Site
Section 2
Description of Proposed Project
14 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
This page intentionally left blank.
Section 2
Description of Proposed Project
15 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Although the adopted General Plan approved a maximum of 2,200 multi-family residential units in the
Airport Area at a maximum density of 50 units per net acre (du/ac), the General Plan Program EIR
evaluated 4,300 multi-family residential units for the Airport Area. As set forth in the General Plan, of the
2,200 multi-family dwelling units, 1,650 units must replace existing office, retail, and/or industrial uses in
order that there is no net gain in vehicular trips. A maximum of the remaining 550 units are “additive”
units that “may be developed as infill on existing surface parking lots or areas not used as occupiable
buildings on properties within the Conceptual Development Plan Area as depicted on Figure LU22
provided that parking is replaced on-site”.2
General Plan Land Use Element policies for Mixed-Use Districts are included in the General Plan as Policy
LU 6.15.4 through Policy 6.15-23. Policy LU 6.15.7 requires residential units to be developed at a minimum
density of 30 units and a maximum of 50 units per net acre (prior to any affordable housing density bonus)
as averaged by the total area of a residential village. The net density for 260 “base” units would be 44
dwelling units per net acre based on 5.9 net acres, and would be 53 dwelling units per acre for 312 units
inclusive of the density bonus. As noted, the density range is prior to the application of an affordable
housing density bonus.
General Plan Land Use Element Policy LU 6.15.10 requires a regulatory plan for each ten-acre minimum
residential village in order to coordinate the location of new parks, streets, and pedestrian ways, and
requires a strategy to accommodate neighborhood serving commercial uses and other amenities.
General Plan Land Use Element Policy LU 6.15.11 requires the preparation of one Conceptual
Development Plan for the area depicted on Figure LU22 of the General Plan if residential units are
proposed on any property within the area. The Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development
Plan is addressed in the following discussion.
Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan
As noted, General Plan Policy LU 6.15.11 requires a conceptual development plan when residential units
are proposed in the defined area of the Airport Area. The approval of a conceptual development plan is a
prerequisite to the consideration of development projects with residential uses within the Airport Area.
In September 2010, the Newport Beach City Council approved the Airport Business Area Integrated
Conceptual Development Plan (ICDP) for that portion of the Airport Area generally bordered by MacArthur
Boulevard, Jamboree Road, and Birch Street as depicted in Figure 4, Airport Business Area ICDP. The
Airport Business Area ICDP is approximately 37.7 acres of which approximately 25 acres is the Uptown
Newport site, and approximately 12.7 additional acres in Koll Center Newport. The project site is within
this 12.7-acre area of Koll Center Newport.
The Airport Business Area ICDP identifies 1,244 units on the Uptown Newport site and 260 units on the
surface parking area of Koll Center Newport Office Site B, where the Residences at 440 Von Karman
Project is proposed. All of the 260 residential units were identified as “additive” units in the Airport
Business Area ICDP because no existing development would be removed. With respect to the 1,244 units
on the Uptown Newport site, the Airport Business Area ICDP notes that 632 units would replace existing
industrial and office uses; 290 units would be additive; and 322 units would be density bonus units.
Together, the approved Uptown Newport Project and the proposed Project would use all of the 550
2 Figure LU22 from the General Plan Land Use Element is depicted as Figure 4 in this Addendum.
Section 2
Description of Proposed Project
16 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
additive units allocated to Airport Business Area ICDP. As proposed, the Project includes 312 multi-family
rental units: 260 additive units and 52 density bonus units inclusive of 13 very-low-income affordable
units. Table 2-1, Airport Business Area ICDP Residential Dwelling Unit Allocation, provides a summary of
residential unit allocation within the Airport Business Area ICDP.
Table 0-1. Airport Business Area ICDP Residential Dwelling Unit Allocation
Sites Additive Replacement Density Bonus Total
Uptown Newport 290 632 322 1,244
Residences at 440 Von Karman
(Proposed Project) 260 0 0 260
Total (du) 550 632 374 1,504
du = dwelling unit
As noted, the adopted Airport Business Area ICDP does not provide project-specific approvals. The ICDP
is a conceptual plan and its approval by the City did not convey any rights to develop. All proposed site-
specific development, such as the proposed Project, must be in substantial compliance with the intent of
the Airport Business Area ICDP, and is subject to City approval.
2.3.2 Zoning Designation
The City of Newport Beach Municipal Code (Municipal Code) Chapter 20.56 allows a “Planned Community
District” to address land use designation and regulations in the form of Planned Communities. A Planned
Community (PC) District, as stated in Municipal Code Section 20.56.010, is intended to:
A. Provide for the classification and development of parcels of land as coordinated, comprehensive
projects in order to take advantage of the superior environment which can result from large-scale
community planning.
B. Allow diversification of land uses as they relate to each other in a physical and environmental
arrangement while ensuring substantial compliance with the spirit, intent, and provisions of this
Zoning Code.
C. Include various types of land uses, consistent with the General Plan through the adoption of a
development plan and text materials that identify land use relationships and associated
development standards.
As depicted in Figure 5, Existing Zoning Designation, the project site is zoned “Koll Center Newport
Planned Community (PC-15 Koll Center)”. Specifically, the site is within Professional and Business Offices
Site B of PC-15 Koll Center (Site B). PC-15 Koll Center includes all parcels bordered by Campus Drive to the
northeast, Jamboree Road to the southeast, and MacArthur Boulevard to the southwest. PC-15 zoning
permits professional and business offices, hotels and motels, retail, restaurants and entertainment, a
courthouse, private clubs, and auto detailing and service stations. Currently, Site B allows professional
and business offices, restaurants, and support commercial uses; residential is not currently allowed.
Zoning regulations are provided in the Koll Center Planned Community Development Standards (PC Text)
adopted by Ordinance No. 1449 in 1972, as subsequently amended. As a part of the proposed Project,
PC-15 Koll Center would be amended to create a Residential overlay zone, allowing for residential
development consistent with the City of Newport Beach General Plan and the Airport Business Area ICDP.
Section 2
Description of Proposed Project
17 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
The amendment to PC-15 Koll Center would also include the identification of permitted uses and their
development standards.
2.4 Project Characteristics
The site plan for the proposed Project is depicted on Figure 6, Site Plan. As proposed, the Project would
allow for the development of a residential building with structured parking, a public park, a free-standing
parking structure, and the reconfiguration of some of the existing surface parking areas.
Implementation of the Project would require the demolition of existing surface parking and landscaping
within the limits of disturbance. All residential parking would be provided in the residential building’s
parking structure. Office parking removed during construction and by the proposed development would
be provided in a new free-standing parking structure, structured parking associated with the residential
building, and surface parking areas.
2.4.1 Residential Uses
As discussed, the Airport Business Area ICDP identifies 260 units on the surface parking area of Koll Center
Newport where the Project is proposed. The 260 residential units were identified as “additive” units in
the Airport Business Area ICDP because no existing development would be removed. As proposed, the
Project includes 312 multi-family rental units: 260 additive units and 52 density bonus units inclusive of
13 very-low-income affordable units. Very Low Income Households are defined as households whose
gross income does not exceed 50 percent of area median income adjusted for household size. The 299
units are proposed as market-rate rental units. The Applicant is requesting a 20 percent density bonus to
provide affordable housing as a part of the Project pursuant to Government Code Section 65915 and
Chapter 20.32 of the Municipal Code.
The residential building is proposed as a five-story podium building with three levels of structured parking
(one level on-grade and two levels below ground ). The majority of the residences would be on the second
through fifth stories over the one level of on-grade parking. Five units are proposed on the ground level
of the building. The building would be approximately 71 feet to the top of the rooftop parapet. The PC
Text would allow for a maximum height of 75 feet.
Table 0-2, Residential Development Summary identifies the type of residential units that would be
provided. As proposed, the Project would include 55 studios (3 affordable), 149 one-bedroom units (9
affordable), and 108 two-bedroom units (1 affordable), for a total of 312 units. The studios would range
in size from 515 to 628 sf; one-bedroom units would range from 665 to 1,025 sf; and two-bedroom units
would range from 1,000 to 1,413 sf. All units would have balconies with decks ranging from 26 to 71 sf,
with the exception of the studio units which would have Juliet balconies (no deck or seating area).
Section 2
Description of Proposed Project
18 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Table 0-0. Residential Development Summary
Unit Type
Total No.
Units
% of Unit
Mix Net SF
Balcony/
Deck (sf)
Required
Balcony (sf)
Total Net
Rentable SF Avg. SF
Studio
S100 8 2.56 515 0 26 4,120
S400 40 12.82 575 0 29 23,000
ES400: Affordable 3 0.96 574 0 29 1,725
S500 4 1.28 628 0 31 2,512
Subtotal 55 17.6% N/A N/A N/A 31,357 570
1 Bedroom
A111 36 11.54 665 57 33 23,940
A200 21 6.73 657 30 33 13,797
EA200: Affordable 9 2.88 657 30 33 5,913
A400 29 9.29 744 62 37 14,880
A501 27 8.65 848 148 42 22,896
A731 36 11.54 1,025 72 51 36,900
Subtotal 149 47.8% N/A N/A N/A 118,326 794
2 Bedroom
B101 11 3.53 1,000 60 50 11,000
EB101: Affordable 1 0.32 1,000 60 50 1,000
B400 22 7.05 1,106 56 55 24,332
B423 12 3.85 1,061 57 53 12,732
B500 12 3.85 1,061 43 53 12,732
B705 20 6.41 1,392 69 70 27,840
B935 30 9.61 1,413 65 71 42,390
Subtotal 108 34.6% N/A N/A N/A 132,026 1,222
Total 312 100% N/A N/A N/A 281,709 903
N/A = not applicable
Source: TCA Architects, 2020.
2.4.2 Vehicular and Non-Vehicular Circulation
Vehicular Access
Vehicular access to office buildings Koll Center Newport near the project site is most directly provided by
three driveways on Birch Street and two driveways on Von Karman Avenue. Cross access throughout the
site currently allows motorists to access any parking area within Koll Center Newport from any of the site
driveways. All driveways are unsignalized and gated. Drivers enter either by key card or parking ticket. To
exit the site, key card users use their card to raise the gate; others must have a validated ticket or pay at
the gate.
FIGURE 4: Airport Business Area ICDP
Residences at 4400 Von Karman
6 AIRPORT BUSINESS AREA: KOLL AND CONEXANT PROPERTIES
FIGURE 1: INTEGRATED CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN: ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN
FIGURE1: INTEGRATED CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT: ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN
6 AIRPORT BUSINESS AREA: KOLL AND CONEXANT PROPERTIES
FIGURE 1: INTEGRATED CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN: ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN
FIGURE1: INTEGRATED CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT: ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN
0 125 250 500Feet
Residential
Existing Office Buildings
Park
Source: City of Newport Beach, 2010
Section 2
Description of Proposed Project
20 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
This page intentionally left blank.
Not to scaleFIGURE 5: Exis�ng Zoning Designa�ons
Residences at 4400 Von Karman
LEGEND:
R-A
R-1-6000
R-1-7200
R-1-10000
Commercial
CG - Commercial General
CV - Commercial Visitor-Serving
Special Purpose Zoning Districts
OS - Open Space
PC - Planned Community
SP-7 - Santa Ana Heights
Source: City of Newport Beach, 2008
Project Site
Section 2
Description of Proposed Project
22 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
This page intentionally left blank.
FIGURE 6: Site Plan
Residences at 4400 Von Karman
N NO.DESCRIPTIONBY DATE CHKREVISIONSRESIDENCES AT 4400 VON KARMANTPG (KCN) ACQUISITION, LLC
Section 2
Description of Proposed Project
24 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
This page intentionally left blank.
Section 2
Description of Proposed Project
25 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Existing gates along the primary internal access street crosses the property from Birch Street to Von
Karman Avenue would be relocated as necessary to facilitate efficient site circulation. Gates would be
removed at the middle driveway (“Driveway 2”) on Birch Street to allow for ungated vehicular movement
from Birch Street to the internal access street to Von Karman Avenue. Vehicular circulation is depicted on
Figure 7, Vehicular Circulation.
Driveway 1: The westernmost driveway on Birch Street is a full-movement driveway. As a part of the
Project, office parking displaced by the Project would be provided in the residential building’s parking
structure, in a new, free-standing parking structure, and in surface parking areas. An entry to the
residential parking structure for office parking would be provided near the 4910 Birch Street office
building using Driveway 1.
Driveway 2: The middle driveway on Birch Street is a full-movement driveway. As noted, the entry gate
into the site from Birch Street would be removed. A gated entry into the residential parking structure from
the drive aisle off of Birch Street would be provided. From Driveway 2, motorists can either continue to
the internal access road to Von Karman Avenue where there is an entrance to the residential parking
structure (access for resident and office parking), or access gated parking on both sides of the internal
street. Driveway 2 would be widened to provide one inbound lane and two outbound lanes, with one left-
turn and one right-turn lane.
Driveway 3: The easternmost driveway on Birch Street is a full-movement driveway. Existing entry gates
to the internal access road and parking areas would remain in their existing locations. From Driveway 3,
motorists would have access to the parking areas on either side of the internal access road, including
surface parking east of the 5000 Birch Street office building and the proposed free-standing office parking
structure. No changes to the ingress/egress are proposed.
Driveway 4: The northernmost driveway on Von Karman Avenue is an exit-only driveway. Motorists can
make both right and left turns from Driveway 4. No changes would be made at this location.
Driveway 5: The southernmost driveway on Von Karman Avenue is a full-movement driveway. This
driveway is the southwestern access point of the internal street that connects Von Karman Avenue and
Birch Street through the site. The entry gate from Von Karman Avenue would be removed and replaced
with a parking gate on the east side of the internal street to provide access to the surface parking areas
and the existing parking structure and new free-standing parking structure. Gated access into the
residential parking structure would be provided from the internal street for residential and office parking.
Driveway 5 would be reconfigured to provide one inbound lane and two outbound lanes, with one left-
turn and one right-turn lane.
Gated access is also provided further south of the project site on Von Karman between the office buildings
at 4220 and 4300 Von Karman Avenue. Access to parking areas east of the internal street would be
available.
Pedestrian
There are existing sidewalks along Birch Street and Von Karman Avenue. Additionally, there is a sidewalk
along one side of Driveways 2 and 3 at Birch Street and Driveway 5 on Von Karman Avenue. The sidewalk
at Driveway 5 extends to and fronts onto the 5000 Birch Street office building. As a part of the Project,
walkways would be provided within the site, including along the internal street residential building
Section 2
Description of Proposed Project
26 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
frontage and within the proposed park and open space areas, connecting to existing sidewalks. Access to
the park and the existing office buildings north of the residential building would be available via the
parking garage and pedestrian access into the residential building off of the internal street. Additionally,
pedestrian connections would be provided to the Uptown Newport planned community, which is to the
east of the project site. These connections are to be provided from the project site and through and
adjacent to areas. The connections would include landscaping, pavers, and benches.
2.4.3 Parking
Table 2-3, Parking Summary identifies the parking assumptions for the proposed Project. All residential
parking would be provided in the residential building’s parking structure. Office parking displaced by the
Project would be provided in a new, free-standing parking structure, the residential building’s parking
structure, and surface parking areas. Visitors to the public park can use surface parking east of the
residential building.
Table 0-3. Parking Summary
Residential Building Parking Garage
Level Office EV Stalls
Office
Accessible Resident EV Stalls
Resident
Accessible Total
Ground Level 135 17 3 5 0 5 165
Subterranean Level 1 117 0 4 160 29 9 319
Subterranean Level 2 0 0 0 313 28 0 341
Garage Total 252 17 7 478 57 14 825
Surface Parking
Parallel 75 0 0 0 0 10 85
Free-Standing Office Parking Structure
3 levels 284 284
Total Office 635
Total Residential 559
Total Parking 1,194
Source: TCA Architects, 2020.
Free-Standing Office Parking Structure
A new free-standing office parking structure would be built as Phase 1, in advance construction of the
residential building to account for the loss of 106 surface parking spaces east of the internal street. The
284-stall parking structure would have four levels of above-ground parking, inclusive of rooftop parking.
The height of the parking structure would be 40 feet.
Residential Building Parking Structure
The Project requires 420 residential parking spaces and would provide 559 residential parking spaces,
inclusive of guest spaces. All residential parking would be provided in the building’s parking structure and
along the internal street. Office parking would also be provided in the structure.
FIGURE 7: Vehicular Circulation
Residences at 4400 Von Karman
RESIDENCES AT 4400 VON KARMAN
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIATCA # 2019-032
ENTITLEMENT SUBMITTAL
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEWOCTOBER 28, 2020
TPG (KCN) ACQUISITION LLC A-5.6VEHICULAR CIRCULATION
1 2 3
4
5
6
EXISTING TICKET KIOSK WITH MAN BOOTH TO REMAIN
LEGEND
RELOCATED TICKET KIOSK WITH MAN BOOTH
EXISTING TICKET KIOSK WITH MAN BOOTH TO BE RELOCATED
NEW GARAGE TICKET KIOSK
VEHICLE TRAFFIC OUTSIDE OF GATING SYSTEM
VEHICLE TRAFFIC INSIDE OF GATING SYSTEM
VEHICLE TRAFFIC WITHIN NEW STRUCTURES
NEW FIRE ACCESS ONLY LANE
Section 2
Description of Proposed Project
28 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
This page intentionally left blank.
Section 2
Description of Proposed Project
29 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
2.4.4 Park, Recreation, and Open Space Amenities
Public Park
The Project includes a 1.1-acre park to be dedicated to the City and that would be accessible to the public
during daytime hours. The ground level park would be located between and north of the proposed
residential building and the existing office buildings located at 4910 Birch Street and 4440 Von Karman
Avenue, and extend from Birch Street to Von Karman Avenue. The proposed park would be improved and
maintained by the Applicant, and accessible to the residents and public during daylight hours. The park
would have active and passive uses which may include a multi-purpose lawn for recreation and bocce
court, and shade pavilion, lounge areas with seating, and tables for group gatherings. The park would be
landscaped with grasses, groundcover, trees, shrubs, and succulents. Walkways would be provided
connecting the residential building, existing sidewalks on Birch Street and Von Karman Avenue, and to
existing office buildings.
On-Site Recreational Amenities
The Project would provide on-site recreational amenities as a part of the residential development. General
Plan Policy 6.15.16 requires developers of multi-family residential developments on parcels that are 8
acres or larger to provide 44 sf of on-site recreational amenities for each dwelling unit. The Project would
be required to provide a minimum of 13,728 sf. The Project would provide 44,757 sf of on-site recreational
amenities (an average of 143 sf per unit), inclusive of a clubroom, dog wash, fitness center, podium
courtyards and roof deck, bike shop and private balconies for most of the residential units. In addition to
the public park, the Project includes approximately 0.6 acre of open space areas and walkways.
2.4.5 Landscaping and Architecture
Landscaping would be provided bordering and within the project site, including the surface parking areas.
The park would be landscaped with a variety of grasses, trees, shrubs, groundcover, and succulents.
Landscaping would also be provided along the perimeter of the site, within the surface parking areas, and
bordering the free-standing parking structure. Landscaping materials would include a mix of trees, vines,
shrubs, and groundcover.
Two landscape areas would be provided on the podium level. One area is landscaping around the
recreational uses, including the swimming pool. This area would include trees and shrubs with hardscape
areas for seating, barbeques, and fire pits. The other podium level area includes outdoor dining with a
barbeque and fire pit. Landscaping would include trees, shrubs, and ground cover, as well as hardscape
areas for seating with seating and dining.
The residential building’s architecture is proposed to be complementary to both the non-residential and
residential land uses proximate to the project site. The contemporary, articulated facades would include
a mix of stucco and cement siding with stone or tile veneer façade accents. The color pallet is proposed
to be tans, dark greys, beige, white, and blues. All paint, coating and building materials would comply with
regulatory requirements with respect to hazardous materials.
2.5 Utilities and Infrastructure
Implementation of the proposed Project would require the construction of new on-site utility
infrastructure to serve the residences and related uses. These utilities would be connected to existing
Section 2
Description of Proposed Project
30 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
utility infrastructure in adjacent roadways, with the final sizing and design of on-site facilities to occur
during final building design and plan check. The Project would connect to existing utility systems.
Water Service
The project site is within the service area of the Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) which provides both
potable and non-potable water to its customers. IRWD has existing potable distribution lines adjacent to
and within the site. The Project would construct a new water system with connections to an existing 10-
inch IRWD main in Von Karman Avenue and a 10-inch main in Birch Street to provide potable and fire flow
water service to the project site. IRWD maintains a non-potable water main immediately adjacent to the
project site in Von Karman Avenue.
Wastewater Collection and Disposal
The City would provide sanitary sewer service to the project site. There are three, 8-inch service
connections in Birch Street and Von Karman Avenue. The proposed Project would connect to existing
service connections through sanitary sewer lines or laterals. Discharge from the sewer system would be
directed to the Orange County Sanitation District’s treatment plants.
Drainage and Water Quality Treatment
The site currently drains toward Von Karman Avenue and Birch Street and connects to the City’s
stormwater system. With buildout of the project site, the Project would continue to connect to the City’s
stormwater system through an on-site storm drain system.
There is an existing underground storm drain in the location of the proposed free-standing parking
structure. Two feasible options are proposed to address constructing a parking structure over a storm
drain. Option A retain a storm drain under the parking structure. This option would remove approximately
200 linear feet of the existing 60-inch/66-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) within the disturbance area
for the free-standing parking structure. Additionally, a new 66-inch RCP storm drain would be constructed
in the same alignment to match the hydraulic capacity of the existing system while also matching the
ultimate design life of the proposed parking structure. Option B would remove and relocate the storm
drain so that it is not under the parking structure or other permanent buildings or structures.
The site’s runoff would be collected and treated through a proprietary biotreatment system, including a
Modular Wetlands System as a part of the landscape treatment for the project site.
Dry Utilities and Services
Public infrastructure and utility buildings, structures, and facilities including, but not limited to, electrical,
gas, telephone, and cable television would be extended to the proposed land uses. All new public utilities
would be placed underground within the development area. Utilities would be principally located in road
rights-of-way.
2.6 Construction Phasing
Implementation of the proposed Project occur over an approximately 2.7-year period with demolition and
construction activities anticipated to commence in the third quarter of 2021 and conclude in the first
quarter of 2024. The proposed Project would be constructed in three phases.
Section 2
Description of Proposed Project
31 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
The proposed Project’s site grading, foundation excavation, and on-site infrastructure improvements
would require the export of removal of approximately 114,000 cubic yards (cy) of material. Grading
assumptions for each phase of development is provided in the subsequent discussion.
Phase 1: Free-Standing Parking Structure
Construction of the free-standing parking structure requires the demolition of 106 surface parking spaces
and associated landscaping, as well as the reconstruction of a segment of the storm drain. A 284-stall
parking structure would be constructed prior to initiating grading or construction of the remainder of the
proposed Project in order to replace surface parking temporarily or permanently displaced by site
development. The parking structure would have four levels of above-ground parking, inclusive of rooftop
parking. At the completion of Phase 1, there would be a net increase of 178 parking spaces from 1,643
existing spaces to 1,821 spaces. Construction activities are anticipated to occur over approximately six
months.
Phase 2A: Residential Building
Upon completion of the free-standing parking structure, approximately 443 surface parking spaces would
be demolished to allow for the construction of the Project. At the completion of Phase 2A, there would
be 559 parking spaces for the Project residences and guests and 1,579 spaces for office uses (includes
existing parking, the free-standing parking structure, and parking in the residential building). Construction
activities are anticipated to occur over approximately 24 months.
Phase 2B: Completion Activities
Phase 2B includes the demolition of 75 surface parking spaces to allow for the reconfiguration of on-site
surface parking and access. No additional grading is assumed. Phase 2B construction activities would be
concurrent with Phase 2A and are anticipated to occur over approximately three months.
Table 2-4, Parking Supply by Project Phase, identifies the number of parking spaces that would be
provided during each phase of the Project; both during the construction of the phase when the surface
parking has been removed, and at the completion of the phase when the replacement parking or the new
parking has been completed. During the construction of the new free-standing parking structure (Phase 1)
and the construction of the residential building (Phase 2A), parking shuttles would be provided for the use
of office employees of and visitors to the office buildings.
2.7 Intended Uses of the Addendum
The City of Newport Beach is the Lead Agency as set forth in CEQA Section 21067 and is responsible for
reviewing and approving the Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the 2006 General Plan
Program EIR. The City will consider the following discretionary approvals for the project:
▪ Planned Community Development Plan Amendment: An amendment to the Koll Center Newport
Planned Community Development Plan 15 (Koll Center Newport Planned Community) for the
creation of a residential overlay zone to allow for residential uses in Professional and Business
Offices Site B.
▪ Lot Line Adjustment. A lot line adjustment to reconfigure the underlying parcels that comprise
the site pursuant to Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 19.76 (Lot Line Adjustments) in order
to facilitate the development of the proposed project.
Section 2
Description of Proposed Project
32 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Table 2-4. Parking Supply by Project Phase
Phase
Starting Parking Supply Parking Loss /Gain Ending Parking Supply
Existing
Office
Proposed
Residences
Existing
Office
Proposed
Residences
Existing
Office
Proposed
Residences
Existing 1,643a. 0 N/A N/A 1,643 0
Phase 1 - During Construction 1,643 0 -106b. 0 1,537 0
Phase 1 - At Phase 1 Completion 1,537 0 284c. 0 1,821 0
Phase 2A - During Construction 1,812 0 -443b. 0 1,378 0
Phase 2A - At Phase 2A
Completion 1,378 0 276c. 559 1,654 559
Phase 2B - During Construction 1,654 559 -75b. 0 1,579 559
Phase 2B - At Phase 2B
Completion 1,579 559 75 0 1,654 559
Net Change +11 n/a
N/A = not applicable
a. Refers to the office building parking supply for the portion of the Koll Center Newport that will be impacted by the
Residences at 4400 Von Karman Project.
b. Removed parking spaces.
c. Added or replaced parking spaces.
Source: The Picerne Group, 2020.
▪ Affordable Housing Implementation Plan. A program specifying how the proposed project would
meet the City’s affordable housing requirements, in exchange for a request of 20 percent density
bonus and includes a request for one development concession related to the bedroom mix of the
affordable units.
▪ Development Agreement: A Development Agreement between the Applicant and the City
describing development rights and public benefits for the residential development pursuant to
Newport Municipal Code Section 15.45.020.A.2.a (development of 50 or more residential units).
▪ Traffic Phasing Ordinance Study: A traffic study pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 15.40 (Traffic
Phasing Ordinance).
▪ Site Development Review: Site development must be in accordance with applicable Planned
Community, as amended, and Municipal Code development standards and regulations pursuant
to Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 20.52.80 (Site Development Reviews) for the
construction of the Project.
In addition to the approvals identified above, the proposed Project would be subject to other approvals
and ministerial actions by the City as part of project implementation. Additional approvals include but are
not limited to grading permits, sign permits, and building permits.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
33 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The scope of the City’s review of the proposed Residences at 4400 Von Karman Project is limited by
provisions set forth in CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, CCR §§15000 et seq.). This review is
limited to evaluating the environmental effects associated with the proposed Project to the
environmental effects of the City of Newport Beach General Plan Update as set forth in the General Plan
Update EIR. This Addendum also reviews new information, if any, of substantial importance that was not
known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable due diligence at the time the
General Plan Program EIR was certified. This evaluation includes a determination as to whether the
changes proposed for the project would result in any new significant impacts or a substantial increase in
a previously identified significant impact.
Although State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 does not stipulate the format or content of an Addendum,
the topical areas addressed in the General Plan Program EIR were used as guidance for this Addendum.
This comparative analysis provides the City with the factual basis for determining whether any changes in
the project, any changes in circumstances, or any new information since the General Plan Program EIR
was certified would require additional environmental review or preparation of a Subsequent EIR or
Supplemental EIR.
As previously discussed, pursuant to PRC Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, when
an EIR has been previously certified for a project, no subsequent or supplemental EIR shall be prepared
for the project unless the lead agency determines that one or more of the following three conditions are
met: changes in the proposed Project result in new or substantially more severe impacts than were
disclosed in the previous EIR; changes in the circumstances surrounding the project result in new or
substantially more severe impacts than were disclosed in the previous EIR; or new information has come
to light showing that new or substantially more severe impacts than were disclosed in the previous EIR.
With respect to cumulative impacts, the General Plan Program EIR states “In many cases, development
under the General Plan Update serves as the context for cumulative analysis, as it includes all
development within the Planning Area over the next 25 years. For some environmental resource areas,
however, the cumulative context extends beyond the borders of the Planning Area and may be the
boundaries of a particular service provider (such as the Irvine Ranch Water District) or the entire County.”
This methodology is appropriate for the Addendum analysis. Where a specific cumulative study area is
assumed, it is addressed in the respective sections of this Addendum.
The General Plan Program EIR does not identify mitigation measures. Rather it relies on General Plan
policies adopted in the General Plan to mitigate potential environmental impacts. As applicable, in
addition to General Plan policies, this Addendum documents required regulatory requirements and City
conditions of approval that reduce potential environmental impacts. Existing enforcement and monitoring
mechanisms are in place to ensure that all measures will be implemented, including but not limited to
permit conditions, plan check, and site inspections.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
34 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
3.1 Aesthetics
Threshold (a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
General Plan Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR
noted that there are no officially designated scenic vistas in the City but that natural features such as the
Pacific Ocean and the bay provide coastal views. It is also noted that coast views are provided from
identified roadway segments. The General Plan Program EIR also notes that parks and viewing areas
throughout the City can provide significant views.
The General Plan Program EIR identifies that development projects would undergo a subsequent
environmental review on a project-specific basis to “ensure that scenic vistas and resources are not
adversely affected.” With respect to scenic vistas, the General Plan Program EIR findings that potential
impacts would be less than significant with compliance with applicable General Plan policies, the City’s
Municipal Code, and the Local Coastal Plan.
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No Impact; no substantial change from
previous analysis.
The project site is generally flat and is bordered by office buildings and roadways. The City of Newport
Beach General Plan does not identify any scenic vistas or view points in the Airport Area, including or
proximate to the site. The nearest public view point to the project site identified in the General Plan is
approximately 1.1 miles south of State Route (SR) 73 at Bayview Park. The nearest coastal view designated
portion of Jamboree Road to the project site is south of SR-73; it is approximately 0.6 mile south of the
site. Due to the distance, intervening development, and highly urbanized nature of the project area, public
coastal views along this view corridor would not be impacted by the proposed Project.
Accordingly, no new impacts relative to adverse effects on a scenic vista or a substantial increase in the
severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would
occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have
been known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified is available that would impact the
prior finding of less than significant impact.
Threshold (b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to,
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway?
General Plan Significance Determination: No Impact. The General Plan Program EIR noted that there are
no officially designated State Scenic Highways in the City. State Route 1, also known as Coast Highway, is
identified as eligible for State Scenic Highway designation, but the City would need to adopt a scenic
corridor protection program and apply for scenic approval from the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) to officially designate the highway. Because there are no designated State Scenic
Highways in the City, the General Plan Program EIR found that implementation of the General Plan would
have no impact.
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from
previous analysis.
There are no State scenic highways adjacent to or proximate to the project site. The site is not within a
State scenic highway, nor is it visible from any officially designated or eligible scenic highway. Additionally,
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
35 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
there are no rock outcroppings, historic buildings, or any other scenic resources on the project site. There
are ornamental trees located in landscaped areas, but the trees are not considered scenic resources.
Accordingly, no new impacts relative to adverse effects on State scenic highways or a substantial increase
in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR
would occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could
not have been known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified is available that would impact
the prior finding of no impact.
Threshold (c) Would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing
scenic quality?
General Plan Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR
noted that development of new residential and mixed-use developments in the Newport Center/Fashion
Island area, the Airport Area, and West Newport Mesa would alter the visual characteristics of the City.
City-wide and area-specific policies would reinforce design standards, protect visual character and views,
and enhance the City’s existing aesthetic qualities while simultaneously accommodating projected
growth. The City’s planning process includes the review of developments for conformance with the
General Plan standards, the City’s Municipal Code, and as applicable, the Local Coastal Plan. General Plan
Policy NR 22.1 regulates the visual and physical mass of structures consistent with the unique character
and visual scale of Newport Beach. Therefore, the visual character and scenic quality would change as
development intensity increased but the impact would not be considered significantly adverse. Conflicts
with regulations governing scenic quality would be less than significant.
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from
previous analysis.
The Project is consistent with the General Plan and zoning designations for the project site. As a part of
the proposed project, the zoning text would be amended so that the PC-15 Koll Center Site B would
include a Residential overlay zone, allowing for residential development consistent with the City of
Newport Beach General Plan and the Airport Business Area ICDP. Project implementation would change
the visual character of the site from a parking lot to a multi-family residential development. The overall
character of the surrounding environment is urbanized with office buildings and the Uptown Newport
Mixed-Use development to the southeast along Jamboree Road.
The proposed Project would be required to comply with the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code
Section 20.52.080, Site Development Review, which requires specific development projects to be
reviewed to ensure consistency with the General Plan policies related to the preservation of established
community character and expectations of high-quality development, and to ensure that the Project
respects the physical and environmental characteristics of the site. The proposed Project would comply
with General Plan Policy LU 5.6.2, which requires that new buildings be designed to “avoid the use of
styles, colors, and materials that unusually impact the design character and quality of their location such
as abrupt changes in scale, building form, architectural style, and the use of surface materials that raise
local temperatures, result in glare and excessive illumination of adjoining properties and open space, or
adversely modify wind patterns.”
The residential building is proposed to have a contemporary architectural style complementary to both
surrounding office developments. The articulated facades would include a mix of stucco and cement siding
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
36 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
with stone or tile veneer façade accents. The color pallet is proposed to be tans, dark greys, beige, white,
and blues. The proposed residential building would be five stories (71 feet to the top of the parapet) and
the proposed free-standing parking structure would be four levels inclusive of the rooftop parking (40
feet). The three office buildings within the project site boundaries that are not a part of the proposed
Project are two to four stories (33 to 62 feet).
Accordingly, no new impacts relative to applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality
or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the
General Plan Program EIR would occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that
was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified is
available that would impact the prior finding of less than significant.
Threshold (d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
General Plan Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. As identified in the General Plan
Program EIR, impacts related to light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in
the area, were considered less than significant. New development would introduce new sources of light
and glare from these commercial, business park and residential uses. General Plan Policy LU 5.6.2 would
require that new and renovated buildings be designed to avoid the use of styles, colors, and materials that
unusually impact the design character and quality of their location such as the use of reflective surfaces
that increase heat gain of adjoining buildings and ambient glare. LU Policy 5.6.3 requires that outdoor
lighting be located and designed to prevent spillover onto adjoining properties or significantly increase
the overall ambient illumination of their location. General Update Policies LU 5.6.2 and 5.6.3 would ensure
that lighting impacts associated with the buildout of the General Plan land uses would be less than
significant.
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from
previous analysis.
The project site is an existing surface parking lot with light standards in an urbanized area with both non-
residential and residential land uses that have various sources of lighting. Project implementation would
result in additional lighting at the project site for the residential building, the free-standing parking
structure, the park and common areas, and walkways. The recreational and landscaped areas of the site
would have lighting to allow for nighttime use; lighting for security; and landscape accent lighting.
The free-standing parking structure would be constructed in the southeast portion of the project site,
proximate to the future Phase 2 of the Uptown Newport development. To minimize the visibility of lighting
on each floor of the structure, the facades of the above-ground levels of the structure would have a wall
system to obscure the lighting and reduce noise from within the structure. The design of the structure
would be subject to the review and approval of the City. With respect to the upper (roof) level of the free-
standing parking structure, light standards not to exceed 25 feet above the driving surface.
The Project would comply with General Plan Policy LU 5.6.2 by incorporating non-reflective textured
surfaces on building exteriors, as well as avoidance of the use of reflective glass. Additionally, the Project
would comply with Municipal Code Chapter 20.30.070 “Outdoor Lighting” that requires that light be
shielded and confined within site boundaries to prevent spillage. Since the project site and surrounding
area are largely developed, and with the anticipation of Uptown Newport phase 2 development, the
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
37 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
lighting associated with the proposed Project would not substantially increase light and glare within the
site or surroundings. Compliance with General Plan policies and Municipal Code 20.30.070 would reduce
impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, the proposed Project would not adversely affect day or
nighttime views, and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation
of an EIR.
Accordingly, no new impacts relative to adverse effects related to lighting or a substantial increase in the
severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would
occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have
been known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified is available that would impact the
prior finding of less than significant.
Cumulative Impacts
While impacts are minimized with implementation of General Plan policies, impacts related to aesthetics
were considered less than significant and no mitigation was required under the General Plan Program EIR.
As identified in the General Plan Program EIR, the General Plan would change the visual aspect of and
views from, to, and across the City, add new development to viewsheds, bring urban development to
previously undeveloped areas resulting in a less than significant on scenic vistas, scenic resources within
a State scenic highway, and visual character. However, the project site is urbanized with existing
development and was already envisioned with residential use as part of the General Plan. As discussed
above, the proposed Project would not cause a new significant aesthetic impact to occur. Therefore, the
proposed Project would not cause either a new cumulative impact to occur, nor an increase in the severity
of a cumulative impact previously disclosed. Implementation of the proposed Project would not alter the
conclusions of the General Plan Program EIR analysis and would not result in a new or substantially more
severe project-specific or cumulative aesthetic impact than those already analyzed.
Mitigation Program
General Plan Policies
The General Plan Program EIR identifies General Plan policies that would “directly or indirectly minimize
the visual quality effects of prospective growth within the City.” The following policies are applicable to
the proposed Project and would be made conditions of approval.
▪ LU 5.6.2 Form and Environment: Require that new and renovated buildings be designed to avoid the
use of styles, colors, and materials that unusually impact the design character and quality of their
location such as abrupt changes in scale, building form, architectural style, and the use of surface
materials that raise local temperatures, result in glare and excessive illumination of adjoining
properties and open spaces, or adversely modify wind patterns.
▪ LU 5.6.3 Ambient Lighting: Require that outdoor lighting be located and designed to prevent spillover
onto adjoining properties or significantly increase the overall ambient illumination of their location.
▪ LU 6.15.1 - Land Use Districts and Neighborhoods: Provide for the development of distinct business
park, commercial, and airport serving districts and residential neighborhoods that are integrated to
ensure a quality environment and compatible land uses.
▪ LU 6.15.3 - Airport Compatibility: Require that all development be constructed in conformance with
the height restrictions set forth by Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Federal Aviation
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
38 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Regulations (FAR) Part 77, and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, and that residential development be
located outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour specified by the 1985 JWA Master Plan.
▪ LU 6.15.7 - Overall Density and Housing Types: Require that residential units be developed at a
minimum density of 30 units and maximum of 50 units per net acre averaged over the total area of
each residential village. Net acreage shall be exclusive of existing and new rights-of-way, public
pedestrian ways, and neighborhood parks. Within these densities, provide for the development of a
mix of building types ranging from townhomes to high-rises to accommodate a variety of household
types and incomes and to promote diversity of building masses and scales.
▪ LU 6.15.8 - First Phase Development Density: Require a residential density of 45 to 50 units per net
acre, averaged over the first phase for each residential village. This shall be applied to 100
percent of properties in the first phase development area whether developed exclusively for
residential or integrating service commercial horizontally on the site or vertically within a mixed-use
building. On individual sites, housing development may exceed or be below this density to encourage
a mix of housing types, provided that the average density for the area encompassed by the first phase
is achieved.
▪ LU 6.15.22 - Building Massing: Require that high-rise structures be surrounded with low- and mid-
rise structures fronting public streets and pedestrian ways or other means to promote a more
pedestrian scale.
▪ NR 22.1 - Regulation of Structure Mass: Continue to regulate the visual and physical mass of
structures consistent with the unique character and visual scale of Newport Beach.
Standard Conditions and Requirements
SC AESTH-1 The following City-adopted standard operating conditions of approval would be made
conditions of the Site Development Review and would apply to the Project as follows:
a. Lighting shall be in compliance with applicable standards of the Zoning Code. Exterior
on-site lighting shall be shielded and confined within site boundaries. No direct rays
or glare are permitted to shine onto public streets or adjacent sites or create a public
nuisance. “Walpak” type fixtures are not permitted. Parking area lighting shall have
zero-cut-off fixtures and light standards shall be the minimum height required to
effectively illuminate the parking area and eliminate spillover of light and glare to the
adjacent property.
b. The site shall not be excessively illuminated based on the luminance
recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, or, if in
the opinion of the Community Development Director, the illumination creates an
unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources.
The Community Development Director may order the dimming of light sources or
other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated.
c. To minimize the visibility of lighting on each floor of the free-standing structure, the
facades of the above-ground levels of the structure would have a wall system to
obscure the lighting and reduce noise from within the structure. Rooftop parking lot
light standards would not to exceed 25 feet above the driving surface.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
39 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
d. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall prepare a photometric
study in conjunction with a final lighting plan for approval by the Community
Development Department.
e. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or of final building permits, the
Applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code and Water Quality
Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare specified in conditions of
approval.
f. Public areas shall be illuminated with a minimum maintained 0.5-foot candle on the
driving or walking surface during hours of operation and one hour thereafter.
Conclusion
Accordingly, no new impacts relative to adverse aesthetic impacts or a substantial increase in the severity
of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would occur. With
regard to PRC Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the project would not result in
any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts, with respect to aesthetics.
Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been
known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior
finding of less than significant. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not
warranted.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
40 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
3.2 Air Quality
Threshold (a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality
plan?
General Plan Significance Determination: Significant and Unavoidable Impact. The General Plan Program
EIR concluded that implementation of the General Plan would result in new emissions that may exceed
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) thresholds. The 2003 Air Quality Management
Plan (AQMP) was prepared to accommodate growth, to reduce the high levels of pollutants within the
areas under the jurisdiction of SCAQMD, to return clean air to the region, and to minimize the impact on
the economy. Projects considered to be consistent with the AQMP would not interfere with attainment
because growth projection were accounted for in the formulation of the AQMP. Therefore, projects, uses,
and activities that are consistent with the applicable assumptions used in the development of the AQMP
would not jeopardize attainment of the air quality levels identified in the AQMP, even if they exceed the
SCAQMD’s recommended daily emissions thresholds. General Plan implementation estimated a net
increase of 14,215 residential units and a population increase of approximately 31,131 residents, resulting
a total population of 103,753 persons at General Plan buildout. The SCAG-projected population for
Newport Beach was 94,167 by 2030. This represents a 43 percent increase in population over prior SCAG
assumptions for the City. Therefore, General Plan implementation would result in approximately ten
percent higher growth projections than what was accounted for in SCAG’s projections or the AQMP.
Therefore, implementation of the General Plan would not be consistent with AQMP attainment forecasts
and attainment of the standards could be delayed. The General Plan Program EIR identified this
inconsistency as a significant and unavoidable impact.
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact; change from
previous analysis.
AQMPs use regional growth projections that are based on the land use designations in the local General
Plans. Therefore, the land uses assumed and the growth anticipated in the General Plan Program EIR are
incorporated into the current 2016 AQMP, which supersedes the prior AQMP.
Criteria for determining consistency with the AQMP are defined by the following indicators:
1. Whether a project will result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality
violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality
standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP.
2. Whether a project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP based on the year of project buildout
and phase.
With respect to the first criterion, based on the air quality modeling analysis conducted for the proposed
Project summarized later in this Addendum section, the Project would not exceed any SCAQMD
thresholds for construction. Operation of the Project would not result in significant impacts based on the
SCAQMD thresholds of significance. Therefore, the Project would not increase the frequency or severity
of existing air quality violations. The proposed Project would be consistent with the first criterion and
would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or delay timely
attainment of air quality standards.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
41 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Concerning the second criterion, the 2016 AQMP contains air pollutant reduction strategies based on
SCAG’s latest growth forecasts, and SCAG’s growth forecasts are defined in consultation with local
governments and with reference to local general plans. Projections for achieving air quality goals are
based on assumptions regarding population, housing, and growth trends. Therefore, the SCAQMD’s
second criterion for determining project consistency focuses on whether the proposed Project exceeds
the assumptions used in preparing the forecasts presented in the 2016 AQMP.
With respect to SCAQMD’s 2016 AQMP, several sources of data form the basis for the projections of air
pollutant emissions including the General Plan, SCAG’s Growth Management Chapter of the Regional
Comprehensive Plan (RCP), and SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy
(RTP/SCS). SCAG’s RTP/SCS also provides socioeconomic forecast projections of regional population
growth. The project is consistent with the City’s land use designations and no change would be required.
The Project would construct an infill residential development with a total of 312 multi-family apartment
units inclusive of a 20 percent density bonus, a structured parking garage, and a 1.1-acre public park. The
Project is consistent with the MU-H2 land use designation for the project site and would implement the
City’s General Plan goals and policies for this portion of the Airport Area because it would integrate
residential uses, as well as a park into Koll Center Newport to allow for a greater diversity of land uses. As
a part of the proposed Project, the PC Text would be amended so that PC-15 Koll Center would include a
Residential Overlay zone in Professional and Business Office Site B allowing for residential development
consistent with the City of Newport Beach General Plan and the Airport Business Area ICDP. The
amendment to PC-15 Koll Center would include development standards and the identification of
permitted uses and parking standards. No change to the existing General Plan land use designation is
required as a part of the City’s consideration of the proposed Project.
The Project is generally consistent with the types, intensity, and patterns of land use envisioned for the
area in the RCP. The population, housing, and employment forecasts, which are adopted by SCAG’s
Regional Council, are based on the local plans and policies applicable to the cities; these are used by SCAG
in all phases of implementation and review. Additionally, as SCAQMD incorporated these same
projections into the 2016 AQMP, it can be concluded that the Project would be consistent with the
projections. As a result, the Project would not exceed growth assumptions in the City’s General Plan.
Therefore, the Project would be consistent with the 2016 AQMP and would not conflict with the second
criterion.
The proposed residential development would be within the development capacity assumed in the General
Plan Program EIR, and therefore implementation would not result in increasing growth and would be
within the growth assumptions of the 2016 AQMP. The proposed Project would be consistent with the
2016 AQMP compared to the General Plan Program EIR’s finding of significant and unavoidable. Project
implementation is not anticipated to result in new or increase the severity of impacts as it pertains to
consistency with the AQMP when compared to the General Plan Program EIR. Therefore, there are no
changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
42 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Threshold (b) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard?
General Plan Significance Determination: Significant and Unavoidable Impact. The General Plan Program
EIR noted that some projects that would be implemented under the General Plan could individually
exceed the SCAQMD thresholds and that the total amount of construction assumed in the General Plan
could also exceed the SCAQMD’s recommended thresholds of significance. Impacts were considered
significant. General Plan Policies NR 8.1 through NR 8.5 were identified to reduce air pollutant emissions
from construction activities. These policies call for the maintenance of construction equipment, the use
of non-polluting and non-toxic building equipment, and minimizing fugitive dust. However, the impact
would remain significant and unavoidable.
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact; no substantial
change from previous analysis.
Construction associated with the proposed Project would generate criteria air pollutant emissions.
Construction-generated emissions are relatively short term and of temporary duration, lasting only as
long as construction activities occur. They are considered a significant air quality impact if the volume of
pollutants generated exceeds the SCAQMD’s thresholds of significance.
Construction results in the temporary generation of emissions resulting from demolition, site grading and
excavation, road paving, motor vehicle exhaust associated with construction equipment and worker trips,
and the movement of construction equipment, especially on unpaved surfaces. Emissions of airborne
particulate matter are largely dependent on the amount of ground disturbance associated with site
preparation activities as well as weather conditions and the appropriate application of water.
The duration of construction activities for the Project is estimated to be approximately 2.7 years with
demolition and construction activities anticipated to commence in the third quarter of 2021 and conclude
in the first quarter of 2024. The proposed Project would be constructed in three continuous phases. Phase
1 includes the demolition of some surface parking and landscaping and the construction of a free-standing
parking structure; Phase 2A includes the construction of the 312 unit residential building; and Phase 2B
includes the reconfiguration of existing surface parking. Phases 2A and 2B would overlap. The project site
would be graded, and foundation excavation would require the export of approximately 114,000 cubic
yards (cy) of material.
Construction-generated emissions were calculated using CalEEMod, which is designed to model emissions
for land use development projects based on typical construction requirements. Predicted maximum daily
construction-generated emissions for the proposed Project are identified in Table 3.2-1, Construction-
Related Emissions. As shown, all criteria pollutant emissions would remain below their respective
thresholds for all construction years.
While PM10 and PM2.5 emissions would not exceed thresholds, the proposed Project would be subject to
SCAQMD Rules 402, 403, and 1113, as set forth in Standard Condition (SC) AQ-1 and SC AQ-2 to further
reduce specific construction-related emissions.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
43 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Table 3.2-1. Construction-Related Emissions
Construction Year
Emissions (pounds per day)a,b
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
2021 (Parking Structure) 2.21 25.45 16.49 0.04 4.18 1.60
2022 (Parking Structure) 4.89 22.33 25.61 0.05 1.82 1.19
2022 (Residential Structure) 4.11 52.74 33.88 0.11 8.50 5.21
2023 (Residential Structure) 39.06 43.36 51.34 0.14 16.30 5.55
2024 (Residential Structure) 38.80 34.00 50.16 0.14 8.28 3.02
SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 55 150
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No No No
ROG: reactive organic gases; NOX: nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; PM10 = particulate matter 10
microns in diameter or less; PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less
a. Emissions were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model version 2016.3.2 (CalEEMod), as recommended
by the SCAQMD. Worst-case seasonal maximum daily emissions are reported.
b. SCAQMD Rule 403 Fugitive Dust applied for construction emissions. The Rule 403 reduction/credits include the following:
properly maintain mobile and other construction equipment; replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly; water
exposed surfaces three times daily; replace ground cover of area disturbed; water all haul roads twice daily; and limit speeds
on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. Reductions percentages from the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook (Tables XI-A through
XI-E) were applied. No mitigation was applied to construction equipment. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs.
Source: CalEEMod version 2016.3.2. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs.
Regional Operational Emissions
Project-generated emissions would be associated with mobile source emissions from motor vehicle use,
energy emissions from energy consumption, and area sources generated by the use of natural-gas-fired
appliances, landscape maintenance equipment, consumer products, and architectural coatings.
Operational emissions attributable to the Project are summarized in Table 3.2-2, Operational Emissions.
Table 3.2-2. Operational Emissions
Construction Year
Emissions (pounds per day)a
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Parking Structure
Area Source Emissions 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
Residential Structure
Area Source Emissions 13.71 4.70 27.63 0.03 0.50 0.50
Energy Emissions 0.11 0.90 0.38 0.01 0.07 0.07
Mobile Emissions 2.17 8.05 28.90 0.12 12.38 3.37
Total Emissions 16.03 13.65 56.92 0.16 12.95 3.94
SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
ROG: reactive organic gases; NOX: nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; PM10 = particulate matter 10
microns in diameter or less; PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less
a. Emissions were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model version 2016.3.2 (CalEEMod), as recommended
by the SCAQMD. Worst-case seasonal maximum daily emissions are reported.
Source: CalEEMod version 2016.3.2. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
44 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Mobile Source Emissions. Mobile sources are emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and
evaporative emissions. Depending upon the pollutant, the potential air quality impact may be of regional
or local concern. For example, ROG, NOX, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5 are all pollutants of regional concern (NOX
and ROG react with sunlight to form O3 [photochemical smog], and wind currents readily transport SOX,
PM10, and PM2.5). However, CO tends to be a localized pollutant, dispersing rapidly at the source.
Project-generated vehicle emissions have been estimated using CalEEMod. This model predicts ROG, NOX,
PM10, and PM2.5 emissions from motor vehicle traffic associated with new or modified land uses. The
Traffic Impact Study (Kimley-Horn, 2020) notes that the proposed Project would generate approximately
1,697 daily trips, with 112 morning peak hour trips (29 inbound and 83 outbound) and 138 evening peak
hour trips (84 inbound and 54 outbound) at buildout.
Area Source Emissions. Area source emissions would be generated due to an increased demand for
consumer products, use of architectural coatings, and landscaping.
Energy Source Emissions. Energy source emissions would be generated as a result of electricity and
natural gas use associated with the proposed Project. The primary use of electricity and natural gas by the
Project would be for space heating and cooling, water heating, ventilation, lighting, appliances, and
electronics.
The Project’s net emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for any criteria air pollutants.
Therefore, regional operations emissions would result in a less than significant long-term regional air
quality impact.
As discussed above, the proposed Project’s construction and operational activities would not exceed the
SCAQMD regional significance thresholds. Construction activities associated with buildout of the
proposed Project would result in a less significant impact compared to the regional air quality impacts as
identified in the General Plan Program EIR. Therefore, there are no changes or new significant information
that would require preparation of an EIR.
Threshold (c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
General Plan Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR
found that implementation of the General Plan would not expose existing or future sensitive uses within
the City to substantial CO concentrations. Impacts were considered less than significant.
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No Impact; no substantial change from
previous analysis.
The proposed Project could expose sensitive receptors to elevated pollutant concentrations during
construction activities if it would cause or contribute significantly to elevated levels. Unlike the
construction emissions shown in the regional emissions analysis, localized concentrations refer to an
amount of pollutant in a volume of air (ppm or μg/m3) and can be correlated to potential health effects.
Exposure to pollutant concentrations in exceedance of the NAAQS or CAAQS are generally considered
substantial.
Carbon Monoxide Hotspots. A CO hot spot is an area of localized carbon monoxide pollution that is caused
by severe vehicle congestion on major roadways, typically near intersections. The purpose of the analysis
is to verify that a project would not cause or contribute to a violation of the CO standard at intersections
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
45 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
for which a significant impact would occur. It should be noted that the air basin is designated as an
attainment area for State and federal CO standards; and that there has been a decline in CO emissions
even though vehicle miles traveled on urban and rural roads have increased. The SCAQMD studied the
four most congested intersections within the Air Basin in 2003 in order to support their CO “attainment”
demonstration to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). The modeled intersections
experienced more than 100,000 average daily trips, and SCAQMD found that even these highly-congested
intersections would not cause a CO hot spot to result. Therefore, it can be reasonably inferred that CO hot
spots would not be experienced at any vicinity intersections as a result of 1,697 additional vehicle trips
attributable to the Project. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Localized Construction Emissions. The SCAQMD developed Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) for
emissions of NO2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 generated at new development sites (off-site mobile source
emissions are not included in the LST analysis). LSTs represent the maximum emissions that can be
generated at a project site without expecting to cause or substantially contribute to an exceedance of the
most stringent national or State ambient air quality standards. LSTs are based on the ambient
concentrations of that pollutant within the Project source receptor area (SRA), as demarcated by the
SCAQMD, and the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. An LST analysis is applicable for all projects
that disturb 5.0 acres or less on a single day. The City of Newport Beach is within SCAQMD SRA 18 (North
Coastal Orange County).
The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are the multi-family residences in Uptown Newport,
located approximately 1,410 feet southeast of the site. These receptors would be adjacent to the
construction area. The SCAQMD LST methodology states that “off-site mobile emissions from the project
should not be included in the emissions compared to LSTs.” Therefore, for purposes of the construction
LST analysis, only emissions included in the CalEEMod “on-site” emissions outputs were considered. LST
thresholds are provided for distances to sensitive receptors of 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500 meters. In order
to be conservative, LSTs for receptors located at 25 meters were used (according to the SCAQMD LST
guidance, the 25-meter threshold should be used for receptors located 25 meters away or less). The
construction acreage is determined based daily acreage disturbed and the LSTs increase as acreages
increase. Table 3.2-3, Equipment-Specific Grading Rates, shows that the grading rates used for the LST
analysis assumed 3.5 acres graded per day.
Table 3.2-3. Equipment-Specific Grading Rates
Construction
Phase Equipment Type
Equipment
Quantity
Acres Graded
per 8-Hour Day
Operating
Hours per
Day
Acres Graded
per Day
Site
Preparation
Rubber Tired Dozers 3 0.5 8 1.5
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 0.5 8 2
Graders 0 0.5 8 0
Scrapers 0 1 8 0
Total Acres Graded per Day 3.5
Source: CalEEMod version 2016.3.2. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs.
Table 3.2-4, Localized Significance of Construction Emissions, presents the results of localized emissions
during construction activity. The LSTs reflect a maximum disturbance of 3.5 acres daily assumed for the
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
46 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
proposed Project. Using a 3.5-acre LST threshold (Table 3.2-3) is conservative as it discounts the dispersion
factor inherent with a bigger site. Table 3.2-4 shows that the emissions of these pollutants on the peak
day of construction would not exceed any thresholds. Therefore, localized impacts would not be
significant.
Table 3.2-4. Localized Significance of Construction Emissions
Construction Activity
Emissions (pounds per day)a,b
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Parking Structure
Demolition (2021) 19.70 14.49 2.82 1.24
Grading (2021) 14.33 6.33 2.46 1.52
Building Construction (2021) 13.64 12.90 0.60 0.16
Building Construction (2022) 12.50 12.73 0.59 0.57
Paving (2022) 6.77 8.81 0.35 0.32
Architectural Coating (2022) 1.41 1.81 0.08 0.08
Residential Structure
Demolition (2022) 25.72 20.59 4.75 1.69
Site Preparation (2022) 33.08 19.70 8.31 5.16
Grading (2022) 38.84 29.04 4.87 2.84
Grading (2023) 34.52 28.05 4.66 2.65
Building Construction (2023) 14.38 16.24 0.70 0.66
Building Construction (2024) 13.44 16.17 0.61 0.06
Paving (2023) 10.19 14.58 0.51 0.47
Paving (2024) 9.52 14.63 0.47 0.43
Architectural Coating (2023) 1.30 1.18 0.07 0.07
Architectural Coating (2024) 1.22 1.81 0.06 0.06
Maximum Daily Emissions 38.84 29.04 8.31 5.16
SCAQMD LST Screening Threshold
(adjusted for 3.5 acres at 25 meters) 164 1,328 11 7
Maximum Daily Emissions Exceed
SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No
ROG: reactive organic gases; NOX: nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; PM10 = particulate matter 10
microns in diameter or less; PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less
a. Emissions were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model version 2016.3.2 (CalEEMod), as recommended
by the SCAQMD. Worst-case seasonal maximum daily emissions are reported.
b. SCAQMD Rule 403 Fugitive Dust applied for construction emissions. The Rule 403 reduction/credits include the following:
properly maintain mobile and other construction equipment; replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly; water
exposed surfaces three times daily; replace ground cover of area disturbed; water all haul roads twice daily; and limit speeds
on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. Reductions percentages from the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook (Tables XI-A through
XI-E) were applied. No mitigation was applied to construction equipment. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs.
Source: CalEEMod version 2016.3.2. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs.
Localized Operational Emissions. As noted above, the Project is located in SRA 18 (North Coastal Orange
County) and the 25-meter threshold is used (according to the SCAQMD LST guidance, the 25-meter
threshold should be used for receptors located 25 meters away or less). The operational LST acreage is
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
47 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
based on the total area of the project site. Although the project site is greater than five acres, the 5-acre
operational LSTs are conservatively used to evaluate the Project as the LSTs increase as acreages increase.
Table 3.2-5, Localized Significance of Operational Emissions, presents the results of localized emissions
during Project operations. The table shows that the emissions of these pollutants during Project
operations would not exceed any thresholds. Therefore, localized impacts would not be significant.
Table 3.2-5. Localized Significance of Operational Emissions
Source
Emissions (pounds per day)a
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
On-Site Emissions (Area and Energy Sources)
Parking Structure 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00
Residential Structure 5.60 28.01 0.57 0.57
Total 5.60 28.02 0.57 0.57
SCAQMD LST Analysis Screening Threshold
(5 acres at 25 meters) 197 1,711 4 2
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No
a. Emissions were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model version 2016.3.2 (CalEEMod), as recommended
by the SCAQMD. Worst-case seasonal maximum daily emissions are reported.
Source: CalEEMod version 2016.3.2. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs.
Diesel Particulate Matter. Construction would result in the generation of diesel particulate matter (DPM)
emissions from the use of off-road diesel equipment required for grading and excavation, paving, and
other construction activities. The amount to which the receptors are exposed (a function of concentration
and duration of exposure) is the primary factor used to determine health risk (i.e., potential exposure to
toxic air contaminant emission levels that exceed applicable standards). Health-related risks associated
with diesel-exhaust emissions are primarily linked to long-term exposure and the associated risk of
contracting cancer.
The use of diesel-powered construction equipment would be temporary and episodic. The duration of
exposure would be short and exhaust from construction equipment dissipates rapidly. Current models
and methodologies for conducting health risk assessments are associated with chronic exposure periods
of 9, 30, and 70 years, which do not correlate with the temporary and highly variable nature of
construction activities. Construction would be subject to and would comply with California regulations
(e.g., CCR Title 13, Division 3, Article 1, Chapter 10, Sections 2485 and 2449), which reduce DPM and
criteria pollutant emissions from in-use off-road diesel-fueled vehicles and limit the idling of heavy-duty
construction equipment to no more than five minutes. These regulations further reduce nearby sensitive
receptors’ exposure to temporary and variable diesel particulate matter emissions.
Given the temporary and intermittent nature of construction activities likely to occur within specific
locations in the project site (i.e., construction is not likely to occur in any one location for an extended
time), the dose of DPM of any one receptor is exposed to would be limited. Therefore, considering the
relatively short duration of DPM-emitting construction activity at any one location of the plan area and
the highly dispersive properties of DPM, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial
concentrations of construction-related TAC emissions. Therefore, the Project would not cause nor expose
persons to significant levels of toxic air contaminants. Impacts are less than significant. This would not be
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
48 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
a new specific impact or an increase in the severity of an impact that was identified in the General Plan
Program EIR and would therefore be consistent with the effects of implementation of the General Plan
and no further analysis is required.
Threshold (d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely
affecting a substantial number of people?
General Plan Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR
concluded that constructions odors are limited to the number of people living and working nearby the
source and due to the temporary nature of such odors, impacts were considered less than significant.
Trash receptacles would be stored in areas and in containers as required by City and Health Department
regulations, and be emptied on a regular basis, before potentially substantial odors have a chance to
develop. General Plan implementation would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people within the City and potential impacts would be less than significant.
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from
previous analysis.
The proposed Project is a residential development, and which is not land uses typically associated with
the generation of highly objectionable odors. In addition, the Project would be subject to SCAQMD Rule
402, which would contribute to minimizing odor-related nuisances, as set forth in SC AQ-1. In addition to
operation-related generation of odors, emissions from construction equipment, such as diesel exhaust,
and from volatile organic compounds from architectural coatings and paving activities, may generate
odors. However, these odors would be temporary and intermittent, and are not expected to affect a
substantial number of people. Therefore, consistent with the findings of the General Plan Program EIR,
implementation of the proposed Project would result in a less than significant odors impact. It is not
anticipated that the proposed Project would introduce or require any new construction processes that
would generate substantial odors compared with what was previously considered in the General EIR.
Overall, there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR.
Mitigation Program
General Plan Policies
The General Plan Program EIR identifies General Plan policies that would “address issues related to
existing and future air quality within the City of Newport Beach.” The following policies are applicable to
the proposed Project and would be made conditions of approval.
▪ NR 6.1 – Walkable Neighborhoods. Provide for walkable neighborhoods to reduce vehicle trips by
siting amenities such as services, parks, and schools in close proximity to residential areas.
▪ NR 6.2 – Mixed-Use Development. Support mixed-use development consisting of commercial or
office with residential uses in accordance with the Land Use Element that increases the opportunity
for residents to live in proximity to jobs, services, and entertainment.
▪ NR 6.4 – Transportation Demand Management Ordinance. Implement the Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) Ordinance, which promotes and encourages the use of alternative
transportation modes, and provides those facilities such as bicycle lanes that support such alternate
modes.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
49 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
▪ NR 7.1 – Fuel Efficient Equipment: Support the use of fuel efficient heating equipment and other
appliances.
▪ NR 7.2 – Source Emission Reduction Best Management Practices: Require the use of Best
Management Practices (BMP) to minimize pollution and to reduce source emissions.
▪ NR 8.1 – Management of Construction Activities to Reduce Air Pollution: Require developers to use
and operate construction equipment, use building materials and paints, and control dust created by
construction activities to minimize air pollutants.
▪ NR 24.1 – Incentives for Energy Conservation: Develop incentives that encourage the use of energy
conservation strategies by private and public developments.
▪ NR 24.2 – Energy-Efficient Design Features: Promote energy-efficient design features.
▪ NR 24.3 – Incentives for Green Building Program Implementation: Promote or provide incentives
for “Green Building” programs that go beyond the requirements of Title 24 of the California
Administrative Code and encourage energy-efficient design elements as appropriate to achieve
“green building” status.
Standard Conditions and Requirements
SC AQ-1 Dust Control. During construction, the Applicant shall require all construction contractors
to comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD’s) Rules 402 and
403 in order to minimize construction emissions of dust and particulates. SCAQMD Rule
402 requires that air pollutant emissions not be a nuisance off-site. Rule 402 prohibits the
discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other
material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable
number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health, or
safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to
cause, injury or damage to business or property.
SCAQMD Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with Best Available Control
Measures so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible beyond the property
line of the emission source. This rule is intended to reduce PM10 emissions from any
transportation, handling, construction, or storage activity that has the potential to
generate fugitive dust. This requirement shall be included as notes on the contractor
specifications. Table 1 of Rule 403 lists the Best Available Control Measures that are
applicable to all construction projects. The measures include, but are not limited to, the
following:
a) Portions of a construction site to remain inactive longer than a period of three months
shall be seeded and watered until grass cover is grown or otherwise stabilized.
b) All on-site roads shall be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or
chemically stabilized.
c) All material transported off-site shall be either sufficiently watered or securely
covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
d) The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations shall
be minimized at all times.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
50 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
e) Where vehicles leave a construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the streets
shall be swept daily or washed down at the end of the workday to remove soil tracked
onto the paved surface.
SC AQ-2 Architectural Coatings. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCQMQD) Rule
1113 requires manufacturers, distributors, and end-users of architectural and industrial
maintenance coatings to reduce reactive organic gas (ROG) emissions from the use of
these coatings, primarily by placing limits on the ROG content of various coating
categories. Architectural coatings shall be selected so that the volatile organic compound
(VOC) content of the coatings is compliant with SCAQMD Rule 1113. This requirement
shall be included as notes on contractor specifications.
Cumulative Impacts
The Project would not result in significant operational air quality impacts including nonattainment criteria
pollutants. The Project would not exceed SCAQMD construction thresholds. The Project would be
consistent with the General Plan and not required any land use designation changes, and would therefore
comply with the 2016 AQMP, which is intended to bring the air basin into attainment for all criteria
pollutants. Therefore, the Project’s contribution to regional pollutant concentrations would not be
cumulatively considerable. As discussed above, the proposed Project would not cause a new air quality
impact to occur. Therefore, the proposed Project would not cause either a new cumulative impact to
occur, nor an increase in the severity of a cumulative impact previously disclosed. Implementation of the
proposed Project would not alter the conclusions of the General Plan Program EIR analysis and would not
result in a new or substantially more severe project-specific or cumulative air quality impact than those
already analyzed.
Conclusion
Accordingly, no new impacts relative to adverse air quality impacts or a substantial increase in the severity
of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would occur. With
regard to PRC Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the Project would not result in
any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts, with respect to air quality.
Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been
known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior
finding of less than significant. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not
warranted.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
51 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
3.3 Biological Resources
Threshold (a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
General Plan Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR
identified citywide biological resources, including habitat types; sensitive biological resources, including
special status species; marine resources; and sensitive marine sources. Development could also result in
the removal of mature trees that may serve as perching or nesting sites for migratory birds and raptors in
both developed and undeveloped areas. Federal and State regulations, including the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act, Federal Endangered Species Act, and California Endangered Species Act, restrict activities that may
result in the “take” (kill, harm, harass, etc.) of certain species, including active nests. Actions, such as pre-
construction surveys, may be necessary to ensure General Plan implementation does not result in the
“take” of such species as a result of vegetation removal. General Plan Goal NR 10 and Policies NR 10.1
through NR 10.13 identify the actions that may be necessary during project-specific analysis and
development. The General Plan Program EIR determined that compliance with these policies and federal
and State laws would mitigate potential impacts to a less than significant level.
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from
previous analysis.
The project site is an existing surface parking with ornamental landscape areas; there are no native habitat
areas on the site nor is the site adjacent to native habitat areas. The site is bordered on all sides by
developed urban uses. Project implementation would require the demolition of the surface parking areas
including the existing ornamental landscaping in the parking areas. The proposed Project includes site
landscaping including groundcover, shrubs, vines, succulents, grasses, and trees. The existing parking area
does not provide habitat for any known special-status species or listed plants. Given the site’s and
surrounding area developed nature, no new impacts to special species are expected.
General Plan policies would further restrict development within wetland areas and environmentally
sensitive areas (ESA). The project site is not within a wetland area or ESA, and therefore these policies
would not be applicable to the Project. While there is no suitable habitat for any special-status wildlife
species on the project site, some of the existing trees could provide nesting habitat for native birds.
Nesting birds are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC §703 et seq.) and the
California Fish and Game Code (§3503 et. seq.). Federal regulations prohibit any person to “pursue, hunt,
take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture, or kill, possess, offer for sale, sell, offer to barter, barter, offer
to purchase, [or] purchase” any migratory bird, including parts of birds, as well as eggs and nests. The
California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5 and 3512 also prohibit the take of birds and active
nests. The Project would comply with federal and State regulations as set forth in SC BIO-1. No new impact
would result, nor would the impact previously identified be any more severe as a result of the proposed
Project.
Threshold (b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or
by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
52 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
General Plan Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR
noted several General Plan goals which would protect wetlands and riparian vegetation. Policies NR 10.9
and NR 10.10 would specifically protect the existing or potential riparian habitats, and encourage
restoration of the ESAs. Policies NR 13.1 and NR 13.2 would serve to protect wetlands and their riparian
habitat, and require a survey and analysis of future development within a delineated wetland area under
the General Plan. The California Department of Fish and Game, under Section 1600 of the Fish and Game
Code of California, regulate impacts to lakes, streams, and associated riparian (streamside or lakeside)
vegetation through the issuance of a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement. The General Plan policies
would serve to regulate indirect impacts future development could have on riparian habitats. Therefore,
the impacts associated with riparian habitats would be less than significant.
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from
previous analysis.
There are no native habitat areas on the site nor is the site adjacent to native habitat areas. The project
site is not within a wetland area or ESA. The only potential riparian habitat near the project site is the
Upper Newport Bay, approximately one mile south. Because there is no riparian habitat on the project
site, the proposed Project would not have an adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community than what was previously analyzed in the General Plan Program EIR. This finding is
consistent with the impact conclusions of the General Plan Program EIR. No new project-specific impact
would result, nor would the impact previously identified be any more severe as a result of the proposed
Project. No impact would occur.
Threshold (c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected
wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
General Plan Significance Determination: No Impact. The General Plan Program EIR identified several
wetland habitats include Upper Newport Bay, the developed channels, beaches, and hardscape of Lower
Newport Bay (Newport Harbor), and the intertidal and subtidal landforms (sandy beaches, rocky
intertidal, sandy subtidal, and subtidal reefs) along the coast of Newport Beach between the Santa Ana
River and the boundary between the City and unincorporated Orange County.
The General Plan Program EIR notes that development would be confined to previously developed areas
and would not be located near wetland areas. However, should development be proposed within or
adjacent to wetland areas, the project would be required to comply with State and federal laws and
regulations to protect wetland resources. General Plan Policies NR 13.1 and NR 13.2 were proposed to
protect, maintain, and enhance the City’s wetlands. Policies NR 14.1 through NR 14.4 would maintain and
enhance deep water channels and ensure they remain navigable by boats through the management of
dredging and maintaining the capacity of wetlands and estuaries. Policies NR 15.1 through NR 15.3 would
ensure the proper disposal of dredge spoils to avoid disruption to natural habitats through monitoring
and management of sediment. Adherence to the identified State and federal laws and regulations would
result in mitigate impacts on jurisdictional waters and wetlands.
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from
previous analysis.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
53 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
The project site does not include any jurisdictional wetlands. No federal waters under the jurisdiction of
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are on or proximate to the project site. The proposed Project would
redevelop an existing urbanized property in the City. Therefore, the proposed Project would not affect
jurisdictional wetlands. This is consistent with the impact conclusions of the General Plan Program EIR. No
new impact would result, nor would the impact previously identified be any more severe as a result of the
proposed Project.
Threshold (d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
General Plan Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR
found that impacts to wildlife nursery sites and corridors would be less than significant. General Plan
Policies NR 10.3 and NR 10.4 would protect and prohibit development in nature preserves, conservation
areas, and designated open space areas, and would require a site-specific study be prepared where
development would occur within or contiguous to such areas. General Plan Policies NR 10.5, NR 10.7, and
NR 10.8 would prevent disruption, and ensure protection of sensitive habitat though siting and design
requirements, along with sufficient buffer sizes and shielding from direct exterior lighting. Policies NR 12.1
through NR 12.3 would serve to protect coastal dune habitats, which serve as movement corridor for
coastal wildlife species. Policies NR 13.1 and NR 13.2 would protect, maintain, and enhance the City’s
wetlands, another movement corridor for a variety of aquatic, terrestrial, and avian species. With
implementation of the policies, new urban uses within the developed areas of the City would not have a
substantial effect on the movement of native resident of migratory wildlife species or corridors.
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from
previous analysis.
The project site is a surface parking lot with ornamental landscaping that does not support State or
federally-listed flora or fauna. The site is bordered by existing urban development and does not function
as a wildlife movement corridor. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impact on the movement
of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. This determination is consistent with the impact
conclusions of the General Plan Program EIR. No new impact would result, nor would the impact
previously identified be any more severe as a result of the proposed Project. Therefore, the proposed
Project would be consistent with the effects of implementation of the General Plan.
Threshold (e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
General Plan Significance Determination: No Impact. The General Plan Program EIR concluded that
implementation of the General Plan would not impact to local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources. City Council Policy G-1 establishes and maintains appropriate diversity in tree species and age
classes to provide a stable and sustainable urban forest with an inventory that the City can reasonably
maintain in a healthy and non-hazardous condition. Chapter 7.26 of the City’s Municipal Code recognizes
and strives to maintain the value of natural habitat for migratory waterfowl and other birds such as ducks,
gulls, terns, and pelicans. In addition, General Plan Policy NR 10.1 states that future development shall
cooperate with State and federal agencies, and private organizations in the protection of the City’s
biological resources, and Policy NR 10.3 is intended to protect, and prohibit development in, nature
preserves, conservation areas, and designated open space areas in order to minimize urban impacts upon
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
54 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
resources in identified ESAs. The General Plan policies and City Council Policy G-1 would ensure that future
development within the City would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, and therefore no impact would occur.
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from
previous analysis.
The City does not have a tree preservation ordinance applicable to trees on private property. Chapter
13.09 (Parkway Trees) of the City’s Municipal Code requires new developments to plant trees in the
parkway abutting the building site. The trees are to be at least 36-inch-box trees of the type, variety,
and/or species determined by the City in accordance with the City Street Tree Designation List. The Project
would be required to comply with SC BIO-2 which requires compliance with Municipal Code 13.09. No
new impacts relative to adverse effects on local policies protecting biological resources or a substantial
increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program
EIR would occur.
Threshold (f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
General Plan Significance Determination: No Impact. The City is a signatory agency of the Orange County
Central and Coastal Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) Habitat Conservation Plan. The NCCP
is included as part of the General Plan policies. Policy NR 10.2 states that future development must comply
with the policies of the Orange County NCCP. In addition, Policy NR 10.1 states that future development
shall cooperate with State and federal agencies, and private organizations, in the protection of the City’s
biological resources. This includes local, regional, or State habitat conservation plans. The General Plan
Program EIR concluded no impacts to provisions to an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural
Community Conservation Plan.
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from
previous analysis.
The project site is an existing surface parking lot in Koll Center Newport. Because the project site contains
no sensitive biological resources, Policies NR 10.1 and 10.2 are not applicable to the Project. The proposed
Project would not change or contradict any policies within the Orange County Central-Coastal NCCP/HCP.
Therefore, no impacts would occur, and there are no changes or new significant information that would
require preparation of an EIR.
Mitigation Program
General Plan Policies
General Plan policies related to biological resources identified in the General Plan Program EIR to mitigate
potential impacts to biological resources are not applicable to the Project.
Standard Conditions and Requirements
SC BIO-1 Prior to the commencement of any proposed actions (e.g., site clearing, demolition,
grading) during the breeding/nesting season (September 1 through February 15), a
qualified biologist contracted by the Applicant shall conduct a preconstruction survey(s)
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
55 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
to identify any active nests in and adjacent to the project site no more than three days
prior to initiation of the action. If the biologist does not find any active nests that would
be potentially impacted, the proposed action may proceed. However, if the biologist finds
an active nest within or directly adjacent to the action area (within 100 feet) and
determines that the nest may be impacted, the biologist shall delineate an appropriate
buffer zone around the nest using temporary plastic fencing or other suitable materials,
such as barricade tape and traffic cones. The buffer zone shall be determined by the
biologist in consultation with applicable resource agencies and in consideration of species
sensitivity and existing nest site conditions, and in coordination with the construction
contractor. The qualified biologist shall serve as a construction monitor during those
periods when construction activities occur near active nest areas to ensure that no
inadvertent impacts on these nests occur. Only specified construction activities (if any)
approved by the qualified biologist shall take place within the buffer zone until the nest
is vacated. At the discretion of the qualified biologist, activities that may be prohibited
within the buffer zone include but not be limited to grading and tree clearing. Once the
nest is no longer active and upon final determination by the biologist, the proposed action
may proceed within the buffer zone.
The qualified biologist shall prepare a survey report/memorandum summarizing his/her
findings and recommendations of the preconstruction survey. Any active nests observed
during the survey shall be mapped on a current aerial photograph, including
documentation of GPS coordinates, and included in the survey report/memorandum. The
completed survey report/memorandum shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach
Community Development Department prior to construction-related activities that have
the potential to disturb any active nests during the nesting season.
SC BIO-2 The Applicant shall be responsible for planting trees in the parkway abutting the building
site in accordance with City rules, regulations and policies in compliance with the City of
Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 13.09 (Parkway Trees). The parkway trees shall
be at least a 36-inch box of the type, variety and/or species determined by the City in
accordance with the City Street Tree Designation List. If the City determines that because
of the location, terrain, or condition of the property that required tree planting is
impractical at the abutting parkway, the Applicant shall plant the 36-inch box tree at a
location designated by the City.
Cumulative Impacts
Past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects are required to implement measures, as set forth
in their respective CEQA documents, consistent with federal, State, and local regulations to avoid adverse
effects to existing biological resources or to mitigate for significant impacts to these resources. The types
of measures required for projects impacting protected habitat, species, and regulated resources can
include avoidance, project design features, regulatory approvals, best management practices (BMPs), and
mitigation measures. The project site does not contain riparian habitat or any other water resources.
Additionally, the site does not contain waters, including wetland waters, that are subject to federal
jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The site is not located within a designated ESA,
which may support species and habitats that are sensitive and rare within the region or may function as
a migration corridor for wildlife. The Project would not contribute to a cumulative effect on biological
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
56 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
resources including sensitive species, protected habitat, or wetland resources. The proposed Project
would not cause a new biological impact to occur, nor an increase in the severity of a biological impact
previously disclosed in the General Plan Program EIR. Implementation of the proposed Project would not
alter the conclusions of the General Plan Program EIR analysis and would not result in a new or
substantially more severe project-specific or cumulative biological resources impact than those already
analyzed.
Conclusion
Accordingly, no new impacts relative to biological resources or a substantial increase in the severity of a
previously identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would occur. With
regard to PRC Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the Project would not result in
any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts. Additionally, no new
information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time
the General Plan Program EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of less than
significant with mitigation. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not
warranted.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
57 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
3.4 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Threshold (a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource as defined in §15064.5?
General Plan Significance Determination: Significant and Unavoidable Impact. The General Plan Program
EIR noted that the City has 11 properties listed or designated eligible for listing on the National Register
of Historic Places (NRHP), the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), or otherwise listed as
historic or potentially historic in the California Historic Resources Inventory System (CHRIS) maintained by
the Office of Historic Preservation. The City Historical Register also recognizes five structures or properties
of local historical or architectural significance, most of which are not listed in the NRHP and CRHR. In
addition to the formally recognized resources, the City’s Historic Resource Inventory includes 61
properties, while not officially adopted, which serves as a guide to potentially historic properties that may
have historic or cultural significance to the City. General Plan build out could result in the demolition of
historic or potentially historic structures. General Plan Policies HR 1.1 through HR 1.5 protect historically
significant landmarks, sites, and structures through requiring that the Historical Resources Inventory be
maintained and updated, encouraging the preservation and adaptive reuse of historic structures,
promoting the placement of historical landmarks throughout the City, encouraging adaptive reuse, and
mandating the incorporation of historical elements in new redevelopment projects in the City. The Airport
Area, Newport Center, West Newport Mesa and Mariners’ Mile do not have historic resources. Since
General Plan policies offer only limited protection to historic structures and would not ultimately prevent
the demolition of a historic structure, and that demolition of a historic structure constitutes a physical
effect on the environment, the General Plan Program EIR found that impacts to historical resources were
significant and unavoidable.
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: Reduced impact; no substantial change from
previous analysis.
There are no historical resources on or near the project site that have been listed or are eligible for listing
on the NRHP, the CRHR, California landmarks, or local registers. The office buildings located within the
boundaries of the project site (4490 Von Karman Avenue and 4910 Birch Street), or immediately
contiguous to the site (5000 Birch Street, 4340 Von Karman Avenue, 4350 Von Karman Avenue) are not a
part of the proposed development and were constructed between the 1970s and 2000s. Consequently,
the surrounding buildings do not meet the criteria of a historical resource under CEQA and would not be
impacted. Therefore, no impacts would occur. The proposed Project would not result in any new adverse
impacts or increase the severity of any previously identified impacts on historical resources. No new
information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time
the General Plan Program EIR was certified that would impact the prior finding under this threshold.
Threshold (b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR
concluded that impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant. General Plan Goal HR
2 and NR 18 would protect archaeological resources by requiring that any new development protect and
preserve archaeological resources from destruction, and that potential impacts to such resources be
avoided and minimized through planning policies and permit conditions. The Newport Beach City Council
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
58 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
also established “Archaeological Guidelines (K-5)” requiring the City to prepare and maintain sources of
information regarding archaeological sites. Therefore, impacts to archaeological resources would be less
than significant.
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from
previous analysis.
Although the project site has been disturbed, the area is potentially sensitive for archaeological and tribal
cultural resources; three archaeological resources have been recorded within a half-mile of the project
site. The Project would be required to comply with the City Council Policy K-5 which requires preservation
of significant archeological and tribal cultural resources, as set forth in SC CULT-1. Compliance with
General Plan Policy HR 2.1 and Policy NR 18.1 would require that any new development protect and
preserve archaeological and tribal resources from destruction, and that potential impacts to such
resources be avoided and minimized through planning policies and permit conditions. Therefore,
compliance with these regulations would ensure impacts to archaeological resources remain less than
significant. The proposed Project would not result in any new adverse impacts or increase the severity of
any previously identified impacts on archaeological resources. No new information of substantial
importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan Program
EIR was certified that would impact the prior finding under this threshold.
Threshold (c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. Human burials, in addition to
being potential archaeological resources, have specific provisions for treatment in Section 5097 of the
California Public Resources Code. Disturbing human remains would destroy the resources and could
potentially violate the health code. The California Health and Safety Code (§§7050.5, 7051, and 7054)
contain specific provisions for the protection of human burial remains. PRC Section 5097.98 addresses the
disposition of Native American burials, protects such remains, and established the Native American
Heritage Commission to resolve any related disputes.
General Plan Policies HR 2.1 and NR 18.1 require that any new development under the General Plan
protect and preserve archaeological resources from destruction, and that potential impacts to such
resources be avoided and minimized through planning policies and permit conditions. Other policies
under Goal HR2 and Goal NR 18 ensure that information resources are maintained regarding these
resources, such that all grading and excavation activities where there is a potential to affect cultural or
archaeological resources be monitored by a qualified archaeologist; that cultural organizations, including
Native American organizations, are notified of all developments that have the potential to adversely
impact these resources; and that any new development donates scientifically valuable archaeological
resources to a responsible public or private institution. The General Plan Program EIR concluded that
impacts to human remains would be less than significant.
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from
previous analysis.
The project site has been previously disturbed and currently is developed with surface parking and
landscape areas. There is no indication that there are burials present at the project site and it is unlikely
that human remains would be discovered during project development. In the event that human remains
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
59 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
are discovered during grading activities, the Project would adhere to all State and local regulations and
policies, such as California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, CEQA Section 15064.5, and PRC Section
5097.98, to addresses procedures to follow the discovery of suspected human remains (SC CULT-2).
Compliance with existing law would ensure that impacts to human resources would not occur. This is
consistent with the impact conclusions of the General Plan Program EIR. No new impact would result, nor
would the impact previously identified be any more severe as a result of the proposed Project. Therefore,
the proposed Project would be consistent with the effects of implementation of the General Plan.
Mitigation Program
General Plan Policies
The General Plan Program EIR identifies General Plan policies that would address potential impacts to
cultural resources. The following policies are applicable to the proposed Project and would be made
conditions of approval.
▪ HR 2.1 - New Development Activities: Require that, in accordance with CEQA, new development
protect and preserve paleontological and archaeological resources from destruction and avoid and
mitigate impacts to such resources. Through planning policies and permit conditions, ensure the
preservation of significant archeological and paleontological resources and require that the impact
caused by any development be mitigated in accordance with CEQA.
▪ HR 2.2 - Grading and Excavation Activities: Require a qualified paleontologist/ archeologist to
monitor all grading and/or excavation where there is a potential to affect cultural, archeological or
paleontological resources. If these resources are found, the applicant shall implement the
recommendations of the paleontologist/archaeologist, subject to the approval of the City Planning
Department.
▪ HR 2.3 - Cultural Organizations: Notify cultural organizations, including Native American
organizations, of proposed developments that have the potential to adversely impact cultural
resources. Allow representatives of such groups to monitor grading and/or excavation of
development sites.
▪ HR 2.4 - Paleontological or Archaeological Materials: Require new development to donate
scientifically valuable paleontological or archaeological materials to a responsible public or private
institution with a suitable repository, located within Newport Beach, or Orange County, whenever
possible.
▪ NR 18.1 - New Development: Require new development to protect and preserve paleontological and
archaeological resources from destruction and avoid and minimize impacts to such resources in
accordance with the requirements of CEQA. Through planning policies and permit conditions, ensure
the preservation of significant archeological and paleontological resources and require that the
impact caused by any development be mitigated in accordance with CEQA.
▪ NR 18.3 - Potential for New Development to Impact Resources: Notify cultural organizations,
including Native American organizations, of proposed developments that have the potential to
adversely impact cultural resources. Allow qualified representatives of such groups to monitor
grading and/or excavation of development sites.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
60 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
▪ NR 18.4 - Donation of Materials: Require new development, where on-site preservation and
avoidance are not feasible, to donate scientifically valuable paleontological or archaeological
materials to a responsible public or private institution with a suitable repository, located within
Newport Beach or Orange County, whenever possible.
Standard Conditions and Requirements
SC CULT-1 In compliance with City Council Policy K-5, prior to the issuance of a grading permit by the
City of Newport Beach, the Applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to periodically
monitor ground-disturbing activities onsite and provide documentation of such retention
to the City of Newport Beach Community Development Director. The archaeologist shall
train project construction workers on the types of archaeological resources that could be
found in site soils. The archaeologist shall periodically monitor project ground-disturbing
activities. During construction activities, if Native American resources (i.e., Tribal Cultural
Resources) are encountered, a Cultural Resource Monitoring and Discovery Plan (CRMDP)
shall be created and implemented to lay out the proposed personnel, methods, and
avoidance/recovery framework for tribal cultural resources monitoring and evaluation
activities within the project area. A consulting Native American tribe shall be retained and
compensated as a consultant/monitor for the project site from the time of discovery to
the completion of ground disturbing activities to monitor grading and excavation
activities. If archaeological resources are encountered, all construction work within 50
feet of the find shall cease, and the archaeologist shall assess the find for importance and
whether preservation in place without impacts is feasible. Construction activities may
continue in other areas. If, in consultation with the City and affected Native American
tribe (as deemed necessary), the discovery is determined to not be important, work will
be permitted to continue in the area. Any resource that is not Native American in origin
and that cannot be preserved in place shall be curated at a public, nonprofit institution
with a research interest in the materials, such as the South Central Coastal Information
Center at California State University, Fullerton.
SC CULT-2 California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, and
Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 mandate the process to be followed in the event
of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a location other than a dedicated
cemetery. California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that in the event
that human remains are discovered within the project site, disturbance of the site shall
be halted until the coroner has conducted an investigation into the circumstances,
manner and cause of death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and
disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the
excavation, or to his or her authorized representative, in the manner provided in Section
5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. If the coroner determines that the remains are not
subject to his or her authority and if the coroner recognizes or has reason to believe the
human remains to be those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone
within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
61 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Cumulative Impacts
As discussed above, the proposed Project would not cause a new cultural resources impact to occur, nor
an increase in the severity of a cultural resources impact previously disclosed in the General Plan Program
EIR, with adherence to State and local regulations and General Plan policies discussed in this section.
Implementation of the proposed Project would not alter the conclusions of the General Plan Program EIR
analysis and would not result in a new or substantially more severe project-specific or cumulative cultural
resources impact than those already analyzed.
Conclusion
Accordingly, no new impacts relative to cultural resources or a substantial increase in the severity of a
previously identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would occur. With
regard to PRC Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the Project would not result in
any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts. Additionally, no new
information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time
the General Plan Program EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of less than
significant with mitigation. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not
warranted.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
62 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
3.5 Energy
Impacts related to energy were not analyzed in the General Plan Program EIR because they were not on
the State CEQA Guidelines’ Appendix G checklist until January 1, 2019, which was subsequent to the
certification of the General Plan Program EIR in 2006. Therefore, the analysis of energy is new in this
Addendum.
However, the General Plan Program EIR did include an analysis of the impacts on other public services and
utilities, which included electricity and natural gas. Specifically, the analysis was in General Plan Program
EIR Section 4.14, Utilities and Service Systems. As concluded in the General Plan Program EIR, impacts to
electricity and natural gas services were found to be less than significant. The electricity and natural gas
analysis in the General Plan Program EIR did not respond to the specific questions in the new energy
section, which are provided below. However, the analysis, as applicable, is carried through to this new
energy section for context, discussion, and comparison purposes.
Threshold (a) Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
General Plan Significance Determination: No Impact. Although a stand-alone Energy analysis was not
included in the General Plan Program EIR, as previously noted, it did analyze impacts related to public
services and utilities. The General Plan Program EIR concluded that impacts related to the relocation or
construction of new electrical power or natural gas facilities would have no impact. Additional energy
demands resulting from implementation of the General Plan would be adequately met by current and
planned infrastructure during most of the year as well as compliance with the energy conservation
measures contained in Title 24, which would reduce the amount of energy needed for the operation of
any buildings. The projected electrical demand for buildout under the General Plan was expected to be
within Southern California Edison’s (SCE’s) then-current ten-year load forecasts. Southern California Gas
Company (SoCalGas) indicated that an adequate supply of natural gas was available to serve additional
development, and that the natural gas service provided to the City would not be impaired by buildout
under the General Plan. Any expansion of service necessitated by the General Plan implementation would
be in accordance with SoCalGas policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities
Commission at the time contractual agreements are made. Natural gas demand projected for the General
Plan would not exceed available or planned supply and no new infrastructure would be required.
Therefore, no impact would result.
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from
previous analysis.
Fuel
During construction, transportation energy use depends on the type and number of trips, vehicle miles
traveled (VMT), fuel efficiency of vehicles, and travel mode. Transportation energy use during
construction would come from the transport and use of construction equipment, delivery vehicles and
haul trucks, and construction employee vehicles that would use diesel fuel and/or gasoline. The use of
energy resources by these vehicles would fluctuate according to the phase of construction and would be
temporary. Most construction equipment during demolition and grading would be gas-powered or diesel-
powered, and the later construction phases would require electricity-powered equipment. Idling of in-use
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
63 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
off-road heavy-duty diesel vehicles in California are limited to five minutes per Title 13, CCR Section
2449(d)(3). Project construction equipment would also be required to comply with the latest U.S. EPA and
CARB engine emissions standards. These engines use highly efficient combustion engines to minimize
unnecessary fuel use.
The Project would have construction activities that use energy, primarily in the form of diesel fuel (e.g.,
mobile construction equipment) and electricity (e.g., power tools). Contractors would be required to
monitor air quality emissions of construction activities using applicable regulatory guidance such from
SCAQMD CEQA Guidelines. This requirement indirectly relates to construction energy conservation
because when air pollutant emissions are reduced from the monitoring and the efficient use of equipment
and materials, energy use is reduced. There are no aspects of the Project that would foreseeably result in
the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary use of energy during construction activities.
Due to increasing transportation costs and fuel prices, contractors and owners have a strong financial
incentive to avoid wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary use of energy during construction. There is
growing recognition among developers and retailers that sustainable construction is not prohibitively
expensive and that there is a significant cost-savings potential in green building practices. The use of
battery-powered tools and equipment that do not rely on gas to operate are also becoming more
common.3 Impacts related to transportation energy use during construction would be temporary and
would not require expanded energy supplies or the construction of new infrastructure; impacts would not
be significant.
During operations, energy consumption would be associated with resident and visitor trips; delivery and
supply trucks; and trips by maintenance and repair crews. The Project is an infill residential development
within Koll Center Newport and near other large employment areas, such as the Irvine Business Center
and Newport Center, thereby potentially reducing the need to travel long distances for some residents.4
The project site is also near public transportation (bus routes) access, further reducing the need to drive.
The City and surrounding areas are highly urbanized with numerous gasoline fuel facilities and
infrastructure. Consequently, the proposed Project would not result in a substantial demand for energy
that would require expanded supplies or the construction of other infrastructure or expansion of existing
facilities.
The gasoline and diesel fuel associated with on-road vehicular trips is calculated based on total VMT. The
total gasoline and diesel fuel associated with on-road trips would be approximately 146,621 gallons per
year and 20,108 gallons per year, respectively. Orange County’s annual gasoline fuel use in 2020 was
1,180,213,295 gallons and diesel fuel use was 144,020,787 gallons.5 Expected Project operational use of
gasoline and diesel would represent 0.012 percent of current gasoline use and 0.014 percent of current
diesel use in the County. None of the Project energy uses exceed one percent of their corresponding
County use. Project operations would not substantially affect existing energy or fuel supplies or resources.
The Project would comply with applicable energy standards and new capacity would not be required. Fuel
3 Jobsite, Construction’s Electric Future, June 11, 2018, available at https://jobsite.procore.com/construction-s-electric-future,
accessed October 2, 2020.
4 The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association document, Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures
(August 2010), identifies that infill developments, such as the proposed Project reduce vehicle miles traveled which reduces
fuel consumption. Infill projects such as the proposed Project would have an improved location efficiency.
5 California Air Resources Board, EMFAC2017.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
64 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
consumption associated with vehicle trips generated by the proposed Project would not be considered
inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary.
Electricity and Natural Gas
Project implementation would increase demand for electricity and natural gas services provided by SCE
and SoCalGas. Table 3.5-1, Estimated Project Electricity and Natural Gas Generation identifies the
Project’s total estimated electricity and natural gas generation. As shown in the table, the Project would
use approximately 1,624,857 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year. In comparison, the project site uses very little
electricity as it is currently used for surface parking. The proposed Project would represent an increase in
electricity usage over existing uses.
Table 3.5-1. Estimated Project Electricity and Natural Gas Generation
Units/Square Feet Generation Rate Total Generation
Electricity
312 units MFR (approx. 683 residents) 2,379 kWh/capita/year 1,624,857 kWh/year
Natural Gas
312 units MFR (approx. 683 residents) 13,700 kBTU/capita/year 4,274,400 kBTU/year
MFR = multi-family residential; sf = square feet; BTU: British Thermal Unit
Sources: California Energy Commission (CEC) 2006; CEC 2011.
The increased demand is expected to be adequately served by the existing SCE electrical facilities on the
project site currently serving Koll Center Newport. SCE forecasts that it would have adequate electricity
to meet the expected growth in its service area through 2026. Using SCE’s anticipated consumption in
2026 in a high-demand consumption scenario, electricity demand is expected to be 123,828 gigawatt-
hours.6 The increase in electricity demand from the Project would be 0.0008 percent of overall demand
in SCE’s service area. Therefore, projected electrical demand would not significantly impact SCE’s level of
service. Project design features include high-efficiency wall assemblies and windows to reduce heating
and cooling loads; Energy Star appliances; high-efficiency heating and cooling systems; high efficiency
domestic hot water systems; and high-efficiency light-emitting diode (LED) lighting in residential units,
common areas, and landscape design. Impacts to electrical service would be less than significant.
Based on California Energy Commission assumptions, residential land uses generate the need for
approximately 13,700 kBTU (kilo-British thermal unit) of natural gas per capita per year.7 Therefore, as
shown in Table 3.5-1, the Project would use approximately 4,274,400 kWh per year. The proposed Project
would represent an increase in natural gas usage over existing uses.
The increased demand is expected to be adequately served by the existing SoCalGas facilities. Total
supplies of natural gas available to SoCalGas are expected to remain stable at 3.875 billion cubic feet of
natural gas per day (bcfd), that is, 1,414,375 billion BTU per year, between 2023 and 2035.8 Total natural
6 California Energy Commission, 2018, Electricity and Natural Gas Demand Forecast Figure 49, Available at:
http://calenergycommission.blogspot.com/2019/01/californias-economic-growth-outpaces.html, Accessed Sept. 22, 2020.
7 Ibid.
8 California Gas and Electric Utilities (CGEU), 2019, 2019 California Gas Report.
https://www.socalgas.com/regulatory/documents/cgr/2019_CGR_Supplement_7-1-19.pdf.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
65 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
gas consumption in SoCalGas’ service area is forecast to be 2.647 bcfd (966,155 billion BTU per year) in
2035. Therefore, the natural gas demand from the proposed Project would represent a nominal
percentage of overall demand in SoCalGas’ service area. SoCalGas facilities that currently provide natural
gas to Koll Center Newport can also serve the proposed Project. SoCalGas can provide additional
connections if necessary once utility plans are finalized for the Project and are required to do so by the
California Public Utilities Commission to meet additional demand. Impacts to natural gas service would be
less than significant.
It should also be noted that the Project design and materials would comply with the 2019 Building Energy
Efficiency Standards, which took effect on January 1, 2020. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the City
of Newport Beach Building Division would review and verify that the Project plans demonstrate
compliance with the current version of the Building and Energy Efficiency Standards. The Project would
also be required adhere to the provisions of CALGreen, which establishes planning and design standards
for sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code requirements),
water conservation, material conservation, and internal air contaminants.
Project development would not interfere with achievement of the 60 percent Renewable Portfolio
Standard set forth in Senate Bill (SB) 100 for 2030 or the 100 percent standard for 2045. These goals apply
to SCE and other electricity retailers. As electricity retailers reach these goals, emissions from end-user
electricity use would decrease from current emission estimates.
This would not be a new impact, nor would it increase the severity of the impact previously identified in
the General Plan Program EIR and would therefore be consistent with the effects of implementation of
the General Plan.
Threshold (b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy
or energy efficiency?
General Plan Significance Determination: The previous General Plan Program EIR did not discuss
compliance with state or local renewable energy plans or energy efficiency. This discussion is new as part
of this Addendum.
Less than Significant/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.
Project design and operation would comply with State Building Energy Efficiency Standards, appliance
efficiency regulations, and green building standards. Project development would not cause inefficient,
wasteful and unnecessary energy consumption, and no adverse impact would occur. The City of Newport
Beach adopted an Energy Action Plan in 2013 in order to help reduce energy consumption and greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions to become a more sustainable community and to meet the goals of AB 32. The Energy
Action Plan outlines various measures and strategizes numerous methods on how the City’s long-term
vision to conserve energy at government facilities can be achieved. The Plan does not have project-specific
requirements but focuses on demonstrating leadership through the implementation of cost‐effective
energy efficiency improvements in their own facilities, minimizing costs associated with energy and
utilities, and protecting the environment. As such, the proposed Project would not conflict with or
obstruct the City’s Energy Action Plan.
SCAG’s 2020–2045 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (Connect SoCal)
(RTP/SCS) establishes GHG emissions reduction goals for automobiles and light-duty trucks for 2020 and
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
66 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
2035. The project is consistent with regional strategies to reduce passenger VMT. The project site is in a
major employment center and is proximate to several major employers. Orange County is traditionally
jobs-rich. Transit stops along Von Karman Avenue and Birch Street connect the project site to the rest of
the City as well as the cities of Irvine and Tustin. Increasing residential land uses near major employment
centers is a key strategy to reducing regional VMT, which also reduces transportation fuel consumption.
Therefore, in addition to being an efficient infill development, the Project would be consistent with
regional goals to reduce trips and VMT by locating the residential development adjacent to business uses,
which reduces vehicle trip lengths and transportation fuel use. The Project would not conflict with the
stated goals of the RTP/SCS. Therefore, the Project would not interfere with SCAG’s RTP/SCS.
The California Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) was established in 2002 under SB 1078 and was
amended in 2006 and 2011. The RPS program requires investor-owned utilities, electric service providers,
and community choice aggregators to increase the use of eligible renewable energy resources to 33
percent of total procurement by 2020. Renewable energy sources include wind, small hydropower, solar,
geothermal, biomass, and biogas.
Executive Order S-14-08, signed in November 2008, expanded the State’s RPS to 33 percent renewable
power by 2020. This standard was adopted by the legislature in 2011 (SB X1-2). SB 350 was signed into
law in September 2015 and established tiered increases to renewable energy resources of 40 percent by
2024, 45 percent by 2027, and 50 percent by 2030. SB 350 also sets a new goal to double the energy-
efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas through energy-efficiency and -conservation measures.
As noted above, SB 100 increased California’s RPS requirements to 60 percent by 2030, with interim
targets, and 100 percent by 2045. The bill also established a State policy that eligible renewable energy
resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100 percent of all retail sales of electricity to California end-
use customers and 100 percent of electricity procured to serve all State agencies by December 31, 2045.
Under SB 100, the State cannot increase carbon emissions elsewhere in the western grid or allow resource
shuffling to achieve the 100 percent carbon-free electricity target.
Electrical service is provided to the project site and surrounding area by SCE, which obtains electricity
from conventional and renewable sources. In 2018, 36 percent of SCE’s electricity was generated from
eligible renewables; 6 percent from nuclear power; 4 percent from large hydroelectric generators; and 37
percent from unspecified sources.9 SCE is scheduled to reach California's 2020 renewable energy as
mandated.
The net increase in power demand associated with the proposed Project, similar to the projects pursuant
to the General Plan, is anticipated to be within the service capabilities of SCE and would not impede SCE’s
ability to implement California’s renewable energy goals. Therefore, the proposed Project would not
obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy. Thus, impacts would be less than significant and there
are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR.
9 Southern California Edison. 2019, July. 2018 Power Content Label. https://www.sce.com/sites/default/files/inline-
files/2018SCEPCL.pdf.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
67 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Mitigation Program
General Plan Policies
The General Plan Program EIR identifies General Plan policies that would address potential impacts to
energy use. The following policy is applicable to the proposed Project and would be made a condition of
approval.
▪ NR 24.2 – Energy-Efficient Design Features: Promote energy-efficient design features.
Standard Conditions and Requirements
No standard conditions are applicable to the proposed Project.
Cumulative Impacts
As discussed above, the proposed Project would not cause an energy impact to occur, nor an increase in
the severity of any impact previously disclosed in the General Plan Program EIR. Implementation of the
proposed Project would not alter the conclusions of the General Plan Program EIR analysis and would not
result in a new or substantially more severe project-specific or cumulative energy impact than those
already analyzed.
Conclusion
Accordingly, no new impacts relative to energy or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously
identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would occur. With regard to PRC
Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the Project would not result in any new
impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts. Additionally, no new information of
substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan
Program EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of less than significant with
mitigation. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not warranted.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
68 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
3.6 Geology and Soils
Threshold (a) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving the :
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR
concluded that implementation of the General Plan would not expose people or structures to adverse
effects involving rupture of a fault located in an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone. The City of Newport Beach is
located in the northern part of the Peninsular Ranges Province, an area that is exposed to risk from
multiple earthquake fault zones. The Newport-Inglewood fault zone, the Whittier fault zone, the San
Joaquin Hills fault zone, and the Elysian Park fault zone, all have potential to cause moderate to large
earthquakes that would cause ground shaking in Newport Beach and nearby communities. However, none
of these faults has been zoned under the guidelines of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act.
There are no Alquist-Priolo zones in the City and no impact would result. Impacts were considered less
than significant.
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from
previous analysis.
According to the Geotechnical report prepared for the proposed Project, the project site is not located
within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and no known active faults cross the site. Several active
faults are near the project site, including the San Joaquin Hills Fault approximately 1.7 miles, the Newport
Inglewood Fault Zone approximately 5.5 miles, and the Newport Inglewood (offshore segment) located
approximately 6 miles from the site. Potential for surface fault rupture was considered low.
Construction of the proposed Project would be required to conform to the seismic design requirements
of the 2019 California Building Code (CBC) (or applicable adopted code at the time of plan submittal or
grading and building permit issuance for construction) which would reduce anticipated impacts related to
the proximity of earthquake faults by requiring structures to be built to withstand seismic ground shaking.
Additionally, the Project would need to comply with the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code,
Chapter 15.10, Excavation and Grading Code, which requires approval of soil engineering and engineering
geology report, as set forth in SC GEO-1. The Excavation and Grading Code also requires that
recommendations included in the reports and approved by the building officials be incorporated in
grading plans or specifications.
Compliance with SC GEO-1 and applicable CBC requirements would not expose persons or structures to
seismic hazards and impacts associated with the proposed Project would be less than significant. The
proposed Project would not result in a new specific impact or an increase in the severity of an impact that
was identified in the General Plan Program EIR and would therefore be consistent with the effects of
implementation of the General Plan and no further analysis is required.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
69 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The General Plan policies ensures
that adverse effects caused by seismic and geologic hazards such as strong seismic ground shaking are
minimized. Policy S 4.1 requires regular update to building and fire codes to provide for seismic safety and
design; Policy S 4.2 encourages the seismic retrofitting and strengthening of essential facilities such as
hospitals and schools to minimize damage; and Policies S 4.4 and S 4.5 ensure that new development is
not located in areas that would be affected by seismic hazards. Additionally, new development would be
required to comply with the building design standards of the CBC Chapter 33 for the construction of new
buildings and/or structures, specific engineering design and construction measures would be
implemented to anticipate and avoid the potential for adverse impacts. Compliance with applicable
regulations and the policies contained in the General Plan would ensure that impacts related to strong
seismic ground shaking remain at a less than significant level.
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from
previous analysis.
Project construction would be required to conform to the seismic design requirements of the 2019 CBC
(or applicable adopted code at the time of plan submittal or grading and building permit issuance for
construction) which would reduce anticipated impacts related to the proximity of earthquake faults and
ground shaking by requiring structures to be built to withstand seismic ground shaking. Additionally, the
Project would need to comply with the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, Chapter 15.10, Excavation
and Grading Code, which requires approval of soil engineering and engineering geology report (SC
GEO-1). The Excavation and Grading Code also requires that recommendations included in the reports
and approved by the building officials be incorporated in grading plans or specifications. The Project would
also be required to adhere to General Plan policies related to seismic and geologic hazards standards
(SC GEO-2). The geotechnical study noted that potential for surface fault rupture is low. With
implementation of the requirements of the CBC and the General Plan, the proposed Project would not
expose persons or structures to strong ground shaking and impacts associated with the proposed Project
would be less than significant. The proposed Project would not result in a new specific impact or an
increase in the severity of an impact that was identified in the General Plan Program EIR and would
therefore be consistent with the effects of implementation of the General Plan and no further analysis is
required.
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. Portions of the City are
susceptible to liquefaction and related ground failure (i.e., seismically induced settlement) include areas
along the coastline that includes Balboa Peninsula, in and around the Newport Bay and Upper Newport
Bay, in the lower reaches of major streams in Newport Beach, and in the floodplain of the Santa Ana River.
A considerable part of the City mapped liquefiable areas (West Newport, Balboa Peninsula, the harbor
islands and vicinity) are already built upon, mostly with residential and commercial development. The City
Safety Element Policies S 4.1 through S 4.6 require new development to be in compliance with the most
recent seismic and other geologic hazard safety standards, and the protection of community health and
safety through the implementation of effective, state of the art standards for seismic design of structures
in the City. Additionally, if any development on steep terrain were to occur upon implementation of the
General Plan, site-specific slope stability design would be required to ensure adherence to the standards
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
70 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
contained in Appendix Chapter A33, Excavation and Grading, of the City Building Code, as well as by
California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH, CAL/OSHA) requirements for shoring and
stabilization. With compliance of applicable regulations as well as policies identified in the General Plan,
impacts were determined to be less than significant, and no mitigation was required.
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from
previous analysis.
The project site is not located within the areas susceptible to liquefaction and related ground failure. The
site is within a developed and urbanized area of the City. The geotechnical evaluation indicated that
localized and isolated sandy layers within the old paralic deposits that underlie the site are susceptible to
relatively minor amounts of liquefaction as a result of a potential earthquake along a nearby fault and the
historical high groundwater level of 10 feet below existing grades. Overall seismic induced liquefaction
settlement would be reduced with removal of materials for the subterranean parking structure
excavation. The estimated settlements appear to be limited to isolated and localized relatively thin zones
generally between 12 and 49 feet below existing grades during seismic events. Typical construction
methods and protocols for remedial grading would replace unsuitable materials with suitable engineered
fill materials prior to re-compaction with paralic deposits and/or other non-expansive materials. The
resulting configuration would not be subject to liquefaction. There are no known geologic conditions on
the project site that would render development infeasible. Compliance with the City’s Municipal Code and
General Plan Policies SC 3.6-1 and SC 3.6-2 would reduce the risk associated with seismic-related ground
failure and associated liquefaction, lateral spreading, or subsidence to a less than significant level. The
proposed Project would not result in a new specific impact or an increase in the severity of an impact that
was identified in the General Plan Program EIR and would therefore be consistent with the effects of
implementation of the General Plan and no further analysis is required.
iv) Landslides?
General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. Many of the areas in central and
eastern Newport Beach have been identified as vulnerable to seismically induced slope failure, due to
steep terrain. Compliance with the standards set forth in the current CBC would require an assessment of
hazards related to landslides and liquefaction and the incorporation of design measures into structures to
mitigate this hazard if development were considered feasible. The City has included policies in its Safety
Element to achieve the goal of minimizing the risk of injury, loss of life, and property damage caused by
earthquake hazards or geologic disturbances (SC 3.6-2). Adherence to the standards contained in
Appendix Chapter A33, Excavation and Grading, City Building Code, and California Division of Occupational
Safety and Health (DOSH, CAL/OSHA) requirements for shoring and stabilization would reduce impacts
would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from
previous analysis.
The project site is located at an elevation of approximately 46 to 52 feet above msl. In general, the overall
ground surface is relatively level with a gentle slope to the west. Due to the level topography on the
project site and in area surrounding the site, landslides are not anticipated. According to the Seismic
Hazard Zones Map for the Tustin Quadrangle, the site is not located within a Zone of Required
Investigation for earthquake-induced landslides. Additionally, no historic landslides have been mapped
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
71 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
within or adjacent to the site, nor were there any indications of landslides due to the developed nature
of the area. The proposed Project would be required to adhere to all applicable building code regulations
and engineering design standards related to shaking hazards and geologic stabilization, as set forth in SC
GEO-1 and SC GEO-2. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in a new impact or an increase in
the severity of an impact that was identified in the General Plan Program EIR and would therefore be
consistent with the effects of implementation of the General Plan and no further analysis is required.
Threshold (b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR
concluded that implementation of the General Plan would have a less than significant impact associated
with soil erosion or topsoil. All demolition and construction activities within the City would be required to
comply with CBC Chapter 70 standards, which ensure implementation of appropriate measures during
grading activities to reduce soil erosion. General Plan Policies NR 3.11, NR 3.12, and NR 3.13 would require
compliance with applicable local, State, or federal laws. Compliance with the CBC and the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits would minimize effects from erosion and ensure
consistency with the RWQCB Water Quality Control Plan. Implementation of the General Plan would have
a less than significant impact associated with soil erosion or topsoil. No mitigation is required.
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from
previous analysis.
The project site is currently developed with surface parking areas and landscaping. Grading and earthwork
activities during construction would expose soils to potential short-term erosion by wind and water. The
project site would be graded, and foundation excavation would require the export of approximately
114,000 cy.
All demolition and construction activities within the City would be required to comply with CBC Chapter 70
standards, which would ensure implementation of appropriate measures during grading activities to
reduce soil erosion. In addition, all new developments would be subject to regional and local regulations
pertaining to construction activities. Specifically, development that is greater than five acres would be
required to comply with the provisions of the General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit adopted
by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), which would require the employment of best
management practices (BMPs) to limit the extent of eroded materials from a construction site. All
development that is between one and five acres would be required to comply with the provisions of the
NPDES Phase II regulations concerning the discharge of eroded materials and pollutants from construction
sites. Compliance with policies in the General Plan would further ensure that the proposed Project would
not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Compliance with the NPDES permit would minimize
effects from erosion and ensure consistency with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)
Water Quality Control Plan. Implementation of the General Plan policies would have a less than significant
impact associated with soil erosion or topsoil. The proposed Project’s impact on soil erosion would be less
than significant, similar to those impacts previously analyzed in the General Plan Program EIR. This would
not be a new specific impact or an increase in the severity of an impact that was identified in the General
Plan Program EIR and would therefore be consistent with the effects of implementation of the General
Plan and no further analysis is required.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
72 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Threshold (c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR
concluded that implementation of the General Plan would have a less than significant impact related to
unstable soils, or compressible and expansive soils, as a result of collapse, subsidence, differential
settlement, lateral spreading, or heaving. Adherence to the City’s codes and General Plan policies would
ensure the maximum practicable protection available for users of buildings and infrastructure and
associated trenches, slopes, and foundations. Compliance with General Plan Policies S 4.4 and S 4.6 would
ensure that development is not located on unstable soils or geologic units. In view of these requirements,
the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact associated with the exposure of people or
structures to hazards associated with unstable geologic units or soils. No mitigation is required.
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from
previous analysis.
Similar to the General Plan Program EIR, the proposed Project would have the potential to be located on
a geologic unit or soil that would become unstable and potentially result in on- or off-site impacts related
to landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction and/or collapse. The geotechnical evaluation
concluded that the project site had a very low to high expansion potential. Liquefaction-induced ground
displacements are relatively minor overall and typical reinforced concrete structural mat foundation
system for the support of the proposed apartment building and parking structure would further reduce
impacts. The proposed Project would be required to comply with General Plan policies and CBC
regulations set forth in SC GEO-1 and SC GEO-2. With adherence to these standard conditions, impacts
would be less than significant, similar to the previously certified General Plan Program EIR. This would not
be a new specific impact or an increase in the severity of an impact that was identified in the General Plan
Program EIR and would therefore be consistent with the effects of implementation of the General Plan
and no further analysis is required.
Threshold (d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property?
General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR
concluded that implementation of the General Plan would have a less than significant impact related to
unstable soils, or geologic units. Development under the General Plan would be required to comply with
all applicable provisions of the CBC related to soil hazard-related design. The City’s Building Code requires
a site-specific foundation investigation and report for each construction site that identifies potentially
unsuitable soil conditions and contains appropriate recommendations for foundation type and design
criteria that conform to the analysis and implementation criteria described in the City’s Building Code,
Chapters 16, 18, and A33. Further, General Plan Policies S 4.4 and S 4.6 would require that development
not be located on unstable soils or geologic units. This impact is considered less than significant, and no
mitigation is required.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
73 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from
previous analysis.
As discussed in the General Plan Program EIR, the City contains soils that are highly expansive and
compressive, and subject to significant volume changes due to moisture fluctuations. The proposed
Project would be required to adhere to the City’s Building Code and General Plan Policies S 4.4 and S 4.6
require that development not be located on unstable soils or geologic units, as set forth in SC GEO-1 and
SC GEO-2. Compliance with State and local regulations described in the standard conditions would reduce
impacts related to expansive soils to less than significant. This would not be a new specific impact or an
increase in the severity of an impact that was identified in the General Plan Program EIR and would
therefore be consistent with the effects of implementation of the General Plan and no further analysis is
required.
Threshold (e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks
or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
General Plan Significance Determination: No Impact. The General Plan Program EIR determined that the
City of Newport Beach is almost entirely built out with established utility services and new development
would not require the use of septic tanks. No impact would occur.
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from
previous analysis.
The project site is within a fully developed commercial office complex. The Project would connect to utility
infrastructure and would not use septic tanks. As a result, no impacts associated with the use of septic
tanks would occur as part of the proposed Project’s implementation. Therefore, no further analysis is
required.
Threshold (f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or
site or unique geologic feature?
General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR
identified that potential impacts to paleontological resources would be a less than significant with
compliance with General Plan policies and Newport Beach City Council Paleontological Guidelines (K-4).
The City has known significant paleontological resources, including portions of the Vaqueros formation
that underlie the Newport Coast, Newport Banning Ranch, the Topanga and Monterey Formations, and
Fossil Canyon in the North Bluffs area. Ground-disturbing activities associated with the buildout of the
General Plan would have the potential to damage or destroy paleontological resources that may be
present below the surface. Damage or destruction to these resources could cause a significant impact.
General Plan Policy HR 2.1 and Policy NR 18.1 require any new development to protect and preserve
archaeological resources from destruction, and that potential impacts to such resources be avoided and
minimized through planning policies and permit conditions. Other policies under Goal HR 2 and Goal
NR 18 ensure that information resources are maintained regarding these resources and that grading and
excavation activities where there is a potential to affect cultural or archaeological resources be monitored
by a qualified archaeologist. Additionally, the Newport Beach City Council Paleontological Guidelines (K-4)
requires the City to prepare and maintain sources of information regarding paleontological sites.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
74 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Compliance with policies within Goal NR 18 and the policies under Goal HR 2 would reduce this impact to
a less than significant level.
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from
previous analysis.
There are no known unique paleontological resources of unique geologic features on the project site. The
proposed Project would adhere to the General Plan policies under Goals HR 2 and NR 18 should ground-
disturbing activities that may impact previously undisturbed grounds. The proposed Project would comply
with the City’s “Paleontological Guidelines (K-5).” Set forth in SC GEO-3. Therefore, impacts would be less
than significant, and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation
of an EIR.
Mitigation Program
General Plan Policies
The General Plan Program EIR identifies General Plan policies that would address potential impacts to
soils and geological resources. The following policies are applicable to the proposed Project and would be
made conditions of approval.
▪ S 4.7 – New Development: Conduct further seismic studies for new development in areas where
potentially active faults may occur.
▪ NR 3.9 - Water Quality Management Plan: Require new development applications to include a
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to minimize runoff from rainfall events during
construction and post-construction.
▪ NR 3.10 - Best Management Practices: Implement and improve upon Best Management Practices
(BMPs) for residences, businesses, development projects, and City operations.
▪ NR 3.11 - Site Design and Source Control: Include site design and source control BMPs in all
developments. When the combination of site design and source control BMPs are not sufficient to
protect water quality as required by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES),
structural treatment BMPs will be implemented along with site design and source control
measures.
▪ NR 3.12 - Reduction of Infiltration: Include equivalent BMPs that do not require infiltration,
where infiltration of runoff would exacerbate geologic hazards.
▪ NR 3.15 - Street Drainage Systems: Require all street drainage systems and other physical
improvements created by the City, or developers of new subdivisions, to be designed,
constructed, and maintained to minimize adverse impacts on water quality. Investigate the
possibility of treating or diverting street drainage to minimize impacts to water bodies.
▪ NR 3.20 - Impervious Surfaces: Require new development and public improvements to minimize
the creation of and increases in impervious surfaces, especially directly connected impervious
areas, to the maximum extent practicable. Require redevelopment to increase area of pervious
surfaces, where feasible.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
75 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
▪ NR 4.4 - Erosion Minimization: Require grading/erosion control plans with structural BMPs that
prevent or minimize erosion during and after construction for development on steep slopes,
graded, or disturbed areas.
▪ HR 2.1 - New Development Activities: Require that, in accordance with CEQA, new development
protect and preserve paleontological and archaeological resources from destruction and avoid and
mitigate impacts to such resources. Through planning policies and permit conditions, ensure the
preservation of significant archeological and paleontological resources and require that the
impact caused by any development be mitigated in accordance with CEQA.
▪ HR 2.2 - Grading and Excavation Activities: Require a qualified paleontologist/archeologist to
monitor all grading and/or excavation where there is a potential to affect cultural, archeological
or paleontological resources. If these resources are found, the applicant shall implement the
recommendations of the paleontologist/archeologist, subject to the approval of the City Planning
Department.
▪ HR 2.4 - Paleontological or Archaeological Materials: Require new development to donate
scientifically valuable paleontological or archaeological materials to a responsible public or private
institution with a suitable repository, located within Newport Beach, or Orange County, whenever
possible.
▪ NR 18.1 - New Development: Require new development to protect and preserve paleontological
and archaeological resources from destruction, and avoid and minimize impacts to such resources
in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. Through planning policies and permit conditions,
ensure the preservation of significant archeological and paleontological resources and require
that the impact caused by any development be mitigated in accordance with CEQA.
▪ NR 18.3 - Potential for New Development to Impact Resources: Require new development, where
on-site preservation and avoidance are not feasible, to donate scientifically valuable
paleontological or archaeological materials to a responsible public or private institution with a
suitable repository, located within Newport Beach or Orange County, whenever possible.
▪ NR 18.4 - Donation of Materials: Require new development, where on-site preservation and
avoidance are not feasible, to donate scientifically valuable paleontological or archaeological
materials to a responsible public or private institution with a suitable repository, located within
Newport Beach or Orange County, whenever possible.
Standard Conditions and Requirements
SC GEO-1 The Project is required to comply with City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, Chapter
15.10, Excavation and Grading Code. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the City
of Newport Beach Deputy Community Development Director/Building Official or his/her
designee shall review the grading plan for conformance with the conceptual grading
shown on the approved site development plan submittal. The grading plans shall be
accompanied by geological and soils engineering reports and shall incorporate all
information as required by the City.
SC GEO-2 The Project is required to comply with General Plan Safety Element Policies S 4.1 through
S 4.6, which require new development to be in compliance with the most recent seismic
and other geologic hazard safety standards, and help protect community health and
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
76 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
safety through the implementation of effective, state-of-the-art standards for seismic
design of structures.
SC GEO-3 In compliance with City Council Policy K-4, prior to the issuance of a grading permit by the
City of Newport Beach, the Applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist to be available
on-call during ground-disturbing activities onsite and provide documentation of such
retention to the City of Newport Beach Community Development Director. If fossils are
encountered, all construction work within 50 feet of the find shall cease, and the
paleontologist shall assess the find for importance. Construction activities may continue
in other areas. If, in consultation with the City, the discovery is determined to not be
important, work will be permitted to continue in the area. Any resource shall be curated
at a public, nonprofit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the
Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County or the Cooper Center (a partnership
between California State University, Fullerton and the County of Orange).
Cumulative Impacts
As discussed above, the proposed Project would not cause a new geologic impact to occur, nor an increase
in the severity of a geologic impact previously disclosed in the General Plan Program EIR, with adherence
to the Standard Conditions discussed in this section. Implementation of the proposed Project would not
alter the conclusions of the General Plan Program EIR analysis and would not result in a new or
substantially more severe project-specific or cumulative geologic impact than those already analyzed.
Conclusion
Accordingly, no new impacts relative to geology and soils or a substantial increase in the severity of a
previously identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would occur. With
regard to PRC Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the Project would not result in
any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts. Additionally, no new
information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time
the General Plan Program EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of less than
significant with mitigation. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not
warranted.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
77 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Threshold (a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that
may have a significant impact on the environment?
General Plan Significance Determination: The General Plan Program EIR did not evaluate the effects of
greenhouse gas (GHG) emission generation. At the time of approval of the General Plan Program EIR, the
contribution of GHG emissions to climate change was a prominent issue of concern. On March 18, 2010,
amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines took effect which set forth requirements for the analysis of
GHG emissions under CEQA. Since the EIR has already been certified, the determination of whether GHG
emissions and climate change needs to be analyzed for this specific development is governed by the law
on supplemental or subsequent EIRs (PRC §21166 and CEQA Guidelines §§15162 and 15163). GHG
emissions and climate change are not required to be analyzed under those standards unless it constitutes
“new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the
time” the General Plan Program EIR was approved (State CEQA Guidelines §15162(a)(3)).
The issue of GHG emissions and climate change impacts is not new information that was not known or
could not have been known at the time of the certification of the General Plan Program EIR. The United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was established in 1992. The regulation of GHG
emissions to reduce climate change impacts was extensively debated and analyzed throughout the early
1990s. The studies and analyses of this issue resulted in the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997.
Therefore, the fact that GHG emissions could have a significant adverse environmental impact was known
at the time the General Plan was approved and the General Plan Program EIR was certified. When the
Housing Element was updated in 2013, the City analyzed GHG emissions and found that the Housing
Element would have less than significant impacts with respect to this threshold.
Although the City finds that GHG impacts and climate change is not “new information” under PRC Section
21166, the following analysis for the proposed Project is provided for informational purposes.
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: Less than significant impact.
The Project would allow for 312 residential apartments, including 299 market-rate units and 13 very-low
income affordable units. The proposed Project would not include any acreage changes or increase the
overall development capacity of the allowable uses in the MU-H2 designated areas as analyzed in the
General Plan Program EIR. Therefore, the proposed land uses would be within the development capacity
analyzed in the General Plan Program EIR.
Construction GHG Emissions
The proposed Project would result in direct emissions of GHGs from construction activities. The
approximate quantity of daily GHG emissions generated by construction equipment associated with the
Project is identified in Table 3.7-1, Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions. As shown in the
table, Project construction would result in the generation of approximately 3,250 metric tons of CO2e
(carbon dioxide equivalent) over the course of construction. Once construction is complete, the
generation of these GHG emissions would cease. The SCAQMD recommends that construction emissions
be amortized over a 30-year project lifetime. Therefore, projected GHGs from construction have been
quantified and amortized over 30 years. The amortized construction emissions are added to the annual
average operational emissions.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
78 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Table 3-7.1. Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Construction Year MTCO2e
2021 (Parking Structure) 139
2022 (Parking Structure) 30
2022 (Residential Building) 1,208
2023 (Residential Building) 1,308
2024 (Residential Building) 395
Total Construction 3,250
30-Year Amortized Construction 103
Source: CalEEMod version 2016.3.2. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs.
Operations GHG Emissions
Table 3.7-2, Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions summarizes the GHG emissions associated with Project
operations. As shown, the proposed Project would generate approximately 2,585 metric tons of CO2e
annually.
Table 3.7-2. Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Emissions Source MTCO2e per Year
Construction Amortized Over 30 Years (Parking and Residential Building) 103
Energy (Parking Structure) 146
Area Source (Residential Building) 69
Energy (Residential Building) 890
Mobile (Residential Building) 1,233
Waste (Residential Building) 36
Water and Wastewater (Residential Building) 107
Total 2,585
Bright Line Threshold 3,000
Source: CalEEMod version 2016.3.2. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs.
As identified in Table 3.7-2, the SCAQMD’s interim screening level numeric bright‐line threshold of 3,000
metric tons of CO2e annually would not be exceeded. The proposed Project’s cumulative contribution to
GHG emissions is therefore less than significant. Water demand, wastewater generation and solid waste
generation, and energy demand would increase due to the introduction of up to 312 multi-family rental
units at the Koll Center Newport. However, the units would be within the overall 2,200 maximum multi-
family units for the Airport Area identified in the General Plan. As previously addressed in this Addendum,
the General Plan evaluated 4,300 multi-family units in the Airport Area. Therefore, implementation of the
proposed Project would not result in a substantial increase in GHG emissions had the evaluation been
provided in the General Plan Program EIR.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
79 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Threshold (b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
The City of Newport Beach Energy Action Plan outlines goals to reduce energy consumption and GHG
emissions to become a more sustainable community and to meet Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) goals. Goals
include:
▪ Meet and exceed AB 32 energy reduction goals;
▪ Be an example for energy efficiency and sustainability at City facilities;
▪ Continue interacting, educating, and informing the community about energy efficiency and GHG
emissions;
▪ Explore the newest "green" technologies and methods to decrease future energy dependency; and
▪ Explore renewable energy recourses (not limited to solar) and possible financing based on available
grants/rebates.
The proposed Project would be required to comply with all building codes in effect at the time of
construction which include energy conservation measures mandated by Title 24 of the California Building
Standards Code – Energy Efficiency Standards (refer to SC GHG-1) and the California Green Building
Standards (refer to SC GHG-2). Because Title 24 standards require energy conservation features in new
construction (e.g., high‐efficiency lighting, high‐efficiency heating, ventilating, and air‐conditioning
(HVAC) systems, thermal insulation, double‐glazed windows, water-conserving plumbing fixtures), these
standards indirectly regulate and reduce GHG emissions. California's Building Energy Efficiency Standards
are updated on an approximately three‐year cycle. The most recent 2019 standards went into effect
January 1, 2020. Although the City’s Energy Plan is primarily focused on reducing municipal energy
consumption, the proposed Project would not conflict with the community-wide energy use goals of the
plan. As discussed in Section 3.5, Energy, the Project’s energy impacts would be less than significant.
Further, the Project would be below the SCAQMD’s GHG threshold and would comply with the City’s
General Plan policies, and State Building Code provisions designed to reduce GHG emissions. In addition,
the proposed Project would comply with all SCAQMD applicable rules and regulations during construction
of the operational phase and would not interfere with the State’s goals of reducing GHG emission to 1990
levels by 2020 as stated AB 32. In addition, when the Housing Element was updated in 2013, the City
analyzed GHG emissions and found that the Housing Element would have less than significant impacts
with respect to this threshold.
In accordance with AB 32 and SB 32, CARB’s Scoping Plan outlines the State’s strategy to achieve 1990
level emissions by year 2020 and a 40 percent reduction from 1990 emissions by year 2030. The CARB
Scoping Plan has been the primary tool to develop performance-based and efficiency-based CEQA criteria
and GHG reduction targets for climate action planning efforts.
Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions in the latest 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan include
implementing SB 350, which expands the Renewables Portfolio Standard to 50 percent by 2030 and
doubles energy efficiency savings; expanding the Low Carbon Fuel Standard to 18 percent by 2030;
implementing the Mobile Source Strategy to deploy zero-electric vehicle buses and trucks;
implementation of the Sustainable Freight Action Plan; implementation of the Short-Lived Climate
Pollutant Reduction Strategy, which reduces methane and hydrofluorocarbons 40 percent below 2013
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
80 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
levels by 2030 and black carbon emissions 50 percent below 2013 levels by 2030; continuing to implement
SB 375; creation of a post-2020 Cap-and-Trade Program; and development of an Integrated Natural and
Working Lands Action Plan to secure California’s land base as a net carbon sink. Statewide GHG emissions
reduction measures that are being implemented as a result of the Scoping Plan would reduce the
proposed Project’s GHG emissions.
Additionally, approximately 91 percent of the project’s emissions are from energy and mobile sources
which would be further reduced by the 2017 Scoping Plan measures described above. It should be noted
that the City has no control over vehicle emissions (approximately 60 percent of the project’s total
emissions). However, these emissions would decline in the future due to statewide measures including
the reduction in the carbon content of fuels, CARB’s advanced clean car program, CARB’s mobile source
strategy, fuel efficiency standards, cleaner technology, and fleet turnover. Additionally, SCAG’s RTP/SCS
is also expected to help California reach its GHG reduction goals, with reductions in per capita
transportation emissions of 8 percent by 2020 and 19 percent by 2035.10 The Project is an infill residential
development within Koll Center Newport and near other large employment areas such as Newport Center
and the Irvine Business Center, which could reduce the need to travel long distances for some residents
and reducing associated GHG emissions.11
Regarding goals for 2050 under Executive Order S-3-05, at this time it is not possible to quantify the
emissions savings from future regulatory measures, as they have not yet been developed. Nevertheless,
it can be anticipated that operation of the proposed Project would benefit from the implementation of
current and potential future regulations (e.g., improvements in vehicle emissions, SB 100/renewable
electricity portfolio improvements, etc.) enacted to meet an 80 percent reduction below 1990 levels by
2050.
Therefore, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on GHG emissions. Consistent
with Title 24, AB 32, SB 32, and the Energy Action Plan, the proposed Project would not conflict with any
applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions.
Impacts would be less than significant.
The GHG emissions associated with the land uses assumed in the General Plan Program EIR would be
reduced through compliance with statewide measures that have been adopted since AB 32 and SB 32
were adopted, inclusive of the proposed Project. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with
the above statewide strategies identified to implement the CARB Scoping Plan. Therefore, there are no
changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR.
10 Southern California Association of Governments, 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy,
September 3, 2020, p. 9.
11 The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures (August 2010)
identifies that infill developments, such as the proposed Project reduce vehicle miles traveled which reduces fuel
consumption. Infill projects such as the proposed Project would have an improved location efficiency.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
81 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Mitigation Program
General Plan Policies
The following policies are applicable to the proposed Project and would be made conditions of approval.
▪ NR 6.1 – Walkable Neighborhoods: Provide for walkable neighborhoods to reduce vehicle trips by
siting amenities such as services, parks, and schools in close proximity to residential areas.
▪ NR 6.2 – Mixed-Use Development: Support mixed-use development consisting of commercial or
office with residential uses in accordance with the Land Use Element that increases the opportunity
for residents to live in proximity to jobs, services, and entertainment.
▪ NR 6.4 – Transportation Demand Management Ordinance: Implement the Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) Ordinance, which promotes and encourages the use of alternative
transportation modes, and provides those facilities such as bicycle lanes that support such alternate
modes.
▪ NR 7.1 – Fuel Efficient Equipment: Support the use of fuel-efficient heating equipment and other
appliances.
▪ NR 7.2 – Source Emission Reduction Best Management Practices: Require the use of Best
Management Practices (BMP) to minimize pollution and to reduce source emissions.
▪ NR 8.1 – Management of Construction Activities to Reduce Air Pollution: Require developers to use
and operate construction equipment, use building materials and paints, and control dust created by
construction activities to minimize air pollutants.
▪ NR 24.1 – Incentives for Energy Conservation: Develop incentives that encourage the use of energy
conservation strategies by private and public developments.
▪ NR 24.2 – Energy-Efficient Design Features: Promote energy-efficient design features.
▪ NR 24.3 – Incentives for Green Building Program Implementation: Promote or provide incentives
for “Green Building” programs that go beyond the requirements of Title 24 of the California
Administrative Code and encourage energy-efficient design elements as appropriate to achieve
“green building” status.
Standard Conditions and Requirements
SC GHG‐1 Prior to issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall be required to demonstrate to
the Community Development Department, Building Division that building plans meet the
applicable Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential
Buildings (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 24, Part 6). These standards are
updated, nominally every three years, to incorporate improved energy efficiency
technologies and methods.
SC GHG‐2 Prior to issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall be required to demonstrate to
the Community Development Department, Building Division that building plans meet the
applicable California Green Building Standards (CalGreen) Code (24 CCR 11).
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
82 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Cumulative Impacts
Because of the global nature of climate change, most projects will not result in GHG emissions that are
individually significant. Therefore, it is accepted as very unlikely that any individual development project
or General Plan would have GHG emissions of a magnitude to directly impact global climate change and
the impact of the proposed Project is considered on a cumulative basis. The Project’s cumulative
contribution of GHG emissions would be less than significant and the Project’s cumulative GHG impacts
would also be less than cumulatively considerable and potential impacts are considered less than
significant.
Conclusion
As discussed above, the proposed Project would not cause a new GHG impact nor an increase in the
severity of GHG impacts. Therefore, the proposed Project would not cause either a new cumulative impact
to occur, nor an increase in the severity of a cumulative impact previously disclosed.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
83 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Threshold (a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. As identified in the General Plan
Program EIR, implementation of the General Plan would have a less than significant impact related to the
public with respect to hazardous materials. General Plan Policy S 7.6 requires that all users, producers,
and transporters of hazardous materials and wastes clearly identify the materials that they store, use, or
transport, and to notify the appropriate City, County, State and federal agencies in the event of a violation.
Oversight by the appropriate federal, State, and local agencies and compliance by new development with
applicable regulations related to the handling and storage of hazardous materials would minimize the risk
of the public’s potential exposure to these substances. Therefore, impacts were considered less than
significant.
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from
previous analysis.
Exposure of the public or the environment to hazardous materials can occur through transportation
accidents; environmentally unsound disposal methods; improper handling of hazardous materials or
hazardous wastes (particularly by untrained personnel); and/or emergencies, such as explosions or fires.
The severity of these potential effects varies by type of activity, concentration and/or type of hazardous
materials or wastes, and proximity to sensitive receptors.
The proposed Project, similar to all development pursuant to the General Plan, would be required to
comply with regulations and standards established by applicable regulatory agencies, including the
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the U.S. EPA, and OSHA. Compliance with applicable laws
and regulations governing the use, storage, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials would
ensure that the proposed Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, storage, production, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
Upon development of the project site, hazardous materials would be limited to those associated with
common household fertilizers, pesticides, paint, solvent, and petroleum products. Because these
materials would be used in very limited quantities, they are not considered a significant hazard to the
public. The proposed Project’s impact on creating significant hazards to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant.
Therefore, similar to the General Plan Program EIR, impacts would be less than significant and there are
no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR. No new impact would result, nor would
the impact previously identified be any more severe as a result of the proposed Project. Therefore, the
proposed Project would be consistent with the effects of implementation of the General Plan.
Threshold (b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR
concluded that compliance with existing regulations of the County Environmental Health Division, County
Department of Toxic Substances Control, and Regional Water Quality Control Board and General Plan
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
84 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Policies S 7.1 and S 7.4 would reduce impacts related to the release of hazardous materials into the
environment. Compliance with Titles 8, 22, 26, and 49 of the CCR, and their enabling legislation in
Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code, would ensure that this impact is less than significant
by requiring compliance with applicable laws and regulations that would reduce the risk of hazardous
materials use, transportation, and handling through the implementation of established safety practices,
procedures, and reporting requirements.
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from
previous analysis.
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (EMS, June 2020) was prepared for the proposed Project. No
recognized environmental conditions at the project site were identified. One historical recognized
environmental condition (HREC) was identified for a leaking underground storage tank associated with
4910 Birch Street parking lot in 1993. Remediation occurred and the case was closed in 2002. A Controlled
Recognized Environmental Conditions (CREC) was identified at 4311 Jamboree Road at the TowerJazz
Semiconductor (formerly Conexant Systems, Inc.) site, approximately 0.5 mile south of the project site.
Remediation efforts were ongoing between 2005 and 2016. That property is also undergoing a pilot test
study for enhanced in-place bioremediation for remediation of contaminants of concern in groundwater.
The Phase I concluded that the TowerJazz Semiconductor facility is a CREC in connection with the project
site. The proposed Project would not impact or otherwise hinder remediation efforts at the TowerJazz
Semiconductor site and would not exacerbate risk of exposure to hazards associated with that off-site
property.
No new impact would result, nor would the impact previously identified be any more severe as a result of
the proposed Project. Therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent with the effects of
implementation of the General Plan.
Threshold (c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR
noted that areas of concerns for hazardous materials sites near schools were Hixson Metal Finishing, Big
Canyon Reservoir, and San Joaquin Reservoir. Although hazardous materials and waste generated from
future development may pose a health risk to nearby schools, all businesses that handle or have on-site
transportation of hazardous materials would be required to comply with the provisions of the City’s Fire
Code and any additional elements as required in the California Health and Safety Code Article 1 Chapter
6.95 for Business Emergency Plan. Additionally, the General Plan Safety Element includes Policy S 7.5,
which requires that strict land use controls, performance standards, and structure design standards,
including development setbacks from sensitive uses such as schools, hospitals, daycare facilities, elder
care facilities, residential uses, and other sensitive uses, be developed and implemented for uses which
generate or use hazardous materials. Compliance with the provisions of the City’s Fire Code and
implementation of Policy S 7.5 in the Safety Element of the General Plan would minimize the risks
associated with the exposure of sensitive receptors to hazardous materials. Impacts were considered less
than significant.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
85 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from
previous analysis.
There are no schools within 0.25 mile of the project site. Accordingly, no new impacts relative to proximity
to schools or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated
in the General Plan Program EIR would occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance
that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was
certified is available that would impact the prior finding of less than significant impact.
Threshold (d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials
sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and as a result, would
create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR
notes that the City has sites that have been identified as being contaminated from the release of
hazardous substances in the soil, including oilfields, landfills, sites containing leaking underground storage
tanks, and large and small-quantity generators of hazardous waste. Future development at contaminated
sites would be required to undergo remediation and clean up consistent with the requirements of the
California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and the Santa Ana RWQCB. General Plan
Policy S 7.1 requires proponents of projects in known areas of contamination from oil operations or other
uses to perform comprehensive soil and groundwater contamination assessments in accordance with
American Society for Testing and Materials standards. The General Plan Program EIR found that
compliance with all applicable regulatory standards would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from
previous analysis.
The project site is not identified on the Cortese List, which is the list of hazardous materials sites that is
compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the California Government Code. In addition to the Cortese List,
federal, State and local governmental agencies maintain other lists of sites where hazardous materials
may be present or used. The Phase I ESA includes a database search report, which is provided as an
appendix to the Phase I ESA. Based this review, the Phase I ESA determined that the project site was not
listed in any of the hazardous materials databases reviewed. As previously addressed, a number of listings
were identified that are proximate to the project site but were determined to not be considered an
environmental concern. Accordingly, no new impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of a
previously identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would occur.
Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been
known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior
finding of less than significant impact.
Threshold (e) Would the project be located within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR
identifies that John Wayne Airport is the nearest airport to Newport Beach. John Wayne Airport generates
nearly all aviation traffic directly above the City of Newport Beach due to flight paths and descent patterns.
All land uses surrounding the airport are required to comply and be compatible with the land use
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
86 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
standards established in the City’s Municipal Code and the Airport Land Use Commission’s (ALUC) Airport
Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport. The General Plan identifies a goal to protect
residents, property, and the environment from aviation-related hazards, and lists General Plan Policies S
8.1 through S 8.4 to ensure preparation and minimize risk in the case of an aviation accident. The entire
Airport Area is within the Height Restriction Zone designated in the AELUP. General Plan LU Policy 6.15.24
requires that all development be constructed within the height limits and residential development be
located outside of areas exposed to the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour specified by the AELUP, unless the
City Council makes appropriate findings for an override in accordance with applicable law. If City Council
overrides AELUP decision, then a possibility for residential development within the 65 dBA CNEL noise
contour could occur. Therefore, if residential development is constructed within the 65 dBA CNEL noise
contour, the potential increase for safety hazards associated with the airport would be considered a
significant impact. However, if development occurs outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour and
complies with existing regulations and General Plan policies, then impacts would be minimized. Impacts
on new uses outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour would be considered less than significant
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from
previous analysis.
The project site is approximately 0.44 mile southeast of John Wayne Airport and is in the AELUP for the
John Wayne Airport. As previously noted, the AELUP identifies safety and compatibility zones that depict
which land uses are acceptable and unacceptable in various portions of AELUP Safety Zones 1 through 6.
The project site is in Safety Zone 6, which allows residential uses and most nonresidential uses other than
outdoor stadiums, children’s schools, daycare centers, hospitals, and nursing homes. Safety Zone 6 has a
“generally low likelihood of accident occurrence at most airports; risk concern primarily is with uses for
which potential consequences are severe.” Safety Zone 6 includes all other portions of regular traffic
patterns and pattern entry routes.” The project site is in the Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77
Obstruction Imaginary Surface Zone and the FAR Part 77 Notification Area of John Wayne Airport, as
identified in the AELUP for John Wayne Airport. Per FAR Part 77, Section 77.13(a), notice to the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) is required for any proposed structure more than 200 feet above the ground
level of its site. The project site is not located within the AELUP’s 65 dBA CNEL noise contour.
The proposed development has a maximum height of 71 to the top of the parapet (the PC Text would
permit development up to 75 feet). The proposed Project is consistent with the allowable uses under the
AELUP Safety Zone 6 and is under the 200 feet height limit for the AELUP and for FAA Part 77 notification.
Therefore, with the proposed Project’s compliance with regulations specified in the AELUP, the proposed
Project, similar to development pursuant to the General Plan, would have a less than significant impact.
Therefore, there are no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR.
Threshold (f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The City of Newport Beach
Emergency Management Plan guides responses to emergency situations associated with natural disasters,
technological incidents, and nuclear defense operations. In addition, the General Plan Safety Element also
contains Policies S 9.1, S 9.2, and S 9.3 to ensure that the City’s Emergency Management Plan is regularly
updated, provides for efficient and orderly citywide evacuation, and also ensures that emergency services
personnel are familiar with the relevant response plans applicable to the City. Implementation of General
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
87 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Plan policies would reduce impacts associated with emergency response and evacuation in the City to a
less than significant level.
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from
previous analysis.
The proposed Project would not impair or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response or
evacuation plan, including the City of Newport Beach Emergency Operations Plan (EOP). The EOP
identifies evacuation routes, emergency facilities, and City personnel and describes the overall
responsibilities of federal, State, regional, Operational Area, and City entities. No revisions to the adopted
EOP would be required as a result of the proposed Project. Primary access to all major roads would be
maintained during construction of the Project and no evacuation routes would be impacted during Project
implementation. Adherence to all applicable regulations and General Plan policies would result in a less
than significant impact with respect to interference with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan. No new impact would result, nor would the impact previously identified be
any more severe as a result of the proposed Project. Therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent
with the effects of implementation of the General Plan.
Threshold (g) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas?
General Plan Significance Determination:
Refer to Section 3.18, Wildfire. There are no impacts and no changes or new significant information that
would require preparation of an EIR.
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination:
Refer to Section 3.18, Wildfire. There are no impacts and no changes or new significant information that
would require preparation of an EIR.
Mitigation Program
Relevant General Plan Policies
The following policies are applicable to the proposed Project and would be made conditions of approval.
▪ LU 6.15.24 - Airport Compatibility: Require that all development be constructed within the height
limits and residential be located outside of areas exposed to the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour
specified by the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP), unless the City Council makes appropriate
findings for an override in accordance with applicable law.
▪ S 7.4 - Implementation of Remediation Efforts: Minimize the potential risk of contamination to
surface water and groundwater resources and implement remediation efforts to any resources
adversely impacted by urban activities.
Cumulative Impacts
Impacts associated with hazardous materials are often site-specific and localized. The EIR evaluates RECs
in connection with the project site and surrounding area. While impacts are minimized with
implementation of General Plan policies, impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials were
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
88 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
considered less than significant and no mitigation was required under the General Plan Program EIR. As
identified in the General Plan Program EIR, the General Plan would continue to develop new land uses in
the City, possibly exposing persons to hazardous materials through improper handling or use of hazardous
materials or hazardous wastes during construction or operation of future developments, or proposed land
uses in areas that would create hazards for people working or residing in the area. However, compliance
with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations related to hazardous materials on a project-by-
project basis would ensure that the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would not
result in adverse impacts. All demolition activities that would involve asbestos or lead-based paint would
also occur in compliance with SCAQMD Rule 1403 and OSHA Construction Safety Orders, which would
ensure that hazardous materials impacts would be less than significant. With adherence to applicable
federal, State, and local regulations governing hazardous materials and compliance with the General Plan
policies, the potential risks associated with hazardous wastes in the area would be less than significant.
Implementation of the proposed Project would not alter the conclusions of the General Plan Program EIR
analysis and would not result in a new or substantially more severe project-specific or cumulative hazards
impact than those already analyzed.
Conclusion
As discussed above, the proposed Project would not cause a new hazardous materials impact to occur,
nor an increase in the severity of a hazardous material impact previously disclosed in the General Plan
Program EIR, with compliance with all state and local regulations, along with General Plan policies
discussed in this section. Therefore, the proposed Project would not cause either a new cumulative impact
to occur, nor an increase in the severity of a cumulative impact previously disclosed.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
89 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
Threshold (a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements
or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR
concluded that during construction and operations of future development would result in a less than
significant impact related to violations of water quality standards. Areas that disturb one or more acres of
land surface are subject to the Construction General Permit adopted by the SWRCB. Preparation of a
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required for compliance with the NPDES General
Construction Stormwater Activity Permit. Certain projects require the preparation of a Water Quality
Management Plan (WQMP). Construction would also need to comply with the requirements of Chapter
14.36 of the City’s Municipal Code. Under the provisions of this chapter, any discharge that would result
in or contribute to degradation of water quality via stormwater runoff is prohibited. New development or
redevelopment projects are required to comply with provisions in the Orange County Drainage Area
Management Plan (DAMP), including the implementation of appropriate BMPs to control stormwater
runoff so as to prevent any deterioration of water quality that would impair subsequent or competing
beneficial uses of the water. Impacts were considered less than significant.
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from
previous analysis.
The proposed Project would create new types of pollutant sources associated with residential
development that could alter the types of constituents or levels of pollutants contained in post-developed
site runoff. In order to reduce the amount of pollutants in storm water runoff from the proposed Project
and to minimize associated hydrologic and water quality impacts, BMPs are required to be implemented
in accordance with City, State, and RWQCB standards, set forth in SC WQ-1, SC WQ-2, and SC WQ-3.
Construction of the proposed Project, similar to construction associated with development analyzed and
assumed under the General Plan, would be subject to the Construction General Permit, the requirements
of Chapter 14.36 of the City’s Municipal Code, the Orange County DAMP, and the General Plan policies.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and there are no changes or new information requiring
preparation of an EIR.
Threshold (b) Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The City is not located within an
identified recharge area, as recharge primarily occurs in the upper portions of the Orange County
Groundwater Basin. Groundwater table depths could occur as shallow as 50 feet. Development footprints
could encounter groundwater, although support and foundation structures in the groundwater would not
displace enough volume to be considered substantial. Construction activities were considered to not
substantially deplete groundwater supplies nor interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. The
City’s Water Supply Plan, which assumed the demand associated with General Plan buildout, identifies
that that projected groundwater supplies would meet projected demand throughout the City. The Natural
Resources Element of the General Plan identifies goals and related policies designed to minimize water
consumption and expand the use of alternative water sources to provide adequate water supplies for
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
90 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
present use and future growth. According to the City of Newport Beach’s 2005 Urban Water Management
Plan referenced in the General Plan Program EIR, water supplies would continue to meet the City’s
imported water needs until 2030. OCWD, which provides the groundwater supply to the City, projects
that there would be sufficient groundwater supplies to meet any future demand requirements in Newport
Beach. Impacts were considered less than significant.
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from
previous analysis.
The proposed Project could create additional impervious surfaces; however, similar to the development
assumed under the General Plan, the Project would occur in an already developed area and would not
substantially decrease groundwater recharge. The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan
and zoning designations and therefore the residential development envisioned for the project site would
have been accounted for in the City’s Water Supply Plan, which finds there is groundwater available for
the growth proposed in the General Plan. Additionally, there are no public water wells located on the
project site and groundwater is not drawn from the area.
As previously noted, the project site is within the service area of IRWD. As it applies to the proposed
Project, the IRWD UWMP is the applicable planning document for evaluating water supply and demand.
According to the IRWD UWMP, IRWD’s 2015 water supply was approximately 92,220 AF, which was
combination of 18,696 AF of imported water, 2,826 AF of surface water, 50,833 AF of groundwater and
22,866 AF of reclaimed water. IRWD’s anticipates a water supply surplus in 2025 of 51,558 acre-feet per
year (AFY). The proposed Project’s water demand of 98.9 AFY would represent less than one percent of
IRWD’s anticipated water surplus for 2025 during a normal year and would not substantially decrease
groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may
impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. Therefore, implementation of the proposed
Project would not deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge, any greater than
already analyzed in the General Plan Program EIR and this impact would be less than significant. This is
consistent with the impact conclusions of the General Plan Program EIR.
Threshold (c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) Result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site.
General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. Refer to Section threshold (a)
above. Impacts would be less than significant and there are no changes or new information requiring
preparation of an EIR.
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from
previous analysis.
The project site is currently developed as a surface parking lot. The proposed storm drain system would
largely maintain the same existing drainage patterns, and connectivity. The construction of the proposed
Project would not increase the overall drainage areas from existing to the proposed condition. Clearing,
grading, excavation, and construction activities associated with the Project may impact water quality by
induced sheet erosion of exposed soils and the subsequent deposition of particulates in local drainages.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
91 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Grading activities and sediment stockpiles can lead to exposed areas of loose soil that are susceptible to
uncontrolled sheet flow and wind erosion. In compliance with NPDES regulations, the State of California
requires that any construction activity disturbing one acre or more of soil comply with the General
Construction Activity Storm Water Permit (Construction General Permit). The permit requires
development and implementation of a SWPPP and monitoring plan, which must include erosion-control
and sediment-control BMPs that would meet or exceed measures required by the Construction General
Permit to control potential construction-related pollutants.
Therefore, implementation of the General Plan policies and compliance with NPDES regulations and the
City’s Municipal Code would reduce the risk of substantial erosion or siltation on or off-site from drainage
alterations to less than significant. Therefore, no changes or new information require preparation of an
EIR.
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site.
General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR
noted that increased impervious surfaces would increase stormwater runoff in the City. This increased
runoff could exceed the capacity of existing and planned infrastructure and cause downstream flooding
impacts. Several General Plan policies are intended to reduce stormwater runoff would also apply to
runoff-related flooding impacts. These policies include NR 3.10, NR 3.11, NR 4.4, NR 3.20, S 5.3, NR 3.16,
and NR 3.21. These policies require preparation of a WQMP, implementation of BMPs, incorporation of
stormwater detention facilities, design of drainage facilities to minimize adverse effects on water quality,
minimize increases in impervious areas. Implementation of these policies would also reduce the volume
of runoff generated, and potential for flooding. Compliance with the methods and provisions contained
in Chapter 15.50 of the City’s Municipal Code would also minimize flood hazards resulting from drainage
alterations. Therefore, implementation of General Plan policies and compliance with NPDES regulations,
the City’s Municipal Code, and California Fish and Wildlife regulations would reduce the risk of flooding
resulting from drainage alterations to a less than significant impact
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from
previous analysis.
The project site is currently developed as a surface parking lot. Reuse of the site with a residential building,
parking structure, and park would not increase the rate or amount of surface runoff so that it would result
in flooding on- or off-site or exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. With
implementation of the proposed Project, the pervious condition would increase from 18 percent pervious
and 21 percent.
The Project would require BMPs to treat the drainage associated with the proposed impervious areas of
the project. Implementation of the project would not cause flooding on- or off-site, and impacts on storm
drainage capacity would be less than significant. Therefore, implementation of the General Plan policies
and compliance with NPDES regulations and the City’s Municipal Code would reduce the risk of flooding
resulting from drainage alterations to less than significant. Therefore, no changes or new information
require preparation of an EIR.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
92 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.
General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR
concluded that existing storm drainage facilities at the time would not be able to serve future
development assumed in the General Plan. However, the Public Infrastructure Plan in the General Plan
specifies that the City and County would review the Storm Drain Master Plan to assure that adequate
facilities are provided to serve permitted land use development. Construction of necessary storm drainage
upgrades in and of itself would result in impacts separate from the General Plan. Upgrades, expansion,
and construction of necessary utilities to accommodate new development would be subject to project-
specific environmental review. Impacts were therefore considered less than significant.
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from
previous analysis.
There is an existing storm drain near the southern end of the project site near Von Karman Avenue.
As previously discussed and as identified in Table 3.9-1, Runoff Volume Summary, the proposed Project
would result in the conveyance of less water to the storm drain system because the new development
would reduce the volume of runoff at the project site.
Table 3.9-1. Runoff Volume Summary (2-year, 24-hour storm event)
Drainage
Area
Existing Condition Proposed Condition
Area (acre) Volume (cf) Area (acre) Volume (cf)
A 4.38 2,080 4.21 1,940
B 1.82 884 1.89 947
D 1.18 632 1.18 602
Total 7.36 3,594 7.36 3,489
Cf = cubic feet
Source: Tait & Associates, Inc., 2020.
The proposed storm drain system would maintain the same drainage patterns. Drainage areas south of
the high point would drain to Von Karman Avenue and drainage areas north of the high point would drain
to an existing 60-inch storm drain line located on the east side of the 5000 Birch Street building. There is
an existing underground storm drain in the location of the proposed free-standing parking structure. Two
feasible options are proposed to address constructing a parking structure over a storm drain. Option A
would retain a storm drain under the parking structure. This option would remove approximately 200
linear feet of the existing 60-inch/66-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) within the disturbance area for
the free-standing parking structure. Additionally, a new 66-inch RCP storm drain would be constructed in
the same alignment to match the hydraulic capacity of the existing system while also matching the
ultimate design life of the proposed parking structure. Option B would remove and relocate the storm
drain so that it is not under the parking structure or other permanent buildings or structures. There would
be no impacts and no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
93 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows.
General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR
noted that intensification of development would increase the area of land covered by structures, leaving
less available ground surface area over which flood flows could travel. Several of the nine planning
subareas planned for development as set forth in the General Plan are within the 100-year flood zone.
Parts of Mariners’ Mile, the western portion of Banning Ranch, Balboa Village, Balboa Peninsula, Balboa
Island, and West Newport Highway are susceptible to 100-year flood conditions.
General Plan implementation was not anticipated to substantially increase obstructions to flood flows,
with the exception of potential development at Banning Ranch. A water displacement analysis would be
required to investigate the effect of new structural development or fill on flooding depth, pursuant to
FEMA regulation 44 CFR 60.3 (c)(10). Preparation of water displacement analyses where appropriate and
compliance with FEMA regulations would ensure that General Plan implementation would not
substantially impede or redirect flows. Impacts were considered less than significant.
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from
previous analysis.
The Project site is not within a 100-year flood zone. There would be no impacts and no changes or new
information requiring preparation of an EIR.
Threshold (d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants
due to project inundation?
General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR
addresses potential risks from seiches and tsunamis. Compliance with requirements set forth in the Safety
Element of the General Plan would minimize the impact of flooding, including flooding as a result of seiche
and tsunami inundation. All new development in the City occurring in areas that are subject to flood
hazards would be required to comply with the flood damage prevention provisions of the City’s Municipal
Code. Therefore, risks associated with inundation by seiche, tsunami, and mudflow are considered to be
less than significant.
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from
previous analysis.
The project site is not within a 100-year flood zone, a dam inundation area, or in an area potentially
subject to tsunami or seiches. There would be no impacts and no changes or new information requiring
preparation of an EIR.
Threshold (e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control
plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR
concluded that impacts to water quality control plans or groundwater management plans were less than
significant. The City is under the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana RWQCB, which establishes water quality
objectives and standards for both surface and groundwater of the region, and water quality discharge
requirements. Under the Santa Ana RWQCB’s NPDES permit system, all existing and future municipal and
industrial discharges to surface waters within the City would be subject to regulations. NPDES permits are
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
94 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
required for operators of MS4s, construction projects, and industrial facilities. Developments within the
City would also be subject to the provisions in Chapter 14.36 (Water Quality) of the Municipal Code. Under
the provisions of this chapter, any discharge that would result in or contribute to degradation of water
quality via stormwater runoff is prohibited. Operation of new development or redevelopment projects
are required comply with provisions set forth in the DAMP, including the implementation of appropriate
BMPs identified in the DAMP, to control stormwater runoff so as to prevent any deterioration of water
quality that would impair subsequent or competing beneficial uses of the water.
General Plan Policy NR 3.6 requires that development not result in the degradation of natural water
bodies. The Orange County Water District (OCWD) manages the Orange County Groundwater Basin
through the Groundwater Management Plan. Consistent with the OCWD Groundwater Management Plan,
the Natural Resources Element of the General Plan identifies goals and related policies designed to
minimize water consumption and expand the use of alternative water sources to provide adequate water
supplies for present use and future growth. Implementation of these policies would ensure water
conservation and reduce potential impacts to groundwater supply. Impacts were considered less than
significant.
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from
previous analysis.
Newport Beach is under the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana RWQCB. The Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality
Control Plan is the basis for the RWQCB’s regulatory programs and establishes water quality standards for
the ground and surface waters of the region. As indicated under threshold (a), the proposed Project,
similar to development pursuant to the General Plan, would not violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality, and
would therefore not conflict with the water quality control plan.
OCWD adopted its most recent groundwater management plan in 2015. This plan sets basin management
goals and objectives and describes how the basin is managed. As previously noted the project site is within
the service area of IRWD. According to the IRWD UWMP, IRWD’s 2015 water supply was approximately
92,220 AF, which was combination of 18,696 AF of imported water, 2,826 AF of surface water, 50,833 AF
of groundwater and 22,866 AF of reclaimed water. IRWD’s anticipates a water supply surplus in 2025 of
51,558 AFY. The proposed Project’s water demand of 98.9 AFY would represent less than one percent of
IRWD’s anticipated water surplus for 2025 during a normal year and would not substantially decrease
groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may
impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin.
The Project would implement environmentally sustainable practices including but not limited to water-
efficient landscaping; electric vehicle charging stations; water quality BMPs to treat surface runoff from
the project site; and low impact development (LID) practices. LID, source-control, and treatment-control
BMP features would include but not be limited to an infiltration basin; Modular Wetlands System
(proprietary biotreatment devices) or approved equivalents; vegetated swales; bioretention with
underdrains; and a proprietary Drywell System. Therefore, the proposed Project, similar to development
pursuant to the General Plan, would not degrade groundwater quality, substantially decrease
groundwater supplies, or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. Therefore, impacts would be
less than significant, and there are no changes or new information on requiring preparation of an EIR. No
new impact would result, nor would the impact previously identified be any more severe as a result of the
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
95 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
proposed Project. Therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent with the effects of
implementation of the General Plan.
Mitigation Program
General Plan Policies
The General Plan includes policies that address issues related to hydrology and water quality. The
following policies are applicable to the proposed Project and would be made conditions of approval.
▪ NR 3.2 - Chemical Use Impacts: Support regulations limiting or banning the use insecticides,
fertilizers, and other chemicals which are shown to be detrimental to water quality.
▪ NR 3.3 - Ground Water Contamination: Suspend activities and implement appropriate health and
safety procedures in the event that previously unknown groundwater contamination is encountered
during construction. Where site contamination is identified, implement an appropriate remediation
strategy that is approved by the City and the state agency with appropriate jurisdiction.
▪ NR 3.4 - Storm Drain Sewer System Permit: Require all development to comply with the regulations
under the City’s municipal separate storm drain system permit under the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System.
▪ NR 3.9 - Water Quality Management Plan: Require new development applications to include a Water
Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to minimize runoff from rainfall events during construction and
post-construction.
▪ NR 3.10 - Best Management Practices: Implement and improve upon Best Management Practices
(BMPs) for residences, businesses, development projects, and City operations.
▪ NR 3.11 - Site Design and Source Control: Include site design and source control BMPs in all
developments. When the combination of site design and source control BMPs are not sufficient to
protect water quality as required by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES),
structural treatment BMPs will be implemented along with site design and source control measures.
▪ NR 3.13 - Reduction of Infiltration: Include equivalent BMPs that do not require infiltration, where
infiltration of runoff would exacerbate geologic hazards.
▪ NR 3.14 Runoff Reduction on Private Property. Retain runoff on private property to prevent the
transport of pollutants into natural water bodies, to the maximum extent practicable.
▪ NR 3.15 - Street Drainage Systems: Require all street drainage systems and other physical
improvements created by the City, or developers of new subdivisions, to be designed, constructed,
and maintained to minimize adverse impacts on water quality. Investigate the possibility of treating
or diverting street drainage to minimize impacts to water bodies.
▪ NR 3.17 - Parking Lots and Rights-of-Way: Require that parking lots and public and private
rights-of-way be maintained and cleaned frequently to remove debris and contaminated residue.
▪ NR 3.19 - Natural Drainage Systems: Require incorporation of natural drainage systems and
stormwater detention facilities into new developments, where appropriate and feasible, to retain
stormwater in order to increase groundwater recharge.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
96 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
▪ NR 3.20 - Impervious Surfaces: Require new development and public improvements to minimize the
creation of and increases in impervious surfaces, especially directly connected impervious areas, to
the maximum extent practicable. Require redevelopment to increase area of pervious surfaces,
where feasible.
▪ NR 4.4 - Erosion Minimization: Require grading/erosion control plans with structural BMPs that
prevent or minimize erosion during and after construction for development on steep slopes, graded,
or disturbed areas.
Standard Conditions and Requirements
SC WQ-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, an SWPPP and Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply
with the General Permit for Construction Activities shall be prepared, submitted to the
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), and made part of the construction
program. This SWPPP shall detail measures and practices that would be in effect during
construction to minimize the Project’s impact on water quality and stormwater runoff
volumes
SC WQ-2 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a Water
Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the Project, subject to the approval of the
Community Development Department. The WQMP shall include appropriate BMPs to
ensure project runoff is adequately treated.
SC WQ-3 During construction, if groundwater is unexpectedly encountered, the Applicant shall
apply for dewatering coverage and adhere to the monitoring and reporting program
under the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES).
Cumulative Impacts
As discussed above, the proposed Project would not cause a new hydrological impact to occur, nor an
increase in the severity of a hydrological impact previously disclosed in the General Plan Program EIR, with
implementation of the mitigation measures discussed in this section. Implementation of the proposed
Project would not alter the conclusions of the General Plan Program EIR analysis and would not result in
a new or substantially more severe project-specific or cumulative hazards impact than those already
analyzed.
Conclusion
Accordingly, no new impacts relative to hydrology and water quality or a substantial increase in the
severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would
occur. With regard to PRC Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the Project would
not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts. Additionally,
no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the
time the General Plan Program EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of less
than significant with mitigation. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not
warranted.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
97 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
3.10 Land Use and Planning
Threshold (a) Would the project physically divide an established community?
General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR
concluded that the General Plan would not include any roadway extensions or other development
features through currently developed areas; instead, it would allow limited infill development in select
subareas in the City. The General Plan Program EIR did not include any extensions of roadways or other
development features through currently developed areas that could physically divide an established
community. Therefore, the General Plan Program EIR would not physically divide an established
community and impacts were identified as being less than significant.
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from
previous analysis.
The City of Newport Beach is nearly built out, and the proposed Project consists of infill and intensification
of development in a previously urbanized area. The proposed Project would not include any roadway
extensions or other development features through currently developed areas. Therefore, the proposed
Project, similar to development pursuant to the General Plan, would not physically divide an established
community and there would be no impacts. Therefore, there are no changes or new significant
information that would require preparation of an EIR.
Threshold (b) Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan,
specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR
analyzed land use incompatibility with regard to introducing new land uses and structures that could
result in intensification of development in the City. The General Plan Program EIR concluded that the
majority of land use changes proposed would not result in incompatibilities or nuisances that rose to a
level of significance and impacts were considered less than significant. The General Plan Program EIR was
found to be consistent with all applicable land use plans for the City. The Airport Area is in the boundaries
of the John Wayne Airport AELUP. Provided that residential uses remain outside the 65 dBA CNEL contour,
the General Plan would be consistent with the AELUP. The City of Newport Beach is subject to policies
within the Orange County Central and Coastal Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP). Future
development was required to comply with policies within the plan, and therefore no impact occurred.
It is important to note that the General Plan Program EIR concluded a significant and unavoidable impact
related to General Plan Policy LU 6.15.24. General Plan Policy LU 6.15.24 states that development must
be constructed within the height limits and residential uses must be located outside of areas exposed to
the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour identified in the John Wayne Airport AELUP, unless the City Council makes
appropriate findings for an override in accordance with applicable law. This policy allows the possibility
for residential development to occur within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour or height limits to be
exceeded. Residential development within any area inside the 65 dBA CNEL would result in conflicts with
AELUP Policy 3.2.1, which results in a finding of inconsistent land uses if development places people so
that they are affected adversely by aircraft noise or concentrates people in areas susceptible to aircraft
accidents.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
98 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Residential development within the 65 dBA CNEL would place residential units in an area adversely
affected by aircraft noise and susceptible to aircraft accidents, since development would be beneath air
traffic flight patterns. As such, if the AELUP is overridden by City Council, the development under the
General Plan would be inconsistent with the AELUP. This impact would be significant.
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from
previous analysis.
General Plan Consistency
The project site has a General Plan land use category of Mixed-Use Horizontal-2 (MU-H2), which provides
for a horizontal intermixing of uses that may include regional commercial office, multifamily residential,
vertical mixed-use buildings, industrial, hotel rooms, and ancillary neighborhood commercial uses. The
MU-H2 designation applies to a majority of properties in the Airport Area, inclusive of the project site and
adjacent uses and permits:
▪ A maximum of 2,200 residential units are permitted as replacement of existing office, retail,
and/or industrial uses at a maximum density of 50 units per adjusted gross acre, of which a
maximum of 550 units may be developed as infill units.
The General Plan policies for the Airport Area call for the orderly evolution of this area from a single-
purpose business park to a mixed-use district with cohesive residential villages integrated within the
existing fabric of the office, industrial, retail, and airport-related businesses. The proposed Project is
consistent with the MU-H2 land use designation for the project site and would implement the City’s
General Plan goals and policies for this portion of the Airport Area because it would integrate residential
uses into the Koll Center Newport.
The Airport Business Area ICDP is a prerequisite for the preparation of the regulatory plans called for in
the City’s General Plan, and it provides a framework for residential development on the project site. The
proposed Project would carry out the intent of the Airport Business Area ICDP and the City’s General Plan
because the project site would be developed with the uses envisioned in and approved under the Airport
Business Area ICDP. Implementation of the proposed Project is consistent with the goals and objectives
of the Airport Business Area ICDP and the City’s General Plan for the area.
An analysis of the proposed Project’s consistency with the applicable goals and policies of the General
Plan is provided in Table 3.10-1, General Plan Consistency Analysis. The analysis concludes that the
Project would be consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the City’s General Plan. The Project
would not require a General Plan land use amendment. Therefore, implementation of the proposed
Project would not result in significant land use impacts related to relevant Newport Beach General Plan
goals and policies.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
99 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Table 3.10-1. General Plan Consistency Analysis
Applicable City of Newport Beach
General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency
Land Use Element
Goal LU 2 – A living, active, and diverse environment that complements all lifestyles and enhances neighborhoods, without compromising the valued resources that make
Newport Beach unique. It contains a diversity of uses that support the needs of residents, sustain and enhance the economy, provide job opportunities, serve visitors that
enjoy the City’s diverse recreational amenities, and protect its important environmental setting, resources, and quality of life.
LU 2.1 Residential-Serving Land Uses. Accommodate uses that support the
needs of Newport Beach’s residents including housing, retail, services,
employment, recreation, education, culture, entertainment, civic
engagement, and social and spiritual activity that are in balance with
community natural resources and open spaces.
Consistent: The proposed Project would support the needs of Newport Beach since it would
develop a multi-family residential project with up to 312 residential units, inclusive of 13 very-
low-income affordable units, consistent with the General Plan Land Use Plan. The Project is an
infill, development and would not adversely impact the community’s natural resources and
open spaces, particularly because the Airport Area is an urbanized area of the City. The project
site is existing surface parking for Koll Center Newport.
LU 2.2 Sustainable and Complete Community. Emphasize the development
of uses that enable Newport Beach to continue as a self-sustaining
community and minimize the need for residents to travel outside of the
community for retail, goods and services, and employment.
Consistent: The proposed Project would develop residential uses in Koll Center Newport. By
integrating residential uses adjacent and proximate to other commercial and office uses, the
Project would provide Project residents with opportunities for employment in the many
businesses in and around Koll Center Newport and other nearby business and employment
centers in Newport Beach and surrounding communities.
LU 2.3 Range of Residential Choices. Provide opportunities for the
development of residential units that respond to community and regional
needs in terms of density, size, location, and cost. Implement goals, policies,
programs, and objectives identified within the City’s Housing Element.
Consistent: The proposed Project would have 312 residential units, including studio,
1-bedroom and 2 bedroom units. The Project includes 13 very-low-income units. General Plan
Policy LU 6.15.7 requires residential units to be developed at a minimum density of 30 units
and a maximum of 50 units per net acre (prior to any affordable housing density bonus) as
averaged by the total area of a residential village. The net density for 260 base units would be
44 dwelling units per net acre based on 5.9 net acres, and would be 53 dwelling units per acre
for 312 units inclusive of the density bonus. As noted, the density range is prior to the
application of an affordable housing density bonus.
LU 2.8 Adequate Infrastructure. Accommodate the types, densities, and mix
of land uses that can be adequately supported by transportation and utility
infrastructure (water, sewer, storm drainage, energy, and so on) and public
services (schools, parks, libraries, seniors, youth, police, fire, and so on).
Consistent: The proposed Project would be adequately served by the necessary public services
and utilities and service systems. Refer to Sections 3.14, Public Services, and 3.17, Utilities and
Service Systems, for further information and analysis regarding public services and utility
infrastructure, respectively.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
100 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Table 3.10-1. General Plan Consistency Analysis
Applicable City of Newport Beach
General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency
Goal LU 3 – A development pattern that retains and complements the City’s residential neighborhoods, commercial and industrial districts, open spaces, and natural
environment.
LU Policy 3.2 Growth and Change. Enhance existing neighborhoods, districts,
and corridors, allowing for re-use and infill with uses that are
complementary in type, form, scale, and character. Changes in use and/or
density/intensity should be considered only in those areas that are
economically underperforming, are necessary to accommodate Newport
Beach’s share of projected regional population growth, improve the
relationship and reduce commuting distance between home and jobs, or
enhance the values that distinguish Newport Beach as a special place to live
for its residents. The scale of growth and new development shall be
coordinated with the provision of adequate infrastructure and public
services, including standards for acceptable traffic level of service.
Consistent: The proposed Project is an infill, residential development on an existing surface
parking area. The Airport Area, inclusive of Koll Center Newport, includes a mix of existing and
planned office, commercial, hotel, and residential uses. Therefore, the Project would be
compatible with existing and future uses. The Project is consistent with the General Plan Land
Use Plan. The five-story building would be located adjacent to existing office buildings ranging
in height from two to ten stories. Proximity to one of Newport Beach’s job centers can reduce
commute distances between home and jobs.
Additionally, as concluded in Addendum Sections 3.14, Public Services; 3.16, Transportation
and Traffic; and 3.17, Utilities and Service Systems, the Project would not adversely impact
public services, traffic, or utilities.
LU 3.8 Project Entitlement Review with Airport Land Use Commission. Refer
the adoption or amendment of the General Plan, Zoning Code, specific plans,
and Planned Community development plans for land within the John Wayne
Airport planning area, as established in the JWA Airport Environs Land Use
Plan (AELUP), to the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for Orange County
for review, as required by Section 21676 of the California Public Utilities
Code. In addition, refer all development projects that include buildings with a
height greater than 200 feet above ground level to the ALUC for review.
Consistent: The proposed Project requires a referral to the Airport Land Use Commission
(ALUC) for a determination of consistency with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for
John Wayne Airport in accordance with General Plan Policy LU 3.8, the State Aeronautics Act,
and the requirements outlined in the AELUP because the Project requires an amendment to
Koll Center Newport Planned Community (PC-15 Koll Center) to allow for residential uses in
Professional and Business Offices Site B consistent with the General Plan and the Airport
Business Area ICDP.
Goal LU 4 – Management of growth and change to protect and enhance the livability of neighborhoods and achieve distinct and economically vital business and employment
districts, which are correlated with supporting infrastructure and public services and sustain Newport Beach’s natural setting.
LU 4.1 Land Use Diagram. Accommodate land use development consistent
with the Land Use Plan. Figure LU1 depicts the general distribution of uses
throughout the City and Figure LU2 through Figure LU15 depict specific use
categories for each parcel within defined Statistical Areas. Table LU1 (Land
Use Plan Categories) specifies the primary land use categories, types of uses,
and, for certain categories, the densities/intensities to be permitted. See
page 3-11 of the City’s General Plan for the full policy.
Consistent: The Project is consistent with the land use designations for the project site. The
Airport Business Area ICDP requires a minimum density of 30 dwelling units per net acre and a
maximum density of 50 dwelling units per net acre. General Plan Policy LU 6.15.7 requires
residential units to be developed at a minimum density of 30 units and a maximum of 50 units
per net acre (prior to any affordable housing density bonus) as averaged by the total area of a
residential village. The net density for 260 base units would be 44 dwelling units per net acre
based on 5.9 net acres, and would be 53 dwelling units per acre for 312 units inclusive of the
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
101 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Table 3.10-1. General Plan Consistency Analysis
Applicable City of Newport Beach
General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency
density bonus. As noted, the density range is prior to the application of an affordable housing
density bonus.
Goal LU 5.3 ─ Districts where residents and businesses are intermixed that are designed and planned to ensure compatibility among the uses, that they are highly livable for
residents, and are of high-quality design reflecting the traditions of Newport Beach.
LU Policy 5.3.3 Parcels Integrating Residential and Nonresidential Uses.
Require that properties developed with a mix of residential and nonresidential
uses be designed to achieve high levels of architectural quality in accordance
with policies LU 5.1.9 and LU 5.2.1 and planned to ensure compatibility among
the uses and provide adequate circulation and parking. Residential uses
should be seamlessly integrated with nonresidential uses through
architecture, pedestrian walkways, and landscape. They should not be
completely isolated by walls or other design elements.
Consistent: The Project includes a five-story residential building sited adjacent to existing two-
story to ten-story office buildings in Koll Center Newport. Uptown Newport is a mixed-use
development on Jamboree Road east of the project site. The Project also includes a 1.1-acre
public park and pedestrian linkages to provide connections through the project site and to
adjacent and surrounding uses. Uptown Newport is a mixed-use residential development on
Jamboree Road east of the project site.
The contemporary architectural style of the Project would be compatible with non-residential
uses in the Koll Center Newport and the surrounding area. In particular, the architecture of the
Project would be compatible with the Uptown Newport Project. Uptown Newport is intended
to be an urban village with diverse architecture including contemporary styles and the use of a
neutral color palette.
Goal LU 5.6 – Neighborhoods, districts, and corridors containing a diversity of uses and buildings that are mutually compatible and enhance the quality of the City’s
environment
LU 5.6.1 Compatible Development. Require that buildings and properties be
designed to ensure compatibility within and as interfaces between
neighborhoods, districts, and corridors.
Consistent: See the consistency analysis for LU Policy 5.3.3. Additionally, the Project’s building
mass is comparable and compatible to the existing surround office developments, where these
building are variable in height.
LU 5.6.2 Form and Environment. Require that new and renovated buildings
be designed to avoid the use of styles, colors, and materials that unusually
impact the design character and quality of their location such as abrupt
changes in scale, building form, architectural style, and the use of surface
materials that raise local temperatures, result in glare and excessive
illumination of adjoining properties and open spaces, or adversely modify
wind patterns.
Consistent: The contemporary architectural style of the Project would be compatible with
existing and planned development in Koll Center Newport and surrounding area with respect
to materials and colors. The Project would use building glass and glazing with minimal
reflectance. The building material, style, and colors would not raise local temperatures through
glare or excessive illumination.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
102 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Table 3.10-1. General Plan Consistency Analysis
Applicable City of Newport Beach
General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency
LU 5.6.3 Ambient Lighting. Require that outdoor lighting be located and
designed to prevent spillover onto adjoining properties or significantly
increase the overall ambient illumination of their location.
Consistent: Exterior lighting would be designed, arranged, directed downward, or shielded to
contain direct illumination on-site to prevent excess illumination and light spillover onto
adjoining land uses and/or roadways. Development of the Project would also be required to
adhere to all applicable City lighting as set forth in Section 20.30.070, Outdoor Lighting, of the
City’s Municipal Code. It is also noted that development of the Project would be required to
comply with California’s Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential Buildings, Title 24,
Part 6, of the CCR, which outlines mandatory provisions for lighting control devices and
luminaries.
LU 6.1.1 Adequate Community Supporting Uses. Accommodate schools,
government administrative and operational facilities, fire stations and police
facilities, religious facilities, schools, cultural facilities, museums,
interpretative centers, and hospitals to serve the needs of Newport Beach’s
residents and businesses.
Consistent: As addressed in Section 3.14, Public Services, of this Addendum, the Project would
not adversely impact community services. The Project would comply with applicable conditions
and requirements, including the payment of the Property Excise Tax to the City of Newport
Beach, as set forth in its Municipal Code (§2.12 et seq.) for public improvements and facilities
associated with the Fire Department, Public Library, and public parks.
Goal LU 6.2 ─ Residential neighborhoods that contain a diversity of housing types and supporting uses to meet the needs of Newport Beach’s residents and are designed
to sustain livability and a high quality of life.
LU Policy 6.2.1 Residential Supply. Accommodate a diversity of residential
units that meets the needs of Newport Beach’s population and fair share of
regional needs in accordance with the Land Use Plan’s designations,
applicable density standards, design and development policies, and the
adopted Housing Element.
Consistent: The General Plan Housing Element identifies five locations—Newport Banning
Ranch, the Airport Area, Newport Center, Mariners’ Mile, and the Balboa Peninsula—as key
sites for future housing opportunities. The General Plan designates these areas as appropriate
for development of up to 5,025 new dwelling units. The project site is in the Airport Area and
260 units are identified as additive units for the site. With the requested density bonus of 52
units, the Project would have a total of 312 rental units including 13 very-low-income units.
LU Policy 6.2.9 Private Open Spaces and Recreational Facilities. Require the
open space and recreational facilities that are integrated into and owned by
private residential development are permanently preserved as part of the
development approval process and are prohibited from converting to
residential or other types of land uses.
Consistent: The Project includes a 1.1-acre public park, as well as private open space and
common open space for Project residents. On-site recreational amenities would include a
swimming pool, fitness room, clubroom, and lawn areas for residents that would be privately
developed as part of the Project. The park is proposed to be privately developed and
maintained and accessible to the public during daylight hours. The park would be constructed
by the Applicant and offered for dedication to the City. Open space, and recreational amenities
would not be converted to residential or other types of land uses on the site.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
103 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Table 3.10-1. General Plan Consistency Analysis
Applicable City of Newport Beach
General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency
Goal LU 6.15 – A mixed-use community that provides jobs, residential, and supporting services in close proximity, with pedestrian-oriented amenities that facilitate walking and
enhance livability.
LU 6.15.1 Land Use Districts and Neighborhoods. Provide for the
development of distinct business park, commercial, and airport-serving
districts and residential neighborhoods that are integrated to ensure a
quality environment and compatible land uses.
Consistent: See consistency analysis for Policy LU 3.3 of Goal LU 3 and Policies LU 5.6.1 and
5.6.2 of Goal LU 5.6.
LU 6.15.3 Airport Compatibility. Require that all development be
constructed in conformance with the height restrictions set forth by Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA), Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77,
and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, and that residential development be
located outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour specified by the 1985 JWA
Master Plan.
Consistent: The Project proposes a 71-foot tall residential structure (up to 75 feet as allowed in
the PC Text) and a 40-foot tall free-standing parking structure. These buildings are consistent
with FAA regulations because it would not exceed 160 feet above ground level. The proposed
Project and the free-standing parking structure would not exceed obstruction standards and
would not be a hazard to air navigation. The project site is outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise
contour specified by the 1985 John Wayne Airport Master Plan.
LU 6.15.5 Residential and Support Uses. Accommodate the development of
a maximum of 2,200 multi-family residential units, including workforce
housing, and mixed-use buildings that integrate residential with ground level
office or retail uses, along with supporting retail, grocery stores, and
parklands. Residential units may be developed only as the replacement of
underlying permitted nonresidential uses. When a development phase
includes a mix of residential and nonresidential uses or replaces existing
industrial uses, the number of peak hour trips generated by cumulative
development of the site shall not exceed the number of trips that would
result from development of the underlying permitted nonresidential uses.
However, a maximum of 550 units may be developed as infill on surface
parking lots or areas not used as occupiable buildings on properties within
the Conceptual Development Plan Area depicted on Figure LU22 provided
that the parking is replaced on-site.
Consistent: Consistent with this policy and the Airport Business Area ICDP, the proposed
Project would be adjacent and proximate to existing office and commercial land uses that
provide jobs and supporting services within the Airport Area. More specifically, the Project
proposes 312 residential units, inclusive of 260 additive units and 52 density bonus units of
which 13 would be very-low-income affordable units. The Project would be within the 2,200
maximum multi-family unit count for the Airport Area.
Additive units are exempt from the requirement of not exceeding the number of existing peak
hour trips generated by existing uses. These units would be allocated to the proposed Project
in accordance with the City’s General Plan and the Airport Business Area ICDP. The Project
would therefore develop a portion of the residential units envisioned and approved for the
Airport Area.
Existing development at the site includes surface parking areas and common landscape areas.
During the construction of the new free-standing parking structure (Phase 1) and the
construction of the residential building (Phase 2A), parking shuttles would be provided for the
use of office employees of and guests to the office buildings.
LU 6.15.6 Size of Residential Villages. Allow development of mixed-use
residential villages, each containing a minimum of 10 acres and centered on
Consistent: The Project would allow for the development of the approximately 13-acre project
site with a residential building adjacent to existing office buildings and proximate to Uptown
Newport, a mixed-use development. The Project does not include a neighborhood park; it does
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
104 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Table 3.10-1. General Plan Consistency Analysis
Applicable City of Newport Beach
General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency
a neighborhood park and other amenities (as conceptually illustrated in
Figure LU23).
include a 1.1-acre public park that would be accessible during daytime hours. Resident
amenities would include a clubroom, a dog park, fitness room, roof deck with a swimming pool,
and courtyards.
LU 6.15.7. Overall Density and Housing Types. Require that residential units
be developed at a minimum density of 30 units and maximum of 50 units per
net acre averaged over the total area of each residential village. Net acreage
shall be exclusive of existing and new rights-of-way, public pedestrian ways,
and neighborhood parks. Within these densities, provide for the
development of a mix of building types ranging from townhomes to high-
rises to accommodate a variety of household types and incomes and to
promote diversity of building masses and scales.
Consistent: The density range identified in LU 6.15.7 is prior to any affordable housing density
bonus. The net density for 260 base units would be 44 dwelling units per net acre based on 5.9
net acres and would be 53 dwelling units per acre for 312 units inclusive of the density bonus.
Although the Project is limited to one particular housing product, it includes a variety mix of
unit types, ranging from studio to two-bedroom apartment units, accommodating a variety of
household types and incomes. Of the 312 residential units, 13 units would be affordable to
very-low-income households and 299 units would be market-rate housing.
LU 6.15.8 First Phase Development Density. Require a residential density of
45 to 50 units per net acre, averaged over the first phase for each residential
village. This shall be applied to 100 percent of properties in the first phase
development area whether developed exclusively for residential or
integrating service commercial horizontally on the site or vertically within a
mixed-use building. On individual sites, housing development may exceed or
be below this density to encourage a mix of housing types, provided that the
average density for the area encompassed by the first phase is achieved.
Consistent: The Airport Business Area ICDP area is exempt from this specific numerical
requirement but is subject to a requirement for a minimum density of 30 dwelling units per net
acre and a maximum density of 50 dwelling units per net acre. The density range identified in
LU 6.15.7 is prior to any affordable housing density bonus. The net density for 260 base units
would be 44 dwelling units per net acre based on 5.9 net acres, and would be 53 dwelling units
per acre for 312 units inclusive of the density bonus.
LU 6.15.10 Regulatory Plans. Require the development of a regulatory plan
for each residential village, which shall contain a minimum of 10 acres, to
coordinate the location of new parks, streets, and pedestrian ways; set forth
a strategy to accommodate neighborhood-serving commercial uses and
other amenities; establish pedestrian and vehicular connections with
adjoining land uses; and ensure compatibility with office, industrial, and
other nonresidential uses.
Consistent: The proposed Project includes an amendment to PC-15 Koll Center to include
provisions allowing for residential development consistent with the City of Newport Beach
General Plan and the Airport Business Area ICDP. PC-15 would be amended so that
Professional and Business Office Site B includes a new residential overlay zone and would
include development standards and the identification of permitted uses.
The overall project development site is approximately 13 acres, which consists of the project
site and the existing office developments, exceeds the minimum 10-acre for each residential
village. The proposed residential development would create a mixed-use community adjacent
to and surrounded by office, commercial, open space, and transit uses. The mixed-uses would
be linked through pedestrian connections, sidewalks, and open space. The Project would
provide adequate parking for the proposed residential units, and replacement office parking.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
105 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Table 3.10-1. General Plan Consistency Analysis
Applicable City of Newport Beach
General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency
LU 6.15.12 Development Agreements. A Development Agreement shall be
required for all projects that include infill residential units. The Development
Agreement shall define the improvements and public benefits to be provided
by the developer in exchange for the City’s commitment for the number,
density, and location of the housing units.
Consistent: The proposed Project includes a Development Agreement, which would be
implemented as part of the Project approval.
LU 6.15.13 Standards. To provide a focus and identity for the entire
neighborhood and to serve the daily recreational and commercial needs of
the community within easy walking distance of homes, require dedication
and improvement of at least 8 percent of the gross land area (exclusive of
existing rights-of-way) of the first phase development in each neighborhood,
or ½ acre, whichever is greater, as a neighborhood park. This requirement
may be waived by the City where it can be demonstrated that the
development parcels are too small to feasibly accommodate the park or
inappropriately located to serve the needs of local residents, and when an in-
lieu fee is paid to the City for the acquisition and improvement of other
properties as parklands to serve the Airport Area. In every case, the
neighborhood park shall be at least 8 percent of the total Residential Village
Area or one acre in area, whichever is greater, and shall have a minimum
dimension of 150 feet. Park acreage shall be exclusive of existing or new
rights-of-way, development sites, or setback areas. A neighborhood park
shall satisfy some or all of the requirements of the Park Dedication
Ordinance, as prescribed by the Recreation Element of the General Plan.
Consistent: The proposed Project includes a 1.1-acre public park with a minimum dimension of
150 feet. The park and associated open space improvements would be located between the
north side of the proposed residential building and the existing two-story and four-story office
buildings, extending from Birch Street to Von Karman Avenue.
LU 6.15.14 Location. Require that each neighborhood park is clearly public in
character and is accessible to all residents of the neighborhood. Each park
shall be surrounded by public streets on at least two sides (preferably with
on-street parking to serve the park), and shall be linked to residential uses in
its respective neighborhood by streets or pedestrian ways.
Consistent: The proposed Project includes a 1.1-acre park area extending from Birch Street to
Von Karman Avenue. Access to the park would be provided from walkways through the park
and on-site open space to existing sidewalks on Von Karman Avenue and Birch Street. See
also consistency analysis for LU 6.15.13.
LU 6.15.15 Aircraft Notification. Require that all neighborhood parks be
posted with a notification to users regarding proximity to John Wayne Airport
and aircraft overflight and noise.
Consistent: In accordance with this policy, the park would be posted with a notification to
users regarding proximity to John Wayne Airport and aircraft overflight and noise.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
106 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Table 3.10-1. General Plan Consistency Analysis
Applicable City of Newport Beach
General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency
LU 6.15.16 Standards. Require developers of multi-family residential
developments on parcels 8 acres or larger to provide on-site recreational
amenities. For these developments, 44 square feet of on-site recreational
amenities shall be provided for each dwelling unit in addition to the
requirements under the City’s Park Dedication Ordinance and in accordance
with the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan. On-site
recreational amenities can consist of public urban plazas or squares where
there is the capability for recreation and outdoor activity. These recreational
amenities may also include swimming pools, exercise facilities, tennis courts,
and basketball courts. Where there is insufficient land to provide on-site
recreational amenities, the developer shall be required to pay cash in-lieu
that would be used to develop or upgrade nearby recreation facilities to
offset user demand as defined in the City’s Park Dedication Fee Ordinance.
The acreage of on-site open space developed with residential projects may
be credited against the parkland dedication requirements where it is
accessible to the public during daylight hours, visible from public rights-of-
way, and is of sufficient size to accommodate recreational use by the public.
However, the credit for the provision of on-site open space shall not exceed
30 percent of the parkland dedication requirements.
Consistent: See consistency analysis for LU 6.15.13 and 6.15.14 of Goal 6.15 and Policies R1-1
and R1.2 of Goal R 1. The proposed Project would provide an average of 143 sf of on-site
recreational amenities for each dwelling unit. Private recreational amenities developed as
part of the Project are proposed to include a bike shop and storage, a clubroom, a dog park
with dog wash area, a fitness room, swimming pool and spa, an outdoor area, and roof deck.
LU 6.15.17 Street and Pedestrian Grid. Create a pattern of streets and
pedestrian ways that breaks up large blocks, improves connections between
neighborhoods and community amenities, and is scaled to the
predominantly residential character of the neighborhoods.
Consistent: The proposed Project includes an internal street that will traverse the site and
connect Von Karman Avenue to Birch Street approximately halfway through the block. The
proposed pedestrian circulation would facilitate connections between the proposed residential
development with adjacent office uses and public sidewalks and streets. The Project also
includes a public park that is connected to Von Karman Avenue and Birch Street through new
pedestrian walkways.
LU 6.15.18 Walkable Streets. Retain the curb-to-curb dimension of existing
streets, but widen sidewalks to provide park strips and generous sidewalks by
means of dedications or easements. Except where traffic loads preclude
fewer lanes, add parallel parking to calm traffic, buffer pedestrians, and
provide short-term parking for visitors and shop customers.
Consistent: Pedestrian walkways would be provided through the project site and connect to
existing sidewalks on Von Karman Avenue and Birch Street.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
107 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Table 3.10-1. General Plan Consistency Analysis
Applicable City of Newport Beach
General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency
LU 6.15.19 Connected Streets. Require dedication and improvement of new
streets as shown on Figure LU23. The illustrated alignments are tentative and
may change as long as the routes provide the intended connectivity. If traffic
conditions allow, connect new and existing streets across Macarthur
Boulevard with signalized intersections, crosswalks, and pedestrian refuges in
the median.
Consistent: Internal streets would be designed to establish clear way-finding and to provide
access to surface parking and parking structure entrances. Connections would be provided to
directly link the interior of the Project streets to Von Karman Avenue and Birch Street, in
accordance with those shown in Figure LU23, Airport Area Residential Villages Illustrative
Concept Plan. On-site internal streets would be privately owned and maintained and provide
public access through the project site from Von Karman Avenue and Birch Street.
LU 6.15.21 Required Spaces for Primary Use. Consider revised parking
requirements that reflect the mix of uses in the neighborhoods and overall
Airport Area, as well as the availability of on-street parking.
Consistent: Parking for office tenants, residents, guests, and visitors would be provided on
the site. Parking ratios proposed for the Project are included in the PC-15 Koll Center
amendment.
LU 6.15.22 Building Massing. Require that high-rise structures be
surrounded with low- and mid-rise structures fronting public streets and
pedestrian ways or other means to promote a more pedestrian scale.
Consistent: There are three office buildings within the boundaries of the project site that are
two to four stories in height. Additionally, there are one-to four-story office buildings located
along Birch Street and Von Karman Avenue. The proposed five-story residential building
would be generally located between these office buildings and the existing 5000 Birch Street
office building (10 stories, 154 feet). The proposed residential building would be compatible
with the surrounding structures and would provide a variety of building mass and scale.
Walkways would be provided within the site and connect to existing sidewalks along Von
Karman Avenue and Birch Street. Walkways would be provided along the internal street,
within the site, with connections to the office buildings noted above.
LU 6.15.23 Sustainability Development Practices. Require that development
achieves a high level of environmental sustainability that reduces pollution
and consumption of energy, water, and natural resources. This may be
accomplished through the mix and density of uses, building location and
design, transportation modes, and other techniques. Among the strategies
that should be considered are the integration of residential with jobs-
generating uses, use of alternative transportation modes, maximized
walkability, use of recycled materials, capture and re-use of storm water on-
site, water-conserving fixtures and landscapes, and architectural elements
that reduce heat gain and loss.
Consistent: This Addendum address the effects of the Project on air quality, energy, climate
change and water supply, and applies measures and regulatory requirements to reduce any
impacts, as applicable and feasible. The proposed Project is required to comply with the
provisions of the Building and Energy Efficiency Standards and the Green Building Standards
Code (CALGreen). Additionally, the Project would implement environmentally sustainable
practices including but not limited to water-efficient landscaping; electric vehicle charging
stations in the parking structures; water quality best management practices to treat surface
runoff from the project site; and low impact development practices.
The project site is also close to employment uses in the Airport Area and would provide
housing near these businesses and promote the use of alternative transportation modes. As a
part of Project, a public park and pedestrian pathways would provide connections throughout
the site and to adjacent and surrounding uses, thereby providing an alternative mode of
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
108 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Table 3.10-1. General Plan Consistency Analysis
Applicable City of Newport Beach
General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency
transportation for residents and visitors. The Project’s location close to existing OCTA bus
routes provided along Von Karman Avenue, Birch Street, Campus Drive, Jamboree Road, and
MacArthur Boulevard would also provide alternative forms of transportation for Project
residents.
LU 6.15.24 Airport Compatibility: Require that all development be
constructed within the height limits and residential be located outside of
areas exposed to the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour specified by the Airport
Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP), unless the City Council makes appropriate
findings for an override in accordance with applicable law.
Consistent: The proposed Project requires a determination of consistency with the Airport
Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport by the Airport Land Use Commission
(ALUC) in accordance with General Plan Policy LU 3.8 and the requirements outlined in the
AELUP because the Project requires an amendment to Koll Center Newport Planned
Community (PC-15 Koll Center) to allow for residential uses in Professional and Business
Offices Site B consistent with the General Plan and the Airport Business Area ICDP. The AELUP
shows the project site is outside of the 60 dBA CNEL contour. Additionally, on-site buildings
would not exceed 71 feet (the PC Text would allow development up to 75 feet), which is
within the height limits set forth in the AELUP.
Housing Element
Goal H 2 – A balanced residential community comprised of a variety of housing types, designs, and opportunities for all social and economic segments.
H 2.1 - Encourage preservation of existing and provision of new housing
affordable to extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderate-income
households.
Consistent: The Project includes 13 very-low-income rental units.
H 2.2 - Encourage the housing development industry to respond to existing
and future housing needs of the community and to the demand for housing
as perceived by the industry.
Consistent: The proposed Project includes of 312 residential unit, of which 13 are very-low-
income units.
H 2.3. Approve, wherever feasible and appropriate, mixed residential and
commercial use developments that improve the balance between housing
and jobs.
Consistent: The proposed Project would consist of 312 residential units and a 1.1-acre public
park. The introduction of new residential uses into a primarily office business area of the City
would not only help locate new residents close to a wide array of jobs, but would also help
improve the local and regional jobs-housing balance.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
109 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Table 3.10-1. General Plan Consistency Analysis
Applicable City of Newport Beach
General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency
Historical Resources Element
Goal HR 2 – Identification and protection of important archeological and paleontological resources within the City.
HR 2.1 New Development Activities. Require that, in accordance with CEQA,
new development protect and preserve paleontological and archaeological
resources from destruction, and avoid and mitigate impacts to such resources.
Through planning policies and permit conditions, ensure the preservation of
significant archeological and paleontological resources and require that the
impact caused by any development be mitigated in accordance with CEQA.
Consistent: The Addendum identifies standard conditions to comply with potential impacts to
unknown archaeological and paleontological resources found during ground-disturbing
activities.
HR 2.2 Grading and Excavation Activities. Require a qualified
paleontologist/archeologist to monitor all grading and/or excavation where
there is a potential to affect cultural, archeological or paleontological
resources. If these resources are found, the applicant shall implement the
recommendations of the paleontologist/archeologist, subject to the approval
of the City Planning Department.
Consistent: See consistency analysis for Policy HR 2.1 of Goal HR 2.
HR 2.3 Cultural Organizations. Notify cultural organizations, including Native
American organizations, of proposed developments that have the potential to
adversely impact cultural resources. Allow representatives of such groups to
monitor grading and/or excavation of development sites.
Consistent: See consistency analysis for Policy HR 2.1 of Goal HR 2.
HR 2.4 Paleontological or Archaeological Materials. Require new
development to donate scientifically valuable paleontological or
archaeological materials to a responsible public or private institution with a
suitable repository, located within Newport Beach, or Orange County,
whenever possible.
Consistent: See consistency analysis for Policy HR 2.1 of Goal HR 2.
Circulation Element
Goal CE 2.2 – A safe and efficient roadway system.
CE 2.2.3 Traffic Control. Design traffic control measures to ensure City streets
and roads function with safety and efficiency.
Consistent: As part of the proposed Project, any necessary traffic control measures would be
installed to ensure that the City’s roadways function as intended while allowing site access
from Von Karman Avenue and Birch Street. Additionally, the Project’s traffic study was
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
110 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Table 3.10-1. General Plan Consistency Analysis
Applicable City of Newport Beach
General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency
prepared in accordance with the City’s traffic study guidelines and identifies no significant
impact to study intersections.
CE 2.2.4 Driveway and Access Limitations. Limit driveway and local street
access on arterial streets to maintain a desired quality of traffic flow.
Wherever possible, consolidate driveways and implement access controls
during redevelopment of adjacent parcels.
Consistent: Access would be provided from the existing unsignalized access drives that
provided access into the project site from Birch Street and Von Karman Avenue. All driveway
improvements would be designed and constructed in accordance with the City’s engineering
standards to ensure safety and a desired quality of traffic flow.
CE 2.2.6 Emergency Access. Provide all residential, commercial, and industrial
areas with efficient and safe access for emergency vehicles.
Consistent: To address emergency access needs, the Project’s internal traffic and circulation
components would be designed in accordance with all City of Newport Beach Fire
Department (Fire Department) design standards for emergency access. Additionally, the
Project would be required to incorporate all applicable design and safety requirements in the
most current adopted fire codes, building codes, and fire and life safety standards. During the
building plan check and development review process, the City would coordinate with the
Public Works Department, Fire Department, and Newport Beach Police Department (Police
Department) to ensure that adequate circulation and access are provided within the traffic
and circulation components of the Project.
Goal CE 4.1 – A public transportation system that provides mobility for residents and encourages use of public transportation as an alternative to automobile travel.
CE 4.1.4 Land Use Densities Supporting Public Transit. Accommodate
residential densities sufficient to support transit patronage, especially in
mixed use areas such as the Airport Area.
Consistent: The proposed Project’s introduction of 312 residential units at 53 dwelling units
per acre inclusive of the density bonus and its location close to existing OCTA bus routes along
Von Karman Avenue, Birch Street, Campus Drive, Jamboree Road, and MacArthur Boulevard
could help support transit patronage.
Goal CE 5.1 – Convenient trail systems that satisfy recreational desires and transportation needs.
CE 5.1.1 Trail System. Promote construction of a comprehensive trail system
as shown on Figure CE4.
Consistent: The proposed Project would not conflict with the planned Class I bicycle facilities
on Von Karman Avenue and Birch Street near the project site, as called for in the City’s Bicycle
Master Plan.
CE 5.1.2 Pedestrian Connectivity. Link residential areas, schools, parks, and
commercial centers so that residents can travel within the community
without driving.
Consistent: The proposed Project would provide pedestrian walkways throughout the project
site, with connections to the public street system and adjacent properties. The Project’s
pedestrian circulation components would be designed and installed in compliance with all
safety and accessibility requirements, including Title 24, and to minimize potential conflicts
with vehicles.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
111 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Table 3.10-1. General Plan Consistency Analysis
Applicable City of Newport Beach
General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency
CE 5.1.3 Pedestrian Improvements in New Development Projects. Require
new development projects to include safe and attractive sidewalks,
walkways, and bike lanes in accordance with the Master Plan, and, if feasible,
trails.
Consistent: See consistency analysis for Policy CE 5.1.2 of Goal CE 5.1.
CE 5.1.4 - Linkages to Citywide Trail System and Neighborhoods. Require
developers to construct links to the planned trail system, adjacent areas, and
communities where appropriate.
Consistent. The project site is not adjacent to a trail system but would provide pedestrian
connections to the Uptown Newport planned community.
CE 5.1.7 Bicycle Safety. Provide for safety of bicyclists, equestrians, and
pedestrians by adhering to current national standards and uniform practices.
Consistent: See consistency analysis for Policy CE 5.1.2 of Goal CE 5.1.
CE 5.1.8 Bicycle Conflicts with Vehicles and Pedestrians. Minimize conflict
points among motorized traffic, pedestrians, and bicycle traffic.
Consistent: See consistency analysis for Policy CE 5.1.2 of Goal CE 5.1.
CE 5.1.16 Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety. Provide for the safety of bicyclists
and pedestrians through provision of adequate facilities, including
maintenance of extra sidewalk width where feasible.
Consistent: See consistency analysis for Policy CE 5.1.2 of Goal CE 5.1.
Goal CE 6.2 – Reduced automobile travel through the use of travel demand management strategies.
CE 6.2.2 Support Facilities for Alternative Modes. Require new development
projects to provide facilities commensurate with development type and
intensity to support alternative modes, such as referential parking for
carpools, bicycle lockers, showers, commuter information areas, rideshare
vehicle loadings areas, water transportation docks, and bus stop
improvements.
Consistent: As part of the proposed Project, pedestrian linkage would provide convenient
access within the project site and with adjacent and surrounding uses, thereby providing an
alternative mode of transportation for residents and visitors. The site’s proximity to existing
employment centers and OCTA bus routes along Von Karman Avenue, Birch Street, Campus
Drive, Jamboree Road, and MacArthur Boulevard would also provide alternative forms of
transportation for the Project residents. Project. Additionally, bicycle racks and storage would
be provided within the project site.
CE 6.2.3 - Project Site Design Supporting Alternative Modes. Encourage
increased use of public transportation by requiring project site designs that
facilitate the use of public transportation and walking.
Consistent: See consistency analysis for Policy CE 6.2.2.
Goal CE 7.1 – An adequate supply of convenient parking throughout the City.
CE 7.1.1 Required Parking. Require that new development provide adequate,
convenient parking for residents, guests, business patrons, and visitors.
Consistent: See consistency analysis for Policy LU 6.15.5 of Goal LU 6.15. All Project parking
would be provided on-site.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
112 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Table 3.10-1. General Plan Consistency Analysis
Applicable City of Newport Beach
General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency
Recreation Element
Goal R 1: Provision of Facilities – Provision of adequate park and recreation facilities that meet the recreational needs of existing and new residents of the community.
R1.1 New Residential Subdivisions. Require developers of new residential
subdivisions to provide parklands at five acres per 1,000 persons, as stated in
the City’s Park Dedication Fee Ordinance, or to contribute in-lieu fees for the
development of public recreation facilities meeting demands generated by
the development’s resident population, as required in the City’s Park
Dedications Fees Ordinance.
Consistent: The City’s parkland dedication requirement of 5 acres per 1,000 residents applies
to residential subdivisions (see Section 19.52.020 of the City’s Municipal Code). Because the
proposed Project does not include a subdivision, the requirement is not applicable to the
Project. However, the Project would provide 1.1 acres of public park and open space uses.
R1.2 High-Density Residential Developments. Require developers of new
high-density residential developments on parcels eight acres or larger, to
provide on-site recreational amenities. For these developments, 44 square
feet of on-site recreational amenities shall be provided for each dwelling unit
in addition to the requirements under the City’s Park Dedications and Fees
Ordinance. On-site recreational amenities can consist of public urban plazas
or squares where there is the capability for recreation and outdoor activity.
These recreational amenities can also include swimming pools, exercise
facilities, tennis courts, and basketball courts. Where there is insufficient land
to provide on-site recreational amenities, the developer shall be required to
pay the City of Newport Beach cash in-lieu that would be used to develop or
upgrade nearby recreation facilities to offset user demand as defined in the
City’s Park Dedications and Fees Ordinance. The acreage of on-site open
space developed with residential projects may be credited against the
parkland dedication requirements where it is, for example, accessible to the
public during daylight hours, visible from public rights-of-way, and of
sufficient size to accommodate recreational use by the public.
Consistent: See consistency analysis for Policy R1.1. The proposed Project would provide an
average of 143 sf of on-site recreational amenities for each dwelling unit inclusive of private
balconies, bike shop and storage, a clubroom, dog wash area, a fitness room, swimming pool
and spa, garden and roof terraces.
Goal R 3: Accessibility of Facilities – Accessible parks and recreation facilities to persons with disabilities.
R3.1 Adequate Access. Ensure that parks and recreation facilities include
provisions for adequate access for persons with disabilities and that existing
facilities are appropriately retrofitted to include such access as required by
the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Consistent: All new park facilities would be designed and constructed to include provisions for
adequate access for persons with disabilities in accordance with Title 24.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
113 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Table 3.10-1. General Plan Consistency Analysis
Applicable City of Newport Beach
General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency
Natural Resources Element
Goal NR 1 – Minimized water consumption through conservation methods and other techniques.
NR 1.1 Water Conservation in New Development. Enforce water
conservation measures that limit water usage, prohibit activities that waste
water or cause runoff, and require the use of water–efficient landscaping and
irrigation in conjunction with new construction projects.
Consistent: Section 3.17, Utilities and Service Systems, addresses water supply effects that
would occur with the implementation of the proposed Project, and applies regulatory
requirements to reduce any impacts, as applicable and feasible. Additionally, the Project
would be required to comply with the water-efficient landscape requirements outlined in
Chapter 14.17 (Water Efficient Landscape Requirements) of the City’s Municipal Code. The
Project would also be required to comply with the provisions of the Green Building Standards
Code, which contains requirements for indoor water use reduction and site irrigation
conservation. The Project would implement a number of environmentally sustainable
practices, including but not limited to water-efficient landscaping; water quality best
management practices to treat surface runoff from the project site; and low impact
development practices.
NR 1.2 Use of Water Conserving Devices. Establish and actively promote use
of water-conserving devices and practices in both new construction and
major alterations and additions to existing buildings. This can include the use
of rainwater capture, storage, and reuse facilities.
Consistent: See consistency analysis for Policy NR 1.1 of Goal NR1.
Goal NR 3 – Enhancement and protection of water quality of all natural water bodies, including coastal waters, creeks, bays, harbors, and wetlands.
NR 3.4 Storm Drain Sewer System Permit. Require all development to comply
with the regulations under the City’s municipal separate storm drain system
permit under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.
Consistent: The proposed Project would be required to comply with the City’s NPDES permit
requirements, including the submittal and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and best management practices (BMPs).
The project site currently drains in two directions. From the south side of the existing high
point, the flows collected by the on-site storm drain system connect to the existing storm
drain line in Von Karman Avenue. The drainage area north of the high point is tributary to an
existing storm drain line located on the east side of the 5000 Birch Street office building which
ultimately drains to the collection ponds within Koll Center Newport.
The proposed Project would use BMPs throughout the site to capture and treat storm water.
The Project would result in the conveyance of less water to the storm drain system because
the new development would reduce the impervious area at the project site. The reduction of
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
114 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Table 3.10-1. General Plan Consistency Analysis
Applicable City of Newport Beach
General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency
water to the storm drain system and use of best management practices would incrementally
improve water quality on the project site.
NR 3.9 Water Quality Management Plan. Require new development
applications to include a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to
minimize runoff from rainfall events during construction and post-
construction.
Consistent: As discussed in Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, a preliminary Water
Quality Management Plan (WQMP) has been prepared which identifies site-design, and
source- and treatment-control BMPs. The low-impact development, source-control, and
treatment-control BMP features would include but not be limited to an infiltration basin;
Modular Wetlands System (proprietary biotreatment devices) or approved equivalents;
vegetated swales; bioretention with underdrains; and a proprietary Drywell System.
Implementation of these hydraulic and drainage design features would assist in the retention
of storm water and the recharge of groundwater. Collectively, the BMPs outlined in the
WQMP and the required preparation of a SWPPP would address the anticipated and expected
pollutants of concern from the operational and construction phases of the proposed Project.
Additionally, through the development-review process, the City complies with various
statutory requirements necessary to achieve regional water quality objectives and protect
groundwater and surface waters from pollution by contaminated storm water runoff. Storm
water runoff generated from within the project site would be managed in accordance with all
applicable federal, State, and local water quality rules and regulations to effectively minimize
the Project’s impact on water quality.
NR 3.10 Best Management Practices. Implement and improve upon Best
Management Practices (BMPs) for residences, businesses, development
projects, and City operations.
Consistent: See consistency analysis for Policies NR 3.4 and NR 3.9 of Goal NR 3.
NR 3.11 Site Design and Source Control. Include site design and source
control BMPs in all developments. When the combination of site design and
source control BMPs are not sufficient to protect water quality as required by
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), structural
treatment BMPs will be implemented along with site design and source
control measures.
Consistent: See consistency analysis for Policies NR 3.4 and NR 3.9 of Goal NR 3.
NR 3.14 Runoff Reduction on Private Property. Retain runoff on private
property to prevent the transport of pollutants into natural water bodies, to
the maximum extent practicable.
Consistent: See consistency analysis for Policies NR 3.4 and NR 3.9 of Goal NR 3.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
115 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Table 3.10-1. General Plan Consistency Analysis
Applicable City of Newport Beach
General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency
NR 3.15 Street Drainage Systems. Require all street drainage systems and
other physical improvements created by the City, or developers of new
subdivisions, to be designed, constructed, and maintained to minimize
adverse impacts on water quality. Investigate the possibility of treating or
diverting street drainage to minimize impacts to water bodies.
Consistent: See consistency analysis for Policies NR 3.4 and NR 3.9 of Goal NR 3.
NR 3.17 Parking Lots and Rights-of-Way. Require that parking lots and public
and private rights-of-way be maintained and cleaned frequently to remove
debris and contaminated residue.
Consistent: The Project would be required to comply with all applicable City codes and
regulations regarding the maintenance and keeping of public and private rights-of-way,
including Sections 6.04.220, Persons Required to Clean Sidewalks, and 10.50.020, Nuisance, of
the City’s Municipal Code.
NR 3.19 Natural Drainage Systems. Require incorporation of natural
drainage systems and stormwater detention facilities into new
developments, where appropriate and feasible, to retain stormwater in order
to increase groundwater recharge.
Consistent: See consistency analysis for Policies NR 3.4 and 3.9 of Goal NR 3. Additionally, the
proposed storm drain system would largely maintain the same existing drainage patterns. As
addressed, a portion of the storm drain underlies the location of the proposed free-standing
parking structure. Either that portion of the storm drain would be rebuilt and remain in its
existing location or it would be relocated within the project site as a part of the Project. The
connections to the existing public storm drain systems would remain.
NR 3.20 Impervious Surfaces. Require new development and public
improvements to minimize the creation of and increases in impervious
surfaces, especially directly connected impervious areas, to the maximum
extent practicable. Require redevelopment to increase area of pervious
surfaces, where feasible.
Consistent: See consistency analysis for Policy NR 3.19 of Goal NR 3. Collectively,
implementation of these hydraulic and drainage design features would assist in the retention
of storm water and the recharge of groundwater. The pre-project condition is 18 percent
pervious and post-project conditions would be 21 percent.
Goal NR 4 – Maintenance of water quality standards through compliance with the total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) standards.
NR 4.4 Erosion Minimization. Require grading/ erosion control plans with
structural BMPs that prevent or minimize erosion during and after
construction for development on steep slopes, graded, or disturbed areas.
Consistent: See consistency analysis for Policies NR 3.4 and 3.9 of Goal NR 3. Collectively,
implementation of the BMPs outlined in the SWPPP and the Project’s proposed water quality
design features would address the anticipated and expected erosion impacts during the
construction and operational phases of the Project.
Goal NR 6 – Reduced mobile source emissions.
NR 6.1 Walkable Neighborhoods. Provide for walkable neighborhoods to
reduce vehicle trips by siting amenities such as services, parks, and schools in
close proximity to residential areas.
Consistent: See consistency analysis for Policy CE 6.2.1 of Goal CE 6.2.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
116 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Table 3.10-1. General Plan Consistency Analysis
Applicable City of Newport Beach
General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency
NR 6.2 Mixed-Use Development. Support mixed-use development consisting
of commercial or office with residential uses in accordance with the Land Use
Element that increases the opportunity for residents to live in proximity to
jobs, services, and entertainment.
Consistent: See consistency analysis for Policy LU 2.2 of Goal LU 2 and Policy LU 6.15.5 of Goal
6.15.
Goal NR 7 - Reduced air pollutant emissions from stationary sources.
NR 7.1 – Fuel Efficient Equipment. Support the use of fuel-efficient heating
equipment and other appliances.
Consistent: The Project would comply with the energy efficiency requirements of Title 24.
NR 7.2 – Source Emission Reduction Best Management Practices. Require
the use of Best Management Practices (BMP) to minimize pollution and to
reduce source emissions.
Consistent: The Project would comply with the energy efficiency requirements of Title 24. As
addressed in Section 3.2, Air Quality, the Project would be required to adhere to all applicable
SCAQMD regulations that help reduce air pollutants from construction-related activities.
Additionally, the Project would be required to comply with the construction-related mitigation
measures.
Goal NR 8 – Reduced air pollutant emissions from construction activities.
NR 8.1 Management of Construction Activities to Reduce Air Pollution.
Require developers to use and operate construction equipment, use building
materials and paints, and control dust created by construction activities to
minimize air pollutants.
Consistent: See consistency analysis for Policy NR 7.2.
Goal NR 18 – Protection and preservation of important paleontological and archaeological resources.
NR 18.1 New Development. Require new development to protect and
preserve paleontological and archaeological resources from destruction, and
avoid and minimize impacts to such resources in accordance with the
requirements of CEQA. Through planning policies and permit conditions,
ensure the preservation of significant archeological and paleontological
resources and require that the impact caused by any development be
mitigated in accordance with CEQA.
Consistent: See consistency analysis for Policy HR 2.1 of Goal HR 2.
NR 18.3 Potential for New Development to Impact Resources. Notify cultural
organizations, including Native American organizations, of proposed
developments that have the potential to adversely impact cultural resources.
Allow qualified representatives of such groups to monitor grading and/or
excavation of development sites.
Consistent: See consistency analysis for Policy HR 2.1 Goal HR 2.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
117 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Table 3.10-1. General Plan Consistency Analysis
Applicable City of Newport Beach
General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency
NR 18.4 Donation of Materials. Require new development, where on-site
preservation and avoidance are not feasible, to donate scientifically valuable
paleontological or archaeological materials to a responsible public or private
institution with a suitable repository, located within Newport Beach or
Orange County, whenever possible.
Consistent: See consistency analysis for Policy HR 2.1 of Goal HR 2.
NR 22.1 - Regulation of Structure Mass. Continue to regulate the visual and
physical mass of structures consistent with the unique character and visual
scale of Newport Beach.
Consistent. See consistency analysis for Policy LU 6.15.22 of Goal LU 6.15.
Goal NR 24 – Increased energy efficiency in City facilities and operations and in private developments
NR 24.3 – Incentives for Green Building Program Implementation. Promote
or provide incentives for “Green Building” programs that go beyond the
requirements of Title 24 of the California Administrative Code and encourage
energy-efficient design elements as appropriate to achieve “green building”
status.
Consistent: The current building energy efficiency standards are substantially more stringent
than were in effect when the General Plan Program EIR was prepared. For example, the 2016
standards for residential buildings are 28 percent more energy-efficient and nonresidential
buildings are 5 percent more energy efficient than under the 2013 Standards and buildings
that are constructed in accordance with the 2013 Building Energy Efficiency Standards are 25
percent (residential) more energy efficient than the 2008 Standards as a result of better
windows, insulation, lighting, ventilation systems, and other features. The 2019 Standards
improve upon the 2016 Standards and are applicable to the proposed Project.
Safety Element
Goal S 4 – Adverse effects caused by seismic and geologic hazards are minimized by reducing the known level of risk to loss of life, personal injury, public and private
property damage, economic and social dislocation, and disruption of essential services.
S 4.7 Conduct further seismic studies for new development in areas where
potentially active faults may occur.
Consistent: A geotechnical evaluation was prepared for the proposed Project to identify
geotechnical hazards associated with the project site, including active faults, liquefaction,
subsidence, landslide, lateral spreading, collapse, expansive soils, and other ground failure
hazards. According to the study, the site is in a seismically active area; however, no active
faults are known to cross the site. Additionally, the Project would not exacerbate ground
shaking on site. The design and construction of all structures would comply with seismic design
parameters in the geotechnical evaluation, including the seismic design requirements under
the California Building Code and Chapter 15.10 of the City’s Municipal Code, Excavation and
Grading in effect at the time grading and building permits are issued for construction.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
118 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Table 3.10-1. General Plan Consistency Analysis
Applicable City of Newport Beach
General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency
Goal S 7 – Exposure of people and the environment to hazardous materials associated with methane gas extraction, oil operations, leaking underground storage tanks, and
hazardous waste generators is minimized.
S 7.1 Known Areas of Contamination. Require proponents of projects in
known areas of contamination from oil operations or other uses to perform
comprehensive soil and groundwater contamination assessments in
accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials standards, and if
contamination exceeds regulatory action levels, require the proponent to
undertake remediation procedures prior to grading and development under
the supervision of the County Environmental Health Division, County
Department of Toxic Substances Control, or Regional Water Quality Control
Board (depending upon the nature of any identified contamination).
Consistent: A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was prepared as a part of the proposed
Project to determine soil and groundwater contamination. There are no known or suspected
recognized environmental conditions (RECs) at the project site. However, one controlled REC
was revealed, associated with the former Conexant facility. No evidence of contamination,
distressed vegetation, petroleum hydrocarbon surface staining, waste drums, USTs, ASTs,
illegal dumping, or improper waste storage/handling was noted during site reconnaissance.
While RVECs are not likely to exist at the project site, future site improvements would include
excavation and construction of a residential building and parking structures. It is possible that
suspected contaminated soil or groundwater could be encountered during excavation and
construction. The Project prepared technical studies have assessed groundwater
contamination and soil sampling to determine if possible past contamination would exceed
regulatory thresholds. The Project is consistent with General Plan Policy S 7.1.
S 7.5 Siting of Sensitive Uses. Develop and implement strict land use
controls, performance standards, and structure design standards including
development setbacks from sensitive uses such as schools, hospitals, day care
facilities, elder care facilities, residential uses, and other sensitive uses that
generate or use hazardous materials.
Consistent: Development of the proposed Project would involve demolition of surface parking
and landscape areas to accommodate the residential development. The Phase I indicates that
no known or suspected RECs were identified at the project site. Further, no evidence of
contamination, distressed vegetation, petroleum hydrocarbon surface staining, waste drums,
USTs, ASTs, illegal dumping, or improper waste storage/handling was noted during site
reconnaissance. However, the Project would be required to comply with State and local health
and safety requirements, including the City’s Fire Code and Fire Department Guidelines
dictating requirements related to emergency access, fire protection, building construction, and
storage and handling of hazardous materials. Potential safety hazards related to hazardous
materials are addressed in Section 3.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Because the project
proposes residential land uses and would not generate or use hazardous materials in such a
manner as to present a hazard to sensitive uses, setbacks from such sensitive users are not
required.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
119 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Table 3.10-1. General Plan Consistency Analysis
Applicable City of Newport Beach
General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency
Noise Element
Goal N 1 Noise Compatibility – Minimized land use conflicts between various noise sources and other human activities.
N 1.1 Noise Compatibility of New Development. Require that all proposed
Projects are compatible with the noise environment through use of Table N2,
and enforce the interior and exterior noise standards shown in Table N3.
Consistent: As shown in Section 3.12, Noise, the project site is located in an area projected to
be exposed to a CNEL of 64.6 dBA or higher, as shown on General Plan Noise Element Figure
N5. The project site is in a Mixed-Use District (the General Plan land use category for the
project site is Mixed Use Horizontal 2 (MU-H2)). General Plan Noise Element Table N2
characterizes mixed use development as “clearly compatible” up to 65 dBA. The Addendum
noise analysis demonstrates that the Project would comply with the requirements as outlined
in the City’s Noise Ordinance.
N 1.2 Noise Exposure Verification for New Development. Applicants for
proposed Projects that require environmental review and are, located in
areas projected to be exposed to a CNEL of 60 dBA and higher, as shown on
Figure N4, Figure N5, and Figure N6 may conduct a field survey, noise
measurements or other modeling in a manner acceptable to the City to
provide evidence that the depicted noise contours do not adequately
account for local noise exposure circumstances due to such factors as,
topography, variation in traffic speeds, and other applicable conditions.
These findings shall be used to determine the level of exterior or interior,
noise attenuation needed to attain an acceptable noise exposure level and
the feasibility of such mitigation when other planning considerations are
taken into account.
Consistent: On-site noise impacts are evaluated in Section 3.12, Noise. As discussed in the
noise analysis, on-site noise levels could reach 64.6 dBA. Therefore, as required by Policy N
1.2, exterior and interior noise levels must be evaluated to determine if additional
attenuation is required. As discussed above, the project site a Mixed-Use District and on-site
noise levels would not exceed the 65 dBA clearly compatible standard for mixed use
residential. According to the U.S. EPA (Protective Noise Levels, November 1978), typical
building construction reduces noise levels by 25 dBA with the windows closed. Therefore, the
worst-case exterior interior noise levels would be reduced to 39.6 dBA, which is below the
City’s 45 dBA daytime interior noise standard and the 40 dBA nighttime interior noise
standard. Therefore, additional noise attenuation beyond what is required for standard
building code requirements would not be required.
N 1.4 New Development in Urban Areas. Require that applicants of
residential portions of mixed-use projects and high- density residential
developments in urban areas (such as the Airport Area and Newport Center)
demonstrate that the design of the structure will adequately isolate noise
between adjacent uses and units (common floor/ceilings) in accordance with
the California Building Code.
Consistent: See consistency analysis for Policy N 1.2 of Goal N1.1.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
120 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Table 3.10-1. General Plan Consistency Analysis
Applicable City of Newport Beach
General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency
N 1.8 Significant Noise Impacts. Require the employment of noise mitigation
measures for existing sensitive uses when a significant noise impact is
identified. A significant noise impact occurs when there is an increase in the
ambient CNEL produced by new development impacting existing sensitive
uses. The CNEL increase is shown in the table below.
CNEL dBA dBA increase
55 3
60 2
65 1
75 1
Over 75 Any increase is considered significant
Consistent: Addendum Section 3.12, Noise, discusses these potential long-term noise impacts
of the proposed Project. The Project would not generate transportation, or stationary long-
term noise sources that would exceed the stated requirements under this policy. With respect
to construction noise, refer to Policy N 4.6, Maintenance or Construction Activities. The
General Plan Program EIR finds that with compliance with applicable City requirements,
construction noise is a less than significant impact.
Goal N 2 – Minimized motor vehicle traffic and boat noise impacts on sensitive noise receptors.
N 2.1 New Development. Require that proposed noise-sensitive uses in
areas of 60 dBA and greater, as determined the analyses stipulated by Policy
N1.1, demonstrate that they meet interior and exterior noise levels.
Consistent: See response above to Policy N1.1 and Policy N1.2.
N 2.2 Design of Sensitive Land uses. Require the use of walls, berms, interior
noise insulation, double-paned windows, or other noise mitigation
measures, as appropriate, in the design of new residential or other new
noise-sensitive land uses that are adjacent to major roads. Application of the
Noise Standards in Table N3 shall govern this requirement.
Consistent: See response above to Policy N2.1 of Goal N2.
Goal N 3 – Protection of Newport Beach residents from the adverse noise impacts of commercial air carrier operations at John Wayne Airport as provided in the City Council
Airport Policy.
N 3.1 New Development. Ensure new development is compatible with the
noise environment by using airport noise contours no larger than those
contained in the 1985 JWA Master Plan, as guides to future planning and
development decisions.
Consistent: The project site is not located within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour.
N 3.2 Residential Development. Require that residential development in the
Airport Area be located outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour no larger
than shown in the 1985 JWA Master Plan and require residential developers
to notify prospective purchasers or tenants of aircraft overflight and noise.
Consistent: See response to Policy N 3.1. Additionally, written disclosure statement to notify
prospective tenants of aircraft overflight and noise would be required and included in the
residential overlay zone.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
121 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Table 3.10-1. General Plan Consistency Analysis
Applicable City of Newport Beach
General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency
Goal N 4: Minimization of Non-Transportation-Related Noise – Minimized non-transportation-related noise impacts on sensitive noise receptors.
N 4.1 Stationary Noise Sources. Enforce interior and exterior noise
standards outlined in Table N3, and in the City’s Municipal Code to ensure
that sensitive noise receptors are not exposed to excessive noise levels from
stationary noise sources, such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
equipment.
Consistent: As discussed in Section 3.12, Noise, potential stationary-related noise impacts
associated with residential uses include the operation of air conditioning units and outdoor
activities. Mechanical equipment (e.g., HVAC equipment) typically generates noise levels of
approximately 50 to 60 dBA at 50 feet. SC N-2 requires that HVAC units be designed and
installed in accordance with the Newport Beach Noise Ordinance. Outdoor activities may occur
intermittently, and if future residents and their guests engage in activities that exceed the
limits set forth in Chapters 10.26 and 10.28 of the City’s Municipal Code, the City can take
actions to abate that activity.
With application of SC N-2, proposed residential uses would not significantly impact existing
and planned noise-sensitive uses including the multi-family residences at Uptown Newport
currently east of the project site, office uses in the area, or proposed on-site noise-sensitive
uses. Operation of mechanical equipment would not be anticipated to increase ambient noise
levels beyond the acceptable compatible land use noise levels.
N 4.6 Maintenance or Construction Activities. Enforce the Noise Ordinance
noise limits and limits on hours of maintenance or construction activity in or
adjacent to residential areas, including noise that results from in-home
hobby or work-related activities.
Consistent: As discussed in Section 3.12, Noise, the City understands that control of
construction noise is difficult and therefore provides an exemption for this type of noise as
identified in Municipal Code Section 10.28.040, Construction Activity – Noise Regulations.
Section 10.28.040 identifies that construction is permitted on weekdays between the hours of
7:00 AM and 6:30 PM and Saturdays between the hours of 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM, in any area
of the City that is not designated as a high-density area. Construction is not permitted on
Sundays or any federal holiday. All construction activities proposed within the project site
would be required to adhere to these standards. Additionally, any project-related maintenance
would be required to adhere to the standard or permitted exemptions and exceptions as
stated in Municipal Code Section 10.28.045.
Goal N 5 – Minimized excessive construction-related noise.
N 5.1 Limiting Hours of Activity. Enforce the limits on hours of construction
activity.
Consistent: See response above to Policy N 4.6 of Goal N 4.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
122 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Cumulative Impact
The Project is consistent with applicable land use goals and policies. Although other changes in land use
plans and regulations may have occurred with past and present projects in the area and may be necessary
for individual future projects, such changes have been, and would be, required to demonstrate
consistency with General Plan and other City policies such that no significant adverse cumulative impact
has occurred or would occur from such changes. Given that the proposed Project would be consistent
with the land use policies of the applicable plans, the Project would not combine with any past, present,
or reasonably foreseeable future projects to cause a significant adverse cumulative land use impact based
on a conflict with a plan or policy. Any associated physical impacts are covered in the individual topic
sections. It is also anticipated that regional growth would be subject to review for consistency with
adopted land use plans and policies by the County of Orange, City of Newport Beach, and other cities in
Orange County, in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the State Zoning and Planning Law, and
the State Subdivision Map Act, all of which require findings of plan and policy consistency prior to approval
of entitlements for development. Therefore, no significant cumulative impacts associated plans and
policies are anticipated. In addition, the contribution of the proposed Project to any such cumulative
impacts would be less than significant because present and probable future projects are consistent with
applicable plans, policies, and regulations. The Project would not contribute to any cumulative impacts
associated with plan or policy inconsistency.
Conclusion
Accordingly, no new impacts relative to land use and planning or a substantial increase in the severity of
a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would occur. With
regard to PRC Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the Project would not result in
any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts. Additionally, no new
information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time
the General Plan Program EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of less than
significant with mitigation. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not
warranted.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
123 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
3.11 Mineral Resources
Threshold (a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that
would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
General Plan Significance Determination: No Impact. The majority of the City is located with Mineral
Resource Zone (MRZ)-1 and MRZ-3. MRZ-1 is defined as an area where available geologic information
indicates there is little or no likelihood for presence of significant mineral resources and MRZ-3 is defined
as an area containing known mineral occurrences of undetermined mineral significance. According to the
California Geologic Survey, the City does not have any land classified as MRZ-2 which is an area underlain
by significant mineral deposits or with a high likely hood of such. Therefore, the General Plan Program EIR
determined that implementation of the General Plan would not impact mineral resources that would be
of value to the region and the residents of California.
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from
previous analysis.
The proposed Project is located with MRZ-3 and does not contain mineral resources of significant value.
The proposed Project would not have the potential impact any resources within MRZ-2, which is
consistent with the General Plan Program EIR. The Project would not affect active oil wells located in the
northwestern area of the City. No impact with regards to mineral resources of value to the region and the
residents of the State. Therefore, no new impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously
identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would occur. Additionally, no new
information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time
the General Plan Program EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of no impact.
Threshold (b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use
plan?
General Plan Significance Determination: No Impact. The General Plan Program EIR states that there are
no regional, State, or locally important mineral resource recovery sites in the City. Consequently,
implementation of the General Plan would not substantially alter the projected production or
consumption of mineral resources. No impact would occur.
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from
previous analysis.
The proposed Project would develop a residential development within an urbanized area of the City. The
proposed Project would not remove any locally or regionally important mineral resources from production
or preclude access to important mineral resources. No impact to locally-important mineral resource
recovery sites would occur. Therefore, there are no changes or new significant information that would
require preparation of an EIR.
Mitigation Program
General Plan Policies
General Plan policies related to mineral resources identified in the General Plan Program EIR to mitigate
potential impacts to minerals resources are not applicable to the Project.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
124 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Standard Conditions and Requirements
No conditions of approval or mitigation measures are required.
Cumulative Impact
As discussed above, the proposed Project would not cause a new mineral impact to occur, nor an increase
in the severity of a mineral impact previously disclosed in the General Plan Program EIR. Implementation
of the proposed Project would not alter the conclusions of the General Plan Program EIR analysis and
would not result in a new or substantially more severe project-specific or cumulative mineral resources
impact than those already analyzed.
Conclusion
Accordingly, no new impacts relative to mineral resources or a substantial increase in the severity of a
previously identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would occur. With
regard to PRC Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the Project would not result in
any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts. Additionally, no new
information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time
the General Plan Program EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of less than
significant with mitigation. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not
warranted.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
125 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
3.12 Noise
Threshold (a) Would the project generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
General Plan Significance Determination: Significant and Unavoidable. The General Plan Program EIR
identified that regional growth would create noise that would affect new and existing receptors. Most of
this noise would be produced by increased traffic on local roads. Many of the General Plan policies would
reduce the impact. However, existing receptors would still be exposed to new noise levels in excess of
standards, and this impact, even with the proposed General Plan policies, was found to be significant and
unavoidable. The areas with the greatest potential for exceeding noise standards are roadway segments
where the 65 dBA CNEL noise contours extend beyond the roadway right-of-way. The exposure of existing
land uses to noise levels in excess of City standards as a result of the future growth under the General
Plan is considered a significant impact. With respect to temporary construction noise, the General Plan
Program EIR found that construction noise is not subject to the noise standards in the Municipal Code
when activities occur during limited hours of the day and days of the week. Existing and future
construction noise levels at individual construction sites may not substantially differ but previously
unexposed areas could experience new sources of construction noise. Both existing and future noise
would be exempt from the City code and when construction noise occurs, impacts would be considered
less than significant.
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: Less than significant impact; no substantial
change from previous analysis.
Traffic Noise
Policy N 1.8 of the General Plan Noise Element requires the implementation of noise mitigation measures
for existing sensitive uses when a significant noise impact is identified for new development impacting
existing sensitive uses, as presented in Table 3.12-1, Incremental Noise Impact Criteria for Noise-
Sensitive Uses.
Table 3.12-1. Incremental Noise Impact Criteria for Noise-Sensitive Uses (dBA CNEL)
Existing Noise Exposure Allowable Noise Exposure Increment
55 3
60 2
65 1
70 1
75 0
Source: City of Newport Beach General Plan, 2006.
The proposed Project would not increase the overall development capacity of the allowable uses as
analyzed in the General Plan Program EIR. Project generated traffic noise was modeled as identified in
Table 3.12-2, Existing and Project Traffic Noise and Table 3.12-3, Opening Year and Project Traffic Noise.
The proposed Project would generate a minimal increase in vehicle trips, resulting in a minimal increase
in traffic generated noise levels. Therefore, buildout of the proposed Project is not anticipated to result in
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
126 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
a substantial increase in traffic noise compared to what was previously analyzed in the General Plan
Program EIR.
Table 3.12-2. Existing and Project Traffic Noise
Roadway Segment
Existing Existing Plus Project Project
Change from
Existing
Conditions
Significant
Impact? ADT
dBA
CNELa ADT
dBA
CNELa
Campus Drive
Airport Way to MacArthur Blvd. 32,100 68.3 32,185 68.3 0 No
MacArthur Blvd. to Von Karman 15,500 65.1 15,585 65.2 0.1 No
Von Karman Ave. to Teller Ave. 13,100 64.4 13,185 64.4 0 No
Teller Ave. to Jamboree Rd. 12,300 64.1 12,385 64.2 0.1 No
Jamboree Rd. to Carlson Ave. 20,000 66.3 20,085 66.3 0 No
Carlson Ave. to University Dr. 18,900 68.0 18,985 68.0 0 No
University Dr. to Bridge Rd. 23,900 67.0 23,985 67.0 0 No
Jamboree Road
North of Barranca Parkway 62,500 72.9 62,670 72.9 0 No
Main St. to Barranca Parkway 68,400 73.3 68,570 73.3 0 No
Main St. to I-405 NB Ramps 73,300 73.6 73,470 73.6 0 No
I-405 SB Ramps to Michelson Dr. 84,100 74.2 84,270 74.2 0 No
Michelson Dr. to Dupont Dr. 59,200 72.3 59,370 72.3 0 No
Dupont Dr. to Campus Dr. 45,900 71.2 46,070 71.2 0 No
Campus Dr. to Birch St. 43,800 71.0 43,970 71.0 0 No
Birch St. to Fairchild Rd. 43,100 71.8 43,270 71.8 0 No
MacArthur Blvd. to Fairchild Rd. 37,800 71.3 37,970 71.3 0 No
MacArthur Boulevard
Main St. to Red Hill Ave. 33,300 68.6 33,470 68.6 0 No
Main St. to I-405 NB Ramps 51,800 70.5 51,970 70.6 0.1 No
I-405 NB Ramps to I-405 SB Ramps 53,100 70.9 53,270 70.9 0 No
I-405 SB Ramps to Michelson Dr. 57,000 71.2 57,170 71.2 0 No
Michelson Dr. to Campus Dr. 37,400 69.4 37,570 69.4 0 No
Campus Dr. to Jamboree Rd. 20,800 66.8 20,970 66.9 0.1 No
Von Karman Avenue
North of Main St. 25,700 58.0 25,785 58.1 0.1 No
Main St. to Michelson Dr. 27,200 58.3 27,285 58.3 0 No
Michelson Dr. to Campus Dr. 18,600 56.6 18,685 56.7 0.1 No
ADT = average daily trips; dBA = A-weighted decibels; CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level
a. Traffic noise levels are at 100 feet from the roadway centerline. The actual sound level at any receptor location is dependent
upon such factors as the source-to-receptor distance and the presence of intervening structures, barriers, and topography.
Source: Based on traffic data provided by Kimley-Horn, September 2020. Refer to Appendix E for traffic noise modeling
assumptions and results.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
127 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Table 3.12-3. Opening Year and Project Traffic Noise
Roadway Segment
Opening Year
Opening Year Plus
Project
Project
Change from
Existing
Conditions
Significant
Impact? ADT
dBA
CNELa ADT dBA CNELa
Campus Drive
Airport Way to MacArthur Blvd. 33,737 68.5 33,822 68.5 0 No
MacArthur Blvd. to Von Karman 16,291 65.3 16,376 65.4 0.1 No
Von Karman Ave. to Teller Ave. 13,768 64.6 13,853 64.6 0 No
Teller Ave. to Jamboree Rd. 12,927 64.3 13,012 64.4 0.1 No
Jamboree Rd. to Carlson Ave. 22,082 66.7 22,166 66.8 0.1 No
Carlson Ave. to University Dr. 20,867 68.4 20,952 68.4 0 No
University Dr. to Bridge Rd. 26,388 67.4 26,472 67.5 0.1 No
Jamboree Road
North of Barranca Parkway 69,005 73.3 69,175 73.3 0 No
Main St. to Barranca Parkway 75,519 73.7 75,689 73.7 0 No
Main St. to I-405 NB Ramps 80,929 74.0 81,099 74.0 0 No
I-405 SB Ramps to Michelson Dr. 92,853 74.6 93,023 74.6 0 No
Michelson Dr. to Dupont Dr. 65,362 72.8 65,531 72.8 0 No
Dupont Dr. to Campus Dr. 50,677 71.6 50,847 71.7 0.1 No
Campus Dr. to Birch St. 48,359 71.4 48,528 71.5 0.1 No
Birch St. to Fairchild Rd. 47,586 72.3 47,756 72.3 0 No
MacArthur Blvd. to Fairchild Rd. 41,734 71.7 41,904 71.7 0 No
MacArthur Boulevard
Main St. to Red Hill Ave. 36,766 69.1 36,936 69.1 0 No
Main St. to I-405 NB Ramps 57,191 71.0 57,361 71.0 0 No
I-405 NB Ramps to I-405 SB Ramps 58,627 71.3 58,796 71.4 0.1 No
I-405 SB Ramps to Michelson Dr. 62,933 71.7 63,102 71.7 0 No
Michelson Dr. to Campus Dr. 41,293 69.8 41,462 69.8 0 No
Campus Dr. to Jamboree Rd. 22,965 67.3 23,135 67.3 0 No
Von Karman Avenue
North of Main St. 28,375 58.5 28,460 58.5 0 No
Main St. to Michelson Dr. 30,031 58.7 30,116 58.7 0 No
Michelson Dr. to Campus Dr. 20,536 57.1 20,621 57.1 0 No
ADT = average daily trips; dBA = A-weighted decibels; CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level
a. Traffic noise levels are at 100 feet from the roadway centerline. The actual sound level at any receptor location is dependent
upon such factors as the source-to-receptor distance and the presence of intervening structures, barriers, and topography.
Source: Based on traffic data provided by Kimley-Horn, September 2020. Refer to Appendix E for traffic noise modeling
assumptions and results.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
128 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
On-Site Noise
Future residents at the project site would be exposed to mobile traffic noise along Birch Street and Von
Karman Avenue. Table 3.12-3 shows that the loudest traffic noise levels along the Project site would be
64.6 dBA. General Plan Policy N 1.2 requires proposed projects that are located in areas projected to be
exposed to a CNEL of 60 dBA and higher to determine the level of exterior or interior, noise attenuation
needed to attain an acceptable noise exposure level and the feasibility of such mitigation when other
planning considerations are taken into account.
General Plan Policy N 2.1 requires that proposed noise-sensitive uses in areas of 60 dBA and greater, as
determined the analyses stipulated by Policy N 1.1, demonstrate that they meet interior and exterior
noise levels. General Plan Policy N 1.1 requires that all proposed projects are compatible with the noise
environment through use of Noise Element Table N2 and enforce the interior and exterior noise standards
shown in Noise Element Table N3. Noise Element Table N2 identifies a “Clearly Compatible” exterior noise
standard of 65 dBA for residences in mixed use areas. Land uses that are clearly compatible are
satisfactory for buildings of normal conventional construction without any special noise insulation
requirements. The project site is in a Mixed-Use District, and the General Plan land use category for the
project site is “Mixed Use Horizontal 2 (MU-H2)”.
Noise Element Table N3 identifies a daytime interior noise standard of 45 dBA and a nighttime interior
noise standard of 40 dBA. According to the U.S. EPA (Protective Noise Levels, November 1978), typical
building construction reduces noise levels by 25 dBA with the windows closed. Therefore, the worst-case
exterior interior noise levels would be reduced to 39.6 dBA, which is below the City’s 45 dBA daytime
interior noise standard and the 40 dBA nighttime interior noise standard. Therefore, impacts would be
less than significant and there are no changes or new significant information that would require
preparation of an EIR.
Stationary Noise
The proposed Project is consistent with the existing land use designation of MU-H2. The site is currently
a surface parking lot for Koll Center Newport office uses. Stationary noise sources associated with these
uses include rooftop mechanical equipment such as HVAC equipment and truck loading and unloading.
The proposed Project would not introduce new types of noise sources that were not already anticipated
under the existing land use designation. In general, stationary noise sources associated with the proposed
residential uses are similar to or less than office uses (e.g., HVAC equipment and group conversations).
Stationary noise sources associated with residential uses include HVAC equipment, but would not require
truck loading and unloading needed for occasional office deliveries (residential deliveries typically require
smaller vehicles). Future development would be subject to the City of Newport Beach exterior noise
standards from the Municipal Code, as set forth in SC N-1. Therefore, impacts would be less than
significant and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an
EIR.
Construction Noise
The proposed Project is consistent with the existing land use designation of MU-H2. Therefore, the
proposed Project would accommodate land uses that would require similar construction processes and
intensities. Though the General Plan Program EIR does not specifically include residential uses for the
proposed Project area, overall it is anticipated that the required construction processes and activities
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
129 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
needed to develop the land uses accommodated under both the proposed Project and the General Plan
Program EIR would be similar.
Certain land uses are particularly sensitive to noise and vibration. These uses include residential, schools,
libraries, churches, nursing homes, hospitals, hotels, and open space/recreation areas where quiet
environments are necessary for enjoyment, public health, and safety. Commercial and industrial uses are
generally not considered noise and vibration sensitive unless noise and vibration would interfere with
normal operations and business activities. The nearest existing sensitive receptors to the project site are
the multi-family residences in Uptown Newport, located approximately 500 feet southeast of the site.
Additional residential development is planned in Uptown Newport and would locate residences closer to
the project site (approximately 100 feet from the proposed paring structure and approximately 550 feet
southeast of the proposed residential structure. This analysis conservatively evaluates construction noise
levels at the closer distances.
Project construction is anticipated to commence in the third quarter of 2021 and conclude in the first
quarter of 2024. The proposed Project would be constructed in three continuous phases. Phase 1 includes
the demolition of some surface parking and landscaping and the construction of a free-standing parking
structure; Phase 2A includes the construction of the 312-unit residential building; and Phase 2B includes
the reconfiguration of existing surface parking. Phases 2A and 2B would overlap.
Construction activities would include demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, paving,
and architectural coating. Such activities may require dozers, concrete/industrial saws, and excavators
during demolition; dozers and tractors during site preparation; trenching equipment during trenching and
utilities; graders, dozers, tractors, scrapers, and excavators during grading; cranes, forklifts, generators,
tractors, and welders during building construction; pavers, rollers, and paving equipment during paving;
As a conservative estimate, the short-term construction noise (i.e., the construction activity with highest
number of equipment used during each sub-phase) were modeled using the FHWA’s Roadway
Construction Noise Model (FHWA-HEP-05-054) (January 2006). The noise levels calculated in Table 3.12-4,
Project Construction Noise Levels, show estimated exterior construction noise at the closest receptors.
The closest residential uses would be approximately 100 feet from the parking structure and
approximately 550 feet west of the residential structure. Office uses are located approximately 200 feet
from the parking structure and 100 feet from the residential structure.
The City of Newport Beach does not have quantitative standards for construction noise levels. Newport
Beach Municipal Code Section 10.28.040(A) states that “No person shall, while engaged in construction,
remodeling, digging, grading, demolition, painting, plastering or any other related building activity,
operate any tool, equipment or machine in a manner which produces loud noise that disturbs, or could
disturb, a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, unless authorized to do so in
accordance with subsection (B) of this section.”
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
130 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Table 3.12-4. Project Construction Noise Levels
Construction
Phase
Receptor Location Worst Case
Modeled Exterior
Noise Level (dBA
Leq)
Noise
Threshold
(dBA Leq)b Exceeded? Land Use Direction
Distance
(feet)a
Free-Standing Parking Structure
Demolition Residential East 100 79.3 80 No
Office West 200 73.3 85 No
Grading Residential East 100 78.5 80 No
Office West 200 73.3 85 No
Building
Construction
Residential East 100 79.4 80 No
Office West 200 73.3 85 No
Paving Residential East 100 79.5 80 No
Office West 200 73.5 85 No
Residential Structure
Demolition Residential West 550 64.5 80 No
Office North and South 100 79.3 85 No
Site
Preparation
Residential West 550 64.7 80 No
Office North and South 100 79.5 85 No
Grading Residential West 550 66.3 80 No
Office North and South 100 81.1 85 No
Building
Construction
Residential West 550 66.6 80 No
Office North and South 100 81.4 85 No
Paving Residential West 550 65.7 80 No
Office North and South 100 80.5 85 No
a. Distance is from the Project construction area to the closest potential receptor.
b. Construction noise threshold from Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual,
Table 7-3, 2018.
Source: Federal Highway Administration, Roadway Construction Noise Model, 2006. Refer to Appendix E for noise modeling
results.
As applicable to the proposed Project, Municipal Code Section 10.28.040(B) states that the provisions of
Section 10.28.040(a) do not apply to those activities between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:30 PM on any
weekday that is not a federal holiday, and between the hours of 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM on Saturdays. The
permitted hours of construction are in recognition that construction activities undertaken during daytime
hours are a typical part of living in an urban environment and do not cause a significant impact. However,
this analysis conservatively uses the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) threshold of 80 dBA (8-hour Leq)
for residential uses and 85 dBA (8-hour Leq) for non-residential uses to evaluate construction noise
impacts.12
Actual construction-related noise activities are expected to be lower than the conservative levels
described above and would cease upon completion of construction. Due to the variability of construction
12 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, Table 7-2, Page 179, September 2018.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
131 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
activities and equipment for the Project, overall construction noise levels would be intermittent and
would fluctuate over time. These assumptions represent the worst-case noise scenario because
construction activities would typically be spread out throughout the project site, and thus some
equipment would be farther away from the affected receptors. In addition, the noise modeling assumes
that construction noise is constant, when, in fact, construction activities and associated noise levels would
fluctuate and generally be brief and sporadic, depending on the type, intensity, and location of
construction activities. It is also noted that Project construction equipment would be equipped with
functioning mufflers as mandated by the state, and construction would occur throughout the project site
and would not be concentrated or confined in the areas closest to sensitive receptors.
Potential construction noise related to this use would be similar to noise as addressed in the General Plan
Program EIR and would not represent a new impact. Construction noise would be temporary in nature
and cease upon Project completion.
Construction noise would be subject to General Plan Policy N 4.6, which would require enforcement of
the noise ordinance limits and hours in the City’s municipal code. Since the Project’s construction noise
levels would not substantially differ from the General Plan Program EIR, construction noise impacts with
implementation of the proposed Project would be less than significant. Therefore, there are no changes
or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR.
Threshold (b) Would the project generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise
levels?
General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant. The General Plan Program EIR concluded
that vibrations associated with construction activities would impact existing buildings and their occupants
if they are located close enough to the construction sites. Vibration levels would be problematic if
sensitive uses were located within about 100 feet of potential project construction sites, where sensitive
receptors (e.g., residents, school children) would experience vibration levels that exceed the FTA’s
vibration impact threshold of 72 VdB. The only mitigation that could eliminate the vibration impact is to
distance construction and existing sensitive receptors by approximately 150 feet. Since it is not feasible
to prohibit construction within 150 feet of all existing receptors, there is no feasible mitigation available
for the impact. Thus, when construction vibration occurs, impacts were considered significant.
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: Less than significant impact; no substantial
change from previous analysis.
Increases in groundborne vibration levels attributable to the proposed Project would be primarily
associated with construction-related activities. Construction on the project site would have the potential
to result in varying degrees of temporary groundborne vibration, depending on the specific construction
equipment used and the operations involved. Ground vibration generated by construction equipment
spreads through the ground and diminishes in magnitude with increases in distance. The effect on
buildings located in the vicinity of the construction site often varies depending on soil type, ground strata,
and construction characteristics of the receiver building(s). The results from vibration can range from no
perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibration at
moderate levels, to slight damage at the highest levels. Groundborne vibrations from construction
activities rarely reach levels that damage structures.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
132 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Construction-related ground vibration is normally associated with impact equipment such as pile drivers,
jackhammers, and the operation of some heavy-duty construction equipment, such as dozers and trucks.
Vibration decreases rapidly with distance.
The FTA has published standard vibration velocities for construction equipment operations. In general,
depending on the building category of the nearest buildings adjacent to the potential pile driving area,
the potential construction vibration damage criteria vary. For example, for a building that is constructed
with reinforced concrete with no plaster, the FTA guidelines show that a vibration level of up to 0.50 inch
per second (in/sec) peak particle velocity (PPV) is considered safe and would not result in any construction
vibration damage. The FTA architectural damage criterion for continuous vibrations for non-engineered
timber and masonry buildings (i.e., 0.20 inch/second) appears to be conservative. The types of
construction vibration impact include human annoyance and building damage. Human annoyance occurs
when construction vibration rises significantly above the threshold of human perception for extended
periods of time. Building damage can be cosmetic or structural. Ordinary buildings that are not particularly
fragile would not experience any cosmetic damage (e.g., plaster cracks) at distances beyond 30 feet. This
distance can vary substantially depending on the soil composition and underground geological layer
between vibration source and receiver. In addition, not all buildings respond similarly to vibration
generated by construction equipment. The City of Newport Beach does not provide numerical vibration
standards for construction activities. Therefore, this impact discussion uses FTA standard of 0.20
inch/second PPV with respect to the prevention of structural damage for normal buildings and human
annoyance.
The nearest structures to any of the construction activities include office buildings that are within
approximately 50 feet; however; heavy equipment would be 100 feet away or more. Table 3.12-5, Typical
Construction Equipment Vibration Levels, identifies vibration levels feet for typical construction
equipment. Based on FTA data, vibration velocities from typical heavy construction equipment operations
that would be used during Project construction would range from 0.003 to 0.089 inch/second PPV at
25 feet and 0.000 to 0.011 inch/second PPV from the source of activity. It is also acknowledged that
construction activities would occur throughout the project site and would not be concentrated at the
point closest to the nearest structure. Vibration from construction activities experienced at the nearest
building would be below the 0.20 inch/second PPV significance threshold. As noted above, the
0.20 inch/second PPV threshold is conservative because the construction vibration damage criteria for
non-engineered timber and masonry buildings. Buildings would be better represented by the
0.50 inch/second PPV significance threshold (construction vibration damage criteria for a reinforced
concrete, steel or timber buildings). Once operational, the Project would not be a source of groundborne
vibration. Because construction equipment vibration levels would be below the significance thresholds,
impacts would be less than significant. There are no changes or new significant information that would
require the preparation of an EIR.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
133 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Table 3.12-5. Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels
Equipment Type
Peak Particle
Velocity at 25 Feet
(inches per second)
Peak Particle
Velocity at 50 Feet
(inches per second)a
Peak Particle
Velocity at 100 Feet
(inches per second)a
Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.024 0.011
Caisson Drilling 0.089 0.024 0.011
Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.020 0.010
Rock Breaker 0.059 0.016 0.007
Jackhammer 0.035 0.001 0.004
Small Bulldozer/Tractor 0.003 0.001 0.000
a. Calculated using the following formula: PPV equip = PPVref x (25/D)1.5, where: PPV (equip) = the peak particle velocity in inch
per second of the equipment adjusted for the distance; PPVref = the reference vibration level in inch per second from Table
7-4 of the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (2018); D = the distance from the equipment to the
receiver.
Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, 2018.
Threshold (c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant. The General Plan Program EIR concluded
that residential development that occurs outside the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour of John Wayne Airport
would not exceed allowable exterior noise levels for a residential area. Impacts would be less than
significant.
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from
previous analysis.
The Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) of Orange County adopted an AELUP, amended April 17, 2008,
that included John Wayne Airport. The AELUP is a land use compatibility plan that is intended to protect
the public from adverse effects of aircraft noise. The proposed Project is within the “airport influence
area” defined by the AELUP. John Wayne Airport is approximately 0.44 mile northwest of the project site.
The AELUP shows the project site is outside of the 65 dBA CNEL contour. Additionally, General Plan Policy
N 1.3 and Standard Condition SC N-3 require residential developments within the Airport Area
demonstrate that the design of the structure will adequately isolate noise between adjacent uses and
units (common floor/ceilings) in accordance with the California Building Code and that interior noise levels
would achieve 45 dBA CNEL or less. Therefore, there is no impact surrounding the proposed Project
concerning airport noise and no mitigation is required. There are no changes or new significant
information that would require the preparation of an EIR.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
134 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Mitigation Program
General Plan Policies
The following policies are applicable to the proposed Project and would be made conditions of approval.
▪ N 1.1 Field Surveys for New Development. Require that all proposed projects are compatible with
the noise environment through use of Table N2, and enforce the interior and exterior noise standards
shown in Table N3. Proposed projects located in areas projected to be exposed to a CNEL of 60 dBA
and higher, as shown on Figure N5, shall (a) conduct a field survey to determine the existing levels of
noise exposure and (b) project the levels that would result from the Plan’s projected traffic increases
as may be modified from those depicted on Figure N5 by existing building locations, topography, and
traffic speed. Based on these findings, require that the project meet interior and exterior noise
standards.
▪ N 1.3 New Developments in Urban Areas. Requires that applicants of residential portions of mixed-
use projects and high-density residential developments in urban areas (such as the Airport Area and
Newport Center) demonstrate that the design of the structure will adequately isolate noise between
adjacent uses and units (common floor/ceilings) in accordance with the California Building Code.
▪ N 2.1 New Development. Require that proposed noise-sensitive uses in areas of 60 dBA and greater,
as determined the analyses stipulated by Policy N1.1, demonstrate that they meet interior and
exterior noise levels.
▪ N 2.2 - Design of Sensitive Land Uses: Require the use of walls, berms, and interior noise insulation,
double-paned windows, or other noise mitigation measures, as appropriate, in the design of new
residential or other new noise-sensitive land uses that are adjacent to major roads. Application of the
Noise Standards in Table N3 of the Noise Element shall govern this requirement.
▪ N 3.1 - New Development: Ensure new development is compatible with the noise environment by
using airport noise contours no larger than those contained in the 1985 JWA Master Plan, as guides
to future planning and development decisions.
▪ N 3.2 - Residential Development: Require that residential development in the Airport Area be
located outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour no larger than shown in the 1985 JWA Master Plan
and require residential developers to notify prospective purchasers or tenants of aircraft overflight
and noise.
▪ N 4.1 - Stationary Noise Sources: Enforce interior and exterior noise standards outlined in Table N3
of the Noise Element and in the City’s Municipal Code to ensure that sensitive noise receptors are not
exposed to excessive noise levels from stationary noise sources, such as heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning equipment.
▪ N 4.2 - New Uses: Require that new uses such as restaurants, bars, entertainment, parking facilities,
and other commercial uses where large numbers of people may be present adjacent to sensitive noise
receptors obtain a use permit that is based on compliance with the noise standards in Table N3 of
the Noise Element and the City’s Municipal Code.
▪ N 4.6 - Maintenance or Construction Activities: Require the enforcement of the Noise Ordinance
noise limits and limits hours of maintenance or construction activity in or adjacent to residential
areas, including noise that results from in-home hobby or work-related activities.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
135 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
▪ LU 6.15.3 - Airport Compatibility: Require that all development be constructed in conformance with
the height restrictions set forth by Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Federal Aviation Regulations
(FAR) Part 77, and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, and that residential development be located
outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour specified by the 1985 JWA Master Plan.
▪ LU 6.15.15 - Aircraft Notification: Require that all neighborhood parks be posted with a notification
to users regarding proximity to John Wayne Airport and aircraft overflight and noise.
Standard Conditions and Requirements
SC N-1 To ensure compliance with Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 10.28.040, grading
and construction plans shall include a note indicating that loud noise-generating project
construction activities (as defined in Section 10.28.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal
Code) shall take place between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:30 PM on weekdays that are
not federal holidays and from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM on Saturdays in any area of the City
that is not designated as a high-density area. Loud, noise-generating construction
activities are prohibited outside of these hours and on Sundays and federal holidays.
SC N-2 Heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) units shall be designed and installed in
accordance with Section 10.26.045 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, which specifies
the maximum noise levels for new HVAC installations and associated conditions. All
mechanical equipment shall be screened from view of adjacent properties and adjacent
public streets, as authorized by a Site Development Review Permit.
SC N-3 Consistent with General Plan Policy N 1.3, all residential units shall be designed to ensure
that interior noise levels in habitable rooms from exterior sources (including aircraft and
vehicles on adjacent roadways) shall not exceed 45 dBA CNEL. This mitigation measure
complies with the applicable sections of the California Building Code (Title 24 of the
California Code of Regulations). Prior to granting of a building permit, the Applicant shall
submit to the City of Newport Beach Community Development Department for review
and approval architectural plans and an accompanying noise study that demonstrates
that interior noise levels in the habitable rooms of residential units would be 45 dBA CNEL
or less. Where closed windows are required to achieve the 45 dBA CNEL limit, Project
plans and specifications shall include ventilation as required by the California Building
Code.
Cumulative Impact
As discussed above, all construction and operational noise impacts would be less than significant.
Construction noise impacts are by nature localized. The distance of separation among the proposed
Project and other cumulative projects would be such that the temporary noise and vibration effects of
the proposed Project would not be compounded or increased by similar noise or vibration effects from
other cumulative projects. As discussed above, operational noise caused by the proposed Project would
be less than significant. Due to site distance and these intervening land uses, cumulative stationary noise
impacts would not occur. No known past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects would compound
or increase the operational noise levels generated by the Project. Therefore, cumulative impacts relative
to temporary and permanent noise generation associated with the proposed Project would be less than
significant.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
136 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
As discussed above, the proposed Project would not cause a new noise impact to occur, nor an increase
in the severity of a noise impact previously disclosed in the General Plan Program EIR. Implementation of
the proposed Project would not alter the conclusions of the General Plan Program EIR analysis and would
not result in a new or substantially more severe project-specific or cumulative noise or vibration impact
than those already analyzed.
Conclusions
Accordingly, no new impacts relative to noise or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously
identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would occur. With regard to PRC
Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the Project would not result in any new
impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts. Additionally, no new information of
substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan
Program EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of less than significant with
mitigation. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not warranted.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
137 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
3.13 Population and Housing
Threshold (a) Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of road or other infrastructure?
General Plan Significance Determination: Significant Unavoidable Impact. The General Plan Program EIR
assumed that General Plan buildout would increase the number of dwelling units by 14,215 units
(approximately 12,515 multi-family units and approximately 1,700 single-family units), for a total of
54,394 units. Using a persons per household rate of 2.19, the General Plan Program EIR assumed that the
14,215 residential units would result in a population increase of approximately 31,131 residents. This
increase would result in a total population of 103,753 persons at General Plan buildout.
The increase in residential units and the associated increase in population would exceed SCAG projections.
The number of households in the City projected by SCAG by 2030 was 43,100 units, while the number of
dwelling units under the General Plan would be 54,394 units. The SCAG projected population was 94,167
residents by 2030, while the population resulting from the General Plan buildout would be approximately
10 percent higher, or 103,753 residents. The General Plan Program EIR concluded that since residential
growth would substantially increase population growth within the City (by approximately 43 percent over
2002 population, and approximately 10 percent higher than existing SCAG projections), impacts on
population growth would be considered significant. It was noted that the estimated population increase
represented a conservative, worst-case scenario because it assumed that all allowed units would be built.
Additionally, this estimate assumed that all residences in the City would be occupied. The City typically
has a substantially higher vacancy rate than that of the County due to a higher percentage of vacation
properties (seasonal housing).
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: Less than significant impact; no substantial
change from previous analysis.
The proposed Project would allow for the development of 312 multi-family apartment units, inclusive of
52 density bonus units. Assuming 2.19 persons per unit, the proposed Project would have a residential
population of approximately 683 persons. This increase in residential units and population represents
approximately two percent of the growth anticipated under the General Plan. It is important to note that
the General Plan Program EIR addressed the introduction of 4,400 multi-family residential units into the
Airport Area; the adopted General Plan includes 2,200 multi-family units. Project implementation would
make progress on the City’s housing goals and be consistent with projected growth in the City based on
SCAG’s growth forecasts. Additionally, the Project does not include the extension of roads or other
infrastructure to unserved areas, which could induce indirect growth. Therefore, the Project would not
induce substantial unplanned population growth in the City. No significant impacts would occur, and no
mitigation is required. The proposed Project would cause neither a new impact to occur, nor an increase
in the severity of an impact previously disclosed. As such, no further analysis is required.
Threshold (b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
General Plan Significance Determination: No Impact. The General Plan Program EIR finds that
development would occur primarily by intensifying current land uses, and through the conversion of land
uses of economically underperforming and obsolete development. No substantial demolition of
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
138 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
residential uses was proposed in the General Plan. There was an allowance for the loss of ten single-family
residential units in the West Newport Mesa subarea, only if these units are sold voluntarily by the owners.
These properties could be converted to commercial uses. However, West Newport Mesa would also gain
1,070 multi-family residential units, which would be consistent with Policy LU 6.6.2, which promotes the
development of a mix of residential types and building scales within the subarea. Because the General
Plan does not propose uses that would displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people, no
impact would occur.
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from
previous analysis.
The project site is currently developed with surface parking and common landscape areas for Koll Center
Newport. Koll Center Newport includes low-rise, mid-rise, and high-rise office buildings, hotels, and a
private club. No existing residential uses are located on-site; therefore, Project implementation would not
displace existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing. No impacts would occur,
and no mitigation is required. The proposed Project would cause neither a new impact to occur nor an
increase in the severity of an impact previously disclosed. As such, no further analysis is required.
Mitigation Program
General Plan Policies
The City of Newport Beach’s General Plan Housing Element was updated in 2013. This is in accordance
with the state’s requirement to update housing elements every five years in response to the Regional
Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). The following policies are applicable to the proposed Project and
would be made conditions of approval.
▪ H 2.1 - Encourage preservation of existing and provision of new housing affordable to extremely
low-, very low-, low-, and moderate-income households.
▪ H 2.2 - Encourage the housing development industry to respond to existing and future housing needs
of the community and to the demand for housing as perceived by the industry.
▪ H 2.3 - Approve, wherever feasible and appropriate, mixed residential and commercial use
developments that improve the balance between housing and jobs.
Standard Conditions and Requirements
No standard conditions are applicable to the proposed Project.
Cumulative Impacts
As discussed above, the proposed Project would not cause impact to population and housing to occur,
nor an increase in the severity of any impacts previously disclosed in the General Plan Program EIR.
Therefore, the proposed Project would not cause either a new cumulative impact to occur, nor an increase
in the severity of a cumulative impact previously disclosed.
Conclusion
Accordingly, no new impacts relative to population and housing or a substantial increase in the severity
of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would occur. With
regard to PRC Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the Project would not result in
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
139 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts. Additionally, no new
information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time
the General Plan Program EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of less than
significant with mitigation. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not
warranted.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
140 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
3.14 Public Services
Threshold (a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times or other performance objectives for fire protection?
General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR
found that impacts to fire services from implementation of the General Plan were less than significant
assuming compliance with applicable regulations and General Plan policies. The General Plan Program EIR
addressed the introduction of residential uses into the Airport Area. As previously addressed in this
Addendum, the General Plan evaluated the construction of 4,300 multi-family units in the Airport Area;
however, the adopted General Plan includes 2,200 multi-family units. The General Plan Program EIR noted
that new Airport Area residential uses would increase demands for 24-hour medical service, and that an
increase in density by both infill development and the conversion of low-rise properties to mid-rise and
high-rise development would necessitate the addition of a ladder truck company at the Santa Ana Heights
Fire Station (Fire Station 7).
New development would be required to comply with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations
governing the provision of fire protection services. General Plan Policy LU 3.2 requires that growth and
development be coordinated with the provision of adequate infrastructure. The General Plan Program EIR
analysis concludes that compliance with applicable regulations and policies identified in the General Plan
would ensure impacts would be less than significant.
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from
previous analysis.
The proposed Project would allow for the development of a 312-unit, multi-family residential building
with structured parking, a free-standing parking structure, and a 1.1-acre park. As discussed in
Section 3.13, Population and Housing, the Project has the potential to generate 683 residents. This would
incrementally increase the demand for service from the Newport Beach Fire Department (Fire
Department), as well as potentially increase the Fire Department’s response time to the project site.
Consistent with the findings of the General Plan Program EIR, the proposed Project would incrementally
increase the Fire Department’s demand for medical services. At the time of preparation of the General
Plan Program EIR, it was forecasted that an additional ladder truck company would be needed at Fire
Station 7. Because of changes in technology, building codes, and ongoing review of the current needs of
the Fire Department, Fire Station 7 now requires a rescue ambulance with patient transport and advanced
life support (ALS) capabilities instead of a ladder truck company without the need for new or expanded
facilities. Fire Station 7 has the physical capacity to house a paramedic rescue ambulance unit and would
be able to address the additional service demand. In addition to the ambulance unit and its appurtenant
equipment, the paramedic rescue ambulance unit requires six firefighters that are cross-trained as
paramedics to ensure the unit is available 24 hours a day.
General Plan Policy LU 2.8 and Policy LU 6.1.1 require that land uses can be adequately supported by
transportation and utility infrastructure and by public services. Implementation of SC PS-2 would ensure
appropriate levels of service to the Airport Area.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
141 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Given the proximity of the project site to Fire Station 7, Santa Ana Heights Fire Station (1.8 mile), and with
implementation of SCs PS-1 and PS-2, the Fire Department would continue to maintain its service
response goals and provide adequate staffing. Therefore, increases in service demand generated by the
proposed Project would not have a substantial impact on the Fire Department’s ability to adequately serve
the project site. Therefore, the Project can be adequately served.
All new development would be required to comply with the existing International Fire Code and California
Fire and Building Codes in the California Health and Safety Code. In addition, Chapter 10.48 of the City’s
Municipal Code authorizes the Fire Marshal to regulate weed and rubbish abatement in the City to reduce
potential fire hazards from dry grasses, brush, garden refuse, etc. The Project would comply with the Fire
Department’s Fire Prevention Guidelines and Standards. By complying with these federal, State, and local
regulations, adequate fire and emergency safety elements would be integrated into the Project, thereby
reducing the risk for fire hazards.
The Fire Department’s operating budget is generated through tax revenues. Facilities, personnel, and
equipment expansion and acquisition are tied to the City budget process and tax-base expansion.
Additionally, the Project would be subject to the City of Newport Beach Property Excise Tax (Municipal
Code §3.12 et seq) established for public improvements and facilities associated with the City’s Fire
Department, public libraries, and public parks; see SC PS-1.
Accordingly, no new impacts relative to fire protection or a substantial increase in the severity of a
previously identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would occur.
Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been
known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior
finding of less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Program
General Plan Policies
The following policies are applicable to the proposed Project and would be made conditions of approval.
▪ LU 2.8 Adequate Infrastructure: Accommodate the types, densities, and mix of land uses that can be
adequately supported by transportation and utility infrastructure (water, sewer, storm drainage,
energy, and so on) and public services (schools, parks, libraries, seniors, youth, police, fire, and so
on).
▪ LU 6.1.1 Adequate Community Supporting Uses. Accommodate schools, government administrative
and operational facilities, fire stations and police facilities, religious facilities, schools, cultural
facilities, museums, interpretative centers, and hospitals to serve the needs of Newport Beach’s
residents and businesses.
Standard Conditions and Requirements
SC PS-1 Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the Project, the Applicant shall pay the
required Property Excise Tax to the City of Newport Beach, as set forth in its Municipal
Code (§2.12 et seq.) for public improvements and facilities associated with the City of
Newport Beach Fire Department, the City of Newport Beach Public Library, and City of
Newport Beach public parks.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
142 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
SC PS-2 In compliance with General Plan Policy LU 2.8 and Policy 6.1.1, prior to the issuance of a
building permit for the residential structure, the Applicant, or any successors in interest,
shall provide payment to the City of Newport Beach for the Project’s pro-rata share of the
cost for purchasing and equipping a new rescue ambulance with patient transport and
advanced life support (ALS) capabilities to be located at Santa Ana Heights Fire Station
No. 7. This Standard Condition will be satisfied through the applicant’s payment of a
Public Safety Fee as outlined in the proposed Development Agreement.
Threshold (b) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times or other performance objectives for police protection?
General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR
determined build out of the General Plan would have a less than significant impact on police services. In
order to maintain acceptable levels of service, the General Plan includes policies to ensure adequate law
enforcement is provided as the City experiences future development (Policy LU 2.8). It was noted that to
maintain the ratio of 1.7 officers per 1,000 residents (148 officers and 85,120 residents), the Newport
Beach Police Department (Police Department) would have had to provide 53 additional officers by General
Plan buildout. Maintaining the Police Department’s ratio of 0.60 nonsworn personnel per sworn officer
would result in the addition of 32 nonsworn personnel. The addition of 85 police personnel would require
Police Department to expand police facilities. However, since Police Department did not have near-term
plans for expansion of police facilities, staff, or equipment inventory, it was speculative to determine
whether a new substation would be considered. All new development would be subject to the City’s
project-specific environmental review under CEQA. Therefore, the General Plan Program EIR found that
impacts would be less than significant.
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from
previous analysis.
Policy LU 2.8 of the General Plan provides that only land uses that can be adequately supported by the
City’s public services should be accommodated. Project implementation would introduce new residential
uses and increase population in the City. Buildout of the proposed Project has the potential to generate
683 residents (see Section 4.11, Population and Housing). Based on the City’s current ratio of officers to
residents (1.6 officers per 1,000 residents), implementation of the Project would result in the demand for
less than one additional police officer. It should be noted that the ratio of 1.6 officers per 1,000 residents
is the current ratio but is not a ratio required by any City plan or policy.
Although the project site is currently surface parking for the existing office building tenants, the Police
Department currently provides police services to the Koll Center Newport. The demand for police services
would not be substantially increased by the introduction of the proposed residential uses. The Police
Department does not have any immediate or future plans to expand police facilities. Although the Project
would incrementally increase demand for the City’s police protection services, this demand would not
require the construction of new facilities, nor would it require the expansion of existing facilities that
would result in physical environmental impacts. The City is almost fully built out, with most new
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
143 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
development occurring as infill development or redevelopment. Residential development on the project
site has been taken into account in long-range planning efforts by the Police Department.
The Police Department’s operating budget is generated through tax revenues, penalties and service fees,
and allowed government assistance. Facilities, personnel, and equipment expansion and acquisition are
tied to the City budget process and tax-base expansion. Tax base expansion from development of the
proposed Project would generate funding for the police protection services. Implementation of SC PS-3
related to site security and building and site safety design recommendations would ensure adequate
police protection services can be provided to the project site. Therefore, the Project’s impact on police
protection services would be less than significant.
Mitigation Program
General Plan Policies
General Plan Policies LU 2.8 and 6.1.1 are applicable to the proposed Project.
Standard Conditions and Requirements
SC PS-1 and the following conditions are applicable.
SC PS-3 Prior to issuance of building permits, the City of Newport Beach Police Department shall
review development plans for the incorporation of defensible space concepts to reduce
demands on police services. Public safety planning recommendations shall be
incorporated into the Project plans. The Applicant shall prepare a list of project features
and design components that demonstrate responsiveness to defensible space design
concepts. The Police Department shall review and approve all defensible space design
features incorporated into the Project prior to initiating the building plan check process.
Threshold (c) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times or other performance objectives for schools?
General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR
analyzed school capacity in Newport-Mesa Unified School District (NMUSD), Santa Ana Unified School
District (SAUSD), and Laguna Beach Unified School District (LBUSD). At buildout, the student population
in the City was estimated to increase by approximately 6,230 students. The Airport Area is served by the
SAUSD. The General Plan Program EIR projected that the Airport Area would experience an increase of
4,300 residential units and contribute approximately 1,883 students (of the total 6,230 students
generated City- wide under General Plan buildout). The General Plan Program EIR also noted that
anticipated growth within the Irvine Business Complex (IBC) would have the potential to cumulatively
impact Airport Area schools. The General Plan included goals and policies to address capacity issues for
NMUSD and SAUSD. Buildout would likely require construction of new school facilities; however, the EIR
concluded that compliance with General Plan policies would reduce impacts to less than significant.
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from
previous analysis.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
144 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Student generation rates are used by school districts, including SAUSD, to estimate the number of
students generated by new development in order to determine whether existing school facilities would
be adequate for future student enrollment. As identified in Table 3.14-1, Student Generation using these
student generation rates, the proposed 312 multi-family rental units, would introduce approximately 34
students into the attendance area of SAUSD.
Table 3.14-1. Student Generation
School Level
Single-Family Attached
Units
Number of Proposed
Units
Students Potentially
Generated by the Project
Elementary School 0.0620 312 19
Intermediate School 0.0229 312 7
High School 0.0251 312 8
Total n/a n/a 34
Source: SAUSD Residential Development School Fee Justification Study, 2014.
The proposed Project would be served by Monroe Elementary, McFadden Intermediate, and Century High
Schools within the SAUSD. The proposed Project would generate 19 elementary, 7 intermediate students,
and 8 high school students (Table 3.14-1). This increase in the student population represents 1.8 percent
of the growth projected for the Airport Area under General Plan buildout.
School funding comes predominantly from federal, State, and local contributions, such as business and
personal income taxes, sales tax, property tax, etc. In accordance with Government Code Section 65995,
the SAUSD requires all new development to pay fees to help offset the impacts to school facilities from
new residential, commercial, and industrial development. The fees would be collected by SAUSD at the
time of issuance of building permits.
As stated in Government Code Section 65995(h), “The payment or satisfaction of a fee, charge, or other
requirement levied or imposed …are hereby deemed to be full and complete mitigation of the impacts of
any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development
of real property, or any change in governmental organization or reorganization …on the provision of
adequate school facilities.” Payment of these fees would offset impacts from increased demand for school
services associated with development of the proposed Project by providing an adequate financial base to
construct and equip new and existing schools. Overall, SAUSD would be able to provide adequate school
facilities for the projected student residents of the Project, and payment of impact fees would ensure that
impacts are offset and remain less than significant. No changes or new information requiring preparation
of an EIR.
Parks
Refer to Section 3.15, Recreation.
Other Public Facilities?
General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR
concluded a less than significant impact to library facilities from implementation of the General Plan.
General Plan Policy LU 2.8 would help ensure that adequate library facilities are provided to the City’s
residents and that public services can adequately support new development. Compliance with policies
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
145 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
contained in the General Plan would satisfy any future demand for library facilities. Impacts associated
with library services were less than significant.
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from
previous analysis.
The Project is anticipated to include 683 residents, thereby incrementally increasing the demand for City
library services. Although future Project residents would be expected to primarily use the Central and
Mariners Branch Libraries, they would have access to all four libraries within the City’s library system. The
existing library space, collections, and programs provided are considered adequate for the existing
residents, and the proposed residential development would have a nominal impact on library services.
The City’s library system would continue receiving funding for library facilities and resources through the
City’s General Fund; the property excise tax per Chapter 3.12 of the City’s Municipal Code as set forth in
SC PS-1; and library activities, such as fines, facility rentals, passport photo/execution fees, and grants and
private donations. Overall, Project impacts to library services would be less than significant. Therefore,
impacts on library facilities and services would be less than significant and no changes or new significant
information that would require preparation of an EIR.
Mitigation Program
General Plan Policies
General Plan Policies LU 2.8 and 6.1.1 are applicable to library services.
Standard Conditions
SC PS-1 is applicable.
Cumulative
As discussed above, the proposed Project would not cause a new public services impact to occur, nor an
increase in the severity of any public services, recreation, or utilities impacts previously disclosed in the
General Plan Program EIR, with implementation of the standard conditions discussed in this section.
Implementation of the proposed Project would not alter the conclusions of the General Plan Program EIR
analysis and would not result in a new or substantially more severe project-specific or cumulative public
services impact than those already analyzed.
Conclusion
Accordingly, no new impacts relative to public services or a substantial increase in the severity of a
previously identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would occur. With
regard to PRC Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the Project would not result in
any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts. Additionally, no new
information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time
the General Plan Program EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of less than
significant with mitigation. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not
warranted.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
150 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
3.15 Recreation
Threshold (a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
Threshold (b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion
of recreational facilities which have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR
found that potential impacts on recreational facilities would be less than significant with the
implementation of General Plan policies and requirements.
The General Plan Program EIR evaluated parks and recreational facilities on citywide basis and by service
area. Twelve service areas were identified. The Airport Area is in Service Area 4—Santa Ana
Heights/Airport Commercial. The General Plan Program EIR identified an existing park surplus (2006) for
Service Area 4, noting that the two-acre Bayview Park and proximity to the Upper Bay recreation area
provides recreational opportunities. A pocket park and joint use community center project with the YMCA
were planned for this area. However, the General Plan identified a shortfall in active playfields and that
the existing park uses did not account for future demand associated with multi-family residences in the
Airport Area.
The General Plan Program EIR found that there would be a greater possibility for physical deterioration of
recreational facilities because of the introduction of multi-family residential development into the Airport
Area. Prior to the adoption of the 2006 General Plan Update, there were no residential units in or
permitted by the General Plan in the Airport Area. The General Plan Program EIR noted that new Airport
Area residents would most likely use Bonita Canyon Sports Park stating “However, this park is already
being fully utilized, and the increased usage resulting from the increase in population could contribute to
this facility’s physical deterioration.” It was noted that the policies under General Plan Goal R 2 would
help ensure that existing parks and recreation facilities are maintained and preserved. Compliance with
General Plan Policy R 2.1 would maintain existing park facilities, thereby reducing impacts related to
deterioration.
With respect to the maintenance at preservation of existing parks and recreation facilities (General Plan
Goal R 2), General Plan Policy R 2.1 states:
Policy R 2.1. Use funding from the City’s Park Dedication Fee Ordinance to enhance
existing parks and recreational facilities.
For residential development in the Airport Area, the General Plan Program EIR concludes that with
implementation of General Plan Policy R 2.1, impacts related to deterioration of parks and recreation
facilities in the Airport Area would be less than significant.
It is important to note that both the General Plan Program EIR and the General Plan cross reference the
Park Dedication Fee Ordinance to the mandates of the Quimby Act, which only apply to residential
subdivisions. The Park Dedication Fee would therefore have been applicable to all of the multi-family units
in the Airport Area based on the evaluation of 4,300 units in the General Plan Program EIR or 2,200 units
adopted in the General Plan only if the residential developments include a subdivision (most typically for
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
151 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
for-sale residential). However, if any or all of the residential units do not require a subdivision, which is
typically the case for for-rent residential developments, the fee would not apply.
In additional to compliance with General Plan Policy R 2.1 to mitigate impacts to existing park facilities,
the General Plan places additional park and recreational requirements on residential villages in the Airport
Area. Compliance with General Plan Policies LU 6.15.13 and LU 6.15.15 are identified as development
requirements. General Plan Policy LU 6.15.13 was modified in the adopted General Plan as shown below.
General Plan Policy LU 6.15.13 addresses standards for neighborhood parks in the Airport Area.
Policy LU 6.15.13. To provide a focus and identity for the entire neighborhood and to
serve the daily recreational and commercial needs of the community within easy walking
distance of homes, require dedication and improvement of dedicate and improve at least
8 percent of the gross land area (exclusive of existing rights-of-way) of the first phase of
development, or ½ acre, whichever is greater, in each neighborhood as a neighborhood
park. This requirement may be waived by the City where it can be demonstrated that the
development parcels are too small to feasibly accommodate the park or inappropriately
located to serve the needs of local residents, and when an in-lieu fee is paid to the City
for the acquisition and improvement of other properties as parklands to serve the Airport
Area.
In every case, the neighborhood park shall be at least 8 percent of the total Residential
Village Area or one acre in area, whichever is greater, and shall have a minimum
dimension of 150 feet. Park acreage shall be exclusive of existing or new rights-of-way,
development sites, or setback areas. A neighborhood park shall satisfy some or all of the
requirements of the Parkland Dedication Ordinance, as prescribed by the Recreation
Element of the General Plan.
This requirement may be waived for the Quail Street residential neighborhood provided
that it can be demonstrated that the development parcels are too small to feasibly
accommodate the park. On-site common open space may be used to satisfy a portion of
the parkland dedication requirements if the open space is at least 10,000 square feet in
area; one side abuts a public right-of-way; and it is open to the public during daylight
hours.
The General Plan Program EIR included proposed General Plan Policy R 1.3 related to the provision of
on-site recreational amenities for high-density residential developments in the Airport Area. This draft
policy was replaced with General Plan Policy LU 6.15.16 in the adopted General Plan. Both policies are
provided below.
General Plan EIR: Policy R 1.3, High-Density Residential Developments. Require
developers of new high-density residential developments on parcels eight acres or larger,
to provide on-site recreational amenities. For these developments, 44 square feet of on-
site recreational amenities shall be provided for each dwelling unit in addition to the
requirements under the City’s Park Dedication Ordinance. On-site recreational amenities
can consist of public urban plazas or squares where there is the capability for recreation
and outdoor activity. These recreational amenities can also include swimming pools,
exercise facilities, tennis courts, and basketball courts. Where there is insufficient land to
provide on-site recreational amenities, the developer shall be required to pay the City of
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
152 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Newport Beach cash in-lieu that would be used to develop or upgrade nearby recreation
facilities to offset user demand as defined in the City’s Park Dedication Fee Ordinance.
The acreage of on-site open space developed with residential projects may be credited
against the parkland dedication requirements where it is accessible to the public during
daylight hours, visible from public rights-of-way, and is of sufficient size to accommodate
recreational use by the public. However, the credit for the provision of on-site open space
shall not exceed 30% of the parkland dedication requirements.
Adopted General Plan: Policy LU 6.15.16: On-Site Recreation and Open Space Standards.
Require developers of multi-family residential developments on parcels 8 acres or larger
to provide on-site recreational amenities. For these developments, 44 square feet of on-
site recreational amenities shall be provided for each dwelling unit in addition to the
requirements under the City’s Park Dedication Ordinance and in accordance with the
Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan. On-site recreational amenities can
consist of public urban plazas or squares where there is the capability for recreation and
outdoor activity. These recreational amenities may also include swimming pools, exercise
facilities, tennis courts, and basketball courts. Where there is insufficient land to provide
on-site recreational amenities, the developer shall be required to pay cash in-lieu that
would be used to develop or upgrade nearby recreation facilities to offset user demand
as defined in the City’s Park Dedication Fee Ordinance.
The acreage of on-site open space developed with residential projects may be credited
against the parkland dedication requirements where it is accessible to the public during
daylight hours, visible from public rights-of-way, and is of sufficient size to accommodate
recreational use by the public. However, the credit for the provision of on-site open space
shall not exceed 30 percent of the parkland dedication requirements.
With respect to the maintenance at preservation of existing parks and recreation facilities (General Plan
Goal R 2), General Plan Policy R 2.1 states:
Policy R 2.1. Use funding from the City’s Park Dedication Fee Ordinance to enhance
existing parks and recreational facilities.
In summary, the General Plan Program EIR concludes that “With implementation of Policy R 2.1, impacts
related to deterioration of parks and recreation facilities in the Airport Area would be less than
significant”.
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: Less than significant impact; no substantial
change from previous analysis.
As discussed, the General Plan Program EIR identified significant impacts to existing recreational facilities
caused by the introduction of residential development in the Airport Area. The deterioration of existing
parks and recreational facilities caused by new residential development in this area would be mitigated
through the use of funding from the City’s Park Dedication Fee Ordinance. The Park Dedication Fee
Ordinance applies to residential subdivisions.
Although the proposed Project does not include or require a subdivision, the Project includes a 1.1-acre
public park with open space, as well as on-site recreational amenities consistent with GP LU 6.15.16 for
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
153 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
residents. The park would be constructed by the Applicant and offered for dedication to the City. Open
space, park, and on-site recreational amenities would not be converted to residential or other types of
land uses on the site. Based on the significance criteria and mitigation requirements set forth in the
General Plan Program EIR, Project impacts would be less than significant and no changes or new significant
information that would require preparation of an EIR.
Mitigation Program
General Plan Policies
The following General Plan policies related to recreation resources are applicable to the Project.
▪ Policy LU 6.15.13. To provide a focus and identity for the entire neighborhood and to serve the daily
recreational and commercial needs of the community within easy walking distance of homes, require
dedication and improvement of at least 8 percent of the gross land area (exclusive of existing rights-
of-way) of the first phase of development, or ½ acre, whichever is greater, as a neighborhood park.
This requirement may be waived by the City where it can be demonstrated that the development
parcels are too small to feasibly accommodate the park or inappropriately located to serve the needs
of local residents, and when an in-lieu fee is paid to the City for the acquisition and improvement of
other properties as parklands to serve the Airport Area.
In every case, the neighborhood park shall be at least 8 percent of the total Residential Village
Area or one acre in area, whichever is greater, and shall have a minimum dimension of 150 feet.
Park acreage shall be exclusive of existing or new rights-of-way, development sites, or setback
areas. A neighborhood park shall satisfy some or all of the requirements of the Parkland
Dedication Ordinance, as prescribed by the Recreation Element of the General Plan.
▪ Policy LU 6.15.14. Location. Require that each neighborhood park is clearly public in character
and is accessible to all residents of the neighborhood. Each park shall be surrounded by public
streets on at least two sides (preferably with on-street parking to serve the park), and shall be
linked to residential uses in its respective neighborhood by streets or pedestrian ways.
▪ Policy LU 6.15.16: On-Site Recreation and Open Space Standards. Require developers of multi-
family residential developments on parcels 8 acres or larger to provide on-site recreational amenities.
For these developments, 44 square feet of on-site recreational amenities shall be provided for each
dwelling unit in addition to the requirements under the City’s Park Dedication Ordinance and in
accordance with the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan. On-site recreational
amenities can consist of public urban plazas or squares where there is the capability for recreation
and outdoor activity. These recreational amenities may also include swimming pools, exercise
facilities, tennis courts, and basketball courts. Where there is insufficient land to provide on-site
recreational amenities, the developer shall be required to pay cash in-lieu that would be used to
develop or upgrade nearby recreation facilities to offset user demand as defined in the City’s Park
Dedication Fee Ordinance.
The acreage of on-site open space developed with residential projects may be credited against
the parkland dedication requirements where it is accessible to the public during daylight hours,
visible from public rights-of-way, and is of sufficient size to accommodate recreational use by the
public. However, the credit for the provision of on-site open space shall not exceed 30 percent of
the parkland dedication requirements.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
154 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
▪ R 1.12 - Aircraft Overflight and Noise: Require that all public parks located within the noise impact
zones as defined in the 1985 John Wayne Airport Master Plan for John Wayne Airport be posted with
a notification to users regarding aircraft overflight and noise.
Standard Conditions and Requirements
There are no additional standard conditions applicable to the proposed Project.
Cumulative Impact
As discussed above, the proposed Project would not cause impacts to recreation to occur, nor an increase
in the severity of any impacts previously disclosed in the General Plan Program EIR. Implementation of
the proposed Project would not alter the conclusions of the General Plan Program EIR analysis and would
not result in a new or substantially more severe project or cumulative recreation impact than those
already analyzed.
Conclusion
Accordingly, no new impacts relative to recreation or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously
identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would occur. With regard to PRC
Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the Project would not result in any new
impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts. Additionally, no new information of
substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan
Program EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of less than significant with
mitigation. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not warranted.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
155 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
3.16 Transportation
This section summarizes the findings of the Traffic Impact Study prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates,
Inc. (Kimley-Horn, 2020) to evaluate the potential traffic impacts associated with the proposed Project.
The Traffic Impact Study is included in its entirety as Appendix F of the Addendum.
Threshold (a) Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the
circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
General Plan Significance Determination: Significant and Unavoidable Impact. The General Plan Program
EIR Transportation Study evaluated: existing traffic conditions, future traffic conditions without
implementation of the General Plan Update, and traffic conditions following implementation of the
General Plan Update. The Transportation Study evaluated the following buildout scenarios: Without
Project (buildout of the then current General Plan); With Project (buildout of proposed General Plan
Update); and General Plan Update without surrounding regional growth.
The General Plan Program EIR concluded that implementation of the General Plan would contribute to a
substantial impact at freeway ramps that exceeds thresholds and would result in operational deficiencies.
Impacts related to freeway mainlines and ramps were considered significant since needed improvements
exceeded the current maximum planned improvements. With improvements noted in the Circulation
Element, growth related to buildout of the General Plan alone would be reduced to less than significant
levels. The improvements included in the City of Newport Beach Circulation Element are detailed in the
General Plan Program EIR.
General Plan Circulation Element Policies CE 6.1.1., CE 6.1.2, CE 6.1.3, CE 6.2.1, CE 6.2.2, CE 6.2.3,
CE 5.1.14, CE 5.1.15, CE 5.1.16, CE 5.2.1, and CE 5.2.2 encourage alternative modes of transportation, use
of intelligent transportation systems, encourage enhancement and maintenance of public water
transportation services and expanded public water transportation uses and land support facilities. In
addition, improvements at some intersections have been limited to protect bicycle and pedestrian safety.
The General Plan Program EIR found that General Plan implementation would not conflict with existing
policies regarding alternative transportation, and impacts were considered less than significant.
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact; no substantial
change from previous analysis.
Methodology
The traffic analysis provided an evaluation of morning and evening peak hour intersection at 25
intersections identified in Table 3.16-1, Traffic Study Area Intersections. The study intersections are
located in the cities of Newport Beach and Irvine and were identified based on input received from both
cities. Of the 25 study intersections, 8 are controlled and maintained by the City of Irvine and 15 are
controlled and maintained by the City of Newport Beach. The two I-405 freeway ramp intersections at
Jamboree Road are controlled and maintained by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).
Each intersection was analyzed using the methodology and parameters employed by the city in which the
intersection is located. For “shared” intersections on the city boundary, the intersection analysis is based
on the methodology used by the city that controls and maintains the signal.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
156 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Table 3.16-1. Traffic Study Area Intersections
No. Intersection Jurisdiction 1 Traffic Control
1 MacArthur Blvd. at Campus Dr. 1 Irvine Signal
2 MacArthur Blvd. at Birch St. Newport Beach Signal
3 MacArthur Blvd. at Von Karman Ave. Newport Beach Signal
4 MacArthur Blvd. at Jamboree Rd. 1, 2 Newport Beach Signal
5 Von Karman Ave. at Michelson Dr. Irvine Signal
6 Von Karman Ave. at Campus Dr. 1 Irvine Signal
7 Von Karman Ave. at Birch St. Newport Beach Signal
8 Teller Ave. at Birch St. Newport Beach 2-way Stop
9 Jamboree Rd. at I-405 NB Ramps 2 Caltrans Signal
10 Jamboree Rd. at I-405 SB Ramps 2 Caltrans Signal
11 Jamboree Rd. at Michelson Dr. Irvine Signal
12 Jamboree Rd. at Campus Dr. 1 Irvine Signal
13 Jamboree Rd. at Birch St. 1 Irvine Signal
14 Jamboree Rd. at Fairchild Dr. 1 Irvine Signal
15 Jamboree Rd. at Bristol St. N Newport Beach Signal
16 Jamboree Rd. at Bristol St. S Newport Beach Signal
17 Jamboree Rd. at Bayview Way Newport Beach Signal
18 Jamboree Rd. at University Dr. Newport Beach Signal
19 University Dr. at Campus Dr. Irvine Signal
20 Bristol St. N at Campus Dr. Newport Beach Signal
21 Bristol St. S at Irvine Ave. / Campus Dr. Newport Beach Signal
22 Irvine Ave. at Mesa Dr. Newport Beach Signal
23 Birch St. at Bristol St. N Newport Beach Signal
24 Birch St. at Bristol St. S Newport Beach Signal
25 Bayview Place at Bristol St. S Newport Beach Signal
1 For “shared” intersections on the boundary between the two cities, the city listed indicates the city that maintains and
controls the signal. Freeway ramp intersections are maintained and operated by Caltrans.
2 Designated County of Orange Congestion Management Program (CMP) intersection.
Field observations of all study intersections were conducted to document the number of through and
turning lanes, traffic control, and other existing traffic conditions at each intersection. Existing morning
and evening peak hour intersection turning movement counts were provided by the cities of Newport
Beach and Irvine. Intersection counts that were not provided by either city were collected in either 2018
or 2019. The traffic counts provided by the cities of Newport Beach and Irvine were conducted between
2017 and 2019. For City of Newport Beach intersections, traffic counts older than one year have been
grown at one percent per year on certain major roadways, per direction from City staff, to grow the counts
to 2020. For City of Irvine intersections, traffic counts were grown at 2 percent per year, based on direction
from City staff, to grown the counts to 2020.
The intersection analysis for all signalized intersections has been conducted using the Intersection
Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology, which is the methodology used by both cities, as well as the
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
157 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP). Intersections that are located at an Interstate
Highway intersection are also analyzed in accordance with Caltrans requirements.
The intersection analysis for unsignalized intersections has been conducted using the Highway Capacity
Manual (HCM) methodology, which returns a delay value, expressed in terms of the average seconds of
delay per vehicle.
Operating conditions for both ICU and HCM methodologies are expressed in terms of “Level of Service”
which is also referred to by its acronym, LOS. The ICU calculation returns a volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio
that translates into a corresponding level of service, ranging from LOS A, representing uncongested, free-
flowing conditions; to LOS F, representing congested, over-capacity conditions. Table 3.16.2, Level of
Service Descriptions, includes a summary description of each level of service and the corresponding V/C
ratio or delay.
Table 3.16-2. Level of Service Descriptions
Level of
Service
Signalized:
ICU
Unsignalized:
HCM 1
Description V/C Ratio Delay (sec)
A 0.00 - 0.60 ≤10 EXCELLENT – No vehicle waits longer than one red light, and no
approach phase is fully used.
B 0.61 - 0.70 > 10 and ≤ 15 VERY GOOD – An occasional approach phase is fully utilized; drivers
begin to feel somewhat restricted within groups of vehicles.
C 0.71 - 0.80 > 15 and ≤ 25 GOOD – Occasionally, drivers may have to wait through more than
one red light; back-ups may develop behind turning vehicles.
D 0.81 - 0.90 > 25 and ≤ 35
FAIR – Delays may be substantial during portions of the rush hours,
but enough lower volume periods occur to permit clearing of
developing lines, preventing excessive back-ups.
E 0.91 - 1.00 > 35 and ≤ 50
POOR – Represents the most vehicles that the intersection
approaches can accommodate; may be long lines of waiting
vehicles through several signal cycles.
F > 1.00 > 50
FAILURE – Back-ups from nearby locations or on cross streets may
restrict or prevent movement of vehicles out of the intersection
approaches. Tremendous delays with continuously increasing
queue lengths.
LOS = Level of Service; ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization; HCM = Highway Capacity Manual; V/C = volume-to-capacity
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition
Performance Criteria
The City of Newport Beach target level of service for peak hour operation of signalized intersections is LOS
D or better, except for designated intersections within the Airport Area shared with the City of Irvine,
where LOS E is acceptable. The shared Airport Area intersections applicable to the proposed Project are
as follows:
1. MacArthur Boulevard at Campus Drive (analyzed using City of Irvine ICU criteria)
4. MacArthur Boulevard at Jamboree Road (analyzed using City of Newport Beach ICU criteria)
6. Von Karman Avenue at Campus Drive (analyzed using City of Irvine ICU criteria)
12. Jamboree Road at Campus Drive (analyzed using City of Irvine ICU criteria)
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
158 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
13. Jamboree Road at Birch Street (analyzed using City of Irvine ICU criteria)
14. Jamboree Road at Fairchild Road (analyzed using City of Irvine ICU criteria)
In the City of Irvine, the target level of service is LOS D, except where the intersection is located in the
Irvine Business Complex (IBC) or the Irvine Spectrum area. For these intersections, the target level of
service is LOS E. The following study intersections are located in the IBC:
1. MacArthur Boulevard at Campus Drive (analyzed using City of Irvine ICU criteria)
4. MacArthur Boulevard at Jamboree Road (analyzed using City of Newport Beach ICU criteria)
5. Von Karman Avenue at Michelson Drive (analyzed using City of Irvine ICU criteria)
6. Von Karman Avenue at Campus Drive (analyzed using City of Irvine ICU criteria)
9. Jamboree Road at I-405 Northbound Ramps (analyzed using City of Irvine ICU criteria and Caltrans
HCM criteria)
10. Jamboree Road at I-405 Southbound Ramps (analyzed using City of Irvine ICU criteria and Caltrans
HCM criteria)
11. Jamboree Road at Michelson Drive (analyzed using City of Irvine ICU criteria)
12. Jamboree Road at Campus Drive (analyzed using City of Irvine ICU criteria)
14. Jamboree Road at Fairchild Road (analyzed using City of Irvine ICU criteria)
Significance Thresholds
City of Newport Beach. To determine whether the addition of project-generated trips at a signalized study
intersection results in a significant impact, the City of Newport Beach has adopted the following
thresholds of significance:
▪ A significant impact would occur when the addition of project-generated trips causes the level of
service at a study intersection to deteriorate from an acceptable (LOS D, except for intersections
on a CMP facility, or designated intersections in the Airport Area, where LOS E is acceptable) to a
deficient level of service.
▪ A significant impact would occur when the addition of project-generated trips increases the ICU
at a study intersection by one percent or more (v/c increases by 0.010 or more), worsening a
projected baseline condition of LOS E or F.
For unsignalized intersections operating at an unacceptable level of service, a signal warrant analysis will
be conducted to determine if a signal is warranted. The signal warrant analysis will be conducted
according to the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).
City of Irvine. All of the study intersections in the City of Irvine are signalized. To determine whether the
addition of project-generated trips at a signalized study intersection results in a significant impact, the
City of Irvine has adopted the following significance threshold:
▪ A significant impact would occur when the intersection exceeds the acceptable level of service
(LOS D except for intersections located in the IBC or on a CMP facility, where LOS E is acceptable)
in the baseline condition and the impact of the development is greater than or equal to two
percent (v/c increase by 0.02 or more), or;
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
159 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
▪ The Project increases the ICU by one percent or more (v/c increases by 0.01 or more) at a study
intersection, causing it to become deficient.
Caltrans. The Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies does not establish a threshold
of significance for Interstate Highway intersections. This traffic analysis uses the following traffic threshold
of significance:
▪ A significant project impact occurs at an Interstate Highway study intersection when the addition
of project-generated trips causes the peak hour level of service of the study intersection to change
from acceptable operation (LOS A, B, or C) to deficient operation (LOS D, E, or F).
Study Scenarios
Each of the study intersections has been analyzed for the following CEQA scenarios:
▪ Existing Conditions
▪ Analysis Year 2025 Without Project
▪ Analysis Year 2025 With Project
▪ Post-2030 General Plan Buildout Without Project
▪ Post-2030 General Plan Buildout With Project
The General Plan without regional growth scenario, which was included in the General Plan Program EIR
is not addressed for the proposed Project. In the case of the General Plan Program EIR Transportation
Study, the analysis evaluated General Plan Buildout conditions. The proposed Project’s traffic analysis
evaluates both General Plan Buildout conditions and Year 2025 conditions. Because the analyses have
determined that the proposed Project will have no significant traffic impacts under both scenarios, the
evaluation of the hypothetical scenario, which isolates General Plan Buildout from regional growth was
not prepared because it does not provide information needed to evaluate the potential effects of the
Project.
Existing Conditions
Intersection Levels of Service
Peak hour intersection analysis was conducted for the signalized study intersections using the applicable
intersection analysis methodology and parameters for each city. Unsignalized intersections were analyzed
using the HCM methodology for unsignalized intersections.
Existing AM and PM peak hour intersection operations are summarized on Table 3.16-3, Intersection
Operations: Existing Conditions. All study intersections are currently operating at an acceptable level of
service (LOS D for all intersections, except LOS E for intersections in the Airport Area or the IBC area, and
CMP intersections).
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
160 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Table 3.16-3. Intersection Operations: Existing Conditions
No. Intersection
Traffic
Control
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
ICU/Delay LOS ICU/Delay LOS
1 MacArthur Blvd. at Campus Dr.* S 0.50 A 0.82 D
2 MacArthur Blvd. at Birch St. S 0.34 A 0.52 A
3 MacArthur Blvd. at Von Karman Ave. S 0.54 A 0.52 A
4 MacArthur Blvd. at Jamboree Rd.* S 0.58 A 0.67 B
5 Von Karman Ave. at Michelson Dr.* S 0.54 A 0.68 B
6 Von Karman Ave. at Campus Dr* S 0.52 A 0.70 B
7 Von Karman Ave. at Birch St S 0.30 A 0.36 A
8 Teller Ave. at Birch St U 12.2 B 13.5 B
9 Jamboree Rd. at I-405 NB Ramps* S 0.76 C 0.85 D
10 Jamboree Rd. at I-405 SB Ramps* S 0.96 E 0.95 E
11 Jamboree Rd. at Michelson Dr* S 0.63 B 0.88 D
12 Jamboree Rd. at Campus Dr* S 0.62 B 0.63 B
13 Jamboree Rd. at Birch St* S 0.52 A 0.53 A
14 Jamboree Rd. at Fairchild Dr* S 0.57 A 0.69 B
15 Jamboree Rd. at Bristol St. N S 0.37 A 0.46 A
16 Jamboree Rd.at Bristol St. S S 0.67 B 0.62 B
17 Jamboree Rd. at Bayview Way S 0.43 A 0.44 A
18 Jamboree Rd. at University Dr S 0.62 B 0.53 A
19 University Dr. at Campus Dr S 0.79 C 0.79 C
20 Bristol St. N at Campus Dr S 0.54 A 0.68 B
21 Bristol St. S at Irvine Ave./Campus Dr S 0.68 B 0.52 A
22 Irvine Ave. at Mesa Dr S 0.48 A 0.64 B
23 Birch St. at Bristol St. N S 0.64 B 0.55 A
24 Birch St. at Bristol St. S S 0.48 A 0.48 A
25 Bayview Pl. at Bristol St. S S 0.51 A 0.50 A
S = Signalized; U = Unsignalized; ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization; LOS = Level of Service
Bold and shaded values indicate intersections operating at LOS E or F per City standards.
For signalized intersections, intersection operation is expressed in volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio using the ICU methodology.
For unsignalized intersections, LOS is expressed in average seconds of delay per peak hour vehicle, based on the methodology
outlined in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual.
* Level of Service E is acceptable at this intersection.
Source: Kimley-Horn, 2020.
State Highway Intersection Levels of Service
Existing peak hour intersection operations for the Interstate Highway study intersections are summarized
in Table 3.16-4, Interstate Highway Intersection Operations. Each of the Interstate Highway study
intersections currently operates at an acceptable level of service.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
161 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Table 3.16-4. Interstate Highway Intersection Operations
Int. # Intersection
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay LOS Delay LOS
Existing Conditions
9 Jamboree Rd. at I-405 NB Ramps 18.3 B 10.9 B
10 Jamboree Rd. at I-405 SB Ramps 25.6 C 20.9 C
Year 2025 Without Project
9 Jamboree Rd. at I-405 NB Ramps 19.5 B 13.7 B
10 Jamboree Rd. at I-405 SB Ramps 54.0 D 22.9 C
Year 2025 With Project
9 Jamboree Rd. at I-405 NB Ramps 19.5 B 13.9 B
10 Jamboree Rd. at I-405 SB Ramps 54.2 D 23.0 C
Note:
Bold values indicate intersections operating at an unacceptable level of service
Delay values for unsignalized intersections represent the average vehicle delay on the worst (highest delay) intersection
approach.
Source: Kimley-Horn, 2020.
Project Trip Generation
Trip generation estimates for the proposed Project were developed using the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (10th Edition) publication. The proposed Project components and
trip generation estimates for the Residences at 4400 Von Karman are as follows:
▪ Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) (Land Use 221)
Daily, morning peak hour, and evening peak hour trip generation estimates for the proposed Project are
shown on Table 3.16-5, Project Trip Generation. The Project would generate approximately 1,697 daily
trips, with 112 morning peak hour trips (29 inbound and 83 outbound) and 138 evening peak hour trips
(84 inbound and 54 outbound).
The project site is located in traffic analysis zone (TAZ) 1405 of the Newport Beach Traffic Model (NBTM).
The General Plan Program EIR Transportation Study includes 128 apartment units. Because the Project
proposes 312 multi-family rental units, the Post-2030 General Plan Buildout scenario adds 184 additional
multi-family units.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
162 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Table 3.16-5. Project Trip Generation
Land Use ITE Code Unit
Trip Generation Rates 1
Daily
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) 221 DU 5.44 0.094 0.266 0.36 0.268 0.172 0.44
Land Use Quantity Unit
Year 2025 Trip Generation Estimates
Daily
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) 312 DU 1,697 29 83 112 84 54 138
Total Project Trips 1,697 29 83 112 84 54 138
Land Use Quantity Unit
General Plan Buildout Trip Generation Estimates
Daily
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) 184 DU 1,001 17 49 66 49 32 81
1. Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition
Future Conditions
Future Year Cumulative Conditions peak hour traffic volumes for the City of Newport Beach intersections
were developed by adding an ambient growth rate of one percent per year to existing volumes on primary
roadways and then adding peak hour traffic volumes from both the Committed and Cumulative Projects.
For the City of Irvine intersections, Irvine transportation planning staff provided peak hour traffic forecasts
from the Irvine Traffic Analysis Model (ITAM), which is maintained and operated by the City. ITAM
forecasts include the effects of ambient traffic growth and traffic from cumulative projects for forecasted
Year 2023 traffic volumes. At the direction of Irvine staff, a two percent per year growth factor was applied
to develop 2025 forecasts. Additionally, the westbound approach at the intersection of Jamboree Road at
Birch Street will be widened to one left-turn lane, one shared left-through lane, and a dedicated right-
turn lane to account for the traffic generated by the UCI North Campus Child Health project as identified
as a recommended improvement in the UCI North Campus Child Health Traffic Study.
Cumulative Projects consist of the Committed Projects (approved projects in the City of Newport Beach),
as well as other projects that are in various stages of the application and approval process but have not
yet been approved. These projects are considered to be “reasonably foreseeable” projects. The
cumulative projects list, provided as Table 3.16-6, Traffic Analysis Cumulative Projects, includes the
projects identified by the City of Newport Beach as Committed Projects, plus pending projects in the City
of Newport Beach, as well as approved and pending projects in the City of Irvine.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
163 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Table 3.16-6. Traffic Analysis Cumulative Projects
No. Description Land Use Qty Units
Trip Generation Estimates
Daily
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
City of Newport Beach
1 Drive Shack Golf Driving Range 102 Driving
Position 1,392 25 16 41 57 70 127
2 Newport Airport
Village Multi-family Housing (Mid-Rise) 329 DU 1,790 31 88 119 88 57 145
3 UCI North Campus
Hospital Hospital (City of Irvine) 350.000 KSF 3,752 212 100 312 109 231 340
4 UCI North Campus
Child Health Medical-Dental Office Building (City of Irvine) 168.000 KSF 5,846 364 103 467 163 418 581
5 Newport Coast Mixed Residential 1,518 DU 14,778 413 932 1,345 926 557 1,483
6 Westcliff Restaurant Fast-Food Restaurant without drive-thru 11.953 KSF 4,002 180 120 300 101 102 203
7 Garden Restaurant Quality Restaurant 10.987 KSF 971 6 2 8 55 29 84
8 Newport Village Mixed Use N/A N/A 2,832 139 69 207 102 148 251
9 Bayside Family Resort
Hotel Hotel 275 Room 1,796 64 49 113 67 67 134
City of Irvine
10 Landmark Hotel 386 Room 3,227 107 74 181 118 113 231
General Office Building 448.000 KSF 4,364 447 73 520 82 433 515
11 Trilogy Residential Multi-family Housing (Mid-Rise) 876 DU 4,765 82 233 315 235 151 386
12 Banc & Office Hotel Hotel 225 Room 1,881 62 43 105 69 66 135
General Office Building 150.000 KSF 1,461 150 24 174 28 145 173
13 Park Place Office
Building General Office Building 199.000 KSF 1,938 199 32 231 37 192 229
14 Towneplace Hotel Business Hotel 165 Occupied
Room 838 49 43 92 41 33 74
15 17850 Von Karman General Office Building 240.856 KSF 2,346 240 39 279 44 233 277
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
164 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Table 3.16-6. Traffic Analysis Cumulative Projects
No. Description Land Use Qty Units
Trip Generation Estimates
Daily
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
16 15 Degrees South Multi-family Housing (Mid-Rise) 150 DU 816 14 40 54 40 26 66
17 2525 Main Street Multi-family Housing (Mid-Rise) 272 DU 1,480 26 72 98 73 47 120
18 2055 Main Street Multi-family Housing (Mid-Rise) 178 DU 968 17 47 64 48 31 79
19 Pistoia Apartments Multi-family Housing (Mid-Rise) 371 DU 2,018 35 99 134 99 64 163
20 Milani Apartments Multi-family Housing (Mid-Rise) 287 DU 1,561 27 76 103 77 49 126
21 Central Park West Multi-family Housing (Mid-Rise) 1,560 DU 8,486 147 415 562 418 268 686
Shopping Center 10.016 KSF 378 6 4 10 18 20 38
22 Main & Jamboree Multi-family Housing (Mid-Rise) 288 DU 1,567 27 77 104 77 50 127
23 17821 Gillette Multi-family Housing (Mid-Rise) 39 DU 212 4 10 14 10 7 17
24 17811 Gillette Multi-family Housing (Mid-Rise) 44 DU 239 4 12 16 12 8 20
25 17822 Gillette Multi-family Housing (Mid-Rise) 137 DU 745 13 36 49 37 24 61
26 360 Fusion Multi-family Housing (Mid-Rise) 280 DU 1,523 26 74 100 75 48 123
27 2602 McGaw Multi-family Housing (Mid-Rise) 120 DU 653 11 32 43 32 21 53
Total Project Trips 54,246 2,325 1,862 4,187 2,087 2,805 4,892
DU = Dwelling Unit, KSF = 1,000 square feet
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
165 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Year 2025 Without Project
Intersection Levels of Service
Year 2025 Without Project intersection operations are summarized in Table 3.16-7, Intersection
Operations: Year 2025 Without Project. All study intersections are forecasted to operate at an acceptable
level of service in both peak hours with the exception of the following:
10. Jamboree Road at I-405 SB Ramps: AM – LOS F; PM – LOS F
11. Jamboree Road at Michelson Drive: PM – LOS F
Table 3.16-7. Intersection Operations: Year 2025 Without Project
No. Intersection
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
ICU/Delay LOS ICU/Delay LOS
1 MacArthur Blvd. at Campus Dr* 0.664 B 0.949 E
2 MacArthur Blvd. at Birch St 0.401 A 0.583 A
3 MacArthur Blvd. at Von Karman Ave. 0.562 A 0.572 A
4 MacArthur Blvd. at Jamboree Rd* 0.723 C 0.837 D
5 Von Karman Ave. at Michelson Dr* 0.676 B 0.785 C
6 Von Karman Ave. at Campus Dr* 0.740 C 0.860 D
7 Von Karman Ave. at Birch St 0.304 A 0.379 A
8 Teller Ave. at Birch St. (unsignalized) 15.2 C 20.3 C
9 Jamboree Rd. at I-405 NB Ramps* 0.828 D 0.922 E
10 Jamboree Rd. at I-405 SB Ramps* 1.060 F 1.013 F
11 Jamboree Rd. at Michelson Dr* 0.823 D 1.015 F
12 Jamboree Rd. at Campus Dr* 0.808 D 0.811 D
13 Jamboree Rd. at Birch St* 0.728 C 0.899 D
14 Jamboree Rd. at Fairchild Dr* 0.776 C 0.548 A
15 Jamboree Rd. at Bristol St. N 0.440 A 0.590 A
16 Jamboree Rd. at Bristol St. S 0.734 C 0.715 C
17 Jamboree Rd. at Bayview Way 0.473 A 0.491 A
18 Jamboree Rd. at University Dr 0.675 B 0.601 B
19 University Dr. at Campus Dr 0.871 D 0.853 D
20 Bristol St. N at Campus Dr 0.581 A 0.737 C
21 Bristol St. S at Irvine Ave. / Campus Dr 0.691 B 0.560 A
22 Irvine Ave. at Mesa Dr 0.507 A 0.669 B
23 Birch St. at Bristol St. N 0.733 C 0.632 B
24 Birch St. at Bristol St. S 0.496 A 0.507 A
25 Bayview Pl. at Bristol St. S 0.551 A 0.539 A
Note:
- Bold values indicate intersections operating at an unacceptable level of service
- Intersection operation is expressed in volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio for signalized intersections, and average delay for
unsignalized intersections.
- Delay values for unsignalized intersections represent the average vehicle delay on the worst (highest delay) intersection
approach.
* Level of Service E is acceptable at this intersection.
1 A 5% capacity credit is applied at this intersection to reflect implementation of the Advanced Transportation Management
System (ATMS)
Source: Kimley-Horn, 2020.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
166 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
State Highway Intersection Levels of Service
With respect to peak hour operation for the Interstate Highway study intersections, the intersection of
Jamboree Road at the I-405 southbound ramps would operate at LOS D in the morning peak hour without
the proposed Project (see Table 3.16-4).
Year 2025 With Project
Intersection Levels of Service
In this scenario, project-related peak hour traffic volumes were added to the Year 2025 Without Project
traffic volumes. The resulting CEQA Analysis Year 2025 With Project peak hour intersection operations are
summarized on Table 3.16-8, Intersection Operations: Year 2025. The following intersection would
continue to operate at a deficient level of service under Year 2025 With Project conditions:
10. Jamboree Road at I-405 SB Ramps: AM – LOS F; PM – LOS F
11. Jamboree Road at Michelson Drive: PM – LOS F
Based on the significance criteria set forth in this traffic study, the Project’s incremental increase does not
exceed the significance threshold at the deficient intersections and would not result in a significant impact
with the addition of Project trips. All other intersections would operate at an acceptable level of service
in both peak hours.
State Highway Intersection Levels of Service
With respect to peak hour operation for the Interstate Highway study intersections, the intersection of
Jamboree Road at the I-405 southbound ramps would continue to operate at LOS D in the morning peak
hour with the proposed Project (see Table 3.16-4). Project traffic would not cause the level of service at
this intersection to worsen, and therefore would not result in a significant impact. The intersection of
Jamboree Road at the I-405 northbound ramps would continue to operate at an acceptable level of
service.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
167 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Table 3.16-8. Intersection Operations: Year 2025
Int. # Intersection
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Without Project With Project
Change
Delay
Sig
Impact?
Without Project With Project
Change
Delay
Sig
Impact? ICU/ Delay LOS
ICU/
Delay LOS
ICU/
Delay LOS
ICU/
Delay LOS
1 MacArthur Blvd. at Campus Dr* 0.664 B 0.667 B 0.003 No 0.949 E 0.951 E 0.002 No
2 MacArthur Blvd. at Birch St 0.401 A 0.410 A 0.009 No 0.583 A 0.587 A 0.004 No
3 MacArthur Blvd. at Von Karman Ave. 0.562 A 0.573 A 0.011 No 0.572 A 0.575 A 0.003 No
4 MacArthur Blvd. at Jamboree Rd* 0.723 C 0.725 C 0.002 No 0.837 D 0.842 D 0.005 No
5 Von Karman Ave. at Michelson Dr* 0.676 B 0.678 B 0.002 No 0.785 C 0.786 C 0.001 No
6 Von Karman Ave. at Campus Dr* 0.740 C 0.741 C 0.001 No 0.860 D 0.861 D 0.001 No
7 Von Karman Ave. at Birch St 0.304 A 0.312 A 0.008 No 0.379 A 0.387 A 0.008 No
8 Teller Ave. at Birch St. (unsignalized) 15.2 C 19.3 C 4.1 No 20.3 C 22.5 C 2.2 No
9 Jamboree Rd. at I-405 NB Ramps* 0.828 D 0.829 D 0.001 No 0.922 E 0.925 E 0.003 No
10 Jamboree Rd. at I-405 SB Ramps* 1.060 F 1.061 F 0.001 No 1.013 F 1.014 F 0.001 No
11 Jamboree Rd. at Michelson Dr* 0.823 D 0.826 D 0.003 No 1.015 F 1.017 F 0.002 No
12 Jamboree Rd. at Campus Dr* 0.808 D 0.809 D 0.001 No 0.811 D 0.814 D 0.003 No
13 Jamboree Rd. at Birch St* 0.728 C 0.732 C 0.004 No 0.899 D 0.902 D 0.003 No
14 Jamboree Rd. at Fairchild Dr* 0.776 C 0.777 C 0.001 No 0.548 A 0.549 A 0.001 No
15 Jamboree Rd. at Bristol St. N 0.440 A 0.441 A 0.001 No 0.590 A 0.592 A 0.002 No
16 Jamboree Rd. at Bristol St. S 0.734 C 0.736 C 0.002 No 0.715 C 0.719 C 0.004 No
17 Jamboree Rd. at Bayview Way 0.473 A 0.474 A 0.001 No 0.491 A 0.492 A 0.001 No
18 Jamboree Rd. at University Dr 0.675 B 0.677 B 0.002 No 0.601 B 0.603 B 0.002 No
19 University Dr. at Campus Dr 0.871 D 0.871 D 0.000 No 0.853 D 0.853 D 0.000 No
20 Bristol St. N at Campus Dr 0.581 A 0.585 A 0.004 No 0.737 C 0.738 C 0.001 No
21 Bristol St. S at Irvine Ave. / Campus Dr 0.691 B 0.691 B 0.000 No 0.560 A 0.560 A 0.000 No
22 Irvine Ave. at Mesa Dr 0.507 A 0.508 A 0.001 No 0.669 B 0.669 B 0.000 No
23 Birch St. at Bristol St. N 0.733 C 0.735 C 0.002 No 0.632 B 0.634 B 0.002 No
24 Birch St. at Bristol St. S 0.496 A 0.496 A 0.000 No 0.507 A 0.508 A 0.001 No
25 Bayview Pl. at Bristol St. S 0.551 A 0.552 A 0.001 No 0.539 A 0.541 A 0.002 No
Notes:
Bold and shaded values indicate intersections operating at an unacceptable level of service
Intersection operation is expressed in volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio for signalized intersections, and average delay for unsignalized intersections.
Delay values for unsignalized intersections represent the average vehicle delay on the worst (highest delay) intersection approach.
* Level of Service E is acceptable at this intersection.
1 A 5% capacity credit is applied at this intersection to reflect implementation of the Advanced Transportation Management System (ATMS)
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
168 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Comparative Analysis
A comparative analysis has been conducted to determine whether the proposed Project would result in
any new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts when compared to the
conclusions of the City of Newport Beach General Plan Transportation Study (March 2006).
The project site is located in TAZ 1405 of the NBTM, used in the General Plan Program EIR traffic analysis.
The NBTM TAZ 1405 includes 128 apartment units, 128,610 sf of general commercial uses, and 695,157 sf
of office uses. Because the Project proposes 312 multi-family rental units, to provide a conservative
analysis, the traffic from the additional 184 units were added on to Post-2030 General Plan Buildout traffic
findings to determine 2030 General Plan Buildout Plus Project levels of service. The Post-2030 General
Plan Buildout Plus Project levels of service were compared with the Post-2030 General Plan Buildout levels
of service at the following study intersections analyzed in the General Plan Program EIR Transportation
Study:
1 MacArthur Boulevard at Campus Drive
2 MacArthur Boulevard at Birch Street
3 MacArthur Boulevard at Von Karman Avenue
4 MacArthur Boulevard at Jamboree Road
6 Von Karman Avenue at Campus Drive
12 Jamboree Road at Campus Drive
13 Jamboree Road at Birch Street
15 Jamboree Road at Bristol Street N
16 Jamboree Road at Bristol Street S
17 Jamboree Road at Bayview Way
18 Jamboree Road at University Drive
20 Bristol Street N at Campus Drive
21 Bristol Street S at Irvine Avenue / Campus Drive
22 Irvine Avenue at Mesa Drive
23 Birch Street at Bristol Street N
24 Birch Street at Bristol Street S
25 Bayview Place at Bristol Street S
Table 3.16-8, Intersection Operation: Post-2030 General Plan Buildout With Project compares the
Post-2030 General Plan Buildout Plus Project ICU to the Post-2030 General Plan Buildout ICU shown in the
General Plan Transportation Study. Daily, morning peak hour, and evening peak hour trip generation
estimates for the proposed Project (Table 3.16-5) identify the incremental change (184 additional units)
would generate approximately 1,001 daily trips, with 66 morning peak hour trips (17 inbound and 49
outbound) and 81 evening peak hour trips (49 inbound and 32 outbound). Based on this comparison, the
proposed Project would not result in any new traffic impacts compared to those identified in the General
Plan Program EIR Transportation Study.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
169 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Table 3.16-9. Post-2030 General Plan Buildout Plus Project Conditions
Int. # Intersection
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
General Plan
Buildout
General Plan
Buildout Plus
Project
Change in ICU
New
Impact?
General Plan
Buildout
General Plan
Buildout Plus
Project Change in
ICU
New
Impact? ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS
1 MacArthur Blvd. at Campus Dr* 0.81 D 0.81 D 0.00 No 1.24 F 1.24 F 0.00 No
2 MacArthur Blvd. at Birch St 0.79 C 0.80 C 0.01 No 0.90 D 0.90 D 0.00 No
3 MacArthur Blvd. at Von Karman Ave. 0.54 A 0.54 A 0.00 No 0.65 B 0.65 B 0.00 No
4 MacArthur Blvd. at Jamboree Rd* 0.93 E 0.94 E 0.01 No 1.02 F 1.02 F 0.00 No
6 Von Karman Ave. at Campus Dr* 0.73 C 0.73 C 0.00 No 0.97 E 0.97 E 0.00 No
12 Jamboree Rd. at Campus Dr* 0.93 E 0.93 E 0.00 No 1.18 F 1.18 F 0.00 No
13 Jamboree Rd. at Birch St* 1.00 F 1.01 F 0.01 No 0.83 D 0.84 D 0.01 No
15 Jamboree Rd. at Bristol St. N 0.68 B 0.68 B 0.00 No 0.67 B 0.67 B 0.00 No
16 Jamboree Rd. at Bristol St. S 0.94 E 0.94 E 0.00 No 0.87 D 0.87 D 0.00 No
17 Jamboree Rd. at Bayview Way 0.45 A 0.45 A 0.00 No 0.66 B 0.66 B 0.00 No
18 Jamboree Rd. at University Dr 0.68 B 0.68 B 0.00 No 0.67 B 0.67 B 0.00 No
20 Bristol St. N at Campus Dr 1.02 F 1.03 F 0.01 No 1.06 F 1.06 F 0.00 No
21 Bristol St. S at Irvine Ave. / Campus Dr 0.89 D 0.89 D 0.00 No 0.77 C 0.78 C 0.01 No
22 Irvine Ave. at Mesa Dr 0.98 E 0.98 E 0.00 No 1.19 F 1.19 F 0.00 No
23 Birch St. at Bristol St. N 1 0.92 E 0.92 E 0.00 No 0.81 D 0.81 D 0.00 No
24 Birch St. at Bristol St. S 0.55 A 0.55 A 0.00 No 0.54 A 0.54 A 0.00 No
25 Bayview Pl. at Bristol St. S 0.60 A 0.60 A 0.00 No 0.63 B 0.63 B 0.00 No
Notes:
- Bold and shaded values indicate intersections operating at an unacceptable Level of Service
- Intersection operation is expressed in volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio for signalized intersections, and average delay for unsignalized intersections.
- Delay values for unsignalized intersections represent the average vehicle delay on the worst (highest delay) intersection approach.
* Level of Service E is acceptable at this intersection.
1 A 5% capacity credit is applied at this intersection to reflect implementation of the Advanced Transportation Management System (ATMS)
2 Source: 2006 General Plan Transportation Study. Excerpts are provided in Appendix H of this report.
3 This scenario assumes the following uses for NBTM TAZ 1405, where the project site is located: 128 apartment units, 128,610 sf of general commercial use, and 695,137 sf of office use
4 This “With Project” scenario assumes an additional 184 dwelling units (delta), for a total of 312 dwelling units, as proposed by the Project.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
170 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Potential impacts associated with the proposed Project would either be the same or not substantially
greater than those described in the General Plan Program EIR. In addition, there are no substantial
changes to the circumstances under which the proposed Project would be undertaken that would result
in more severe environmental traffic impacts than previously addressed in the General Plan Program EIR,
nor has any new information regarding the potential for more severe significant environmental impacts
been identified that would result in the previous analysis being inadequate. As such, no further analysis is
required.
Construction Traffic
Construction of the proposed Project would add construction-related trips to and from the site during
construction activities. These trips are associated with construction activities, including construction
workers, grading, and construction of structures and site features.
Large construction equipment such as bulldozers, loaders, scrapers, and pavers would be required during
various construction phases. Large equipment is generally brought to the site at the start of the
construction phase and kept on site until its term of use ends. A staging area would be designated on-site
to store construction equipment and supplies during construction.
Throughout construction, the size of the work crew reporting to the site each day would vary depending
on the construction phase and the different activities taking place at the time. Parking for workers would
be provided on-site during all phases of construction. Construction workers will not be allowed to park on
local streets. If needed during the peak construction periods, off-site parking will be provided, and workers
will carpool or be shuttled to the worksite.
The Applicant will be required to provide a Construction Management Plan and identify planned travel
patterns for haul vehicles. Approach and departure routes for construction vehicles will be via Jamboree
Road, MacArthur Boulevard, Von Karman Avenue and Birch Street. Depending on the origin/destination
(the nearest landfill, or the deposit site identified for cut material), trucks will either arrive and depart via
I-405, to the north of the site; or via SR-73, to the south of the site.
Impacts from construction traffic would be limited to occasional and temporary delays to traffic during
the movement of heavy equipment or transport of heavy loads to and from the site. The arrivals and
departures of dirt-hauling trucks and other heavy trucks will be scheduled outside of the AM and PM peak
hours. The Applicant would be required to identify planned travel patterns for haul vehicles (SC TRAN-1).
Construction management requirements, such as complying with peak hour restrictions, using flag men
for short-term obstructions, and a formal traffic control plan for extended lane and street closures would
be required. Impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, no new significant impacts result from
Project modification or changed circumstances, and no revisions to the General Plan Program EIR are
necessary. No changes or new information would require preparation of an EIR.
Threshold (b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines §15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
This State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G checklist question and the referenced CEQA Guidelines section
were added to the CEQA Guidelines updates in 2018, and therefore were not addressed in the certified
General Plan Program EIR in 2006.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
171 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
When the City’s General Plan Program EIR was approved in 2006, the applicable traffic threshold was Level
of Service (LOS), not Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). On September 27, 2013, SB 743 was signed into law
and started a process that would change transportation impact analysis as part of CEQA compliance. These
changes include the elimination of auto delay, LOS, and similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic
congestion as a basis for determining significant environmental impacts. On January 20, 2016, the Office
of Planning and Research released revisions to its proposed CEQA guidelines for the implementation of
SB 743, and final review and rulemaking for the new guidelines were completed in December 2018. OPR
allowed lead agencies an opt-in period to adopt the guidelines, before the mandatory date adoption of
July 1, 2020. However, since LOS was the applicable threshold when the General Plan Program EIR was
approved, settled CEQA case law dictates that LOS, not VMT, is the applicable CEQA standard for the
proposed Project.
A CEQA Addendum is appropriate when some changes to a prior EIR are necessary but (1) there are no
substantial changes to the project which require major revisions to the previous EIR due to new or
increased environmental impacts; (2) there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which
the project is undertaken which require major revisions to the EIR due to new or increased environmental
impacts; and (3) there is no new information showing that the project would have significant effects not
discussed in the prior EIR or showing that new mitigation measures or alternatives are feasible or required.
(14 Cal Code Regs §15164(b).) Preparation of an addendum is based on whether there have been any
substantial changes to the project’s physical environmental impacts or whether there are any new
physical environmental impacts. The purpose of a CEQA Addendum is to compare physical project impacts
with what was evaluated in the prior EIR to determine whether major revisions to the EIR are required.
(See Fund for Environmental Defense v. County of Orange (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 1538.)
Level of Service was the applicable threshold when the City certified the General Plan Program EIR in 2006.
The mandate requiring lead agencies to use VMT as a threshold for evaluating traffic impacts was adopted
in 2018 and effective in 2020. It does not constitute “new information” requiring additional environmental
review nor does it affect the assessment of project environmental impacts or mitigation measures
compared to those analyzed in the General Plan Program EIR. The potential environmental impacts
regarding the amount of travel associated with the General Plan was known at the time that General Plan
Program EIR was certified. Settled CEQA caselaw supports reliance on level of service as the appropriate
threshold by which to measure traffic impacts of proposed Project. Therefore, no new significant impacts
result from Project modification or changed circumstances, and no revisions to the General Plan Program
EIR are necessary. No changes or new information would require preparation of an EIR.
Threshold (c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR
concluded that impacts related to geometric design features would be less than significant. General Plan
policies in the Circulation Element and the Land Use Element (CE 1.3.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.5) provide for
maintaining and enhancing existing roadways, increasing safety of roadways, and balancing safety, quality
of life and efficiency in the design of circulation and access. Compliance with General Plan policies would
help reduce hazards due to design features. This impact would be less than significant.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
172 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from
previous analysis.
The project site is already developed, and the proposed development would be accessed by roadways
and driveways into the project site. Vehicular access to Koll Center Newport is currently provided by three
driveways on Birch Street, and two driveways on Von Karman Avenue. Cross access throughout the site
currently allows drivers to access any parking area within Koll Center Newport from any of the site
driveways. All driveways are unsignalized and gated. Drivers access the site either by a key card or by
pressing the button and pulling a parking ticket. To exit the site, key card users use their card to raise the
gate. Visitors must insert a validated ticket or pay at the gate in order to exit.
As a part of the Project, primary access to the site would be provided from two existing driveways on Birch
Street and one driveway on Von Karman Avenue. Existing gates along the primary internal access street
crosses the property from Birch Street to Von Karman Avenue would be relocated as necessary to facilitate
efficient site circulation. Gates would be removed at the middle driveway on Birch Street to allow for
ungated vehicular movement from Birch Street to the internal access street to Von Karman Avenue.
The westernmost driveway on Birch Street, closest to the intersection of Birch Street at Von Karman
Avenue, is a full-movement driveway. As a part of the Project, office parking displaced by the Project
would be provided in the residential building’s parking structure, in a new, free-standing parking structure,
and in surface parking areas. An entry to the residential parking structure for office parking would be
provided near the 4910 Birch Street office building using this driveway.
The middle driveway on Birch Street is a full-movement driveway. A gated entry into the residential
parking structure from the drive aisle off of Birch Street would be provided. From this driveway, motorists
can either continue to the internal access road to Von Karman Avenue where there is an entrance to the
residential parking structure (access for resident and office parking), or access gated parking on both sides
of the internal street. The driveway would be reconfigured to provide one inbound lane and two outbound
lanes, with one left-turn and one right-turn lane.
The easternmost driveway on Birch Street is a full-movement driveway. Existing entry gates to the internal
access road and parking areas would remain in their existing locations. Motorists would have access to
the parking areas on either side of the internal access road, including surface parking east of the 5000
Birch Street office building and the proposed free-standing office parking structure. No changes to the
ingress/egress are proposed.
The northernmost driveway on Von Karman Avenue is an exit-only driveway and motorists can currently
make both right and left turns. No changes would occur with the Project.
The southernmost driveway on Von Karman Avenue is a full-movement driveway. This driveway is the
southwestern access point of the internal street that connects Von Karman Avenue and Birch Street
through the site. The entry gate from Von Karman Avenue would be removed and replaced with a parking
gate on the east side of the internal street to provide access to the surface parking areas and the existing
parking structure and new free-standing parking structure. Gated access into the residential parking
structure would be provided from the internal street for residential and office parking. The driveway
would be reconfigured to provide one inbound lane and two outbound lanes, with one left-turn and one
right-turn lane.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
173 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
The proposed Project would not introduce incompatible uses to area roadways. The Project would be
designed in compliance with all applicable State and City building codes and would meet City of Newport
Beach standards for design, including sight distance at all intersections (SC TRAN-2). The Project would
not introduce roadway hazards or incompatible uses. It would not increase transportation hazards in
comparison to the General Plan. Impacts would be less than significant. The proposed Project would cause
neither a new impact to occur, nor an increase in the severity of an impact previously disclosed. As such,
no further analysis is required.
Threshold (d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?
General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR
found that impacts related to emergency access were less than significant. Projects would be required to
meet all applicable local and State regulatory standards for adequate emergency access. General Plan
policies related to disaster planning include measures for effective emergency response to natural or
human-induced disasters that minimizes the loss of life and damage to property and reducing disruptions
in the delivery of vital public and private services during and following a disaster. Therefore, the General
Plan Program EIR concluded that with compliance with applicable regulatory standards and Municipal
Code and Fire Code requirements regarding emergency access, impacts would be less than significant.
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from
previous analysis.
As addressed under Threshold c, the proposed Project would remove and relocate existing gated access
through the project site to allow for unrestricted vehicle access through the site from Birch Street to Von
Karman Avenue. This change would not adversely impact public roads or introduce features that would
adversely affect vehicular, pedestrian, or bicycle circulation in the vicinity of the site. In addition, Project
traffic would not result in substantial delays and congestion that would affect the circulation of emergency
vehicles in the study area compared to the General Plan Program EIR. The proposed Project would not
result in new impacts in comparison to the General Plan Program EIR.
Project traffic would not result in substantial delays and congestions that would affect the circulation of
emergency vehicles in the study area. All-access road would meet requirements for fire access roads in
the 2019 California Fire Code (CCR Title 24 Part 9), Section 503. The proposed Project would not require
new mitigation and emergency access impacts are considered less than significant. This determination of
less than significant impact is supported by the previously certified EIR prepared for the General Plan. The
proposed Project would cause neither a new impact to occur, nor an increase in the severity of an impact
previously disclosed. As such, no further analysis is required.
Mitigation Program
Relevant General Plan Policies
The following policies are applicable to the proposed Project and would be made conditions of approval.
▪ CE 2.1.1 Level of Service Standards: Plan the arterial roadway system to accommodate projected
traffic at the following level of service standards:
─ Level of Service (LOS) “D” throughout the City, unless otherwise noted.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
174 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
─ LOS “E” at the following Airport Area intersection: Campus Drive (NS) at Bristol Street North
(EW) and any intersection shared with Irvine.
─ LOS “E” at the following intersections in the pedestrian oriented area of Coast Highway in
Mariners’ Mile: Riverside Avenue (NS) at Coast Highway (EW) and Dover Drive (NS) at Coast
Highway (EW).
─ LOS “E” at Marguerite Avenue (NS) at Coast Highway (EW) in the pedestrian oriented area of
Coast Highway in Corona del Mar.
─ Accept LOS “E” at Goldenrod Avenue (NS) at Coast Highway (EW) in the pedestrian oriented
area of Coast Highway in Corona del Mar.
▪ CE 2.1.2 - Street and Highway Network: Construct the circulation system described on the map
entitled Newport Beach Circulation Element-Master Plan of Streets and Highways shown in Figure
CE1 and Figure CE2 (cross-section).
▪ CE 2.2.3 Traffic Control. Design traffic control measures to ensure City streets and roads function
with safety and efficiency.
▪ CE 2.2.4 Driveway and Access Limitations. Limit driveway and local street access on arterial streets
to maintain a desired quality of traffic flow. Wherever possible, consolidate driveways and
implement access controls during redevelopment of adjacent parcels.
▪ CE 2.2.6 Emergency Access. Provide all residential, commercial, and industrial areas with efficient
and safe access for emergency vehicles.
▪ CE 5.1.1 – Trail System. Promote construction of a comprehensive trail system as shown on
Figure CE4.
▪ CE 5.1.2 - Pedestrian Connectivity: Link residential areas, schools, parks, and commercial centers so
that residents can travel within the community without driving.
▪ CE 5.1.3 - Pedestrian Improvements in New Development Projects: Require new development
projects to include safe and attractive sidewalks, walkways, and bike lanes in accordance with the
Master Plan, and, if feasible, trails.
▪ CE 5.1.4 - Linkages to Citywide Trail System and Neighborhoods: Require developers to construct
links to the planned trail system, adjacent areas, and communities where appropriate.
▪ CE 5.1.5 - Bikeway System: Cooperate with state, federal, county, and local agencies to coordinate
bikeways and trails throughout the region.
▪ CE 5.1.6 - Bicycle Supporting Facilities: Incorporate bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the design plans
for new streets and highways and, where feasible, in the plans for improving existing roads.
▪ CE 5.1.7 - Bicycle Safety: Provide for safety of bicyclists, equestrians, and pedestrians by adhering to
current national standards and uniform practices.
▪ CE 5.1.8 - Bicycle Conflicts with Vehicles and Pedestrians: Minimize conflict points among motorized
traffic, pedestrians, and bicycle traffic.
▪ CE 5.1.17 - Pedestrian Connectivity: Link residential areas, schools, parks, and commercial centers so
that residents can travel within the community without driving.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
175 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
▪ CE 6.2.2 Support Facilities for Alternative Modes: Require new development projects to provide
facilities commensurate with development type and intensity to support alternative modes, such as
preferential parking for carpools, bicycle lockers, showers, commuter information areas, rideshare
vehicle loading areas, water transportation docks, and bus stop improvements.
▪ CE 6.2.3 - Project Site Design Supporting Alternative Modes: Encourage increased use of public
transportation by requiring project site designs that facilitate the use of public transportation and
walking.
Standard Conditions and Requirements
SC TRAN-1 Traffic Management Plan. Prior to issuance of any building permit, the Applicant shall
submit for City of Newport Beach Community Development Director and Traffic Engineer
review and approval a Construction Management Plan for the Project. The Plan shall
identify construction phasing and address traffic control for any temporary street
closures, detours, or other disruptions to traffic circulation and public transit routes. The
Plan shall identify the routes that construction vehicles shall use to access the site, the
hours of construction traffic, traffic controls and detours, vehicle staging areas, and
parking areas for the Project.
SC TRAN-2 Sight distance at all intersections shall comply with City of Newport Beach standards.
Cumulative
As discussed above, the proposed Project would not cause a transportation impact to occur, nor an
increase in the severity of any transportation impacts previously disclosed in the General Plan Program
EIR, with implementation of the mitigation measures discussed in this section. Implementation of the
proposed Project would not alter the conclusions of the General Plan Program EIR analysis and would not
result in a new or substantially more severe project-specific or cumulative transportation impact than
those already analyzed.
Conclusion
Accordingly, no new impacts relative to transportation or a substantial increase in the severity of a
previously identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would occur. With
regard to PRC Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the Project would not result in
any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts. Additionally, no new
information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time
the General Plan Program EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of less than
significant with mitigation. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not
warranted.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
176 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
3.16 Utilities and Service Systems
Threshold (a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded
water, wastewater treatment or storm drainage, electrical power, natural gas, or
telecommunication facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
Water
General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The City’s surface water suppliers
are the City, the Mesa Consolidated Water District (MCWD), and the Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD),
which source their imported water from the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC). The
General Plan Program EIR concluded that the City’s three water suppliers would have enough capacity to
serve General Plan development and that no relocation or expansion of water facilities is required.
Impacts would be less than significant. All of service providers use groundwater and recycled water to
supplement their supply. Development consistent with the General Plan would increase water demand
within the City; MWDOC indicated that its 2030 projected availability of imported water supply would
exceed the 2030 projected regionwide demand for imported water supply by at least 155,000 acre-feet.
Therefore, MWDOC would be able to meet 100 percent of the City’s imported water needs through 2030,
as shown in Table 3.17-1, Projected Potable Water Supply and Demand (2005 UWMP).
According to the General Plan Program EIR, the City provided approximately 1,200 AFY of the irrigation
demand using recycled water. Policy NR 2.1 of the General Plan encourages the use of recycled water in
the City by continuing to provide financial incentives, staff assistance, and training opportunities for
customers, and expanding recycled water infrastructure and programs, when feasible. Future recycled
water infrastructure developments, if necessary, would require further environmental review when
project-level details are known. Therefore, impacts associated with the construction of new recycled
water conveyance systems within the City were considered less than significant.
The General Plan Program EIR identified that new development would be subject to site-specific
evaluation of existing water system’s capacity to serve the development. If improvements are required,
developers are required to pay its share of costs of all or portions of the needed improvements. General
Plan Policy LU 2.8 directs the City to accommodate land uses that can be adequately supported by
infrastructure, including water treatment and conveyance facilities. Therefore, overall impacts to the
three water suppliers were found to be less than significant.
Table 3.17-1. Projected Potable Water Supply and Demand (2005 UWMP)
Water Source 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
MWDOC 6,404 5,758 6,157 6,392 6,226 6,256
OCWD 11,927 13,590 14,921 14,778 14,990 14,960
Recycled Water 317 444 478 500 500 500
Total Water Demand 18,648 19,792 21,556 21,640 21,716 21,716
Projected Demand 18,648 19,792 21,556 21,640 21,716 21,716
MWDOC= Municipal Water District of Orange County; OCWD = Orange County Water District.
Source: City of Newport Beach, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan Table 3-5, Table 4-8.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
177 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from
previous analysis.
The project site is within the service area of Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD). As it applies to the
proposed Project, the IRWD UWMP is the applicable planning document for evaluating water supply and
demand. According to the IRWD UWMP, IRWD’s 2015 water supply was approximately 92,220 AF, which
was combination of 18,696 AF of imported water, 2,826 AF of surface water, 50,833 AF of groundwater
and 22,866 AF of reclaimed water. Table 3.17-2, IRWD Current and Projected Water Supplies shows the
forecasted water supply for IRWD through 2035.
Table 3.17-2. IRWD Current and Projected Water Supplies (AFY)
Water Source Treatment Level 2020 2025 2030 2035
Imported Water Potable 41,929 41,929 41,929 41,929
Groundwater Potable 53,171 65,523 65,523 65,523
Imported Water Untreated 17,826 17,826 17,826 17,826
Reclaimed Water Non-Potable 28,757 28,757 28,757 28,757
Groundwater Non-Potable 3,514 3,514 3,514 3,514
Total ─ 145,197 157,549 157,549 157,549
AFY = acre-feet per year
Source: IRWD, 2016.
The Project includes 312 multi-family dwelling units. The 2015 IRWD UWMP noted that the daily per capita
water usage was 129 gallons per capita per day. The number of persons expected to reside in each
residential unit is 2.19 persons, which is the average cited by the Department of Finance for Newport
Beach for 2020 (DOF 2020). Therefore, approximately 684 residents are associated with the proposed
Project. The projected water demand for the Project is shown in Table 3.17-3, Portable Water Demand.
Table 3.17-3. Potable Water Demand
Land Use Unit Count
Expected
Population Demand Factor
Gallons per
Day (gpd)
Acre-Feet per
Year (AFY)
High Density
Residential 312 684 129 gpcd 88,236 98.9
gpd = gallons per day; du = dwelling unit; ksf = thousand square feet; gpv = gallon per vehicle
Buildout of the proposed Project is estimated to generate a water demand of approximately 88,236 gpd,
or 98.9 AFY (see Table 3.17-2). The most recent IRWD UWMP provides updated water demand and supply
projections, shown in Table 3.17-4, IRWD Current and Projected Water Demand. In comparison of IRWD’s
water demand to IRWD’s water supply (Table 3.17-2), there is an anticipated water supply surplus in 2025
of 51,558 AFY. The proposed Project’s water demand of 98.9 AFY would represent less than one percent
of IRWD’s anticipated water surplus for 2025 during a normal year.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
178 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Table 3.17-4. IRWD Current and Projected Water Demand (AFY)
Water Source 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Potable and Raw Water 64,154 71,086 77,700 80,645 81,966
Reclaimed Water Demand 29,249 25,359 28,261 28,786 29,311
Total Water Demand 90,403 96,445 105,961 109,431 111,277
AFY = acre-feet per year
Source: IRWD, 2016.
Therefore, no relocation or construction of new water facilities would be required. No new impact would
result, nor would the impact previously identified be any more severe as a result of the proposed Project.
Therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent with the effects of implementation of the General
Plan.
Wastewater
General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR
concluded that implementation of the General Plan would produce an additional 4.12 million gallons per
day (mgd) of wastewater. The additional 4.12 mgd of wastewater would be treated at Orange County
Sanitation District (OCSD) Reclamation Plants Nos. 1 and 2. Reclamation Plant No. 1 had a capacity of 174
mgd and treated an average flow of 90 mgd, approximately 52 percent of its design capacity. Reclamation
Plant No. 2 had a capacity of 276 mgd and treated an average of 153 mgd, approximately 55 percent of
its design capacity. The additional 4.12 mgd from buildout of the General Plan was determined to be
nominal compared to the capacities of the two plants. In addition, policies within the General Plan require
adequate wastewater facilities and conveyance systems to be available to the City residents through
renovations, installations, and improvements when needed. Impacts were determined to be less than
significant.
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from
previous analysis.
The proposed Project would include up to 312 multi-family rental units, structured parking, and a 1.1-acre
public park with open space areas. The General Plan Program EIR evaluated up to 4,300 residential units
in the Airport Area; the General Plan was adopted for up to 2,200 residential units. As such, the proposed
residential development is consistent with the assumptions in the General Plan for the Airport Area.
Assuming the City’s wastewater generation factors of 240 gpd/du for residential land uses from the 2010
Sewer Master Plan, the proposed Project would generate 74,880 gallons per day (gpd), as identified in
Table 3.17-5, Wastewater Generation.
Table 3.17-5. Wastewater Generation
Land Use Proposed Project Demand Factor Gallons per Day (gpd)
Residential: Single-family and Multi-family 312 DU 240 gpd/du 74,880
Total 74,880
ac = acres; du = dwelling unit; gpd = gallons per day
Source: City of Newport Beach Sewer Master Plan, August 2010.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
179 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Wastewater collected by the City would be treated at OCSD’s two reclamation plants, with a small portion
of wastewater treated at IRWD’s treatment plant. Reclamation Plant No. 1 has a capacity of 320 mgd and
an estimated average daily influent of 120 mgd. Reclamation Plant No. 2 has a capacity of 312 mgd and
an estimated average daily influent of 65 mgd. Collectively, the two plants have a residual capacity of 185
mgd. Given that the proposed Project would generate an additional 74,880 gpd or 0.06 mgd of
wastewater, this increase is nominal compared to the combined residual capacity of both treatment
plants. Therefore, existing wastewater treatment facilities would accommodate the Project-generated
wastewater and continue maintaining a substantial amount of remaining capacity for future wastewater
treatment. If the proposed Project requires new sewer flow connections through OCSD, all connections
are required to comply with current OCSD design guidelines and pay a sewer connection fee. Therefore,
impacts would be less than significant and there are no changes or new significant information that would
require preparation of an EIR.
Storm Drainage
General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR
noted that impacts to the City’s storm drainage system would be less than significant. Since the City of
Newport Beach is almost entirely built out, development would occur only in areas with existing storm
drainage infrastructure. The Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan requires new developments
to create and implement a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), which would ensure pollutant
discharges are reduced to the maximum extent practicable and do not exceed existing storm drainage
capacities. Therefore, any additional stormwater runoff expected at buildout of the General Plan would
not exceed existing storm drainage capacities, and impacts were found to be less than significant.
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from
previous analysis.
Development of the proposed Project would alter the on-site drainage patterns with the development of
the buildings, roadways, and associated site improvements. However, the proposed Project, similar to
other projects developed pursuant to the General Plan, would be required to implement a WQMP. The
WQMP would reduce discharge of stormwater into urban runoff from the operational phase by managing
site runoff volumes and flow rates through application of appropriate best management practices. BMPs
would be designed in accordance with the NPDES requirements. Any drainage facilities would also be
designed in accordance with Section 19.28.080 of the City’s Municipal Code, set forth in SC 3.17-1.
Therefore, stormwater runoff expected at buildout of the proposed Project would not exceed existing
storm drainage capacities. Impacts would be less than significant, and there are no changes or new
significant information that would require preparation of an EIR.
As discussed under Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, the site currently drains toward Von Karman
Avenue and Birch Street and connects to the City’s stormwater system. With buildout of the project site,
the Project would continue to connect to the City’s stormwater system through an on-site storm drain
system. There is an existing underground storm drain in the location of the proposed free-standing parking
structure. Two feasible options are proposed to address constructing a parking structure over a storm
drain. Option A retain a storm drain under the parking structure. This option would remove approximately
200 linear feet of the existing 60-inch/66-inch RCP within the disturbance area for the free-standing
parking structure. Additionally, a new 66-inch RCP storm drain would be constructed in the same
alignment to match the hydraulic capacity of the existing system while also matching the ultimate design
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
180 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
life of the proposed parking structure. Option B would remove and relocate the storm drain in order that
it is not under the parking structure or other permanent buildings or structures. Therefore, impacts would
be less than significant and there are no changes or new significant information that would require
preparation of an EIR.
Telecommunications
General Plan Significance Determination: No Impact. Telecommunications are provided by Spectrum,
Cox, and Google Fiber. Local telecommunications companies operate and maintain transmission and
distribution infrastructure in the project area, which currently serves the project site. The previous
General Plan Program EIR did not analyze impacts associated with the construction or relocation of
telecommunication infrastructure.
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from
previous analysis.
The proposed Project would not require relocation or construction of new telecommunication facilities.
The Project would connect to existing connections for services. No impact would occur.
Threshold (b) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and
reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. According to the City of Newport
Beach’s 2005 Urban Water Management Plan referenced in the General Plan Program EIR, water supplies
would continue to meet the City’s imported water needs until year 2030. OCWD, which provides the
groundwater supply to the City, projects that there would be sufficient groundwater supplies to meet any
future demand requirements in Newport Beach. The water supply impact associated with the City’s water
service boundaries within the General Plan Planning Area is less than significant.
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from
previous analysis.
The project site is within a portion of the City that is served by IRWD. The IRWD prepares its own UWMP,
with the most recent iteration released in 2016 for the 2015 cycle. The IRWD UWMP found that the water
supply was 100 percent reliable and able to accommodate normal years, single dry years, and multiple
dry-year events, if needed. Under all scenarios (i.e., normal, dry, and multiple dry years), the IRWD had a
surplus of water availability. The year 2025 projected availability would exceed the projected water
demands by at least 41,171 AF under the worst-case multiple dry year scenario.
The UWMP also indicated that there is adequate existing and planned water supply to accommodate
future development and its associated water demands. Table 3.17-6, Single Dry Year Supply and Demand
and Table 3.17-7, Multiple Dry Year Supply and Demand show the City’s estimated single dry-year and
multiple dry-year supplies and demand.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
181 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Table 3.17-6. Single Dry Year Supply and Demand (AF)
2020 2025 2030 2035
Supply Totals 142,197 154,549 154,549 154,549
Demand Totals 103,195 113,378 117,091 119,066
Difference 39,002 41,171 37,458 35,483
AFY = acre-feet
Source: IRWD UWMP Table 7-3, 2015
Table 3.17-7. Multiple Dry Year Supply and Demand (AF)
2020 2025 2030 2035
First Year
Supply Totals 142,197 154,549 154,549 154,549
Demand Totals 103,195 113,378 117,091 119,066
Difference 39,002 41,171 37,458 35,483
Second Year
Supply Totals 142,197 154,549 154,549 154,549
Demand Totals 103,195 113,378 117,091 119,066
Difference 39,002 41,171 37,458 35,483
Third Year
Supply Totals 142,197 154,549 154,549 154,549
Demand Totals 103,195 113,378 117,091 119,066
Difference 39,002 41,171 37,458 35,483
AFY = acre-feet
Source: IRWD UWMP 2015, Table 7-4
As previously identified in Table 3.17-3, the proposed Project would generate an increase in water
demand of 43.68 AFY for the project site. The IRWD’s 2015 UWMP found that water supplies are sufficient
to meet the 2035 projected water demand for its service residents during normal years, single dry years,
and multiple dry-year events. Therefore, the City’s existing and future water supply is able to
accommodate the increased water demand associated with the proposed Project. Impacts are less than
significant, and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an
EIR.
Threshold (c) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR
concluded a less than significant impact related to wastewater treatment capacity. The additional
4.12 mgd from buildout of the General Plan was nominal compared to the capacities of the two plants. In
addition, policies within the General Plan require adequate wastewater facilities and conveyance systems
to be available to the City residents through renovations, installations, and improvements when needed.
Therefore, impacts were determined less than significant.
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from
previous analysis.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
182 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
As mentioned above, the incremental increase in wastewater generated by the proposed Project could
be accommodated by OCSD’s treatment plants (see Table 3.17-5). The City requires NPDES permits, which
set limits on allowable concentrations in any wastewater discharge. The City’s Municipal Code also
requires dwelling units and commercial uses to connect to the City’s public sewer network and prohibits
certain polluting substances from being discharged into a public sewer. The proposed Project, similar to
development in accordance with the General Plan, would be required to comply with all provisions of the
NPDES program and the Municipal Code and would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and there are no changes or new significant information
that would require preparation of an EIR.
Threshold (d) Would the project generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess
of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste
reduction goals?
General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR
found that impacts on existing solid waste facilities from project-generated solid waste were less than
significant. Development of the General Plan would result in an additional 21,659 tons per year of solid
waste to be disposed of at the Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill, which represented approximately
0.68 percent of the solid waste accepted annually at the landfill. Based on the landfill’s 16-year lifespan
and remaining capacity of approximately 44.6 million tons at the time the previous EIR was prepared, the
increase in solid waste generated from buildout of the General Plan was considered less than significant.
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from
previous analysis.
The Bowerman Landfill has a maximum permitted disposal of 11,500 tons per day. The landfill has a
remaining capacity of 205,000,000 cubic yards with a closure date of December 31, 2053.13 As identified
in Table 3.17-8, Estimated Solid Waste Generation, the proposed Project would generate approximately
2,000 pounds of solid waste per day (1 ton per day or 365 tons/year). The estimated refuse generation
for the Project is less than 0.01 percent of the landfill’s annual tons per day average. The proposed
Project’s development intensity is consistent with the City’s development assumptions, which are used
by the County of Orange in their long-term planning for landfill capacity. The County’s landfill system has
capacity in excess of the required 15-year threshold established by the California Department of
Resources Recycling and Recovery. Based on the remaining capacity of the Bowerman Landfill and the
County’s long-term planning programs required to meet CalRecycle requirements, there would be
adequate waste disposal capacity within the permitted County’s landfill system to meet the needs of the
proposed Project. No significant impacts are anticipated.
13 CalRecycle, SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details, Available at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/2767?siteID=2103, Accessed September 7, 2020.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
183 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Table 3.17-8. Estimated Solid Waste Generation
Units/square feet (sf) Solid Waste Generation Rate Solid Waste Generation
312 units: multi-family residential 6.41 lbs/unit/day 1,999.92 lbs/day
Total 1,999.92 lbs/day (365 tons/yr)
Source: City of Newport Beach General Plan Program EIR, 2006.
The proposed Project, similar to other projects developed pursuant to the General Plan, would comply
with the California Green Building Standards and AB 341. The 2019 California Green Building Standards
Code requires that at least 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste from
residential construction operations be recycled and/or salvaged for reuse. AB 341 mandates a statewide
solid waste diversion rate of 75 percent by 2020. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and
there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR.
Threshold (e) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction
statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
General Plan Significance Determination: No Impact. The General Plan Program EIR concluded that no
impacts would occur related to compliance with federal, State, and local regulations. AB 939, the
Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (PRC §40000 et seq.) required all local governments to
develop source reduction, reuse, recycling, and composting programs to reduce tonnage of solid waste
going to landfills. Cities were required to divert at least 50 percent of all solid waste generated by January
1, 2000.
AB 1327, the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991 (PRC §§42900 et seq.),
required the California Integrated Waste Management Board to develop a model ordinance requiring
adequate areas for the collection and loading of recyclable materials in development projects. Local
agencies were then required to adopt and enforce either the model ordinance or an ordinance of their
own by September 1, 1993. Chapter 6.06 of the City’s Municipal Code includes waste recycling
requirements in conformance with AB 1327. The City consistently diverts 50 percent or more of solid
waste and, therefore, is in compliance with this legislation. Therefore, no impacts were identified.
Project-Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from
previous analysis.
Compliance with AB 939 is measured for each jurisdiction, in part, as actual disposal amounts compared
to target disposal amounts. Target disposal rates for the City are 9.6 pounds per day (ppd) per resident.
Actual disposal rates in 2018 were 6.9 ppd per resident. Therefore, solid waste diversion in Newport Beach
is consistent with AB 939 and the Project’s solid waste generation would be consistent with AB 939 and
AB 1327. The proposed Project, similar to all projects, is required to recycle construction waste in
compliance with the 2019 California Green Building Code, store and collect recyclable materials in
compliance with AB 341 and handle green waste in accordance with AB 1826. Overall, impacts would be
less than significant and there are no changes or new significant information that would require
preparation of an EIR.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
184 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Mitigation Program
Relevant General Plan Policies
Consistent with the General Plan Program EIR, the following policies are applicable to the proposed
Project and would be made conditions of approval.
The policies below are applicable to this Project.
▪ LU 2.8 Adequate Infrastructure: Accommodate the types, densities, and mix of land uses that can be
adequately supported by transportation and utility infrastructure (water, sewer, storm drainage,
energy, and so on) and public services (schools, parks, libraries, seniors, youth, police, fire, and so
on).
▪ LU 3.2 Growth and Change: Enhance existing neighborhoods, districts, and corridors, allowing for re-
use and infill with uses that are complementary in type, form, scale, and character. Changes in use
and/or density/intensity should be considered only in those areas that are economically
underperforming, are necessary to accommodate Newport Beach’s share of projected regional
population growth, improve the relationship, and reduce commuting distance between home and
jobs, or enhance the values that distinguish Newport Beach as a special place to live for its residents.
The scale of growth and new development shall be coordinated with the provision of adequate
infrastructure and public services, including standards for acceptable traffic level of service.
▪ NR 3.4 Storm Sewer System Permit - Require all development to comply with the regulations under
the City’s municipal separate storm sewer system permit under the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System. (Policy HB8.5)
▪ NR 3.11 Site Design and Source Control - Include site design and source control BMPs in all
developments. When the combination of site design and source control BMPs are not sufficient to
protect water quality as required by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES),
structural treatment BMPs will be implemented along with site design and source control measures.
(Policy HB8.12)
▪ NR 3.15 Street Drainage Systems - Require all street drainage systems and other physical
improvements created by the City, or developers of new subdivisions, to be designed, constructed,
and maintained to minimize adverse impacts on water quality. Investigate the possibility of treating
or diverting street drainage to minimize impacts to water bodies. (Policy HB8.16)
Standard Conditions and Requirements
SC UTIL-1 The Project shall be required to comply with the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code
Chapter 14.16 related to water conservation and supply level regulations in effect during
the construction and operation of the Project, and Municipal Code Chapter 14.17 with
respect to water-efficient landscaping.
SC UTIL-2 The Project shall be required to comply with Section 19.28.080 (Storm Drains) of the City’s
Municipal Code which requires developers to design and construct all drainage facilities
necessary for the removal of surface water from the site (e.g., open/closed channels,
catch basins, manholes, junction structures), and to protect off-site properties from a
project’s water runoff. The storm drain system must be designed in accordance with the
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
185 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
standards of the Orange County Flood Division. A drainage fee is also charged to fund
improvements to the City’s drainage facilities.
SC UTIL-3 The Applicant shall prepare and obtain approval of a Construction and Demolition Waste
Management Plan (CDWMD) for each phase of the Project. The CWMP shall list the types
and weights or volumes of solid waste materials expected to be generated from
construction. The CDWMP shall include options to divert from landfill disposal,
nonhazardous materials for reuse or recycling by a minimum of 65 percent of total weight
or volume.
Cumulative Impact
As discussed above, the proposed Project would not cause a utilities impact to occur, nor an increase in
the severity of any utilities impacts previously disclosed in the General Plan Program EIR, with
implementation of the mitigation measures discussed in this section. Implementation of the proposed
Project would not alter the conclusions of the General Plan Program EIR analysis and would not result in
a new or substantially more severe project or cumulative utility impact than those already analyzed.
Conclusion
Accordingly, no new impacts relative to Utilities and Services or a substantial increase in the severity of a
previously identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would occur. With
regard to PRC Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the Project would not result in
any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts. Additionally, no new
information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time
the General Plan Program EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of less than
significant with mitigation. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not
warranted.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
186 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
3.17 Wildfire
The topic of Wildfire was not addressed in the General Plan Program EIR because the requirement to
analyze in CEQA documents the potential impacts associated with proximity to very high fire hazard
severity zones did not become effective until January 1, 2019, which was subsequent to the certification
of General Plan Program EIR by the Newport Beach City Council in 2006. However, the General Plan
identified areas with high and moderate fire susceptibility.
Threshold (a) If located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard
severity zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact. According to the CAL FIRE Hazard Severity Zone Map for Orange County, the project site is not
within or proximate to Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) zone for a Local Responsibility Area.
Additionally, General Plan Figure S4, Wildfire Hazards, shows that the project site is not within areas
designated as High or Moderate fire susceptibility. Therefore, this threshold is not applicable to the
proposed Project. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
Threshold (b) If located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard
severity zones, would the project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
No Impact. As noted, the site is not within or proximate to a VHFHSZ. Therefore, this threshold is not
applicable to the proposed Project. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
Threshold (c) If located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard
severity zones, would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or
other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing
impacts to the environment?
No Impact. As noted, the site is not within or proximate to a VHFHSZ. Therefore, this threshold is not
applicable to the proposed Project. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
Threshold (d) If located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard
severity zones, would the project expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-
fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
No Impact. As noted, the site is not within or proximate to a VHFHSZ. Therefore, this threshold is not
applicable to the proposed Project. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Program
General Plan Policies
General Plan policies related to wildfires identified in the General Plan Program EIR to mitigate potential
impacts to wildfires are not applicable to the Project.
Section 3
Environmental Impact Analysis
187 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Standard Conditions and Requirements
No standard conditions are applicable to the proposed Project.
Cumulative Impact
As discussed above, the project site is not within a VHFHSZ. Therefore, the proposed Project would not
cause either a new cumulative impact to occur, nor cumulatively contribute to wildfire impacts.
Conclusion
Accordingly, no new impacts relative to wildfires or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously
identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would occur. With regard to PRC
Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the Project would not result in any new
impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts. Additionally, no new information of
substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan
Program EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior findings. Therefore, preparation of a
subsequent environmental analysis is not warranted.
Section 4
Determination
188 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
DETERMINATION OF APPROPRIATE CEQA DOCUMENTATION
The following discussion lists the appropriate subsections of Sections 15162 and 15164 of the State CEQA
Guidelines and provides justification for the City of Newport Beach to make a determination of the
appropriate CEQA document for the proposed Project, based on the environmental analysis provided
above.
Section 15162 ‒ Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations
(a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent
EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of
substantial evidence in light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the
previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
The City of Newport Beach proposes to implement the Project within the context of the General Plan, as
described in this Addendum. As discussed in the Environmental Impact Analysis section of this Addendum,
no new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects beyond what was evaluated in the
General Plan Program EIR would occur that would require substantive revisions to the General Plan
Program EIR. The proposed Project would not result in substantially increased impacts above what was
evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR with regard to density and other environmental factors such
as air quality, noise, public services, and utilities.
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is
undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due
to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified significant effects.
As documented herein, there have been no changes in circumstances under which the General Plan is
being implemented since certification of the General Plan Program EIR; and none of the proposed Project
elements would result in new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects than
previously identified.
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been
known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as
complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant environmental effects not discussed in the
previous EIR or negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in
the previous EIR;
No new information that was not known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was prepared is now
available that demonstrates that the proposed Project will result in a new or increased significant impact.
Based on the analysis prepared for the proposed Project, the project-related effects would not be
substantially more severe than were disclosed in the General Plan Program EIR as a result of the proposed
Section 4
Determination
189 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Project. Implementation of the proposed Project within the context of the General Plan would not
substantially increase the severity of previously identified impacts.
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be
feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but
the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
No mitigation measures or alternatives found infeasible in the General Plan Program EIR are now feasible.
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed
in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the
environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or
alternative.
No feasible alternatives have been identified that would substantially reduce significant impacts.
Additional technical analyses were performed for the proposed Project and are the subject of this
Addendum. Based on the analysis in this document, the proposed Project would not result in any new
significant environmental effects that are substantially different from those identified in the General Plan
Program EIR nor would it substantially increase the severity of significant effects previously identified in
the General Plan Program EIR. None of the conditions listed under subsection (a) would occur that would
require preparation of a subsequent EIR.
(b) Once a project has been approved, the lead agency’s role in project approval is completed, unless
further discretionary approval on that project is required. Information appearing after an approval
does not require reopening of that approval. If after the project is approved, any of the conditions
described in subsection (a) occurs, a subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall only be prepared
by the public agency which grants the next discretionary approval for the project, if any. In this
situation no other Responsible Agency shall grant an approval for the project until the subsequent
EIR has been certified or subsequent negative declaration adopted.
None of the conditions listed in subsection (a) would occur as a result of the proposed Project. Therefore,
no subsequent EIR is required.
Section 15164 ‒ Addendum to an EIR or Negative Declaration
(a) The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if
some changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162
calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.
As described above, none of the conditions described in the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling
for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.
(b) An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical
changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling
for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred.
None of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR would occur
as a result of the proposed Project. Therefore, an Addendum to the certified General Plan Program EIR is
the appropriate CEQA document for the proposed Project.
Section 4
Determination
190 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
(c) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the
EIR or adopted negative declaration.
This Addendum will be attached to the General Plan Program EIR and maintained in the administrative
record files at the City of Newport Beach.
(d) The decision-making body shall consider the Addendum with the EIR prior to making a decision
on the project.
The City of Newport Beach would consider this Addendum with the General Plan Program EIR prior to
making a decision on the proposed Project.
(e) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162
should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency’s required findings on the project,
or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence.
This document provides substantial evidence for City of Newport Beach records to support the
preparation of this Addendum for the proposed Project.
Therefore, preparation of a subsequent EIR is not required and the appropriate CEQA document for the
proposed Project is this Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR. No additional environmental analysis
or review is required for the proposed Project. This document will be maintained in the administrative
record files at City of Newport Beach offices.
Section 5
Preparers
191 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
PREPARERS
City of Newport Beach (Lead Agency)
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
James Campbell, Deputy Director
Rosalinh Ung, Principal Planner
Tony Brine, P.E. T.E., City Traffic Engineer
Socheata Chhouk, Civic Engineer
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
764 The City Drive, Suite 200
Orange, California 92868
Dana C. Privitt, AICP, Project Manager
Brian Leung, Planning Analyst
Prathna Maharaj, AICP, Planning Analyst
Achilles Malisos, Technical Studies Manager
Pranesh Tarikere, T.E., Traffic Manager
Trevor Briggs, P.E., Traffic Manager
Leslie Sorenson, Traffic Analyst
Section 6
References
192 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
REFERENCES
Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County. 2008. Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne
Airport.
───. 2005 (July). Figure 1, Airport Planning Areas.
Alta Planning + Design. 2014 (October). City of Newport Beach Bicycle Master Plan. Prepared for the City
of Newport Beach, CA.
Arcadis. 2016 (June). Final Draft 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. Prepared for the City of Newport
Beach, CA.
California Department of Conservation (DOC). Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.
http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/ciff. Accessed August 22, 2020.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2007. Fire Hazard Severity Zones in
State Responsibility Areas. Fire and Resource Assessment Program.
https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/. Accessed August 6, 2020.
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2012a.
Construction/Demolition and Inert Debris Tools and Resources.
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/swfacilities/CDI/Tools/Calculations.htm.
───. 2012b. Disposal Facility Inspection Report for the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill.
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/30-AB-0360/Detail/.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). California Scenic Highway Mapping System, Orange
County. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-
livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways. Accessed July 31, 2020.
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2011 (February). Energy Aware Planning Guide.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/energy_aware_guide/. Accessed April 13, 2017.
California Gas and Electric Utilities. No date. 2018 California Gas Report. Available at
https://www.socalgas.com/regulatory/documents/cgr/2018_California_Gas_Report.pdf .
Accessed August 23, 2020.
Dolinka Group, LLC. 2014 (February). Residential Development School Fee Justification Study Santa Ana
Unified School District,
https://www.sausd.us/cms/lib5/CA01000471/Centricity/Domain/113/Residential%20Develpme
nt%20School%20Fee%20Justification%20Study.pdf. Prepared for Santa Ana Unified School
District.
EIP Associates. 2006 (April) City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report.
Prepared for the City of Newport Beach, CA.
───. 2006 (July). City of Newport Beach General Plan. Prepared for the City of Newport Beach, CA.
Section 6
References
193 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
Environmental Managements Strategies, Inc. 2020 (June). Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Lots 1,
3 And 5 At Koll Center Newport (4440 Von Karman Avenue and 4910 And 5000 Birch Street).
Prepared for The Picerne Group.
Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD). 2016 (June). 2015 Urban Water Management Plan.
Kling Consulting Group, Inc. 2019 (June). Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Residential
Development, Koll Center Property Southwest Corner of Van Karman Avenue and Birch Street,
Newport Beach, California. Prepared for The Picerne Group.
Kimley-Horn and Associates. 2020 (September). Residences at 4400 Von Karman Project Traffic Impact
Study
Newport Beach, City of. 2017a. Newport Beach Municipal Code.
http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/NewportBeach/
───. 2017. City of Newport Beach Demographics and Statistics. https://www.newportbeachca.gov/i-am-
a/visitor/about-newport-beach/demographics-and-statistics. Accessed August 16, 2020.
───. 2014. City of Newport Beach Sewer System Management Plan.
───. 2011. City of Newport Beach Emergency Operations Plan (EOP).
───. 1975, as amended. City of Newport Beach Archeological Guidelines.
http://www.newportbeachca.gov/home/showdocument?id=2437. Accessed July 15, 2020.
───. 1974, as amended. City of Newport Beach Paleontological Guidelines.
http://www.newportbeachca.gov/home/showdocument?id=2438. Accessed July 15, 2020.
───. 1972, as amended. Planned Community Development Standards for Koll Center Newport.
Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD). 2017. Life Safety Services.
http://www.newportbeachca.gov/government/departments/fire-department/life-safety-
services-division. Accessed September 13, 2020.
───. 2017a. Fire Operations Divisions. http://www.newportbeachca.gov/government/departments/fire-
department/fire-operations-division. Accessed September 7, 2020.
───. 2017b. EMS Division. http://www.newportbeachca.gov/government/departments/fire-
department/emergency-medical-services-division. Accessed September 7, 2020.
Orange County Flood Control District. 2003 (July). 2003 Drainage Area Plan.
Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). 2020a. Service Area. https://www.ocsd.com/about-
us/general-information/service-area. Accessed August 4, 2020.
───. 2020b. Regional Sewer Service. https://www.ocsd.com/services/regional-sewer-service. Accessed
September 11, 2020.
Orange County Waste & Recycling. 2016. Active Landfills. www.oclandfills.com/landfill. Accessed
September 6, 2020.
───. 2020. Frank R. Bowerman Landfill Fact Sheet.
Section 6
References
194 Residences at 4400 Von Karman
Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR
───. 2020. Prima Deshecha Landfill Fact Sheet.
───. 2020. Olinda Landfill Fact Sheet.
Orange County Water District (OCWD). 2015 (June). Orange County Water District Groundwater
Management Plan 2015 Update.
Santa Ana Unified School District [SAUSD]. 2020. Quick Facts. https://www.sausd.us/Page/5. Accessed
September 28, 2020.
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2016. 2016-2040 Regional Transportation
Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy.
Southern California Edison (SCE). 2017. Overview - Who We Are. https://www.sce.com/about-us/who-
we-are. Accessed August 7, 2020.
Tait & Associates, Inc. 2020 (June). Priority Project Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan
(pWQMP). Prepared for the KCN Management, LLC.