HomeMy WebLinkAboutPA2021-296_Ritz-Carlton_Residences_Addendum_May_2022Source: MVE + Partners, 2022
(03/09/2022 MMD) R:\Projects\NEW\3NEW003300 - Ritz-Carlton Residences\Graphics\Addendum\ex_Perspective_South.pdf
D:\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
3
N
E
W
\
0
0
3
3
0
0
\
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
S
\
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
\
e
x
_
P
e
r
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
_
S
o
u
t
h
_
2
0
2
2
0
3
0
9
.
a
i
Ritz-Carlton Residences Project
South Perspective Exhibit 2-5a
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN
UPDATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT The Ritz-Carlton Residences Project
City of Newport Beach
Planning Department
100 Civic Center DriveNewport Beach, California 92660
May 2022
Table of Contents
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES i
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1-1
1.1 Purpose and Basis for the Addendum ................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Background ........................................................................................................................................ 1-2
1.2.1 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update ....................................................... 1-2
2.0 Project Description and Setting ............................................................................................ 2-1
2.1 Project Location ............................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Existing Site and Area Characteristics ................................................................................... 2-1
2.3 Planning Context ............................................................................................................................. 2-2
2.3.1 Land Use Designations .................................................................................................. 2-2
2.4 Proposed Project Description ................................................................................................... 2-3
2.4.1 Circulation and Parking ................................................................................................ 2-3
2.4.2 Future Operations ........................................................................................................... 2-5
2.4.3 Project Construction ...................................................................................................... 2-5
3.0 Environmental Checklist ........................................................................................................ 3-1
3.1 Aesthetics ........................................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1.1 2006 EIR .............................................................................................................................. 3-1
3.1.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis ........................................................................... 3-2
3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ...................................................................................... 3-9
3.2.1 2006 EIR .............................................................................................................................. 3-9
3.2.2 Mitigation Measures ....................................................................................................... 3-9
3.2.3 Proposed Project Impact Analysis ........................................................................... 3-9
3.3 Air Quality ....................................................................................................................................... 3-12
3.3.1 2006 EIR ........................................................................................................................... 3-12
3.3.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis ........................................................................ 3-13
3.4 Biological Resources ................................................................................................................... 3-28
3.4.1 2006 EIR ........................................................................................................................... 3-28
3.4.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis ........................................................................ 3-29
3.5 Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................................... 3-35
3.5.1 2006 EIR ........................................................................................................................... 3-35
3.5.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis ........................................................................ 3-36
Table of Contents
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES ii
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
3.6 Energy ............................................................................................................................................... 3-40
3.6.1 2006 EIR ........................................................................................................................... 3-40
3.6.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis ........................................................................ 3-41
3.7 Geology and Soils ......................................................................................................................... 3-46
3.7.1 2006 EIR ........................................................................................................................... 3-46
3.7.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis ........................................................................ 3-47
3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...................................................................................................... 3-52
3.8.1 2006 EIR ........................................................................................................................... 3-52
3.8.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis ........................................................................ 3-52
3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ....................................................................................... 3-58
3.9.1 2006 EIR ........................................................................................................................... 3-58
3.9.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis ........................................................................ 3-59
3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................................. 3-66
3.10.1 2006 EIR ........................................................................................................................... 3-66
3.10.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis ........................................................................ 3-67
3.11 Land Use and Planning .............................................................................................................. 3-72
3.11.1 2006 EIR ........................................................................................................................... 3-72
3.11.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis ........................................................................ 3-73
3.12 Mineral Resources ....................................................................................................................... 3-75
3.12.1 2006 EIR ........................................................................................................................... 3-75
3.12.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis ........................................................................ 3-75
3.13 Noise .................................................................................................................................................. 3-77
3.13.1 2006 EIR ........................................................................................................................... 3-77
3.13.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis ........................................................................ 3-78
3.14 Population and Housing ............................................................................................................ 3-85
3.14.1 2006 EIR ........................................................................................................................... 3-85
3.14.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis ........................................................................ 3-86
3.15 Public Services .............................................................................................................................. 3-88
3.15.1 2006 EIR ........................................................................................................................... 3-88
3.15.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis ........................................................................ 3-89
3.16 Recreation ....................................................................................................................................... 3-93
3.16.1 2006 EIR ........................................................................................................................... 3-93
3.16.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis ........................................................................ 3-93
Table of Contents
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES iii
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
3.17 Transportation .............................................................................................................................. 3-96
3.17.1 2006 EIR ........................................................................................................................... 3-96
3.17.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis ........................................................................ 3-97
3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources ....................................................................................................... 3-102
3.18.1 2006 EIR ......................................................................................................................... 3-102
3.18.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis ...................................................................... 3-102
3.19 Utilities and Service Systems ................................................................................................ 3-105
3.19.1 2006 EIR ......................................................................................................................... 3-105
3.19.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis ...................................................................... 3-107
3.20 Wildfire ........................................................................................................................................... 3-113
3.20.1 2006 EIR ......................................................................................................................... 3-113
3.20.2 Proposed Project Impact Analysis ...................................................................... 3-113
4.0 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 4-1
5.0 References ................................................................................................................................... 5-1
TABLES
Table Page
3-1 South Coast Air Quality Management District Air Quality Significance
Thresholds ...................................................................................................................................................... 3-16
3-2 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin ................................ 3-17
3-3 California and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards .............................................................. 3-19
3-4 Project Construction Emissions ............................................................................................................ 3-22
3-5 Project Operational Emissions .............................................................................................................. 3-24
3-6 Project Maximum Localized Daily Emissions (Lbs/Day) .......................................................... 3-25
3-7 Project Energy Consumption Estimates During Construction ................................................ 3-42
3-8 Energy Consumption Estimates During Operation of the Project ......................................... 3-43
3-9 Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions ..................................................................................................... 3-54
3-10 Composite Noise Levels at Nearest Receptor ................................................................................. 3-82
3-11 Trip Generation – Existing Hotel .......................................................................................................... 3-97
3-12 Trip Generation – Hotel Branded Residences ................................................................................ 3-98
3-13 Trip Generation – Existing Hotel and Hotel Branded Residences ......................................... 3-98
3-14 Trip Generation – Trip Generation Comparison ........................................................................... 3-98
3-15 Existing Condition Peak Wastewater Flows.................................................................................. 3-108
3-16 Existing Sewer with Proposed Condition Flows ......................................................................... 3-108
3-17 Estimated Solid Waste Generation .................................................................................................... 3-111
Table of Contents
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES iv
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
EXHIBITS
Exhibit Follows Page
2-1 Regional Location and Local Vicinity .................................................................................................... 2-1
2-2 Aerial Photograph .......................................................................................................................................... 2-1
2-3 Overall Site Plan .............................................................................................................................................. 2-3
2-4 Site Section ........................................................................................................................................................ 2-3
2-5a South Perspective ........................................................................................................................................... 2-3
2-5b Porte Cohere Perspective ........................................................................................................................... 2-3
2-5c Porte Cohere Perspective ........................................................................................................................... 2-3
2-6 Landscape Plan ................................................................................................................................................ 2-4
2-7 Landscape Planting Plan ............................................................................................................................. 2-4
2-8 Landscape Paving Plan ................................................................................................................................ 2-4
2-9 Pedestrian Circulation Plan ....................................................................................................................... 2-4
2-10 Open Space Plan .............................................................................................................................................. 2-4
2-11 Conceptual Grading Plan ............................................................................................................................. 2-5
3.1-1a Site Photographs ............................................................................................................................................. 3-3
3.1-1b Site Photographs ............................................................................................................................................. 3-3
3.1-1c Site Photographs ............................................................................................................................................. 3-3
3.1-2a Visual Simulations Key Map ...................................................................................................................... 3-5
3.1-2b Visual Simulations .......................................................................................................................................... 3-5
3.1-2c Visual Simulations .......................................................................................................................................... 3-5
3.1-2d Visual Simulations .......................................................................................................................................... 3-5
3.1-3a Shade and Shadow Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 3-7
3.1-3b Shade and Shadow Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 3-7
3.1-3c Shade and Shadow Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 3-7
3.1-3d Shade and Shadow Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 3-7
APPENDICES
Appendix
Appendix A – Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emission Technical Report
Appendix B – Biological Resources Technical Memorandum
Appendix C – Historic Resource Assessment Report
Appendix D – Energy Report
Appendix E – Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration and Plan Review
Appendix F – Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Appendix G – Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan
Appendix H – Hydrology Report
Appendix I – Noise Report
Appendix J – Trip Generation Memorandum
Appendix K – Sewer Analysis Report
Appendix L – Water Demand Study
Table of Contents
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES v
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
ACRONYM LIST
AAM Annual Arithmetic Mean
AB Assembly Bill
ACM asbestos-containing materials
ACP asbestos cement pipe
ADT average daily trip
AELUP Airport Environs Land Use Plan
afy acre-feet per year
ALUC Airport Land Use Commission
AQMD Air Quality Management District
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
BERD Built Environment Resources Directory
BMP Best Management Practice
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
Cal Fire California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBC California Building Code
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CDMG California Division of Mines and Geology
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CGS California Geological Survey
CH4 Methane
CHR California Historic Resources
CHRIS California Historic Resources Inventory System
City City of Newport Beach
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
CRHR California Register of Historic Resources
CV Visitor Serving Commercial
CWA Clean Water Act
CY cubic yard
dBA A-weighted decibels
DOSH Division of Occupational Safety and Health
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
EAP Energy Action Plan
EDR Environmental Data Resources
EIR Environmental Impact Report
ERNS Emergency Response Notification System
ESA Environmental Science Associates
FID Facility Inventory Database
Table of Contents
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES vi
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GHG greenhouse gas
GP General Plan
GWP Global Warming Potential
HCP Habitat Conservation Plan
HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
I Interstate
IRWD Irvine Ranch Water District
kWh kilowatt hour
LBUSD Laguna Beach Unified School District
LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard
Lmax maximum instantaneous noise level
LOS level of service
LRA Local Responsibility Area
LUST leaking underground storage tank
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MCWD Mesa Consolidated Water District
mg/m3 milligrams per cubic meter
mgd million gallons per day
MM mitigation measure
MMs mitigation measures
MRZ-1 Mineral Resource Zone-1 (an area with little or no likelihood for presence of
significant mineral resources)
MTCO2e/yr metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year
MWDOC Municipal Water District of Orange County
MWS Modular Wetland Systems
N2O nitrous oxide
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NBFD Newport Beach Fire Department
NBMC Newport Beach Municipal Code
NBPD Newport Beach Police Department
NBPL Newport Beach Public Library
NCCP Natural Community Conservation Plan
NMUSD Newport Mesa Unified School District
NO nitric oxide
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOD Notice of Determination
NOx nitrogen oxide
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
O3 ozone
OCSD Orange County Sanitation District
OCWD Orange County Water District
OHP Office of Historic Preservation
OITC Outdoor-Indoor Transmission Class
PFC perfluorocarbons
PCH Pacific Coast Highway
PM10 respirable particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less
PM2.5 fine particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less
Table of Contents
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES vii
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
ppm parts per million
PRC Public Resources Code
PST Pacific Standard Time
RCRA-SQG Resource Conservation and Recovery Act - Small Quantity Generators
REC recognized environmental condition
ROG reactive organic gases
ROW right-of-way
RR regulatory requirement
RTP/SCS Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SAUSD Santa Ana Unified School District
SB Senate Bill
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCCIS South Central Coastal Information Center
SCE Southern California Edison
SCGC Southern California Gas Company
SF6 sulfur hexafluoride
SIP State Implementation Plan
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SoCAB South Coast Air Basin
SR State Route
SRA Source Receptor Area
STC Sound Transmission Class
SWEEPS Statewide Environmental Evaluation and Planning System
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TACs toxic air contaminants
µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
UST underground storage tank
VdB velocity in decibels
VHFHSZ Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
VMT vehicle miles traveled
VOCs volatile organic compounds
Table of Contents
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES viii
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
This page intentionally left blank
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 1-1
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE AND BASIS FOR THE ADDENDUM
On July 25, 2006, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach (City) adopted the Final
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR,
which consisted of three volumes: Volume I—City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update
Draft EIR; Volume IA—Draft EIR Changes, Responses to Comments, and Final EIR Report
Preparers; and Volume II—Technical Appendices to the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR was distributed
for a 45-day public review from April 21 to June 5, 2006. The City Council found that the Final
EIR was complete and was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code [PRC], Section 21000 et seq.) and concluded that the General
Plan Update would not result in a significant environmental impact to the surrounding area. The
General Plan Update was approved by the City Council on July 25, 2006 and upheld by a vote of
the electorate on November 7, 2006. The Notice of Determination (NOD) for the EIR was filed on
July 26, 2006, at the Orange County Clerk. The EIR is herein referred to as the “2006 EIR”. The
General Plan Update analyzed in the 2006 EIR is herein referred to as the “2006 General Plan
Update”.
CEQA allows for the preparation of an Addendum to a certified EIR (Section 15164 of the CEQA
Guidelines, Addendum to an EIR or Negative Declaration) to document minor changes in the
project characteristics or environmental conditions under which the project will be developed.
This Addendum to the Certified 2006 EIR for the proposed Project has been prepared in
accordance with the provisions of CEQA (PRC, Sections 21000 et seq.); the State CEQA Guidelines
(Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Sections 15000 et seq.); and the rules, regulations, and
procedures for implementing CEQA as adopted by the City of Newport Beach. Section 15164(b)
of the State CEQA Guidelines states that “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”. Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, no subsequent
EIR may be required for a project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial
evidence in the light of the whole record, that one or more of the following conditions are met:
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 the 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;
(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
Introduction
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 1-2
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
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.
In accordance with Sections 15162 and 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, based on the
analysis and substantial evidence presented in this Addendum, the City has determined there
are no new significant environmental impacts resulting from the proposed Project. The City has
determined that there are no substantial increases in the severity of any previously identified
significant environmental impacts and no new mitigation measures are required for the
implementation of the proposed Project; there are no changes in circumstances under which the
proposed Project would be undertaken that would result in new or more severe significant
environmental impacts; and there is no new information of substantial importance that would
result in one or more new or substantially more severe significant impacts. Therefore, an
Addendum is the appropriate environmental documentation for the proposed Project and
requested approvals.
Pursuant to Section 15050 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach is the lead
agency for this Addendum and has the authority for Project approval and approval of the
accompanying environmental documentation (i.e., this Addendum).
1.2 BACKGROUND
1.2.1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
In 2006, the City of Newport Beach comprehensively updated the City’s General Plan from
the last updated version in 1988. The General Plan Update provided land use, housing,
circulation and infrastructure, public service, resource conservation, and public safety policies
for the entire City.
Introduction
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 1-3
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
The 2006 General Plan Update not only proposed policies for the future land use and
development citywide, but it also focused on the nine primary study areas (10.5 percent of the
City’s land area) where majority of the proposed land use changes would occur. Accordingly, the
2006 EIR would comprehensively address the impacts of all policies throughout the City and,
additionally, focus on those areas in which the most significant land use changes could occur.
The update to the General Plan would result in changes in the Residential (single- and multi-
family), Commercial, Office, Industrial, Visitor Serving, Institutional, and Parks land uses but
would seek to conserve the existing land use pattern. The General Plan Update would primarily
result in re-use of economically underperforming properties and obsolete development;
conversion of uses in response to market demand (e.g., office and industrial to residential); and
more intense use of land in defined areas. As indicated above, several subareas were the subjects
of special study during the update process. These subareas were identified as districts or
corridors depending on a number of factors, including physical form, functional role, and relation
to land or water.
Districts
Districts were identifiable by their common functional role, mix of uses, density/intensity,
physical form and character, and/or environmental setting. The General Plan policies in the
identified districts would focus on those that would likely change over the next 20 years, as the
existing land uses would be enhanced, underperforming properties would be revitalized, and
opportunities would be provided to accommodate the City’s fair share of regional housing needs.
These subareas would encompass areas that would extend equally in length and breadth. The
following five districts were identified:
• West Newport Mesa
• Newport Center/Fashion Island
• John Wayne Airport Area
• Banning Ranch
• Balboa Peninsular
Corridors
Similar to the districts, corridors were also determined to share common characteristics such as
their functional role, land use mix, density/intensity, physical form and character, and/or
environmental setting. They differed in their linear configuration, generally with shallow depth
parcels located along arterial streets. The 2006 General Plan Update’s policies would focus on
those in which change was anticipated to occur during the next 20 years. The following four
districts were identified:
• West Newport Highway
• Old Newport Boulevard
• Mariners’ Mile
• Corona del Mar
Introduction
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 1-4
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
The 2006 General Plan Update also included other land use changes; transportation
improvements; and goals and policy changes in the Land Use, Circulation, Safety, Natural
Resources, and Recreation elements of the General Plan. Additionally, two new elements,
Historical Resources and Arts and Cultural, were introduced.
Newport Center/Fashion Island
The proposed Ritz-Carlton Residences Project is within the Newport Center/Fashion Island
subarea. The 2006 General Plan Update would allow for expanded retail opportunities at Fashion
Island, including an additional anchor department store and ancillary shops, another hotel or
additions to existing hotels, and additional housing units. Plan policies would encourage
improved pedestrian connections and streetscape amenities connecting the area’s diverse
districts.
Mitigation Measures of the Adopted Final EIR
The 2006 EIR did not include any mitigation measures, as the potential impacts were either
considered less than significant requiring no mitigation measures, or no feasible mitigation
measures were available for the potentially significant impacts. As such, those impacts were
considered significant and unavoidable. However, applicable General Plan policies were applied
in each of the technical topics.
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 2-1
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SETTING
2.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The Project site is located at 900 Newport Center Drive, in the 9.53-acre VEA Newport Beach, A
Marriott Resort and Spa, immediately southwest of Fashion Island, within the Newport Center-
Fashion Island subarea, in Newport Beach, California. The site is a largely mixed-use area of the
City, surrounded by MacArthur Boulevard to the east, San Joaquin Road to the north, Jamboree
Road to the west, and Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) to the south. The Project site can be accessed
from Newport Center Drive and Santa Barbara Drive. Regional access to the site is provided by
PCH, SR 73, and Interstate 405 (I-405) via Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard. See
Exhibit 2-1, Regional Location and Local Vicinity Map and Exhibit 2-2, Aerial Photograph.
2.2 EXISTING SITE AND AREA CHARACTERISTICS
The VEA Newport Beach, A Marriott Resort and Spa was originally constructed in 1975 and
renovated in 1986, which included construction of the Pacific Pointe building and the parking
structure. The hotel operates under Use Permit 2095.
The resort hotel campus includes 532 hotel rooms and expansive amenities, including three
swimming pools, a day spa, restaurants, conference/ballroom space, meeting rooms, and
ancillary support uses. The resort hotel components are within five separate buildings and one
parking structure. The site includes approximately 698 parking spaces, including self-parking
and valet parking options. The existing buildings range from 30 feet to 151 feet in height and
overlook the Newport Beach Country Club golf course.
Land uses in the area include retail, commercial office, residential (condominium),
entertainment, and restaurant. Some of major the developments in the area include, but are not
limited to, the Fashion Island Regional Commercial retail shopping center, major commercial
office developments, residential developments, including the Granville and Meridian
condominium communities, the Colony at Fashion Island apartment homes, and the Newport
Beach Country Club. The Meridian condominium community is located immediately adjacent to
the Project site on the north along Santa Barbara Drive, with the guard-gated Granville
Condominiums immediately to the southeast. Mid-rise commercial office buildings are located
across Santa Barbara Drive to the north, and Fashion Island is located across Newport Center
Drive to the north/northeast. The Newport Beach Country Club golf course abuts the southern
property line.
In addition to several residential communities, including Meridian, Villas at Fashion Island,
Vivante Senior Housing (currently under construction), and other pending projects, Newport
Center is characterized by high- and mid-rise office buildings surrounding Fashion Island, which
provide residents and visitors shopping, entertainment, and restaurant amenities. The majority
of the high-rise buildings are located in Blocks 400-600, with building heights exceeding 300 feet
above ground level. Low- and mid-rise buildings are concentrated in the southeastern portion of
Newport Center closest to MacArthur Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway. Newport Center is
considered a major employment center, with research and development and high technology
Corona delMar StateBeach
GrantHowardPark
Begonia Park
BaysideDrive Park
PeninsulaPark
Upper NewportBay EcoPreserve
UpperNewport BayEco Preserve
Upper NewportBay Eco Preserve
Upper NewportBay EcoPreserve
WestcliffPark
MarinerPark
Tustin Park
JasmineViewPark
JettyView Park
L StreetPark Two
IrvineTerracePark
BuffaloHills Park
Harbor ViewNature Park
Galaxy Park
Upper NewportBay Reg Park
East BluffPark
Old SchoolPark
BonitaCanyon Sports Park
Ocean North- PelicanHill GC
Newport BeachCountry Club
Big CanyonCountry Club
Back BayGolf Course
Big
Canyon
Reservoir
Pacific Ocean
LowerNewport Bay
Upper
Newport Bay
The Grand
Canal
Lake
M
ain C
hannel
Newport Bay
AbrahamLincoln ElemSchool
Harbor DayElementarySchool
Harbor ViewElementarySchool
InteriorDesignersInstitute
Liberty BaptistElementary SCH
KaiserPrimary CTRElem School EastbluffElementarySchool
Corona delMar HighSchool
Roy O AndersonElem School
Our LadyQueen ofAngels SCH
HarborElementarySchool
FashionIsland
Irvine Ave
Marguerite Ave
Eastbluff Dr
MacArthur Blvd
Bayside Dr S a nMiguel D r
Dover
Dr
Park Ave
S
a
n
J
o
a
q
uin
H
ills
R
d
San Joaquin Hills Rd
Santiago Dr
Jamboree Rd
Balboa Blvd
Jamboree Rd
S a n M i g u e l D r
Coast Hwy
M arg u erite A v e
Ford Rd
ParkAve
Ford Rd
Coast HwyCollins Ave BalboaAve
Irvine Ave
Marine Ave
L St
E
a
s
t
b
l
u
f
f
D
r
BonitaCanyon Dr
WestcliffDr
Dover Dr
MacArthur Blvd
19thSt
UV73
UV73
D:\Projects\3NEW\003300\MXD\Addendum\ex_RL_LV_20220309.mxd
²
Seal Beach
Project Location
PACIFIC OCEAN
§¨105
ST1
ST19
ST90
ST261
ST55
ST133
ST57
ST241
Orange
BeachHuntington
§¨105
§¨405
§¨5
ST91
ST241ST39
ST22
ST73
Long Beach
Buena Park
Yorba Linda
Costa Mesa Irvine
Laguna Beach
Lakewood
Westminster
Santa Ana
Anaheim
Regional Location and Local VicinityThe Ritz-Carlton Residences Project Exhibit 2-1
(Rev: 03/10/2022 MMD) R:\Projects\NEW\3NEW003300 - Ritz-Carlton Residences\Graphics\Addendum\ex_RL_LV.pdf
2,000 0 2,0001,000 Feet
Project Boundary
SantaBarbaraDr
NewportCenterDrive W est
GranvilleDr
D:\Projects\3NEW\003300\MXD\Addendum\ex_Aerial_20220309.mxd
²
Aerial PhotographThe Ritz-Carlton Residences Project Exhibit 2-2
(Rev: 03/10/2022 MMD) R:\Projects\NEW\3NEW003300 - Ritz-Carlton Residences\Graphics\Addendum\ex_Aerial.pdf
200 0 200100Feet
Project Boundary
Aerial Source: Esri, Maxar 2020
Project Description and Setting
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 2-2
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
businesses in addition to substantial medical office uses. The Newport Beach Civic Center is
located in Newport Center between Avocado Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard.
2.3 PLANNING CONTEXT
2.3.1 LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
The proposed Project site has a General Plan designation of Visitor Serving Commercial (CV); a
Coastal Land Use Plan designation of Visitor Serving Commercial (CV-B); and a Zoning
designation of Commercial Visitor-Serving (CV). All CV designations allow for overnight
accommodations and accessory land uses. The proposed hotel branded residences are an
allowable accessory land use within City Council Policy K-4 and Director’s Determination No.
DD2021-001. As such, the proposed Project is consistent with the applicable CV land use
designations.
Council Policy K-4 and Director’s Interpretation
On March 9, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2021-18 Reducing the Barriers to the
Creation of Housing (Council Policy K-4). Council Policy K-4 directed City staff to develop, modify
as necessary, and aggressively implement strategies and action plans designed to accelerate
housing production consistent with the policy, including encouraging the development of mixed-
use hotels. The goals of Council Policy K-4 include interpreting ambiguities in the City’s General
Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) and Title 21 (Local Coastal Program
Implementation Plan) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC). City Policy K-4 would allow
hotels and motels, located outside the Coastal Commission Appeal Jurisdiction, to convert up to
30 percent of their approved hotel rooms to residential units on a one-for-one basis. Such
interpretation allows for residential units to be deemed an accessory use to the principal use of
a hotel and find that such residential uses are consistent with the hotel and motel’s underlying
General Plan, Zoning Code, and Local Coastal Plan Program land use and zoning designations.
On April 30, 2021, the Community Development Director issued Director’s Determination No.
DD2021-001. The Director’s Determination was considered by the City Council on appeal on
August 24, 2021. The City Council denied the appeal and upheld the Director’s Determination.
Director’s Determination No. DD2021-001 implemented City Council Policy K-4 and found that
residential uses are allowable as an accessory use within four resort hotels, including the VEA
Newport Beach, A Marriott Resort and Spa.
The proposed application for the conversion of hotel units to “hotel branded residences” as an
accessory use at the existing VEA Newport Beach, A Marriott Resort and Spa is consistent with
the letter and spirit of City Council Policy K-4 and Director’s Determination No. DD2021-001.
The City has already identified the VEA Newport Beach, A Marriott Resort and Spa as a qualifying
resort hotel offering destination accommodations, including restaurant and recreation facilities.
The conversion of up to 159 hotel units to hotel branded residences represents a 30 percent
conversion of the 532 existing units and would result in a decrease in the corresponding number
of hotel rooms. The VEA Newport Beach, A Marriott Resort and Spa is located outside the
California Coastal Commission Appeal Jurisdiction, identified in California PRC Section 30603(a).
Project Description and Setting
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 2-3
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
2.4 PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Project improvement area consists of 2.775 acres within the 9.53-acre Newport
Beach Marriott Report Hotel property. The development footprint of the proposed building and
the subterranean parking garage are approximately 25,023 sf and 44,860 sf, respectively.
The Project proposes conversion of up to 30 percent of the existing 532 hotel rooms to hotel
branded residences. The existing southernmost building, Harbor Landing, would be demolished
to accommodate construction of the new residential building. The demolition of the Harbor
Landing building and interior reconfiguration of the Harbor Point building would result in
reduction of up to 159 hotel units (i.e., removal of 133 units from Harbor Landing and reduction
of 26 units of 153 units from Harbor Point). No additional modifications are proposed to the
Harbor Point building.
The proposed new 22-story building would include up to 159 hotel branded residences, but the
total units at the VEA Newport Beach, A Marriott Resort and Spa would remain at 532. Of the 532
units, assuming 159 would be hotel branded residences, then 373 would be traditional hotel
rooms. Please refer to Exhibit 2-3, Overall Site Plan. The new building is proposed to be up to
approximately 279 feet above ground level to the penthouse level, with additional accessory
improvements and rooftop appurtenances such as elevator overruns and screened mechanical
equipment. The rooftop improvements would project to 295 feet in height, consistent with the
existing high-rise height limitation zone, which allows building height of 300 feet. Site Section is
depicted on Exhibits 2-4, and perspectives are shown on Exhibits 2-5a through 2-5c.
The new building would include the building lobby area on level 1, which would also provide
space for administrative offices, a lounge, resident amenities, restrooms, and back of house
facilities. Residential units would start on level 2 with a range of sizes from approximately 877
sf to 2,787 sf. Penthouse units ranging in size from 4,171 sf to 7,259 sf would be on levels 21 and
22. The building rooftop would include accessory improvements and house screened rooftop
appurtenances. The residential building would be constructed using stone, metal, wood, steel,
and glass glazing accents.
2.4.1 CIRCULATION AND PARKING
Onsite circulation for the hotel drop-off/pick-up and parking would not change. Residents and
guests of the hotel branded residences would be directed to a separate entrance on the south
side of the property along Newport Center Drive. This driveway currently provides access from
the existing parking structure and is gate-arm controlled. The new access would align with the
existing intersection, which is across from Cucina Enoteca and Nordstrom at Fashion Island. The
new access drive would direct vehicles to the new porte cochere and where valet service would
deliver cars into a new subterranean parking structure. A new secondary driveway would be
constructed along the southern boundary of the Project site providing service and fire access
from Newport Center Drive along the western boundary of the property to the Event Lawn.
Hotel Branded Residences Parking Structure
For the hotel branded residences, a new 5-level, 408-space subterranean parking structure
would be constructed adjacent to the new building under the porte cochere and entry drive area.
Source: MVE + Partners, 2022
(03/09/2022 JVR) R:\Projects\NEW\3NEW003300 - Ritz-Carlton Residences\Graphics\Addendum\ex_SitePlan.pdf
D:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
3
N
E
W
\
0
0
3
3
0
0
\
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
S
\
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
\
e
x
_
S
i
t
e
P
l
a
n
_
2
0
2
2
0
3
0
9
.
a
i
The Ritz-Carlton Residences Project
Overall Site Plan Exhibit 2-3
174
173174
181
179
178
181182
185184183
188
187
186
182
181
180179
183
180179
181
181
182
180179178
183184
180
2:1 SLOPE
2:1 SLOPE
173174
2:1 SLOPE
2:1 SLOPE
2:1 SLOPE
2:1 SLOPE
2:1 SLOPE
173
172
170
168
184
186
187
188
185184
183
182
181
180
183
2:1 SLOPE
184
184
182
183
NOPARKING
NOPARKING
3R RO)LUH
)LUH
3R RO
)LUH3RRO
)LUH3RRO
%R[
%R[
%R[
%R[
%R[
%R[
%R[
%R[%R[
%R[
%R[%R[ %R[ %R[%R[%R[
%R[
%R[
%R[
%R[
%R[
%R[
%R[
%R[
%R[
%R[
%R[
%R[%R[
%R[%R[
%R[
%R[
%R[
%R[
%R[ %R[
L1
L2
L3
L4
C3
C4
C
5
C
6
C7
C
11
C
12
150
145
170
175
170
160
165
155
160
165
170
160
165
155
174
173
172
171
176
177
178
179
178
177
SP
27.00'
171
172
173
179
175
177
5,7=&$5/721
5(6,'(1&(6
([LVWLQJ0DUULRWW
1RWD3DUW
+27(/
3$5.,1*
6758&785(
1RUVWURP
($6(0(17
6(7%$&.
567
6
8
,
7
(
Source: MVE + Partners, 2022
(03/09/2022 MMD) R:\Projects\NEW\3NEW003300 - Ritz-Carlton Residences\Graphics\Addendum\ex_Site_Section.pdf
D:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
3
N
E
W
\
0
0
3
3
0
0
\
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
S
\
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
\
e
x
_
S
i
t
e
_
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
_
2
0
2
2
0
3
0
9
.
a
i
The Ritz-Carlton Residences Project
Site Section Exhibit 2-4
/(9(/
/(9(/%
/(9(/%
/(9(/%
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
522)
+,*+522)
/(9(/%
/(9(/%
5(
6
,
'
(
1
7
,
$
/
/
(
9
(
/
6
/2
%
%
<
$
0
(
1
,
7
<
/
(
9
(
/
*$
5
$
*
(
/
(
9
(
/
6
3+81,7
81,7
81,7
81,7
81,7
81,7
81,7
81,7
81,7
81,7
81,7
81,7
81,7
81,7
81,7
81,7
81,7
81,7
3+81,7
81,7
81,7
81,7
81,7
81,7
81,7
81,7
81,7
81,7
81,7
81,7
81,7
81,7
81,7
81,7
81,7
81,7
5(6,'(17,$/*8(673$5.,1*
5(6,'(17,$/*8(673$5.,1*
5(6,'(17,$/*8(673$5.,1*
5(6,'(17,$/*8(673$5.,1*
3257&2&+(5(*$5'(17(55$&(/2%%<$0(1,7<
6725$*(
6725$*(6725$*(
6725$*(
6(59,&(
(175<'5,9(&25(
&25(
&25(
&25(
&25(
&25(
&25(
&25(
&25(
&25(
&25(
&25(
&25(
&25(
&25(
&25(
&25(
&25(
&25(
&25(
&25(
&25(
&25(
&25(
29(5+($'
(/(93,7
/(9(/
/(9(/
81,7 81,7&25(
81,7 81,7&25(
3+81,7 3+81,7&25(
$9(
6725$*( 6725$*(
5(6,'(17,$/*8(673$5.,1*
$0(1,7<$0(1,7<
87,/,7<87,/,7<
Source: MVE + Partners, 2022
(03/09/2022 MMD) R:\Projects\NEW\3NEW003300 - Ritz-Carlton Residences\Graphics\Addendum\ex_Perspective_South.pdf
D:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
3
N
E
W
\
0
0
3
3
0
0
\
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
S
\
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
\
e
x
_
P
e
r
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
_
S
o
u
t
h
_
2
0
2
2
0
3
0
9
.
a
i
The Ritz-Carlton Residences Project
South Perspective Exhibit 2-5a
Source: MVE + Partners, 2022
(03/09/2022 MMD) R:\Projects\NEW\3NEW003300 - Ritz-Carlton Residences\Graphics\Addendum\ex_Perspective_PortCohere.pdf
D:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
3
N
E
W
\
0
0
3
3
0
0
\
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
S
\
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
\
e
x
_
P
e
r
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
_
P
o
r
t
e
C
o
h
e
r
e
_
1
_
2
0
2
2
0
3
0
9
.
a
i
The Ritz-Carlton Residences Project
Porte Cohere Perspective Exhibit 2-5b
Source: MVE + Partners, 2022
(03/09/2022 MMD) R:\Projects\NEW\3NEW003300 - Ritz-Carlton Residences\Graphics\Addendum\ex_Perspective_PortCohere.pdf
D:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
3
N
E
W
\
0
0
3
3
0
0
\
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
S
\
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
\
e
x
_
P
e
r
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
_
P
o
r
t
e
C
o
h
e
r
e
_
2
_
2
0
2
2
0
3
0
9
.
a
i
The Ritz-Carlton Residences Project
Porte Cohere Perspective Exhibit 2-5c
Project Description and Setting
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 2-4
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
Of the 408 spaces, 300 would be tandem and 108 would be standard spaces. Each subterranean
level (1 through 5) would be constructed with spaces for valet parked vehicles. The new
residential tower and the parking structure would be accessed via Newport Center Drive where
residents and guests would be directed to valet services located at the porte cochere
(Exhibits 2-5b and 2-5c). All parking would be valet-served.
In addition to parking, level 1 would provide facilities such as a mailroom, employee breakroom,
trash enclosure, storage, security office, and kitchen. The loading dock would also be located on
subterranean level 1 and accessed by the service driveway from the proposed fire access
driveway on the southern boundary of the property. Subterranean level 2 would house amenities
for the building as well as electrical, engineering, utility, and maintenance facilities.
Subterranean levels 3, 4 and 5 would have storage facilities and parking.
Landscaping and Amenities
The proposed Project site would include extensive landscape and hardscape areas with
pedestrian circulation. The proposed conceptual landscape plan would include a hierarchy of
plant materials including trees, vines, shrubs, and turf throughout the Project site and in open
space areas. Along Newport Center Drive, at the frontage of the Project site, several existing palm
trees in the right-of-way (ROW) may be temporarily removed during construction. Evergreen
specimen trees (Pinus species or similar) would be located towards the outer portions of the
Project site, near the boundary, while canopy shade trees would be located around the
motorcourt and event lawn. Smaller accent trees (such as Olea europea or similar) would be
located around the pool area.
A layered landscape concept along the Project site boundaries of the Project site would provide
a buffer between the Project site and the existing adjacent residential development to the west
and, the hotel uses to the north, and the public ROW to the west. Landscape screening is also
proposed for the proposed parking structure, which includes developing mature vines to cover
the stucco-finished areas. Marriott maintenance and groundskeeping staff would service both
the hotel and the hotel branded residences. Proposed landscape plan, landscape planting plan,
landscape paving plan, and pedestrian circulation are depicted on Exhibits 2-6 through 2-9.
Additionally, a new 8,000-square-foot event lawn would be located along the southern boundary
of the property near the new residential building and hotel pool area. The new event lawn would
be used for outdoor events with the added function as a terminus for the fire access road. Please
refer to Exhibit 2-10, Open Space Plan.
The project also includes construction of a new swimming pool and a resident serving amenities
including a fitness facility and meeting rooms.
Hotel Parking Structure
As part of this Project, the existing hotel parking structure would be demolished, and a new hotel
parking structure rebuilt in the same location but realigned slightly toward Newport Center
Drive to provide improved onsite vehicular circulation. The hotel parking structure would be
6 levels (4 levels subterranean and 2 levels above ground) and include 400 parking spaces. The
Source: MVE + Partners, Burton Studio, 2022
(03/09/2022 MMD) R:\Projects\NEW\3NEW003300 - Ritz-Carlton Residences\Graphics\Addendum\ex_LandscapePlan.pdf
D:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
3
N
E
W
\
0
0
3
3
0
0
\
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
S
\
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
\
e
x
_
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
P
l
a
n
_
2
0
2
2
0
3
0
9
.
a
i
The Ritz-Carlton Residences Project
Landscape Plan Exhibit 2-6
Source: MVE + Partners, Burton Studio, 2022
(03/09/2022 MMD) R:\Projects\NEW\3NEW003300 - Ritz-Carlton Residences\Graphics\Addendum\ex_Landscape_Planting.pdf
D:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
3
N
E
W
\
0
0
3
3
0
0
\
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
S
\
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
\
e
x
_
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
_
P
l
a
n
t
i
n
g
_
2
0
2
2
0
3
0
9
.
a
i
The Ritz-Carlton Residences Project
Landscape Planting Plan Exhibit 2-7
&YIJCJU-BOETDBQF1MBOUJOH1MBO
Source: MVE + Partners, Burton Studio, 2022
(03/09/2022 MMD) R:\Projects\NEW\3NEW003300 - Ritz-Carlton Residences\Graphics\Addendum\ex_Landscape_Paving.pdf
D:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
3
N
E
W
\
0
0
3
3
0
0
\
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
S
\
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
\
e
x
_
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
_
P
a
v
i
n
g
_
2
0
2
2
0
3
0
9
.
a
i
The Ritz-Carlton Residences Project
Landscape Paving Plan Exhibit 2-8
&YIJCJU-BOETDBQF1BWJOH1MBO
Source: MVE + Partners, Burton Studio, 2022
(03/09/2022 MMD) R:\Projects\NEW\3NEW003300 - Ritz-Carlton Residences\Graphics\Addendum\ex_Pedestrian_Circulation.pdf
D:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
3
N
E
W
\
0
0
3
3
0
0
\
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
S
\
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
\
e
x
_
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
_
C
i
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
_
2
0
2
2
0
3
0
9
.
a
i
The Ritz-Carlton Residences Project
Pedestrian Circulation Plan Exhibit 2-9
&YIJCJU1FEFTUSJBO$JSDVMBUJPO1MBO
Source: Fuscoe Engineering, 2022
0 30 60 120
Feet (03/09/2022 MMD) R:\Projects\NEW\3NEW003300 - Ritz-Carlton Residences\Graphics\Addendum\ex_OpenSpace_Plan.pdf
D:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
3
N
E
W
\
0
0
3
3
0
0
\
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
S
\
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
\
e
x
_
O
p
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
_
P
l
a
n
_
2
0
2
2
0
3
0
9
.
a
i
The Ritz-Carlton Residences Project
Open Space Plan Exhibit 2-10
Project Description and Setting
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 2-5
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
rebuilt parking structure would also include enhanced circulation efficiency and be managed by
valet operations
2.4.2 FUTURE OPERATIONS
Operations for the hotel would continue to be managed by Marriott trained staff while the hotel
branded residences would be managed by trained Ritz-Carlton staff. Both the hotel and branded
residences would remain under the Marriott umbrella under common leadership from the
existing General Manager. Marriott maintenance and groundskeeping staff would service both
the hotel and the hotel branded residences. A temporary sales office for the hotel branded
residences could be located on the property.
In addition to existing hotel amenities such as a lounge, a fitness center, a full-service spa, pools,
event lawns, a conference center, ballrooms, and restaurants that would remain available for
hotel guest and residents use, the Project proposes new pool facilities, fitness facilities, meeting
rooms, and other food service amenities for exclusive use of the residents. Recreation
opportunities provided by the hotel include a resort style pool and spa, meeting and conference
rooms, new restaurant and bar, bike rentals, paddle and surfboard rentals and an event lawn
area where hotel guests and residents and guests of the hotel branded residences may attend
events.
2.4.3 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION
Project construction is anticipated to be completed in 42 months from the start of demolition.
This timeline includes approximately 6 months of demolition and site preparation and
approximately 36 months for construction of the new subterranean parking structure and
residential building. The Project would require demolition of approximately 263,194 sf and the
export of 205,700 cubic yards (cy) of soil. Please refer to Exhibit 2-11, Conceptual Grading Plan.
Construction equipment would be staged onsite in the development area to avoid disturbing
hotel operations and guests. Offsite parking would be provided daily for workers with a shuttle
to the hotel, if necessary. During construction, hotel operations would be slightly impacted, as
guests would be redirected to a nearby offsite parking area. However, the hotel and all amenities
would remain in operation with possible minimal closure of select outdoor amenities during the
grading and site preparation phase of construction.
Source: Fuscoe Engineering, 2022
0 30 60 120
Feet (03/09/2022 MMD) R:\Projects\NEW\3NEW003300 - Ritz-Carlton Residences\Graphics\Addendum\ex_ConceptualGrading.pdf
D:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
3
N
E
W
\
0
0
3
3
0
0
\
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
S
\
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
\
e
x
_
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
G
r
a
d
i
n
g
_
P
l
a
n
_
2
0
2
2
0
3
0
9
.
a
i
The Ritz-Carlton Residences Project
Conceptual Grading Plan Exhibit 2-11
Project Description and Setting
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 2-6
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
This page intentionally left blank
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-1
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
This Addendum evaluates whether any of the conditions requiring preparation of a Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report (EIR), pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, are met,
and whether there are new significant impacts resulting from the proposed Project, as compared
to the impacts previously approved and analyzed in the 2006 EIR. As previously identified in
Section 1.0, Introduction, of this Addendum, the 2006 EIR was adopted by the Newport Beach
City Council on July 25, 2006 and approved on November 7, 2006. The analysis contained within
this Addendum thus relies upon and incorporates by reference the said Program EIR (i.e., “2006
EIR”). This Addendum uses the Environmental Checklist Form, pursuant to 15063(d)(3) of the
CEQA Guidelines, that compares the anticipated environmental effects of the proposed Project
with those addressed in the 2006 EIR.
For each topical issue, summaries of the environmental analysis conclusions from the 2006 EIR
are provided. The 2006 EIR did not include any mitigation measures, as the potential impacts
were either considered less than significant requiring no mitigation measures, or no feasible
mitigation measures were available for the potentially significant impacts. As such, those
impacts were considered significant and unavoidable. However, applicable General Plan policies
were applied in each of the technical topics. Relevant policies are also applied in the respective
sections of this Addendum document.
Following the summary of the 2006 EIR, the analysis for the proposed Project is presented. This
document is an Addendum to the adopted 2006 EIR and demonstrates that there are no changes
to the previous information or analysis or changes in circumstances that would substantially
increase significant environmental impacts or create any new significant impacts. This
Addendum demonstrates that no new information of substantial importance has been identified
that shows the proposed Project would have one or more significant effects not discussed in the
2006 EIR. Additionally, this Addendum demonstrates that no new mitigation measures are
required beyond the General Plan policies identified in the 2006 EIR.
3.1 AESTHETICS
3.1.1 2006 EIR
The 2006 EIR stated that there are no officially designated scenic vistas in the City, but many
natural features, such as the ocean and bay, provide open coastal views. Particular roadways are
identified as providing public coastal views of significant vistas within the City’s Local Coastal
Program. State Route 1 (SR 1) 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 2006 EIR found that
implementation of the General Plan would have no impact. The 2006 EIR stated that the General
Plan Update would provide development opportunities, which would complement and enhance
the City’s existing visual character. Therefore the 2006 EIR determined that the General Plan
Update would have a less-than-significant impact on the visual character of developed urban
areas. Regarding new sources of daytime glare, the 2006 EIR stated that glare could be produced
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-2
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
by the increased amount of surface area of proposed commercial and residential structures,
which could reflect or concentrate sunlight and result in a potentially significant impact.
However, Policy LU 5.5.2 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. Implementation of design features required by Policy 5.5.2, including the use
of non-reflective textured surfaces on building exteriors, as well as avoidance of the use of
reflective glass, would reduce impacts resulting from daytime glare from new development to a
less-than-significant level. Regarding nighttime light, as implementation of the General Plan
Update would primarily result in infill of vacant or underutilized parcels, as well as
intensification and reuse of existing sites, the majority of new development would be located in
areas that commonly experience at least minimal impacts from existing light sources. The 2006
EIR focused on the impacts to Banning Ranch and determined that development in Banning
Ranch would result in significant and unavoidable impacts, but that nighttime light in other areas
of the City, when following General Plan Update policies, would result in less than significant
impacts.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were required.
3.1.2 PROPOSED PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS
Environmental Issues
New
Significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impacts
New Ability
to
Substantially
Reduce Significant
Impact
No
Substantial
Change
From Previous
Analysis
AESTHETICS – Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced
from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable
zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Existing Views and Visual Character
The Project site is currently developed with an existing tri-level hotel built in 1975, a swimming
pool, outdoor landscaped areas, and a subterranean parking structure, and surface parking.
Additionally, the Project site contains site improvements, including but not limited to, two
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-3
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
vehicle access points off Newport Center Drive. Landscaping and perimeter block walls are
located on the western and southern boundaries of the Project site.
The existing visual character of the Project site is depicted in the site photographs provided on
Exhibits 3.1-1a through 3.1-1c and are described below.
• View 1 on Exhibit 3.1-1a, Site Photographs: Looking north toward the existing building
to be demolished and replaced with the proposed hotel branded residences. This view
shows a turf and seating area in the foreground and a domed pergola in the middle
ground in the left of the photograph.
• View 2 on Exhibit 3.1-1a, Site Photographs: Looking east toward the existing building to
be demolished and replaced with the proposed residences. This view shows landscaping
and turf in the foreground and middle ground and the courtyard of the existing building
fenced off. The pool behind the fence is not visible.
• View 3 on Exhibit 3.1-1b, Site Photographs: Looking west toward the adjacent golf
course. This view shows the rooftops of the existing residential development in the
middle ground and the golf course in the background. This view also shows the railing, in
front of the hedge, that separates the VEA Newport Beach, A Marriott Resort and Spa from
the adjacent property.
• View 4 on Exhibit 3.1-1b, Site Photographs: Looking south/southwest toward the golf
course. This view shows the existing building to be demolished in the foreground in the lower
left of the photograph, and the rooftops of the existing residential development behind the
building.
• View 5 on Exhibit 3.1-1c, Site Photographs: Looking west toward the entrance to the VEA
Newport Beach, A Marriott Resort and Spa. This view shows the entrance under
construction/renovation and the existing hotel tower behind the entrance.
• View 6 on Exhibit 3.1-1c, Site Photographs: Looking north toward the existing hotel
tower that is currently under renovation. This view shows the existing building to be
demolished in the foreground and the hotel tower behind it.
Would the Project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The 2006 EIR states that there are no officially
designated scenic vistas in the City, but many natural features, such as the ocean and bay, provide
open coastal views. Particular roadways, including Newport Center Drive from Newport Center
Drive East/West to Farallon Drive/Granville Drive, were identified as providing coastal views as
significant vistas. This portion of Newport Center Drive is located 0.11-mile east of the Project
site. However, the view from this roadway is intended to show views of the ocean to the
southwest, and the Project site would not hinder this view, as the proposed residential structure
would be northwest of this roadway and would not block coastal views. According to Caltrans
List of Eligible and Officially Designated Scenic Highways, there are no Officially Designated State
scenic highways in the City of Newport Beach. Portions of SR-1 are identified as “Eligible” for
State Scenic Highway designation, including the segment of SR-1 located approximately 0.36-
mile south of the Project site (Caltrans 2022). Due to intervening development and topography,
Site Photographs Exhibit 3.1-1a
The Ritz-Carlton Residences Project
View 2
(04/26/2022 MMD) R:\Projects\NEW\3NEW003300 - Ritz-Carlton Residences\Graphics\Addendum\ex_SP.pdf
D:\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
3
N
E
W
\
0
0
3
3
0
0
\
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
S
\
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
\
e
x
_
S
P
1
_
2
0
2
2
0
4
2
6
.
a
i
View 1
<!
<!
Project
Site
S
a
ntaBarbaraDr
Newport
Center
Dr
View 2
View 1
I 0 350175
Feet
Site Photographs Exhibit 3.1-1b
The Ritz-Carlton Residences Project
View 4
(04/26/2022 MMD) R:\Projects\NEW\3NEW003300 - Ritz-Carlton Residences\Graphics\Addendum\ex_SP.pdf
D:\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
3
N
E
W
\
0
0
3
3
0
0
\
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
S
\
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
\
e
x
_
S
P
2
_
2
0
2
2
0
4
2
6
.
a
i
View 3
<
!
<
!
Project
Site
S
a
ntaBarbaraDr
Newport
Center
Dr
View 4
View 3
I 0350175
Feet
Site Photographs Exhibit 3.1-1c
The Ritz-Carlton Residences Project
View 6
(04/26/2022 MMD) R:\Projects\NEW\3NEW003300 - Ritz-Carlton Residences\Graphics\Addendum\ex_SP.pdf
D:\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
3
N
E
W
\
0
0
3
3
0
0
\
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
S
\
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
\
e
x
_
S
P
3
_
2
0
2
2
0
4
2
6
.
a
i
View 5
<!
<!
Project
Site
S
a
ntaBarbaraDr
NewportCenter
Dr
View 6
View 5
I 0350175
Feet
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-4
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
no portion of the Project site is visible from SR-1 under existing conditions. Under the proposed
condition, given that the proposed building would be 22 stories tall, the upper floors of the
proposed structure may be visible from portions of SR-1, in the viewshed looking north toward
Newport Center/Fashion Island. However, it should be noted, as detailed below, the height of the
residential tower would not exceed the height limit of 300 feet.
Because the Project site and its existing features are not currently visible from SR-1, the
demolition and removal of existing features would have no effect on the viewshed of SR-1. When
the Project is developed as proposed, the residential condominium structure would be a
compatible height to other nearby structures in Newport Center and has no potential to damage
scenic resources visible from SR-1. In addition to surrounding residential communities, the
Project area is characterized by high- and mid-rise office buildings surrounding Fashion Island.
The majority of the high-rise buildings are located in Blocks 400-600, with building heights
exceeding 300 feet above ground level. The new building is proposed to be up to approximately
279 feet above ground level, with limited projections for rooftop appurtenances such as elevator
overruns and screened mechanical equipment. The rooftop appurtenances would project to 295
feet in height, consistent with the existing high-rise height limitation zone, which allows building
height of 300 feet. Further, because SR-1 is not an Officially Designated State scenic highway
corridor, the Project would have no potential impact to scenic resources visible from a State
scenic highway. Therefore, the Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to
scenic vistas that was not previously analyzed, and no new mitigation measures are required.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. As detailed above, the 2006 EIR identified that
there are no officially designated scenic highways within the City of Newport Beach or in
surrounding nearby cities (Caltrans 2022). The nearest Eligible Scenic Highway is SR 1, which is
designated as “Eligible for State Scenic Highway” designation and is located approximately
0.36-mile south of the Project site at its nearest point. The Project site is not currently visible
from this portion of SR-1, due to intervening topography and structures. Under the proposed
condition, given that the building would be 22 stories tall, the upper floors of the building may
be visible from portions of SR-1, in the viewshed looking north toward Newport Center/Fashion
Island. The rooftop appurtenances would project 295 feet in height, consistent with the existing
high-rise height limitation zone, which allows building height of 300 feet. Further, because SR-1
is not an Officially Designated State scenic highway corridor, the Project would have no potential
impact to scenic resources visible from a State scenic highway. As such, implementation of the
proposed Project would not damage scenic resources within a State scenic highway.
Additionally, there are no rock outcroppings, historic buildings, or any other scenic resources at
the Project site. There are ornamental trees located in landscaped areas, but the trees are not
considered scenic resources. Therefore, the Project would not create a new significant impact
pertaining to scenic resources, including tees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway. No impacts would occur, that was not previously analyzed, and no new
mitigation measures are required.
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-5
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that
are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project site is located within an urbanized
area. As such, the potential impacts under this threshold are assessed based on whether the
Project would conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. The
Project uses would be consistent with the CV zoning designation, as detailed in Section 2.3,
Planning Context, of this Addendum. Additionally, the 2006 EIR emphasizes that the General Plan
Update would concentrate infill development and redevelopment in several specific subareas,
including Newport Center/Fashion Island. For example, the General Plan Update states that high-
density residential uses are proposed in the Newport Center/Fashion Island area. Specifically, in
Newport Center/Fashion Island, Policy LU 6.14.4 would encourage some new development to be
located and designed to orient to the inner side of Newport Center Drive, establishing physical
and visual continuity that would diminish the dominance of surface parking lots and encourage
pedestrian activity. Implementation of the proposed Project would represent a change to the
existing visual character of the Project site. The Project would replace an existing building with
high-density hotel branded residences and would remove the existing surface parking on-site to
develop a parking structure and subterranean parking for the hotel branded residences. During
grading and construction, construction equipment and activities would be visible from the
immediately surrounding uses. This visual change would be temporary in nature and typical of
construction sites in an urban environment; therefore, temporary impacts during construction
would be less than significant.
To address visual changes associated with implementation of the proposed Project and to
address the relationship between the proposed Project and the land uses surrounding the site,
visual simulations were prepared to depict the views of the hotel branded residences tower post
Project buildout, as shown on Exhibit 3.1-2a through 3.1-2c and described below:
• View 1 on Exhibit 3.1-2a, Visual Simulations: Looking east from Castaway Park toward
the Project site. The focal point in this view is Newport Bay. Surrounding land uses
include residential uses. In the distance, the proposed residential tower can be seen along
with a variety of mid- to high-rise buildings. Given that the height of the proposed tower
would not exceed the height limit of 300 feet, and that it is against an existing hill, the
proposed building does not stand out as a visual impact.
• View 2 on Exhibit 3.1-2a, Visual Simulations: Looking north from the Balboa Peninsula
toward the Project site. As shown, the Peninsula is surrounded by beach access and
residential land uses. The proposed residential tower and other mid- to high-rise
buildings are visible in the background. In this view, although the tower is more
prominent, it is not the only high-rise building, and as such the proposed residential
building does not create a visual impact.
• View 3 on Exhibit 3.1-3b, Visual Simulations: Looking northwest from the intersection of
San Miguel Drive and Avocado toward the Project site. This view shows some of the mid-
-rise commercial uses surrounding the Project site. Fashion Island retail shopping center
can also be seen in this view. In this view the proposed residential tower is highly visible
Source: MVE + Partners, 2022
View Location
(04/26/2022 MMD) R:\Projects\NEW\3NEW003300 - Ritz-Carlton Residences\Graphics\Addendum\ex_VisSim.pdf
D:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
3
N
E
W
\
0
0
3
3
0
0
\
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
S
\
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
\
e
x
_
V
i
s
S
i
m
_
K
e
y
M
a
p
_
2
0
2
2
0
4
2
6
.
a
i
The Ritz-Carlton Residences Project
Visual Simulations Key Map Exhibit 3.1-2a
Visual Simulations Exhibit 3.1-2b
The Ritz-Carlton Residences Project
View 2
(04/26/2022 MMD) R:\Projects\NEW\3NEW003300 - Ritz-Carlton Residences\Graphics\Addendum\ex_VisSim.pdf
D:\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
3
N
E
W
\
0
0
3
3
0
0
\
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
S
\
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
\
e
x
_
V
i
s
S
i
m
_
1
_
2
0
2
2
0
4
2
6
.
a
i
Source: MVE + Partners, 2022
View 1
Visual Simulations Exhibit 3.1-2c
The Ritz-Carlton Residences Project
View 4
(04/26/2022 MMD) R:\Projects\NEW\3NEW003300 - Ritz-Carlton Residences\Graphics\Addendum\ex_VisSim.pdf
D:\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
3
N
E
W
\
0
0
3
3
0
0
\
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
S
\
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
\
e
x
_
V
i
s
S
i
m
_
2
_
2
0
2
2
0
4
2
6
.
a
i
Source: MVE + Partners, 2022
View 3
Visual Simulations Exhibit 3.1-2d
The Ritz-Carlton Residences Project
(04/26/2022 MMD) R:\Projects\NEW\3NEW003300 - Ritz-Carlton Residences\Graphics\Addendum\ex_VisSim.pdf
D:\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
3
N
E
W
\
0
0
3
3
0
0
\
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
S
\
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
\
e
x
_
V
i
s
S
i
m
_
3
_
2
0
2
2
0
4
2
6
.
a
i
Source: MVE + Partners, 2022
View 5
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-6
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
in the absence of other high-rise buildings immediately surrounding it. However, given
this view is visible by the motorists on these roadways, the view would be transient, as
such no permanent visual impact would result.
• View 4 on Exhibit 3.1-2b, Visual Simulations: Looking west from the intersection of San
Miguel Drive and Yacht Coquette toward the Project site. Surrounding land uses include
single-family residences. The view from this vantage point shows the proposed
residential tower along with other mid- and high-rise buildings. The building does not
appear as tall as others and does not create a visual impact.
• View 5 on Exhibit 3.1-2c, Visual Simulations: Looking southwest from Spy Glass Hill Road
toward the Project site. Views of the site from this vantage point are limited due to the
distance and mature trees and vegetation. Residential and mid- to high-rise buildings can
be seen in the distance, and the residential tower is partially visible from behind an
existing mid-rise building. As such, the proposed Project does not create a visual impact.
While the proposed Project would alter the existing visual character of the Project site and views
from surrounding vantage points, this change would not be considered a substantial degradation
of the Project site or its surroundings, as discussed above. This change includes the introduction
of a 22-story tower, which would be visually compatible with the existing uses in the
surrounding area, especially given that the height of the structure would not exceed the high-
rise height limitation zone. In addition to several residential communities, the Project area is
characterized by high- and mid-rise office buildings surrounding Fashion Island. The majority of
the high-rise buildings are located in Blocks 400-600, with building heights exceeding 300 feet
above ground level. The new building is proposed to be up to approximately 279 feet above
ground level, with limited projections for rooftop appurtenances such as elevator overruns and
screened mechanical equipment. The rooftop appurtenances would project to 295 feet in height,
consistent with the existing high-rise height limitation zone, which allows building height of 300
feet. Additionally, the proposed structure would be aesthetically compatible with existing
surrounding uses by complying with applicable regulations governing scenic quality. Therefore,
the Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to visual character or public
views of the site that was not previously analyzed, and no new mitigation measures are required.
Shade and Shadow Analysis
The City of Newport Beach does not have standards, regulations, or ordinances governing
shading of adjacent properties applicable to this area. Shade and shadow in urban settings is a
common phenomenon where differences in building height occur among structures in adjacent
or nearby development. Taller buildings have the potential to cast shadow on adjacent land uses;
and, depending on the circumstances and duration of this shading, the effect may be regarded as
adverse. A shade and shadow analysis was conducted for the proposed Project to determine if
shadow-sensitive uses surrounding the proposed building would be impacted by shade or
shadow effects. The computer-generated shade and shadow simulations were prepared by
inputting building height, setbacks, geographic location, orientation, day of year, and time of day.
Calculation and interpretation of this information provide the location of the sun over the earth,
producing an accurate angle of the sun and the resulting shadows. The shade and shadow
analysis represents Midsummer Solstice, Midwinter Solstice, Spring Equinox, and Autumn
Equinox in the 2022 calendar year. The Midsummer Solstice, Spring Equinox, and Autumn
Equinox all fall in Pacific Daylight time and represent the proposed Project’s shadows from 9
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-7
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
a.m. to 5 p.m. The Midwinter Solstice falls in Pacific Standard Time (PST) and represents the
proposed Project’s shadows from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. Exhibit 3.1-3a through Exhibit 3.1-3d depict
the results of the shade and shadow analysis.
By analyzing the shade and shadow effects at multiple times of day, the Earth’s rotation around
the sun is illustrated. For example, during early morning hours (sunrise), the sun is positioned
low in the sky and casts longer shadows. As the day progresses, shadow lengths become shorter
as the sun approaches its highest point in the sky around midday (noon). From this point in the
day, the sun’s position in the sky becomes progressively lower, and the corresponding shadows
become longer until the sun disappears beyond the horizon at sunset. As a rule, the longest
shadows are cast during the winter months (morning and afternoon hours); and the shortest
shadows are cast during the summer months (noon hour). Based on review of existing uses
surrounding the Project site, the only shadow-sensitive uses appear to be the Granville
condominium community (on Granville Drive, south of the Project site) and the Meridian
condominium complex (at 1001 Santa Barbara Drive, northwest of the Project site).
The proposed Project would cast shadow on the garage portion of one residence at the Grandville
community at 9 a.m. during Midsummer Solstice (June 21), and at over some residences at the
Meridian condominium complex at 9 a.m. during Midwinter Solstice (December 21), as shown in
Exhibit 3.1-3b and 3.1-3d, respectively. By 10 a.m., the shadows would not cover these
residences. This less than 1-hour shadow is under the 3-hour requirement set forth in the North
Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan (Newport Beach 2015). Due to the short
duration of anticipated shadows on off-site properties, the proposed Project would result in less
than significant shade and shadow impacts, and no mitigation is required. Therefore, the Project
would not create a new significant impact pertaining to visual character or public views of the
site and the shade and shadow effect that were not previously analyzed, and no new mitigation
measures are required.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project site is located in an area that is
already subject to ambient lighting from existing and surrounding uses. The site is developed
with hotel uses, and the larger area is currently developed with retail, commercial office,
residential (condominium), entertainment, and restaurant uses. Existing sources of light include
streetlights, vehicle headlights, and interior and exterior lighting from existing buildings on site
as well surrounding uses. Consistent with existing conditions in the vicinity, the proposed Project
would include new exterior light sources that would generate light at levels sufficient for safety
and visibility. Additionally, the Project would comply with Municipal Code Chapter 20.30.070
“Outdoor Lighting” which requires light to be shielded and confined within the site boundaries
to prevent spillage. Since the Project site and surrounding areas are largely developed, the
lighting associated with the proposed Project would not substantially increase light and glare
within the site or surroundings. With compliance with General Plan policies and Municipal Code
20.30.070 potential impacts would be less than significant. Additionally, regarding glare, the
proposed structure would be constructed with non-reflective materials and textured surface on
the exteriors in compliance with General Plan Policy LU 5.6.2. Therefore, the Project would not
create a new significant impact pertaining to daytime or nighttime lighting and glare that were
not previously analyzed, and no new mitigation measures are required.
Source: MVE + Partners, 2022
0$5&+635,1*(48,12; 3$&,),&'$</,*+77,0( $030
$
0
$
0
$
0
3
0
3
0
3
0
3
0
3
0
3
0
(03/09/2022 MMD) R:\Projects\NEW\3NEW003300 - Ritz-Carlton Residences\Graphics\Addendum\ex_ShadeShadow_1_Spring.pdf
D:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
3
N
E
W
\
0
0
3
3
0
0
\
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
S
\
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
\
e
x
_
S
h
a
d
e
S
h
a
d
o
w
_
1
_
S
p
r
i
n
g
_
2
0
2
2
0
3
0
9
.
a
i
The Ritz-Carlton Residences Project
Shade and Shadow Analysis Exhibit 3.1-3a
Source: MVE + Partners, 2022
-81(0,'6800(562/67,&( 3$&,),&'$</,*+77,0( $030
$
0
$
0
$
0
3
0
3
0
3
0
3
0
3
0
3
0
(03/09/2022 MMD) R:\Projects\NEW\3NEW003300 - Ritz-Carlton Residences\Graphics\Addendum\ex_ShadeShadow_2_MidSummer.pdf
D:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
3
N
E
W
\
0
0
3
3
0
0
\
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
S
\
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
\
e
x
_
S
h
a
d
e
S
h
a
d
o
w
_
2
_
M
i
d
S
u
m
m
e
r
_
2
0
2
2
0
3
0
9
.
a
i
The Ritz-Carlton Residences Project
Shade and Shadow Analysis Exhibit 3.1-3b
Source: MVE + Partners, 2022
6(37(0%(5$87801(48,12; 3$&,),&'$</,*+77,0( $030
$
0
$
0
$
0
3
0
3
0
3
0
3
0
3
0
3
0
(03/09/2022 MMD) R:\Projects\NEW\3NEW003300 - Ritz-Carlton Residences\Graphics\Addendum\ex_ShadeShadow_3_Autumn.pdf
D:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
3
N
E
W
\
0
0
3
3
0
0
\
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
S
\
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
\
e
x
_
S
h
a
d
e
S
h
a
d
o
w
_
3
_
A
u
t
u
m
n
_
2
0
2
2
0
3
0
9
.
a
i
The Ritz-Carlton Residences Project
Shade and Shadow Analysis Exhibit 3.1-3c
Source: MVE + Partners, 2022
'(&(0%(50,':,17(562/67,&( 3$&,),&67$1'$5'7,0( $030
$
0
$
0
$
0
3
0
3
0
3
0
3
0
(03/09/2022 MMD) R:\Projects\NEW\3NEW003300 - Ritz-Carlton Residences\Graphics\Addendum\ex_ShadeShadow_4_MidWinter.pdf
D:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
3
N
E
W
\
0
0
3
3
0
0
\
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
S
\
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
\
e
x
_
S
h
a
d
e
S
h
a
d
o
w
_
4
_
M
i
d
W
i
n
t
e
r
_
2
0
2
2
0
3
0
9
.
a
i
The Ritz-Carlton Residences Project
Shade and Shadow Analysis Exhibit 3.1-3d
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-8
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
Conclusion
The aesthetics impacts of the proposed Project would be consistent with the impacts identified
for the 2006 General Plan Update, analyzed in the 2006 EIR. The proposed Project would not
create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, (1) no substantial changes are
proposed as part of the proposed Project that would result in new significant effects or an
increase in severity of previous effects; (2) no substantial changes in circumstances have
occurred that would result in new significant effects; and (3) no new information has become
known that was not previously known that would (a) create new significant impacts, (b) increase
the severity of previously examined effects, or (c) determine that mitigation measures or
alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or (4) introduce
mitigation measures that are considerably different from those analyzed in the 2006 EIR. For
these reasons, no major revisions to the aesthetics analysis provided in the 2006 EIR are
required.
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-9
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
3.2.1 2006 EIR
The 2006 EIR identified that the topic of Agricultural Resources was focused out because the City
contains no designated farmland by the California Department of Conservation, Farmland
Mapping Program, no land designated Farmland would be converted to non-agricultural use as
a result of implementation of the 2006 General Plan Update; no sites in the City are zoned for
agricultural use; and no sites would be affected by a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, as
detailed in the Initial Study (Appendix A of the 2006 EIR), the General Plan Update would result
in no impacts pertaining to agriculture resources.
3.2.2 MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures were required.
3.2.3 PROPOSED PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS
Environmental Issues New
Significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impacts
New Ability
to
Substantially
Reduce
Significant Impact
No
Substantial
Change
From
Previous Analysis
AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest
land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220[g]),
timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section
4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined
by Government Code Section 51104[g])?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to
non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due
to their location or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land
to non-forest use?
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-10
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The 2006 EIR determined that there would
be no impacts related to conversion of Farmland with implementation of the 2006 General Plan
Update. Consistent with the findings of the 2006 EIR, there are no designated Farmlands within
or near the Project site. No farmland conversion or impacts to agricultural uses would occur with
implementation of the proposed Project. The Project would not create a new significant impact
on agricultural resources, and no new mitigation measures are required.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The 2006 EIR determined that there would
be no impact related to conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act
contract with implementation of the 2006 General Plan Update. Consistent with the findings of
the 2006 EIR, there are no agricultural activities within or near the Project site. Also, the Project
area is not zoned for agricultural use, and there are no Williamson Act Contracts. No impacts to
agricultural uses would occur with implementation of the proposed Project. The proposed
Project would not create a new significant impact on agricultural resources, and no new
mitigation measures are required.
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in
Public Resources Code Section 12220[g]), timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code Section 51104[g])?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. At the time of approval of the 2006 EIR,
rezoning of forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production was not a CEQA
Appendix G threshold question. However, no forest land occurs on the site or within the area,
and no rezoning of forest land or timberland zoned Timberland Production is proposed as part
of the Project. The proposed Project would not create a new significant impact on forest land,
and no new mitigation measures are required.
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. At the time of approval of the 2006 EIR, loss
of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use was not a CEQA Appendix G threshold
question. However, no loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use is
proposed as part of the Project. The proposed Project would not create a new significant impact
on forest land, and no new mitigation measures are required.
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-11
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion
of forest land to non-forest use?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Consistent with the findings of the 2006 EIR,
no conversion of Farmland to a non-agricultural use is proposed as part of the Project.
Additionally, there would be no conversion of forest land to a non-forest use with the proposed
Project. Therefore, the proposed Project would not create a new significant impact on conversion
of Farmland or forest land, and no new mitigation measures are required.
Conclusion
The agriculture and forestry resources impacts of the proposed Project would be consistent with
the impacts identified for the 2006 General Plan Update, analyzed in the 2006 EIR. The proposed
Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, (1) no
substantial changes are proposed as part of the proposed Project that would result in new
significant effects or an increase in severity of previous effects; (2) no substantial changes in
circumstances have occurred that would result in new significant effects; and (3) no new
information has become known that was not previously known that would (a) create new
significant impacts, (b) increase the severity of previously examined effects, or (c) determine
that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be
feasible; or (4) introduce mitigation measures that are considerably different from those
analyzed in the 2006 EIR. For these reasons, no substantial changes to the agriculture and
forestry resources analysis provided in the 2006 EIR are required.
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-12
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
3.3 AIR QUALITY
An Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis technical report has been prepared for the Project,
titled “Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis—Ritz-Carlton Residences Project, Newport
Beach, Orange County, California”. The report was prepared by LSA in February 2022 (LSA
2022a); is included in Appendix A, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report,
of this Addendum; and is summarized in this analysis.
3.3.1 2006 EIR
The 2006 EIR referenced the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD’s) 2003
Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) to determine if implementation of the General Plan would
conflict with or obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality plan. The 2006 EIR found
that the General Plan would be consistent with the 2003 AQMP goal to reduce vehicle miles
traveled (VMT); however, the 2006 EIR concluded that since the AQMP growth projections are
based on Southern California Association of Government (SCAG) population levels, the increase
in population growth associated with the General Plan would not have been accounted for in the
AQMP. As such, the 2006 EIR found that implementation of the General Plan would not be
consistent with the AQMP. As such, the 2006 EIR identified this inconsistency as a significant and
unavoidable impact (LSA 2022a).
As discussed in the 2006 EIR, implementation of the General Plan would result in new emissions
generated by construction activities. The 2006 EIR determined 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
thresholds of significance. The 2006 EIR identified General Plan Policies NR 8.1 through NR 8.5
to reduce air pollutant emissions from construction activities, which call for the maintenance of
construction equipment, the use of non-polluting and non-toxic building equipment, and
minimizing fugitive dust. However, the 2006 EIR found that the impact would remain significant
and unavoidable (LSA 2022a).
In addition, the 2006 EIR determined that the General Plan Update may not meet the
performance standard for annual emissions reductions and could result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of one or more criteria pollutants for which the Project region is in
nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard, and this impact
would be significant and unavoidable. Motor vehicles, and traffic-congested roadways and
intersections are the primary source of high localized CO concentrations. Localized areas where
ambient concentrations exceed federal and/or State standards for CO are termed CO “hotspots.”
Based on the General Plan-related traffic, the 2006 EIR determined that implementation of the
General Plan Update would not expose existing or future sensitive uses within the City to
substantial CO concentrations (LSA 2022a). This impact was found to be less than significant.
The 2006 EIR determined that when evaluating potential air quality impacts to sensitive
receptors, the SCAQMD is primarily concerned with high localized concentrations of CO. As
discussed above, the 2006 EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan would not
expose existing or future sensitive uses within the City to substantial CO concentrations. This
impact was found to be less than significant. Consumer products and diesel particulate matter
(DPM) and other sources of Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) were not addressed at the General
Plan Level (LSA 2022a).
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-13
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
The 2006 EIR concluded that construction-related 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. In addition, the 2006 EIR found that trash receptacles
would be stored in areas and in containers, as required by City and Health Department
regulations, and would be emptied on a regular basis, before potentially substantial odors have
a chance to develop (LSA 2022a). As such, the 2006 EIR found that 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.
The 2006 EIR found that growth under the General Plan is inconsistent with growth under the
2003 AQMP; therefore, the impact of the General Plan is cumulatively considerable. This was
considered a significant impact. In addition, the 2006 EIR determined that the General Plan
Update would have the potential to contribute to a cumulatively considerable net increase of a
criteria as the contribution of daily construction and operational emissions from the proposed
project could be cumulatively considerable. This cumulative impact was considered to be
significant. The 2006 EIR also found that cumulative development is not expected to expose
sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Therefore, the Project’s contribution
to the impact was considered less than cumulatively considerable, and the cumulative impact
would be less than significant. Lastly, the General Plan EIR determined that cumulative
development would not have a potentially significant impact in terms of the creation of
objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Cumulative odor impacts would
thus be less than significant (LSA 2022a).
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were required.
3.3.2 PROPOSED PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS
Environmental Issues New
Significant Impact
More
Severe Impacts
New Ability
to Substantially
Reduce
Significant
Impact
No
Substantial Change
From
Previous
Analysis
AIR QUALITY – Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air
pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under
an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors)
adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-14
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
Air Quality Background
The SCAQMD has established quantitative thresholds for short-term (construction) emissions
and long-term (operational) emissions for the following criteria pollutants: ozone, carbon
monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter 10 and 2.5 microns. The
characteristics and health effects of these criteria pollutants are described below:
• Ozone (O3) is a nearly colorless gas that is formed by photochemical reaction (when
nitrogen dioxide is broken down by sunlight). Ground-level O3 exposure can cause a
variety of health problems, including lung irritation, wheezing, coughing, pain when
taking a deep breath, and breathing difficulties during exercise or outdoor activities;
permanent lung damage; aggravated asthma; and increased susceptibility to respiratory
illnesses.
• Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless and odorless toxic gas which, in the urban
environment, is associated primarily with the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels in
motor vehicles. CO combines with hemoglobin in the bloodstream and reduces the
amount of oxygen that can be circulated through the body. High CO concentrations can
lead to headaches, aggravation of cardiovascular disease, and impairment of central
nervous system functions.
• Nitrogen oxides (NOx) are yellowish-brown gases, which at high levels can cause
breathing difficulties. NOx are formed when nitric oxide (NO—a pollutant from internal
combustion processes) combines with oxygen.
• Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is a colorless, pungent gas formed primarily by the combustion of
sulfur-containing fossil fuels. Health effects include acute respiratory symptoms and
difficulty in breathing for children.
• Particulate Matter 10 (PM10) and Particulate Matter 2.5 (PM2.5) refer to particulate
matter less than ten microns and two and one-half microns in diameter, respectively.
Particulates of this size cause a greater health risk than larger-sized particles since fine
particles can more easily cause irritation. Particulate matter includes both aerosols and
solid particles. An example of particulate matter is fugitive dust. Short-term exposure to
high PM2.5 levels is associated with premature mortality and increased hospital
admissions and emergency room visits. Long-term exposure to high PM2.5 levels is
associated with premature mortality and development of chronic respiratory disease.
Short-term exposure to high PM10 levels is associated with hospital admissions for
cardiopulmonary diseases, increased respiratory symptoms, and possible premature
mortality.
• Lead. Leaded gasoline (phased out in the United States beginning in 1973), paint (on
older houses and cars), smelters (metal refineries), and the manufacture of lead storage
batteries have been the primary sources of lead released into the atmosphere. Lead has
multiple adverse neurotoxic health effects, and children are at special risk. Some lead-
containing chemicals cause cancer in animals. Lead levels in the air have decreased
substantially since leaded gasoline was eliminated. Ambient lead concentrations are only
monitored on an as-warranted, site-specific basis in California. On October 15, 2008, the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) strengthened the national
ambient air quality standard for lead by lowering it from 1.5 to 0.15 micrograms per cubic
meter (μg/m3). The USEPA revised the monitoring requirements for lead in December
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-15
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
2010. These requirements focus on airports and large urban areas, resulting in an
increase in 76 monitors nationally (LSA 2022a).
• Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) (also known as reactive organic gases [ROGs] and
reactive organic compounds [ROCs]) are formed from the combustion of fuels and the
evaporation of organic solvents. VOCs are not defined as criteria pollutants, however,
because VOCs accumulate in the atmosphere more quickly during the winter, when
sunlight is limited and photochemical reactions are slower, they are a prime component
of the photochemical smog reaction. There are no attainment designations for VOCs (LSA
2022a).
• Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs). In addition to the criteria pollutants discussed above,
TACs are another group of pollutants of concern. TACs are injurious in small quantities
and are regulated by the USEPA and California Air Resources Board (CARB). Some
examples of TACs include benzene, butadiene, formaldehyde, and hydrogen sulfide. The
identification, regulation, and monitoring of TACs is relatively recent compared to that
for criteria pollutants. TACs do not have ambient air quality standards, but are regulated
by the USEPA, CARB, and the SCAQMD. In 1998, CARB identified particulate matter from
diesel-fueled engines as a TAC. CARB has completed a risk management process that
identified potential cancer risks for a range of activities using diesel-fueled engines. High-
volume freeways, stationary diesel engines, and facilities attracting heavy and constant
diesel vehicle traffic (e.g., distribution centers and truck stops) were identified as posing
the highest risk to adjacent receptors. Other facilities associated with increased risk
include warehouse distribution centers, large retail or industrial facilities, high-volume
transit centers, and schools with a high volume of bus traffic. Health risks from TACs are
a function of both concentration and duration of exposure. Unlike TACs emitted from
industrial and other stationary sources noted above, most DPM is emitted from mobile
sources—primarily “off-road” sources such as construction and mining equipment,
agricultural equipment, and truck-mounted refrigeration units, as well as “on-road”
sources such as trucks and buses traveling on freeways and local roadways. Although not
specifically monitored, recent studies indicate that exposure to DPM may contribute
significantly to a cancer risk (a risk of approximately 500 to 700 in 1,000,000) that is
greater than all other measured TACs combined. The technology for reducing DPM
emissions from heavy-duty trucks is well established, and both State and federal agencies
are moving aggressively to regulate engines and emission control systems to reduce and
remediate diesel emissions. The CARB anticipated that by 2020, average statewide DPM
concentrations will decrease by 85 percent from levels in 2000 with full implementation
of the CARB’s Diesel Risk Reduction Plan, meaning that the statewide health risk from
DPM is expected to decrease from 540 cancer cases in 1,000,000 to 21.5 cancer cases in
1,000,000. The CARB 2000 Diesel Risk Reduction Plan is still the most recent version and
has not been updated (LSA 2022a).
The SCAQMD regulates air quality in the Orange County and is the agency principally responsible
for comprehensive air pollution control in the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB). The SCAQMD
develops rules and regulations, establishes permitting requirements for stationary sources,
inspects emissions sources, and enforces such measures through educational programs or fines,
when necessary. The SCAQMD is directly responsible for reducing emissions from stationary
(area and point), mobile, and indirect sources. It has responded to this requirement by preparing
a sequence of AQMPs.
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-16
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
The SCAQMD adopted the 2016 AQMP on March 3, 2017 (SCAQMD 2017). The 2016 AQMP
incorporates the latest scientific and technical information and planning assumptions, including
SCAG’s 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS),
updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories, and SCAG’s latest
growth forecasts.
The two principal criteria for conformance to an AQMP are:
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 emissions reductions in the AQMP.
2. Whether a project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP based on the year of project
buildout.
To estimate if a project may adversely affect the air quality in the region, the SCAQMD has
prepared the Air Quality Analysis Guidance Handbook (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) to provide
guidance to those who analyze the air quality impacts of projects (SCAQMD 1993). The SCAQMD
CEQA Handbook provides significance thresholds for both construction and operation of
projects within the SCAQMD’s jurisdictional boundaries. The SCAQMD recommends that projects
be evaluated in terms of the quantitative thresholds established to assess both the regional and
localized impacts of project-related air pollutant emissions. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook states
that any project in the SoCAB with daily emissions that exceed any of the identified significance
thresholds may have an individually and cumulatively significant air quality impact. The
SCAQMD thresholds are identified in Table 3-1, South Coast Air Quality Management District Air
Quality Significance Thresholds.
TABLE 3-1
SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT
DISTRICT AIR QUALITY SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS
Mass Daily Thresholds (lbs/day)
Pollutant Construction Operation
VOC 75 55
NOx 100 55
CO 550 550
PM10 150 150
PM2.5 55 55
SOx 150 150
Lead 3 3
lbs/day: pounds per day; VOC: volatile organic compound; NOx: nitrogen
oxides; CO: carbon monoxide; PM10: respirable particulate matter 10
microns or less in diameter; PM2.5: fine particulate matter 2.5 microns or
less in diameter; SOx: sulfur oxides.
Source: SCAQMD 2019.
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-17
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
Regulatory Background
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) defines seven “criteria” air pollutants, as
described above. These pollutants are called criteria pollutants because the USEPA has
established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for the concentrations of these
pollutants (USEPA 2014). The CARB has also established standards for the criteria pollutants,
known as California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), and the State standards are
generally more restrictive than the NAAQS. When a region has air quality that fails to meet the
standards, the USEPA and the CARB designate the region as “nonattainment”, and the regional
air quality agency must develop plans to attain the standards.
Based on monitored air pollutant concentrations, the USEPA and the CARB designate an area’s
status in attaining the NAAQS and the CAAQS, respectively, for selected criteria pollutants. These
attainment designations are shown in Table 3-2, Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the
South Coast Air Basin. As identified in Table 3-2, Orange County is a nonattainment area for O3,
PM10, and PM2.5.
TABLE 3-2
ATTAINMENT STATUS OF CRITERIA POLLUTANTS
IN THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN
Pollutant State Federal
O3 (1 hour) Nonattainment No standards
O3 (8 hour) Nonattainment Nonattainment
PM10 Nonattainment Attainment/Maintenance
PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment
CO Attainment Unclassified/Attainment
NO2 Attainment Unclassified/Attainment
SO2 Attainment Attainment
Lead Attainment Attainment/Nonattainment*
All others Attainment/Unclassified No standards
O3: ozone; PM2.5: respirable particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5: fine particulate
matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter; CO: carbon monoxide; NO2: nitrogen dioxide; SO2: sulfur dioxide;
SoCAB: South Coast Air Basin.
* Los Angeles County is classified nonattainment for lead; the remainder of the SoCAB is in attainment
of the State and federal standards.
Source: CARB 2019 (State), CARB 2018 (federal).
CARB, a part of the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), is responsible for
coordinating and administering both the federal and State air pollution control programs in
California. In this capacity, CARB conducts research, sets the CAAQS (as shown in Table 3-3,
California and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards), compiles emission inventories, develops
suggested control measures, oversees local programs, and prepares the State Implementation
Plan (SIP). For regions that do not attain the CAAQS, CARB requires the air districts to prepare
plans for attaining the standards. These plans are then integrated into the SIP. CARB establishes
emissions standards for (1) motor vehicles sold in California, (2) consumer products (e.g., hair
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-18
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
spray, aerosol paints, barbecue lighter fluid), and (3) various types of commercial equipment. It
also sets fuel specifications to further reduce vehicular emissions.
Ozone (O3) is a secondary pollutant and is created when NOx and VOCs react in the presence of
sunlight. The predominant source of air emissions generated by Project development would be
from vehicle emissions. Motor vehicles primarily emit CO, NOx, and VOCs. The NAAQS and CAAQS
are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace within a reasonable margin of
safety. The NAAQS and CAAQS for O3, CO, NO2, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and lead are shown in Table 3-3.
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-19
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
TABLE 3-3
CALIFORNIA AND FEDERAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
Pollutant Averaging Time
California
Standards
Federal Standards
Primarya Secondaryb
O3
1 Hour 0.09 ppm (180 µg/m3) – –
8 Hour 0.070 ppm (137
µg/m3) 0.070 ppm (137 µg/m3) Same as Primary
PM10 24 Hour 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3 Same as Primary
AAM 20 µg/m3 – Same as Primary
PM2.5 24 Hour – 35 µg/m3 Same as Primary
AAM 12 µg/m3 12.0 µg/m3 15.0 µg/m3
CO
1 Hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m3) 35 ppm (40 mg/m3) –
8 Hour 9.0 ppm (10 mg/m3) 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) –
8 Hour
(Lake Tahoe) 6 ppm (7 mg/m3) – –
NO2
AAM 0.030 ppm (57 µg/m3) 0.053 ppm (100 µg/m3) Same as Primary
1 Hour 0.18 ppm (339 µg/m3) 0.100 ppm (188 µg/m3) –
SO2
24 Hour 0.04 ppm (105 µg/m3) – –
3 Hour – – 0.5 ppm
(1,300 µg/m3)
1 Hour 0.25 ppm (655 µg/m3) 0.075 ppm (196 µg/m3) –
Lead
30-day Avg. 1.5 µg/m3 – –
Calendar Quarter – 1.5 µg/m3 Same as Primary Rolling 3-month Avg. – 0.15 µg/m3
Visibility
Reducing
Particles
8 Hour
Extinction coefficient
of 0.23 per km –
visibility ≥ 10 miles
(0.07 per km – ≥30
miles for Lake Tahoe) No
Federal
Standards Sulfates 24 Hour 25 µg/m3
Hydrogen
Sulfide 1 Hour 0.03 ppm (42 µg/m3)
Vinyl
Chloride 24 Hour 0.01 ppm (26 µg/m3)
O3: ozone; ppm: parts per million; µg/m3: micrograms per cubic meter; PM10: respirable particulate matter 10 microns
or less in diameter; AAM: Annual Arithmetic Mean; –: No Standard; PM2.5: fine particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in
diameter; CO: carbon monoxide; mg/m3: milligrams per cubic meter; NO2: nitrogen dioxide; SO2: sulfur dioxide; km:
kilometer.
a National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, within an adequate margin of safety, to protect the
public health.
b National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or
anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant.
Note: More detailed information in the data presented in this table can be found at the CARB website (www.arb.ca.gov).
Source: SCAQMD 2016.
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-20
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
Would the Project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Air pollutant emissions associated with the
Project would occur over the short term from construction activities and over the long term from
operational activities associated with the proposed Project.
CEQA requires a discussion of any inconsistencies between a project and applicable General
Plans (GPs) and regional plans (CEQA Guidelines Section 15125). The regional plan that applies
to the proposed Project includes the SCAQMD’s AQMP, as discussed above. A project is
considered to be consistent with the AQMP if it furthers one or more policies and does not
obstruct other policies. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook identifies two key indicators of
consistency:
1. Whether the 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 the project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP, or increments based on
the year of project buildout and phase.
Both criteria are evaluated for the Project, as shown below.
With respect to determining the proposed Project consistency with AQMP growth assumptions,
the projections in the AQMP for achieving air quality goals are based on assumptions in SCAG’s
RTP/SCS regarding population, housing, and growth trends. According to SCAG’s 2020—2045
RTP/SCS, the City’s population, households, and employment are forecast to increase by
approximately 7,100 residents, 2,900 households, and 1,500 jobs, respectively, between 2016
and 2045 (LSA 2022a). The proposed Project would convert 159 hotel rooms to 159 hotel-
branded residences and associated parking. The proposed Project would result in an increase of
361 residents (5 percent of SCAG’s projected population growth for the City from 2016 to 2045
of 7,100 residents) and 159 residential units (5 percent of SCAG’s projected household growth
for the County from 2016 to 2045 of 2,900 households). Therefore, additional units from the
Project would not interfere with SCAQMD’s goals for improving air quality in the region because
the Project would house growth that SCAQMD already projected for the City. Therefore, the
Project would not conflict with the 2016 AQMP and, as such, would not jeopardize attainment of
the CAAQS and NAAQS in the area under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD (LSA 2022a).
Furthermore, as shown in Tables 3-4 and 3-5 below, construction and operation of the Project
would not result in an exceedance of the SCAQMD’s thresholds for criteria pollutants; therefore,
the Project is not expected to result in a violation of air quality standards. Due to these factors, it
can be concluded that the proposed Project would be consistent with the projections in the
AQMP. Therefore, the Project would not lead to new or substantially more severe significant
impacts associated with clean air consistency beyond those identified in the 2006 EIR (LSA
2022a). Therefore, the Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to
obstruction of an air quality plan that was not previously analyzed, and no new mitigation
measures are required.
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-21
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The following analysis describes the Project’s
construction- and operation-related air quality impacts. As explained in the following pages, the
Project would result in less-than-significant construction and operational air quality impacts.
Construction
During construction, short-term degradation of air quality may occur due to the release of
particulate emissions generated by demolition, grading, paving, building, and other construction
related activities. Emissions from construction equipment are also anticipated and would
include CO, NOx, VOC, directly emitted particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), and TACs such as
diesel exhaust particulate matter. If not properly controlled, construction activities, identified
above, would temporarily generate particulate emissions. Sources of fugitive dust would include
disturbed soils at the construction site. Unless properly controlled, vehicles leaving the site
would deposit dirt and mud on local streets, which could be an additional source of airborne dust
after it dries. PM10 emissions would vary from day to day, depending on the nature and
magnitude of construction activity and local weather conditions. PM10 emissions would depend
on soil moisture, silt content of soil, wind speed, and the amount of operating equipment. Larger
dust particles would settle near the source, while fine particles would be dispersed over greater
distances from the construction site. Water or other soil stabilizers can be used to control dust,
resulting in emission reductions of 50 percent or more. The SCAQMD has established Rule 403:
Fugitive Dust, which would require the Applicant to implement measures that would reduce the
amount of particulate matter generated during the construction period. In addition to dust
related PM10 emissions, heavy trucks and construction equipment powered by gasoline and
diesel engines would generate CO, SO2, NOx, VOCs, and some soot particulate (PM2.5 and PM10)
in exhaust emissions. If construction activities were to increase traffic congestion in the area, CO
and other emissions from traffic would increase slightly while those vehicles idle in traffic.
However, these emissions would be temporary in nature and limited to the immediate area
surrounding the construction site (LSA 2022a).
Construction emissions were estimated for the Project using California Emissions Estimator
Model version 2020.4.0 (CalEEMod) computer program. The proposed Project would require the
demolition of the existing on-site buildings, which was included in CalEEMod. Construction-
related emissions are presented in Table 3-4, Project Construction Emissions. CalEEMod output
sheets are included in Appendix A.
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-22
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
TABLE 3-4
PROJECT CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Project Construction
Emissions
(lbs/day)
VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Demolition 1.0 22.3 16.1 <0.1 1.6 0.9
Site Preparation 0.7 20.0 13.9 <0.1 1.3 0.6
Grading 1.2 50.1 23.0 0.2 8.6 3.5
Building Construction 1.9 23.4 24.9 0.1 4.4 1.8
Paving 0.8 15.6 13.4 <0.1 0.7 0.6
Architectural Coating 8.1 2.5 3.5 <0.1 0.7 0.3
Maximum 10.0 50.1 27.4 0.2 8.6 3.5
SCAQMD Significance Thresholds
(Table 3-1) 55.0 55.0 550.0 150.0 150.0 55.0
Significant Impact? No No No No No No
lbs/day: pounds per day; VOC: volatile organic compound; NOx: nitrogen oxides; CO: carbon monoxide; SOx:
sulfur oxides; PM10: respirable particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5: fine particulate matter
2.5 microns or less in diameter; SCAQMD: South Coast Air Quality Management District; -- data not provided.
Note: Maximum emissions of VOC and CO occurred during the overlapping building construction and
architectural coating phases.
Source: SCAQMD 2019 (thresholds); LSA 2022a, See Appendix A for technical report and CalEEMod outputs.
As shown in Table 3-4, construction emissions associated with the Project would not exceed the
SCAQMD thresholds for VOC, NOx, CO, sulfur oxides (SOX), PM2.5, or PM10 emissions. In addition
to the construction period thresholds of significance, the Project is required to comply with
regional rules that assist in reducing short-term air pollutant emissions. 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 in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the
emission source. In addition, SCAQMD Rule 403 requires implementation of dust suppression
techniques to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance off site. With compliance with Rule
403, construction of the proposed Project would not result in emissions that would result in a
cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project regional is
nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard. Therefore, the
proposed Project would not lead to new or substantially more severe significant impacts
associated with construction-related air quality beyond those identified in the 2006 EIR.
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-23
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
Operations
Long-term air pollutant emission impacts are those typically associated with mobile sources
(e.g., vehicle trips), energy sources (e.g., electricity and natural gas), area sources (e.g.,
architectural coatings and the use of landscape maintenance equipment), and stationary sources
(e.g., diesel emergency backup generator) related to the Project. PM10 emissions result from
running exhaust, tire and brake wear, and the entrainment of dust into the atmosphere from
vehicles traveling on paved roadways. Entrainment of PM10 occurs when vehicle tires pulverize
small rocks and pavement, and the vehicle wakes generate airborne dust. The contribution of
tire and brake wear is small compared to the other PM emission processes. Gasoline-powered
engines have small rates of particulate matter emissions compared with diesel powered vehicles.
As discussed in the Methodology section above, the proposed Project would result in fewer daily
trips than under existing conditions; therefore, the proposed Project would not generate new
mobile source emissions.
Energy source emissions result from activities in buildings for which electricity and natural gas
are used. The quantity of emissions is the product of usage intensity (i.e., the amount of electricity
or natural gas) and the emission factor of the fuel source. The primary sources of energy demand
for the proposed Project would include building mechanical systems, such as heating and air
conditioning, lighting, and plug-in electronics, such as refrigerators or computers. Greater
building or appliance efficiency reduces the amount of energy for a given activity and thus lowers
the resultant emissions. The emission factor is determined by the fuel source, with cleaner
energy sources, like renewable energy, producing fewer emissions than conventional sources.
The Project would comply with the 2019 CALGreen Code and 2019 Energy Efficiency Standards
(Title 24, Part 6), which are accounted for in CalEEMod. Typically, area source emissions consist
of direct sources of air emissions located at the Project site, including architectural coatings and
the use of landscape maintenance equipment. Area source emissions associated with the Project
would include emissions from the use of architectural coatings, consumer products, and
landscaping equipment. The residential units would not include wood-burning hearths. The
proposed Project would also generate stationary source emissions associated with use of the
diesel emergency backup generator. Long-term operation emissions associated with the
proposed Project were calculated using CalEEMod. Model results are shown in Table 3-5, Project
Operational Emissions, below (LSA 2022a). CalEEMod output sheets are included in Appendix A.
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-24
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
TABLE 3-5
PROJECT OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Source
Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Existing Operational Emissions
Existing Area Sources 1.5 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Existing Energy Sources 0.1 0.6 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Existing Mobile Sources 2.8 2.5 25.2 0.1 6.4 1.7
Total Existing Emissions 4.4 3.1 25.8 0.1 6.5 1.8
Proposed Project Operational Emissions
Project Area Sources 9.8 2.5 14.2 <0.1 0.3 0.3
Project Energy Sources 0.1 0.4 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Project Mobile Sources 1.6 1.2 14.1 <0.1 3.6 1
Project Stationary Sources 0.1 0.2 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Total Project Emissions 11.5 4.4 28.7 <0.1 3.9 1.3
Net Operational Emissions 7.1 1.3 2.9 <0.1 -2.6 -0.5
SCAQMD Significance Thresholds
(Table 3-1) 55 55 550 150 150 55
Significant Impact? No No No No No No
lbs/day: pounds per day; VOC: volatile organic compound; NOx: nitrogen oxides; CO: carbon monoxide; SOx: sulfur
oxides; PM10: respirable particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5: fine particulate matter 2.5
microns or less in diameter; SCAQMD: South Coast Air Quality Management District.
Source: SCAQMD 2019 (thresholds); LSA 2022a. see Appendix A for technical report and CalEEMod outputs.
The results shown in Table 3-5 indicate the Project would not exceed the significance criteria for
VOC, NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, or PM2.5 emissions; thus, it would not have a significant effect on
regional air quality. Therefore, operation of the Project would not result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project regional is
nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard (LSA 2022a).
As a result, the proposed Project would not lead to new or substantially more severe significant
impacts associated with operation-related air quality beyond those identified in the 2006 EIR.
Therefore, the Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to cumulatively
considerable air quality emissions that was not previously analyzed, and no new mitigation
measures are required.
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. A significant impact would occur when a
Project generates pollutant concentrations to a degree that would significantly affect sensitive
receptors, which include populations that are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than
the population at large.
For the purposes of this analysis, sensitive receptors are areas of population that have an
increased sensitivity to air pollution or environmental contaminants. Sensitive receptor
locations include residences, schools, day care centers, hospitals, parks, and similar uses, which
are sensitive to air quality. Impacts on sensitive receptors are of particular concern because they
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-25
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
are the population most vulnerable to the effects of air pollution. The closest sensitive receptors
to the Project site include the Meridian condominium community immediately adjacent to the
Project site on the north along Santa Barbara Drive and the Granville Condominiums
immediately to the southeast (LSA 2022a).
Project construction and operational emissions were compared to the LST screening tables in
Source Receptor Area (SRA) 18. The results of the LST analysis, summarized in Table 3-6, Project
Maximum Localized Daily Emissions, indicate that the Project would not result in an exceedance
of the SCAQMD LSTs during Project construction or operation. Therefore, the proposed Project
would not lead to new or substantially more severe significant impacts associated with localized
air quality beyond those identified in the 2006 EIR (LSA 2022a).
TABLE 3-6
PROJECT MAXIMUM LOCALIZED DAILY EMISSIONS (LBS/DAY)
Year NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Daily Construction Emissions 21.2 15.4 3.8 2.0
SCAQMD LSTa 111.5 804.5 5.5 4.0
Exceeds Thresholds No No No No
Maximum Daily Operational Emissions 2.8 15.1 <0.1 <0.1
SCAQMD LSTb 147.0 1,155.0 2.5 2.0
Exceeds Thresholds No No No No
lbs/day: pounds per day; NOx: nitrogen oxides; CO: carbon monoxide; SCAQMD: South Coast Air Quality Management
District; PM10: respirable particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5: fine particulate matter 2.5 microns
or less in diameter; LST: Localized Significance Threshold.
a Construction Thresholds for Source Receptor Area 18, North Coastal Orange County for a 1.5-acre site, 25-meter
receptor distance (SCAQMD 2022).
b Operational Thresholds for Source Receptor Area 18, North Coastal Orange County for a 2.775-acre site, 25-meter
receptor distance (SCAQMD 2009).
Source: LSA 2022a, Appendix A, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report
Construction of the proposed Project may expose surrounding sensitive receptors to airborne
particulates, as well as a small quantity of construction equipment pollutants (i.e., usually diesel-
fueled vehicles and equipment). However, construction contractors would be required to
implement measures to reduce or eliminate emissions by following SCAQMD rules for standard
construction practices. 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 Code of 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 DPM emissions (LSA 2022a).
As shown in 3-6 above, the Project would not result in significant localized or regional emissions
during Project construction or operation. In addition, as discussed above, given the extremely
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-26
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
low level of CO concentrations in the Project area and lack of traffic impacts at any intersections,
project-related vehicles are not expected to contribute significantly to, or result in CO
concentrations exceeding the State or federal CO standards. Therefore, once the Project is
constructed, the Project would not be a source of substantial pollutant emissions and sensitive
receptors would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations during Project
construction and operation (LSA 2022a). Therefore, the proposed Project would not lead to new
or substantially more severe significant impacts to nearby sensitive receptors beyond those
identified in the 2006 EIR.
Carbon Monoxide Hotspot
Vehicular trips contribute to congestion at intersections and along roadway segments. Localized
air quality impacts would occur when emissions from vehicular traffic increase as a result of a
proposed project. The primary mobile-source pollutant of local concern is CO, a direct function
of vehicle idling time and, thus, of traffic flow conditions. CO transport is extremely limited;
under normal meteorological conditions, CO disperses rapidly with distance from the source.
However, under certain extreme meteorological conditions, CO concentrations near a congested
roadway or intersection may reach unhealthful levels, affecting local sensitive receptors (e.g.,
residents, schoolchildren, the elderly, and hospital patients). Typically, high CO concentrations
are associated with roadways or intersections operating at unacceptable levels of service or with
extremely high traffic volumes. In areas with high ambient background CO concentrations,
modeling is recommended to determine a project’s effect on local CO levels. An assessment of
project-related impacts on localized ambient air quality requires that future ambient air quality
levels be projected. Existing CO concentrations in the immediate Project vicinity are not
available. Ambient CO levels monitored at the Long Beach station, the closest station to the
Project site, showed a highest recorded 1-hour concentration of 4.7 ppm (the State standard is
20 ppm) and a highest 8-hour concentration of 2.1 ppm (the State standard is 9 ppm) during the
past 3 years (Table G). The highest CO concentrations would normally occur during peak traffic
hours; hence, CO impacts calculated under peak traffic conditions represent a worst-case
analysis. As described in the Trip Generation Analysis prepared for the Project (Appendix J), the
proposed Project would generate 30 fewer AM peak hour trips and 43 fewer PM peak-hour trips.
As the proposed Project would not generate 100 or more AM or PM peak hour trips, the Project
did not meet the criteria for an evaluation of study area intersection or roadway segment level
of service (LOS). Therefore, it is assumed that the addition of the proposed Project traffic would
not create any significant adverse impacts to nearby intersections. Therefore, given the
extremely low level of CO concentrations in the Project area, and lack of traffic impacts at any
intersections, Project-related vehicles are not expected to contribute significantly to CO
concentrations exceeding the State or federal CO standards (LSA 2022a). Therefore, the
proposed Project would not lead to new or substantially more severe significant impacts
associated with CO hot spots beyond those identified in the 2006 EIR.
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. During Project construction, some odors may
be present due to diesel exhaust. However, these odors would be temporary and limited to the
construction period. The proposed Project would not include any activities or operations that
would generate objectionable odors and once operational, the Project would not be a source of
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-27
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
odors. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading
to odors) affecting a substantial number of people. Therefore, the proposed Project would not
lead to new or substantially more severe significant impacts related to odors beyond those
identified in the 2006 EIR (LSA 2022a). Therefore, the Project would not create a new significant
impact pertaining to other emissions that was not previously analyzed, and no new mitigation
measures are required.
Conclusions
The air quality impacts of the proposed Project would be consistent with the impacts identified
for the 2006 General Plan Update, analyzed in the 2006 EIR. The proposed Project would not
create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, (1) no substantial changes are
proposed as part of the proposed Project that would result in new significant effects or an
increase in severity of previous effects; (2) no substantial changes in circumstances have
occurred that would result in new significant effects; and (3) no new information has become
known that was not previously known that would (a) create new significant impacts, (b) increase
the severity of previously examined effects, or (c) determine that mitigation measures or
alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or (4) introduce
mitigation measures that are considerably different from those analyzed in the 2006 EIR. For
these reasons, no major revisions to the air quality analysis provided in the 2006 EIR are
required.
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-28
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The following analysis summarizes the “Ritz-Carlton Residences–Biological Resources Technical
Memorandum” (Biological Resources Memorandum) prepared for the Project by Environmental
Science Associates (ESA), dated January 26, 2022 (ESA 2022a). This Biological Resources
Memorandum is included in Appendix B of this Addendum.
3.4.1 2006 EIR
The 2006 EIR identified Citywide biological resources, including habitat types; sensitive
biological resources, 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 their active nests. The 2006 EIR determined that
compliance with these policies and federal and State laws would mitigate potential impacts to a
less than significant level.
The 2006 EIR noted several General Plan goals, which would protect wetlands and riparian
vegetation. The General Plan policies would serve to regulate indirect impacts future
development could have on riparian habitats. Therefore, the impacts associated with riparian
habitats were determined to be less than significant.
The 2006 EIR identified several wetland habitats along the coast of Newport Beach between the
Santa Ana River and the boundary between the City and unincorporated Orange County. The
2006 EIR noted that development would be confined to previously developed areas and would
not be located near wetland areas. Adherence to the identified State and federal laws and
regulations would result in less than significant impacts on jurisdictional waters and wetlands.
The 2006 EIR found that there would be no impact to wildlife nursery sites and corridors with
implementation of the policies outlined in the General Plan Update. Additionally, the 2006 EIR
determined that implementation of the General Plan Update would not conflict with the
provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (ESA 2022a).
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were required.
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-29
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
3.4.2 PROPOSED PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS
Environmental Issues New
Significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impacts
New Ability
to
Substantially
Reduce
Significant
Impact
No
Substantial
Change
From
Previous
Analysis
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and
Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected
wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Would the Project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project site is fully developed, and no
special-status plants or native plant communities occur within the Project site boundaries. No
special-status plant species were considered to have any potential to occur since the Project site
is completely developed with hardscape, structures, and ornamental landscaping. Therefore, no
impact related to a substantial adverse effect on any plant species identified as candidate,
sensitive, or special status in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) would occur
Project implementation. No mitigation for special status plants is required (ESA 2022a).
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-30
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
The Biological Study Area (BSA) analyzed includes the Project site and a buffer of up to 500 feet
from the anticipated limits of disturbance in natural space or landscape areas (e.g., on the
adjacent golf course property). The BSA does not occur in or near any designated Critical Habitat
for any federally listed species or special status wildlife. Although the Project would be
implemented in a highly developed area containing ornamental landscaping rather than natural
habitat, two sensitive wildlife species may have a low potential to occur in the Project area. The
American peregrine falcon, a California Fully Protected species, is known to have nested
historically near the top of the Marriott Hotel in the early nineties (over 25 years ago) and has
been sighted within a 4-mile radius of the property in the past 10 years. However, no evidence
of current or recent usage by a peregrine falcon was observed during the rooftop survey.
Nevertheless, the existing rooftop, and rooftops of adjacent buildings could provide potential
overwintering and nesting opportunities for this species. White-tailed kites may also have a low
potential to nest in the tree canopy along the western/southwestern Project site boundary and
in the golf course to the west of the Project. The potential for either of these species to nest in the
immediate area is considered low due to the high level of human and mechanical activity
(ESA 2022a).
Notably, with regard to redevelopment or infill projects in existing developed areas in the City,
the 2006 EIR anticipated that “the proposed General Plan Update would allow infill development
throughout the Planning Area, following existing land use patterns. The Update would
concentrate new development and redevelopment in several specified subareas: Newport
Center/Fashion Island, Balboa Village, Balboa Peninsula, West Newport Mesa, West Newport
Highway, Mariners’ Mile, and the Airport Area.” The same section also made clear that
“implementation of Policies NR 10.1 and NR 10.2 would ensure that all future development
cooperates with federal, state, and private resource protection agencies/organizations...” and
further acknowledged that “implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would be
subject to all applicable federal, state, and local policies and regulations related to the protection
of biological resources” (ESA 2022a). Thus, implementation of the Project is subject to
compliance with the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the California Fish and Game
Code. In California, the active nests and eggs of all native bird species, except certain game birds,
are protected under the California Fish and Game Code Section 3503, which states: “It is unlawful
to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided
by this code or any regulation made pursuant thereto.” In addition, the federal MBTA (16 U.S.
Code [USC] 703–711) makes it unlawful to take or kill individuals of most bird species found in
the United States, unless that taking or killing is authorized pursuant to regulation 16 USC 703,
704. The federal definition of “Take” is defined as “to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,
capture, or attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect” (50 CFR 10.12).
Thus, even if not designated as a special-status or “sensitive” species, most bird species, except
exotic birds and game birds, are afforded protection under State and federal laws while they are
engaged in breeding activity. However, unless a project may have a substantial adverse effect on
a species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species, impacts involving the loss
or destruction of a limited number of nests of non-sensitive species would not normally be
categorized as “significant” or regarded as substantially adverse impacts to biological resources,
and thus would not warrant mitigation to be imposed and enforced by a lead agency under CEQA.
If any nesting activity occurs in the proposed Project vicinity, Project-related demolition or
construction could indirectly affect nesting activity and adversely affect individual birds, if
present. Such adverse effects would be potentially significant since the white-tailed kite and
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-31
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
peregrine falcon are fully protected in California, which means take of these species is prohibited,
and State law makes no provisions for incidental take of these species. Likewise, other raptors,
such as Cooper’s hawk, are protected under the MBTA and the California Fish and Game Code. In
addition, the same demolition and construction activities that could affect raptor species, if
present, could also adversely affect other birds during the nesting season. As stated above, CEQA
does not specifically require that limited impacts to a small number of common birds with no
special status should be considered biologically significant or substantially adverse. As noted
above, the 2006 EIR references the policy that projects are expected to cooperate with regulatory
agencies and comply with existing regulations. Therefore, implementation of regulatory
requirement (RR) BIO-1, which requires avoidance or pre-construction surveys to determine
presence of nesting birds prior to construction and potential buffers from nests, would ensure
compliance with State and federal laws that protect nesting birds by conducting preconstruction
surveys and requiring implementation of avoidance measures. Therefore, the Project would not
create a new significant impact to candidate, sensitive, or special status species that was not
previously analyzed, and no new mitigation measures are required.
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project site is developed and within an
urbanized area of the City. According to the Biological Resources Technical Memorandum, no
riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities occur on the Project site (ESA 2022a). As such,
no impact would occur to any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified
in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS. The Project would not
create a new significant impact to riparian habitat, or other sensitive natural communities, and
no new mitigation measures are required.
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including,
but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project site is fully developed with
Project-associated buildings, parking lots, and walkways. No wetlands or “waters” subject to
State or federal regulatory jurisdiction, such as waters of the United States, pursuant to Clean
Water Act (CWA) Section 404, or streams or lakes, pursuant to California Fish and Game Code
Section 1600 et al., occur on the Project site (ESA 2022a). The Project site does not contain any
resources that would be regulated under the CWA or California Fish and Game Code Section 1600
et al., and there are no potential offsite impacts that could be regulated under the CWA or
California Fish and Game Code Section 1600. Therefore, the Project would not create a new
significant impact with respect to a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected
wetlands (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool coastal) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means for on-site resources.
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-32
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish
or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project site does not contribute to or
function as part of a migration corridor for terrestrial or avian wildlife species and nor is it part
of a regionally important or vital wildlife movement corridor. Also, no known or expected native
wildlife nursery sites occur in the Project vicinity, and no such resources would be affected by
the Project (ESA 2022a). Therefore, the Project would not create a new significant impact to
movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species that was not previously
analyzed, and no new mitigation measures are required.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as
a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Trees within the Project site are not on
property owned by the City or within a public right-of-way and thus, are not subject to NBMC
Sections 13.08 or 13.09 that protect trees in the City. It is possible that the project may damage
or require removal (e.g., for site access) of the Mexican fan palms that occur along the public
street adjacent to the Project site). However, the Applicant is required to comply with the
applicable City Municipal Code section(s) regarding tree preservation and removal. Therefore,
in the event that the Project would encroach into the public right-of-way and require removal of
City trees, the property owner or Applicant would be required to submit a tree removal form to
the Municipal Operations Director, pay all related tree removal and one-for-one replacement
costs, and meet all provisions of City Council Policies L-2 and L-6 and City Municipal Code
Chapters 13.08 and 13.09, or any successor policies or sections. Therefore, as the result of
complying with the relevant Municipal Code Sections, the Project would not conflict with local
policies and ordinances protecting biological resources, and no new impact that was not
previously analyzed in the 2006 EIR, would occur, and no mitigation is required.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project site is within an urbanized area
and not within any established Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural Community
Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other approved of habitat conservation plans. The Project is in a
developed area that lies within the overall planning area that is addressed under the Orange
County Central and Coastal NCCP/HCP. The Newport Center, including the Project site were
developed prior to the establishment of the NCCP/HCP, and the Project site is not within or
adjacent to any natural areas that comprise the NCCP/HCP Reserve System. Furthermore, the
Project site contains no habitat areas or resources subject to the provisions of the NCCP/HCP or
any other approved local, regional, or State HCP (ESA 2022a). Further, the Project would not
directly impact any habitat subject to any conservation planning instruments. Therefore, the
Project would not create a new significant impact to or conflict with approved HCPs and NCCPs
that was not previously analyzed, and no new mitigation measures are required.
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-33
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
Regulatory Requirements
RR BIO-1 Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Impacts to nesting birds would be avoided by
conducting construction activities outside of the bird nesting season (i.e., from
September 1 to February 14 for most birds, from July 1 to January 14 for raptors).
However, if demolition and/or construction activities must occur during the nesting
season, the following would apply during the time frames indicated:
A. Prior to work during the bird nesting season (February 15 to August 31 for
most birds, January 15 to June 31 for raptors), a qualified biologist shall
conduct a pre-construction survey of all suitable habitat for the presence of
nesting birds no more than 14 days prior to construction activities. The results
of the pre-construction survey shall be valid for 14 days; if construction
activities do not commence within 14 days following the survey or if activities
cease for more than 14 consecutive days, a new pre-construction nesting bird
survey shall be conducted before construction resumes.
B. If any active nests are found during a pre-construction nesting bird survey, a
buffer of up to 300 feet for most bird species and 500 feet for raptors, or as
determined appropriate by the qualified biologist (based on species-specific
tolerances and site-specific conditions such as “line-of-site” between nest and
work areas), shall be delineated, flagged, and avoided until the nesting cycle
is complete (i.e., the qualified biologist determines that the young have fledged
or the nest has failed). Alternatively, the qualified biologist may recommend
other measures to minimize disturbances to active nests that may include but
are not limited to limiting the duration of certain activities, placing sound
and/or visual barriers (e.g., noise blankets on temporary chain-link fencing),
and/or providing full-time monitoring by a qualified biologist.
C. In the event that surveys identify white-tailed kite or American peregrine
falcon present on site or within 500 feet of construction activity, such
occurrence shall be documented and CDFW shall be notified. If an active nest
of either species is encountered, a minimum buffer of 500 feet shall be
delineated, flagged, and avoided by construction activity until the nesting
cycle is complete (i.e., the qualified biologist determines that the young have
fledged, or the nest has failed). Alternatively, a qualified biologist may
recommend other measures as noted in Item B, above. However, CDFW must
be consulted prior to any reduction of avoidance buffers or implementation of
other measures as no take is allowed of these species.
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-34
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
Conclusion
The biological resources impacts of the proposed Project would be consistent with the impacts
identified for the 2006 General Plan Update, analyzed in the 2006 EIR. The proposed Project
would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, (1) no substantial
changes are proposed as part of the proposed Project that would result in new significant effects
or an increase in severity of previous effects; (2) no substantial changes in circumstances have
occurred that would result in new significant effects; and (3) no new information has become
known that was not previously known that would (a) create new significant impacts, (b) increase
the severity of previously examined effects, or (c) determine that mitigation measures or
alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or (4) introduce
mitigation measures that are considerably different from those analyzed in the 2006 EIR. For
these reasons, no major revisions to the biological resources analysis provided in the 2006 EIR
are required.
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-35
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
A Historic Resources Assessment Report (Historic Resources Report) was prepared for the
proposed Project, prepared by Environmental Science Associates (ESA), in January 2022 (ESA
2022b). The Historic Resources Report is included in Appendix C of this Addendum and is
summarized here by reference.
3.5.1 2006 EIR
The 2006 EIR indicated 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. The 2006 EIR noted that buildout could result in the
demolition of historic or potentially historic structures; however, 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 analysis identified that the
Airport Area, Newport Center, West Newport Mesa and Mariners’ Mile do not have historic
resources. However, the 2006 EIR determined that as demolition of a historic structure
constitutes a physical effect on the environment, the impacts to historical resources were
significant and unavoidable.
The 2006 EIR concluded that impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant,
and that General Plan Goal HR 2 and NR 18 would protect archaeological resources. The Newport
Beach City Council also established “Archaeological Guidelines (K-5)” requiring the City to
prepare and maintain sources of information regarding archaeological sites.
The 2006 EIR concluded that impacts to human remains would be less than significant. Human
burials 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 (Sections 7050.5, 7051, and 7054) contains
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. 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 with potential to affect cultural or
archaeological resources be monitored by a qualified archaeologist.
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-36
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were required.
3.5.2 PROPOSED PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS
Environmental Issues New Significant
Impact
More Severe
Impacts
New Ability to
Substantially
Reduce
Significant
Impact
No Substantial
Change
From
Previous
Analysis
CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
Would the Project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project site is over 45 years in age but has
not been previously evaluated as a historic resource. Building A is a stand-alone three-story
guest room building designed in the Postmodern style and constructed in 1975. Buildings B, C,
and D were also constructed in 1975, and include a nine-story guest room tower, a two-story
ancillary building, and a three-story guest room wing, also designed in the Postmodern style. A
one-story addition was constructed in 1985, and a 10-story tower addition was constructed in
1986, both in the Postmodern style. A concrete subterranean parking garage was constructed in
1984 (part of the Project). It should be noted that with the exception of the parking garage, the
above structures are not part of the proposed Project and would remain. The two-story structure
to the west of the parking garage and the parking garage would be demolished to accommodate
the proposed Project. For the current evaluation, each building at the Project site and the hotel
complex as a whole was evaluated as a potential historical resource under the following historic
context and subtheme: Context: Hotels, Subtheme: Resort Hotels (1895-1980). Additionally, the
hotel buildings and complex were also evaluated under context for Postmodernism Architectural
Style (1968-Present). The existing hotel complex on the Project site was surveyed and evaluated
for eligibility as a historical resource for listing in the National Register of Historic Places
(National Register), California Register of Historical Resources (California Register), as well as
for local designation as a City of Newport Beach Historical Property (ESA 2022b).
The hotel complex was constructed as part of the larger Newport Center master plan as Marriott
Hotel. The Project site does not appear to have been a notable property within the Marriott Hotel
corporation’s extensive portfolio of global hotels, and it also does not appear to be a significant
commercial development within Newport Center, particularly given that the hotel complex was
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-37
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
constructed in a later period of Newport Center’s development. The Project site was not found
to be significant for its association with important events or people, and it does not appear that
the Project site embodies the distinctive characteristics of the suburban resort hotel property
type, nor does the Project site appear to be a significant example of the Postmodern style of
architecture. The Project site, at 900 Newport Center Drive, was tangentially associated with
notable local architect William Blurock, who served to oversee the architectural plans and
designs as developed by the Marriott Corporation’s in-house design and engineering team, as
was common procedure for a large hotelier chain. Further, the Project site is not likely to yield
information important in prehistory or history. The Historic Resource Assessment found that the
hotel complex located at 900 Newport Center Drive, comprised of Buildings A – F and Structure
G, are ineligible for listing in the National or California registers or as a City of Newport Beach
Historical Property (ESA 2022b). Therefore, the existing hotel buildings and complex at the
Project site do not appear to qualify as a historical resource under CEQA.
The hotel complex lacks significant historical associations necessary to qualify as a historic
resource under national, State, and local criteria. Further, the complex no longer retains historic
integrity, due to substantial additions, tenant improvements, and removal of its original
landscape. Consequently, the Historic Resource Assessment recommends a California Historic
Resource (CHR) Status Code of “6Z”, which means that the Project site appears ineligible
individually for listing in the National Register, the California Register, and for local designation
through survey evaluation. The proposed Project would convert up to 30 percent of the existing
hotel rooms into hotel branded residences. As stated above, the Project would demolish Building
A, and construct a new 295-foot-high residential building with landscaping and site
modifications throughout. Since the existing hotel buildings and complex on the Project site were
found to be ineligible as historic resources, the proposed Project would have no direct impact on
historical architectural resources pursuant to CEQA.
Moreover, the Project would have a less than significant impact on identified historic resources
in the Project vicinity. These resources are as follows:
• The modern 9-story commercial office twin towers—designated historic resource, at 500
Newport Center Drive, within 0.46 mile of the site (CHR Status Code 2S2).
• Pacific Life Insurance Company Building, built in 1973—potential historic resource, at
700 Newport Center Drive, within approximately 0.2 mile of the site, designed by master
architect William Pereira with a Modern International Style (ESA 2022b).
• The 1953 Boy Scout Jamboree—a California Point of Historical Interest that does not
meet the California Register criteria (CHR Status Code 7P), adjacent to the Project site in
the area that is now Fashion Island.
It should be noted that none of the above resources would be visually or physically impacted by
the proposed Project. Therefore, the Historic Resource Assessment finds that the Project would
not cause any substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined
in Section 15064.5 and as such would not have any significant effects on historical resources.
As discussed above, it is noted that the 2006 General Plan EIR concluded that build out under the
General Plan would result in a significant and unavoidable impact to historical resources that
were not considered for historic evaluation at that time because they were less than 50 years in
age but that they could be considered during the planning period of the proposed General Plan
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-38
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
Update. This potential impact was considered significant in the 2006 General Plan EIR. Although
the buildings at the Project site were less than 50 years in age in 2006, over 16 years have passed
since then and the Project site’s existing buildings are now of age to require evaluation as a
potential historical resource pursuant to CEQA. The Historic Resources Assessment found that
the property does not meet the eligibility thresholds for listing as a historical resource and
concluded that the Project would have no direct impact on built historic environment on the site.
Additionally, it concluded that a less than significant impact would occur on identified historical
resources in the Project vicinity. In light of the findings of the Historic Resources Assessment, no
new impact pertaining to historic resources that was not previously identified in the 2006 EIR
would result, and no mitigation is required.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. A records search for the Project site was
conducted on January 11, 2022, at the California Historical Resources Information System
(CHRIS) South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) housed at California State University
at Fullerton. The records search included a review of all recorded historic architectural resources
within the Project site and within a 0.5-mile radius of the Project site. ESA also reviewed the Built
Environment Resources Directory (BERD), and the Office of Historic Preservation’s (OHP) list of
California Historical Resources, which includes listings in the National Register, California
Register, California State Historical Landmarks, and California Points of Interest. The results of
the records search indicate that 30 cultural resources studies have been conducted within a
0.5-mile radius of the Project Site. Of those 30 previous studies, none overlaps the Project site
(ESA 2022b).
The Project site is urban, developed, paved and has been previously disturbed. Nonetheless, the
area is potentially sensitive for archaeological and tribal cultural resources. The Project would
be required to comply with City Council Policy K-5, which requires preservation of significant
archeological and tribal cultural resources in the event of an inadvertent discovery. 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. As such, compliance with these regulations would ensure impacts to archaeological
resources remain less than significant. Therefore, no new significant impacts that were not
previously identified in the 2006 EIR would result that would require a mitigation measure.
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. As stated above, the Project site has been
previously disturbed and is currently developed with a hotel use. 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 are discovered during
grading activities, the Project would adhere to all State and local regulations and policies,
including 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 human remains. Compliance
with these regulations would ensure that impacts to human remains would not occur. Therefore,
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-39
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
the proposed Project would not result in a new significant impact related to the disruption of
human remains, that was not previously identified, and no mitigation is required.
Conclusion
The cultural resources impact of the proposed Project would be consistent with the impacts
identified for the 2006 General Plan Update, analyzed in the 2006 EIR. The proposed Project
would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, (1) no substantial
changes are proposed as part of the proposed Project that would result in new significant effects
or an increase in severity of previous effects; (2) no substantial changes in circumstances have
occurred that would result in new significant effects; and (3) no new information has become
known that was not previously known that would (a) create new significant impacts, (b) increase
the severity of previously examined effects, or (c) determine that mitigation measures or
alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or (4) introduce
mitigation measures that are considerably different from those analyzed in the 2006 EIR. For
these reasons, no major revisions to the cultural resources analysis provided in the 2006 EIR are
required.
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-40
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
3.6 ENERGY
An Energy report, titled “Energy Report—Ritz-Carlton Residences Project, Newport Beach,
California”, was prepared for the proposed Project, by LSA in February 2022 (LSA 2022b). The
report is included in Appendix D, of this Addendum and is summarized here by reference.
3.6.1 2006 EIR
The 2006 EIR did not directly address energy impacts, because energy analysis was not part of
the required CEQA Checklist analysis at the time that the 2006 EIR was adopted. Effective
December 28, 2018, the State adopted amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines requiring the
analysis of and mitigation for energy, as separate topic, in CEQA documents.
However, the 2006 EIR did include an analysis of the impacts on public services and utilities,
which included electricity and natural gas, in Section 4.14, Utilities and Service Systems, of the
2006 EIR. Impacts to electricity and natural gas services were found to be less than significant.
The electricity and natural gas analysis in the 2006 EIR did not respond to the specific questions
in the new energy section as adopted in 2018, which are provided in the impact analysis below.
The 2006 EIR concluded that there would be no impact related to the relocation or construction
of new electrical power or natural gas facilities. Additional energy demands resulting from
implementation of the General Plan Update 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 the State’s Title 24, Building Standards and CALGreen Requirements,
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 (SCGC) 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 SCGC policies and extension rules on
file with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) 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, the 2006 EIR
determined that no impact would result.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were required.
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-41
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
3.6.2 PROPOSED PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS
Environmental Issues New
Significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impacts
New Ability
to
Substantially
Reduce
Significant
Impact
No
Substantial
Change
From
Previous
Analysis
ENERGY – Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy
resources, during project construction or operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable
energy or energy efficiency?
Would the Project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or
operation?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The following analysis evaluates the Project’s
potential to increase the demand for energy through construction and operation of the Project,
day-to-day operations, and fuel consumption associated with Project construction.
Energy Consumption During Construction
Construction activities would require energy for activities such as the manufacturing and
transportation of building materials, demolition and grading activities, building construction,
paving, and architectural coatings. Construction of the Project would require electricity to power
construction-related equipment but would not involve the consumption of natural gas. The
construction-related equipment, including forklifts, would not be powered by natural gas, and
no natural gas demand is anticipated during construction.
Transportation energy represents the largest energy use during construction and would occur
from the transport and use of construction equipment, delivery vehicles and haul trucks, and
construction worker vehicles that would use petroleum fuels (e.g., diesel fuel and/or gasoline).
Therefore, the analysis of energy use during construction focuses on fuel consumption.
Construction trucks and vendor trucks hauling materials to and from the Project site would be
anticipated to use diesel fuel, whereas construction workers traveling to and from the Project
site would conservatively be anticipated to use gasoline-powered vehicles. Fuel consumption
from transportation uses depends on the type and number of trips, VMT, the fuel efficiency of
the vehicles, and the travel mode (LSA 2022b).
Construction emissions were estimated for the Project using the CalEEMod model, as detailed in
Section 3.3, Air Quality, of this Addendum. Estimates of fuel consumption (diesel fuel and
gasoline) from construction equipment, construction trucks, and construction worker vehicles
were based on default construction equipment assumptions and trip estimates from CalEEMod
and fuel efficiencies from the EMissions FACtor 2021 model (EMFAC2021). Fuel consumption
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-42
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
estimates are presented in Table 3-7, Project Energy Consumption Estimates During
Construction. CalEEMod output sheets and detailed energy calculations are included in
Appendix D of this Addendum.
TABLE 3-7
PROJECT ENERGY CONSUMPTION ESTIMATES DURING CONSTRUCTION
Energy Type
Total Energy Consumption
(gallons) Percentage Increase Countywide
Diesel 384,165 0.25%
Gasoline 247,164 0.25%
Source: LSA 2022b. See Appendix D, Energy Report.
As detailed in Table 3-7, above, the Project would consume approximately 384,165 gallons of
diesel fuel and approximately 247,165 gallons of gasoline during construction. Based on fuel
consumption obtained from EMFAC2021, approximately 154.1 million gallons of diesel and
approximately 1.3 billion gallons of gasoline were consumed from vehicle trips in Orange County
in 2021. Therefore, construction of the Project would increase the annual construction generated
fuel use in Orange County by approximately 0.25 percent for diesel fuel and 0.02 percent for
gasoline based on the year 2021. As such, construction of the Project would have a negligible
effect on local and regional energy supplies. Furthermore, impacts related to energy use during
construction would be temporary and relatively minimal in comparison to Orange County’s
overall use of the State’s available energy resources. No unusual Project characteristics would
necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy efficient than at
comparable construction sites in the region or the State. In addition, construction activities are
not anticipated to result in an inefficient use of energy as gasoline and diesel fuel would be
supplied by construction contractors who would conserve the use of their supplies to minimize
their costs on the Project. The Project would not cause or result in the need for additional energy
facilities or an additional or expanded delivery system. As such, fuel consumption during
construction would not be inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary (LSA 2022b).
Energy Use During Operations
Operational energy use is typically associated with natural gas use, electricity consumption, and
fuel used for vehicle trips associated with a project. Energy consumption was estimated for the
Project using default energy intensities by land use type in CalEEMod for existing conditions and
the Project. Trip generation rates used in CalEEMod for the Project were based on the Project’s
Trip Generation Letter, which identifies that the existing conditions typically generate
approximately 1,271 average daily trips (ADTs), and the Project would generate approximately
722 ADTs (Pirzadeh and Associates 2022). In addition, consistent with the plans prepared for
the Project, this analysis assumed use of an emergency diesel generator, only natural gas hearth
(no wood burning), water-efficient irrigation systems, and use of water efficient landscape.
When project-specific data were not available, default assumptions from CalEEMod were used
in the analysis (LSA 2022b).
As identified above, the Project would result in a net decrease in vehicle trips; therefore, the
Project would not result in a net increase in gasoline or diesel fuel consumption during
operation. The Project would also require a diesel emergency backup generator; however, diesel
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-43
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
consumption associated with the emergency backup generator is expected to be minimal and
would nominally increase annual diesel fuel use in Orange County. Energy use consumed during
operation of the Project would be associated with electricity and natural gas consumption (LSA
2022b). Electricity and natural gas usage estimates associated with the Project and existing
conditions are shown in Table 3-8, Energy Consumption Estimates During Operation of the
Project, below.
TABLE 3-8
ENERGY CONSUMPTION ESTIMATES DURING OPERATION OF THE PROJECT
Energy Type
Annual Energy
Consumption
Percentage Increase
Countywide
Existing Conditions
Existing Electricity Consumption (kWh/yr) 1,744,878 --
Existing Natural Gas Consumption
(therms/yr) 22,854 --
Proposed Project
Project Electricity Consumption (kWh/yr) 2,367,789 --
Project Natural Gas Consumption
(therms/yr) 17,732 --
Net Operational Electricity Consumption
(kWh/yr) 622,911 <0.01
Net Operational Natural Gas
Consumption (therms/yr) -5,122 0.00%
kWh: kilowatt hour; yr: year.
Source: LSA 2022b (Appendix D).
The Project would comply with the current CALGreen Code and the Energy Efficiency Code
regarding energy conservation and green building standards, which is accounted for in this
analysis. As shown in Table 3-8, above, the estimated potential net increase in electricity demand
associated with the operation of the proposed project is 622,911-kilowatt hours (kWh) per year.
Total electricity demand in Orange County in 2020 was approximately 19,733 gigawatt-hours
(GWh) (19,733,139,603 kWh). Therefore, operation of the Project would negligibly increase the
annual electricity consumption in Orange County by less than 0.01 percent (LSA 2022b). Based
on the negligible increase in annual electricity consumption, it is assumed that SCE has sufficient
resources that would be adequate to serve the Project.
Electrical and natural gas demand associated with Project operations would not be considered
inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary. The Project would be required to adhere to all federal, State,
and local requirements for energy efficiency, which would substantially reduce energy usage. In
addition, the Project is consistent with the Project site’s General Plan designation as Visitor
Serving Commercial (CV) and Anomaly Area 43 designation. As such, it is assumed that the
Project’s energy impacts have already been accounted for in the 2006 EIR. The Project would not
cause or result in the need for additional energy facilities or an additional or expanded delivery
system (LSA 2022b). The Project would not lead to new or substantially more severe significant
impacts associated with energy demand beyond those identified in the 2006 EIR. The Project
would not create a new significant impact pertaining to energy that was not previously analyzed,
and no new mitigation measures are required.
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-44
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The City has an adopted Energy Action Plan
(EAP) that outlines various measures and strategizes numerous methods on how the City’s long-
term vision can be achieved. The EAP goals include the following: 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;
explore renewable energy recourses (not limited to solar) and possible financing based on
available grants/rebates; enhance energy efficiency and operations in existing buildings through
systematic commissioning strategies or independent energy efficiency studies; and evaluate all
the suggested energy efficiency action measures presented in this EAP, establish a priority for
implementation, and determine possible funding sources (LSA 2022b).
The Project would meet the latest California CALGreen Code, which includes the latest in energy
efficiency standards, consistent with the goals of the City’s EAP. The City’s EAP goals are
primarily applicable to City facilities; therefore, the Project was analyzed for consistency with
the State’s 2020 Integrated Energy Policy Report. The plan calls for the State to assist in the
transformation of the transportation system to improve air quality, reduce congestion, and
increase the efficient use of fuel supplies with the least environmental and energy costs. To
further this policy, the plan identifies a number of strategies, including assistance to public
agencies and fleet operators in implementing incentive programs for ZEVs and their
infrastructure needs, and encouragement of urban designs that reduce VMT and accommodate
pedestrian and bicycle access. In addition, the Integrated Energy Policy Report provides the
results of the California Energy Commission’s (CEC’s) assessments of a variety of energy issues
facing California. As indicated above, energy usage on the Project site during construction would
be temporary in nature and relatively small in comparison to the overall use in the County. In
addition, energy usage associated with operation of the Project would be relatively minimal in
comparison to the overall use in Orange County, and the State’s available energy resources.
Therefore, energy impacts at the regional level would be negligible. Because California’s energy
conservation planning actions are conducted at a regional level, and because the proposed
Project’s total impact on regional energy supplies would be minor, the Project would not conflict
with or obstruct California’s energy conservation plans as described in the CEC’s Integrated
Energy Policy Report. Additionally, the Project would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, and
unnecessary consumption of energy, as detailed above. Therefore, the Project would not lead to
new or substantially more severe significant impacts associated with consistency with plans for
renewable energy or energy efficiency (LSA 2022b). The Project would not create a new
significant impact pertaining to energy that was not previously analyzed, and no new mitigation
measures are required.
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-45
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
Conclusion
The energy impacts of the proposed Project would be consistent with the impacts identified for
the 2006 General Plan Update, analyzed in the 2006 EIR. The proposed Project would not create
a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects.
In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, (1) no substantial changes are proposed
as part of the proposed Project that would result in new significant effects or an increase in
severity of previous effects; (2) no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred that
would result in new significant effects; and (3) no new information has become known that was
not previously known that would (a) create new significant impacts, (b) increase the severity of
previously examined effects, or (c) determine that mitigation measures or alternatives
previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or (4) introduce mitigation
measures that are considerably different from those analyzed in the 2006 EIR. For these reasons,
no major revisions to the energy analysis provided in the 2006 EIR are required.
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-46
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
3.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
The following analysis summarizes the “Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration and Plan Review
for the Ritz-Carlton Residences Tower and Parking Structure” (Geotechnical Exploration),
prepared for the Project by NMG Geotechnical, Inc. (NMG), dated January 19, 2022 (NMG 2022).
This Geotechnical Exploration is included in Appendix E of this Addendum.
3.7.1 2006 EIR
The 2006 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 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
result in 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. As
such, there are no Alquist-Priolo zones in the City and more specifically in the Newport
Center/Fashion Island area, and no impact would result. The General Plan policies (i.e., S 4.1,
S 4.2, S 4.4, and S 4.5) ensure that adverse effects caused by seismic and geologic hazards such
as strong seismic ground shaking are minimized. Additionally, new development would be
required to comply with the building design standards of the California Building Code (CBC).
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.
Portions of the City that 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 are already built. The City Safety Element Policies S 4.1 through S 4.6
require new development to be in compliance with geologic hazard safety standards for seismic
design of structures in the City.
Further, the 2006 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 would be required to comply with CBC Chapter 70 standards. 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 Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Water Quality Control Plan. Impacts were determined to
be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
The 2006 EIR also 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, including S 4.4 and S 4.6 would ensure that development
is not located on unstable soils or geologic units and no significant impacts would occur. Impacts
would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-47
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
Additionally, the 2006 EIR concluded that implementation of the General Plan would have a less
than significant impact related to unstable soils or geologic units. Development would be
required to comply with all applicable provisions of the CBC related to soil hazard-related design.
Also, General Plan Policies S 4.4 and S 4.6 would require that development not be located on
unstable soils or geologic units. Impacts were determined to be less than significant, and no
mitigation is required.
The 2006 EIR determined that the Newport Center/Fashion Island area is almost entirely built
out with established utility services and new development would not require the use of septic
tanks.
Furthermore, the 2006 EIR identified that potential impacts to paleontological resources would
be 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 would have the potential to damage or destroy
paleontological resources that may be present below the surface. The Newport Beach City
Council Paleontological Guidelines (K-4) requires the City to prepare and maintain sources of
information regarding paleontological sites. Compliance with policies within Goal NR 18 and the
policies under Goal HR 2 would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were required.
3.7.2 PROPOSED PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS
Environmental Issues
New
Significant Impact
More
Severe Impacts
New Ability
to Substantially
Reduce
Significant
Impact
No
Substantial Change
From
Previous
Analysis
GEOLOGY AND SOILS – Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-48
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
Environmental Issues New
Significant Impact
More
Severe Impacts
New Ability
to Substantially
Reduce
Significant
Impact
No
Substantial Change
From
Previous
Analysis
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially
result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or
indirect risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of waste water?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature?
Would the Project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for
the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. According to the Geotechnical Exploration
prepared for the Project, the site is not located within a fault-rupture hazard zone as defined by
the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Act, and no evidence of active faulting was found during the
investigation. Additionally, based on mapping by the State, there are no active faults mapped at
the Project site. The closest major active faults are the Newport-Inglewood Fault located 2.7
miles (4.4 km) to the south of the site, and the San Joaquin Hills Blind Thrust Fault located 3.3
miles (5.3 km) north of the site. Since there are no active faults at the site, the potential for
primary ground rupture is considered very low (NMG 2022), and as such no risk of loss, injury,
or death would be anticipated. Therefore, the Project would not create a new significant impact
pertaining to rupture of a known earthquake fault that was not previously analyzed, and no new
mitigation measures are required.
ii) Strong seismic groundshaking?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Properties in southern California are subject
to seismic hazards of varying degrees depending upon the proximity, degree of activity, and
capability of nearby faults. These hazards can be primary (i.e., directly related to the energy
release of an earthquake, such as surface rupture and ground shaking) or secondary (i.e., related
to the effect of earthquake energy on the physical world, which can cause phenomena such as
liquefaction and ground lurching). Since there are no active faults at the site, the potential for
primary ground rupture is considered very low. According to the Geotechnical Exploration
prepared for the Project, the primary seismic hazard for this site is ground shaking due to a
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-49
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
future earthquake on one of the major regional active faults (NMG 2022). However,
implementation of current codes and regulations identified in the NBMC would ensure that
potential impacts related to seismic ground shaking would be less than significant, and as such
no risk of loss, injury, or death would be anticipated. Therefore, the Project would not create a
new significant impact pertaining to strong seismic groundshaking that was not previously
analyzed, and no new mitigation measures are required.
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Liquefaction is a seismic phenomenon in
which loose, saturated, granular soils behave similarly to a fluid when subject to high-intensity
ground shaking. Liquefaction occurs when three general conditions coexist, shallow
groundwater; low density non-cohesive (granular) soils; and high-intensity ground motion.
Studies indicate that saturated, loose near surface cohesionless soils exhibit the highest
liquefaction potential, while dry, dense, cohesionless soils and cohesive soils exhibit low to
negligible liquefaction potential. Effects of liquefaction on level ground include settlement, sand
boils, and bearing capacity failures below structures. However, according to the Geotechnical
Exploration prepared for the Project, the site is not located in an area classified by the State as
having soils that are potentially liquefiable (NMG 2022). As such no risk of loss, injury, or death
would be anticipated. In the absence of liquefiable soils within the Project area, the Project would
not create a new significant impact pertaining to seismic-related ground failure that was not
previously analyzed, and no new mitigation measures are required.
iv) Landslides?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Earthquake-induced landslides occur in areas
where previous landslides have occurred and in areas where the topographic, geologic,
geotechnical, and subsurface groundwater conditions are conducive to permanent ground
displacements. According to the Geotechnical Exploration prepared for the Project, the site is not
mapped as susceptible to seismically induced landslides, based on the California Department of
Mines and Geology (CDMG) Seismic Hazards Maps (NMG 2022). Therefore, the Project would not
create a new significant impact pertaining to landslides that was not previously analyzed, and no
new mitigation measures are required.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Due to the location of the Project site in a
relatively flat and developed area, the proposed Project is not anticipated to result in substantial
erosion or loss of topsoil. According to the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), with
implementation of the proposed Project, impervious surfaces on the Project site would increase
from 80 percent under existing conditions to 90 percent impervious upon Project completion
(Fuscoe 2021). This increase in impervious surface area would occur primarily due to the
increase in development area associated with the proposed Project, as discussed previously in
Section 2.0, Project Description and Setting. Once construction is complete, the Project site shall
comply with Best Management Practices (BMPs) identified in the WQMP prepared for the
proposed Project to reduce erosion effects to less than significant levels as discussed in Section
3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Addendum. Furthermore, construction activities
would be performed pursuant to the current National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit requirements. Therefore, the Project would not create a new significant impact
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-50
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
pertaining to substantial erosion or the loss of topsoil that was not previously analyzed, and no
new mitigation measures are required.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable
as a result of the Project and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. As discussed above, the Project site is not
located in a potential landslide or a potential liquefaction area. Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction and settlement, is addressed under Threshold 3.7(a-ii). In addition, as
addressed under Threshold 3.7(a-iv), the site is not located within a landslide zone. Lateral
spreading is a liquefaction-related phenomenon, and as there is no risk of liquefaction, there
would be no risk of lateral spreading. Therefore, the Project would not create new significant
impacts pertaining to onsite or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or
collapse that were not previously analyzed, and no new mitigation measures are required.
Subsidence is a lowering or settlement of the ground surface through collapse of subsurface void
space. This condition can occur in areas where soil or groundwater has moved out of an area and
has created a void space unable to sustain the materials above it or in areas where subsurface
materials are dissolved, leaving little or no support for surface soils or features. The 2006 EIR
concluded that implementation of the General Plan would have a less than significant impact
related to subsidence. According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS), the Project site
is located within an area of land subsidence that is primarily caused by groundwater pumping
(USGS 2022). This geotechnical issue can be addressed through adherence to typical design and
construction practices (such as design in accordance with the CBC). The Project would also
require all recommendations from the Geotechnical Exploration prepared for the Project to be
included in site preparation and building design specifications. As such, 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. Therefore,
the Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to soil instability that was not
previously analyzed, and no new mitigation measures are required.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Expansive soils are materials that, when
subject to a constant load, are prone to expansion when exposed to water. As discussed in the
2006 EIR, the City contains soils that are highly expansive, and subject to significant volume
changes due to moisture fluctuations. According to the Geotechnical Exploration prepared for
the Project, the site is underlain by varying thickness of compacted fill overlying native marine
terrace deposits and bedrock of the Monterey Formation. Based on prior laboratory test results
and experience with the soil materials within Fashion Island, NMG anticipates the near-surface
fill soils and the marine terrace deposits at the site to have expansion potential ranging from
“very low” to “medium.” The anticipated expansion potential of the bedrock materials may vary
from “very low” for the sandstone materials to “high” for the silty claystone and clayey siltstone
materials (NMG 2022). However, implementation of current codes and regulations identified in
the NBMC would ensure that potential impacts related to expansive soils would be less than
significant. Therefore, the Project would not create a new significant impact that was not
previously analyzed, and no new mitigation measures are required.
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-51
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Similar to the discussion in the 2006 EIR,
there would be no impact regarding the Project site having soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are
not available for the disposal of wastewater. The Project site is within the VEA Newport Beach,
A Marriott Resort and Spa, immediately southwest of Fashion Island, within the Newport Center-
Fashion Island subarea, which is a highly developed and urbanized area of the City. As such,
sewers have been and are available for disposal of wastewater. The Project would not require
the inclusion of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, the Project
would not create a new significant impact regarding septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems that was not previously analyzed, and no new mitigation measures are
required.
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The 2006 EIR indicated that the site was not
recognized as being a location for potential discovery of subsurface paleontological resources.
The proposed Project would adhere to the General Plan policies under Goals HR 2 and NR 18
during ground disturbing activities that may impact previously undisturbed grounds.
Additionally, the Project would comply with the City’s “Paleontological Guidelines (K-5),” which
requires the Applicant to retain a qualified paleontologist to be available on-call during ground-
disturbing activities onsite and provides protocols in the event of an inadvertent discovery of a
paleontological resource. Therefore, the Project would not create a new significant impact
regarding paleontological resources that was not previously analyzed, and no new mitigation
measures are required.
Conclusions
The geology and soils, including paleontological resources, impacts of the proposed Project
would be consistent with the impacts identified for the 2006 General Plan Update, analyzed in
the 2006 EIR. The proposed Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State
CEQA Guidelines, (1) no substantial changes are proposed as part of the proposed Project that
would result in new significant effects or an increase in severity of previous effects; (2) no
substantial changes in circumstances have occurred that would result in new significant effects;
and (3) no new information has become known that was not previously known that would
(a) create new significant impacts, (b) increase the severity of previously examined effects, or
(c) determine that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would,
in fact, be feasible; or (4) introduce mitigation measures that are considerably different from
those analyzed in the 2006 EIR. For these reasons, no major revisions to the geology and soils
and paleontological resources analysis provided in the 2006 EIR are required.
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-52
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
3.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
An Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Analysis technical report titled “Air Quality
and Greenhouse Gas Analysis—Ritz-Carlton Residences Project, Newport Beach, Orange County,
California”, was prepared for the Project, by LSA in February 2022 (LSA 2022a). It is included in
Appendix A of this Addendum and is summarized here by reference.
3.8.1 2006 EIR
Although the topic of greenhouse gas emissions was not part of the Appendix G of CEQA
Guidelines at the time the 2006 EIR was prepared, 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 2006 EIR. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC) 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. Many EIRs from
2006 and earlier described how climate change (often called global warming) would result in
sea-level rise and other environmental changes. At the time of approval of the 2006 EIR, the
contribution of GHG emissions to climate change was a prominent issue of concern. 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 2006 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 topic. Although the City
finds that the issue of 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. The 2006 EIR did not evaluate the effects of GHG emissions or consistency with GHG
reduction plans (LSA 2022a).
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were required.
3.8.2 PROPOSED PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS
Environmental Issues New Significant
Impact
More Severe
Impacts
New Ability to
Substantially
Reduce Significant
Impact
No Substantial
Change
From Previous
Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that
may have a significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-53
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
Would the Project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. This section describes the proposed Project’s
construction- and operational-related GHG emissions and contribution to global climate change.
The SCAQMD has not addressed emission thresholds for construction in their CEQA Handbook;
however, the SCAQMD requires quantification and disclosure. Thus, construction emissions are
discussed in this section.
Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Demolition and construction activities associated with the proposed Project would produce
combustion emissions from various sources. During construction, GHGs would be emitted
through the operation of construction equipment and from worker and builder supply vendor
vehicles, each of which typically uses fossil-based fuels to operate. The combustion of fossil-
based fuels creates GHGs such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O).
Furthermore, CH4 is emitted during the fueling of heavy equipment. Exhaust emissions from on-
site construction activities would vary daily as construction activity levels change. The SCAQMD
does not have an adopted threshold of significance for construction related GHG emissions. For
the purpose of this analysis, the proposed Project is compared to the adjusted screening level
Tier 3 Numerical Screening Threshold of 2,400 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year
(MTCO2e/yr) for all land use types, detailed further in Appendix A of this Addendum. Under the
Tier 3 Numerical Screen Threshold, a Project would have less than significant GHG emissions if
it would result in operational-related GHG emissions of less than 2,400 MT CO2e/yr. However,
lead agencies are required to quantify and disclose GHG emissions that would occur during
construction. The SCAQMD then requires the construction GHG emissions to be amortized over
the life of the Project, defined by the SCAQMD as 30 years, added to the operational emissions,
and compared to the applicable interim GHG significance threshold tier. Using CalEEMod, it is
estimated that the Project would generate approximately 3,508 MTCO2e during construction of
the Project (see Appendix A for CalEEMod outputs). When amortized over the 30-year life of the
Project, annual emissions would be 117 MTCO2e, as shown in Table 3-9, Project Greenhouse Gas
Emissions (LSA 2022a).
Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Long-term operational GHG emissions are typically associated with mobile, area, and stationary
sources as well as indirect emissions from sources associated with energy consumption, waste
sources, and water sources. The proposed Project would result in fewer daily trips than under
existing conditions; therefore, the proposed Project would not generate new mobile source GHG
emissions. Area source emissions would be associated with activities such as landscaping and
maintenance on the Project site, and other sources. Energy source emissions would result at off-
site utility providers as a result of increased electricity demand generated by the Project. Waste
source emissions produced by the proposed Project include energy generated by land filling and
other methods of disposal related to transporting and managing Project waste. Water source
emissions associated with the proposed Project are generated by water supply and conveyance,
water treatment, water distribution, and wastewater treatment. The proposed Project would
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-54
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
also produce stationary source emissions associated with the diesel emergency backup
generator. Following guidance from the SCAQMD, GHG emissions were estimated for the
operational year of 2025 using CalEEMod (LSA 2022a). Table 3-9 shows the calculated GHG
emissions for the proposed Project.
TABLE 3-9
PROJECT GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Emission Source
Emissions
(MTCO2e/yr)
Existing Operational Emissions
Area <1
Energy 434
Mobile 968
Waste 44
Water 16
Total Existing Emissions 1,462
Proposed Project Operational Emissions
Area 37
Energy 517
Mobile 541
Stationary 7
Waste 37
Water 50
Total Project Operational Emissions 1,189
Total Net Operational Emissions -272
Amortized Construction Emissions 117
Total Net Annual Emissions -156
SCAQMD Tier 3 Threshold 2,400
Exceeds Threshold? No
MTCO2e/yr: metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year.
Source: LSA 2022a (Appendix A of this Addendum)
Based on the analysis, the proposed Project would result in a net decrease of approximately 156
MTCO2e/yr over existing conditions. As such, operation of the proposed Project would not
generate significant GHG emissions that would have a significant effect on the environment.
Therefore, the proposed Project would not lead to new or substantially more severe significant
impacts associated with operational GHG emissions, and no new mitigation measures are
required.
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. An evaluation of the proposed Project’s
consistency with the City’s EAP, the 2017 Scoping Plan, and the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS is provided
below.
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-55
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
City of Newport Beach Energy Action Plan
The City of Newport Beach has an EAP, which identifies the City’s vision and goals on achieving
energy efficiency in local government facilities and in the community. The driving force for City
of Newport Beach's energy efficiency efforts includes 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. The EAP
is intended to guide the City to reduce GHG emissions by lowering municipal and community
wide energy use (LSA 2022a).
The proposed Project would meet the latest California CALGreen Code and Energy Efficiency
Code, which include the latest in energy efficiency standards, consistent with the goals of the
Scoping Plan and the City’s EAP.
2017 Scoping Plan
California’s major initiative for reducing GHG emissions is Assembly Bill (AB) 32, passed by the
State legislature on August 31, 2006. This effort aims at reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels
by 2020. The CARB has established the level of GHG emissions in 1990 at 427 million metric tons
of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e). The emissions target of 427 MMTCO2e requires the
reduction of 169 MMTCO2e from the State’s projected business-as-usual 2020 emissions of
596 MMTCO2e. AB 32 requires the CARB to prepare a Scoping Plan that outlines the main State
strategies for meeting the 2020 deadline and to reduce GHGs that contribute to global climate
change. The Scoping Plan was approved by the CARB on December 11, 2008 and contains the
main strategies California will implement to achieve the reduction of approximately
169 MMTCO2e, or approximately 30 percent, from the State’s projected 2020 emissions level of
596 MMTCO2e under a business-as-usual scenario (this is a reduction of 42 MMTCO2e, or
almost 10 percent from 2002–2004 average emissions). The Scoping Plan also includes
CARB-recommended GHG reductions for each emissions sector of the State’s GHG inventory. The
Scoping Plan identifies 18 emission reduction measures that address cap-and-trade programs,
vehicle gas standards, energy efficiency, low carbon fuel standards, renewable energy, regional
transportation-related GHG targets, vehicle efficiency measures, goods movement, solar roof
programs, industrial emissions, high speed rail, green building strategies, recycling, sustainable
forests, water, and air. In June 2007, the CARB approved a list of 37 early action measures,
including three discrete early action measures (Low Carbon Fuel Standard [LCFS], Restrictions
on Global Warming Potential [GWP] Refrigerants, and Landfill CH4 Capture). Discrete early
action measures are measures that were required to be adopted as regulations and made
effective no later than January 1, 2010, the date established by Health and Safety Code Section
38560.5. The CARB adopted additional early action measures in October 2007 that tripled the
number of discrete early action measures. These measures relate to truck efficiency, port
electrification, reduction of perfluorocarbons (PFCs) from the semiconductor industry,
reduction of propellants in consumer products, proper tire inflation, and sulfur hexafluoride
(SF6) reductions from the non-electricity sector. The combination of early action measures is
estimated to reduce statewide GHG emissions by nearly 16 MMTCO2e. The CARB approved the
First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan on May 22, 2014. The First Update identifies
opportunities to leverage existing and new funds to further drive GHG emission reductions
through strategic planning and targeted low carbon investments. The First Update defines CARB
climate change priorities until 2020 and also sets the groundwork to reach long-term goals set
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-56
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
forth in Executive Orders (EOs) S-3-05 and B-16-2012. The Update highlights California’s
progress toward meeting the “near-term” 2020 GHG emission reduction goals as defined in the
initial Scoping Plan. It also evaluates how to align the State’s “longer-term” GHG reduction
strategies with other State policy priorities for water, waste, natural resources, clean energy,
transportation, and land use. CARB released a second update to the Scoping Plan, the 2017
Scoping Plan, to reflect the 2030 target set by EO B-30-15 and codified by SB 32. CARB is
currently working on an update to the 2017 Scoping Plan, which will be released this year. The
2022 Scoping Plan Update would assess progress towards achieving the SB 32 2030 target and
lay out a path to achieve carbon neutrality no later than 2045 (LSA 2022a).
The proposed Project is also analyzed for consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan. The measures
applicable to the proposed Project from the 2017 Scoping Plan include energy efficiency
measures, water conservation and efficiency measures, and transportation and motor vehicle
measures, as discussed below.
Energy efficient measures are intended to maximize energy efficiency building and appliance
standards, pursue additional efficiency efforts including new technologies and new policy and
implementation mechanisms, and pursue comparable investment in energy efficiency from all
retail providers of electricity in California. In addition, these measures are designed to expand
the use of green building practices to reduce the carbon footprint of California’s new and existing
inventory of buildings. As discussed above, the proposed Project would comply with the
CALGreen Code and the Energy Efficiency Code regarding energy conservation and green
building standards. Therefore, the proposed Project would comply with applicable energy
measures. Water conservation and efficiency measures are intended to continue efficiency
programs and use cleaner energy sources to move and treat water. Increasing the efficiency of
water transport and reducing water use would reduce GHG emissions. As noted above, the
Project would comply with the CALGreen Code and Title 24, which includes a variety of different
measures, including reduction of wastewater and water use. In addition, the proposed Project
would include water-efficient irrigation systems and use water efficient landscape. Therefore,
the proposed Project would not conflict with any of the water conservation and efficiency
measures. The goal of transportation and motor vehicle measures is to develop regional GHG
emissions reduction targets for passenger vehicles. Specific regional emission targets for
transportation emissions would not directly apply to the proposed Project. The second phase of
Pavley standards will reduce GHG emissions from new cars by 34 percent from 2016 levels by
2025, resulting in a 3 percent decrease in average vehicle emissions for all vehicles by 2020.
Vehicles traveling to the Project site would comply with the Pavley II (LEV III) Advanced Clean
Cars Program (LSA 2022a). Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with the
identified transportation and motor vehicle measures.
2020–2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
On September 3, 2020, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) adopted
Connect SoCal–The 2020–2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities
Strategy (2020–2045 RTP/SCS). In general, the SCS outlines a development pattern for the
region, which, when integrated with the transportation network and other transportation
measures and policies, would reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from automobiles and light-
duty trucks and thereby reduce GHG emissions from these sources. For the SCAG region, CARB
has set GHG reduction targets at 8 percent below 2005 per capita emissions levels by 2020, and
19 percent below 2005 per capita emissions levels by 2035. The RTP/SCS lays out a strategy for
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-57
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
the region to meet these targets. Overall, the SCS is meant to provide growth strategies that
would achieve the regional GHG emissions reduction targets. Land use strategies to achieve the
region’s targets include planning for new growth around high-quality transit areas and livable
corridors and creating neighborhood mobility areas to integrate land use and transportation and
plan for more active lifestyles. However, the SCS does not require that local General Plans,
Specific Plans, or zoning be consistent with the SCS; SCAG is required to consider local land use
controls when drafting the SCS (LSA 2022a).
The Project would include the demolition of 159 hotel rooms and would construct 159 hotel-
branded residences and associated parking. As discussed above, the Project would result in an
increase of 361 residents (5 percent of SCAG’s projected population growth for the City from
2016 to 2045 of 7,100 residents) and 159 residential units (5 percent of SCAG’s projected
household growth for the County from 2016 to 2045 of 2,900 households). The Project is
envisioned as a high-rise housing development adjacent to commercial opportunities to
encourage pedestrian access and provide a consumer base for nearby commercial uses. The
Project would also provide on-site amenities and would provide connections to adjacent parcels
to provide connectivity and convenient access to the nearby commercial and retail uses. In
addition, the Project would result in fewer daily trips than under existing conditions; therefore,
the proposed Project would not generate new mobile source emissions. Implementing SCAG’s
RTP/SCS would greatly reduce the regional GHG emissions from transportation, helping to
achieve Statewide emissions reduction targets. As stated above, the Project would result in fewer
daily trips than under existing conditions and would not conflict with the stated goals of the
RTP/SCS; therefore, the Project would not interfere with SCAG’s ability to achieve the region’s
GHG reduction target of 19 percent below 2005 per capita emissions level by 2035. Furthermore,
the proposed Project is not regionally significant per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15206 and
as such, it would not conflict with the SCAG’s RTP/SCS targets since those targets were
established and are applicable on a regional level. Given the nature of the proposed Project, it is
anticipated that Project implementation would not interfere with SCAG’s ability to implement
the regional strategies outlined in the RTP/SCS (LSA 2022a).
Overall, the proposed Project would comply with existing State regulations adopted to achieve
the overall GHG emissions reduction goals identified in AB 32 and would be consistent with
applicable plans and programs designed to reduce GHG emissions. Therefore, the proposed
Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose
of reducing the emissions of GHGs. The impacts would be less than significant, and no new
mitigation measures are required.
Conclusion
In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, (1) no substantial changes are proposed
as part of the proposed Project that would result in new significant effects or an increase in
severity of previous effects; (2) no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred that
would result in new significant effects; and (3) no new information has become known that was
not previously known that would (a) create new significant impacts, (b) increase the severity of
previously examined effects, or (c) determine that mitigation measures or alternatives
previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or (4) introduce mitigation
measures that are considerably different from those analyzed in the 2006 EIR. For these reasons,
no major revisions to the analysis provided in the 2006 EIR are required.
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-58
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The following analysis is derived from the “Phase I Environmental Site Assessment” (Phase I
ESA), prepared for the Project by EBI Consulting (EBI), dated September 8, 2020 (EBI 2020). This
Phase I ESA is included in Appendix F of this Addendum.
3.9.1 2006 EIR
As identified in the 2006 EIR, implementation of the General Plan would have a less than
significant impact with respect to hazardous materials. Oversight by the appropriate federal,
State, and local agencies and compliance 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.
The 2006 EIR concluded that compliance with existing regulations of the County Environmental
Health Division, County Department of Toxic Substances Control, and RWQCB and General Plan
Policies S 7.1 and S 7.4 would reduce impacts related to the release of hazardous materials into
the environment. Additionally, compliance with Titles 8, 22, 26, and 49 of the CCR would ensure
that this impact is less than significant.
Further, the 2006 EIR noted the areas of concerns for hazardous materials sites near schools.
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 in addition to the California Health and Safety Code would
minimize the risks associated with the exposure of sensitive receptors to hazardous materials.
Impacts were considered less than significant.
Additionally, the 2006 EIR identified that John Wayne Airport (JWA) is the nearest airport to
Newport Center/Fashion Island area. JWA generates nearly all aviation traffic directly above the
City of Newport Beach due to flight paths. All land uses surrounding the airport are required to
comply and be compatible with the land use standards established in the City’s Municipal Code
and the Airport Land Use Commission’s (ALUC) Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for
JWA. It should be noted that the northern inland portions of the City extending south just past
Fashion Island, are included within the AELUP’s height restriction zone for JWA.
The City of Newport Beach Emergency Management Plan guides responses to emergency
situations associated with natural disasters, technological incidents, and nuclear defense
operations. Implementation of General Plan policies S 9.1, S 9.2, and S 9.3 would reduce impacts
associated with emergency response and evacuation in the City to a less than significant level.
Furthermore, according to the 2006 EIR, the City defines a wildland fire hazard area as any
geographic area that contains the type and condition of vegetation, topography, weather, and
structure density that potentially increases the possibility of wildland fires. The eastern portion
of the City and surrounding areas to the north, east, and southeast include grass- and brush-
covered hillsides with significant topographic relief that facilitate the rapid spread of fire,
especially if fanned by coastal breezes or Santa Ana winds. The 2006 EIR noted that even though
implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could result in development in urbanized
areas adjacent to or intermixed with wildlands, this impact would be less than significant.
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-59
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were required.
3.9.2 PROPOSED PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS
Environmental Issues
New
Significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impacts
New Ability
to
Substantially
Reduce Significant
Impact
No
Substantial
Change
From Previous
Analysis
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS – Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing
or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials
sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or a
public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Would the Project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Construction activities associated with the
proposed Project would require the transport and use of standard construction equipment and
materials, some of which may involve a hazardous component such as transport and storage of
fuels.
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. Given these activities would
be associated with construction, they would be temporary in nature. Additionally, the proposed
Project, similar to all development pursuant to the General Plan, would be required to comply
with regulations and standards established by the applicable federal and State regulatory
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-60
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
agencies, including the DTSC, the USEPA, and OSHA and their standards of safety. All hazardous
substances (e.g., paint, adhesives, finishing materials, cleaning agents, and fuels) would be
handled in accordance with the same regulations. Compliance with applicable laws and
requirements 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.
Long-term, operational hazards to the environment or the public through the transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials are typically associated with the operation of non-residential
uses, such as industrial and some commercial uses. The Project contemplates hotel branded
residences within an existing resort hotel complex. Hazardous materials are not expected to be
associated with the Project in substantial quantities once it is implemented. Use of hazardous
materials would be limited to normal household chemicals such as cleansers and solvents and
would be limited in household quantities. Because these materials would be used in very limited
quantities, they are not considered a significant hazard to the public. Furthermore, these
substances would be contained, stored, and used in accordance with manufacturers’ instruction
and handled in compliance with applicable standards and regulations. The proposed Project’s
impact on creating long-term significant hazards to the public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant. Thus,
the Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to significant hazards through
the release of hazardous materials into the environment that was not previously analyzed, and
no new mitigation measures are required.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
According to the Phase I ESA prepared for the Project site, there are several historic conditions
associated with the Project site that may create a hazard to the public or environment.
Current Property Use
As of 2020, the Project site was occupied by Newport Beach Marriott Hotel and Spa, a full-service
hotel that includes 532 hotel rooms. Additional on-site amenities include 24 meeting rooms, a
beauty shop, a spa, a restaurant, a coffee shop, guest laundry room, and three pools. There are
currently no manufacturing or industrial operations conducted at the Project site.
Historical Information
EBI investigated the history of the Project site dating back to 1940 or first developed use. No
environmentally significant conditions were identified on the Project site or surrounding
properties during the historical review. The Project site appeared vacant until 1977 when the
site was improved with structures resembling a portion of the existing hotel.
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-61
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
Current Use of Adjacent Properties
Properties in the vicinity of the Project site are primarily characterized by residential and
retail/commercial development, as well as a golf course. The Project site is bound to the north
by Santa Barbara Drive, beyond which are commercial office buildings located at 840 and 880
Newport Center Drive; to the east by Newport Center Drive, beyond which is a parking structure
associated with Fashion Island, a commercial store located at 901 Newport Center Drive, and a
restaurant located at 951 Newport Center Drive; to the south by a private, gated residential
community; to the west by the golf course portion of the Newport Beach Country Club; and to
the northwest by a residential complex located at 1001 Santa Barbara Drive.
Findings
A recognized environmental condition (REC) refers to the presence or likely presence of any
hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property, due to release to the
environment; under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or under conditions
that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. The following was identified
during the course of the Phase I ESA:
• EBI observed one 10,000-gallon diesel underground storage tank (UST) near the
receiving dock on the northern portion of the Project site. The tank is reportedly double-
walled and is equipped with a leak monitoring system. Site personnel did not report any
leaks associated with the tank. In addition, site personnel reported that the current on-
site UST was installed at the Project site in 2005 and did not replace any pre-existing on-
site USTs. However, a review of the Statewide Environmental Evaluation and Planning
System (SWEEPS) UST regulatory database listing indicates that a 10,000-gallon diesel
UST was initially registered at the Project site starting in 1988. EBI requested records
from the Orange County Health Care Agency to obtain any records associated with the
current UST. Additionally, EBI requested documents related to the current on-site UST
from the site contact to determine the exact age of the existing UST. Documentation has
since been provided indicating that the UST was last inspected on September 16, 2020,
and the results indicate that the UST tank does not have a leak and therefore does not
require additional investigation.
In addition, the following consideration outside the scope of ASTM Practice E 1527-13 was
identified in connection with the Project site:
• EBI conducted a limited screening survey for the presence of asbestos-containing
materials (ACM) at the Project site, including the collection of bulk samples of suspect
ACM. Laboratory analytical results are currently pending. These materials were observed
to be undamaged and in good condition at the time of assessment. It is noted that this
survey was limited to observations of accessible areas and the scope of work for this
assessment did not include the collection and laboratory analysis of bulk samples of
undamaged suspect ACM. Additional suspect ACM may be present in inaccessible areas.
Based on the condition of the identified ACM, these materials do not currently pose a
significant environmental threat to the occupants of the Project site. ACM do not present
a problem when maintained in good condition. However, additional sampling, removal,
and disposal arrangements may be necessary should building construction or renovation
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-62
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
activities be conducted. Asbestos is a condition outside the scope of ASTM E 1527-13 and
is not considered a REC.
Based on the findings of the Phase I ESA, potential exposure to ACMs represents a significant
impact. However, with adherence to standard requirements, including the California Health and
Safety Code and California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal OSHA) Standards,
potential impacts would be less than significant level. Therefore, the Project would not create a
new significant impact pertaining to significant hazards through the release of hazardous
materials into the environment, that was not previously analyzed, and no new mitigation
measures are required.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project site is not proximate to a school;
no school is located within one-quarter mile of the site. Corona del Mar High School located at
2101 Eastbluff Drive is approximately 1.1 miles from the Project site. As detailed under
responses to Thresholds 3.9(a) and 3.9(b), the proposed Project would continue to follow proper
protocol for handling and disposal of hazardous materials and substances. Temporary
construction activities may require the use of materials listed as hazardous; however, these
materials would be routine construction materials and would not be required in large quantities.
Additionally, the contractor would be required to use standard construction controls and safety
procedures, which would avoid and minimize the potential for accidental release or spill of such
substances into the environment.
Further, residential activities associated with occupancy of the proposed hotel branded
residences would be similar to other residential uses surrounding the site and would not
generate hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances,
or waste in quantities that may impact students at schools within 0.25 mile of the site, if one
existed within that distance., The Project would not create a new significant impact regarding
hazardous materials near schools, during construction and operation, that was not previously
analyzed, and no new mitigation measures are required.
d) 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 it create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. As part of the Phase I ESA and based on a
review of the Environmental Data Resources (EDR) Radius Map with Geocheck® prepared for
the Project site by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (2020), the following facilities were listed
adjacent to the site. Search parameters were based on a one-mile radius of the Project site and
consisted of a search of federal, State, local, tribal, and other databases. The complete list of
databases and additional information regarding the identified site can be found in Appendix F.
• NEWPORT BEACH MARRIOTT HOTEL; HMP PROP INC; HOST MARRIOTT CORP
NEWPORT BEACH (900 Newport Center Drive). The UST, SWEEPS UST, CA Facility
Inventory Database (FID) UST, and California Environmental Reporting System (CERS)
TANKS listings are related to the operations of one, on-site, 10,000-gallon diesel fuel UST.
As per the SWEEPS UST listing, the Action Date is reported as September 15, 1992. No
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-63
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
other pertinent information was reported. The remaining listings are generally related to
routine generation of hazardous materials from at least 1993-2019 associated with the
operation of a full-service hotel. As per the HAZNET listings, reported wastes generated
on-site include unspecified oil-containing waste, other inorganic solid waste, tank bottom
waste, asbestos containing waste, and aqueous solution with total organic residues less
than 10, among others. The generation of hazardous materials associated with hotel
operations is considered unlikely to represent an environmental concern to the Project
site.
• PACIFIC FINANCIAL PLAZA; ASPHALTO WASTEWATER SUMP NO (840 Newport
Center Drive). The listings associated with Pacific Financial Plaza appear to be generally
related to office use. The utilization of an AST is noted on the CERS TANKS listing while
AT&T is noted as a generator of waste on the CERS HAZ WASTE listing. This is likely
related to cellular equipment attached to the adjacent office buildings. The listings
associated with ASPHALTO WASTEWATER SUMP NO appear to be related to a
wastewater treatment/pump station. A review of current and historical aerial
photographs does not indicate that the north adjacent property has been used for
wastewater treatment of pumping/storage purposes. Hence, it is possible, that clerical
operations associated with the wastewater pump/treatment center are located within
the adjacent office building or that a lift station is located in this area. Based on the
absence of reported releases, conditions associated with these listings are considered
unlikely to represent an environmental concern to the Project site.
• NORDSTROM INC 333 (901 Newport Center Drive). These listings are generally
related to the operation of a commercial clothing store located on the east adjacent
property. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act - Small Quantity Generators
(RCRA-SQG) listing does not report any violations. The Emergency Response Notification
System (ERNS) listing notes that a drum fell off a pickup truck at a job site near the
adjacent property address. The drum reportedly spilled diesel fuel onto the ground. The
spill was reported to have been addressed. Based upon the absence of reported violations
and the reported type of operations, conditions associated with the east adjacent
property are considered unlikely to represent an environmental concern to the Project
site.
• PACIFIC FINANCIAL PLAZA (800 Newport Center Drive). As per the listings, a nearby
facility to the northeast is listed as a leaking underground storage tank (LUST) facility.
According to the listing, the Potential Contaminants of concern are listed as "gasoline"
while the Potential Media Affect is reported as "soil." The status is reported as
"Completed - Case Closed" as of November 26, 1990. Based upon the separating distance,
the current regulatory status and the reported impact to soil only, conditions associated
with the nearby LUST facility are considered unlikely to represent an environmental
concern to the Project site.
According to the EDR Radius Map, no hazardous materials sites were identified within the
boundaries of the Project site. Of the hazardous materials sites identified in the Project vicinity,
none of the identified sites pose a hazard to the Project site. No impacts related to known
hazardous materials sites would occur. Therefore, no new significant impact pertaining to
hazardous materials sites that was not previously analyzed would occur, and no new mitigation
measures are required.
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-64
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
Project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in
the project area?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project site is not located within an
adopted Airport Land Use Plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The
nearest airport to the site is John Wayne Airport, located approximately 3.0 miles northeast of
the Project site. According to the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP 2008) for John Wayne
Airport, the Project site is not located in the Airport Influence Area of the airport. Therefore, the
Project would not create a new significant impact regarding a safety hazard or excessive noise
for people residing or working in the project area that was not previously analyzed, and no new
mitigation measures are required.
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
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. Therefore, the Project would not create
a new significant impact related to emergency response, evacuation, or disaster plans that were
not previously analyzed, and no new mitigation measures are required.
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project is not within a State
responsibility area or designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ), as defined by
the California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention (CAL FIRE). The nearest Local
Responsibility Area (LRA)-designated VHFHSZ is located 1.45 miles southeast of the Project site,
within the hillside and open space areas within the City (CAL FIRE 2011). The site is in a highly
urbanized area and surrounded by developed land on all sides. The proposed hotel branded
residential tower and parking structure would be constructed to meet current building and fire
codes requirements. Therefore, the Project would not create a new significant impact to
emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans, and no new mitigation measures are
required.
Conclusions
The hazards and hazardous materials impacts of the proposed Project would be consistent with
the impacts identified for the 2006 General Plan Update, analyzed in the 2006 EIR. The proposed
Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-65
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, (1) no
substantial changes are proposed as part of the proposed Project that would result in new
significant effects or an increase in severity of previous effects; (2) no substantial changes in
circumstances have occurred that would result in new significant effects; and (3) no new
information has become known that was not previously known that would (a) create new
significant impacts, (b) increase the severity of previously examined effects, or (c) determine
that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be
feasible; or (4) introduce mitigation measures that are considerably different from those
analyzed in the 2006 EIR. For these reasons, no major revisions to the hazards and hazardous
materials analysis provided in the 2006 EIR are required.
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-66
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
The information in this section is derived from the “Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan,
The Ritz-Carlton Residences, Newport Beach, CA” (WQMP) prepared for the proposed Project by
Fuscoe Engineering, Inc. (2021) and the “Preliminary Hydrology Report, The Ritz-Carlton
Residences, Newport Beach, California” prepared for the proposed Project Fuscoe Engineering,
Inc. (2021). The reports are included as Appendices G and Appendix H in this Addendum.
3.10.1 2006 EIR
The 2006 EIR determined that the implementation of development set forth in the 2006 General
Plan could result in an increase in pollutants in storm water and wastewater. However, water
quality standards and waste discharge requirements would not be violated with compliance with
regulations including, but not limited to, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)
Construction General Permit and preparation and implementation of Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) required for compliance with the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Stormwater Activity Permit. Impacts to
violation of any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements were deemed less than
significant.
Further, the 2006 EIR identified that implementation of the General Plan could create additional
impervious surfaces which could interfere with groundwater recharge, and that development
could substantially deplete groundwater supplies. However, the 2006 EIR also noted that as the
four subareas are currently developed, there would be no substantive change in the amount of
impervious surfaces. Thus, the 2006 EIR identified that new development would not
substantially affect groundwater recharge and that potential impacts to groundwater recharge
would be less than significant.
Regarding drainage and erosion, the 2006 EIR stated that development under the proposed
General Plan Update could alter the existing drainage pattern of the Planning Area and
potentially result in erosion and siltation. However, General Plan Update policies, including
preparation of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and implementation of best
management practices (BMPs) would reduce the risk of short-term erosion resulting from
drainage alterations during construction and operations to less than significant. The General
Plan Update could also alter the existing drainage pattern of the Planning Area and potentially
result in increased downstream flooding through the addition of impervious surfaces, exceeding
the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems, or providing substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff. However, General plan Update policies, such as
preparation of a WQMP, implementation of BMPs, incorporation of stormwater detention
facilities, design of drainage facilities to minimize adverse effects on water quality, and
minimization of increases in impervious areas, would reduce impacts to less than significant.
Furthermore, although the increase in stormwater runoff from implementation of the General
Plan Update could increase stormwater runoff, which would require expansion of existing or
construction of new storm drain facilities, impacts would be less than significant, as upgrades,
expansion, and construction of necessary utilities to accommodate new development would be
subject to project-specific environmental review.
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-67
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
Development of the General Plan Update anticipated placing housing or structures within a 100-
year flood zone. However, the Newport Center/Fashion Island subarea does not contain 100-
year flood zone areas within its boundaries. This impact was deemed less than significant.
Additionally, implementation of the flood protection policies contained in the General Plan
Update and existing City Municipal Code, would minimize the impact of flooding. These
protective measures would also reduce impacts from flooding as a result of dam failure to the
extent feasible. Thus, risks associated with flooding, including dam failure inundation, was
deemed less than significant.
The 2006 EIR also noted that development under the proposed General Plan Update would
increase the exposure of people to the low probability but high-risk events such as seiche,
tsunami, and mudflows. However, the Newport Center/Fashion Island subarea was not included
as a probable area for these impacts. This impact was deemed less than significant with
implementation of flood protection policies contained in the Safety Element of the proposed
General Plan Update.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were required.
3.10.2 PROPOSED PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS
Environmental Issues New
Significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impacts
New Ability
to
Substantially Reduce
Significant
Impact
No
Substantial
Change From
Previous
Analysis
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY – Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or
ground water quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project
may impede sustainable groundwater management of the
basin?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a
manner which would:
i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site;
ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff
in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;
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; or
iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-68
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
Environmental Issues New
Significant Impact
More
Severe Impacts
New Ability
to Substantially
Reduce
Significant
Impact
No
Substantial Change
From
Previous
Analysis
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of
pollutants due to project inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Would the Project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. According to the WQMP, potential pollutant
sources associated with the construction and operation of the proposed Project may include
suspended solid/sediment, nutrients, heavy metals, pathogens (bacteria/virus), pesticides, oil
and grease, toxic organic compounds, and trash and debris (Fuscoe 2021c). Construction and
operation of the proposed Project would increase the potential for storm water runoff to
transport these pollutants into the storm drain system, thus contributing to the degradation of
water quality and the potential violation of water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements.
Short-term construction impacts from the proposed Project would be minimized through
compliance with the NPDES Construction General Permit. This permit, which requires filing a
notice of intent (NOI) with the State Water Resources Control Board, requires the development
and implementation of a SWPPP, which must include (1) erosion and sediment-control BMPs
that meet or exceed measures required by the Construction General Permit and (2) BMPs that
control other potential construction-related pollutants. A SWPPP would be developed as
required by, and in compliance with, the NPDES Construction General Permit. In addition to the
requirements of the NPDES Construction General Permit, the California Building Code and
grading permit requirements include provisions that require reduction of erosion and
sedimentation impacts during construction. Full compliance with applicable local, State, and
federal regulations would ensure that water quality impacts associated with construction would
be less than significant.
As indicated in the WQMP prepared for the Project, the following structural source control BMPs
would achieve long-term water quality enhancement through proposed drainage and treatment
systems: providing storm drain stenciling and signage; using efficient irrigation systems and
landscape design, water conservation, smart controllers, and source control; and incorporating
requirements applicable to individual priority project categories (from SDRWQCB NPDES
Permit). Non-structural BMPs (also identified in the Preliminary WQMP) would reduce pollutant
loading into storm water runoff (Fuscoe 2021c). Therefore, with compliance with the
recommendations set forth in the WQMP for the Project, potential impacts related to storm water
would be less than significant. Therefore, the Project would not create a new significant impact
pertaining to short- and long-term potential water quality-related impacts that was not
previously analyzed, and no new mitigation measures are required.
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-69
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the project impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Under existing conditions, the Project site is
currently 80 percent impervious and does not contribute significantly to groundwater recharge
due to the small amounts of unpaved areas or pervious surfaces, which are subject to surface
water infiltration. As identified in the WQMP, the surface of the site would increase the
impervious condition to approximately 90 percent. Due to the nominal increase in impervious
surface area, development of the proposed Project would not interfere with groundwater
recharge through the elimination of surface water infiltration.
The proposed Project would not withdraw directly from the groundwater basin; rather, water
resources would be provided by the City (Section 3.19, Utilities and Service Systems). The
proposed Project would connect to existing water mains (i.e., 12-inch water main on Newport
Center Drive) that are serviced by the City of Newport Beach. The City has indicated that there is
adequate water capacity to serve the proposed Project. Therefore, the Project would not create
a new significant impact pertaining to groundwater that was not previously analyzed, and no
new mitigation measures are required.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including 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 substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site;
ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or offsite;
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; or
iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project site is located within the Newport
Bay Watershed. The development area drains to the Lower Newport Bay. As described in Section
3.0, Project Description, the proposed Project would include construction of a residential
building and parking structures. The proposed drainage is expected to generally mimic the
existing drainage patterns. A portion (0.08 acre) of the southwestern area of the site would
continue to drain westerly towards the golf course. The parking structure would drain easterly
towards to Newport Center Drive and outlet through a curb drain.
According to the WQMP, development of the proposed Project would not alter the course of a
stream or river. Under proposed conditions, runoff would flow similar to existing conditions. An
area drain system would collect runoff within the Project area and direct low flows to one of
three Modular Wetland Systems (MWS) for water quality treatment. High flows would bypass
the biotreatment system and exit the site. Flows would comingle with offsite runoff from the
Newport Beach Marriott Hotel and Spa. The biotreatment units would be sized for both off-site
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-70
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
and on-site flows. Most flows would travel to the southeast corner of the site, connecting to an
existing storm drain system that ties into an 18-inch storm drain that connects to the existing
42-inch storm drainpipe along Newport Center Drive. A small portion of runoff (approximately
0.08 acre) would exit the site to the west and drain to the adjacent golf course. Runoff from the
proposed parking structure (approximately 0.74 acre) would drain easterly and outlet through
a curb drain before entering a catch basin and joining the 42-inch storm drain along Newport
Center Drive. After traveling along Newport Center Drive, flows eventually enter Lower Newport
Bay and the Pacific Ocean.
According to the Hydrology Report prepared for the Project, the proposed condition drainage
patterns would generally mimic those of the existing condition, with the exception of sub-area E.
The results show that the proposed condition flows do not exceed those of existing condition at
any of the discharge locations. The existing and proposed drainage systems have capacities to
provide drainage interception and conveyance for the proposed Project. Specifically, the existing
peak flow for the 100-year storm is 37.7 cfs; however, this volume would decrease by 5.1 cfs to
32.6 cfs with the proposed Project (Fuscoe 2021b). The Project would result in a decrease of
storm flows and would not result in an impact to the capacity of the storm water drainage
system. Compliance with the WQMP would reduce any erosion-related impacts to less than
significant levels. Therefore, the Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to
substantial erosion, runoff water, or flood flows that were not previously analyzed, and no new
mitigation measures are required.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation?
According to the 2006 EIR, the probability of dam failure affecting the City is low. The potential
for secondary seismic hazards, such as tsunami and seiche, is also considered very low to none
because the Project site is located away from the ocean at an elevation of over 170 feet above
msl and outside of mapped tsunami inundation zones. Further, the Project site is not located
adjacent to a confined body of water; therefore, the potential for seismic hazard of a seiche (an
oscillation of a body of water in an enclosed basin) is considered very low to none (Fuscoe
2021c). Therefore, the Project would not result in new significant impacts pertaining to flood
hazard, tsunami, or seiche that would release pollutants due to inundation, that were not
previously analyzed, and no new mitigation measures are required.
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater management plan?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. As discussed above under Threshold 3.10(a),
the Project would comply with applicable water quality regulations for long-term impacts.
Specifically, the Project would comply with the NPDES Permit requirements. For long-term
water quality impacts, in accordance with the NPDES program, the Project would continue to
operate in accordance with the Orange County Municipal Storm Water Permit.
As detailed in the 2006 EIR, there are no groundwater wells on the Project site, and no wells are
proposed as part of the Project. The proposed Project would not involve direct withdrawals of
groundwater, nor would it interfere with groundwater recharge such that it would result in a net
deficit in aquifer volume or lowering of the local groundwater table. Therefore, the Project would
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-71
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
not create a new significant impact pertaining to sustainable groundwater management plan
that was not previously analyzed, and no new mitigation measures are required.
Conclusion
The hydrology and water quality impacts of the proposed Project would be consistent with the
impacts identified for the 2006 General Plan Update, analyzed in the 2006 EIR. The proposed
Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, (1) no
substantial changes are proposed as part of the proposed Project that would result in new
significant effects or an increase in severity of previous effects; (2) no substantial changes in
circumstances have occurred that would result in new significant effects; and (3) no new
information has become known that was not previously known that would (a) create new
significant impacts, (b) increase the severity of previously examined effects, or (c) determine
that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be
feasible; or (4) introduce mitigation measures that are considerably different from those
analyzed in the 2006 EIR. For these reasons, no major revisions to the hydrology and water
quality analysis provided in the 2006 EIR are required.
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-72
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
3.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
3.11.1 2006 EIR
The Project site is located within the Newport Center/Fashion Island area – a regional center of
business and commerce that includes major retail, professional office, entertainment, hotel, and
residential uses in a master planned mixed use development. Fashion Island, a regional shopping
center, forms the nucleus of Newport Center and is framed by this mixture of office,
entertainment, and residential land uses. New land uses in this subarea include additional
commercial uses (approximately 430,000 sf), approximately 600 multi-family residential units,
and approximately 250 additional hotel rooms. Residential units have existed in this area since
the 1970s and increased through the 1990s. No conflicts between the residential and commercial
uses have occurred previously in this area, as evidenced by the lack of complaints by area
residents. Goals and policies contained in the proposed General Plan Update would serve to
promote a mixed use, pedestrian-friendly district for this subarea that would continue
commercial and residential uses. Policy LU 6.14.5 encourages improved pedestrian connections
and streetscape amenities connecting the area’s diverse districts. Goals contained in the
proposed General Plan Update related to mixed use development (Goal 5.3) specifically
articulate that such development should promote compatibility among uses. General Plan Policy
LU 5.3.1 calls for the consideration of compatibility issues in design of mixed-use development.
Thus, mixed use development under the General Plan Update would be, by design, compatible
with adjacent non-residential uses.
The 2006 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 of the City. The 2006 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 2006 EIR would not physically divide
an established community and impacts were identified as less than significant.
The 2006 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 2006 EIR concluded
that the majority of land use changes proposed would not result in incompatibilities or nuisances
that would rise to a level of significance and impacts were considered less than significant. The
2006 EIR was found to be consistent with all applicable land use plans for the City.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were required.
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-73
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
3.11.2 PROPOSED PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS
Environmental Issues New
Significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impacts
New Ability
to
Substantially
Reduce
Significant
Impact
No
Substantial
Change
From
Previous
Analysis
LAND USE AND PLANNING – Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with
any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Would the Project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project site is currently developed with
hotel use and is bound by Newport Center Drive to the east and surrounded by retail, commercial
office, residential (condominium), and a golf course. Overall, the Project site is within a largely
mixed-use area of the City and specifically within a hotel resort complex. The nearest residential
use to the Project site is the Grandville Private Residential Community, which is located adjacent
to the Project’s southwestern boundary. The Project would establish a new hotel branded
residential tower on a site that is currently used for a hotel. Therefore, the Project would not
physically divide an established community as none exists on the site. No new impact that was
not previously discussed would occur, and no mitigation is required.
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. As stated in Section 2.3.1, Land Use
Designation, the proposed Project site has a General Plan designation of Visitor Serving
Commercial (CV); a Coastal Land Use Plan designation of Visitor Serving Commercial (CV-B); and
a Zoning designation of Commercial Visitor-Serving (CV). All CV designations allow for overnight
accommodations and accessory land uses. The proposed hotel branded residences are an
allowable accessory land use within City Council Policy K-4 and Director’s Determination No.
DD2021-001. As such, the proposed Project is consistent with the applicable CV land use
designations.
In light of consistency with and direction by the City Council Policy K-4 and Director’s
Determination No. DD2021-001, the Project overall 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. As such, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in significant
land use impacts including consistency with goals and policies. Therefore, the Project would not
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-74
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
create a new significant impact pertaining to land use that was not previously analyzed, and no
new mitigation measures are required.
Conclusion
The land use and planning impacts of the proposed Project would be consistent with the impacts
identified for the 2006 General Plan Update, analyzed in the 2006 EIR. The proposed Project
would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, (1) no substantial
changes are proposed as part of the proposed Project that would result in new significant effects
or an increase in severity of previous effects; (2) no substantial changes in circumstances have
occurred that would result in new significant effects; and (3) no new information has become
known that was not previously known that would (a) create new significant impacts, (b) increase
the severity of previously examined effects, or (c) determine that mitigation measures or
alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or (4) introduce
mitigation measures that are considerably different from those analyzed in the 2006 EIR. For
these reasons, no major revisions to the land use and planning analysis provided in the 2006 EIR
are required.
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-75
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
3.12.1 2006 EIR
Regarding mineral resources, the 2006 EIR determined that the Planning Area contained areas
with Mineral Resource Zones 1 and 3. The Project site, including potions within the Newport
Center/Fashion Island subarea, is located within MRZ-1, as designated by the California
Geological Survey (CGS). The MRZ-1 designation represents areas where available geologic
information indicates there is little or no likelihood for presence of significant mineral resources.
Most of the active oil wells are currently located in the West Newport and Newport production
areas, and the 2006 EIR did not identify any oil or gas production facilities within the Newport
Center/Fashion Island area or the Project site. The 2006 EIR determined that implementation of
the proposed General Plan Update would not result in the loss of the availability of known
mineral resources that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State. Regarding
the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site, the 2006 EIR
indicated that implementation of the General Plan Update would not 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.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were required.
3.12.2 PROPOSED PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS
Environmental Issues New Significant
Impact
More Severe
Impacts
New Ability to
Substantially
Reduce
Significant
Impact
No Substantial
Change
From
Previous
Analysis
MINERAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that
would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan or other land use plan?
Would the Project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value
to the region and the residents of the state?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The 2006 EIR determined that there would
be no impact regarding the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value
to the region and the residents of the State. As indicated above, the Project site was determined
to be within MRZ-1, which is an area with no significant mineral deposits. Therefore, the
proposed Project would not disturb mineral resources, nor would it change the availability of
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-76
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
resources on or near the Project site. The proposed Project would not create a new significant
impact related to mineral resources of value to the region and residents of the State that was not
previously analyzed, and no new mitigation measures are required.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The 2006 EIR determined that there would
be no impact regarding the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resources recovery
site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan. The proposed Project
would not require mineral resources, nor would it change the availability of resources on or near
the Project site. Additionally, as the Project site is located within MRZ-1, the area does not contain
significant mineral deposits. Therefore, the proposed Project would not create a new significant
impact related to loss of availability of mineral resources recovery sites, not previously analyzed,
and no new mitigation measures are required.
Conclusion
The mineral resources impacts of the proposed Project would be consistent with the impacts
identified for the 2006 General Plan Update, analyzed in the 2006 EIR. The proposed Project
would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, (1) no substantial
changes are proposed as part of the proposed Project that would result in new significant effects
or an increase in severity of previous effects; (2) no substantial changes in circumstances have
occurred that would result in new significant effects; and (3) no new information has become
known that was not previously known that would (a) create new significant impacts, (b) increase
the severity of previously examined effects, or (c) determine that mitigation measures or
alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or (4) introduce
mitigation measures that are considerably different from those analyzed in the 2006 EIR. For
these reasons, no substantial changes to the mineral resources analysis provided in the 2006 EIR
are required.
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-77
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
3.13 NOISE
A Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis Technical Report, titled “Noise and Vibration Impact
Analysis—Ritz-Carlton Residences Project, Newport Beach, Orange County, California”, was
prepared by LSA, in February 2022 (LSA 2022c). The report is included in Appendix I, Noise
Report, of this Addendum and is summarized here by reference.
3.13.1 2006 EIR
The 2006 EIR found that under the General Plan, the primary source of temporary or periodic
noise within the City would be construction activities and maintenance work, including both
construction-site activities and the transport of workers and equipment to and from the
construction sites. The 2006 EIR determined that construction noise is not subject to the noise
standards in the Municipal Code but would only occur during limited hours of the day and days
of the week. Therefore, the 2006 EIR determined that since construction noise would be exempt
from the City code, impacts were considered less than significant (LSA 2022c).
The 2006 EIR evaluated future roadway noise levels within the City with the implementation of
the General Plan. The 2006 EIR found that the 24 roadway segments along Birch Street, Campus
Drive, Coast Highway, Irvine Avenue, Jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard, and Newport Coast
Drive would have a significant increase in noise at 100 feet from the centerline. As identified in
the 2006 EIR, the changes in motor vehicle trips and circulation patterns would increase noise
levels within the City by a maximum of 3.7 A-weighted decibels (dBA) Community Noise
Equivalent Level (CNEL), although most increases in noise would be between 1 and 3 dBA. The
2006 EIR concluded that while there are a number of policies in the General Plan under Goal N2
that would help mitigate the impact of traffic noise on receptors, impacts would remain
significant and unavoidable. The 2006 EIR did not evaluate long-term noise impacts associated
with other sources associated with Project operation (LSA 2022c).
As discussed in the 2006 EIR, locations throughout the City would experience changes in noise
levels due to an increase in vehicular traffic. The 2006 EIR found that based on the information
in the existing and future noise contours, noise levels in excess of standards established by the
City could occur where schools, libraries, health care facilities, and residential uses are located
in the City and will continue to be, exposed to exterior noise levels that exceed the City’s standard
of 60 dBA CNEL. As such, the 2006 EIR concluded that implementation of General Plan policies
associated with Goals N1 and N2 (requiring that all remodeling/additions to structures comply
with the General Plan noise standards, requiring the use of walls, berms, interior noise
insulation, double paned windows, or other noise mitigation measures in new residential or
other new land uses) would reduce noise impacts to future land uses, but would do little to
remediate noise effects on existing land uses. As such, this impact was considered significant and
unavoidable (LSA 2022c).
As identified in the 2006 EIR, construction activities that would occur under the General Plan
would have the potential to generate groundborne vibration. As such, the 2006 EIR found that
construction activities would occur at discrete locations in the City and vibration from such
activity may impact existing buildings and their occupants if they are located close enough to the
construction sites. The 2006 EIR determined that vibration levels could be problematic if
sensitive uses are located within about 100 feet of potential Project construction sites, where
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-78
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
sensitive receptors would experience vibration levels that exceed the Federal Transit
Administration’s (FTA’s) vibration annoyance impact threshold of 72 vibration velocity in
decibels (VdB). The 2006 EIR found that if impacts occur, the only mitigation that could eliminate
the vibration impact is ensuring a distance of approximately 150 feet between construction and
existing sensitive receptors. However, the 2006 EIR concluded that it is not feasible to prohibit
construction within 150 feet of all existing receptors, thus, when construction vibration occurs,
impacts would be significant (LSA 2022c). The 2006 EIR did not evaluate potential long-term
vibration impacts.
The 2006 EIR stated that implementation of the General Plan Update would expose sensitive
receptors in proximity to the John Wayne Airport to excessive noise levels if the receptors were
located within the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) “High Noise Impact Zones”. Overall,
impacts on interior noise levels at new land uses in the vicinity of the John Wayne Airport (JWA)
would be less than significant. However, if residences were to be developed within the 65 dBA
CNEL noise contour, exterior noise would exceed allowable noise levels for residential areas and
impacts would be significant and unavoidable (LSA 2022c).
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were required.
3.13.2 PROPOSED PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS
Environmental Issues New
Significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impacts
New Ability
to
Substantially Reduce
Significant
Impact
No
Substantial
Change From
Previous
Analysis
NOISE – Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne
noise levels?
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?
Would the Project:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-79
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis.
Temporary Increases in Ambient Noise
Two types of temporary noise impacts would occur during Project construction (i.e., temporary
increases in ambient noise levels): (1) equipment delivery and construction worker commutes;
and (2) Project construction operations. The first type of temporary (short-term) construction
noise would result from transport of construction equipment and materials to the Project site
and construction worker commutes. Construction is anticipated to be completed in 42 months
from the start of demolition. This timeline includes approximately 6 months of demolition and
site preparation and approximately 36 months of construction of the new subterranean parking
structure and residential building. More specifically, the proposed Project would require the
demolition of approximately 263,194 sf and the export of 205,700 cy of soil. Construction
equipment would be staged onsite to avoid impeding hotel operations and disturbing guests.
Offsite parking would be provided daily for workers with a shuttle to the hotel, if necessary.
During construction, hotel operations would be slightly impacted, as guests would be redirected
to a nearby offsite parking area. However, the hotel and all hotel amenities would remain in
operation with possible minimal closure of select outdoor amenities subject to noise and dust
during the grading and site preparation phase of construction. Project construction
specifications would include the following elements for all construction work associated with
the Project (LSA 2022c):
• Construction equipment, fixed or mobile, will be equipped with properly operating and
maintained noise mufflers consistent with manufacturers’ standards.
• Construction staging areas will be located away from off-site sensitive uses during the
later phases of Project development.
• The Project contractor will place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted
noise is directed away from the sensitive receptors nearest the proposed Project site
whenever feasible.
• The construction contractor will schedule high-noise-producing activities between the
hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. to minimize disruption to sensitive uses.
• A “noise disturbance coordinator” will be established. The disturbance coordinator will
be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The
disturbance coordinator will determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too
early, bad muffler) and will be required to implement reasonable measures to reduce
noise levels. All notices that are sent to residential units within 500 feet of the
construction site and all signs posted at the construction site will list the telephone
number for the disturbance coordinator.
The Project is estimated to generate 1,197 hauling truck trips over a 180-day demolition phase
(6.65 trips per day) and a total of 15,125 hauling truck trips over a 100-day grading phase (151
trips per day) based on the CalEEMod (Version 2020.4.0) output, shown in Appendix C of the Air
Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis for the Ritz-Carlton Residences Project (LSA 2022a,
Air Quality and GHG Analysis, Appendix A of this Addendum). These transportation activities
would incrementally raise noise levels on access roads leading to the site. It is expected that
larger trucks used in equipment delivery would generate higher noise levels than trucks
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-80
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
associated with worker commutes. The single-event noise from equipment trucks passing at a
distance of 50 feet from a sensitive noise receptor would reach a maximum level of 84 dBA
maximum instantaneous noise level (Lmax). However, the pieces of heavy equipment for grading
and construction activities would be moved on site just one time and would remain on site for
the duration of each construction phase. This one-time trip, when heavy construction equipment
is moved on and off site, would not add to the daily traffic noise in the Project vicinity. The total
number of daily vehicle trips would be minimal when compared to existing traffic volumes on
the affected streets, and the long-term noise level change associated with these trips would not
be perceptible. Therefore, equipment transport noise and construction-related worker commute
impacts would be short term and would not result in a significant off-site noise impact (LSA
2022c).
The second type of short-term noise impact is related to noise generated during site preparation,
grading, building construction, architectural coating, and paving on the Project site. Construction
is undertaken in discrete steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment, and, consequently,
its own noise characteristics. These various sequential phases would change the character of the
noise generated on the Project site. Therefore, the noise levels vary as construction progresses.
Despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant
noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction-related noise ranges to be
categorized by work phase. Construction noise levels would fluctuate throughout the
construction period as equipment moves between the various areas on the Project site. To assess
the specific noise levels at the surrounding sensitive receptors, the average noise level
experienced during demolition (the loudest phase of construction) was assessed based on the
average distance of activities to the nearest surrounding receptor, which would be
approximately 105 feet from the property line of the existing condominium residences to the
south. It is expected that average composite noise levels during construction at the nearest off-
site residential land uses to the south would reach 79.8 dBA Leq during the demolition phase.
Similarly, it is anticipated that composite noise levels during construction at the nearest
commercial land uses 330 feet to the east would reach 69.9 dBA Leq during the demolition phase
(LSA 2022c). These predicted noise levels would only occur when all construction equipment is
operating simultaneously.
While construction-related, short-term noise levels have the potential to be higher than existing
ambient noise levels in the Project area under existing conditions, these noise impacts would no
longer occur once Project construction is completed. At residential receptors to the south, hourly
average construction noise levels during all phases would be louder than existing ambient
daytime (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.) hourly average noise levels of 51.1 to 58.0 dBA Leq measured at
LT-1, on the Noise Monitoring Locations (Appendix I). At receptors farther away from traffic
sources, hourly average construction noise levels during all phases would at times be louder than
the lowest existing ambient daytime hourly average noise levels of 49.5 dBA Leq and 49.4 dBA Leq measured at LT-1 and LT-2, respectively (Appendix I). The proposed Project would be required
to comply with the construction hours specified in the City’s Noise Ordinance, which states that
construction activities are allowed between 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and
from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. No construction is permitted outside of these hours or
on Sundays and federal holidays. As it relates to off-site uses, for informational purposes,
construction-related noise impacts would remain below the 80 dBA Leq and 85 dBA Leq 8-hour
construction noise level criteria as established by the FTA for residential and commercial land
uses. With adherence to the City’s construction hours and implementation of construction noise
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-81
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
elements, as discussed above, construction noise impacts would be considered less than
significant. The less than significant finding is consistent with the findings of the 2006 EIR (LSA
2022c). Therefore, the proposed Project would not lead to new or substantially more severe
significant impacts associated with construction noise beyond those identified in the 2006 EIR.
Permanent Increases in Ambient Noise
Potential sources of noise during Project operation could include vehicle traffic, noise from the
heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units, and noise from use of the on-site
recreational areas by residents. Impacts from these noise sources are evaluated below.
Traffic Noise Impacts to Off-Site Receivers
Consistent with the findings in the Newport Beach Marriott Hotel and Spa Trip Generation
(Pirzadeh & Associates 2022, Appendix J of this Addendum), the proposed Project would not
generate new vehicle trips and would result in a net reduction of 549 daily trips to the site when
compared to existing conditions. Traffic noise levels would either remain the same or decrease
as a result of the Project. Therefore, no new mitigation measures are required because there
would be no impact from Project-related traffic on off-site sensitive receptors (LSA 2022c).
Therefore, the proposed Project would not lead to new or substantially more severe significant
impacts associated with traffic noise beyond those identified in the 2006 EIR.
Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning Equipment
The Project uses would have rooftop HVAC units. The HVAC equipment could operate up to 24
hours per day. Rooftop HVAC equipment would generate a noise level of 71.2 dBA Leq at 5 feet.
The closest off-site uses are the condominium residences to the south, which are 318 feet from
the nearest location that HVAC would potentially be located. The reduction of rooftop HVAC
equipment noise levels would be provided primarily by distance attenuation to off-site uses as
well as the proposed building edge/roofline breaking line-of-sight from source to receiver. At
the nearest offsite residential land uses, noise levels from HVAC are estimated to approach 30.0
dBA Leq. This noise level would not exceed the City’s exterior daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.)
and nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) noise standards of 55 dBA Leq and 50 dBA Leq,
respectively. In addition, these noise levels would be well below the lowest nighttime hourly
noise level of 39.8 dBA Leq measured at LT-2., Project-related HVAC noise levels would not
contribute to ambient noise levels at the nearest residences (LSA 2022c). Therefore, the
proposed Project would not lead to new or substantially more severe significant impacts
associated with HVAC noise levels.
Outdoor Activity (Pool/Amenity) Area
The Project would have an on-grade outdoor activity pool/amenity area northwest of the
proposed residential building. The closest off-site uses are condominium residences to the
southwest, 140 feet from the acoustical center of the outdoor activity area. The reduction of
outdoor activity noise levels would be provided primarily by distance attenuation to off-site
uses. Assuming 20 people talking continuously with raised voice levels, activity noise levels are
estimated to approach 45.6 dBA Leq at the nearest off-site residential land uses. This noise level
would not exceed the City’s exterior daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and nighttime (10:00 p.m.
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-82
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
to 7:00 a.m.) noise standards of 55 dBA Leq and 50 dBA Leq, respectively. In addition, hotel
amenity spaces are typically limited to daytime hours of operation and are closed during
nighttime hours (LSA 2022c). Therefore, the proposed Project would not lead to new or
substantially more severe significant impacts associated with outdoor activity noise.
Composite Noise Levels
Table 3-10, Composite Noise Levels at Nearest Receptor, presents a summary of the composite
noise levels at the residential uses to the south.
TABLE 3-10
COMPOSITE NOISE LEVELS AT NEAREST RECEPTOR
Receptor
Location
Daytime/Nighttime
Conditions
Stationary Noise Sources
(dBA Leq) Composite
Noise
Level
(dBA Leq)
Daytime/Nighttime
HVAC Equipment
Outdoor Activity1
Noise Limit
(dBA Leq)
HVAC
Equipment
Outdoor
Activity1
Residential
Condominium
Uses south of the
Project
Daytime 7:00 a.m. to
10:00 p.m. 30.0 45.6 45.7 55
Nighttime 10:00
p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 30.0 -- 30.0 50
1 Pool/amenity areas would be limited to daytime hours of operation and closed during nighttime hours; therefore,
noise levels outdoor activities would not contribute to the composite noise levels at nearest receptors.
dBA = A-weighted decibels
Leq = equivalent continuous sound level
Source: LSA 2022c (Appendix I of this Addendum).
The results show that noise impacts associated with the proposed Project would not cause an
increase in noise experienced at the residential uses to the south, assuming a conservative
scenario in which both HVAC and maximum noise levels from amenity/pool activity would occur
during daytime hours (LSA 2022c). Therefore, the proposed Project would not lead to new or
substantially more severe significant impacts beyond those identified in the 2006 EIR.
Land Use Compatibility Assessment
The land use compatibility of the Project site was assessed based on the Land Use Compatibility
guidelines contained in the City of Newport Beach General Plan. Outdoor amenity areas and
indoor sleeping areas associated with the proposed Project would be exposed to traffic noise
along Newport Center Drive, adjacent commercial uses, and occasional aircraft operations (LSA
2022c).
Exterior Ambient Noise Impacts
Based on monitoring results (in Table F and G of Appendix I of this Addendum), noise levels at
the Project site are up to 58.3 dBA CNEL. Per the City’s General Plan Noise Element, noise levels
of up to 60 dBA CNEL are considered clearly compatible. Additionally, the outdoor
activity/amenity area including the proposed pools, lounge, and deck would be set back from the
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-83
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
adjacent roadways and shielded by the proposed buildings, resulting in noise levels well below
60 dBA CNEL at these areas (LSA 2022c). Therefore, the existing noise environment would be
compatible for the proposed land uses.
Interior Noise Levels
Based on the architectural plans for the proposed Project, it was confirmed that all units would
have central air conditioning, thus allowing for windows and glass doors to be closed. The
exterior façade of the proposed residential units would be comprised of a storefront window
system-type glass assembly. Using data from the transmission loss test report (Western Electro-
Acoustic Laboratory 2013) for the Quest Series Ecowall 141, a minimum reduction of 23 dBA
CNEL can be expected with a similar assembly that has a Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating
of 38 and an Outdoor-Indoor Transmission Class (OITC) rating of 27. With a reduction of 23 dBA,
interior levels are expected to be approximately 39 dBA CNEL, which would be well below the
City’s interior noise level standard of 45 dBA CNEL (LSA 2022c). Therefore, the proposed Project
would not lead to new or substantially more severe significant impacts associated with land use
compatibility beyond those identified in the 2006 EIR. The Project would not result in a new
significant impact pertaining to noise that was not previously analyzed, and no new mitigation
measures are required.
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis.
Short-term Vibration Impacts
Ground-borne noise and vibration from construction activity would be mostly low to moderate.
While there is currently limited information regarding vibration source levels, to provide a
comparison of vibration levels expected for a Project of this size (as shown in Table J of Appendix
I, Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis—Ritz-Carlton Residences Project, Newport Beach, Orange
County, California), a large bulldozer would generate approximately 87 VdB of ground-borne
vibration when measured at 25 feet based on the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment
Manual (FTA 2018). The distance to the nearest buildings for vibration impact analysis is
measured between the nearest off-site buildings and the Project boundary (assuming the
construction equipment would be used at or near the Project boundary) because vibration
impacts occur normally within the buildings. As discussed above, vibration levels above 94 VdB
would result in potential damage to nonengineered timber and masonry building and levels
above 72 VdB would have the potential to cause annoyance at sensitive residential receptors.
The closest off-site structures to the Project site are the existing residential buildings to the
southwest, approximately 33 feet from the potential construction activities. These buildings are
assumed to be non-engineered timber and masonry. As detailed in Appendix I of this Addendum,
the operation of a large bulldozer would generate ground-borne vibration levels of 83 VdB. At
this level, vibration from construction would not result in damage to surrounding buildings;
however, those levels would exceed the 72 VdB threshold for annoyance to sensitive uses.
Therefore, construction of the Project could expose people to excessive ground-borne vibration.
This impact would be significant and unavoidable, as construction would need to be 100 feet or
more away from structures to avoid annoyance (LSA 2022c). The 2006 EIR identified all
construction vibration impacts to be significant and unavoidable; therefore, the proposed
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-84
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
Project would not lead to new or substantially more severe significant impacts associated with
construction vibration beyond those identified in the 2006 EIR.
Long-term Vibration Impacts
The 2006 EIR did not evaluate potential long-term vibration impacts. The streets surrounding
the Project area are paved, smooth, and unlikely to cause significant ground-borne vibration. In
addition, the rubber tires and suspension systems of buses and other on-road vehicles make it
unusual for on-road vehicles to cause ground-borne noise or vibration issues. It is therefore
assumed that no such vehicular vibration impacts would occur, and no vibration impact analysis
of on-road vehicles is necessary. Additionally, once constructed, the proposed Project is a
residential development and would not include uses that would generate ground-borne
vibration (LSA 2022c). Therefore, the proposed Project would not lead to new or substantially
more severe significant impacts associated with long-term vibration impacts, and no new
mitigation measures are required.
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?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The 2006 EIR determined that there would
be a less than significant impact pertaining to aircraft noise exposure if proposed residential uses
were located outside of the noise contours detailed in the 2006 EIR. The proposed Project would
not develop land uses that would locate persons in an area subject to noise within the noise
contours provided in the 2006 EIR. Therefore, the proposed Project would not create a new
significant impact pertaining to aircraft noise exposure that was not previously analyzed, and no
new mitigation measures are required.
Conclusion
The noise impacts of the proposed Project would be consistent with the impacts identified for
the 2006 General Plan Update, analyzed in the 2006 EIR. The proposed Project would not create
a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects.
In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, (1) no substantial changes are proposed
as part of the proposed Project that would result in new significant effects or an increase in
severity of previous effects; (2) no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred that
would result in new significant effects; and (3) no new information has become known that was
not previously known that would (a) create new significant impacts, (b) increase the severity of
previously examined effects, or (c) determine that mitigation measures or alternatives
previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or (4) introduce mitigation
measures that are considerably different from those analyzed in the 2006 EIR. For these reasons,
no major revisions to the noise analysis provided in the 2006 EIR are required.
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-85
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
3.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
3.14.1 2006 EIR
The 2006 EIR assumed that General Plan buildout would increase the number of dwelling units
in the City by 14,215 units (approximately 12,515 multi-family units and approximately 1,700
single-family units), for a total of 54,394 dwelling units. Using a population generation factor of
2.19 persons per household, the 2006 EIR indicated 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’s 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 EIR
concluded that since residential growth would substantially increase population growth within
the City (by approximately 43 percent over 2002 population [baseline conditions], and
approximately 10 percent higher than then-existing SCAG projections), impacts pertaining to
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).
The 2006 EIR noted that development under the General Plan Update would occur primarily on
sparse, developable land in the City, by intensifying current land uses and through conversion of
land uses of economically underperforming and obsolete development. The 2006 EIR
determined there would be no impact regarding the displacement of substantial numbers of
existing housing or people necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were required.
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-86
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
3.14.2 PROPOSED PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS
Environmental Issues New
Significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impacts
New Ability
to
Substantially
Reduce
Significant
Impact
No
Substantial
Change
From
Previous
Analysis
POPULATION AND HOUSING–Would the project: a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial number of existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Would the Project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis.
The proposed Project would allow for the development of 159 hotel-branded residences.
Assuming the same population generation factor of 2.19 persons per unit per the City’s General
Plan Update, the proposed Project would generate a residential population of approximately 348
persons. However, using the US Census data generation factor of 2.27 persons per unit (used in
the Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emission report), the Project would generate a total of 361
persons. To be more conservative, this number is assumed as the residential population of the
proposed Project. The increase of 361 in residential population is 5 percent of SCAG’s projected
population growth for the City from 2016 to 2045 of 7,100 residents.
The State has declared that the lack of housing is a critical problem that threatens the economic,
environmental, and social quality of life in California. The consequences of the housing crisis
include the lack of housing to support employment growth, imbalance in jobs and housing,
reduced mobility, urban sprawl, excessive commutes, and air quality deterioration.
As part of the 2006 General Plan Update and 2010 Zoning Code Update, new mixed-use housing
opportunity zones were created throughout the City as a strategy to enhance and revitalize
underperforming and underutilized properties. The Newport Center, where the Project site is
located, is included in a new mixed-use housing opportunity zone. The Airport Area and Newport
Center have proven the most successful with several approved and constructed mixed-use
developments, such as Uptown Newport and Villas Fashion Island. On March 9, 2021, the City
adopted Resolution No. 2021-18 Reducing Barriers to the Creation of Housing (Council Policy K-
4) in an effort to encourage and incentivize the development of mixed-use hotels, with hotel-
branded residential units as an accessory use within a resort complex. This is described in
Section 2.3, Planning Context, of this Addendum. Council Policy K-4 allows for hotels and motels,
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-87
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
located outside of the Coastal Commission Appeal Areas, to convert up to thirty percent of their
permitted hotel and motel rooms into residential units on a one-for-one basis. This would allow
the residential units as accessory use to the principal use of a hotel. The Project proposes
conversion of up to 30 percent of the existing 532 hotel rooms to hotel branded residences.
Therefore, Project implementation would contribute to 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 underutilized areas,
which could induce indirect growth. Therefore, the Project would not induce substantial
unplanned population growth in the City. The Project would not create a new significant impact
pertaining population growth that was not previously analyzed, and no new mitigation measures
are required.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project site is currently
developed with an existing hotel building and associated amenities, surface parking, and
landscaping. No existing residential uses are located on-site. As such, the Project would not
displace existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere, consistent with the conclusions for the 2006 EIR. Therefore, the Project would not
create a new significant impact pertaining to displacement of people or housing that was not
previously analyzed, and no new mitigation measures are required.
Conclusion
The population and housing impacts of the proposed Project would be consistent with the
impacts identified for the 2006 General Plan Update, analyzed in the 2006 EIR. The proposed
Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, (1) no
substantial changes are proposed as part of the proposed Project that would result in new
significant effects or an increase in severity of previous effects; (2) no substantial changes in
circumstances have occurred that would result in new significant effects; and (3) no new
information has become known that was not previously known that would (a) create new
significant impacts, (b) increase the severity of previously examined effects, or (c) determine
that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be
feasible; or (4) introduce mitigation measures that are considerably different from those
analyzed in the 2006 EIR. For these reasons, no major revisions to the population and housing
analysis provided in the 2006 EIR are required.
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-88
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
3.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
3.15.1 2006 EIR
The 2006 EIR found that impacts to fire services from implementation of the General Plan Update
were less than significant. Any new development that would occur under the General Plan
Update would be required to comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local regulations
governing the provision of fire protection services, including adequate fire access, fire flows, and
number of hydrants. Additionally, the General Plan Update policies ensured impacts would be
less than significant.
The 2006 EIR determined that build out of the General Plan would have a less than significant
impact on police services. To maintain acceptable levels of service, the General Plan Update
included policies to ensure adequate law enforcement is provided as the City experiences future
development. To maintain the ratio of 1.7 officers per 1,000 residents (148 officers and 85,120
residents), the Newport Beach Police Department (NBPD) would have had to provide
53 additional officers by General Plan Update 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 deemed speculative to determine
whether a new substation would be considered. The 2006 EIR stated that all new development
would be subject to the City’s project-specific environmental review under CEQA. Therefore, the
2006 EIR found that impacts to police services would be less than significant.
As stated in the 2006 EIR, the Newport-Mesa Unified School District (NMUSD), with a service
area of 58.83 square miles, provides educational services to the City of Newport Beach, City of
Costa Mesa, and other unincorporated areas of Orange County. The Airport Area is served by the
Santa Ana Unified School District (SAUSD). A small portion of the City located in the eastern part
of the City is served by the Laguna Beach Unified School District (LBUSD). The 2006 EIR identifies
that the NMUSD serves the majority of the City and has 32 public schools including 22 elementary
schools, 2 junior high schools, 5 high schools, 2 alternative education centers, and 1 adult school.
There are also several private schools in the City or local area that are available to the City’s
residents for educational services. The General Plan Update included goals and policies to
address capacity issues for NMUSD and SAUSD. Buildout would likely require construction of
new school facilities; however, the 2006 EIR concluded that with compliance with General Plan
policies impacts would be less than significant.
The 2006 EIR stated that parks, although included as a public service in Appendix G of the CEQA
Guidelines, are analyzed separately in Section 4.12 (Recreation) of the 2006 EIR. As such, further
discussion of parks is discussed in Section 3.16, Recreation, of this Addendum.
Upon full buildout of the General Plan Update, the population in the Planning Area would
increase by 31,131. This increase in residents would increase the demand for library services
and facilities. Policy LU 2.8 of the proposed General Plan Update would help ensure that adequate
library facilities are provided to the City’s residents and that public services can adequately
support new development. The Newport Beach Public Library (NBPL) stated that the growing
need for electronic resources, as opposed to physical library resources, is changing. Therefore,
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-89
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
the 2006 EIR stated that due to the growing need for electronic resources, former service
standards (e.g., a certain number of volumes per thousand residents) are no longer appropriate
when assessing the needs of the NBPL. Therefore, increased development in the City does not
necessarily equate to an increase in total volumes or square feet of library space. The 2006 EIR
determined that compliance with policies contained in the General Plan Updated would ensure
that any future identified library need would be adequately met. Impacts to libraries was
determined to be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were required.
3.15.2 PROPOSED PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS
Environmental Issues
New
Significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impacts
New Ability
to
Substantially
Reduce Significant
Impact
No
Substantial
Change
From Previous
Analysis
PUBLIC SERVICES–Would the project:
a) 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 any
of the public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
Would the Project:
a) 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 any of the public services:
i) Fire protection?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD)
provides fire protection services for the entire City. The NBFD is responsible for reducing loss of
life and property from fire, medical, and environmental emergencies. In addition to fire
suppression, the NBFD also provides fire prevention and hazard reduction services. The Fire
Prevention Division works in conjunction with the City’s Planning, Public Works, and Building
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-90
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
Departments to ensure that all new construction and remodels are built in compliance with local
and State building and fire codes, including the provision of adequate emergency access and on-
site fire protection measures. Based on the most recently available information from 2022, the
NBFD’s average response time is four minutes and 22 seconds (City of Newport Beach 2022).
The nearest fire station to the Project site is NBFD Station No. 3 at 868 Santa Barbara Drive,
approximately 0.3 mile north of the Project site. It is unlikely that the implementation of the
Project would result in an appreciable increase in demand for fire services, as the overall units
at the hotel campus would remain the same. Due to the overall unit capacity remaining the same
with implementation of the Project, the Project is not expected to measurably impact average
response times because the Project site’s existing uses are already in the NBFD service area and
are adequately served by the existing NBFD service facilities. Additionally, the proposed
buildings on-site would be constructed in accordance with current applicable fire codes and
would replace the older, on-site building and parking structure that were constructed in the
1970s. Current fire codes are more stringent than the requirements of the past. Also, due to the
Project site’s proximity of less than a mile from the fire station, the Project would be adequately
served by existing fire services, and no new or expanded facilities would be necessary. Therefore,
the proposed Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to fire protection
services that was not previously analyzed, and no new mitigation measures are required.
ii) Police protection?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The NBPD provides local police services to
the City, including the Project site. The Project site is within Area 3 of the NBPD’s service area,
which includes Eastbluff, Bonita Canyon, Big Canyon, Newport Center, Harbor Cove, Bayside
Village, Island Lagoon, Park Newport, Promontory Point, and Balboa Island. The NBPD is located
at 870 Santa Barbara Drive, which is 0.4 miles north of the Project site. Under existing conditions,
the Project site’s hotel uses are served by the NBPD. Due to the overall unit capacity remaining
the same with implementation of the Project, the Project is not expected to measurably impact
average response times because the Project site’s existing uses are already in the NBPD service
area and are adequately served by the existing NBPD service facilities. As such, there would be a
less than significant impact, consistent with the finding of the 2006 EIR. The proposed Project
would not create a new significant impact pertaining to police protection services that was not
previously analyzed, and no new mitigation measures are required.
iii) Schools?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Under existing conditions, the Project site is
occupied by hotel uses and a parking structure, both of which do not generate any demand for
school services. The Project’s 159 hotel branded residences, which is anticipated to generate an
approximate 348-person increase in the City’s population. The Project site is located within the
NMUSD. The Project has the potential to generate school-aged children who would require
school services, although this is a conservative assumption, as the hotel branded residences
would likely be a second home for future residents, and thus, their children may not attend
schools within the City. Based on the student generation rates assumed in the 2006 EIR1 the
1 The 2006 EIR estimated that implementation of the General Plan Update would result in the construction of
approximately 14,215 dwelling units over existing conditions within the City. The increase in DUs would increase
enrollment in the local schools serving Newport Beach. Using California Department of Finance population projections,
and assuming that approximately 20 percent of the potential increase in population would represent children
attending grades K through 12, implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would result in an enrollment
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-91
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
Project’s 159 hotel branded residences would generate approximately 70 school aged students,
with 35 elementary school students, 17 middle school students, and 17 high school students
(City of Newport Beach 2006). As provided under Section 17620 of the California Education Code
and Section 65970 of the California Government Code, the payment of statutory school
development fees would fully mitigate a project’s impacts on schools. Thus, impacts would be
less than significant, and no mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not create a new
significant impact on schools that was not previously analyzed, and no new mitigation measures
are required.
iv) Parks?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed 159 hotel branded residences
would result in a population of approximately 348 persons, which would generate a demand for
parks and recreational facilities. The 159 proposed hotel branded residences would replace 159
traditional hotel rooms at the site, and therefore, the total units at the hotel campus would
remain at 532 units. As the existing hotel guests already generate use of the existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities within the City, implementation
of the Project would not substantially change the characteristics of impacts when compared to
the current condition, as the number of units have not increased as a result of the Project.
Additionally, it should be noted that the hotel branded residences would have access to the
amenities of the existing resort hotel campus, in addition to the amenities that would be
exclusively provided for future residents of the Project. The existing resort hotel campus
includes amenities such as swimming pools and a day spa. The proposed Project would also offer
on-site amenities and open space, including a swimming pool and 899 sf of private open space
per unit, for a total of 142,941 sf of private open space for the residences. The Project would also
provide 9,496 sf of common open space, and 32,424 sf of common indoor space for its residences.
These on-site open space areas are expected to meet some of the demand for recreation facilities
generated by residents of the Project. Project residents would also use nearby City parks and
other public and regional parks. As the Newport Center is in excess of park facilities by 8.1 acres,
this Project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that the Project would result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with parks. Additionally, the property owner or Applicant would be required to pay
City park fees applicable at the time building permits are issued. Therefore, the proposed Project
would not create a new significant impact on parks that was not previously analyzed, and no new
mitigation measures are required.
v) Other public facilities (libraries)?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The 2006 EIR determined there would be less
than significant impact related to other public facilities (i.e., libraries). Under existing conditions,
it is unlikely that the existing uses (i.e., hotel uses) generated demand for library facilities. With
implementation of the Project, 159 existing hotel units would be demolished and replaced with
159 hotel branded residences. Therefore, the demand for library services within the City would
increase of approximately 6,230 students (3,115 elementary school students, 1,557 students for middle schools, and
1,558 high school students) in the Planning Area. The number of elementary, middle, and high school students,
respectively, was divided by the dwelling unit increase of 14,215 to obtain the following student generation ratios
(rounded) for each grade level: 0.22 elementary students, 0.11 middle school students, and 0.11 high school students
per household. These student generation ratios were used to estimate the number of students that the proposed
Project would generate.
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-92
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
be incrementally increased because of the Project’s resident population increase of 348 persons.
The City’s General Plan Arts and Cultural Element does not establish any quantitative standards
for determining the amount of physical library space needed to serve the City’s population.
Additionally, given changes in technology (i.e., the use of electronic media in lieu of physical
library resources), the demand for physical library space based on population-based projections
is speculative, as detailed in the 2006 EIR. The NBPL’s Central library underwent an
approximately 17,000-square-foot expansion in 2013 to service the City’s population; the
addition of approximately 348 persons to the City’s population associated with the Project has
no potential to directly or indirectly create the need to construct a new library or physically
expand an existing library facility (NBPL 2022). Additionally, at the City, library services receive
funding from property tax. As such, a portion of the Project’s tax assessment would be dedicated
to the City’s Library Fund. Therefore, the proposed Project would not create a new significant
impact on other public facilities, specifically libraries, that was not previously analyzed, and no
new mitigation measures are required.
Conclusion
The public services impacts of the proposed Project would be consistent with the impacts
identified for the 2006 General Plan Update, analyzed in the 2006 EIR. The proposed Project
would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, (1) no substantial
changes are proposed as part of the proposed Project that would result in new significant effects
or an increase in severity of previous effects; (2) no substantial changes in circumstances have
occurred that would result in new significant effects; and (3) no new information has become
known that was not previously known that would (a) create new significant impacts, (b) increase
the severity of previously examined effects, or (c) determine that mitigation measures or
alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or (4) introduce
mitigation measures that are considerably different from those analyzed in the 2006 EIR. For
these reasons, no major revisions to the public services analysis provided in the 2006 EIR are
required.
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-93
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
3.16 RECREATION
3.16.1 2006 EIR
The 2006 EIR evaluated parks and recreational facilities on a Citywide basis and by service area.
Twelve service areas were identified. At the time of adoption of the 2006 EIR, there was a deficit
of approximately 38.8 acres of combined park and beach acreage citywide, with seven of the
twelve service areas experiencing a deficit in this combined recreation acreage. However, the
2006 EIR stated that two of the twelve service areas within the City, Newport Center and Harbor
View, had no identified park and recreation needs. The 2006 EIR detailed that there was a park
surplus within the Newport Center service area of 8.1 acres (as of June 2005). Overall, the 2006
EIR found that impacts would be less than significant from increased use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. The construction and enhancement
of park and recreational facilities and implementation of the goals and policies proposed in the
General Plan Update would ensure that increased demand and use resulting from an increase in
the Citywide population would not significantly accelerate the deterioration of existing
recreational facilities.
Regarding inclusion of recreational facilities which may have an adverse physical effect on the
environment, the 2006 EIR noted that the Newport Center park locations have not experienced
development or much disturbance, and aesthetic, biological, or hydrology impacts could occur
from their development as parks. This impact was determined to be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were required.
3.16.2 PROPOSED PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS
Environmental Issues New Significant
Impact
More Severe
Impacts
New Ability to
Substantially
Reduce
Significant
Impact
No Substantial
Change
From
Previous
Analysis
RECREATION–Would the project:
(a) 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?
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-94
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
Would the Project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project site is located within the Newport
Center service area, as detailed in the 2006 EIR. The analysis indicated that there is a park
surplus within the Newport Center service area of 8.1 acres as of June 2005. Overall, the 2006
EIR found that impacts from increased use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated would be less than significant.
The proposed 159 hotel branded residences would result in a population of approximately 348
persons, which would generate a demand for parks and recreational facilities. The 159 proposed
hotel branded residences would replace 159 traditional hotel rooms at the site, and therefore,
the total units at the hotel campus would remain at 532 units. As the existing hotel guests already
generate use of the existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities
within the City, implementation of the Project would not substantially change the characteristics
of impacts when compared to the current condition, as the number of units would not increase
as a result of the Project. Additionally, it should be noted that the hotel branded residences would
have access to the amenities of the existing resort hotel campus, in addition to the amenities
provided for the exclusive use of the future residents of the Project. The existing resort hotel
campus includes amenities such as swimming pools and a day spa. The proposed Project would
also offer on-site amenities and open space, including a swimming pool and 899 sf of private
open space per unit, for a total of 142,941 sf of private open space for the residences. The Project
would also provide 9,496 sf of common open space, and 32,424 sf of common indoor space for
its residents. These on-site open space areas are expected to meet some of the demand for
recreation facilities generated by residents of the Project. Project residents would also use
nearby City parks and other public and regional parks. As the Newport Center is in excess of park
facilities by 8.1 acres, this Project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that physical deterioration would be
accelerated. Therefore, the Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to
increased use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such
that would result in substantial physical deterioration of the facility. No new significant impact
pertaining to existing parks would occur that was not previously analyzed, and no new
mitigation measures are required.
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. As described above, the Project would include
indoor and outdoor active and passive gathering spaces that would be available for use by
residents, in addition to existing, on-site amenities for hotel guests. These areas would be on and
adjacent to the Project site and the physical impacts resulting from the construction of these
facilities have been addressed through the impact analysis presented in this document.
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-95
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
Since the recreation needs of the residents would be partially met on site and the Newport Center
has an excess of parkland, the proposed Project would not result in a substantial increased
demand for recreational facilities, requiring the construction of new parks that would adversely
affect the environment. There are adequate regional parks and recreational facilities that would
serve the Project and meet the potential demand. Additionally, the property owner or Applicant
would be required to pay City park fees applicable at the time building permits are issued.
Therefore, the Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to construction or
expansion of recreational facilities that was not previously analyzed, and no new mitigation
measures are required.
Conclusion
The recreation impacts of the proposed Project would be consistent with the impacts identified
for the 2006 General Plan Update, analyzed in the 2006 EIR. The proposed Project would not
create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, (1) no substantial changes are
proposed as part of the proposed Project that would result in new significant effects or an
increase in severity of previous effects; (2) no substantial changes in circumstances have
occurred that would result in new significant effects; and (3) no new information has become
known that was not previously known that would (a) create new significant impacts, (b) increase
the severity of previously examined effects, or (c) determine that mitigation measures or
alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or (4) introduce
mitigation measures that are considerably different from those analyzed in the 2006 EIR. For
these reasons, no major revisions to the recreation analysis provided in the 2006 EIR are
required.
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-96
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
3.17 TRANSPORTATION
The following analysis summarizes the “Newport Beach Marriott Hotel and Spa – Revised Letter”
(Trip Generation Memorandum), prepared for the Project by Pirzadeh Associates, Inc.
(Pirzadeh), dated January 26, 2022 (Pirzadeh 2022). This technical memorandum is included in
Appendix J of this Addendum.
3.17.1 2006 EIR
The 2006 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 also analyzed the buildout
scenarios, including 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.
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 2006 EIR concluded that impacts related to
alternative transportation would be less than significant.
Additionally, the 2006 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.
Furthermore, the 2006 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 2006 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.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were required.
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-97
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
3.17.2 PROPOSED PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS
Environmental Issues New
Significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impacts
New Ability
to
Substantially
Reduce
Significant
Impact
No
Substantial
Change
From
Previous
Analysis
TRANSPORTATION – Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the
circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Project Trip Generation
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Trip Generation Memorandum evaluated
the anticipated trip generation for the proposed Project. In evaluating the trip generation for
existing and future facilities, trip generation rates published in the latest edition of the Institute
of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition), were used. As shown
in Table 3-11 below, the existing hotel generates 245 AM peak hour trips and 314 PM peak hour
trips, and 4,251 average daily trips (ADT).
TABLE 3-11
TRIP GENERATION – EXISTING HOTEL
ITE #
Land Use
Description Rooms
Peak Hour of Adjacent Street
AM PM
ADT Total IN OUT Total IN OUT
310 Hotel 532 245 137 108 314 160 154 4,251
Source: Pirzadeh 2022.
Table 3-12, below, shows the anticipated trip generation for the proposed hotel branded
residences based on multi-family housing high rise land use trip generation rate. The Project
would generate 43 AM peak hour trips, 51 PM peak hour trips, and 722 average daily trips
(ADTs).
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-98
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
TABLE 3-12
TRIP GENERATION – HOTEL BRANDED RESIDENCES
ITE # Land Use Description DU
Peak Hour of Adjacent Street
AM PM
ADT Total IN OUT Total IN OUT
222 Multi-Family Housing
High Rise 159 43 15 28 51 28 23 722
Source: Pirzadeh 2022.
The anticipated trip generation for the combined existing hotel and the proposed hotel branded
residences are shown in Table 3-13, below. As indicated, the combined scenario results in a total
of 3,702 ADTs.
TABLE 3-13
TRIP GENERATION – EXISTING HOTEL AND HOTEL BRANDED RESIDENCES
Land Use Description
Units/
Rooms
Peak Hour of Adjacent Street
AM PM
ADT Total IN OUT Total IN OUT
Existing Hotel 373 rooms 172 96 76 220 112 108 2,980
Multi-Family Housing High Rise 159 du 43 15 28 51 28 23 722
Total N/A 215 111 104 271 140 131 3,702
Source: Pirzadeh 2022.
Table 3-14 identifies the trip generation comparison between the existing hotel and proposed
hotel branded residences. As shown in this table, the proposed residential development (159
units) with the redeveloped hotel rooms (373 rooms) would generate less trips (30 less AM peak
hour trip, 43 less PM peak hour trips, and 549 fewer ADTs) and hence less traffic on the adjacent
roadways, compared to the existing hotel with 532 hotel rooms.
TABLE 3-14
TRIP GENERATION – TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON
Land Use Description
Units/
Rooms
Peak Hour of Adjacent Street
AM PM
ADT Total IN OUT Total IN OUT
Existing Hotel 532 rooms 245 137 108 314 160 154 4,251
Renovated Hotel / Hotel
Branded Residences
373 rooms
/ 159 du 215 111 104 271 140 131 3,702
Difference N/A -30 -26 -4 -43 -20 -23 -549
Source: Pirzadeh 2022.
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-99
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
Therefore, the proposed Project would not create a new significant traffic impact pertaining to
conflict with a policy or program that was not previously analyzed, and no new mitigation
measures are required.
Alternative Modes of Transportation
The Project site located within a fully developed and urbanized area of the City, where alternative
modes of transportation (e.g., transit, bicycles) are highly encouraged and functional. The
proposed hotel branded residences Project would have no impact pertaining to an applicable
plan, ordinance, or policy supporting alternative transportation and associated facilities (e.g.,
bus stops, bicycle lanes and racks, and pedestrian trails).
The Project would not result in any impacts to the existing alternative transportation in the area,
and additionally, it is anticipated that the Project would not result in increased demand for
alternative transportation that is not already available in the area. Moreover, it is assumed that
future residents of the proposed Project would not rely on public transportation as they would
own their own vehicles. However, existing walkways and bicycle trails in the area would meet
their recreation needs. Therefore, the proposed Project would not create a new significant
impact pertaining to conflict with a policy or program that was not previously analyzed, and no
new mitigation measures are required.
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. On September 27, 2013, Senate Bill (SB) 743
was signed into law and started a process that would change transportation impact analysis as
part of CEQA compliance. Accordingly, transportation analyses for CEQA require analysis of
transportation impacts using vehicle miles traveled (VMT) metrics instead of level of service
(LOS), which was previously the metric used for CEQA transportation analyses. On January 20,
2016, the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) released revisions to its proposed CEQA
guidelines for the implementation of SB 743, and final review and rulemaking for the new
guidelines were completed in December 2018. OPR allowed lead agencies an opt-in period to
adopt the guidelines before the mandatory date adoption of July 1, 2020.
The City’s Policy K-3, Implementation of Procedures for the California Environmental Quality Act,
Item H, Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis Methodology, identifies that the City’s VMT analysis
methodology is supplemented by the City SB 743 VMT Implementation Guide, dated April 6,
2020. It further indicates that land use projects that meet one or more of the criteria provided in
Subsection (2)(a) or (2)(b), would be considered to have a less than significant impact, and no
further VMT analysis would be required. The proposed Project complies with criterion (2)(a)(v),
which state: “The Land Use Project generates a net increase of 300 or less daily trips, utilizing the
most current Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. Credit may apply
for existing uses generating traffic on the site, as outlined in Chapter 15.40 (Traffic Phasing
Ordinance) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code.”
As discussed above under Threshold (a), Table 3-14 identifies the trip generation comparison
between the existing hotel and proposed hotel branded residences. As shown in this table, the
proposed residential development (159 units) with the redeveloped hotel rooms (373 rooms)
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-100
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
would generate less trips (30 less AM peak hour trip, 43 less PM peak hour trips, and 549 fewer
ADTs) and hence less traffic on the adjacent roadways, compared to the existing hotel with 532
hotel rooms. Thus, the proposed Project would not result in any increases in trips, and thus no
VMT analysis is required for the Project.
As such, the Project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.3(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, the proposed Project would not create a
new significant impact, and no new mitigation measures are required.
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Consistent with the analysis in the 2006 EIR,
the proposed Project site and immediate surrounding area do not contain any roadway or other
design features, which could produce significant traffic hazards. For transportation purposes,
onsite circulation for the hotel drop-off/pick-up and parking would not change. Residents and
guests would be directed to a separate entrance on the south side of the property along Newport
Center Drive. This driveway currently provides access from the existing parking structure and is
gate-arm controlled. The new access would align with the existing intersection, which is across
from Cucina Enoteca and Nordstrom at Fashion Island. The new access drive would direct
vehicles to the new porte cochere and where valet service would direct cars into a new
subterranean parking structure. Additionally, a new secondary driveway would be constructed
along the southern boundary of the Project site providing service and fire access from Newport
Center Drive along the western boundary of the property to the Event Lawn. None of these
elements would result in a potential impact related to increase in hazards due to a design feature
or incompatible uses. Additionally, consistency with the General Plan policies would help reduce
hazards due to design features. Therefore, the proposed Project would not create a new
significant impact pertaining to site geometry that was not previously analyzed, and no new
mitigation measures are required.
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The 2006 EIR determined that the 2006
General Plan Update would result in no impacts regarding inadequate emergency access. Onsite
circulation for the hotel drop-off/pick-up and parking would not change. Residents and guests
of the hotel branded residences would be directed to a separate entrance on the south side of the
property along Newport Center Drive. This driveway currently provides access from the existing
parking structure and is gate-arm controlled. The new access would align with the existing
intersection. As indicated above, a new secondary driveway would be constructed along the
southern boundary of the Project site providing service and fire access from Newport Center
Drive along the western boundary of the property to the Event Lawn. Consistent with the
analysis in the 2006 EIR, the Project would meet all applicable local and State regulatory
standards for adequate emergency access. Therefore, the Project would not create a new
significant impact pertaining to emergency access that was not previously analyzed, and no new
mitigation measures are required.
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-101
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
Conclusion
The transportation impacts of the proposed Project would be consistent with the impacts
identified for the 2006 General Plan Update, analyzed in the 2006 EIR. The proposed Project
would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, (1) no substantial
changes are proposed as part of the proposed Project that would result in new significant effects
or an increase in severity of previous effects; (2) no substantial changes in circumstances have
occurred that would result in new significant effects; and (3) no new information has become
known that was not previously known that would (a) create new significant impacts, (b) increase
the severity of previously examined effects, or (c) determine that mitigation measures or
alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or (4) introduce
mitigation measures that are considerably different from those analyzed in the 2006 EIR. For
these reasons, no major revisions to the transportation analysis provided in the 2006 EIR are
required.
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-102
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
3.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
3.18.1 2006 EIR
The Tribal Cultural Resources Section was not included in the CEQA Appendix G Checklist at the
time the 2006 EIR was adopted. This section was added to the checklist in September 2016 and
reflects the requirements of Assembly Bill (AB) 52, requiring consultation with the Native
American tribal governments on projects that were initiated on or after July 1, 2015. The 2006
General Plan Update was not subject to the requirements of AB 52, which is applicable only to a
project that has a Notice of Preparation, a Negative Declaration, or MND filed on or after July 1,
2015. Thus, the 2006 EIR was not required to conduct AB 52 tribal consultation.
Although tribal cultural resources were not explicitly discussed in the 2006 EIR, cultural
resources were addressed in Section 4.4 of the 2006 EIR and Section 3.5 of this Addendum
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were required.
3.18.2 PROPOSED PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS
Environmental Issues
New
Significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impacts
New Ability
to
Substantially
Reduce Significant
Impact
No
Substantial
Change
From Previous
Analysis
TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public
Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place,
cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of
the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object
with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and
that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of
Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical
resources as defined in Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k), or
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be
significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c)
of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the
criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource
Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.
Compliance with Assembly Bill (AB) 52 pertaining to Native American Tribal Consultation is
required for projects with publicly circulated CEQA documents, such as EIRs, MNDs, or NDs filed
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-103
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
on or after July 1, 2015. The present Addendum does not require circulation for public review;
thus, discussion of the tribal consultation process and analysis of impacts to tribal cultural
resources is not required here. However, for informational purposes, an analysis is provided
below.
Would the Project:
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource,
defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape,
sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that
is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a
local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section
5020.1(k)?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project site is within an existing hotel
resort complex, which includes hotel buildings, accessory uses, and amenities. The overall site
has been disturbed, even prior to implementation of the 2006 General Plan Update. As discussed
above in Section 3.5, Cultural Resources, of this Addendum, although the Project site has been
previously disturbed, the area is potentially sensitive for archaeological and tribal cultural
resources. The Project would be required to comply with City Council Policy K-5, which requires
preservation of significant archeological and tribal cultural resources. 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. As such,
compliance with these regulations would ensure impacts to archaeological resources remain less
than significant. Therefore, no new significant impacts that were not previously identified in the
2006 EIR would result that would require a new mitigation measure.
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c)
of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider
the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Consistent with the findings of the 2006 EIR,
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. As discussed above in Section
3.5, Cultural Resources, although the potential for the proposed Project-related grading to have
significant impacts on archaeological and paleontological resources is considered low, the
proposed construction activities could potentially disturb native soils, and therefore,
archaeological or tribal cultural resources may be uncovered at the site. In the event that
archaeological and/or tribal cultural resources are discovered during grading activities, the
California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, CEQA Section 15064.5, and the California Public
Resources Code Section 5097.98 describe procedures for monitoring and protocols to be followed
in the event that archaeological and/or tribal cultural resources are discovered during
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-104
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
construction activities. Therefore, the Project would not create a new significant impact
pertaining to archaeological resources and disruption of human remains, that was not previously
analyzed, and no new mitigation measures are required.
Conclusion
The tribal cultural resources impacts of the proposed Project would be consistent with the
cultural resources impacts identified for the 2006 General Plan Update, analyzed in the 2006 EIR.
The proposed Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines,
(1) no substantial changes are proposed as part of the proposed Project that would result in new
significant effects or an increase in severity of previous effects; (2) no substantial changes in
circumstances have occurred that would result in new significant effects; and (3) no new
information has become known that was not previously known that would (a) create new
significant impacts, (b) increase the severity of previously examined effects, or (c) determine
that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be
feasible; or (4) introduce mitigation measures that are considerably different from those
analyzed in the 2006 EIR. For these reasons, no major revisions to the tribal cultural resources
analysis provided in the 2006 EIR are required.
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-105
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
3.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Information in this section is derived from the “Sewer Analysis Report, The Ritz-Carlton
Residences Newport Beach, Newport Beach, CA” (Sewer Report) and “Water Demand Report,
The Ritz-Carlton Residences Newport Beach, Newport Beach, CA” (Water Report), both prepared
for the Project by Fuscoe Engineering (Fuscoe), dated December 2021 (Fuscoe 2021a and
2021b). The Sewer and Water Reports are included in Appendices E-1 and E-2, respectively.
3.19.1 2006 EIR
Water
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 2006 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 used groundwater and recycled water to supplement their supply.
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.
According to the City of Newport Beach’s 2005 Urban Water Management Plan referenced in the
2006 EIR, water supplies would continue to meet the City’s imported water needs until year
2030. Orange County Water District (OCWD), which provides the groundwater supply to the City,
projects that there would be sufficient groundwater supplies to meet any future demand
requirements in Newport Beach. The water supply impact associated with the City’s water
service boundaries within the Newport Center/Fashion Island Area was determined to be less
than significant.
Wastewater
The 2006 EIR concluded that implementation of the General Plan would produce an additional
4.12 million gallons per day (mgd) of wastewater. The additional 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.
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-106
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
Storm Drainage
The 2006 EIR concluded 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 would require 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 would not exceed storm drainage capacities, and impacts were
determined to be less than significant.
Solid Waste
The 2006 EIR found that impacts on existing solid waste facilities from project-generated solid
waste were less than significant. Development would result in additional solid waste to be
disposed of at the Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary 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 was considered less than significant.
The 2006 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 Section 40000
et seq.) required all local governments to develop source reduction, reuse, recycling, and
composting programs to reduce tonnage of solid waste that would be diverted 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 Section 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 Newport Beach
Municipal Code (NBMC) includes waste recycling requirements in conformance with AB 1327.
The City consistently diverts 50 percent or more of solid waste; therefore, the City is in
compliance with this legislation.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were required.
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-107
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
3.19.2 PROPOSED PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS
Environmental Issues New
Significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impacts
New Ability
to
Substantially
Reduce
Significant
Impact
No
Substantial
Change
From
Previous
Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS – Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or
expanded water, or wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications
facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry
and multiple dry years?
c) 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?
d) 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?
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction
statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Would the Project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis.
Water
The proposed Project consists of 159 hotel-branded residences, representing approximately
30 percent of the total units the VEA Newport Beach, A Marriott Resort and Spa. The proposed
Project would at connect to existing water mains (i.e., existing 12-inch water main on Newport
Center Drive) that are serviced by the City of Newport Beach. The City has indicated that there is
adequate water capacity to serve the proposed Project. Therefore, the Project would not result
in a new significant impact related to new or expanded water facilities, that was not previously
identified, and no mitigation is required.
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-108
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
Wastewater
The following wastewater analysis is derived from the Sewer Report, prepared by Fuscoe for the
Project. According to the Sewer Report, wastewater from the site currently discharges to the
City’s public sewer system through two 8-inch sewer laterals on the east side of the Project site.
The laterals connect to the existing 10-inch sewer main in Newport Center Drive. The existing
manhole loading with flow generation is summarized in Table 3-15, Existing Condition Peak
Wastewater Flows, and the existing and proposed flow increases are presented in Table 3-16,
Existing Sewer with Proposed Condition Flows. The calculations and results presented in the
Sewer Report demonstrate that the existing sewer system would not be adversely impacted by
the wastewater flows associated with the proposed Project.
TABLE 3-15
EXISTING CONDITION PEAK WASTEWATER FLOWS
Manhole
Number Street
Pipe
Size/Slope
Peak Flow
(gpm)
Peak Flow
(cfs)
Flow Depth
(inches)
Percent-
Full
K19_046 Newport Center Drive 10-inch
S=0.88%
151.08
(outflow)
0.337
(outflow)
2.9-inch
(Calibrated) 29%
Gpm: gallons per minute cfs: cubic feet per second
Source: Fuscoe 2021b
TABLE 3-16
EXISTING SEWER WITH PROPOSED CONDITION FLOWS
Manhole
Number Street
Pipe
Size/Slope
Existing
Peak
Flow
(cfs)
Project
Peak
Flow
(cfs)
Proposed
Flow in
Pipe
(cfs)
Proposed
Flow
Depth
(inches)
Proposed
Percent
Full
K19_046 Newport
Center Drive
10-inch
S=0.88% 0.337 0.161 0.498 3.52 35.2%
Gpm: gallons per minute cfs: cubic feet per second
Source: Fuscoe 2021b
The Sewer Report shows that the existing 10-inch sewer main in Newport Center Drive is
currently at 29 percent-full for the existing peak wastewater flows. The proposed development
would connect to the existing 8-inch laterals and discharge into the 10-inch sewer main. The flow
depth of the existing public sewer system with the proposed conditions would be at 35.2 percent-
full and would be in compliance with the City of Newport Beach Design Criteria. Therefore, no
sewer upgrades would be required to accommodate the proposed Project. Therefore, the Project
would not result in a new significant impact related to wastewater treatment, that was not
previously identified, and no mitigation is required.
Storm Water Drainage
Development of the proposed Project would alter the on-site drainage patterns with the
development of the new building, parking structures, and associated site improvements.
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-109
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
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 NBMC. Therefore, stormwater runoff expected at buildout
of the proposed Project would not exceed existing storm drainage capacities, and impacts would
be less than significant.
As discussed under Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the existing drainage pattern is
generally from north to south, toward the roadways to the east, and the golf course to the west.
The intersection of Santa Barbara Drive and Newport Center Drive represents a high point in the
adjacent roadways, with drainage on Santa Barbara Drive flowing northwesterly, and drainage
on Newport Center Drive flowing southerly, following the easterly frontage from the property.
There are existing City of Newport Beach Storm Drain facilities that accept drainage from site
frontage and onsite area drain systems.
Under proposed conditions, runoff would flow similar to the existing conditions. An area drain
system would collect runoff within the Project area and direct low flows to one of three Modular
Wetland Systems (MWS) for water quality treatment. High flows would bypass the biotreatment
system and exit the site. Flows would comingle with offsite runoff from the Newport Beach
Marriot Hotel and Spa. The biotreatment units would be sized for both off-site and on-site flows.
Most flows would travel to the southeast corner of the site, connecting to an existing storm drain
system that ties into an 18-inch storm drain that connects to the existing 42-inch storm drainpipe
along Newport Center Drive. A small portion of runoff (approximately 0.08 acre) would exit the
site to the west and drain to the adjacent golf course. Runoff from the proposed parking structure
(approximately 0.74 acre) would drain easterly and outlet through a curb drain before entering
a catch basin and joining the 42-inch storm drain along Newport Center Drive. After traveling
along Newport Center Drive, flows eventually enter Lower Newport Bay and the Pacific Ocean.
Therefore, the Project would not result in a new significant impact related to storm water
drainage, that was not previously identified, and no mitigation is required.
Electric Power
Southern California Edison (SCE) currently provides electricity to the City of Newport Beach,
including the Project site (SCE 2022). The service would be provided in accordance with SCE’s
policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC).
Therefore, the Project would not result in a new significant impact related to electrical service,
that was not previously identified, and no new mitigation is required.
Natural Gas
The Southern California Gas Company (SCGC) currently provides natural gas service to the City
of Newport Beach, including the Project site (SCGC 2022). The service would be provided in
accordance with SCGC’s policies and extension rules on file with the CPUC. Therefore, the Project
would not result in a new significant impact related to natural gas service, that was not
previously identified, and no new mitigation is required.
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-110
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
Telecommunications
Telecommunications are provided by Spectrum, Cox, and Google Fiber. Local
telecommunications companies operate and maintain transmission and distribution
infrastructure in the Project area. Therefore, the Project would not result in a new significant
impact related to telecommunications facilities, that was not previously identified, and no new
mitigation is required.
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple years?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. According to the Water Report, water for
domestic service and fire protection is provided to the property by the City of Newport Beach.
There is an existing 12-inch asbestos cement pipe (ACP) waterline and two fire hydrants fronting
the Project site along Newport Center Drive. Based on the City’s GIS mapping system, there are
no existing recycled water lines in the vicinity of the Project site. The existing water demand for
the Project site is 136 acre-feet per year (afy), and the proposed water demand would be 187
afy, which means, the development of the proposed hotel branded residences would result in the
additional demand of 51 afy. No additional hydrants would be required. The 2020 UWMP found
that the City’s supply capabilities are expected to balance anticipated total water use and supply
and accommodate normal years, single dry years, and multiple dry-year events. The UWMP
indicated that there is adequate existing and planned water supply to accommodate future
development accounted for in the General Plan, including the Project, and its associated water
demands. Therefore, the Project would not result in a new significant impact related to water
supplies, that was not previously identified, and no new mitigation is required.
c) 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?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. As stated previously, the incremental increase
in wastewater generated by the proposed Project could be accommodated by OCSD’s treatment
plants. 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 developments in
accordance with the General Plan, would be required to comply with all provisions of the NPDES
program and the NBMC and would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements. Therefore,
the Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to wastewater treatment that
was not previously analyzed, and no new mitigation measures are required.
d) 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?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Frank R. 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 (CalRecycle 2022). As
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-111
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
identified in Table 3-16, Estimated Solid Waste Generation, the proposed Project would generate
approximately 1,019 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.
Therefore, the Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to solid waste
disposal that was not previously analyzed, and no new mitigation measures are required.
TABLE 3-17
ESTIMATED SOLID WASTE GENERATION
Units/Square Feet (sf)
Solid Waste
Generation Rate Solid Waste Generation
159 units: multi-family residential 6.41 lbs/unit/day 1,019.19 lbs/day
Total 1,019.19 lbs/day (365 tons/yr)
Source: Newport Beach 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 be recycled and/or salvaged for reuse. AB 341
mandates a statewide solid waste diversion rate of 75 percent by 2020. Therefore, the Project
would not create a new significant impact pertaining to solid waste reduction goals that was not
previously analyzed, and no new mitigation measures are required.
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
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, thus 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. Therefore, the
proposed Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to solid waste regulations
that was not previously analyzed, and no new mitigation measures are required.
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-112
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
Conclusion
The utilities and service systems impacts of the proposed Project would be consistent with the
impacts identified for the 2006 General Plan Update, analyzed in the 2006 EIR. The proposed
Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, (1) no
substantial changes are proposed as part of the proposed Project that would result in new
significant effects or an increase in severity of previous effects; (2) no substantial changes in
circumstances have occurred that would result in new significant effects; and (3) no new
information has become known that was not previously known that would (a) create new
significant impacts, (b) increase the severity of previously examined effects, or (c) determine
that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be
feasible; or (4) introduce mitigation measures that are considerably different from those
analyzed in the 2006 EIR. For these reasons, no major revisions to the utilities and service
systems analysis provided in the 2006 EIR are required.
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-113
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
3.20 WILDFIRE
3.20.1 2006 EIR
Effective December 28, 2018, the State adopted amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines
requiring the analysis and mitigation of wildfire as a separate topic in CEQA documents. The
2006 EIR was adopted prior to the 2018 State CEQA Guidelines amendments, and as such,
responses to wildfire as a separate topic was not addressed.
However, the 2006 EIR addressed exposure of structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires, in Section 4.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. According to the
2006 EIR, the City defines a wildland fire hazard area as any geographic area that contains the
type and condition of vegetation, topography, weather, and structure density that potentially
increases the possibility of wildland fires. The eastern portion of the City and surrounding areas
to the north, east, and southeast include grass- and brush-covered hillsides with significant
topographic relief that facilitate the rapid spread of fire, especially if fanned by coastal breezes
or Santa Ana winds. The 2006 EIR noted that while implementation of the proposed General Plan
Update could result in development in urbanized areas adjacent to or intermixed with wildlands,
thereby exposing people or structures to risks involving wildland fires, this impact would be less
than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were required.
3.20.2 PROPOSED PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS
Environmental Issues New
Significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impacts
New Ability
to
Substantially Reduce
Significant
Impact
No
Substantial
Change From
Previous
Analysis
WILDFIRE– If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the
project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate
wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to,
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled
spread of a wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water
sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire
risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including
downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of
runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-114
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard
severity zones, would the Project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project is not within a State
responsibility area or designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ), as defined by
the California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention (CAL FIRE). The nearest Local
Responsibility Area (LRA)-designated VHFHSZ is located 1.45 miles southeast of the Project site,
within the hillside and open space areas within the City (CAL FIRE 2011).
Temporary lane closures on adjacent streets may be required during the short-term
construction period. However, Project construction would not involve full closure of any public
roadway during construction. Additionally, because Checklist Response thresholds 3.20a
through 3.20d apply only to those projects that are “located in or near state responsibility areas
or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones”, no impacts related to these thresholds
would occur, and no mitigation is required. Therefore, the Project would not create a new
significant impact to emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans, and no new
mitigation measures are required.
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and
thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project site is in a highly urbanized area
of the City, and there are no large, undeveloped areas and/or steep slopes on or near the site that
would exacerbate fire risks such that would expose the Project and its occupants to wildfire
related hazards. The site and the surrounding areas are not located in designated VHFHSZ, as
identified by CAL FIRE. Rather, the site is within a Non-VHFHSZ area. Therefore, the Project is
not expected to exacerbate wildfire risks and create pollutants associated with wildfire or
uncontrolled spread of wildfire. Additionally, because Checklist Response thresholds 3.20a
through 3.20d apply only to those projects that are “located in or near state responsibility areas
or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones”, the Project would not create a new
significant impact pertaining to exacerbation of fire risks, and no new mitigation measures are
required.
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads,
fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. As previously described, the proposed Project
is not within a designated VHFHSZ as defined by CAL FIRE. The site is located in a highly
urbanized area and surrounded by developed land on all sides. All proposed structures would
be constructed to meet current building and fire codes. Implementation of the proposed Project
and maintenance of associated infrastructure would not exacerbate fire risk such that would
result in a significant temporary or ongoing impact. Additionally, because Checklist Response
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-115
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
thresholds 3.20a through 3.20d apply only to those projects that are “located in or near state
responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones”, the Project would
not create a new significant impact pertaining to installation or maintenance of associated
infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk, and no new mitigation measures are required.
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage
changes?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. As previously described, the proposed Project
is not within a designated VHFHSZ as defined by CAL FIRE. The Project is in a highly urbanized
area that is in a generally flat topographical area away from downslope or landslide areas.
Specifically, implementation of the Project would not expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire
slope instability, or drainage changes. Additionally, Checklist Response thresholds 3.20a through
3.20d apply only to those projects that are “located in or near state responsibility areas or lands
classified as very high fire hazard severity zones”. Therefore, the Project would not create a new
significant impact pertaining to exposure or 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, and no new mitigation measures are required.
Conclusion
The wildfire impacts of the proposed Project would be consistent with the impacts identified for
the 2006 General Plan Update, analyzed in the 2006 EIR. The proposed Project would not create
a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects.
In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, (1) no substantial changes are proposed
as part of the proposed Project that would result in new significant effects or an increase in
severity of previous effects; (2) no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred that
would result in new significant effects; and (3) no new information has become known that was
not previously known that would (a) create new significant impacts, (b) increase the severity of
previously examined effects, or (c) determine that mitigation measures or alternatives
previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or (4) introduce mitigation
measures that are considerably different from those analyzed in the 2006 EIR. For these reasons,
no major revisions to the wildfire analysis provided in the 2006 EIR are required.
Environmental Checklist
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 3-116
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
This page intentionally left blank
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 4-1
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
4.0 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the analysis provided in this Addendum, there is substantial evidence to determine that
(1) the proposed Project does not represent a substantial change from the previously approved
project evaluated in the 2006 EIR; (2) no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the
circumstances under which the proposed Project is undertaken; and (3) the proposed Project
has not introduced new information of substantial importance that was not previously known.
The proposed Project would not have any new or substantially more severe impacts than what
was evaluated in the 2006 EIR. No new Mitigation Measures are recommended in addition to
those adopted at the time the 2006 EIR was certified that would further reduce Project impacts.
The 2006 EIR, when considered in conjunction with this Addendum, provides adequate
documentation, pursuant to the CEQA for the Project.
Conclusions
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 4-2
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
This page intentionally left blank
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 5-1
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
5.0 REFERENCES
Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). 2008 (April 17, Amended). Airport Environs Land Use
Plan for John Wayne Airport.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2019 (August, last updated). Maps of State Area
Designations. Sacramento, CA: CARB.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/maps-state-and-federal-area-
designations.
———. 2018 (October, last updated). Maps of Federal Area Designations. Sacramento, CA: CARB.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/maps-state-and-federal-area-
designations.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention (CAL FIRE). 2011 (October). Newport
Beach—Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA as Recommended by CAL FIRE.
Sacramento, CA: CAL FIRE.
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5891/c30_newportbeach_vhfhsz.pdf.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2022 (February 8, last accessed). California
State Scenic Highway System Map - ArcGIS Online. Sacramento, CA: Caltrans.
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e80
57116f1aacaa.
CalRecycle. 2022 (March 7, date accessed). SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details: Frank R.
Bowerman Sanitary LF (30-AB-0360).
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/2767?siteID=2103.
EBI Consulting. 2020 (September 8). Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Marriott Newport
Beach, 900 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, California 92660, EBI Project No.
I320000294. Burlington, MA: EBI.
Environmental Science Associates (ESA). 2022a (January 26). The Ritz-Carlton Residences -
Biological Resources Technical Memorandum. Irvine, CA: ESA. Appendix B.
———. 2022b (January 2022). CONFIDENTIAL—NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION—Newport
Center Project, Newport Beach, California, Cultural Resources Assessment Report.
Pasadena, CA: ESA.
———. 2022c (January 2022). Final 900 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, California—
Historic Resource Assessment. Los Angeles, CA: ESA.
———. 2022d (January 2022). Confidential Paleontological Resources Assessment for the
Newport Center Project; City of Newport Beach, Orange County, California. Irvine, CA:
ESA.
References
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 5-2
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
Fuscoe Engineering. 2021a. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), Ritz-Carlton
Residences, Newport Beach, California. Irvine, CA: Fuscoe.
———. 2021b. Preliminary Hydrology Report, The Ritz-Carlton Residences Newport Beach,
Newport Beach, California. Irvine, CA: Fuscoe.
———. 2021c. Sewer Analysis, The Ritz-Carlton Residences Newport Beach, Newport Beach,
California. Irvine, CA: Fuscoe.
———. 2021d. Water Demand Report, The Ritz-Carlton Residences Newport Beach, Newport
Beach, California. Irvine, CA: Fuscoe.
Larry Seeman Associates (LSA). 2022a (February 8). Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis—
The Ritz-Carlton Residences Project, Newport Beach, California. Clovis, CA: LSA.
Appendix A of this Addendum.
———. 2022b (February 8). Energy Report—The Ritz-Carlton Residences Project, Newport
Beach, California. Clovis, CA: LSA. Appendix D of this Addendum.
———. 2022c (February 8). Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis—The Ritz-Carlton Residences
Project, Newport Beach, California. Irvine, CA: LSA. Appendix J of this Addendum.
Newport Beach, City of. 2022 (January 26, last accessed). Emergency Medical Services. Newport
Beach, CA: the City. https://www.newportbeachca.gov/government/departments/fire-
department/emergency-medical-services-division.
———. 2015. North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan. Newport Beach,
CA: City of Newport Beach.
———. 2006. City of Newport Beach General Plan. Newport Beach, CA: City of Newport Beach.
https://www.newportbeachca.gov/government/departments/community-
development/planning-division/general-plan-codes-and-regulations/general-plan.
Newport Beach Public Library (NBPL). 2022 (January 27, last accessed). Central Library.
Newport Beach, CA: the City. https://www.newportbeachlibrary.org/about/hours-and-
locations/central-library.
NMG Geotechnical, Inc. 2022 (January 19). Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration and Plan for
the Ritz-Carlton Residences Tower and Parking Structures at 900 Newport Center Drive,
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 19222, City of Newport Beach, California. Irvine, CA:
NMG.
Pirzadeh Associates, Inc. 2022 (January 26.) Newport Beach Marriott Hotel and Spa – Revised
Letter. Irvine, CA: Pirzadeh.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2022 (February 25, last accessed). Fact
Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds. Diamond Bar, CA:
SCAQMD. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-
significance-thresholds/caleemod-guidance.pdf.
References
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 5-3
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
———. 2019 (April, Revision). SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. Diamond Bar, CA:
SCAQMD. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-
quality-significance-thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=2.
———. 2017. Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Diamond Bar, CA: SCAQMD.
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/clean-air-plans/air-quality-mgt-plan.
———. 2016 (February). National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California
Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) Attainment Status for South Coast Air Basin.
Diamond Bar, CA: SCAQMD. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-
plans/air-quality-management-plans/naaqs-caaqs-feb2016.pdf?sfvrsn=2.
———. 2010 (September 28). Minutes for the GHG Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working
Group #15. Diamond Bar, CA: SCAQMD.
———. 2009. Localized Significance Thresholds. Diamond Bar, CA: SCAQMD.
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-
handbook/localized-significance-thresholds
Southern California Edison (SCE). 2022 (March 8, date accessed). Our Service Territory. SCE
Territory Map | Leadership | Who We Are | About Us | Home - SCE. Rosemead, CA: SCE.
Southern California Gas Company (SCGC). 2022 (March 8, date accessed). Company Profile.
http://www.socalgas.com/about-us/company-info.shtml. San Diego, CA: SCGC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2014 (December 9). Clean Data Determination
for 1997 PM2.5 Standards; California—South Coast; Applicability of Clean Air Act
Requirements. Federal Register 79(236): 72999–73007. Washington, D.C.: USEPA.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-12-09/pdf/2014-28709.pdf#page=1.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2021 (November 30, last accessed). Areas of Land Subsidence in
California. Washington, DC: USGS.
https://ca.water.usgs.gov/land_subsidence/california-subsidence-areas.html
References
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES 5-4
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PEIR
This page intentionally left blank