HomeMy WebLinkAboutNorth Newport Center PC_ (PA2007-151)CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
SUPPLEMENTAL PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
November 29, 2007
Agenda Item 1
SUBJECT: North Newport Center Planned Community (PA2007 -151)
500 -600 Blk Newport Center Drive, 42000 Blk San Joaquin Plaza
• Code Amendment No. CA2007 -007
• PC Development Plan Amendment No. PD2007 -003
• Development Agreement No. DA2007 -002
• Traffic Study No. TS2007 -001
APPLICANT: The Irvine Company
CONTACT: Patrick J. Alford, Senior Planner
(949) 644 -3235 palford(&city.newport- beach.ca.us
At the November 15, 2007 meeting on the proposed project, the Planning Commission
requested additional information regarding provisions for setbacks and parking in the
proposed Planned Community (PC) Development Plan. This information is provided in
this supplemental staff report.
The Planning Commission also requested additional information on traffic issues,
including the regression equation used in the traffic study. This information is provided
in a separate memorandum (Exhibit 1).
The applicant has proposed revisions to the proposed PC Development Plan in
response to comments made by the Planning Commission at the November 15, 2007
meeting. Revised sections of the proposed PC Development Plan are provided in
underline /strikeout format (Exhibit 2).
Draft resolutions recommending approval of the project to the City Council are provided
as Exhibits 4 -9.
Setback Requirement:
The proposed PC Development Plan outlines setback requirements for each of the sub-
areas. Setbacks are typically measured from property lines and in the case where a
public roadway shares a property line, the setback would be measured from the edge of
the right -of -way. The PC Development Plan was not clear regarding this practice;
however, it is now revised to clarify that setbacks will be measured from the property
line (Exhibit 2).
North Newport Center PC
November 29, 2007
Page 2
Peak Seasonal /Special Event Parking:
Currently the Fashion Island Planned Community Development Plan and District
Regulations contain parking requirements for Peak Seasonal and Special Events.
Specifically, the requirement is as follows:
Peak Seasonal and Special Event Parking Requirements. Parking
shall be provided at a rate of 4 parking spaces for each 1,000 sq. ft.
including the square feet utilized by theater uses. Parking shall be
provided pursuant to this ratio either on -site, or through a combination of
on -site and off -site parking, and possibly, trip reduction strategies. An off-
site parking program shall be subject to the review and approval of the
City Traffic Engineer and the Police Department, and may include the use
of a wide variety of programs which include but are not limited to use of
off -site parking in association with a shuttle system, use of on- street
parking, or the implementation of trip reduction strategies for either
employees or patrons which are demonstrated to reduce parking demand.
This requirement has been met through the use of a parking management plan that has
been in effect for several years. The proposed PC Development Plan did not intend to
eliminate this requirement. Therefore, the PC Development Plan has been revised to
retain the original Fashion Island PC language regarding the Peak Seasonal and
Special Event Parking requirement (4 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft.), which in turn would
keep any management plan in place.
Parking Management Plans:
A Parking Management Plan is a tool that is commonly used for "mixed -use" areas.
These plans assess and address parking needs on an area -wide basis rather than a
parcel by parcel or use by use basis. The primary goal of a parking management plan
is to achieve the most efficient use of available parking areas as well as reduce traffic
congestion.
Typically a plan would provide for two or more uses that have distinct and differing peak
parking usage periods (e.g. a theater and a bank), thus allowing a reduction in the
required number of parking spaces, and /or use alternate parking strategies such as
valet services, tandem parking and shuttle services to meet demands. Mixed -use areas
that contain a variety of land uses typically have differing peak periods that can
accommodate common and joint use parking facilities. North Newport Center maintains
a wide variety of land uses such as office, commercial and recreational uses that can
capitalize on alternated parking strategies. Included in the proposed PC Text are
provisions that encourage the use of Parking Management Plans.
North Newport Center PC
November 29, 2007
Page 3
Parking Standards:
The PC Development Plan has been revised to increase the parking requirements for
offices and medical offices to match current Zoning Code standards (1 space per 250
square feet and 1 space per 200 square feet, respectively). The table below provides a
comparison of proposed and existing parking requirements for each of the four sub-
areas of the proposed PC Development Plan.
Parkin Com
arison Table
Proposed
Fashion
San
Block 600
Land Use
North
Island
Joaquin
Block 500
(Zoning
Newport
PC Text
Plaza PC
PC Text
Code)
Center
Text
Regional
Commercial
3 per 1000 sf
3 per 1000 sf
N/A
N/A
N/A
Movie Theater
3 per 1000 sf
3 per 1000 sf
NBMC
NBMC
NBMC
1 per 3 seats
1 per 3 seats
1 per 3 seats
NBMC
1 per 375 sf
Office
1 per 250 sf
N/A
1 per 250 sf
1 per 375 sf
(approved by
(reductions
net floor area
use permit)
allowed
NBMC MC
1 per 375 sf
Medical Office
1 per 200 sf
N/A
1 per sf
1 per 250 sf
(approved by
use permit)
NBMC
NBMC
NBMC
NBMC
NBMC
Hotel
1 per 2 guest
1 per 2 guest
1 per 2 guest
1 per 2 guest
1 per 2 guest
rooms
rooms
rooms
rooms
rooms
2 per unit (1
covered)
Guest — 0.5 per
Residential
unit up to 50-
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
unit, 0.25 per
unit thereafter
1
Other uses
permitted
through PC
NBMC
NBMC
NBMC
NBMC
NBMC
Text or Zoning
(1) Municipal Code
2 per unit, including 1 covered, plus 1 for quest parking, for 3 or more units;
2 per unit, including 1 covered, plus 0.5 per unit for guest parking, for 4 or more units.
NIA Not permitted under existing PC Text or Zoning
North Newport Center PC
November 29, 2007
Page 4
Submitted by:
Sharon Z. Wood, istant y Manager
EXHIBITS
1. Traffic memorandum
2. Revised sections of the North Newport Center PC Development Plan (under separate cover)
3. FOR for the City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update (CD under separate cover)
4. Draft resolution recommending approval of the Addendum
5. Draft resolution recommending approval of code /PC amendments
6. Draft resolution recommending approval of Traffic Study TS2007 -001
7. Draft resolution recommending approval of the Transfer of Development Rights
8. Draft resolution recommending approval of the Affordable Housing Implementation Plan
9. Draft resolution recommending approval of Development Agreement DA2007 -002
10. Correspondence
F1USERSIPLNISharedlPA's1PAs - 20071PA2007- 15112007 -11- 2912007.11 -29 PC Staff Repwtdoc
EXHIBIT 1
(- /
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1.2
WAWA115T 1N- F0JV5rA5$0C1ATE5, INC.
TRAFFIC ENOINEERINO AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Tony Brine, City of Newport Beach
FROM: Joe E. Foust, P.E.
DATE: November 20, 2007
SUBJECT: NEWPORT CENTER OFFICE TRIP RATES
Commissioner Barry Eaton has requested additional information to substantiate the use of ITE's
regression equation for the determination of trip equivalency in Newport Center.
To determine the trips generated by both the existing office uses as well as the proposed new
uses, Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. (AFA) relied upon ITE's published trip generation regression equation
for general office buildings. This regression equation was developed based upon case studies of 235
office projects ranging from less than 10,000 square feet (sf) up to 1 million sf, with an average of
216,000 sf. With such an extensive database behind it, this particular regression equation is regarded as
one of the most reliable in ITE's extensive inventory of trip rates.
With respect to Commissioner Eaton's impression that use of this regression equation to estimate
office trips is "a seldom used technique" is not really the case. For most office projects that 1 am familiar
with, the use of the published ITE regression equations is quite commonplace. Commissioner Eaton is
correct in his understanding that as the size of the office development increases, the trip rate per thousand
square feet (TSF) decreases. The ITE regression equation only replicates this fact. Further, of the 235
office projects included in the entire database, only about 10 exceed 750,000 sf. For the vast majority,
over 90 percent of the database is made -up of offices from 50,000 sf to 500,000 sf.
In summary, 1 would respond to Commissioner Eaton's question by noting that one of the most
reliable of all of ITE trip rates (i.e., the office trip regression equation) was utilized in the analysis and the
use of that approach provides the fairest of all comparison techniques. The equation does reflect the fact
that the trip rate is reduced as total office size increases, but that is a simple fact of life and any analysis to
be truly fair needs to acknowledge this.
onos0=.doe
2223 Wellington Avenue, Suite 300 • Santa Ana, California 92701 -3161
Tel: (714) 667 -0496 Fax: (714) 667 -7952
www.austinfoust.com
1.3
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1.9
Revised sections of the North Newport Center PC
Development Plan (under separate cover)
EXHIBIT 2
2 -!
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
7.1
1
1
i
I
Lang U$ e
Section 1{}{, Introdu
s ction
San o��'- - - -__
aquin
a�
r sa17ta .._.
North ry es
9 9/&5 Aorl Center Planned Community D
eveloPment Plan
■
�je� ► �y�_ --
Planners Community
Not Included jR Plft7ed Comm,"y
Figure S _ Sau 9
iDaquill pi4za Sub-Area
�C.,
v
N't
o�
Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures
Section HIM Site Development Standards
2. No buildings within the North Newport Center Planned Community area shallsheald
penetrate the FAA Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77 imaginary obstruction
surface for John Wayne Airport.
3. Applicants shall file a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration with the FAA
(Form 7460 -1) for any construction cranes that exceed 200 feet in height above ground
level.
b. Shade Standards
Prior to issuance of a building permit for a structure over 200 feet in height that has the potential to
shade residential areas north of San Joaquin Hills Road, a shade study shall be prepared by the
applicant and submitted to the City. The shade study shall demonstrate that the new development will
not add shade to the designated residential areas beyond existing conditions for more than three hours
between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Pacific Standard Time, or for more than four hours
between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time.
The shade study shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the Planning Director and the Planning
Director shall determine conformance with the standards identified herein as part of the plan review
process.
B. Setback Requirements
Setbacks for the four sub -areas are listed below. Setbacks for surface parking must be screened using
hedges, landscaping or other similar methods. Unless ether wise stated, setbacks Setbacks are the
minimum distance from the property line to building, parking structure, or parking lot.
Fashion Island
Newport Center Drive: 10 feet; may be reduced to 0 feet by the Planning Director
through the plan review process.
Block 500
Newport Center Drive: 15 feet
Santa Rosa: 15 feet
San Joaquin Hills: 15 feet
San Nicolas: 15 feet
Block 600
Newport Center Drive: 15 feet
Santa Cruz: 15 feet
San Simeon: 15 feet — setbacks for parking structure access points may be reduced by
the Planning Director through the plan review process
San Joaquin Hills: 15 feet — setbacks for parking structure access points may be reduced
by the Planninz Director through the plan review process
Santa Rosa: 15 feet
Center Drive (e /w): 0 feet
Center Drive (n /s): 0 feet
North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan 14
11/8/07
Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures
Section 111111. Site Development Standards
San Joaquin Plaza
San Joaquin Hills: 15 feet
Santa Cruz: 15 feet
San Clemente: 15 feet
Santa Barbara: 15 feet
C. Parking Requirements
1. General Standards
Parking requirements are based on gross floor area (as defined in the Development Limits for Fashion
Island) for regional commercial uses, net floor area for office /commercial uses, and unit counts for
hotel rooms and residential units. Kiosks for retail sales, covered or uncovered, shall not be included
in the calculation of required parking. Accessory, ancillary and resident support uses for hotel and
residential developments shall not be included in the calculation of required parking.
Parking requirements for North Newport Center are shown below on Table 4, North Newport Center
Parking Requirements.
Table 4 - North Newport Center Parking Requirements
Land Use
Parking Requirement
Regional Commercial
3 spaces per 1,000 square feet?
Movie Theater
3 spaces per 1,000 square feet
Office
1 space per 375 square feet
Medical Office
unidval Code
Hotel
Municipal Code
Residential
2 spaces per unit includes 1 covered; plus 0.5 spaces per unit up
to 50 units, then 0.25 spaces per unit thereafter for guest parking
Other
Municipal Code
For San Joaquin Plaza a parking management plan shall be required to utilize the parking ratios
identified in Table 4 to demonstrate Rrovision of adequate parking If a parking management plan is
not prepared for San Joaquin Plaza parking shall be provided Der the Municipal Code
2. On- Street Parking
On- street parking shall be counted towards the parking requirement as shown in Table 5, On -Street
Parking.
Table 5 — On- Street Parking
Sub-Area
On-Street Parking
Fashion Island
Adjacent on- street parking on Newport Center Drive
Block 500
Adjacent on -sheet parking on Newport Center Drive and San Nicolas
Block 600
Adjacent on- street parking on Newport Center Drive
1 The parking requirement dudng the peak seasonal period Is 4 spaces per 1000 square feet per an existing parking management plan
North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan 15
11/8/07
Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures
Section 111111. Site Development Standards
3. Valet Parking
Valet parking and satellite parking with shuttle service that involves use of the public right -of -way
shall require approval by the City Traffic Engineer.
4. Parking Management Plan
Parking management plans may be prepared if the applicant wishes to deviate from the parking
standards identified above.
Parking management plans may address issues such as modified parking requirements based upon
complimentary peak hour demand of uses, off peak shared parking between sub - areas, drop off and
valet services on private property, and tandem parking.
Parking management plans shall be prepared by an independent traffic engineer at the applicant's
expense. Parking management plans shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer prior to the
issuance of building permits.
D. Landscaping
Landscaping shall be installed subject to the following standards; and maintained in a healthy, weed -
free condition, free of litter and so as not to interfere with traffic safety
1. Surface Parking Lot Landscaping: Parking lots shall be landscaped at a minimum of I
tree per 5 parking spaces. The minimum size of trees shall be 24 -inch box.
2. Water Conservation: Satellite linked irrigation controllers or appropriate best
management practices shall be incorporated into landscape design for new construction.
E. Lighting
Parking lots and walkways accessing building and parking areas shall be illuminated with a minimum
maintained 0.5 foot -candle on the driving or walking surface during the hours of operation and one
hour thereafter.
Indirect, decorative halo banding along the top of buildings is permitted.
F. Signs
1. General Sign Standards
All permanent and temporary signs in North Newport Center that are visible from public right -of-
ways and public property shall be consistent with the provisions of these sign standards, unless
otherwise approved by the Planning Director. All permanent and temporary signs that are not visible
from public right -of -ways are not limited in quantity, size, location, or design. Sign illumination is
permitted for all sign types.
Signs that are visible from public right -of -ways must consist of individual fabricated letters; or
routed -out letters in an opaque background. Enclosed "box" or "can" signs are not permitted, unless
they are logos.
North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan is
11/8/07
Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures
Section III41. Site Development Standards
All commercial uses are permitted to place at each entry an incidental sign located at or below eye
level to be visible to pedestrians, and shall not exceed six square feet.
In addition to other signs permitted in this section, signs used to give direction to vehicular or
pedestrian traffic are permitted. Skin content shall not be limited.Said signs shall eeffw °
a&ef4isiag inessa°° and Signs shall be subject to the review of the City Traffic Engineer to ensure
adequate sight distance in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Code. Directional signs
that are visible from public right -of -ways are limited to a maximum of 10 square feet in size but are
not limited in quantity, location, or design. Temporary signs that are visible from public right -of -ways
and intended to be displayed for 60 days or less are permitted for purposes related to special events,
holiday activities and store openings. Detailed standards for temporary signs are contained below.
A comprehensive sign program may be prepared if the applicant wishes to deviate from the sign
standards identified herein. Comprehensive sign programs shall be submitted for review and
consideration in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Code. Sign programs in place prior
to this writing including the Island Hotel and Leasing Sign Programs shall remain in place.
2. Restricted Sign Types
Signs visible from public right -of -ways are subject to the following restrictions:
a. No rotating, flashing, blinking, or signing with animation shall be permitted on a
permanent basis.
b. No signs shall be permitted which imitate or resemble official traffic signs or signals.
C. No wind signs or audible signs are permitted.
Animated signs visible from public streets are not allowed unless otherwise permitted by the
Municipal Code.
3. Sign Standards for Fashion Island
In addition to the general sign standards identified above, specific sign standards for Fashion Island
are provided in Table 6, Fashion Island Sign Standards below.
Table 6 =, Fashion Island Sign Standards
Sign Type
Location
Maximum Number
Maximum Sign
Size
Maximum Letter/
Logo Height
Shopping Center
Each vehicle entry drive
2 per entry drive
100 square feet
Identification Sign
location
one on each side)
10 feet high
Major Tenant Sign
Exterior walls or parapets
1 sign per building
—
10 feet
of buildings
elevation (maximum
(sign ilWrninatien
4 signs for each
permitted)
major tenant)
North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan 17
11/8/07
Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures
Section lip. Site Development Standard
) —= Not Regulated
4. Sign Standards for Mixed -Use Blocks
In addition to the general sign standards identified above, specific sign standards for the Mixed -Use
blocks are provided in Table 7, Sign Standards for Mixed -Use Blocks below.
Primary building address numbers shall be visible from the street (and /or pedestrian walkways in the
case of necessity), and be located on the building so that they are visible from adjacent frontage roads
and designated parking areas, except for the buildings at 500 and 550 Newport Center Drive, which
have their primary address numbers on the cubes along Newport Center Drive. Secondary address
signs may be located where appropriate for on -site orientation and safety. All address signs shall have
a consistent color, design, and material for any given building. A single letter style is recommended.
Table 7 — Sign Standards for Mixed -Use Blocks
Maximum Sign
Maximum Letter/
Sign Type
Location
Maximum Number
Size
Logo Height
Freestanding
Exterior walls or parapets
1 sign per building
15 feet high
3 feet
Commerclal
of buildings
elevation (maximum
15 feet wide
(sign ffillu4natiaa
Santa Cruz Drive
1
4 signs for each
24 inches
pewHitted)
at Newport Center Drive
building or structure)
15 feet Wide
Monument
1 per building
50 square feet
—
at San Joaquin Hills Road
(1 per corner)
5 feet high
(s g �i4tualiaa6er}
Tenant Sign
Exterior elevations of
1 square foot per
—
shopping center and facing
each lineal foot of
(siga illWFrtiaatien
Newport Center Drive
storefront (not to
Perxaitted)
exceed 100 square
feet)
Theater Signs
Facing Newport Center
1
—
Theater Name:
Drive (Exterior wall or
5 feet
parapet of building which
Each Show Title:
theater occupies, free
3 feet high
standing, or on adjacent
15 feet wide
parking structure)
(s'"" ilkimination
Store Address Signs
Each entry to store
1 per store entry
6 square feet
—
Entry Marker Signs
To be approved by
7 signs
36 square feet (with
—
Planning Director
2 -foot overhang)
(siga ititxaiAat eR
15 feet high
$efn+ *4)
) —= Not Regulated
4. Sign Standards for Mixed -Use Blocks
In addition to the general sign standards identified above, specific sign standards for the Mixed -Use
blocks are provided in Table 7, Sign Standards for Mixed -Use Blocks below.
Primary building address numbers shall be visible from the street (and /or pedestrian walkways in the
case of necessity), and be located on the building so that they are visible from adjacent frontage roads
and designated parking areas, except for the buildings at 500 and 550 Newport Center Drive, which
have their primary address numbers on the cubes along Newport Center Drive. Secondary address
signs may be located where appropriate for on -site orientation and safety. All address signs shall have
a consistent color, design, and material for any given building. A single letter style is recommended.
Table 7 — Sign Standards for Mixed -Use Blocks
North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan 18
11/8107
Maximum
Maximum Letterf
Sign Type
Location
Maximum Number
Sign Size
Logo Height
Project Identification
Santa Rosa Drive
2
15 feet high
24 inches
Sign
at San Joaquin Hills Road2
(1 per comer)
15 feet wide
Santa Cruz Drive
1
15 feet high
24 inches
at Newport Center Drive
15 feet Wide
Santa Cruz Drive
2
15 feet high
24 inches
at San Joaquin Hills Road
(1 per corner)
15 feet wide
North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan 18
11/8107
Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures
Section II . Site Development Standards
= Not Requisted
North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan 19
11/8/07
Maximum
Maximum Lotted
Sign Type
Location
Maximum Number
Sign Size
Logo Haight
San Clemente Drive
1
5 feet high
181nches
at Santa Cruz Drive
12 feet wide
San Clemente Drive
1
5 feet high
81 Inches
at Santa Barbara
16 feet wide
Tenant Identification
San Nicolas Drive at Newport
1
5 feet high
5 inches
Signs
Center Drive
5 feet wide
Between 500 and 550 Newport
1
4 feet high
18 inches
Center Drive
12 feetinshes
wide
Newport Center Drive
2
5 feet high
5 inches
and Santa Rosa
(1 per comer)
5 feet wide
4
5 feet high
649al
3 inches
N seiss
-wi&
Black 600: Along Newport Center
5
5 feet high
5 inches
Drive
5 feet wide
Block 600: Along Santa Cruz Drive
21
677 feet high
5 inches
15-6 feet wide
San Joaquin Plaza: Along San
1 each
6 feet high
5 Yz inches for Tenant
Joaquin Hills Road; Santa Cruz
12 feet wide
Identification
Drive; along San Clemente DFive
18 inches for Project
San Clement Drive
Identification
Landscape Wall Sign
Block 500: facing Newport Center
18 inches
Drive
Block 600: facing streets
2 facing San Joaquin
—
18 inches
Hills; 5 facing Newport
Center Drive;1 facing
Santa Rosa
Building Signs
On building elevation
2 per Primary Tenant
1 per Secondary
—
Primary Tenant -
24 inches
Tenant
Secondary Tenant -
16 Inches
Building Address
On building elevation
1 each
24 inches
Signs
(additional address
signs may be located
where appropriate for
on -site orientation
Freestanding Building
Address Signs
Santa Rosa Drive at Newport
Center Drive; San Nicolas Drive at
Newport Center Drive; Santa Cruz
1 each
18 inches
at Newport Center Drive• Star
Joaquin Hills Road
Advisory Signs
Parking Lots
As appropriate for
4 feet high
safety and Crisntabon
Drive Through Signs
1 per tenant per
8 feet wide
15 inches
elevation, up to 2 on
walls of structure
= Not Requisted
North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan 19
11/8/07
Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures
Section IL144. Site Development Standards
5. Temporary Signs
The following standards are intended to produce consistent sign design for temporary signs within
Newport Center. Temporary signs are to identify a future site or project; or a facility under
development or offered for lease. Temporary signs that are visible from public right -of -ways and
identify new construction or remodeling may be displayed for the duration of the construction period
beyond the 60 -day limit. Signs mounted on a construction fence are allowed during construction and
may be rigid or fabric. The top of the sign must be no greater than 20 feet above grade.
Maximum Number: One (I) temporary sign is permitted on a site for each frontage street, up
to two (2) signs per building, but not at the same corner of the building.
Type: Single- or double -faced ground signs or wall signs.
Location: If ground signs, they may be parallel or perpendicular to the roadway. If wall signs,
they must be located below the sill of second floor windows.
Design: Rectangular shape; rigid, permanent material; not fabric.
Mounting Technique: Flush with building; entirely on glass or entirely on a wall surface; not
overlapping glass or wall surface.
Duration: Signs may exist from the time of lease or sale of the parcel until the construction
and /or leasing of the facility is complete.
G. Residential Compatibility
In keeping with the purpose of Fashion Island and the Mixed -Use sub - areas, permitted uses in North
Newport Center include uses and events that have the potential to generate noise. Due to the
day /evening use of Fashion Island in particular, noise generating activities, lighting, odors from
restaurants, and similar occurrences are produced and take place during all hours of operation. Such
uses and events are required to comply with the City's Municipal Code regulating these uses.
Disclosures shall be made to prospective buyers /tenants of residential developments that there is an
expectation for noise levels higher than in typical suburban residential areas as part of the Mixed -Use
concept within North Newport Center. Additionally, the disclosure shall indicate that there is an
expectation for lighting, odors and similar occurrences in a Mixed -Use setting as compared to
suburban residential areas.
H. Residential Open Space Requirements
The following open space standards shall apply to residential development projects:
1. Common Outdoor Open Space
Each project shall provide common outdoor open space either at grade, podium level, or roof level.
Common outdoor open space areas shall have a minimum dimension of 30 feet and may contain
active and/or passive areas and a combination of hardscape and landscape features, but a minimum of
10 percent of the common outdoor open space must be landscaped. All common outdoor open space
North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan 20
11/8107
Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures
Appendix— Design Regulations
b. All buildings should be publicly accessible via a path or walkway from a public
sidewalk.
C. The crescent walk linking Block 500 and Block 600 along Newport Center Drive
and pedestrian connections to /in Fashion Island should be preserved and enhanced
where feasible. Connections from the crescent walk into courtyards, plazas, and
other gathering areas in Block 500 and Block 600 should be provided where
possible.
d. Each sub -area should demonstrate an internal pedestrian network of walks and
paseos that connect to the larger Newport Center pedestrian system.
e. Strong pedestrian connectivity, reinforced by protected walkways and landscaping,
should occur between Newport Center Drive and the retail core of Fashion Island.
f. Amenities such as benches, plazas and other pedestrian - oriented facilities should be
provided at pedestrian destinations.
g. To promote the vitality of the public street scene, pedestrian bridges and tunnels
which remove pedestrians from the street level are not allowed.
h. New benches, street trees, directional signs, trash receptacles, and exterior lighting
are encouraged in the public right -of -ways to reinforce pedestrian activity.
i. Enhanced paving in crosswalks to highlight pedestrian pathways is allowed if it is
compatible with the character of the existing development.
Pedestrian walkway from Ne%sVort
Center Drive to Fashion Island
Example of pedestrian connectivity to the street
(between 500 and 550 Newport Center Drive)
Example of pedestrian amenities
framework
North Newport Center Design Regulations 16
11/8107
FEIR for the City of Newport Beach General Plan
2006 Update (CD under separate cover)
EXHIBIT 3
3.1
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
3.2
EXHIBIT 4
y. !
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
yZ
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF THE NORTH NEWPORT CENTER
ADDENDUM TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT FOR THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN 2006 UPDATE (STATE
CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2006011119)
WHEREAS, The Irvine Company has applied to the City of Newport Beach for
approval of the following project (the "Project "):
Zoning Amendment specified in the North Newport Center Planned
Community Development Plan to allow future development in North Newport
Center, which consists of parts of Newport Center Block 500, Newport
Center Block 600, parts of San Joaquin Plaza, and Fashion Island.
2. Development Agreement No. DA2007 -002, entitled the Zoning
Implementation and Public Benefit Agreement Between the City of Newport
Beach and The Irvine Company LLC Concerning North Newport Center
(Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza), to allow
future development on the Property.
3. Transfer of development rights specified in the Development Agreement as
follows:
The transfer to Block 500 of development rights for development
of approximately 277,161 square feet currently assigned to
Newport Center Block 600 and designated for office, hotel, and
supporting retail uses, of which up to 72,000 square feet may be
utilized by the City for a City Hall building.
4. Traffic Study No. TS2001 -001 to evaluate potential traffic impacts and
circulation system improvements.
5. North Newport Planned Community Affordable Housing Implementation Plan
( "AHIP ").
WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach has prepared an Addendum to the City of
Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update Final Environmental Impact Report for the
Project ( "North Newport Center Addendum ").
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach did, on
November 15 and November 29, 2007, hold a duly - noticed Public Hearing to consider
the Project and the North Newport Center Addendum.
y3
WHEREAS, the Planning Department has determined that the North Newport
Center North Newport Center Addendum complies with the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act.
WHEREAS, after thoroughly considering the North Newport Center Addendum,
EIR No. 2006011119, the public testimony and written submissions, if any, of all
interested persons desiring to be heard, the Planning Commission finds the following
facts, findings, and reasons to justify certifying the North Newport Center Addendum:
1. On July 25, 2006 , the City Council certified the adequacy and completeness of EIR
No. 2006011119 for the General Plan 2006 Update by adopting Resolution No 2006-
75. in accordance with section 15168(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Guidelines, the City prepared EIR No. 2006011119 as a Program
Environmental Impact Report. The Program Environmental Impact Report reviews the
existing conditions of the City and North Newport Center, analyzes potential
environmental impacts from implementation of the General Plan Update, identifies
policies from the proposed General Plan Update that serve to reduce and minimize
impacts, and identifies additional mitigations measures, if necessary to reduce
potentially significant impacts of the General Plan Update.
2. No substantial changes will occur with respect to the circumstances under which
the implementation of the General Plan for the Project, which will or would require
major revisions of EIR No. 2006011119, due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of the significant
effects previously identified in EIR No. 2006011119.
3. No new information of substantial importance which was not known, and could
not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence, at the time EIR
No. 2006011119 was certified /approved as complete, has become available which
shows any of the following:
(A) The Project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in
EIR No. 2006011119;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more
severe than shown in EIR No. 2006011119;
(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 City declines
to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different
from those analyzed in EIR No. 2006011119 would substantially
reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the
City declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternative.
4. Based upon these findings and the North Newport Center Addendum, the Planning
Commission has determined that no Subsequent EIR or Supplemental EIR is
required or appropriate under Public Resources Code section 21166 and 14 Cal.
Admin. Code §§ 15162; 15163 and 15164, and that an North Newport Center
y y.
Addendum is sufficient to make EIR No. 2006011119 apply to the Project.
The North Newport Center Addendum, which was prepared to evaluate whether the
Project would cause any new or potentially more severe significant adverse effects on
the environment, specifically analyzed, in addition to several other potential impacts,
potential impacts related to aesthetics, climate change and traffic. The analysis and
conclusions for potential traffic impacts were based on, and relied upon, traffic
studies entitled Newport Center Trip Transfer Traffic Study and North Newport
Center Traffic Phasing Ordinance Traffic Study (Austin -Foust Associates, Inc.),
attached to the North Newport Center Addendum and which, together with the North
Newport Center Addendum, provide the substantial evidence upon which the
Planning Commission's findings provided herein are based. Based upon the facts and
analysis contained in the North Newport Center Addendum, the Planning Commission
finds that the Project will not have, when compared to EIR No. 2006011119, any new
or more severe adverse environmental impacts, including, without limitation, no new
or more severe significant adverse impacts related to aesthetics, climate change or
traffic. The Planning Commission makes the following more specific finding:
The North Newport Center Addendum specifically analyzes the Projects's
potential impacts on traffic and circulation, based upon traffic studies
entitled Newport Center Trip Transfer Traffic Study and North Newport
Center Traffic Phasing Ordinance Traffic Study (Austin -Foust Associates,
Inc.), attached to the North Newport Center Addendum. Based upon the
facts and analysis contained in the North Newport Center Addendum and
the traffic studies, the Planning Commission finds that the Project will not
have any new or more severe significant traffic or circulation impacts.
5. The Project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
6. The Project does not have the potential to achieve short -term environmental goals,
to the disadvantage of long -term environmental goals, as no new or more severe
significant adverse effects on the environment have been identified by the North
Newport Center Addendum.
7. The Project will not result in any new or more severe significant impacts which are
individually limited, but cumulatively considerable, when viewed in connection
with planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity.
8. The Project will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect the
human population, either directly or indirectly, in that no new or more severe
significant impacts have been identified which would affect human health or
public services.
9. These factual findings are based upon EIR No. 2006011119, the North Newport
Center Addendum and all documents referred in or attached to it -- including,
without limitation the traffic studies, the submissions of the applicant; the records
and files of the City's Planning Department related to the Project; and any and all
other documents referred to or relied upon by the Planning Commission.
q-5
10. The Planning Commission has considered the North Newport Center Addendum
and EIR No. 2006011119, and has concluded that the North Newport Center
Addendum reflects the independent judgment of the City.
11. The City has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of
adverse effect set forth in 14 California Code Regulations section 753.5(d).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City
of Newport Beach, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the Planning Commission for the North Newport Center Addendum.
2. That it does hereby recommend that the City Council certify the North Newport
Center Addendum for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in
the North Newport Center Addendum on file in the Planning Department.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2007.
0
fT
Am
Robert Hawkins, Chairman
BY:
Bradley Hillgren, Secretary
North Newport Center North Newport Center Addendum
(To be attached upon recommendation of approval)
y -0
EXHIBIT 5
S.l
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
5.2
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF THE NORTH NEWPORT CENTER
PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND
AMENDMENT TO DISTRICTING MAP NO. 48, NO. 49,
AND NO. 50 AND TO THE SAN JOAQUIN PLAZA PC
DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE BLOCK 500 PC
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
WHEREAS, The Irvine Company has filed an application with respect to its
property located in North Newport Center and consisting of the following sub - areas:
parts of Newport Center Block 500, Newport Center Block 600, parts of San Joaquin
Plaza, and Fashion Island ( "Property"); and
WHEREAS, the application seeks approval of a Planned Community
Development Plan Amendment to be specified in the North Newport Center Planned
Community Development Plan that will implement General Plan land use designations
and regulations for the Property; and
WHEREAS, the Property will be governed by the North Newport Center Planned
Community Development Plan, which includes the North Newport Center Design
Regulations and sets forth land uses, development standards, and procedures; and
WHEREAS, as part of its application, The Irvine Company seeks approval of a
Code Amendment to change the zoning classification of Block 600 from the
Administrative Financial Professional (APF) District to the Planned Community (PC)
District and the open space comer lots in Block 500 and Block 600 from the Open
Space (OS) District to the Planned Community (PC) District and to amend the San
Joaquin Plaza PC Development Plan and the Block 500 PC Development Plan to
remove the Property from the regulations contained in these documents; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 15,
2007, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach,
California, at which time the Planning Commission considered the Code Amendment
and Planned Community Development Plan Amendment specified in the North Newport
Center Planned Community Development Plan. A notice of time, place, and purpose of
the meeting was duly given in accordance with the Municipal Code. Evidence, both
written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at this
meeting. At the conclusion of the hearing and after considering the evidence and
arguments submitted by the City staff, The Irvine Company, and all interested parties;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the
information in the North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan and in
6.3
the full administrative record, including the North Newport Center Design Regulations,
before taking any action recommending approval of the North Newport Center Planned
Community Development Plan.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that:
(1) The North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan
provides suitable and adequate standards including those relating to uses,
development limits, building height limits, setbacks, parking, landscaping,
screening, signs, lighting, and noise control.
(2) The North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan is
consistent with the General Plan and Municipal Code section
20.35.050(C), which mandates the requirements of a Planned Community
Development Plan.
(3) An Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No
2006011119) certified on July 25, 2006 was prepared in accordance with
the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public
Resources Code § §21000, et seq., and the State CEQA Guidelines,
California Code of Regulations § §15000, et seq. The purpose of the
Addendum is to analyze the potential differences between the impacts
evaluated in the General Plan EIR and those that would be associated
with the proposed project. The potential impacts associated with these
proposed changes would either be the same or less than the anticipated
levels ascribed in the certified General Plan EIR. In addition, there are no
substantial changes to the circumstances under which future development
projects subject to the 2006 General Plan and Planned Community
Development Plan would be undertaken.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that:
(1) The Planning Commission recommends approval of the Planned
Community Development Plan Amendment No. PD2007 -003 specified in
the North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan, which
includes the North Newport Center Design Regulations (Exhibit A). The
North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan will
supersede the Fashion Island Planned Community Development Plan and
District Regulations (PC -35) adopted by Ordinance No. 87 -45.
(2) The Planning Commission recommends approval of Code
Amendment No. CA2007 -007 to amend Districting Maps Nos. 48, 49, and
50 (Exhibits B, C, D) to change the zoning classification of Block 600 from
the Administrative Financial Professional (APF) District to the Planned
Community (PC) District and the open space corner lots in Block 500 and
Block 600 from the Open Space (OS) District to the Planned Community
2
sy
(PC) District and to amend the San Joaquin Plaza Planned Community
Development Plan (Exhibit E) and the Block 500 Planned Community
Development Plan (Exhibit F) to remove the Property from the regulations
contained in these documents.
(4) The North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan
shall not go into effect until the City Council approves or adopts all of the
following: (1) the North Newport Center Planned Community Affordable
Housing Implementation Plan; (2) the Block 500 Planned Community
District Regulations; (3) the San Joaquin Plaza Planned Community
District Regulations; (4) the Development Agreement entitled Zoning
Implementation and Public Benefit Agreement Between the City of
Newport Beach and The Irvine Company LLC Concerning North Newport
Center (Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza); (5)
Traffic Study No. TS2007 -001; and (6) the North Newport Center transfer
of development rights.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2007.
M
Robert Hawkins, Chairman
BY:
Bradley Hillgren, Secretary
3
W
NOES:
5.5
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
S. G�
EXHIBIT 6
(a . 1
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
&.2
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF TRAFFIC STUDY NO. TS2007 -001
REGARDING NORTH NEWPORT CENTER
WHEREAS, The Irvine Company has applied to the City of Newport Beach
for the Zoning Amendment specified in the North Newport Center Planned
Community Development Plan and Development Agreement to implement the
General Plan for future development in North Newport Center, which consists of
parts of Newport Center Block 500, Newport Center Block 600, parts of San
Joaquin Plaza, and Fashion Island (the "Project ").
WHEREAS, consistent with Municipal Code section 15.40.030(B)(2), the
Project includes a Comprehensive Phased Land Use Development and Circulation
System Improvement Plan with construction of all phases of the Project not
anticipated to be complete with 60 months of project approval.
WHEREAS, consistent with Municipal Code section 15.40.030(B)(2)(a), the
Project is subject to a development agreement entitled Zoning Implementation and
Public Benefit Agreement Between the City of Newport Beach and The Irvine
Company LLC Concerning North Newport Center (Fashion Island, Block 500,
Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza) ( "Development Agreement').
WHEREAS, the proposed Zoning Amendment would bring the zoning for
North Newport Center into consistency with the General Plan land use
designations for North Newport Center by adoption of development and use
regulations consistent with General Plan development rights and policies.
WHEREAS, a traffic study, entitled North Newport Center Traffic Phasing
Ordinance Traffic Study (Austin -Foust Associates, Inc., November 6, 2007), was
prepared for the Project in compliance with Municipal Code Chapter 15.40 (Traffic
Phasing Ordinance).
WHEREAS, even though the development agreement provides for the
potential build out of the Project over a period of twenty years, the traffic study
studied the worst -case scenario where all the development in the Project would be
completed before 60 months, specifically by 2009.
WHEREAS, the traffic study found that the intersections along Newport
Center Drive will continue to operate at LOS "A," but that the Project will cause the
following three intersections to exceed the Level of Service (LOS) "D' standard
under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance: (1) MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin
&
Hills Road, (2) Goldenrod Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway, and (3) Marguerite
Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway.
WHEREAS, the traffic study found the addition of a third eastbound left -tum
lane to the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road to be
an improvement that will result in the Project not causing nor making worse an
unsatisfactory level of service at this intersection.
WHEREAS, the addition of a third eastbound left -turn lane as mitigation for
the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road is an
improvement included in the General Plan Circulation Element, and therefore a
feasible improvement under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The Development
Agreement requires this improvement to be made in the early phase of
development, upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first building
constructed pursuant to the Development Agreement, but not later than 60 months
after the approval of the Project. The traffic study determined based on sufficient
data and analysis that the Project under a worst -case scenario of full build -out by
2009, when taken together with the circulation improvement, will not cause or
make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at MacArthur Boulevard and
San Joaquin Hills Road.
WHEREAS, the General Plan recognizes and accepts that no feasible
improvements are desired under the General Plan for the intersection of
Goldenrod Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway and the intersection of Marguerite
Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway, and therefore the General Plan establishes
LOS "E" as the City's standard at these two intersections.
WHEREAS, The Irvine Company has completed the following circulation
improvements in the vicinity of the Project in advance of project approval:
1. A traffic signal at the intersection of Santa Cruz Drive and San Clemente
Drive in Newport Center Block 800.
2. Construction of half- section of MacArthur Boulevard to ultimate width
along frontage of the Freeway Reservation property.
3. Construction of half- section of MacArthur Boulevard to ultimate width
along frontage of The Irvine Company's property at Newport Village.
4. Construction of half- section of MacArthur Boulevard to ultimate width
along frontage of Big Canyon Area 16.
5. Widening of MacArthur Boulevard between Ford Road and the San
Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor to provide for a minimum of six
travel lanes and a minimum of three northbound travel lanes.
OA,
(V �y
6. Dedication of right of way along the west side of MacArthur Boulevard
between Pacific Coast Highway and San Joaquin Hills Road.
WHEREAS, The Irvine Company constructed the circulation improvements
listed above for a project encompassing unbuilt units that are being extinguished
by the current Development Agreement. Thus, the circulation improvements listed
above contribute to early mitigation for the project covered by the current
Development Agreement.
WHEREAS, the Development Agreement also requires The Irvine
Company, no later than 60 months after the Development Agreement goes into
effect, to spend or contribute to the City a maximum of $2.5 million on the design
and construction of one or more of the following circulation improvements, should
the City choose to approve the circulation improvements after its environmental
review and approval process In compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act. These circulation improvements modify roadways and intersections to
increase their capacity or improve circulation.:
1. Widening of Avocado Avenue between San Miguel Drive and San
Nicolas Drive;
2. Widening, operational improvements, or other capacity enhancements
to San Miguel Drive between MacArthur Boulevard and Avocado
Avenue;
3. Installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Newport Center Drive
and San Nicolas Drive;
4. Installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Newport Center Drive
and Center Drive; and
5. Other circulation improvements in the Newport Center area mutually
agreed upon by the City's Director of Public Works and The Irvine
Company.
WHEREAS, the Project does not make the Land Use and Circulation
Elements of the General Plan inconsistent by the impact of project trips, including
the circulation improvements, when added to the trips resulting from development
anticipated to occur within the City based on the Land Use Element of the General
Plan and Zoning Ordinance because:
1. The development included in the Project is consistent with the General
Plan, and City Council Resolution No. 2007 -3 provides that no land use,
or density or intensity of use, may be permitted unless it is consistent
with both the General Plan and the Zoning Code.
3
r
(o . J
2. The addition of a third eastbound left -turn lane as mitigation for the
intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road is an
improvement included in the General Plan Circulation Element
3. The General Plan recognizes and accepts that no feasible
improvements are desired for the intersection of Goldenrod Avenue and
Pacific Coast Highway and the intersection of Marguerite Avenue and
Pacific Coast Highway, and therefore the General Plan establishes LOS
"E" as the City's standard at these two intersections.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the foregoing
improvements and contributions and determined:
1. Consistent with Municipal Code section 15.40.030(B)(2)(d)(1),
construction of a third eastbound left -turn lane to the intersection of
MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road will provide
implementation of traffic mitigation that will not cause or make worse an
unsatisfactory level of service for an impacted primary intersection for
which there is a feasible improvement.
2. Consistent with Municipal Code section 15.40.030(B)(2)(d)(2), no
feasible improvements are desired under the General Plan for the
intersection at Goldenrod Avenue at Pacific Coast Highway and the
intersection at Marguerite Avenue at Pacific Coast Highway and
therefore the General Plan establishes LOS "E" as the City's standard at
these two intersections. The benefits provided by the circulation
enhancements that are required in the development agreement are
improvements that, once implemented, will outweigh the adverse impact
of project trips at the identified impacted intersections for which there
are no desired and therefore no feasible improvements that would if fully
satisfy the provisions of section 15.40.030(B)(1)(b).
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on November
15 and November 29, 2007, in the City Council Chambers, 3300 Newport
Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time the Planning Commission
considered the Development Agreement and proposed Zoning Amendment
specified in the North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan. A
notice of time, place, and purpose of the meeting was duly given in accordance
with the Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and
considered by the Planning Commission at this meeting, including the evidence
and arguments submitted by the City staff, The Irvine Company, and all interested
parties.
0
NOW, THEREFORE, based on the weight of the evidence in the
administrative record, including the traffic study, the Planning Commission finds
that:
1. The Project meets the requirements for a Comprehensive Phased Land
Use Development and Circulation System Improvement Plan with all
phases not anticipated to be complete within 60 months of project
approval, as defined in Municipal Code section 15.40.030(8)(2).
2. A traffic study for the Project has been prepared in compliance with
Chapter 15.40 and Appendix A.
3. Based on the weight of the evidence in the administrative record,
including the traffic study and the Development Agreement, all of the
findings for approval in section 15.40.030(8)(2) can be made with
respect to the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin
Hills Road.
4. Based on the weight of the evidence in the administrative record,
including the traffic study and the Development Agreement, the finding
in section 15.40.030(B)(2)(b) cannot be made with respect to the
intersection of Goldenrod Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway and the
intersection of Marguerite Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway. .
5. Based on the public benefits included in the Development Agreement,
including early payment of park fees, availability of a site for City Hall,
funding for construction of City Hall, circulation improvements at locations in
the vicinity of the Project at other than impacted primary intersections, and
water conservation and water quality measures, the Project will result in
benefits that outweigh the project's anticipated negative impact on the
circulation system at the intersection of Goldenrod Avenue and Pack
Coast Highway and the intersection of Marguerite Avenue and Pacific
Coast Highway.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission
recommends approval of Traffic Study No. TS2007 -001 based on the weight of the
evidence in the administrative record, including the traffic study and the
Development Agreement.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this approval shall not go into effect until
the City Council approves or adopts all of the following: (1) the North Newport
Center Planned Community Development Plan; (2) the North Newport Center
Planned Community Affordable Housing Implementation Plan; (3) the Block 500
Planned Community District Regulations; (4) the San Joaquin Plaza Planned
Community District Regulations; (5) the Development Agreement entitled Zoning
5
(0 7
Implementation and Public Benefit Agreement Between the City of Newport Beach
and The Irvine Company LLC Concerning North Newport Center (Fashion Island,
Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza); and (6) the North Newport Center
transfer of development rights.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this approval shall expire upon the
earlier of the following: (1) the term of Development Agreement No. 2007 -002
expires; or (2) Development Agreement No. 2007 -002 is terminated pursuant to
provisions in the Development Agreement.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2007.
0
NOES:
BY:
Robert Hawkins, Chairman
BY:
Bradley Hillgren, Secretary
MR
Traffic Study No.TS2007 -001
(To be attached upon recommendation of approval)
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
wil
EXHIBIT 7
�.r
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
7 . 2
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF THE TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT
RIGHTS FOR NORTH NEWPORT CENTER
WHEREAS, The Irvine Company has applied to the City of Newport Beach for
the Zoning Amendment specified in the North Newport Center Planned Community
Development Plan to allow future development in North Newport Center, which consists
of parts of Newport Center Block 500, Newport Center Block 600, parts of San Joaquin
Plaza, and Fashion Island ( "Property ").
WHEREAS, as part of its application, The Irvine Company requests approval of
the Development Agreement entitled Zoning Implementation and Public Benefit
Agreement Between the City of Newport Beach and The Irvine Company LLC
Concerning North Newport Center (Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San
Joaquin Plaza).
WHEREAS, as part of its application, The Irvine Company also requests
approval of the transfer of development rights specified in the Development Agreement
as follows:
(1) The transfer to North Newport Center Block 500 of development rights
for development of approximately 277,161 square feet currently assigned
to Newport Center Block 600 and designated for office, hotel, and
supporting retail uses, of which up to 72,000 square feet may be utilized
by the City for a City Hall building at a site in Newport Center Block 500 if
the City exercises the option to purchase that site, as specified in the
Development Agreement.
(2) Upon transfer to North Newport Center Block 500, the development
rights will be designated only for uses permitted under the development
regulations applicable to the Property.
(3) This transfer of development rights will occur in new or modified
buildings that comply with the development regulations applicable to the
Property.
WHEREAS, General Plan Policy LU 6.14.3 permits development rights to be
transferred within Newport Center as long as the transfer is consistent with the intent of
the General Plan and will not result in any adverse traffic impacts.
WHEREAS, a traffic study, entitled Newport Center Trip Transfer Traffic Study
(Austin -Foust Associates, Inc., November 6, 2007) was prepared for the application for
the transfer of development rights in compliance with General Plan Policy LU 6.14.3.
73
WHEREAS, the traffic study found that consistent with General Plan Policy LU
6.14.3, the transfer of development rights will not result in any adverse traffic impacts.
WHEREAS, an intensity analysis was prepared by the Planning Department and
demonstrates that the transfer of development rights will not result in greater intensity
than development allowed without the transfer.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 15
and November 29, 2007, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard,
Newport Beach, California, at which time the Planning Commission considered the
transfer of development rights specified in the Development Agreement, as well as the
traffic and intensity studies. A notice of time, place, and purpose of the meeting was
duly given in accordance with the Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was
presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at this meeting, including the
evidence and arguments submitted by the City staff, The Irvine Company, and all
interested parties.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that:
(1) Consistent with General Plan
development rights will not result
documented in the traffic study.
Policy LU 6.14.3, the transfer of
in any adverse traffic impacts, as
(2) Consistent with General Plan Policy LU 6.14.3, the transfer of
development rights will not result in greater intensity than that which is
allowed without the transfer, as documented in the intensity study, and is
consistent with the intent of the General Plan.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that:
(1) The Planning Commission recommend approval of the transfer of
development rights specified in Development Agreement No. DA2007-
002, based on the weight of the evidence in the administrative record,
including the traffic and intensity studies.
(2) The transfer of development rights specified in the Development
Agreement shall not go into effect until the City Council approves or
adopts all of the following: (1) the North Newport Center Planned
Community Affordable Housing Implementation Plan; (2) the North
Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan; (3) the Block 500
Planned Community District Regulations; (4) the San Joaquin Plaza
Planned Community District Regulations; (5) Traffic Study No. TS2007-
001; and (6) the Development Agreement entitled Zoning Implementation
and Public Benefit Agreement Between the City of Newport Beach and
The Irvine Company LLC Concerning North Newport Center (Fashion
Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza).
F
�4
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2007.
BY:
Robert Hawkins, Chairman
M
Bradley Hillgren, Secretary
NOES:
75
Newport Center Trip Transfer Traffic Study
(To be attached upon recommendation of approval)
rd
7
Development Agreement No.
(To be attached upon recommendation of approval)
77
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
-7.8
EXHIBIT 8
�f. I
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
$ 2
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF THE NORTH NEWPORT CENTER
PLANNED COMMUNITY AFFORDABLE HOUSING
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
WHEREAS, The Irvine Company has applied to the City of Newport Beach for
the Zoning Amendment specified in the North Newport Center Planned Community
Development Plan to allow future development in North Newport Center, which consists
of parts of Newport Center Block 500, Newport Center Block 600, parts of San Joaquin
Plaza, and Fashion Island ( "Property ").
WHEREAS, as part of its application, The Irvine Company requests approval of
the Development Agreement entitled Zoning Implementation and Public Benefit
Agreement Between the City of Newport Beach and The Irvine Company LLC
Concerning North Newport Center (Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San
Joaquin Plaza).
WHEREAS, as part of its application, The Irvine Company also requests
approval of the North Newport Planned Community Affordable Housing Implementation
Plan ( "AHIP ").
WHEREAS, the North Newport Center Planned Community AHIP was prepared
in accordance with General Plan Housing Policies H2.1 and H2.2 and General Plan
Housing Programs 2.1.2, 2.2.1, and 2.2.4.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 15
and November 29, 2007, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard,
Newport Beach, California, at which time the Planning Commission considered the
North Newport Center Planned Community AHIP. A notice of time, place, and purpose
of the meeting was duly given in accordance with the Municipal Code. Evidence, both
written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at this
meeting, meeting, including the evidence and arguments submitted by the City staff,
The Irvine Company, and all interested parties.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the
information in the North Newport Center Planned Community AHIP and in the full
administrative record, before taking any action recommending approval of the North
Newport Center Planned Community AHIP.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that:
The North Newport Center Planned Community AHIP satisfies any
obligation of The Irvine Company to the City under General Plan Housing
SD \609132.1
Policies H2.1 and H2.2 and General Plan Housing Programs 2.1.2, 2.2.1,
and 2.2.4 with respect to the development of the Property pursuant to and
during the term of the Development Agreement.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that:
(1) The Planning Commission recommend approval of the North Newport
Center Planned Community AHIP.
(2) The North Newport Center Planned Community AHIP shall not go into
effect until the City Council approves or adopts all of the following: (1) the
North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan; (2) the
Block 500 Planned Community District Regulations; (3) the San Joaquin
Plaza Planned Community District Regulations; (4) the Development
Agreement entitled Zoning Implementation and Public Benefit Agreement
Between the City of Newport Beach and The Irvine Company LLC
Concerning North Newport Center (Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600,
and San Joaquin Plaza); (5) the North Newport Center transfer of
development rights; and (6) Traffic Study No. TS2007 -001.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2007.
AYES:
NOES:
la
IN
Robert Hawkins, Chairman
Bradley Hillgren, Secretary
SD\609132.1
y.
North Newport Center Planned Community
Affordable Housing Implementation Plan
(To be attached upon recommendation of approval)
SD\609132.1
d . S
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
w
EXHIBIT 9
17.1
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
yZ
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO.
DA2007 -002 CONCERNING NORTH NEWPORT CENTER
WHEREAS, The Irvine Company has filed an application with respect to its
property located in North Newport Center and consisting of the following sub-
areas: parts of Newport Center Block 500, Newport Center Block 600, parts of
San Joaquin Plaza, and Fashion Island ( "Property ").
WHEREAS, General Plan policy LU 6.14.8 requires a development
agreements for mixed -use projects that use the 450 residential units identified in
Table LU2, and requires that development agreements define the improvements
and benefits to be contributed by the developer in exchange for the City's
commitment for the number, density and location of housing units.
WHEREAS, Newport Beach Municipal Code section 15.45.020 also
requires a development agreement for the North Newport Center project because
it includes the development of more than 50 residential units as well as new non-
residential development in Newport Center.
WHEREAS, Newport Beach Municipal Code section 15.45.040 requires
that development agreements include the term, permitted uses, density and
intensity of development, maximum height and size of proposed buildings, and
provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes.
WHEREAS, as part of its application, The Irvine Company requests
approval of Development Agreement No. DA2007 -002, entitled the Zoning
Implementation and Public Benefit Agreement Between the City of Newport Beach
and The Irvine Company LLC Concerning North Newport Center (Fashion Island,
Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza), to allow future development on the
Property.
WHEREAS, the Development Agreement was prepared and is attached as
Exhibit "A.'
WHEREAS, during the term of the Development Agreement, and subject to
any approvals required under the development regulations applicable to the
Property, as specified in the Development Agreement, The Irvine Company shall
have a vested right to develop the following entitlements on the Property:
9. 3
Land Use
Fashion
Block 500
Block 600
San
Total
Island
Joaquin
Plaza
Regional
1,619,525
0
0
0
1,619,525
Commercial
square feet
square feet
Movie Theatre
1,700 seats
0
0
0
1,700 seats
(27,500
(27,500
square feet)
square feet)
Hotel
0
(A)
425 (A)
(A)
490
Residential
0
(B)
(B)
(B)
430
Office/Comm
0
408,084
1,001,634
337,261
1,746,979
ercial
square feet
square feet
square feet
square feet
A. 65 hotel rooms
may be located in either Block 500, Block
600 or San Joaquin Plaza.
B. Residential units are permitted in Block 500, Block 600 and
San Joaquin Plaza so
long as the total number of units does not exceed 430 units.
WHEREAS, during the term of the Development Agreement, and subject to
any approvals required under the development regulations applicable to the
Property, as specified in the Development Agreement, The Irvine Company shall
also have a vested right to the transfer to Newport Center Block 500 of
development rights for development of approximately 277,161 square feet
currently assigned to Newport Center Block 600 and designated for office, hotel,
and supporting retail uses, of which up to 72,000 square feet may be utilized by
the City for a City Hall building at a site in Newport Center Block 500 if the City
exercises the option to purchase that site, as specified in the Development
Agreement. Upon transfer to Newport Center Block 500, the development rights
will be designated only for uses permitted under the development regulations
applicable to the Property.
WHEREAS, the Development Agreement rescinds and cancels The Irvine
Company's remaining rights and obligations under the Circulation Improvement
and Open Space Agreement (CIOSA) and the Bonita Canyon Annexation and
Development Agreement.
WHEREAS, The Irvine Company has agreed to provide public benefits as
consideration for the Development Agreement, including the following: in -lieu park
fees in advance of the time that the fees otherwise would be due to provide for
matching funds for the renovation of the Oasis Senior Center and to provide funds
for other qualified park uses, development fees to fund construction of a new City
Hall building or other municipal use, circulation enhancements, a conditional
dedication of a public right of way, and the dedication to City of an open space
parcel within Newport Center. The Irvine Company also has agreed to grant City
an option to acquire a site in Newport Center Block 500 for the purpose of
constructing a new City Hall building.
2
9q
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on November
15 and November 29, 2007, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport
Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time the Planning Commission
considered the Development Agreement. A notice of time, place, and purpose of
the meeting was duly given in accordance with the Municipal Code. Evidence,
both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning
Commission at this meeting, meeting, including the evidence and arguments
submitted by the City staff, The Irvine Company, and all interested parties.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the
information in the Development Agreement and in the full administrative record,
and finds that:
(1) The Development Agreement is entered into pursuant to, and
constitutes a present exercise of, the City's police power.
(2) The Development Agreement is in the best interests of the health,
safety, and general welfare of the City, its residents, and the public.
(3) The Development Agreement is consistent with the General Plan
as of the date of this Resolution.
(4) The Development Agreement eliminates conflicts that exist
among CIOSA, the Bonita Canyon Annexation and Development
Agreement, and the General Plan.
(5) The Development Agreement is consistent with General Plan
Policy LU 6.14.8, which applies to Newport Center and requires the
execution of development agreements for residential projects and
mixed -use development projects with a residential component.
(6) The Development Agreement is consistent with Ordinance No.
2007 -6, entitled "Ordinance Amending Chapter 15.45 of City of
Newport Beach Municipal Code Regarding Development
Agreements," which requires a development agreement for certain
types of projects, including: (1) projects that include development of
50 or more residential units, and (2) projects that include new non-
residential development in Newport Center.
(7) The Development Agreement is consistent with Newport Beach
Municipal Code section 15.45.040 and includes all the contents
required for development agreements by the City of Newport Beach.
(8) The Development Agreement is consistent with provisions of
state law (California Government Code sections 65864 - 65869.5) and
3
9
local law (Municipal Code chapter 15.45) that authorize binding
agreements that: (i) encourage investment in, and commitment to,
comprehensive planning and public facilities financing; (ii) strengthen
the public planning process and encourage private implementation of
the local general plan; (iii) provide certainty in the approval of
projects in order to avoid waste of time and resources; and (iv)
reduce the economic costs of development by providing assurance
to the property owners that they may proceed with projects
consistent with existing policies, rules, and regulations. More
specifically, the Development Agreement is consistent and has been
approved consistent with provisions of California Government Code
section 65867 and Municipal Code chapter 15.45.
(9) The Development Agreement is consistent with the Final
Environmental Impact Report for the City of Newport Beach General
Plan 2006 Update (State Clearinghouse No. 2006011119) and the
North Newport Center Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact
Report for General Plan 2006 Update (State Clearinghouse No.
2006011119), both of which analyze the environmental effects of the
proposed development of the Property.
(10) The Development Agreement provides significant public
benefits to the City of Newport Beach.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that:
(1) The Planning Commission recommend approval of Development
Agreement No. DA2007 -002, including rescission and cancellation of
The Irvine Company's remaining rights and obligations under CIOSA
and the Bonita Canyon Annexation and Development Agreement,
based on the weight of the evidence in the administrative record.
(2) The Development Agreement shall not go into effect until the City
Council approves or adopts all of the following: (1) the North
Newport Center Planned Community Affordable Housing
Implementation Plan; (2) the North Newport Center Planned
Community Development Plan; (3) the Block 500 Planned
Community District Regulations; (4) the San Joaquin Plaza Planned
Community District Regulations; and (5) the North Newport Center
transfer of development rights; and (6) the North Newport Center
Planned Community Affordable Housing Implementation Plan.
m
u
Z E
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2007.
BY:
Robert Hawkins, Chairman
M7
Bradley Hillgren, Secretary
0
NOES:
1.7
Development Agreement No.
(To be attached upon recommendation of approval)
M'
EXHIBIT 10
/0 . /
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
i0 � 2
From: Robert C. Hawkins [rhawkins @earthlink.net]
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 10:26 AM
To: 'GTP'; emcdaniel @fullertoncb.com; 'Michael Toerge (E- mail)'; eaton727 @earthlink.net
jeff.cole @cushwake.com; scott.peotter@taxfighter.com; bhillgren @cox.net
Cc: Lepo, David; Alford, Patrick
Subject: RE: Lary Tucker Council Presentation
Mr. Tucker,
Thank you for taking your valuable time to make comments on this important project. By this email, I am
forwarding your comments to the Planning Department for inclusion in the administrative record and to the
Planning Commissioners for their consideration. Once again, thank you for your comments. RCH
Robert C. Hawkins, Esq. (SBN 144906)
Law Offices of Robert C. Hawkins
110 Newport Center Dr., Ste. 200
Newport Beach, California 92660
ph: 949 650 5550
fax: 949 650 1181
mobile: 949 500 1232
e -mail: rhawkinsa,earthlink.net
This e-mail message and any attachments are confidential and may be attomey - client privileged. If you are not
the intended recipient, please notify the Law Offices of Robert C. Hawkins by telephone (949) 650 5550 or by
e -mail at rhawkins(@earthlink.net, and destroy the original and all copies and/or versions of this message and
any attachments.
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: GTP [mailto:gtp @ohill.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 7:14 PM
To: Robert C. Hawkins; emcdaniel @fullertoncb.com; Michael Toerge (E- mail); eaton727 @earthlink.net
Subject: Fw: Larry Tucker Council Presentation
Hi Bob,
Although I am no longer a member of the Planning Commission, I am still keenly interested in matters that came
before the Commission during my tenure. I have been following closely the Development Agreement issue with
The Irvine Company. Below is an email I sent to the City Council on the topic. I thought that perhaps some of
those with whom I served might like to see my bottom line on the topic. I am sure that the Planning Commission
will continue its tradition of looking at the details, but I wouldn't get too involved in the deal points if I were on still on
the Commission since the Council has appointed the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tern to take care of aspect of the
agreement.
Best regards,
Larry Tucker
P.S. Someone please forward this email to Jeff Cole since I can't seem to locate his new email address. Thanks.
- - -- Original Message --
To: Parandigm @aol.com
Cc: edsglich@roadrunner.com ; don2webb @earthlink.net ; Lesliejdaigle@aol,com ; curryk @pfm.com ;
gardnernancy@aol.com ; mfhenn527(@hotmail.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 7:01 PM
Subject: Larry Tucker Council Presentation
/0.73
Hi Steve,
I showed up at the Council meeting last night at 7:30 to make a comment during the public comment period about
the proposed Development Agreement between the City and The Irvine Company only to find that you had already
gone past this agenda item. When was the last time (if ever) that happened?
Attached are the comments I planned to make. I hope you and the rest of the Council will review my comments
before the matter is on the Council's agenda.
Best regards,
Larry Tucker
(949) 251 -2045
to 7
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD
P. O. BOX 1768
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
92658 -8915
11= -1• IN
To: Planning Commission
From: Planning Department
(949) 644 -3235
palfordC&city. newport- beach.ca.us
Date: November 26, 2007
Re: North Newport Center Draft Addendum
The City's environmental consultant has prepared a few minor wording changes
to the draft Addendum prepared for the North Newport Center project. The
changes are shown in underline /strikeout format.
ADDENDUM TO THE
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN 2006 UPDATE
FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Prepared by:
City of Newport Beach
Community Development Department
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915
November 2007
Addendum to City Of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
Section1.0 Introduction .............................................................................. ............................1
-1
1.1 Purpose of Addendum ................................................ ............................1
-1
1.2 Previous Environmental Documentation and discretionary actions ........
1 -2
Section 2.0 Project Description .................................................................. ............................2
-1
2.1 Project Location .......................................................... ............................2
-1
2.2 Project Characteristics ................................................ ............................2
-1
2.2.1 North Newport Center PC Text ....................... ............................2
-1
2.2.2 Transfer of Development Rights ..................... ............................2
-3
2.2.3 Phased Land Use Development and Circulation Improvement
Plan (TPO Approval) ....................................... ............................2
-3
2.2.4 Affordable Housing Implementation Plan ( AHIP ) ........................2
-4
2.2.5 Development Agreement ................................ ............................2
-4
2.2.6 Discretionary Actions ...................................... ............................2
-4
Section 3.0 Enviro
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
3.10
3.11
3.12
3.13
3.14
3.15
nmental Analysis ..... ...............................
Aesthetics.............. ...............................
Agricultural Resources ..........................
AirQuality .............. ...............................
Biological Resources ............................
Cultural Resources ...............................
Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources
Hazards and Hazardous Materials .......
Hydrology and Water Quality ................
Land Use and Planning ........................
Noise..................... ...............................
Population and Housing ........................
Public Services ...... ...............................
Recreation and Open Space ................
Transportation/Traffic ............................
Utilities and Service Systems ...............
Mommems and Sefngsrpal rd.CNBLLocal SedingslTemporag ln[e iFilesl LKlF20mftAddendum- 111807 doe I Table Of
Addendum to City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR
TABLES
Table Pane
1 Development Area Summary .............................................................
............................2 -3
2 Trip Generation Summary .................................................................
...........................3 -35
3 One Percent Analysis ........................................................................
...........................3 -36
4 ICU Summary ..................................................... ...............................
...........................3 -40
5 Converted Uses ................................................. ...............................
...........................3 -42
EXHIBITS
Exhibit Follows Page
1 Local Vicinity Map .............................................................................. ............................2 -2
2 Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600, San Joaquin Boundaries ....... ............................2 -2
3 Existing and Proposed Zoning Designations ..................................... ............................2 -2
C:. cdelents end SeftingsVegord.CNB\LO lSedmgs\Ternporary Internal Flles \OLKIFPDreft Addendum.11lw].doe II Tabte of
Addendum to City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR
SECTION 1.0
INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE OF ADDENDUM
This document, prepared pursuant to the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
constitutes an Addendum to the City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update Program
Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Screencheck No. 2006011119 certified on July 25,
2006. This Addendum was prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code § §21000, et seq., and the State
CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations § §15000, et seq. CEQA Guidelines
§15164(a) states that "the lead agency or a responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a
previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions
described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred"
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15162(a), a subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or
Negative Declaration is only required when:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major
revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement
of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified significant effects;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the
project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or
Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects; or
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could
not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time
the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was
adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the
previous EIR or negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe
than shown in the previous EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible
would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more
significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to
adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from
those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or
more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents
decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
C10ocuments and Beftmgspal rd CNBLLoo lBa,ningmTemporary 1ntamat FllesX0t 1F2VMftAJO9nWm -11I W7.EOc 1-1 Introductic
Addendum to City of NewpoR Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR
The proposed North Newport Center Project includes the following City actions to implement the
2006 General Plan:
1. Approval of a zoning amendment to adopt the North Newport Center Planned Community
Development Plan (herein referred to as the North Newport Center PC Text), including the
reclassification of property to the Planned Community (PC) District and amendment to two
existing Planned Community Development Plans;
2. Approval of a transfer of development rights, pursuant to General Plan policy, to convert
unbuilt hotel entitlement to office entitlement and to relocate this entitlement and existing
office and commercial development from Block 600 to Block 500;
3. Approval of a traffic study of the North Newport Center Phased Land Use Development
and Circulation System Improvement Plan pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance
(herein referred to as the TPO approval);
4. Approval of an Affordable Housing Implementation Plan (herein referred to as the AHIP)
pursuant to the 2006 General Plan Housing Element; and
5. Approval of a Zoning Implementation and Public Benefit Agreement between the City of
Newport Beach and The Irvine Company Concerning North Newport Center (herein
referred to as the Development Agreement) pursuant to Newport Beach Municipal Code
Section 15.45, Development Agreements
The purpose of this Addendum is to analyze the potential differences between the impacts
evaluated in the City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update Final EIR, hereafter referred
to as the General Plan EIR, and those that would be associated with the North Newport Center
Project. As described in detail herein, there are no new significant impacts resulting from these
changes nor is there any substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified
environmental impacts. The potential impacts associated with these proposed changes would
either be the same or less than the anticipated levels ascribed in the certified General Plan EIR.
In addition, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which future
development projects subject to the 2006 General Plan and PC Text would be undertaken.
Therefore, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15164, this Addendum to the certified General
Plan Final EIR is the appropriate environmental documentation for the North Newport Center
PC Text.
Pursuant to §15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach (City) is the lead
agency for the project. The lead agency is the public agency that has the principal responsibility
for carrying out or approving a project that may have a significant effect upon the environment.
Newport Beach has the authority for project approval and certification of the accompanying
environmental documentation. In taking action on any of the approvals outlined in Section 2.0,
Project Description, the City, as the lead agency and decision making body, must consider the
whole of the data presented in the General Plan EIR and this Addendum to the General Plan
EIR.
1.2 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND DISCRETIONARY ACTION
S
The General Plan EIR was certified by the Newport Beach City Council on July 25, 2006, as
adequately addressing the potential environmental impacts associated with the buildout of the
City of Newport Beach, inclusive of Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 688600, and San Joaquin
Plaza (North Newport Center). The location of North Newport Center, approvals granted, and
actions being addressed as part of this Addendum to the General Plan EIR are further
addressed in Section 2.0, Project Description. The adopted 2006 General Plan placed the
Cloocumeras and SeGin,s %palfoni CNB%ocal SetngsWempmary Internet FHWOLKtFMmn AddenGem111W7 doc 1 -2 lntroduok
Addendum to City of Newporl Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR
following designations on the four sub -areas included in the Project and analyzed full
implementation of entitlements for Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin
Plaza.
Fashion Island Regional Commercial (CR)
Block 500 Mixed Use Horizontal 3 (MU -H3) and Open Space (OS)
Block 600 Mixed Use Horizontal 3 (MU -H3) and Open Space (OS)
San Joaquin Plaza Mixed Use Horizontal 3 (MU -H3) and Open Space (OS)
When a project is large and complex, such as a General Plan update, and will be implemented
over a multi -year period, a Program EIR enables the lead agency to approve the overall
program. When individual activities within the program are proposed, the agency is then
required to examine the individual activities to determine if their effects were kflIyadeauately
analyzed in the Program EIR. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines §15162, the lead agency can
approve the activities as being within the scope of the project covered by the Program EIR.
The State CEQA Guidelines §15168(a) defines a Program EIR as:
...an EIR which may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized
as one large project and are related either:
(1) Geographically,
(2) A logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions,
(3) In connection with issuance of rules, regulations, plans, or other general
criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program, or
(4) As individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or
regulatory authority and having generally similar environmental effects which
can be mitigated in similar ways.
The State CEQA Guidelines §15168(c)(2) states:
(2) If the agency finds that pursuant to Section 15162, no new effects could
occur or no new mitigation measures would be required, the agency can
approve the activity as being within the scope of the project covered by the
program EIR, and no new environmental document would be required.
As previously noted, CEQA Guidelines §15162(a) states that a subsequent EIR is not
necessary in the absence of the following: (1) substantial changes to the project, (2) substantial
changes to the project circumstances, or (3) new information of substantial importance.
Use of a Program EIR for the update of the General Plan afforded the City many advantages
that would not be realized if projects had been evaluated on an action -by- action basis. These
advantages are outlined in CEQA Guidelines §15168(b), which states: "The Program EIR can:
(1) Provide an occasion for a more exhaustive consideration of effects and
alternatives than would be practical in an EIR on an individual action,
(2) Ensure consideration of cumulative impacts that might be slighted in a case -
by -case analysis,
(3) Avoid duplicative reconsideration of basic policy considerations,
C%DO nderts and Setdngstyaltom CNBUO Seltlngs7emporsry Internet Film KIF2%Dren Addendum- tt1WTdoo 1 -3 Introduchc
Addendum to City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR
(4) Allow the Lead Agency to consider broad policy alternatives and program -
wide mitigation measures at an early time when the agency has greater
flexibility to deal with basic problems or cumulative impacts, and
(5) Allow reduction in paperwork."
Page 1 -1 of the General Plan EIR states: `This EIR has been prepared as a Program EIR
pursuant to Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines... This EIR will review the existing conditions
of the City of Newport Beach and the Planning Area, analyze potential environmental impacts
from implementation of the proposed General Plan Update, identify policies from the proposed
General Plan Update that serve to reduce and minimize impacts, and identify additional
mitigation measures, if necessary, to reduce potentially significant impacts of the General Plan
Update."
Page 1-4 of the General Plan EIR states: 'This EIR has been prepared to analyze potentially
significant environmental impacts associated with future development resulting from
implementation of the proposed General Plan Update, and also addresses appropriate and
feasible mitigation measures or project alternatives that would minimize or eliminate these
impacts." Page 1 -5 states: "The proposed General Plan Update will serve as a comprehensive
document that will guide future potential growth and development within the City... The EIR will
analyze all aspects of the proposed General Plan Update to determine whether any aspect of
the project, either individually or cumulatively, may cause a significant effect on the environment
with regards to the environmental issues [identified in the EIR]." As such, the General Plan Final
EIR assessed potential impacts associated with the implementation of land uses set forth in the
General Plan, including land use changes due to full implementation of entitlements for Fashion
Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza under the General Plan Update.
Page 3 -15 of the General Plan EIR states: "The Plan allows for expanded retail opportunities at
Fashion Island, including an additional anchor department store and ancillary shops, another
hotel or additions to existing hotels, and 600 additional housing units." The Draft EIR for the City
of Newport Beach General Plan Update analyzed 600 housing units in Newport Center, which
includes Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza. Through Planning
Commission and City Council hearings the 600 housing units were reduced to a maximum of
450 units. This reduction is reflected in Volume 1A -Final Environmental Impact Report (Draft
EIR Changes and Responses to Comments).
The 2006 General Plan also documented the approval of these 450 residential units for Newport
Center.a Of the 450 units permitted in Newport Center by the adopted 2006 General Plan, 430
units are incorporated into this proposed PC Text Amendment.
Previous Discretionary Actions
The following City of Newport Beach Ordinances and Resolutions related to development of the
four sub -areas are listed below and incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof:
Fashion Island Planned Community Development Plan (adopted November 23, 1987)
Amendment No. 632, Ordinance No. 87-45, November 23, 1987
Amendment No. 699; Resolution No. 90 -7, February 12, 1990
Amendment No. 701, Resolution No. 91 -22, March 11, 1991
Amendment No. 811, Resolution No. 94 -102, November 14, 1994
a City of Newport Beach, General Plan, July 25, 2006, Table LU -2, pages 3 -18 to 3 -20.
C.Tocanneras and SeningaVaBord.CNBU cal Se nga\Temporary im met FllaskOWF20raR Adnantlum- 11 1W7.doc 1-4 introduclk
Addendum to City of Newport Beach General Ptah 2006 Update EIR
Amendment No. 825, Resolution No. 95 -115, October 9, 1995
Amendment No. 889, Ordinance No. 99 -27, November 8, 1999
PD 2002 -002, Ordinance No. 2003 -001, January 28, 2003
Block 500
Amendment No. 827, Ordinance No. 95 -32, August 28, 1995
San Joaquin Plaza
Ordinance No. 1649, adopted by the City of Newport Beach on December 22, 1975
(Amendment No. 455)
Amendment No. 1: March 12, 1979, P.C. Amendment No. 527; Resolution No. 9517
Amendment No. 2: November 23, 1987, P.C. Amendment No. 653; Resolution No. 87 -164
Amendment No. 3: January 13, 1992, P.C. Amendment No. 729; Resolution No. 92 -5
Amendment No. 4: April 27, 1992, P.C. Amendment No. 755; Resolution No. 92 -33
Amendment No. 5: October 9, 1995, P.C. Amendment No. 825, Resolution No. 95 -115
Amendment No. 6: March 22, 2005, Code Amendment No. 2004 -013; Resolution No. 1656,
Ordinance 2005 -3
Block 600
Ordinance No. 1719, adopted by the City of Newport Beach on March 28, 1977 (Amendment
No. 483)
Ordinance No. 92 -45, adopted by the City of Newport Beach on November 9, 1992
(Amendment No. 771)
GPA 97 -3 (D), adopted by the City of Newport Beach on June 22, 1998 (Resolution No. 98-
48)
C:00e menu and Settings"ftra.CWLocal Senmgs\Temporarylntemet FileslOLKiF20mRAddendum- 11107.doc 1-5 Introdachc
Addendum to City of Newport Beach General Plan 2606 Update EIR
SECTION 2.0
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 PROJECT LOCATION
Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza are located in Newport Center in
the City of Newport Beach, California. As depicted in Exhibit 1, Newport Center is generally
bound by San Joaquin Hills Road to the northeast, MacArthur Boulevard to the southeast,
Jamboree Road to the northwest, and Coast Highway to the southwest.
Fashion Island is an approximate 75 -acre regional shopping center located in the center of
Newport Center; Newport Center Drive is a ring road that connects to a roadway system
providing access to the various blocks that form Newport Center. Block 500 (approximately 15
acres) is generally bound by San Joaquin Hills Road to the northeast, an internal access road
and Avocado Avenue to the south, Newport Center Drive to the southwest, and Santa Rosa
Drive to the west. Block 600 (approximately 25 acres) is generally bound by San Joaquin Hills
Road to the northeast, Santa Rosa Drive to the southeast, Newport Center Drive to the
southwest, and Santa Cruz Drive to the west. San Joaquin Plaza (approximately 23 acres) is
generally bound by San Joaquin Hills Road to the northwest, San Clemente Drive to the south,
Santa Cruz Drive to the east, and Santa Barbara Drive and internal access roads to the west.
The four sites are depicted on Exhibit 2.
The areas surrounding Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza are
developed. To the north of Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza across San Joaquin
Hills Road, land uses include residential and a golf course within The Big Canyon Planned
Community (PC 8). Uses to the south of Fashion Island are predominately commercial. To the
south of Block 500 are medical and commercial office uses. To the south of San Joaquin Plaza
are multi - family residential and commercial office uses. To the west are commercial uses,
residential uses, the Marriott Hotel, and the Newport Beach Country Club. To the east, across
MacArthur Boulevard are residential uses.
2.2 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
2.2.1 NORTH NEWPORT CENTER PC TEXT
The City of Newport Beach Municipal Code allows a "Planned Community District" to address
land use designation and regulations in Planned Communities. The proposed project is the
adoption of the North Newport Center PC Text, which incorporates Fashion Island, Block 600, and
portions of Block 500 and San Joaquin Plaza owned by The Irvine Company (Applicant) into a
single Planned Community District. Concurrently, the existing Block 500 PC Text and the San
Joaquin Plaza PC Text would be amended to remove identified portions of Block 500 and San
Joaquin Plaza from their respective Planned Community Districts, and the Newport Beach Zoning
Code would be amended to remove Block 600 from the Administrative Professional Financial
zoning district.
The purposes of a Planned Community District, as stated in the Municipal Code are as follows:
20.35.10 Specific Purposes
The PC district is intended to:
A. To provide for the classification and development of parcels of land as
coordinated, comprehensive projects so as to take advantage of the
CtDoannants and Sedin9S %PaPCrd.CNB%LQWSetdneslT6mP0rary intamet Fi1e$QLK1F2\DMft AddeaCom- 1r1goZ000 2 -1 Emironmt
Addendum to City of Newport Beach Genera! Ptaa 2006 Update EIR
superior environment which can result from large -scale community
planning;
To allow diversification of land uses as they relate to each other in a
physical and environmental arrangement while insuring substantial
compliance with the spirit, intent and provisions of this Code;
C. To include various types of land uses, consistent with the General Plan,
through the adoption of a development plan and text materials which set
forth land use relationships and development standards.
The PC Text has been prepared to implement and be consistent with the adopted 2006 City of
Newport Beach General Plan (General Plan) and City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006
Update Final EIR (General Plan EIR). The proposed PC Text reflects the uses and designations
permitted under the 2006 General Plan. No changes to the existing 2006 General Plan land use
designations are required. The existing General Plan land uses designations for the four sub-
areas are as follows:
Fashion Island Regional Commercial (CR)
Block 500 Mixed Use Horizontal 3 (MU -H3) and Open Space (OS)
Block 600 Mixed Use Horizontal 3 (MU -H3) and Open Space (OS)
San Joaquin Plaza Mixed Use Horizontal 3 (MU -H3) and Open Space (OS)
The existing zoning designations for the four sub -areas are as follows. Adoption of the North
Newport Center PC Text would incorporate Fashion Island, Block 600, and portions of Block
500 and San Joaquin Plaza owned by The Irvine Company (Applicant) to create the North
Newport Center PC Text. The existing and proposed zoning designations are shown on
Exhibit 3.
Fashion Island Planned Community (PC -35 Fashion Island)
Block 500 Planned Community (PC-46 Block 500)
Block 600 Administrative, Professional, Financial (APF); Open Space (OS)
San Joaquin Plaza Planned Community (PC -19 San Joaquin Plaza)
As identified on Table 1, the proposed amendment to the PC Text would incorporate the
intensities set forth in the adopted 2006 General Plan. Future implementation of entitlements for
Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza would not allow for any increase
in development intensities beyond that permitted by the General Plan for these sub - areas. The
PC Text identifies the permitted land uses and development standards that will be used to guide
future development.
As previously noted, Fashion Island is a regional shopping center located in the center of the
larger Newport Center area. The proposed PC Text envisions Fashion Island to incorporate
uses including retail, restaurants, bars, theater /nightclubs and services. The proposed PC Text
provides that Blocks 500 and 600 and San Joaquin Plaza may be developed as a regional
mixed use center incorporating administrative, professional, and financial uses together with
hotel and residential uses and retail and other commercial uses.
C:�owments and Semngs4mKord,MBLLoW Betllnp%Temporary Internet ReS1 LMF21Uraft Addendum-1118 .ftc 2-2 Environmc
Addendum to City of Newporf Beach General Plan 2006 Update E!R
TABLE 1
DEVELOPMENT AREA SUMMARY
2.2.2 TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
The 2006 General Plan also allows a transfer of development rights within Newport Center in
accordance with the following Land Use Element policy:
LU 6.14.3 Transfers of Development Rights
Development rights may be transferred within Newport Center, subject to the
approval of the City with the finding that the transfer is consistent with the General
Plan and that the transfer will not result in any adverse traffic impacts.
As part of the Project, The Irvine Company, herein referred to as Applicant, is proposing to
transfer a portion of the existing development rights from Block 600 to Block 500. The transfer
includes the conversion of 165 unbuilt hotel rooms to office space, and the transfer of this
entitlement to Block 500. It also includes the removal of the following existing uses from Block
600, and transfer of this entitlement to Block 500: 17,300 square feet (sf) of health club, 16,444
sf of restaurant, and 8,289 sf of office. Up to 72,000 sf of the transferred development rights
could be used for a new City Hall in Block 500.
2.2.3 PHASED LAND USE DEVELOPMENT AND CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN
(TPO APPROVAL)
The Project is not expected to be completed within 60 months of approval, and it includes a
circulation improvement plan, explained in detail in the Development Agreement. The Project
therefore qualifies as a Phased Land Use Development and Circulation Improvement Plan
under the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance, Municipal Code §15.40.030.6.2. A traffic study has
been prepared pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, and "feasible mitigation" (consistent
with the 2006 General Plan Circulation Element) is part of the Project. This mitigation is that the
Applicant will construct a third eastbound turn lane at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard
and San Joaquin Hills Road. Consistent with the TPO, this improvement will be completed early
in the development phasing (i.e., before issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first
building [other than a parking structure]) constructed as part of the Project, but in no event later
than 60 months from the operative date of the Development Agreement. In addition, the
Applicant will work with the City on design and development of circulation enhancements in the
C Tocumrenls and SBdingsVaNOrd.CNBlL lSetlingstTempo lntemet FlleSt LK1F20raa Addwdum•111W7.doc 2 -3 Environme
:San Joaquin
Fashion island
Block 500 ''
Block 600
Plaza
Land Use
(75 acres)
(15.29 acres).:
(25 acres)
(231 acres)
Total
Regional
1 619.525 sf
0
0
0
1,619,525 sf
Commercial
Movie Theatre
1,700 seats
1,700 seats
(27,500 sf)
(27,500 sf)
Hotel
(a)
(b)
425 rooms (b)
(b)
490 rooms
Residential
0
(c)
(c)
(c)
Ir 430 du
Office/Commercial
1 0
285,142 sf
1,001,634 sf
337.261 sf
1 1,746,979 sf
sf: square feet
du: dwelling unit
a Hotel rooms are permitted in Fashion Island through the transfer of available square footage.
b 65 hotel rooms may be relocated in either Block 500, Block 600, or San Joaquin Plaza. In no case shall the total
number of hotel rooms in the Fashion Island/Block 500/Block 600 /San Joaquin Plaza Planned Community exceed 490.
c. Residential units are permitted in Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza. In no case shall the total number of
dwelling units exceed 430.
2.2.2 TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
The 2006 General Plan also allows a transfer of development rights within Newport Center in
accordance with the following Land Use Element policy:
LU 6.14.3 Transfers of Development Rights
Development rights may be transferred within Newport Center, subject to the
approval of the City with the finding that the transfer is consistent with the General
Plan and that the transfer will not result in any adverse traffic impacts.
As part of the Project, The Irvine Company, herein referred to as Applicant, is proposing to
transfer a portion of the existing development rights from Block 600 to Block 500. The transfer
includes the conversion of 165 unbuilt hotel rooms to office space, and the transfer of this
entitlement to Block 500. It also includes the removal of the following existing uses from Block
600, and transfer of this entitlement to Block 500: 17,300 square feet (sf) of health club, 16,444
sf of restaurant, and 8,289 sf of office. Up to 72,000 sf of the transferred development rights
could be used for a new City Hall in Block 500.
2.2.3 PHASED LAND USE DEVELOPMENT AND CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN
(TPO APPROVAL)
The Project is not expected to be completed within 60 months of approval, and it includes a
circulation improvement plan, explained in detail in the Development Agreement. The Project
therefore qualifies as a Phased Land Use Development and Circulation Improvement Plan
under the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance, Municipal Code §15.40.030.6.2. A traffic study has
been prepared pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, and "feasible mitigation" (consistent
with the 2006 General Plan Circulation Element) is part of the Project. This mitigation is that the
Applicant will construct a third eastbound turn lane at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard
and San Joaquin Hills Road. Consistent with the TPO, this improvement will be completed early
in the development phasing (i.e., before issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first
building [other than a parking structure]) constructed as part of the Project, but in no event later
than 60 months from the operative date of the Development Agreement. In addition, the
Applicant will work with the City on design and development of circulation enhancements in the
C Tocumrenls and SBdingsVaNOrd.CNBlL lSetlingstTempo lntemet FlleSt LK1F20raa Addwdum•111W7.doc 2 -3 Environme
Addendum to City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR
North Newport Center area, consistent with the General Plan Circulation Element, including
widening of Avocado Avenue between San Miguel Drive and San Nicolas Drive, dedication of
public right -of -way and enhancement of San Miguel Drive between MacArthur Boulevard and
Avocado Avenue, and installation of traffic signals on Newport Center Drive.
2.2.4 AFFORDABLE HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (AHIP)
The 2006 General Plan Housing Element requires an Affordable Housing Implementation Plan
(AHIP) for any development including more than 50 dwelling units. The North Newport Center
AHIP describes how the Applicant would provide affordable housing to meet the Housing
Element goal of 15 percent. The Applicant may build new affordable units, restrict income and
rent levels for existing apartments in the vicinity of North Newport Center, or a combination of
these methods. The exact number of units may vary, depending on the income levels served,
and all units must be affordable for a period of 30 years.
2.2.5 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
As a part of the project, a Development Agreement is proposed between the City of Newport
Beach and The Irvine Company. Key provisions of the proposed Development Agreement are
as follows.
• Cancellation of Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement and Bonita
Canyon Annexation and Development Agreement
• Vesting of North Newport Center development rights for 20 years
• Payment of in -lieu park fees for 430 residential units, including early payment of a
portion of fees as matching grant for OASIS Senior Center
• Payment of public benefit fee to fund construction of new City Hall building or other
municipal purpose
• Circulation enhancements in the North Newport Center area
• Four -year option for the City to purchase a site in Block 500 for City Hall as well as the
use of 375 parking spaces.
• Dedication of the site north of San Miguel Drive, west of MacArthur Boulevard, south of
San Joaquin Hills Road and east of Avocado Avenue for open space, if a new City Hall
is constructed on a site in Newport Center other than Block 500
• Limit on future increases in development fees
• Limit on future amendments to Municipal Code pertaining to development of the North
Newport Center property
2.2.6 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS
The City of Newport Beach, as the lead agency for the Project, would rely on the City of
Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update Program Final EIR and this Addendum as the
primary environmental documentation for the approval of the discretionary actions discussed
below.
C\Dowrnants and Settingst agord.CNB cal Setm,gs%Tenn orary lntemet FiW5k0LK1F2 %Draft Addentlum- 111W7.doc 2-4 Environmc
Addendum to City of Newport Beach Gerrerat Plan 2006 Update EIR
Approval of the Addendum to the City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006
Update Final Program EIR: The North Newport Center Project requires the acceptance
of the environmental document as having been prepared in compliance with CEQA and
the State and City CEQA Guidelines, as well as certification that the information
contained in the City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update Final Program EIR
and this Addendum was considered in the final decisions on the Project.
Approval of the Planned Community Development Plan and Design Regulations
Amendment No. PD2007 -003 as the North Newport Center Planned Community
Development Plan and Design Regulations: The Project includes the adoption of the
North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan to incorporate Fashion
Island, Block 600, and portions of Block 500 and San Joaquin Plaza owned by The
Irvine Company into one PC District, and to provide consistency between the 2006
General Plan and the zoning designation for the four sub -areas of North Newport
Center. Additionally, the Block 500 and San Joaquin Plaza PC Texts would be modified
to remove areas to be included in the North Newport Center PC Text.
• Code Amendment CA2007 -007: An amendment to Municipal Code is required to
change the zoning classification of Block 600 from Administrative Financial Professional
(APF) to Planned Community (PC) District and the open space corner lots in Block 500
and Block 600 from the Open Space (OS) District to the Planned Community (PC)
District.
• Approval of Transfer of Development Rights: The project includes the transfer of
development rights from Block 600 to Block 500 pursuant to General Plan policy. The
transfer of development rights requires approval of the City Council.
• Traffic Study No. TS2007 -001: In accordance with Municipal Code Title 15, Chapter
15.40, the project is a Comprehensive Phased Land Use Development and Circulation
System Improvement Plan as all phases of construction are not anticipated to be
completed within 60 months of approval and the project is subject to a Development
Agreement. As such, a Traffic Phasing Ordinance study has been prepared.
• North Newport Center Planned Community Affordable Housing Implementation
Plan: An Affordable Housing Implementation Plan is required by the 2006 General Plan
Housing Element, and is included in the Project.
• Development Agreement No. DA2007 -002: The Development Agreement between the
City and Applicant would vest development rights and establish public benefit -s to the
City.
CA)awmeM aM Sertin9sbalf M.CNGLLaG lSedlnWTemporary lntwm FllaetOLK1FMMft Addendum- 111%7.doc 2.5 Envlrorrmt
Addendum to City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR
SECTION 3.0
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The analysis in this document will evaluate if the potential impacts associated with the
subsequent approvals outlined in Section 2,0, Project Description, are substantially the same as
those addressed in City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update Final Program EIR. This
evaluation includes a determination as to whether Project implementation would result in any
new significant impacts or a substantial increase in a previously identified significant impact. If
the comparative analysis identifies that there would be no change in impact from that identified
in the General Plan EIR, a determination of "No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis"
has been made.
This analysis provides the City of Newport Beach with the factual basis for determining whether
any changes in the project, any changes in circumstances, or any new information since the
General Plan EIR was certified require additional environmental review or preparation of a
subsequent or supplemental EIR.
3.1 AESTHETICS
The following thresholds of significance are as set forth in the General Plan EIR. It states: "For
purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project would have a significant adverse
impact on aesthetic /visual quality if it would result in any of the following:
• Have a substantial adverse effect a scenic vista
• Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited 'to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway
• Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings
• 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. Aesthetic and visual impacts have been
previously analyzed as part of the General Plan EIR, which was prepared and certified pursuant
to State and City CEQA Guidelines. Minor additions and/or clarifications are needed to make
the previous document adequate to cover the actions that are currently proposed, which are
documented below and serve as an Addendum to the General Plan EIR.
Summary Analvsis
Have a Substantial Adverse Effect a Scenic Vista
Page 4.1 -6 of the City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update Final Program EIR
(General Plan EIR) identifies that there are no officially designated scenic highways within the
City. As such, Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza are not designated
as scenic vistas or located within a scenic preservation zone. Page 4.1 -9 of the General Plan
EIR identifies a public coastal view is located along Newport Center Drive from Newport Center
Drive east to west extending to Farallon Drive /Granville Drive, the beginning of which is located
approximately 0.45 miles south of Block 600 and at the southern edge of Fashion Island. The
General Plan EIR states that "...existing and future development would be regulated by the
C?Ddcumems arid! Sellmgs�paWrd.CNFAL lettings \Temporary lntemet FilesIOL IF20mfl Addendum 411W7,d.0 3-1 EnWronmt
Addendum to City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update OR
proposed General Plan Update policies, and scenic vistas would not be adversely affected.
Therefore, impacts to scenic vistas would be less than significant."
Substantially Damage Scenic Resources, Including, but not Limited to, Trees, Rock
Outcroppings, and Historic Buildings within a State Scenic Highway
The General Plan EIR identifies that there are no officially designated scenic highways in the
City. State Route 1 (Coast Highway) is eligible for State Scenic Highway designation. Coast
Highway is not contiguous to the Project. The General Plan EIR further states "Consequently,
because no scenic highways are currently designated within the City, implementation of the
proposed General Plan Update would have no impact."
Substantially Degrade the Existing Visual Character or Quality of the Site and Its
Surroundings
The General Plan EIR identifies Newport Center /Fashion Island as an area of high overall visual
quality (see page 4.1 -18). It further states "In these areas, new development allowed under the
proposed General Plan Update would be done in such a way as to fit into the existing visual
setting. Policy LU 1.1 requires that new development 'maintain and enhance' existing
development." Policy LU 1.1 states:
Maintain and enhance the beneficial and unique character of the different
neighborhoods, business districts, and harbor that together identify Newport
Beach. Locate and design development to reflect Newport Beach's topography,
architectural diversity, and view sheds (See page 4.1 -24)
Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza are within the City's high -rise
height limitation zone. Fashion Island height limits range from 40 feet to 125 feet as detailed in
Section 5d. Development within Block 500 and Block 600 is permitted up to 375 feet high. The
height limit for San Joaquin Plaza is 65 feet. Fashion Island is currently developed with retail,
entertainment, services and supporting uses that serve local and regional residents. Block 500
is developed with general office and medical uses. Block 600 is currently developed with high -
rise office and hotel buildings. San Joaquin Plaza contains business and professional office
uses.
Full implementation of entitlements for Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin
Plaza would be required to comply with the City's high -rise height limitations, compliment the
height of existing buildings in Newport Center, and not create a significant shadow, or shading,
impact. Shading describes the effect of shadows cast on adjacent areas by proposed structures.
The proposed PC Text requires a that shade and shadow study be prepared for any structure
over 200 feet in height that has the potential to affect the residential area located north of San
Joaquin Hills Road (Big Canyon). The purpose of the study is to ensure that new development
will not result in added shade and shadow to the residential area beyond existing conditions for
more than three hours between the hours of 9 AM and 3 PM Pacific Standard Time, or for more
than four hours between the hours of 9 AM and 5 PM Pacific Daylight Time.
The General Plan EIR .notes that the 2006 General Plan includes policies associated with
aesthetic improvements such as landscaping, pedestrian amenities, and design standards for
architecture and lighting. Future development projects in North Newport Center would be
required to conform to these General Plan standards as well as standards set forth in the PC
Text and its Design Regulations. The General Plan EIR states "Thus, the visual character would
change as development intensity increased, but the impacts would not be considered
C.ZD menb and SettingslpalMN. CNBLLeal SeWngs\Tempwery IMemet FAes\OLKV2)Baafi Addendum- 11190T.d. 3 -2 Environmt
Addendum to City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR
significantly adverse.... Therefore, the proposed General Plan Update would have a less -than-
significant impact on the visual character of developed urban areas." (See page 4.1 -19)
Create a New Source of Substantial Light or Glare, Which Would Adversely Affect Day or
Nighttime Views in the Area
The General Plan EIR notes that the city is primarily built out and currently has significant
amounts of ambient light. It further notes that new development could create new sources of
light and glare from uses such as exterior building lighting, parking lots and structures, reflective
building surfaces, and vehicular headlines. Sources of light and glare could affect adjacent
sensitive land uses generally considered to be undeveloped land and residential uses adjacent
to commercial or industrial uses. The 2006 General Plan includes policies to address potential
nighttime lighting impacts. These include policies to prevent lighting spillage onto adjacent
properties while other policies allow the integration of land uses with requirements for
addressing lighting for land use compatibility. The General Plan EIR states "Therefore, with
implementation of the above - mentioned policies, nighttime lighting impacts and potential
spillover would be les than significant." (See page 4.1 -22) The proposed Planned Community
Development Plan and Design Regulations also contain lighting provisions to implement these
General Plan policies.
Mitigation Program
Policies of the 2006 General Plan were adopted as a mitigation program that minimized impacts
associated with buiidout of the City of Newport Beach, including the implementation of future
development in Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza. The following
condition is included in the North Newport Center PC Text relating shade and shadow:
Prior to issuance of a building permit for a structure over 200 feet in height that has the
potential to shade residential areas north of San Joaquin Hills Road, a shade study shall
be prepared by the Applicant and submitted to the City. The shade study shall
demonstrate that the new development will not add shade to the designated residential
areas beyond existing conditions for more than three hours between the hours of 9 AM
and 3 PM Pacific Standard Time, or for more than four hours between the hours of 9 AM
and 5 PM Pacific Daylight Time.
The shade study shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the Planning Director and the
Planning Director shall determine conformance with the standards identified herein as part
of the plan review process.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, the General Plan EIR states "...all other
project impacts associates with aesthetics and visual resources would be less than significant
under the proposed Newport Beach General Plan Update .,,2
Finding of Consistencv With General Plan EIR
Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach has determined,
on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that the North Newport
Center Project does not propose substantial changes to the project; no substantial changes
would occur which would require major revisions to the General Plan EIR due to the
2 Visual impacts associated with Banning Rands were found to be unavoidable. Banning Ranch is not a part of the
North Newport Center Project.
C mente and SaNnga\paltod.CNBLLO 1SettingmTemp=r lmamet FnesIDMIFPDmfl AddendumAiIg0].doc 3-3 Envlronme
Addendum to City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR
involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified significant e_ffecds3 and no new information of substantial importance has
been revealed since the certification of the General Plan EIR.
3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCE
The General Plan EIR identifies that the topic of Agricultural Resources was focused out
because the City of Newport Beach contains no designated farmland by the California
Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping Program, 3 no land designated Farmland would
be converted to non - agricultural use as a result of implementation of the 2006 General Plan, no
sites in the City are zoned for agricultural use, and no sites would be affected by a Williamson
Act contract. (See page 6-4)
3.3 AIR QUALITY
The following thresholds of significance are as set forth in the General Plan EIR. It states: "For
purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project would have a significant adverse
impact on air quality if it would result in any of the following:
• Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan
• Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation
• Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project is in non - attainment under an applicable federal or State
ambient air quality standard
• Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations
• Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people'
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Air quality impacts have been previously
analyzed as part of the General Plan EIR, which was prepared and certified pursuant to State
and City CEQA Guidelines. Minor additions and/or clarifications are needed to make the
previous document adequate to cover the actions that are currently proposed, which are
documented below and serve as an Addendum to the General Plan EIR.
Summary Analysis
Conflict With or Obstruct Implementation of the Applicable Air Quality Plan
Result in a Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase of any Criteria Pollutant for Which
the Project Is In Non - Attainment Under An Applicable Federal Or State Ambient Air
Quality Standard
The General Plan EIR identifies that projects that are consistent with the South Coast Air
Quality Management District (SCAQMD) 2003 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) are those
whose use and activities are consistent with the applicable assumptions used in the
development of the AQMP. Because the growth projections assumed for buildout of the 2006
General Plan are higher than what would have been assumed in the AQMP, the "...proposed
' California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping Program, Important Farmland in California 2004 Map
(2004)
CBOocumenta and SeGings"MnJ.CNBLL cal SedingalTennmrary lntennet Files \OLKV20raft Addendum- 111gBZdoc 3-4 Environmc
Addendum to City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR
General Plan Update would not be consistent with the AQMP attainment forecasts and
attainment of the standards could be delayed.... this impact would be significant." This was
identified as a project and cumulative unavoidable impact.
As previously identified in Table 1 of this Addendum, total development (existing and future) for
Fashion Island is 1,619,525 sf of regional commercial uses and 1,000 movie theatre seats: hotel
uses are permitted through a transfer of development rights. Total development (existing and
future) for Block 600 is 1,001,634 sf of office/commercial and 425 hotel rooms. Total
office/commercial development is 285,142 sf for Block 500 and 337,261 sf for San Joaquin
Plaza. In addition, 430 residential units and 65 hotel rooms may be developed in Blocks 500 or
600 or San Joaquin Plaza. Through the transfer of development rights included in the Project,
the entitlement for 165 new hotel rooms and 42,036 sf of office /commercial use allocated to
Block 600 is to be transferred to Block 500 for the development of 205,161 sf of
office /commercial use in Block 500.The Project does not propose any new land uses, nor any
additional intensity of development, not previously permitted and contemplated in the 2006
General Plan for the four sub - areas.
As such, the Project is in conformance with the assumptions set forth in the General Plan EIR.
Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the
severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan
EIR.
Violate Any Air Quality Standard or Contribute Substantially to an Existing or Projected
Air Quality Violation
The General Plan EIR identifies that construction related emissions could be mitigated but
would be expected to remain significant and unavoidable. Future development in North Newport
Center consistent with the assumptions of the 2006 General Plan may involve excavation,
grading operations, building construction, and demolition of existing structures and pavement.
All development will be required to comply with standard construction practices as set forth in
the SCAQMD Handbook, including best management practices (BMPs) for the control of
emissions. BMPs include control of fugitive dust through watering exposed surfaces, covering
exposed ground, and sweeping streets. Additional measures involve construction traffic
emission control including ensuring all vehicles and equipment are operating efficiently. It is
anticipated that standard control measures would reduce potential impacts of air emissions and
odors.
Page 4.2 -13 of the General Plan EIR states: 'Implementation of the proposed General Plan
Update would result in construction emissions that would contribute substantially to an existing
or projected air quality violation." The General Plan EIR evaluated the effects of full
implementation of entitlements for Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza
on air quality and accounted for construction impacts. The General Plan EIR concluded that
despite implementation of General Plan Policies NR 8.1 through NR 8.5, which would help to
reduce construction- related air quality impacts, the development contemplated in the General
Plan would result in a significant and unavoidable air quality impact. The Project is in
conformance with the assumptions set forth in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, implementation
of the Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously
identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations
The General Plan notes that the implementation of General Plan land uses is not expected to
expose existing or future sensitive uses within the City to substantial carbon monoxide (CO)
C:V]ocumerxs mtl SaftpsP gont.CNMLOVI SeGmgMTempo lmemet FRWOLMF210 Addendum - 111801 d. 3 -5 Environmi
Addendum to City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR
concentrations. This impact was determined to be less than significant for all uses in the City.
As such, this conclusion would also be applicable to the North Newport Center Project.
Create Objectionable Odors Affecting a Substantial Number of People
Odors can occur from construction activities related to the operation of construction vehicles
and the application of architectural coatings. Odors can also occur from operation of uses such
as restaurants, manufacturing facilities, etc. The General Plan EIR notes uses such as
restaurants are typically required to have ventilation systems; trash receptacles are required by
City and Health Department regulations. The General Plan EIR states that "Consequently,
implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would not create objectionable odors
affecting a substantial number of people within the City and potential impacts would be less than
significant." (See page 4.2 -17). No land uses or activities would be permitted in the North
Newport Center District that would result in changes in the conclusions set forth in the General
Plan EIR.
Climate Change
The proposed North Newport Center Project serves to implement the principal goals of the 2006
General Plan. These goals and policies include the following :4
• A successful mixed -use district that integrates an economic and commercial
center serving the needs of Newport Beach residents and the subregion, with
expanded opportunities for residents to live close to jobs, commerce,
entertainment, and recreation, and is supported by a pedestrian - friendly
environment.
• Provide the opportunity for limited residential, hotel, and office development in
accordance with the limits specified by Tables LU1 and LU2.
• Provide the opportunity for an additional anchor tenant, other retail, and/or
entertainment and supporting uses that complement, are integrated with, and
enhance the economic vitality of existing development.
• Encourage that some new development be located and designed to orient to the
inner side of Newport Center Drive, establishing physical and visual continuity
that diminishes the dominance of surface parking lots and encourages pedestrian
activity.
• Encourage that pedestrian access and connections among uses within the
district be improved with additional walkways and streetscape amenities
concurrent with the development of expanded and new uses.
• Encourage that new development in Fashion Island complement and be of
equivalent or higher design quality than existing buildings. Reinforce the existing
promenades by encouraging retail expansion that enhances the storefront
visibility to the promenades and provides an enjoyable retail and pedestrian
experience.
Full implementation of entitlements for Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin
Plaza consistent with the 2006 General Plan will assist the City in achieving its General Plan
goals. Regarding long- term air quality impacts, the General Plan EIR states that the nature of
4 Ibid., pages 3 -97 to 3 -98.
CMowmwds and SeWngslpMord.CNB1mM SeWngstTempur lmemet FflsZLMFZl ftAdtleMUmA11%7 dec 3-6 Environmt
Addendum to City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR
Newport Center has the capacity to contribute to decreases in vehicle miles traveled because
the project area promotes a mixed -use, pedestrian - friendly district .5 The Project is not expected
to result in any climate change impacts due to greenhouse gas emissions beyond the impacts of
the development set forth in the General Plan EIR.
The General Plan EIR analyzed air quality impacts associated with buildout of future
development in the City, inclusive of Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin
Plaza. The analysis included carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gas emissions. As
discussed above, the Project would not generate any new air quality impacts not already
identified in the General Plan EIR. The Project is in conformance with the assumptions set forth
in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any new
impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously
analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
With respect to global climate change resulting from greenhouse gas emissions, no "new
information of substantial importance" on climate change is now available that was not known
and could not have been known when the City approved the General Plan EIR in 2006. For
example, in 1979, the National Research Council published "Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A
Scientific Assessment,' which concluded that climate change was an accelerating phenomenon
partly due to human activity. Numerous studies conducted before and after the National
Research Council report reached similar conclusions. The State of California adopted legislation
in 2002 requiring the California Air Resources Board to develop regulations limiting greenhouse
gas emissions from automobiles.
Consideration of strategies to control emissions of greenhouse gases which may contribute in
some manner to global climate change is under consideration at all regulatory levels; however,
there is no one agency responsible for regulating greenhouse gases, and there are no
established standards to evaluate the significance of greenhouse gas emissions. However, the
most common greenhouse gas emissions are from vehicle emissions (both construction and
operational) and operational emissions from energy consumption. These issues have been
addressed in General Plan EIR.
Analyses prepared for or by California State Agencies on climate change issues do not provide
for the provision of specific measures to incorporate into particular projects to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, except for generalized recommendations about such matters as
encouraging jobs /housing proximity. The California Energy Commission recently explained that
accessibility and mixed use are two factors that reduce vehicles trips, which are a major source
of greenhouse gas emissions in California5
The Project's incremental contribution to any cumulative global climate change impact is
mitigated by various characteristics of the Project that serve to render its contribution less than
cumulatively considerable. One of the main concerns raised by those concerned about the
effect of greenhouse gases on climate change is that "leap frog" -type development would serve
to potentially increase the number of vehicle miles traveled and consequently increase those
vehicular emissions (i.e., CO2 that contribute to greenhouse gases). The Project would allow for
in -fill, mixed use development in an urbanized setting thereby providing opportunities to reduce
vehicle trips.
s City of Newport Beach, Final Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan 2006 Update (State Clearinghouse
No. 2006011119), July 26, 2006, page 4.2 -12.
e California Energy Commission, The Role of Land Use in Meeting California's Energy and Climate Change Goals,
Draft, June 26, 2007, pages 7, 17 -19.
C:Oowrn 0 and Se11In98Wa1fond.CN8 %L0ca1 Seft9etTMNMq Internet FilesWLKV20mft Addentl m- 111907.doc 3-7 EmmonnN
to ON of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR
Mitigation Proqram
Policies of the 2006 General Plan were adopted as a mitigation program that minimized impacts
associated with buildout of the City of Newport Beach, including the implementation of future
development in Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, the General Plan EIR identifies that there
are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce the impact of increased population on
implementation of the AQMP; to reduce cumulative impacts associated with construction
emissions; or to reduce operational activities. These impacts would be significant and
unavoidable.
Finding of Consistencv With General Plan EIR
Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach has determined,
on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that the North Newport
Center Project does not propose substantial changes to the project; no substantial changes
would occur which would require major revisions to the General Plan EIR_iie to the
iayslsc�ni_ Qin�me _si�nifiranLemcirs�rtm�oi�Lgff r�4La_ srtbstantiaf .insrg�s�in�h��ex�rilv�i
previously identified significant effects; and no new information of substantial importance has
been revealed since the certification of the General Plan EIR.
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The following thresholds of significance are as set forth in the General Plan EIR. It states: "For
purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project would have a significant adverse
impact on biological resources if it would result in any of the following:
• Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or indirectly through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans, policies, or the CDFG or USFWS
• 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 CDFG or USFWS
• Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means
• 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
• Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance
• Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan"
C:Tocuments and Seginga1ya1ford CNB \Local SelOnes \Temporary lntemet FllesnLMFMraft Addendum -1118W.doc 3-8 Environme
to City of Nawwrt Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Biological resources impacts have been
previously analyzed as part of the General Plan EIR, which was prepared and certified pursuant
to State and City CEQA Guidelines. Minor additions and /or clarifications are needed to make
the previous document adequate to cover the actions that are currently proposed, which are
documented below and serve as an Addendum to the General Plan EIR.
Summary Analvsis
Have a Substantial Adverse Effect, Either Directly or Indirectly Through Habitat
Modifications, On Any Species Identified as a Candidate, Sensitive, or Special Status
Species in Local or Regional Plans, Policies, or the CDFG or USFWS
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 CDFG
or USFWS
Have a Substantial Adverse Effect on Federally Protected Wetlands as Defined By
Section 404 Of The Clean Water Act (Including, But Not Limited To, Marsh, Vernal Pool,
Coastal, Etc.) Through Direct Removal, Filling, Hydrological Interruption, or Other Means
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
Conflict with Any Local Policies or Ordinances Protecting Biological Resources, Such As
a Tree Preservation Policy or Ordinance
Conflict with the Provisions of an Adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or Other Approved Local, Regional, or State Habitat
Conservation Plan
Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza are located within Newport
Center, a built urban environment. Landscaped areas within Fashion Island, Block 500, Block
600, and San Joaquin Plaza include non - native landscape materials including turf, trees, and
plants. No wetlands or riparian habitat community exist in the sub - areas. The project would not
have a substantial adverse effect on any species identified by the California Department of Fish
and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as a species for concern because the site has
been developed for the past 40 years and contains no habitat suitable for wildlife. Landscaping
may be removed as a result of future development. The General Plan EIR notes that
development could result in the removal of mature trees that may be used as perching and
nesting sites for migratory birds and raptors. The General Plan EIR identifies mitigation
associated with this potential impact and states "With compliance with these policies, impacts
would be less than significant...."
The County of Orange Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) and the Habitat
Conservation Plan (HCP) surveyed and mapped habitat vegetation and species throughout the
County, including the four sub - areas. No candidate, sensitive or special status species were
identified in the vicinity of the site. 7 Additionally, North Newport Center is identified as having no
conservation value and is not included in the NCCP or HCP.
U.S. Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service, Natural Community Conservation Plan, Habitat Conservation
Plan, EIR, and EIS - County of Orange Central and Coastal Subregion, May 1996.
COocuments and Se WngstpaftM CNB%LO8I SBitlngswemporary lntemet FileaW KV2%0mftAdendum- 111WTdoc 3.9 Envlronm
Addendum to City of Newport Beach Gerr / Plan 2006 Update EIR
The General Plan EIR analyzes the potential biological effects associated with buildout of the
2006 General Plan, including Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza.
These sites would be required to comply with applicable 2006 General Plan policies regarding
biological resources. Pages 4.3 -22, 4.3 -24, and 4.3 -27 of the Biological Resources Analysis in
the General Plan EIR address development in Newport Center, inclusive of Fashion Island,
Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza. Page 4.3 -27 identifies that that the 2006 General
Plan policies ensure that build -out consistent with the General Plan would not impact native,
resident, or migratory wildlife species or corridors.
Mitiaatlon Proaram
Policies of the 2006 General Plan were adopted as a mitigation program that minimized impacts
associated with buildout of the City of Newport Beach, including the implementation of future
development in Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza.
Level of Siqnificance After IMitiaation
Consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, the General Plan EIR identifies that
compliance with existing federal, State, and local regulations would mitigate biological resources
impacts to a level considered less than significant.
Findina of Consistency With General Plan EIR
Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach has determined,
on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that the North Newport
Center Project does not propose substantial changes to the project; no substantial changes
would occur which would require major revisions to the General Plan EIR due to the
involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase_ in_ the _severitv_Qf
ren viously identified significant effects; and no new information of substantial importance has
been revealed since the certification of the General Plan EIR.
3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
The following thresholds of significance are as set forth in the General Plan EIR. It states: "For
purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project would have a significant adverse
impact on cultural resources if it would result in any of the following:
• Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource
as defined in Section 15064.5
• Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to Section 15064.5
• Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature
• Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries"
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Cultural resources impacts have been
previously analyzed as part of the General Plan EIR, which was prepared and certified pursuant
to State and City CEQA Guidelines. Minor additions and/or clarifications are needed to make
the previous document adequate to cover the actions that are currently proposed, which are
documented below and serve as an Addendum to the General Plan EIR.
QVmments and Sedlnps Palhrd,GWOwl Setbngs\Temporary Internet FleslOLMF Daft Addendumi l lwTdw 3 -10 Environm
Addendum to City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR
Summary Analvsis
Cause a Substantial Adverse Change in the Significance of a Historical Resource as
Defined In Section 15064.5
The four sub -areas of the North Newport Center PC District are not identified as a historic area
or an area containing historical resources by the City of Newport Beach General Plan. The
Project would not result in any adverse physical or aesthetic effects to any building, structure, or
object having historical, cultural, or religious significance. As such, no historic resources would
be impacted by the Project.
Cause a Substantial Adverse Change in the Significance of an Archaeological Resource
Pursuant To Section 15064.5
Disturb Any Human Remains, Including Those Interred Outside of Formal Cemeteries
The General Plan EIR notes that ground- disturbing activities can damage or destroy
archaeological and/or Native American cultural resources. The 2006 General Plan contains
policies to ensure the protection of such resources. The General Plan EIR states that
"...implementation of the proposed General Plan Update policies would ensure that impacts to
archaeological and Native American cultural resources would be less than significant..." (See
page 4.4 -16) The Project is in conformance with the assumptions set forth in the General Plan
EIR. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or increase
the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General
Plan EIR.
Directly or Indirectly Destroy a Unique Paleontological Resource or Site or Unique
Geologic Feature
Paleontological resources may be present in fossil- bearing soils and rock formations below the
ground surface. Ground - disturbing activities in these soils and formations have the potential to
damage or destroy these resources. The General Plan EIR states that compliance with General
Plan policies "...would reduce this impact to a less- than - significant level by ensuring that
paleontological resources would be subject to scientific recovery and evaluation..." (See page
4.4 -17) The Project is in conformance with the assumptions set forth in the General Plan EIR.
Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the
severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan
EIR.
Mitigation Program
Policies of the 2006 General Plan were adopted as a mitigation program that minimized impacts
associated with buildout of the City of Newport Beach, including the implementation of future
development in Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, the General Plan EIR identifies that
impacts to archaeological and paleontological resources, and human remains could be
mitigated to a level considered less than significant.
C:1➢ocumen6 and SeN, S"fford.CNelLo lSetm,gs%Temp mql, et FilesIOWF2Dmft Addendum .111%7.doc 3-11 EnviMnM
Addendum to City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR
Findina of Consistencv With General Plan EIR
Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach has determined,
on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that the North Newport
Center Project does not propose substantial changes to the project; no substantial changes
would occur which would require major revisions to the General Plan EIR due to the
inv9lvam�nis> in�w. �. ignific�nienuir�nrnsntal _�ifesisszr_;� , slJa; zlantislir >�rte;�sei�ing��vgritv_Qf
Previously identified significant -eftc95; and no new information of substantial importance has
been revealed since the certification of the General Plan EIR.
3.6 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND MINERAL RESOURCES
The following thresholds of significance are as set forth in the General Plan EIR. It states:
"Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would result in a significant impact if the
project would:
• Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving
— 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
— Strong seismic ground shaking
— Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction
— Landslides
• Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of top soil
• 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
• Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 1 B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property
• 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
• 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. Geology, soils, and mineral resources
impacts have been previously analyzed as part of the General Plan EIR, which was prepared
and certified pursuant to State and City CEQA Guidelines. Minor additions and/or clarifications
are needed to make the previous document adequate to cover the actions that are currently
proposed, which are documented below and serve as an Addendum to the General Plan EIR.
Summary Analysis
Expose People or Structures to Potential Substantial Adverse Effects, Including the Risk
of Loss, Injury, or Death Involving the Rupture of a Known Earthquake Fault, Strong
Ground Shaking, Seismic - Related Ground Failure, or Landslides
C Oocumama and! SeGingslpalbrdl CNMLocol Setbngs\Tempor lnlemet Fi1es\0LK1F2VDrefl AE0en0ual- 111907 doe 3 -12 Enviro rm
Addendum to Citv of Newport Beach General Plan 2006
The General Plan EIR notes that there are no Alquist- Priolo zones in the City; no impact would
result. Policies are provided in the 2006 General Plan to ensure that adverse effects caused by
seismic and geologic hazards are minimized. Moderate to large earthquakes would cause
ground shaking in Newport Center, inclusive of Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San
Joaquin Plaza. Compliance with regulations and policies of the General Plan EIR would
"...ensure that impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking remain at a less -than-
significant level." With respect to seismic - related ground failure, none of Newport Center is in an
identified liquefaction area.
Result In Substantial Soil Erosion or the Loss of Top Soil
With respect to top soil, the General Plan EIR notes that most of the City is built out and top soil
is not an issue. With respect to soil erosion, shoreline areas and coastal bluffs are highly
susceptible to erosion from wave action and stream erosion. The four sub -areas are not located
near the coast or bluff areas. All demolition and construction activities are required to comply
with the California Building Code and other regional and local regulations (e.g., State Water
Resources Control Board provisions) that require the implementation of measures to reduce soil
erosion. The General Plan EIR identifies that potential impacts would be mitigated to a less than
significant level. The Project is in conformance with the assumptions set forth in the General
Plan EIR. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or
increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the
General Plan EIR.
Be Located on Expansive Soil, as Defined In Table 18 1 B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), Creating Substantial Risks to Life or Property
The General Plan EIR considered buildout of the City, inclusive of Fashion Island, Block 500,
Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza in its geology analysis. Page 4.5 -13 of the General Plan EIR
discusses the General Plan Update's concentration of development in areas including Fashion
Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza, and notes that the impact is considered
less than significant. All four sub -areas have been subject to development which has required
the analysis of soil conditions.
With respect to soil characteristics, the certified Final EIR for the Island Hotel (formerly Four
Seasons), dated October 21, 1983, discussed geology and soils in Newport Center. The Final
EIR states that Newport Center is:
...part of an uplifted marine terrace of Pleistocene age. The marine terrace soils
are composed essentially of weakly cemented to loose sands and silty sands
which in parts of Newport Center reach a depth of as much as 50 feet. The upper
one to two feet of this material have weathered to form a moderately expansive,
clayey soil. The Pleistocene sediments are underlain by clay shales, clay
siltstones, and sandstones of Miocene age, Monterey Formation.
Because policies of the General Plan require that development not be located on unstable soils
or geologic units, the General Plan EIR found that the potential impact was less than significant.
The Uniform Building Code and California Building Code include regulations governing
seismically resistant construction and construction to protect people and property from
construction and building hazards.
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
G1 wmems ar S0ingstpaftM.CNB%L0W1 SsWngs7empotary lntemet Fiks10LKV20mft Addendum- 111807.&c 3-13 Emaro mE
Addendum to ON of Nemort Beach Genefal Plan 2006
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
The General Plan EIR notes that implementation of the 2006 General Plan would not result in
the loss of availability of known mineral resources of value to the region or the State. No
impacts would occur.
Mitigation Proaram
Policies of the 2006 General Plan were adopted as a mitigation program that minimized impacts
associated with buildout of the City of Newport Beach, including the implementation of future
development in Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza.
Level of Siqnificance After Mitigation
Consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, the General Plan EIR identifies that
impacts to geology and soils could be mitigated to a level considered less than significant. No
mineral resources were identified.
Findina of Consistencv With General Plan EIR
Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach has determined,
on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that the North Newport
Center Project does not propose substantial changes to the project; no substantial changes
would occur which would require major revisions to the General Plan EIR due to the
involvement of new sianificant environmental effects or a substantial increase_ in_ the _severi tY9f
reuiw _._jdentified sianificant effects; and no new information of substantial importance has
been revealed since the certification of the General Plan EIR.
3.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The following thresholds of significance are as set forth in the General Plan EIR. It states:
'Implementation of the proposed project may have a significant adverse impact to the public or
the environment through hazards and hazardous materials if it would result in any of the
following:
• Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials
• 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
• Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school
• Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials site
compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, and as a result, would
create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
• For a project located within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has
not been developed, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area
CADdwmenU and SeGings"ford.CNMl al Seungs \Temporary lntennet Fl1esQLK1F2C )ratAddendum- 111W7.dac 3-14 EnvlromrrE
of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR
• Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan
• Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed with wildlands"
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Hazards and hazardous material - related
impacts have been previously analyzed as part of the General Plan EIR, which was prepared
and certified pursuant to State and City CEQA Guidelines. Minor additions and/or clarifications
are needed to make the previous document adequate to cover the actions that are currently
proposed, which are documented below and serve as an Addendum to the General Plan EIR.
Summary Analysis
Create a Significant Hazard to the Public or the Environment through the Routine
Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials
Emit Hazardous Emissions or Handle Hazardous or Acutely Hazardous Materials,
Substances, or Waste within One - Quarter Mile of an Existing or Proposed School
Be Located on a Site Which Is Included On A List Of Hazardous Materials Site Compiled
Pursuant To Government Code Section 65962.5, and as a Result, Would Create a
Significant Hazard To The Public Or The Environment
Impair Implementation Of or Physically Interfere With an Adopted Emergency Response
Plan or Emergency Evacuation Plan
The General Plan EIR acknowledges that implementation of the 2006 General Plan land uses
would result in an increase in commercial development that could increase the routine transport,
use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials. The General Plan also notes that
construction activities can result in the exposure of hazardous materials (e.g., lead -based paint
and asbestos). The City contains sites that have been identified as being contaminated by the
release of hazardous substances into the soil; sites containing leaking underground storage
tanks; and large and small generators of hazardous materials.
The General Plan EIR notes that projects are required to comply with existing regulations and
General Plan policies to protect construction workers and the public. Potential impacts were
determined to be less than significant. Future development in North Newport Center could
require the demolition of structures. Demolition and construction activities on the four sub -areas
would also be subject to compliance with these regulations and policies.
The Island Hotel (formerly Four Seasons) in Block 600 is listed as having a leaking underground
storage tank (LUST).' A remediation plan has been submitted to the Orange County Local
Oversight Program (Local Lead Agency) and to the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control
Board. The conclusion of this effort is pending. The contaminant identified is diesel fuel. None of
the leaks that have been reported in the City have impacted a drinking source of groundwater.
As with all development in the City, the Project must comply with existing regulations and
General Plan policies regarding hazardous materials. General Plan Policy S 7.3 educates
residents and businesses about reducing or eliminating their use of hazardous materials. Policy
8 Ibid., Table 4.65.
CMocuments ands ftinplpalDM.CNB %Locals ffingmTemporary lntemet Files/ LMFH mft Addendum•111W7 doc 3-15 Environnu
Addendum to City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR
S 7.6 requires that all users, producers, and transporters of hazardous materials and wastes
clearly identify the materials and comply with applicable law.
The General Plan EIR notes that increased population and development could result in
congested traffic conditions. The 2006 General Plan identifies policies to ensure that the city's
Emergency Management Plan is regularly updated, provides for efficient and orderly citywide
evacuation, and ensures that emergency service personnel are knowledgeable of the relevant
response plans for the City. Such information is also distributed through the community. General
Plan policies for handling emergencies would reduce hazardous materials impacts due to
growth to a less than significant level. The Project is in conformance with the assumptions set
forth in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any
new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously
analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
Expose People or Structures to a Significant Risk of Loss, Injury or Death Involving
Wildland Fires, Including Where Wildlands Are Adjacent To Urbanized Areas or Where
Residences Are Intermixed With Wlldlands
North Newport Center is not susceptible to wildland fires; the four sub -areas are completely
surrounded by existing urban development.
For a Project Located Within an Airport Land Use Plan, or Where Such a Plan has Not
Been Developed, Within Two Miles Of a Public Airport Or Public Use Airport, Result In a
Safety Hazard For People Residing Or Working In The Project Area
The four sub -areas are identified in the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for the John
Wayne Airport. The Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) has found the City of Newport Beach
to be a consistent agency with the AELUP. However, the AELUP requires that zone changes for
consistent agencies be referred to the ALUC for a determination prior to City action. Therefore,
the zone change has been forwarded to the ALUC, and a hearing is scheduled prior to public
hearings before the City's Planning Commission and City Council.
Additionally, the four sub -areas are within the AELUP Height Restriction Zone. Within this zone,
notice to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is required for construction or alteration to
any building more than 200 feet above ground level. Prior to construction or alteration of a
building more than 200 feet above ground level a Determination of No Hazard must be obtained
from the FAA. A determination of No Hazard is the FAA's independent finding that a proposed
structure will not pose a hazard to air navigation. The PC Text requires that any structure above
200 feet will be forwarded to the FAA for their independent analysis.
Mitigation Program
Policies of the 2006 General Plan were adopted as a mitigation program that minimized impacts
associated with buildout of the City of Newport Beach, including the implementation of future
development in Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza. The following
conditions are included in the North Newport Center PC Text relating the adherence to the
AELUP and FAA restrictions:
1. For development of structures that exceed 200 feet in height above ground level at a
development site, applicants shall file a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration
with the FAA (FAA Form 7460 -1). Following the FAA's Aeronautical Study of a project,
the project must comply with conditions of approval imposed or recommended by the
FAA. Subsequent to the FAA findings, the City shall refer the project to the Airport Land
Use Commission (ALUC) of Orange County for consistency analysis.
C:10oaments and SeWngstpalbrd.CNB\ Local SeWngs Temporary lntamet Fl1ea\0LK1FMmft Addendum- 111W7.dm 3 -16 Entdronme
Addendum to City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR
2. No buildings within the Fashion Island /Block 5001Block 6001San Joaquin Plaza Planned
Community area should penetrate the FAA FAR Part 77 imaginary obstruction surface
for John Wayne Airport.
3. Applicants shall file a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration with the FAA (Form
7460 -1) for any construction cranes that exceed 200 feet in height above ground level.
Level of Significance After Miticiation
Consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, the General Plan EIR identifies that
impacts to hazards and hazardous materials relevant to the Project could be mitigated to a level
considered less than significant.
Finding -of Consistency With General Plan EIR
Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach has determined,
on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that the North Newport
Center Project does not propose substantial changes to the project; no substantial changes
would occur which would require major revisions to the General Plan EIR due to the
pLeY�(L4Lsly jciufieSLsiapifcantfcr; and no new information of substantial importance has
been revealed since the certification of the General Plan EIR.
3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
The following thresholds of significance are as set forth in the General Plan EIR. It states:
"Implementation of the proposed project may have a significant adverse impact on hydrology
and water quality, as well as the City's storm drain system, if it would result in any of the
following:
• Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements
• Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or
a lowering of the local groundwater table.
• Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase
the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding
on- or off-site
• 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
• Require or result in the construction and/or expansion of new storm drain
infrastructure that would cause significant environmental effects
• Otherwise substantially degrade water quality
• Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal
Flood Hazard Boundary or flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map
C 00camens and SealigeyaNem.CaBLLOralSedinq . lTemoorery vdamet Fi1e510LK1FZDrenatlaend um- 111W7.d= 3 -17 Environnx
Addendum to City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR
Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or
redirect flows
• Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury or death involving
flooding, including flooding as a result of a levee or dam
Expose people or structures to significant risk or loss, injury or death involving
inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow"
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Hydrology and water quality impacts have
been previously analyzed as part of the General Plan EIR, which was prepared and certified
pursuant to State and City CEQA Guidelines. Minor additions and/or clarifications are needed to
make the previous document adequate to cover the actions that are currently proposed, which
are documented below and serve as an Addendum to the General Plan EIR.
Summary Analysis
Violate Any Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements
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
Otherwise Substantially Degrade Water Quality
The General Plan EIR notes 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 Construction General Permit and preparation and implementation of Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plans required for compliance with the NPDES General Construction Stormwater
Activity Permit. Permit and regulation compliance would be required for future development
projects within Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza.
The City of Newport Beach Municipal Code ensures compliance with federal water quality
standards. The Municipal Code also regulates grading, fill, drainage, and erosion control. All
construction and development must comply with applicable federal, State, and City laws. Also,
General Plan Update policies "would reduce the risk of water degradation from the operation of
new developments to the maximum extent practicable. "9 The impact of development under the
General Plan Update would be less than significant.
As identified in the General Plan EIR, Policy NR 3.16 Street Drainage Systems states "Require
all street drainage systems and other physical improvements created by the City, or developers
of new subdivisions, to be designed, constructed, and maintained to minimize adverse impacts
on water quality. Investigate the possibility of treating or diverting street drainage to minimize
impacts to water bodies. "10 General Plan Policy LU 2.8, Adequate Infrastructure, states
"Accommodate the types, densities, and mix of land uses that can be adequately supported by
transportation and utility infrastructure (water, sewer, storm drainage, energy, and so on) and
public services (schools, parks, libraries, seniors, youth, police, fire, and so on)."
s Ibid., page 4.7 -32.
10 Ibid., page 4.14 -45.
" Ibid., page 4.14 -34.
C:ZawmaM and Setta,9WpaftW CNBIocal Settingsffemporary /Memel F9es10LKMVraRAddendum- 111907.we 3-18 Environm
Addendum to City of Newpod Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR
The General Plan EIR concludes that impacts are less than significant. General Plan Update
Policies `would ensure that new development can be adequately supported by utilities such as
storm drainage infrastructure. "" Impacts are less than significant. The Project is in conformance
with the assumptions set forth in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, implementation of the Project
would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant
impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
Substantially Deplete Groundwater Supplies or Interfere Substantially With Groundwater
Recharge Such That There Would Be A Net Deficit in Aquifer Volume or a Lowering of the
Local Groundwater Table
The General Plan EIR notes that implementation of the General Plan could create additional
impervious surfaces which could interfere with groundwater recharge. The General Plan EIR
goes on to note that, however, intensification of development would not affect groundwater
recharge. As the four sub -areas are currently developed, there would be no substantive change
in the amount of impervious surfaces. The EIR finds that "new development would not
substantially affect groundwater recharge. Potential impacts to groundwater recharge would be
less than significant." 13 The Project is in conformance with the assumptions set forth in the
General Plan EIR. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts
or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the
General Plan EIR.
Require or Result In the Construction and/or Expansion of New Storm Drain
Infrastructure That Would Cause Significant Environmental Effects
On a citywide basis, the General Plan EIR notes that buildout may require the expansion of
storm drains or the construction of new storm drain infrastructure. The existing site drainage has
been designed to handle run off from existing structures on the four sub - areas. As future site -
specific development is proposed, drainage plans will be developed. The General Plan EIR
contains policies that ensure that new development can be adequately supported by utilities
such as storm drain infrastructure. The General Plan EIR states "It is not anticipated that this
construction of necessary storm drainage upgrades in and of itself would result in impacts
separate from the General Plan Update." (See page 4.7 -37) The Project is in conformance with
the assumptions set forth in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, implementation of the Project
would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant
impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
Substantially Alter The Existing Drainage Pattern Of The Site Or Area, Including Through
The Alteration of The Course Of A Stream Or River, Or Substantially Increase The Rate Or
Amount Of Surface Runoff In A Manner Which Would Result In Flooding On- Or Off -Site
Place Housing within a 100 -Year Flood Hazard Area as Mapped on a Federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or Other Flood Hazard Delineation Map
Place Within a 100 -Year Flood Hazard Area Structures Which Would Impede or Redirect
Flows
Expose People or Structures to A Significant Risk or Loss, Injury or Death Involving
Flooding, Including Flooding As A Result Of A Levee or Dam
12 Ibid., page 4.7 -36.
'3 Ibid., page 4.7 -33.
C:D wmenta and Sepings"ffotd.CNBU cal SetOnMTemP raW nWnn*t Fllas \0LK1F20mft Addendum- iIiwT.doc 3-19 Environme
Addendum to City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR
Expose People or Structures to Significant Risk or Loss, Injury or Death Involving
Inundation by Seiche, Tsunami, or Mudflow
While the General Plan EIR identifies areas of the City that would be vulnerable to flooding and
coastal wave systems, the Project is not located in a flood hazard zone 14 nor is it proximate to
the Pacific Ocean. No impacts are anticipated.
Mitigation Program
Policies of the 2006 General Plan were adopted as a mitigation program that minimized impacts
associated with buildout of the City of Newport Beach, including the implementation of future
development in Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, the General Plan EIR identifies that
impacts to hydrology and water quality could be mitigated to a level considered less than
significant.
Finding of Consistencv With General Plan EIR
Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach has determined,
on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that the North Newport
Center Project does not propose substantial changes to the project; no substantial changes
would occur which would require major revisions to the General Plan EIR—due-lo-the
involvement of new sianificant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity Of
previously idgptifiptijanificant effects; and no new information of substantial importance has
been revealed since the certification of the General Plan EIR.
3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
The following thresholds of significance are as set forth in the General Plan EIR. It states:
"Implementation of the proposed project may have a significant adverse impact on land use and
planning if it would result in any of the following:
• Intensify development within the Planning Area that creates incompatibilities with
adjacent land uses
• Physically divides an established community
• Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect
• Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan"
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Land use impacts have been previously
analyzed as part of the General Plan EIR, which was prepared and certified pursuant to State
and City CEQA Guidelines. Minor additions and/or clarifications are needed to make the
14 Ibid., Figure 4.7 -3 Flood Zones.
C:loxumeMS and SeWngstp.IMM,CNMLO lSeWng$XTOMPMry lMemet Fi1es10LK1F20mft Mdendum- 111%7.fto 3-20 Envkonme
Addendum to City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR
previous document adequate to cover the actions that are currently proposed, which are
documented below and serve as an Addendum to the General Plan EIR.
Summary Analvsis
Intensify Development within the Planning Area that Creates Incompatibilities with
Adjacent Land Uses
Conflict with any Applicable Land Use Plan, Policy, Or Regulation Of An Agency With
Jurisdiction Over The Project (Including, But Not Limited To The General Plan, Specific
Plan, Local Coastal Program, Or Zoning Ordinance) Adopted For The Purpose Of
Avoiding Or Mitigating An Environmental Effect
The General Plan EIR notes that buildout of the 2006 General Plan land uses may result in new
uses and structures at an increased intensity that creates incompatibilities with adjacent land
uses. These incompatibilities can result from factors including differences in scale of
development, noise and traffic levels, and hours of operation. Conflicts can also occur where
mixed use development occurs. Newport Center /Fashion Island is a location in the City
identified for mixed use development. The General Plan EIR describes this area as:
Newport Center /Fashion Island is 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. New land uses in this subarea include
additional commercial uses (approximately 430,000 square feet), approximately
600 mufti- family residential units [reduced to 450 units in Final Program EIR) and
approximately 250 additional hotel rooms. Residential units have existed in this
area since the 1970's, and increased through the 1990s. No conflicts of use
between the residential and commercial uses have existed 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 project design of mixed use development. Thus, mixed use development
under the proposed General Plan Update would be, by design, compatible with
adjacent non - residential uses.75
As previously noted in this Addendum, Fashion Island is a regional commercial center with retail
uses, restaurants, bars, and theater /nightclubs. Block 500 includes office, administrative,
professional, and financial uses. Block 600 includes hotel, office, administrative, professional
and financial uses, and accessory uses. San Joaquin Plaza includes business and professional
office uses. In addition to these four sub - areas, Newport Center includes the following sub-
areas and land uses:
1s Ibid., page 4.8 -11.
CID Lumen aN SeningS%panoro CND1QW1SOWngMTempprary Intemet FHC50LK1F21Drafi AEde um- 111999.dp 321 Envlronmt
Addendum to City of Newport Beach GerMrN Plan 2006 Update EIR
Blmk
Laid UM .
100
administrative and professional offices, limited accessory retail. financial. service. and
entertainment uses
200
administrative and professional offices, limited accessory retail, financial, service, and
entertainment uses
300
administrative and professional offices, limited accessory retail, financial, service, and
entertainment uses
400
medical - related offices, short-term convalescent and long -term care services, professional
offices, retail and other similar uses.
700
regional commercial office and multi - family residential
800
regional commercial office and mufti- family residential
900
multi - family housing, visitor serving land uses
Land uses outside of Newport Center include single - family and multi - family residences and a
golf course in Big Canyon located north of Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza and
across San Joaquin Hills Road. Single - family and multi - family residences and general
commercial land uses are located east of Newport Center across MacArthur Boulevard.
Parks /recreational land uses and single - family residences are located south of Newport Center,
across Coast Highway. Open space, single - family residences, visitor - serving commercial and
parks/recreational land uses are located west of Newport Center, across Jamboree Road.
The General Plan land use designation for Fashion Island is Regional Commercial (CR). Page
3 -13 of the 2006 General Plan states that the CR designation "...is intended to provide retail,
entertainment, service, and supporting uses that serve local and regional residents." The land
use designations for Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza are Mixed Use Horizontal 3
(MU -H3) and Open Space (OS). As identified in the 2006 General Plan, 'The MU -H3
designation applies to properties located in Newport Center. It provides for the horizontal
intermixing of regional commercial office hotel, multi - family residential and ancillary commercial
uses. "'a Page 3 -16 of the 2006 General Plan states that the OS designation "...is intended to
provide areas for a range of public and private uses to protect, maintain, and enhance the
community's natural resources."
As a part of the proposed project, Block 600 would be rezoned from Administrative,
Professional, and Financial (APF) and Open Space (OS) to Planned Community (PC). The
North Newport Center PC Text would be adopted to incorporate Fashion Island, Block 600, and
portions of Block 500 and San Joaquin Plaza owned by the Applicant into a single Planned
Community District. The PC Text would reflect the land uses permitted for these sub -areas
under the 2006 General Plan.
The General Plan EIR states the following with respect to changes in land use for Newport
Center and Fashion Island under the General Plan Update:
The Plan allows for expanded retail opportunities at Fashion Island, including an
additional anchor department store and ancillary shops, another hotel or additions
to existing hotels, and 600 additional housing units [reduced to 450 in Final
Program EIR]... Plan policies encourage improved pedestrian connections and
streetscape amenities connecting the area's diverse districts."
Areas where mixed use development is currently located (e.g., Balboa Peninsula,
Mariners' Mile and Newport Center /Fashion Island), would be allowed to develop
18 City of Newport Beach, General Plan, July 25, 2006, page 3 -15.
" City of Newport Beach, Final Environmental impact Report for the General Plan 2006 Update, July 26, 2006, page
3-15.
C:Wwuments and S6ffiWs1pakM.CN1ALou1 SaWngsUamporary Intemet F11e5101KV210raR Addendum -11 M7.wc 3-22 Envfronme
Addendum to City of Newport Beach Generat Plan 2006 Update EIR
with more mixed use ... In many locations, the addition of uses similar to existing
uses would occur. For instance, additional retail facilities would be permitted in
the Fashion Island /Newport Center Area... Where additional development that is
the same as or similar to existing development could occur, these uses would be
compatible.18
As previously addressed, the four sub -areas are identified in the Airport Environs Land Use Plan
(AELUP) for the John Wayne Airport. The Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) has found the
City of Newport Beach to be a consistent agency with the AELUP. However, the AELUP
requires that zone changes for consistent agencies be referred to the ALUC for a determination
prior to City action. Therefore, the zone change has been forwarded to the ALUC, and a hearing
is scheduled prior to public hearings before the City's Planning Commission and City Council.
As noted, the General Plan EIR does not identify land use incompatibilities for Newport Center,
inclusive of the four sub -areas of the Project. The Project is proposed to provide for zoning
consistent with the 2006 General Plan land use designations for the four sub - areas. The Project
is in conformance with the assumptions set forth in the General Plan EIR. Therefore,
implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a
previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
Physically Divides an Established Community
The General Plan EIR notes that the 2006 General Plan allows for "...limited infill development
in select subareas within the City...These types of proposed development would not divide
established communities. Impacts would be less than significant." (See 4.8 -16) With respect to
the Project, future development in the four sub -areas would not require the extension of
roadways or other development features through developed areas that could physically divide
the established community. The Project is in conformance with the assumptions set forth in the
General Plan EIR. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts
or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the
General Plan EIR.
Conflict with Any Applicable Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community
Conservation Plan
As previously addressed, North Newport Center is identified as having no conservation value
and is not included in the NCCP or HCP.
Mitigation Prooram
Policies of the 2006 General Plan were adopted as a mitigation program that minimized impacts
associated with buildout of the City of Newport Beach, including the implementation of future
development in Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, the General Plan EIR identifies that
impacts to land use impacts pertaining to the Project could be mitigated to a level considered
less than significant.
18 Ibid., page 4.8 -9.
C:TO rnenO andSBtlingatyalforE.CNB %LomI 8a%ngMTemporery Internet Files\OLKVZDiafi AEdendum-011g TM. 3 -23 Environmc
Addendum to City of Newport Beach Genera! Plan 2006 Update EIR
Finding of Consistencv With General Plan EIR
Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach has determined,
on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that the North Newport
Center Project does not propose substantial changes to the project; no substantial changes
would occur which would require major revisions to the General Plan EIR _ due _to the
iRV91V.�ment ofy�,gjgnificant environm_ �nt�_ Qfject. i2C_ a _uinstal].S(al_!n_[eaai0..the.. QV.O.l�
previously identifted—sianificant effects; and no new information of substantial importance has
been revealed since the certification of the General Plan EIR.
3.10 NOISE
The following thresholds of significance are as set forth in the General Plan EIR. It states
"...implementation of the proposed project may have a significant adverse noise impact if it
would result in any of the following:
• Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards
of other agencies
• Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels
• A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project
• A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the project
• For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, exposure of
people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels"
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Noise impacts have been previously
analyzed as part of the General Plan EIR, which was prepared and certified pursuant to State
and City CEQA Guidelines. Minor additions and /or clarifications are needed to make the
previous document adequate to cover the actions that are currently proposed, which are
documented below and serve as an Addendum to the General Plan EIR.
Summary Analysis
Exposure of Persons to or Generation of Noise Levels In Excess Of Standards
Established In the Local General Plan or Noise Ordinance, or Applicable Standards of
Other Agencies
A Substantial Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels in the Project Vicinity Above
Levels Existing Without The Project
The General Plan EIR identifies that locations throughout the City would experience changes in
noise levels as a result of increased motor vehicles and development. Where existing land uses
would be exposed to noise levels exceeding the City's noise standards as a result of future
growth, the General Plan EIR identifies this as a significant impact. (See 4.9 -22) Figure 4.9 -5 of
the General Plan EIR identifies that the four sub -areas would be located within 60 CNEL to 65
CNEL future noise contours. These noise contours do not account for any intervening structures
C:Vocumenu and Seningsmagom CNVLL cal SomnD Temporary mtemet File elOLKIF2tDmRACCendum.11i9 Y.COc 3-24 Endronmc
Addendum to City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR
or other noise - attenuating features. Additionally, measures for noise attenuation where needed
to comply with the City's noise standards are available and include the use of walls, berms,
building insulation, double paned windows, etc.
Traffic - related noise in the project vicinity has the potential to impact the four sub - areas. The
General Plan EIR accounts for noise impacts due to new development under the General Plan
Update. The EIR states that new development, "...would result from adoption of the proposed
General Plan and regional growth would create noise that would affect new and existing
receptors. Most of this noise would be produced by increased traffic on local roads. Many of the
proposed General Plan policies, especially those associated with Goal N -2 (Transportation
Noise) would reduce this impact. "19 The Project is in conformance with the assumptions set forth
in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any new
impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously
analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
Exposure of Persons to or Generation of Excessive Groundborne Vibration or
Groundborne Noise Levels
The General Plan EIR notes that vibration levels during construction that would exceed 72
vibration decibels (VdB) are considered significant. Such an impact would be specific to a
construction site and would be dependent on the types of construction equipment in use and
proximity to sensitive receptors and uses. Where construction activities that generate high levels
of vibration could not be buffered from sensitive receptors and/or uses by approximately 150
feet, the General Plan EIR identifies that a significant impact would occur. With respect to the
four sub - areas, there is a potential for such construction activities to occur under these
conditions. As such, consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, such an impact would
be significant. The Project is in conformance with the assumptions set forth in the General Plan
EIR. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or increase
the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General
Plan EIR.
A Substantial Temporary or Periodic Increase in Ambient Noise Levels In the Project
Vicinity above Levels Existing Without the Project
Potential noise impacts are commonly divided into two groups: temporary and long term.
Temporary impacts are usually associated with noise generated by construction activities.
Generally, construction noise represents a short-term impact on ambient noise levels. Noise
generated by construction equipment (including trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete mixers,
and portable generators) and construction activities can reach high levels. The greatest
construction noise levels are typically generated by heavy construction equipment.
The City's Noise Ordinance exempts construction activities from the noise level limits during
specific hours of the day. Noise - generating construction activities are permitted during the hours
between 7:00 AM and 6:30 PM Monday through Friday, between 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM on
Saturdays, and at no time on Sundays or federal holidays. Compliance with the City's Noise
Ordinance is considered to result in no significant short-term noise impacts.
1e City of Newport Beach, Final Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan 2006 Update (State Clearinghouse
No. 2006011119), July 26, 2006, page 4.9 -42.
CADawnnen6 and SeGin9ebalbM .CNSLLOcaI SaWn9s \Temporary Internet Fdea\ LMFSDraft Addendum- 11190Zdoc 3-25 Envimmnu
Addendum to City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR
For A Project Within An Airport Land Use Plan, Or Where Such A Plan Has Not Been
Adopted, Within Two Miles Or A Public Airport Or Public Use Airport, Exposure Of People
Residing Or Working In The Project Area To Excessive Noise Levels
As previously noted, Newport Center, inclusive of the four sub - areas, is located within the
Airport Environs Land Use Plan ( AELUP) for John Wayne Airport. However, the site is not within
the either the AELUP 60 or 65 CNEL Noise Contour, and flight operations would not contribute
significantly to the overall existing noise exposure on the site. No significant impacts on persons
residing or working in the project area are anticipated as a result of project implementation
because land use within the planning area boundaries of the AELUP must conform to noise
standards, safety, and height restriction standards. The Project is in conformance with the
assumptions set forth in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, implementation of the Project would
not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact
as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
Mitiqation Proqram
Policies of the 2006 General Plan were adopted as a mitigation program that minimized impacts
associated with buildout of the City of Newport Beach, including the implementation of future
development in Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza.
Level of Sianificance After Mitigation
Consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, the General Plan EIR identifies that
impacts to noise impacts related to John Wayne Airport and construction activities could be
mitigated to a level considered less than significant. Groundborne construction vibrations and
long -term exposure to increased noise levels were identified to remain significant and
unavoidable.
Findina of Consistencv With General Plan EIR
Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach has determined,
on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that the North Newport
Center Project does not propose substantial changes to the project; no substantial changes
would occur which would require major revisions to the General Plan EIR due to the
involvement of_new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified =Mg and no new information of substantial importance has
been revealed since the certification of the General Plan EIR.
3.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING
The following thresholds of significance are as set forth in the General Plan EIR. It states
"...implementation of the proposed project may have a significant adverse impact on population
and housing if it would result in any of the following:
• Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through the
extension of roads or other infrastructure)
• Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere
• Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere"
C%D...me and S.WW.lPW.a .CNML..lSadingslTemP..ry IN.MM FIl.3 \OLKiF20 Addendum- 11IW7doc 3-26 Environme
Addendum to City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Population and housing impacts have been
previously analyzed as part of the General Plan EIR, which was prepared and certified pursuant
to State and City CEQA Guidelines. Minor additions and /or clarifications are needed to make
the previous document adequate to cover the actions that are currently proposed, which are
documented below and serve as an Addendum to the General Plan EIR.
Summary Analysls
Induce Substantial Population Growth in
Proposing New Homes and Businesses)
Extension of Roads or Other Infrastructure)
an Area, Either Directly (For Example, By
or Indirectly (For Example, Through the
The General Plan EIR finds that implementation of the 2006 General Plan would induce
substantial growth either directly or indirectly. On a citywide basis, residential development
would increase the number of units by 9,549 units (24 percent) over 2002 residential unit counts
with a related population increase of 20,912 residents. These increases would exceed the
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) projections. On a citywide basis, the
City's projected population growth was considered significant. On a cumulative basis
(countywide), the General Plan EIR noted that "...the proposed project would not result in
substantial population growth beyond projections, and would not induce substantial population
growth in an area, either directly or indirectly" (See pages 4.10 -5 and -6) Buildout of the 2006
General Plan was found to have a less than significant cumulative contribution to growth in the
County. (See pages 4.10 -6 and -7)
The General Plan EIR analysis was based on a project with 600 units in Newport Center. The
adopted 2006 General Plan allows for the development of 450 residential units within the MU-
H3 designation .20 Of the 450 units, 430 units are proposed for the North Newport PC District.
Residential uses are permitted in Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza. The Project
does not include a request for site - specific development, including any residential development.
As such, the Project is in conformance with the assumptions set forth in the General Plan EIR.
Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the
severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan
EIR.
Displace Substantial Numbers of Existing Housing, Necessitating the Construction of
Replacement Housing Elsewhere
Displace Substantial Numbers of People, Necessitating the Construction of Replacement
Housing Elsewhere
The General Plan EIR states that the 2006 General Plan would not displace a substantial
number of existing homes or residents and that no impact would occur. Development on the
four sub -areas would not require the displacement of any existing homes or residents. The
Project is in conformance with the assumptions set forth in the General Plan EIR. Therefore,
implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a
previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
Mitigation Proaram
No policies were identified in the 2006 General Plan to reduce the substantial increase in growth
in the City. Measures were adopted as a mitigation program that minimized impacts associated
20 City of Newport Beach, General Plan, July 25, 2006, page 3 -97.
C;¢]ocumems and S ZnFSPalbrd CNB%0w1 Settings \Temporary lnfe tFlles%OLK1F21 MAMeMU -111WTdoc 3-27 Envlronm
Addendum to ON of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR
with resource impacts with buildout of the City of Newport Beach, including the implementation
of future development in Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, the General Plan EIR identifies that
impacts to population and housing would remain significant and unavoidable.
Finding of Consistencv With General Plan EIR
Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach has determined,
on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that the North Newport
Center Project does not propose substantial changes to the project; no substantial changes
would occur which would require major revisions to the General Plan EIR due to the
involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified significant effects; and no new information of substantial importance has
been revealed since the certification of the General Plan EIR.
3.12 PUBLIC SERVICES
The following thresholds of significance are as set forth in the General Plan EIR. It identifies that
implementation of the proposed General Plan Update may have a significant adverse impact on
public services if it would result in any of the following:
• Result in substantial adverse environmental impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered fire or police protection facilities, or schools
or libraries; the need for new or physically altered fire or police protection
facilities, or schools or libraries; the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response
times, and other performance objectives
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Public service impacts have been previously
analyzed as part of the General Plan EIR, which was prepared and certified pursuant to State
and City CEQA Guidelines. Minor additions and /or clarifications are needed to make the
previous document adequate to cover the actions that are currently proposed, which are
documented below and serve as an Addendum to the General Plan EIR.
Summary Analvsis
Result in Substantial Adverse Environmental Impacts Associated with the Provision of
New or Physically Altered Fire or Police Protection Facilities, or Schools or Libraries; the
Need For New or Physically Altered Fire or Police Protection Facilities, or Schools or
Libraries; The Construction of Which Could Cause Significant Environmental Impacts, in
Order to Maintain Acceptable Service Ratios, Response Times, And Other Performance
Objectives
Fire Protection
Fire stations are located throughout the City to provide prompt assistance to area residents.
Each fire station operates within a specific district that comprises the immediate geographical
area around the station. As identified on page 4.11 -3 of the General Plan EIR, Station 3 serves
Newport Center. Station 3 has the following equipment and manpower: one Fire Chief; one fire
engine with one Captain, one Engineer, and one Firefighter; one ladder truck with one Captain,
one Engineer, and one Firefighter; and one paramedic van with two Firefighter Paramedics. The
C:u)ocuments end Setling.VWbM.CNB \Local Set NSkTempme Intemet R1eaoLK1FZDmft Addendum- 11199Y.d= 3-26 Environnx
Addendum to City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR
General Plan EIR states that in 2004, "eight fire stations serving the City of Newport Beach
responded to a total of 8,863 incidents, which results in an average of about 1,107 incidents per
station... These numbers are well within the number of calls recommended by the Insurance
Service Office (ISO) when rating a community for fire insurance rates. Specifically, the ISO
recommends that a second company be put in service in a fire station if that station receives
more than 2,500 calls per year."
The General Plan EIR identifies that implementation of the 2006 General Plan could increase
the demand for fire protection services which could result in the need for additional fire facilities.
Policies of the General Plan require that adequate infrastructure be provided with new
development. As such, the General Plan EIR found that compliance with applicable regulations
and policies of the 2006 General Plan would ensure that project - specific and cumulative impacts
would be less than significant. All new development that would occur under the 2006 General
Plan 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. The Project is in conformance with the assumptions set forth in the General
Plan EIR. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or
increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the
General Plan EIR.
Police Protection
The General Plan EIR identifies that implementation of the 2006 General Plan could increase
the demand for police protection services which could result in the need for additional police
facilities. The General Plan EIR states that, "The NBPD provides local police services to the City
of Newport Beach. Centrally located at 870 Santa Barbara Drive, the NBPD provides services in
crime prevention and investigation, community awareness programs, and other services such
as traffic control .,,2' The EIR also states that the City of Newport Beach currently maintains an
acceptable level of service and there are currently no immediate or near - future plans for
expansion of police facilities, staff, or equipment inventory. Impacts to police services as a result
of General Plan build -out would be less than significant because the "General Plan Update
contains policies to ensure that adequate law enforcement is provided as the City experiences
future development. For example, Policy LU 2.8 ensures that only land uses that can be
adequately supported by the City's Public Services should be accommodated. Compliance with
this policy would ensure that adequate service ratios are maintained .,,22 Therefore, adequate
service ratios are currently being provided and would be maintained as a result of General Plan
policies. As such, the General Plan EIR found that compliance with applicable regulations and
policies of the 2006 General Plan would ensure that project - specific and cumulative impacts
would be less than significant. The Project is in conformance with the assumptions set forth in
the General Plan EIR. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any new
impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously
analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
Schools
The Newport-Mesa Unified School District (NMUSD) provides educational services to the City of
Newport Beach. The General Plan EIR identifies that the School District 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
21 City of Newport Beach, Final Environmental impact Report for the General Plan 2006 Update, July 26, 2006, page
4.11 -13.
z2 Ibid., page 4.11 -16.
C:WOwme saM Sadingslpao,d.CNBlWcal Settings%Temporary lnte"t Files K1F21Drafl Addendum -li I W7..doc 3 -29 Environme
Addendum to City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR
services. According to NMUSD administrators, current school capacity is adequate. NMUSD
does not currently identify any projected needs.
The General Plan EIR states:
In the City, implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would result in
the construction of approximately 14,215 dwelling units over existing conditions
within the City. The increase in dwelling units 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 increase of approximately 6,230 students (3,115 elementary
school students, 1,557 students for middle schools, and 1,558 high school
students) 23
The General Plan EIR identifies that implementation of the 2006 General Plan would likely result
in the construction of new school facilities for NMUSD; these impacts would be less than
significant on a project and cumulative basis 24 The Project is in conformance with the
assumptions set forth in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, implementation of the Project would
not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact
as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
Library Facilities
The Newport Beach Public Library provides library services and resources to the City of
Newport Beach. The Central Library, which occupies four acres on Avocado Avenue near
Newport Center, is a 15,305 square foot building that serves as a school library as well as a
public library. As stated in the General Plan EIR,
Upon full build -out of the proposed 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... 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 immediately
equate to an increase in total volumes or square feet of library space 25
The General Plan EIR identifies that the increase in population associated with the 2006
General Plan, inclusive of uses in Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin
Plaza, would not result in a significant impact to library services. The Project is in conformance
with the assumptions set forth in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, implementation of the Project
would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant
impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
25 Ibid., page 4.11 -23.
24 Ibid., page 4.11 -24.
25 Ibid., page 4.11 -28.
C:Documen6 and rettlngsValbrd.CNBLLO iSeHingslTemporvylmemet Flles10LK1 Vnaft Addendum -it lwTdoc 3-30 Environrm
Addendum to City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR
Mitigation Program
Policies of the 2006 General Plan were adopted as a mitigation program that minimized impacts
associated with buildout of the City of Newport Beach, including the implementation of future
development in Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, the General Plan EIR identifies that
impacts to public services would be less than significant.
Finding of Consistencv With General Plan EIR
Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach has determined,
on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that the North Newport
Center Project does not propose substantial changes to the project; no substantial changes
would occur which would require major revisions to the General Plan EIR due to the
involvement of new significant environmental effects or a_substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified significant effects; and no new information of substantial importance has
been revealed since the certification of the General Plan EIR.
3.13 RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
The following thresholds of significance are as set forth in the General Plan EIR. It states that'...
implementation of the proposed project may have a significant adverse impact on parks and
recreational facilities if it would result in any of the following:
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
• Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment
• Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered government services, need for new or physically altered
government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other
performance objectives for parks
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Park and recreational facility impacts have
been previously analyzed as part of the General Plan EIR, which was prepared and certified
pursuant to State and City CEQA Guidelines. Minor additions and /or clarifications are needed to
make the previous document adequate to cover the actions that are currently proposed, which
are documented below and serve as an Addendum to the General Plan EIR.
Summary Analysis
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
C:1Dowmwts and Seftingswalbni CNMUcal SetfingsVemporary lntemet F11ep10LK1F21Dmft AdMndum -11I W7.d.c 3-31 Environrrn
Addendum to ON of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR
Include Recreational Facilities or Require the Construction or Expansion of Recreational
Facilities That Might Have an Adverse Physical Effect on the Environment
Result in Substantial Adverse Physical Impacts Associated With the Provision of New or
Physically Altered Government Services, Need for New or Physically Altered Government
Facilities, the Construction of Which Could Cause Significant Environmental Impacts, in
Order to Maintain Acceptable Service Ratios or Other Performance Objectives for Parks
The General Plan EIR identifies that the City has a deficiency of approximately 38.8 acres of
park acreage, with 7 of 12 service areas experiencing a deficit of recreational acreage. Newport
Center is in Service Area 9 and has 19 acres of existing parks, an excess of 8.1 acres of parks
over the City standard of 5 acres per 1,000 persons. Page 4.12 -3 of the General Plan EIR
identifies that a planned park in Newport Center "would help alleviate the citywide park deficit"
although Newport Center has a park surplus. The Back Bay View Park was completed in 2005,
and a new passive park, Newport Center Park, is planned for development. The General Plan
EIR states that "the construction and enhancement of park and recreational facilities and
implementation of the goals and policies proposed in the General Plan would ensure that
increased demand and use resulting from an increase in citywide population would not
significantly accelerate the deterioration of existing recreational facilities. ,28
The General Plan EIR notes the open space benefits that the Applicant has provided through
the Circulation and Improvement and Open Space Agreement ( CIOSA). Page 4.12 -4 states:
Some of the City's parks and open space areas consist of dedicated lands
through the Circulation and Improvement and Open Space Agreement ( CIOSA).
This agreement is between the City of Newport Beach and The Irvine Company,
and has allowed building entitlements for The Irvine Company in exchange for
payments for circulation projects, an interest free loan, and land for open space
and potential senior housing sites for the City. The amount of open space land
dedication was substantially more than what would have been required under the
City's Park Dedication Ordinance.
Six sites have been dedicated under CIOSA in Newport Beach, and include:
Back Bay View Park, Newport Center Park (formerly Newport Village), Newporter
Knoll, Freeway Reservation, Upper Castaways, and Harbor Cove. Another site,
located at Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard, has been offered for
dedication and will be dedicated upon issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for
final CIOSA project.
The Applicant did not implement all of the development that was allowed pursuant to CIOSA,
and provided more park and open space dedication than required for the development that was
completed. Through the Development Agreement, the Project includes cancellation of CIOSA.
The demand for park facilities that would have resulted from -.-inbuilt entitlement in CIOSA would
not be realized.
As with new development projects throughout the City, future development in the four sub -areas
would be required to comply with the 2006 General Plan Update policies on open space.
Through the Development Agreement, the Project includes the payment of park in -lieu fees for
430 residential units, with half the total amount ($5,600,000) to be paid earlier than required.
The General Plan EIR finds that compliance with General Plan Update would result in less than
significant impacts to parks and recreational facilities. These policies include the requirement
that future development dedicate land or pay in -lieu fees at a minimum of 5 acres of parkland
� Ibid., page 4.12 -15.
C90owments and SeninppaVOrd CNB \Local SatdngsVamporary htlemet Fflaa OLKVZonn Addendum- 111987 do 3 -32 Environnu
Addendum to City of Newport Beach Genera! Plan 2006 Update EIR
per 1,000 persons, and require the use of funding from the City's Park Dedication Fee
Ordinance to enhance existing parks and recreation facilities (General Plan Update Policies
R1.1 and R2.1).27 General Plan Policy R 1.10 includes three planned parks in West Newport,
Newport Center, and Newport Coast. The Project is in conformance with the assumptions set
forth in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any
new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously
analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
Mitigation Program
Policies of the 2006 General Plan were adopted as a mitigation program that minimized impacts
associated with buildout of the City of Newport Beach, including the implementation of future
development in Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza.
Level of Significance After Mitiaation
Consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, the General Plan EIR identifies that
impacts to parks and recreation facilities would be less than significant.
Flndlna of Consistencv With General Plan EIR
Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach has determined,
on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that the North Newport
Center Project does not propose substantial changes to the project; no substantial changes
would occur which would require major revisions to the General Plan EIR. - ..due- _W—the
involvement of new Slanificant environmental effects or a substantial increaseLin the severity of
previously identified significant effects; and no new information of substantial importance has
been revealed since the certification of the General Plan EIR.
3.14 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
The following thresholds of significance are as set forth in the General Plan EIR. It states that"...
implementation of the proposed project may have a significant adverse impact on transportation
or circulation if it would result in any of the following:
• Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic
load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or
congestion at intersections)
• Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard
established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads
or highways
• Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic
levels or a change in locations that results in substantial safety risks
• Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)
• Result in inadequate emergency access
27 Ibid., page 4.12 -17.
C: %DO merts and SaningsValbrd .CNEALocel SetUngWempon Internet Fi aWLMFSDm Addmd=- 11107.doc 3 -33 Environme
Addendum to ON of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update OR
• Result in inadequate parking capacity
• Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)"
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Transportation impacts have been
previously analyzed as part of the General Plan EIR, which was prepared and certified pursuant
to State and City CEQA Guidelines. Minor additions and /or clarifications are needed to make
the previous document adequate to cover the actions that are currently proposed, which are
documented below and serve as an Addendum to the General Plan EIR.
Summary Analvsis
Cause an Increase In Traffic Which is Substantial in Relation to the Existing Traffic Load
and Capacity of The Street System (i.e., Result In A Substantial Increase in Either the
Number of Vehicle Trips, the Volume to Capacity Ratio on Roads, or Congestion at
Intersections)
The General Plan EIR identifies that implementation of the 2006 General Plan could result in a
substantial increase in the number of vehicle trips, volume to capacity on roadways, and
congestion at intersections when compared to existing conditions in the City. Deficiencies could
also occur at freeway segments and ramps. Volume 1A of the General Plan Final EIR identifies
that the traffic study accounts for use of currently unused development entitlements. On page
4.13 -1 of the General Plan EIR, the traffic analysis assumes buildout of the City, inclusive of
Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza, consistent with the 2006 General
Plan.
However, improvements are identified in the General Plan Circulation Element to mitigate
citywide impacts to a level that is considered less than significant. However, the City's roadway
system must also accommodate regional cumulative vehicular traffic. With improvements
identified in the Circulation Element, cumulative impacts to intersection operations can be
mitigated to a less than significant level. However, the City's contribution to cumulative impacts
associated with freeway segments and ramps would remain significant and unavoidable.
The Project is not expected to be completed within 60 months of approval, and it includes a
circulation improvement plan, explained in detail in the Development Agreement. The Project
therefore qualifies as a Phased Land Use Development and Circulation Improvement Plan
under the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance, Municipal Code §15.40.030.13.2. A traffic study has
been prepared pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, and "feasible mitigation" (consistent
with the 2006 General Plan Circulation Element) is part of the Project.
The following provides a summary of the North Newport Center Traffic Phasing Ordinance
Study prepared by Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. in November 2007. The study is included in its
entirety as Appendix A. The Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) traffic study included the analysis
of 40 intersections in the City including 5 intersections on Newport Center Drive using the City's
required TPO procedure. This procedure includes both a one percent test and, where
necessary, an intersection capacity utilization (ICU) analysis.
Consistent with the City's TPO analysis guidelines, the Project is analyzed under short-range
conditions (existing volumes plus a regional growth factor and approved projects) without and
with cumulative projects (i.e., projects reasonably expected to be complete within one year after
project completion which are located within the City of Newport Beach or its Sphere of
Influence).
C.N mmen6 aneS Wrg paimm.CNS\LO l Saftq,%Tmwmr Iniemet Ra5O0 iF20raRAddend M- 111907.tl•c 3-34 Environlnb
Addendum to City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR
Trip Generation Distribution and Analysis. The applicable trip rates and incremental trip
generation for the Project is presented in Table 2. The increase in traffic includes a credit for the
removal of existing uses. The Project is forecast to generate a net increase over existing of 348
trips in the AM peak hour, 311 trips in the PM peak hour, and 2,399 daily trips.
TABLE 2
TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
Land Use
Amount
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
ADT
in Out Total
In Out Total
TRIP RATES (ITE)
Residential
DU
0.06
0.28
0.34
0.24
0.14
0.38
4.18
Quality Restaurant
TSF
0.66
0.15
0.81
5.02
2.47
7.49
89.95
Shopping Center
TSF
0.19
0.12
0.31
0.77
0.84
1.61
16.79
Office (Regression Ecir
TSF
0.95
0.13
1.08
0.19
0.93
1.12
7.07
Health Club
TSF
0.51
0.70
1.21
2.07
1.98
4.05
32.93
TRIP GENERATION
Existing Uses to be Removed
Block 600
Quality Restaurant
16.4 TSF
11
2
13
83
41
123
1,479
Office
8.3 TSF
8
1
9
2
8
10
59
Health Club
17.3 TSF
9
12
21
36
34
70
570
Total Credit
-28
-15
-43
-121
-83
-203
-2,108
Proposed Uses
Block 500
Office 205.2 TSF 195 27 222 39 191 230 1,451
Block 600
Residential 430 DU 26 120 146 103 60 163 1,797
Fashion Island
Shopping Center
75.0 TSF
14
9
23
58
63
121
1,259
Total Proposed Trips
235
156
391
200
314
514
4,507
NET INCREASE
207
141
348
79
231
311
2,399
Trip rates per TSF determined from applying the ITE office regression equations to the existing (406 TSF) and proposed future
(614 TSF) office use, and calculating the rates based on the square footage increment (206 TSF).
Source: Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 2007
For trip distribution, an internal capture rate of 10 percent was used for residential and retail
uses. This rate was determined based on ITE's recommended procedure and is consistent with
the City's General Plan EIR traffic study, which used a 10 percent capture rate for mixed use
areas. For the office space, a five percent internal capture rate was used.
A separate trip assignment was prepared for each of the three separate uses (retail /shopping
center, residential, and office) in the Project. These assignments, shown by individual uses in
Figures A -1 through A -3 in Appendix A, are as follows:
1. North on MacArthur Boulevard
2040 percent
2. North on Jamboree Road
15 -30 percent
3. West on Coast Highway
15 -30 percent
4. East on Coast Highway
10 percent
C Documents and SedMPVaftd CNMLOCal Semrgs\TemPOraw Internet Re %OLK1FWmIt Addendum- 11IW7.doc 3 -35 Envlronax
Addendum to City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR
One Percent Analysis. The results of the TPO One Percent Analysis are presented in Table 3.
This analysis identifies the intersections where the Project adds one percent or more to the
background peak hour volume, in which case a more vigorous capacity analysis is performed.
Opening year for the Project is assumed to be 2009; therefore, the project year for this analysis
is 2010. Table 3 identifies that 39 traffic study area intersections have increases of one percent
or greater of existing -plus- approved or existing -plus- approved - plus - cumulative volumes during
the AM or PM peak hour. As a result, further analysis is required and a peak hour ICU analysis
was conducted for the 39 locations.
TABLE 3
ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS
Intersection
AM Peak Hour
Project Volumes
Less Than 1% of Peak Hour
Volumes
NB
SB
EB
1N6
wlo Cumulative
w/Cumulative
1. MacArthur &Campus
8
20
0
0
No
No
2. MacArthur & Birch
8
20
20
0
No
No
3. MacArthur & Von Karmen
8
20
0
0
No
No
4. Jamboree & Campus
8
20
0
0
Yes
Yes
5. Jamboree & Birch
8
20
0
0
Yes
Yes
6. MacArthur & Jamboree
8
20
8
20
No
No
7. Bayview & Bristol South (EB)
0
0
32
0
No
No
8. Jamboree & Bristol North (WB)
29
20
0
0
No
No
9. Jamboree & Bristol South (EB)
26
20
31
0
No
No
10. Jamboree & Bayview
30
52
0
0
No
No
11. Jamboree & Eastbluff /University
35
52
0
0
No
No
12. Jamboree & Bison
42
53
0
1
No
No
13. Jamboree & Eastbluff /Ford
42
54
0
0
No
No
14. Jamboree & San Joaquin Hills
0
54
0
42
No
No
15. Jamboree & Santa Barbara
1
0
0
17
No
No
16. Jamboree & Coast Highway
0
17
30
15
No
No
17. MacArthur & Bison
33
61
6
21
No
No
18. MacArthur & Ford /Bonita Canyon
39
80
0
0
No
No
19. MacArthur & San Joaquin Hills
0
82
40
0
No
. No
20. MacArthur & San Miguel
1
0
11
7
No
No
21. MacArthur & Coast Highway
0
11
2
19
No
No
22. Santa Cruz & San Joaquin Hills
35
0
54
7
No
No
23. Santa Rosa & San Joaquin Hills
36
0
49
4
No
No
24. San Miguel & San Joaquin Hills
0
9
0
0
No
No
25. Avocado & San Miguel
49
8
10
9
No
No
26. Balboa /Superior & Coast Highway
0
0
11
18
No
No
27. Newport & Coast Highway
0
10
11
18
No
No
28. Riverside & Coast Highway
0
0
22
26
No
No
29. Tustin & Coast Highway
0
0
22
26
No
No
30. Dover /Bayshore & Coast Highway
0
9
22
32
No
No
31. Bayside & Coast Highway
0
0
31
32
No
No
32. Newport Center & Coast Highway
0
9
29
1
No
No
33. Avocado & Coast Highway
0
7
28
18
No
No
34. Goldenrod & Coast Highway
0
0
14
19
No
No
35. Marguerite & Coast Highway
0
0
14
19
No
No
G 1D000merds and Settingsryalkrd. CNB% LOCal SeWngsVamporary Internet Flles`ALKiF2 %Drefi Addendum1119g)doc 3 -36 Environrrn
Addendum to City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR
TABLE 3 (Continued)
ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS
-
Intersection
AM Peak Hour
Project Volumes
Less Than 1% of Peak Hoar
Volumes
NB
SB
EB
WB
w/o Cumulative
w/Cumulative.-
36. Newport Center & Santa Barbara
0
0
2
1
No
No
37. Santa Cruz & Newport Center
1
2
0
0
No
No
38. Newport Center & Santa Rosa
6
30
0
0
No
No
39. Newport Center & San Miguel
3
17
2
0
No
No
40. Fashion Island & Newport Center
0
1
0
10
No
No
Intersection
PM Peak Hour
Project Volumes
Loss Than 1% of
Peak Hour Volumes
NE
SIB
EB
WB
w/o Cumulative
w /CumulaM
1. MacArthur & Campus
21
6
0
0
No
No
2. MacArthur & Birch
21
6
0
0
No
No
3. MacArthur & Von Karmen
21
6
0
0
No
No
4. Jamboree & Campus
21
6
0
0
Yes
Yes
5. Jamboree & Birch
21
6
0
0
No
No
6. MacArthur & Jamboree
21
6
21
6
No
No
7. Bayview, & Bristol South (EB)
0
0
18
0
Yes
Yes
8. Jamboree & Bristol North (WB)
58
6
0
0
No
No
9. Jamboree & Bristol South (EB)
28
6
15
0
No
No
10. Jamboree & Bayview,
57
25
0
0
No
No
11. Jamboree & Eastbluff /University
59
25
0
2
No
No
12. Jamboree & Bison
62
27
0
5
No
No
13. Jamboree & Eastbluff /Ford
62
32
0
0
No
No
14. Jamboree & San Joaquin Hills
0
32
0
62
No
No
15. Jamboree & Santa Barbara
6
0
0
5
Yes
Yes
16. Jamboree & Coast Highway
0
5
13
31
No
No
17. MacArthur & Bison
84
21
3
11
No
No
18. MacArthur & Ford/Bonita Canyon
86
28
0
2
No
No
19. MacArthur & San Joaquin Hills
0
30
87
0
No
No
20. MacArthur & San Miguel
4
0
9
0
Yes
Yes
21. MacArthur & Coast Highway
0
3
15
2
Yes
Yes
22. Santa Cruz & San Joaquin Hills
14
0
32
48
No
No
23. Santa Rosa & San Joaquin Hills
59
0
10
14
No
No
24. San Miguel & San Joaquin Hills
6
0
0
0
Yes
Yes
25. Avocado & San Miguel
10
58
1
0
No
No
26. Balboa /Superior & Coast Highway
0
0
8
15
Yes t
Yes
27. Newport & Coast Highway
0
4
8
15
Yes
Yes
28. Riverside & Coast Highway
0
0
13
27
Yes
Yes
29. Tustin & Coast Highway
0
0
13
27
No
Yes
30. Dover /Bayshore & Coast Highway
0
1
13
37
No
Yes
31. Bayside & Coast Highway
0
0
13
37
No
No
32. Newport Center & Coast Highway
0
0
7
17
Yes
Yes
33. Avocado & Coast Highway
0
48
2
0
No
No
34. Goldenrod & Coast Highway
0
0
18
2
Yes
Yes
35. Marguerite & Coast Highway
0
0
18
2
No
Yes
36. Newport Center & Santa Barbara
0
0
9
9
No
No
C. owmeni anti$etnngslyalbN.CN61LOCa1 reWngffemPOrary Intemat Fiift` LMF2!Xafl Addendum -111e 7 d 3-37 Environrm
Addendum to City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR
TABLE 3 (Continued)
ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS
Intersection
AM Peak Hour
Project Volumes
Lew Than 1% of Peak Hour-
Volumes
NB
5B
ES
WB
w/o Cumulative
wlcunutative
37. Santa Cruz & Newport Center
9
9
0
0
No
No
38, Newport Center & Santa Rosa
26
15
0
0
No
No
39. Newport Center & San Miguel
10
0
16
0
No
No
40. Fashion island & Newport Center
1
9
0
0
No
No
Source: Austln -Foust Associates, Inc.. 2007
ICU Analysis- The results of the ICU analysis are presented in Table 4. A significant project
impact is defined as an increase of 0.01 or more in the ICU value at an intersection that reaches
LOS E or F. Examination of the results shows that the Project would result in a significant
impact at three locations under existing -plus- approved - plus - cumulative conditions. These three
locations with their respective with - project ICU values are:
Intersection
AM
Project
Increment
PM
Project
Increment
19. MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road
0.73
0.040
0.93
0.027
34. Goldenrod Avenue and Coast Highway
0.91
0.006
0.85
0.005
34. Marguerite Avenue and Coast Highway
0.98
0.006
0.92
0.006
In summary, the Project would cause three traffic study area locations to exceed the TPO
standard of LOS D. The Project is in conformance with the assumptions set forth in the General
Plan EIR. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or
increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the
General Plan EIR.
The Project would also allow for the transfer of some existing and entitled uses in Block 600 and
replace it with office uses in Block 500. As part of the proposed transfer of uses, the Applicant
and the City wish to reserve 72,000 sf of the office use for a possible new City Hall in Block 500.
The transfer of development rights within Newport Center is allowed in accordance with the City
of Newport Beach General Plan Policy LU 6.14.3 provided the transfer will not result in any
adverse traffic impacts. A Trip Transfer Study was prepared by Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. in
November 2007 to examine the conversion and transfer of the entitled uses into equivalent
office uses on the basis of a PM peak hour trip generation equivalency basis. The study is
summarized below and included in Appendix A.
The transfer would allow for existing uses including a health club, restaurant, and office as well
as remaining, but as yet unused entitlement for hotel uses in Block 600, with office use in Block
500. Existing uses in Block 600 equal 42,036 sf of office, restaurant and, health club uses. The
unused entitlement in Block 600 is 195 hotel rooms. These entitled uses in Block 600 could be
replaced in Block 500 with office use, 72,000 sf of which may be used for a new City Hall.
The analysis is based upon use of the worst -case PM peak hour trip rates. Rates for the
analysis were taken from the ITE 7h Edition Trip Generation publication. The trips generated by
the uses proposed to be eliminated are presented in Table 5. As indicated, the uses included as
the basis of the proposed transfer are projected to generate 339 PM peak hour trips.
C:Zowrnoms AM Softhgs'palfon.CNBI. l SeNngslTempomry lntemet FJ1M.0LK1FNCmfi Addend- 111W7.dM 3 -38 Envionm
Addendum to City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR
A potential new City Hall of 72,000 sf would generate 108 peak hour trips (based on a rate of
1.5 trips per 1,000 square feet [TSF]) leaving 231 trips, which can be allocated toward other
uses. These 231 PM peak hour trips equate to 206,000± sf of office use based on a trip rate of
1.12 tripslTSF. The Project consists of 205,161 sf of office space in Block 500. Therefore, the
total PM peak hour trip generation associated with the converted uses proposed for Block 500
would be 338 trips.
COocumentsend Setlmgspalfom CNSLLOcal SMIngs1 Temporary Inlemel Fllee1OLMMOran AOEendum -11I W7.Wc 3.39 Environme
as
w�
J
H N
U
+ s
J
I
e
r
rn
r
m
r
r
m
s0
N
r
U-
N
s0
s0m
s0
r
m
r
m
m
r-
r
rn
r
o
Cl
Iq
`�
rn
r
m
m
r-
r
rn
m
I
O +
Oppj
VI
1
m
N
rM
t0
D
�N
(ON
t0
r
V
r
NN
t0
r
D
�
r
R
�
M
M
N
r
LO
LO
SW p
V
� F
Cl may;.
m m E
N
N
N
N
r
y
h
O
N
M
0p
r
fp
h
f0
h
O
O
W
W
k
W
4
Jc
'E.
N
rF��
CR
uz
N
r
N�
U0
ti
N
ti
i
cD
C
N
N
t
N
N
CR
Qn
d
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
O 4
+
b>
>
C
Q
N
M
N
r
N
N
m
M
N
N
N
N
tN0
r
t�0
V
r
M-
a
[p
M
N
r
KC
W 6
D
d
r
r
r
c0
r
t0
N
r
c0
r
t0
r
r
c0
r
r
c0
N
V
ID
r
r
r
ao
p
v
N
t0
f0
�* a
ma
G
N
Q
N
N
M
UO
N
r
N
N
c0
M
c0
N
(0
c0
N
c0
c0
r .
t0 .
.
r .
N .
.
C7 .
V .
r
.
f0 .
r .
W
C
k
W
M
N
p
N
N
M
N
N
N
N
r
N
M
V�
N
t0
00
V
00
00
N�
r
M.
r
r
m
W
w
=
cm
12
U=
S
c
'9
F
=
c
73
2
0
0
Q
W
Y
3
m
0 N
t0
N
�
p
z
N
N
I
m
m
g
rn
= 5
m
0
O
n
N
—
F.
-a
c
a
�
o
c
06
,
E
E
0
w
B
y
y
o
O
V
O
>
p
.0
.0
m
7
fn
fn
U
m
fn
fn
U
`6
0`6
m
O
U
J
ai
ai
qi
m
ai
m
m
m
5
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
f
f
f
f
N
N
V
46
N
N
j
ai
m
06
M
0
V
p
O
V
0
0
0
0
0
0
G�
n
S
a
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
A
A
A
A
c
A
A
O
°>
>
N>
m
Lo
Lo
m
O
C-
c4
Oi
o--
r
-
—
--
-
-
o
o
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
r
N
N
N
ID
C
ID
ra
U_f_
!A
W
OJO V
a
+
2
O
r
f0
w
r
r
N
t0
C]
r
r
f0
N
C]
N
N
N
t0
N
N
V
Ct
V
+
CL
p+p�
.+ 0,
0
Q
'
f0
r
f0
V
t0
W �
V
Q+ tll
'O
r
f0
Of
N
N
N
V
O
N�
U' >
006
i.
.
6
Q V
c
r
V
N
t0
N
N
w
Q
f0
V
t00
q
Cr
W uj
v
t+
!
S
t0
r
r
i0
t0
r
r
N
N
N
a
a
QgCL
6
t0
N�
V
N
t0
.fg
X.
r
Cr'l
N
N
W 6
CL
t0
r
tN0
r
N
N
N
+2
to CL
y Q
.
.
O.
r
r
cn
i0
r
m
N
i0
N
N
W
N
r
N
t00
r
N
N
N
V
C
W
Q
r
tr0
r
cl
t
r
Of
V
N
N
N
QmU�WLLg
�p
N
N
N
N
tp�NWOSU
2
m
C
N
K
p
R)
g
ts
o
2
2
A
A
0
3
0 m
L ¢ a
B
o
A
0
m 00
J
fn
0
Fn
Fn
_=
i!i
O
0-0
Z
aU
w7
n w
p
v
v
0O
V
O
V
V
Nf
V
aU
2
0
-J
O
U
U
o6
0
U
^3'
a
U
0
U
0
U
t0
0
00
au
a
o
¢0
v
c
.�
o
¢
V
o
¢
0
¢
w
N
T
1
0
32
F-
❑
tp
t0
Z
Q
C7
Z
n o
N
Z
N
Z
t0
LL
O
.
o;
o
N
16
M
r
M
of
o
a
5 N� o
m
m
Addendum to City of Newport Beach General Ptan 2006 Update OR
TABLES
CONVERTED USES
In summary, the currently entitled uses in Block 600 (i.e., 195 hotel rooms and 42,036 sf of
health club, retail, and office uses) proposed for transfer to Block 500 equate to 339 PM peak
hour trips. These 339 trips would match the amount of PM peak hour trips projected to be
generated by a new 72,000 sf City Hall plus another 205,161 sf of office use. Therefore, the
proposed transfer of development rights would not result in any adverse traffic impacts. The
Project is in conformance with the assumptions set forth in the General Plan EIR. Therefore,
implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a
previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
Exceed, Either Individually or Cumulatively, a Level of Service Standard Established By
the County Congestion Management Agency for Designated Roads or Highways
The General Plan EIR identifies that all Congestion Management Plan arterials in the City would
continue to operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS E or better) with implementation of the
2006 General Plan. The Project is in conformance with the assumptions set forth in the General
Plan EIR. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or
increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the
General Plan EIR.
Result In A Change In Air Traffic Patterns, Including Either An Increase In Traffic Levels
Or A Change In Locations That Results In Substantial Safety Risks
As previously addressed in this Addendum, the four sub -areas are in the AELUP for the John
Wayne Airport. The ALUC has found the City of Newport Beach to be a consistent agency with
the AELUP. Additionally, the four sub -areas are within the AELUP Height Restriction Zone.
Within this zone, notice to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is required for construction
or alteration to any building more than 200 feet above ground level. Prior to construction or
alteration. of a building more than 200 feet above ground level a Determination of No Hazard
G,Vown,ernz and SatGigsyMgoN .CNarLOCal Seflinga %Tern Orary Internet F11e aWLK1F2 %DraRAddan&rn- 11 1907.dac 3 -42 Enviranmt
PM
PM
Use (Entitled In Bloch 600)
Psak Hour Rate
Peak Trips
Hotel (195 Rooms) - Unbuill Entitlement
030 (ITE 310)°
t36
Family Fitness (17,300° so- Existing
4.05 (ITE 492)c
70
Palm Gardens (16,4470 so - Existing
7.49 (ITE 931)°
123
Eliminated Office (6,789" so - Existing
1.12 (ITE 710)0
8
Eliminated Office (1,500 so - Existing
1.12 (ITE 710)e
2
Total
339
Use (Proposed in Block 500)
Office (205,161 so
1.12 (ITE 710)e
230
City Hall (72,000 so
1.50 (ITE 750)`
108
Total
338
a Hotel (rates applied for each occupied room)
b Per building permit information
c Health Club (rates per TSF)
d Quality Restaurant (rates per TSF)
e Trip rate per TSF determined from applying the ITE office regression equation to the existing (408 TSF)
and proposed future (614 TSF) office use, and calculating the rate based on
the square footage
increment (206 TSF)
f Closest ITE rate (in both function and magnitude) to match the GP assumption
for City Hall trip
generation.
Source: Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 2007
In summary, the currently entitled uses in Block 600 (i.e., 195 hotel rooms and 42,036 sf of
health club, retail, and office uses) proposed for transfer to Block 500 equate to 339 PM peak
hour trips. These 339 trips would match the amount of PM peak hour trips projected to be
generated by a new 72,000 sf City Hall plus another 205,161 sf of office use. Therefore, the
proposed transfer of development rights would not result in any adverse traffic impacts. The
Project is in conformance with the assumptions set forth in the General Plan EIR. Therefore,
implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a
previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
Exceed, Either Individually or Cumulatively, a Level of Service Standard Established By
the County Congestion Management Agency for Designated Roads or Highways
The General Plan EIR identifies that all Congestion Management Plan arterials in the City would
continue to operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS E or better) with implementation of the
2006 General Plan. The Project is in conformance with the assumptions set forth in the General
Plan EIR. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or
increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the
General Plan EIR.
Result In A Change In Air Traffic Patterns, Including Either An Increase In Traffic Levels
Or A Change In Locations That Results In Substantial Safety Risks
As previously addressed in this Addendum, the four sub -areas are in the AELUP for the John
Wayne Airport. The ALUC has found the City of Newport Beach to be a consistent agency with
the AELUP. Additionally, the four sub -areas are within the AELUP Height Restriction Zone.
Within this zone, notice to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is required for construction
or alteration to any building more than 200 feet above ground level. Prior to construction or
alteration. of a building more than 200 feet above ground level a Determination of No Hazard
G,Vown,ernz and SatGigsyMgoN .CNarLOCal Seflinga %Tern Orary Internet F11e aWLK1F2 %DraRAddan&rn- 11 1907.dac 3 -42 Enviranmt
Addendum to City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR
must be obtained from the FAA. A determination of No Hazard is the FAA's independent finding
that a proposed structure will not pose a hazard to air navigation. The PC Text requires that any
structure above 200 feet will be forwarded to the FAA for their independent analysis. The
Project is in conformance with the assumptions set forth in the General Plan EIR. Therefore,
implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a
previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. As set
forth in the General Plan EIR, impacts to John Wayne Airport operations with implementation of
the 2006 General Plan are less than significant.
Substantially Increase Hazards Due To A Design Feature (e.g., Sharp Curves Or
Dangerous Intersections) Or Incompatible Uses (e.g., Farm Equipment)
The General Plan EIR notes that site - specific projects are not addressed in the 2006 General
Plan. As such, it would speculative to determine if any particular project would be designed in a
manner to cause safety hazards. The General Plan EIR does identify that none of the circulation
improvements identified in the EIR would introduce safety hazards and would not result in
significant impacts. With respect to the four sub - areas, as currently developed areas, it is
expected that future development consistent with the 2006 General Plan would use the existing
roadway system and as such would not cause safety hazards. Any traffic improvements for the
Project are consistent with the assumptions set forth in the General Plan EIR, and as noted
above, would not result in significant impacts. . The Project is in conformance with the
assumptions set forth in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, implementation of the Project would
not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact
as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
Result in Inadequate Emergency Access
As previously addressed in this Addendum, the General Plan EIR notes that increased
population and development could result in congested traffic conditions. The 2006 General Plan
identifies policies to ensure that the city's Emergency Management Plan is regularly updated,
provides for efficient and orderly citywide evacuation, and ensures that emergency service
personnel are knowledgeable of the relevant response plans for the City. Consistent with the
findings of the General Plan EIR, the General Plan EIR identifies that traffic impacts related to
emergency access would be less than significant with mitigation. The Project is in conformance
with the assumptions set forth in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, implementation of the Project
would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant
impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
Result In Inadequate Parking Capacity
The General Plan EIR does not identify Newport Center as an area of the City with limited
parking availability. The North Newport Center Project, as with other projects in the City, would
be required to comply with parking requirements identified in the City's Municipal Code. The
Project is in conformance with the assumptions set forth in the General Plan EIR. Therefore,
implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a
previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
Conflict with Adopted Policies, Plans, Or Programs Supporting Alternative
Transportation (e.g., Bus Turnouts, Bicycle Racks)
The 2006 General Plan Circulation Element includes policies related to transportation systems
management, transportation demand management, etc. These policies encourage alternative
modes of transportation. The General Plan EIR notes that implementation of the 2006 General
Plan will not result in significant impacts. The Project is in conformance with the assumptions
0 VOCurnents and Sedings4ma ndCNBLLOCal 5e44nW% Temparary Internet Fi1e3QLK1F21Crap Addondum-011gp1 dOC 3-43 EnWronnu
Addendum to City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR
set forth in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in
any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as
previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
Mitigation Program
Policies of the 2006 General Plan were adopted as a mitigation program that minimized impacts
associated with buildout of the City of Newport Beach, including the implementation of future
development in Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza. The following
mitigation would also be required for the Project:
1. At MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road, the Applicant shall construct a third
eastbound left -turn lane. The intersection would operate at LOS D with the recommended
improvement. This improvement is consistent with the General Plan. Consistent with the
TPO, this improvement will be completed early in the development phasing (i.e., before
issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first building [other than a parking structure])
constructed as part of the Project, but in no event later than 60 months from the operative
date of the Development Agreement.
2. The Applicant shall work with the City on design and development of circulation
enhancements in the North Newport Center area, consistent with the General Plan
Circulation Element, including widening of Avocado Avenue between San Miguel Drive
and San Nicolas Drive, dedication of public right -of -way and enhancement of San Miguel
Drive between MacArthur Boulevard and Avocado Avenue, and installation of traffic
signals on Newport Center Drive.
Level of Siqnificance After Mitigation
At the two other impacted intersections (Goldenrod Avenue at Coast Highway and Marguerite
Avenue at Coast Highway), there are no feasible improvements available, a fact which has been
recognized and accepted in the 2006 General Plan and General Plan EIR which accepts LOS E
at these two intersections. Consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, the General
Plan EIR identifies that traffic impacts related to intersections, Congestion Management Plan
arterials, air traffic patterns, design hazards, emergency access, and parking would be less than
significant with mitigation. No feasible mitigation has been identified in the General Plan EIR to
reduce impacts to freeway mainlines and ramps; this impact remains significant and
unavoidable.
Finding of Consistency With General Plan EIR
Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach has determined,
on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that the North Newport
Center Project does not propose substantial changes to the project; no substantial changes
would occur which would require major revisions to the General Plan EIR due to the
involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity oS
Ptg iously i nl.tffects; and no new information of substantial importance has
been revealed since the certification of the General Plan EIR.
C? Documents and SeningsrpalbM CNBLLOW SetAngffemporary lntemet FileslOLKV20mft Addendum -11MT p $-44 Envlronm
Addendum to City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR
3.15 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
The following thresholds of significance are as set forth in the General Plan EIR. It identifies that
implementation of the proposed General Plan Update may have a significant adverse impact on
utilities and service systems if it would result in any of the following:
• Require or result in the construction and /or expansion of water supply or
wastewater facilities, or new energy or natural gas production or transmission
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts
• Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources, or are new and expanded entitlements needed
• Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water
Quality Control Board
• Would the project be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs
• Would the project fail to comply with applicable federal, State, and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Utility and service system impacts have
been previously analyzed as part of the General Plan EIR, which was prepared and certified
pursuant to State and City CEQA Guidelines. Minor additions and /or clarifications are needed to
make the previous document adequate to cover the actions that are currently proposed, which
are documented below and serve as an Addendum to the General Plan EIR.
Summary Analvsis
Require or Result in the Construction and /or Expansion of Water Supply or Wastewater
Facilities, or New Energy or Natural Gas Production or Transmission Facilities, the
Construction of Which Could Cause Significant Environmental Impacts
Have Sufficient Water Supplies Available To Serve the Project from Existing Entitlements
and Resources, or Are New and Expanded Entitlements Needed
Water Supply and Treatment
The General Plan EIR notes that buildout of the 2006 General Plan could require the
construction of new and /or expanded water treatment plants or water conveyance systems, and
that water demand may exceed existing water entitlements.
Three sources provide water service to the City of Newport Beach: the City, Irvine Ranch Water
District (IRWD), and Mesa Consolidated Water District (MCWD). Water supplied by the City is
purchased from two sources. Groundwater is purchased from the Orange County Water District
(OCWD) and imported water is purchased from the Metropolitan Water District of Orange
County (MWDOC). The water supply assessment conducted for the General Plan EIR assumed
full buildout of the 2006 General Plan land uses, inclusive of Fashion Island, Block 500, Block
600, and San Joaquin Plaza. Page 4.14 -20 of the General Plan EIR states:
MWDOC, the City's provider of imported water, IRWD, and Mesa have each
indicated they can accommodate the additional demand from the proposed
General Plan Update in addition to future growth assumed in the respective
C OacumeMS and Setngst pellord, CNBLLOCaI SetUngffennwary Internet Files`gLMF2 mfl Addendum- i I M].tloc 3-4$ En VllOnmf
Addendum to City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR
UWMPs [Urban Water Management Plans]. In addition, the implementation of
conservation measures would be required on a project - specific basis and water
shortage contingency plans would further reduce additional water demand.
Finally, future development is required to adhere to Section 10910 of the
California Water Code. Therefore, the cumulative impact to water supply would
be less than significant.
In addition to MWDOC, IRWD and Mesa, OCWD projects that there would be sufficient
groundwater supplies to meet any future demand requirements in Newport Beach.28 The
General Plan EIR concluded that there is sufficient water supply to meet the needs of the City.
The General Plan EIR also addressed potential affects of new development on groundwater
supplies and concluded that impacts will be less than significant due to conservation policies in
the 2006 General Plan. The City's Water Supply Plan accounted for the demand associated
with buildout of the 2006 General Plan land uses. The 2006 General Plan includes policies to
conserve water and reduce potential impacts to groundwater supply.
Citywide, projects inclusive of development in the four sub -areas are required to comply with the
City's fair share requirements and with General Plan Update policies on water conservation.
Compliance makes impacts less than significant. The General Plan EIR states: "...any request
for service resulting from new development would be subject to a site - specific evaluation of the
existing water system's capacity to service the development. If improvements to the existing
water system are required or additional facilities are needed, the property developer would be
required to pay its fair share of the cost of all or portions of the needed improvements . "29
General Plan Update goals and policies promote water conservation and limit water
consumption. As such, impacts were found to be less than significant. The Project is in
conformance with the assumptions set forth in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, implementation
of the Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously
identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
The General Plan EIR states that
Additional development accommodated under the proposed General Plan
Update would increase water use within the City, thus increasing the need for
water treatment services... [the Metropolitan Water District] MWD can meet 100
percent of the City's imported water needs until the year 2030... any request for
service resulting from new development would be subject to a site - specific
evaluation of the existing water system's capacity to service the development. If
improvements to the existing water system are required or additional facilities are
needed, the property developer would be required to pay its fair share of the cost
of all or portions of the needed improvements .30
Impacts of the proposed project would be less than significant because General Plan Update
Policy LU 2.8 directs the City to accommodate land uses that can be adequately supported by
infrastructure, including water treatment and conveyance facilities. As such, adequate water
infrastructure would be provided for all development assumed in the 2006 General Plan,
inclusive of the four sub - areas. The General Plan EIR finds that "...because future development
under the proposed General Plan Update would be required to adhere to existing regulations
and the proposed policies identified above, no impact would result." (See 4.14 -30) The Project
26 Ibid., page 4.14 -8.
29 Ibid., page 4.14 -17.
ao City of Newport Beach, Final Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan 2006 Update, July 26, 2006, page
4.14 -17.
C'��wmeMS 2M Sedln9sXPaKOW.CNa\L 1SeNn9s%Temp mr ln[ met FilesNOL IF20mft Addendum -ll lw7.doc 3-46 Environm[
Addendum to City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR
is in conformance with the assumptions set forth in the General Plan EIR. Therefore,
implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a
previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
Natural Gas
Southern California Gas Company (SCGC) provides natural gas service for the City of Newport
Beach. The General Plan EIR states:
Any expansion of service necessitated by implementation of the proposed
General Plan Update would be in accordance with SCGC's policies and
extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission at the time
contractual agreements are made. Because the natural gas demand projected
for the proposed General Plan Update would not exceed available or planned
supply, new infrastructure would not be required to serve the proposed project.
Therefore, no impact would result."
The Project is expected not to have a significant impact on natural gas supplies because natural
gas demand projected for General Plan buildout, inclusive of the four sub - areas, would not
exceed available or planned supply and because new infrastructure would not be needed to
serve the four sub - areas. The Project is in conformance with the assumptions set forth in the
General Plan EIR. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts
or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the
General Plan EIR.
Exceed Wastewater Treatment Requirements of the Applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board
Require or Result in the Construction and/or Expansion of Water Supply or Wastewater
Facilities, or New Energy or Natural Gas Production or Transmission Facilities, the
Construction of Which Could Cause Significant Environmental Impacts
Have Sufficient Water Supplies Available To Serve the Project from Existing Entitlements
and Resources, or Are New and Expanded Entitlements Needed
Sewer Systems
Wastewater from the City's sewer system is treated by the Orange County Sanitation District
(OCSD). The General Plan EIR identifies that a majority of the City's sewage flow is pumped to
the OCSD Plant No. 2; flows from the portion of the City north of the Corona del Mar Freeway
(State Rout 73) are pumped to Plant No. 1. The General Plan EIR states:
...policies under the proposed General Plan Update require the renovation of all
older sewer pump stations and the installation of new plumbing according to
most recent standards, and implementation of the Sewer System Management
Plan and Sewer Master Plan. Implementation of the proposed General Plan
Update policies requires adequate wastewater facilities and conveyance systems
to be available to the City residents. Therefore, impacts to the wastewater
treatment facilities associated with increased growth in the City would be less
than significant.32
31 Ibid., page 4.14 -50.
32 Ibid., page 4.14 -32.
C:Vocments and SegngsbalfnrC CNBLLocal Settlnp% Temporary lntennel Files/ LK1FMmflAtldendum- 111W7 dec 3-47 Envlmn
Addendum to City of Newport Beach Genaral Plan 2006 Update EfR
Impacts from implementation of the 2006 General Plan, inclusive of the Project, are expected to
have a less than significant impact to sewer systems because implementation of the Sewer
System Management Plan and Sewer Master Plan, in conjunction with General Plan policies
relating to sewer systems, would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. The Project is in
conformance with the assumptions set forth in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, implementation
of the Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously
identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
Would the Project be Served by a Landfill with Insufficient Permitted Capacity to
Accommodate the Project's Solid Waste Disposal Needs
Would the Project Fail to Comply With Applicable Federal, State, and Local Statutes and
Regulations Related to Solid Waste
Solid Waste Disposal
As noted in the General Plan EIR, the Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill serves the City, and
states:
The increase in solid waste generated by the development under the proposed
General Plan Update would not exceed capacity of the landfill. In addition, AB
939 mandates the reduction of solid waste disposal in landfills. Consequently,
this analysis assumes a worst -case scenario, as it is anticipated that at least
approximately 50 percent of the estimated increase in solid waste generation
could be diverted (or approximately 10,830 tons /year). Therefore, the Frank R.
Bowerman Sanitary Landfill would have sufficient capacity to serve the increased
development within the City under the proposed General Plan Update .33
Citywide buildout under the 2006 General Plan assumptions would not have an impact on solid
waste generation or disposal at the Bowerman Landfill. However, on a cumulative basis, the
General Plan EIR `without approved specific plans for substantial expansion of the landfill
facilities that serve the County, solid waste generation from approved and foreseeable
cumulative pro oects in the project area vicinity would exacerbate regional landfill capacity issues
in the future."' Cumulative impacts are considered significant and unavoidable. The Project is
in conformance with the assumptions set forth in the General Plan EIR. Therefore,
implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a
previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
Mitiaation Program
Policies of the 2006 General Plan were adopted as a mitigation program that minimized impacts
associated with buildout of the City of Newport Beach, including the implementation of future
development in Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, the General Plan EIR identifies that all
utility and service system impacts can be mitigated to a level of less than significant with the
exception of cumulative impacts to landfill capacity; this impact remains significant and
unavoidable.
" Ibid., page 4.1444.
Ibid., page 4.14-45.
C:OocumerNs eM Settings `palfoM.CNMLo lSemn9s \Temporary lntemet Files\ LK1F2Tmft AddeMum- 111901.doc 3-48 Environnw
Addendum to City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR
Finding of Conslstencv With General Plan EIR
Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach has determined,
on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that the North Newport
Center Project does not propose substantial changes to the project; no substantial changes
would occur which would require major revisions to the General Plan EIR due to the
yi❑ sIy -QmenLDf [lew_.Signifyent�nyirglatlLe>at L�ffe �r 13uD.�tlotial�[14reaSe in a severity Qf
previously identified sianificapt effects; and no new information of substantial importance has
been revealed since the certification of the General Plan EIR.
C: \Wcuments aM SetfingaWel fod.CNBCocel Serong.%Te N.o name[ Fik.t LK i F2%D.ft Addendum -1I IW7doc 3 -49 Enwonme
APPENDIX A
TRAFFIC STUDIES
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
TO Chair and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Robin L. Clauson, City Attorney
RE North Newport Center Response to Comments and Concerns Raised
by Commissioner Barry Eaton
DATE : November 29, 2007
This memorandum will respond to two issues raised by Commissioner Eaton at the
November 15, 2007 Planning Commission meeting on the North Newport Center
Development Plan, and related approvals, ( "Project "). Commissioner Eaton questioned
the use of the General Plan EIR by way of an Addendum to comply with the
environmental analysis necessary under CEQA and questioned whether that the
approvals for the Project are consistent with the 2006 General Plan.
A. Compliance with CEQA
As described in the Addendum and as followed in the Addendum analysis, the Project
implements the 2006 General Plan land use approvals. The 2006 General Plan was
considered by the public and the City Council approved it in conjunction with the
certification of a final Environmental Impact Report on July 25, 2006, (GPEIR). The first
issue raised was related to Commissioner Eaton's view that the Project is a completely
new project and thus requires its own environmental analysis. The logistical problem with
interpreting the guidelines to determine when a project is a "new project' versus a
"modified prior project," is a concept that comes from the 2006 Save Our Neighborhood 1
case which was based in the reasoning of the Benton case cited by Mr. Eaton. This
concept of "is it a new project" was recently put to rest in the case of Mani Brothers vs.
City of Los Angeles 153 Cal.AppAth 1385 issued on August 3, 2007. In that case the
court upheld the use of an Addendum to a previously approved Environmental Impact
Report when it was established that there was no substantial evidence to support the
need for a subsequent or supplemental EIR as required under the provisions of the
CEQA Guidelines. Pertinent to this discussion, the Mani court stated at page 1398,
'When reviewing an agency's decision not to require a SEIR, the 'low
threshold' fair argument test 'for requiring the preparation of an EIR in the
1 Save our Neighborhood vs. Lishman (2006) 140 Cal.AppAth 1288
Planning Commission
Page: 2
November 29, 2007
first instance is no longer applicable; instead, agencies are prohibited from
requiring further environmental review unless the stated conditions are
met." [citation omitted] Thus, in reviewing decisions made pursuant to
section 21166, courts 'are not reviewing the record to determine whether it
demonstrates a possibility of environmental impact, but are viewing it in a
light most favorable to the City's decision in order to determine whether
substantial evidence supports the decision not to require additional review."
* * * The rationale for limiting the circumstances under which a
supplemental or subsequent EIR may be prepared is 'precisely because in-
depth review has already occurred, the time for challenging the sufficiency
of the original EIR has long since expired [citation omitted], and the
question is whether the circumstances have changed enough to justify
repeating a substantial portion of the process. [citation omitted]
Therefore, section 21166 'provides a balance against the burdens created
by the environmental review process and accords a reasonable measure
of finality and certainty to the results achieved. At this point, the interests
of finality are favored over the policy favoring public comments..."
The court later clarified at page 1401, that the inquiry whether as a matter of law, a
project was a modified or a new project was not an appropriate type of analysis called for
under CEQA.
"The focus of CEQA, both procedurally and substantively, is solely... the
potential environmental impacts of a project. Labeling a project a 'new
project' as distinguished from a 'modified project,' and finding such a label
determinative, as the court did in Save Our Neighborhood, imposes a new
analytical factor beyond the framework of CEQA. Particularly here where
there is a previously certified EIR, changes in the size, ownership, nature,
character, etc., of a project are of no consequence in and of themselves
such factors are meaningful only to the extent they affect the environmental
impacts of a project."
Commissioner Eaton also was concerned that the process for environmental review for
the Project should have been to follow the "Tiering" process described in Section 15152
of the CEQA Guidelines. While "Tiering off' a previous EIR could be appropriate under
certain circumstances for certain projects, it is not necessary to be followed for this
Project. Section 15152, which provides general requirements for Tiering situations such
as a program EIR, also requires a later EIR only "when the initial study or other analysis
finds that the later project may cause significant effects on the environmental that were
not adequately addressed in the prior EIR,(15152 (0." Thus, even if the tiering process
was used, Section 15152 does not require a new EIR for a project when a previous EIR
adequately addressed any significant effects resulting from the project.
Here, the North Newport Center Addendum serves as the "other analysis" of whether the
Project may cause significant effects "not adequately addressed in the prior EIR." The
Planning Commission
Page: 3
November 29, 2007
North Newport Center Addendum also details how the Project does not create any new
environmental effects not already evaluated in the GPEIR. A later EIR is therefore
unnecessary under Section 15152.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15153 would also not apply to this Project. Notably, Section
15153 governs the use of an EIR from an earlier project for a "separate, later project', not
a project implementing approvals that were already analyzed under a Program EIR.
Accordingly, the City has followed the requirements for a Program EIR under Section
15168, rather than the requirements for a "separate later project' under Section 15153.
In addition, CEQA Guideline Section 15378 does not require treating the Project as a
"separate later project." This section merely defines the term project for CEQA purposes.
As part of its definition Section 15378 does provide examples of projects subject to
CEQA, including enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances. However, Section
15378 provides no indication, that "enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances,"
which implement the adoption or amendment of local general plans or elements of a
general plan, are separate projects requiring separate EIRs. In this case, the GPEIR
contemplated new or amended zoning regulations to implement changes in the land use
designations and descriptions in the 2006 Land Use Element, as approved by the voters
in November 2006. Specific to North Newport Center, previous zoning of APF and
Planned Community District Regulations did not address these new land use
designations and necessarily were required to be amended to implement the new MU -1-13
designations for portions of Newport Center. It was recognized that such zoning
implementation regulations would be necessary in the Resolution adopting the new
General Plan.
As outlined in the Addendum, new or amended zoning regulations are exactly the
circumstances envisioned by the GPEIR, and the Planned Community Regulations
Guidelines and Development Agreement all necessarily were directed to occur for the
approved development entitlements in the new Land Use Element.
B. Consistencv with the General Plan
Under California law, a project is consistent with a General Plan if it is compatible with the
objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan
regardless of whether the Project is in rigid conformity with every detail of the General
Plan. The Project approvals which will be referred to as the "Development Plan" for North
Newport Center are compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and
programs specified in the General Plan because it promotes the General Plan's mixed
used goals and follows the mixed use land use designations within the authorized
entitlements for Newport Center and Fashion Island. The Development Plan and all of
the related approvals are within the authorized land uses for the North Newport Center
properties.
Planning Commission
Page: 4
November 29, 2007
The MU -H3 ( Mixed Use - Horizontal) designation authorizes the regulated land uses of
intermixing of regional commercial office, hotel, multi - family residential and ancillary
commercial uses. The Fashion Island property is designated CR or commercial retail and
the 75,000 additional square feet authorized by the 2006 voter approved Land Use Plan
is consistent with that zoning and within the authorized entitlements. This is also true for
the development of the 430 residential units within the MU -H3 designated properties.
Thus whether the development is built as hotel entitlement or office entitlement it is an
authorized use under the General Plan, and specifically the Land Use Element.
In my opinion, the Development Plan and the related approvals including the transferred
development rights are compatible with the objective policies, general land uses and
programs specified in the General Plan. While the contemplated transfer of development
rights will result in the condensing of existing office and the expansion of that existing
office in a certain block, and the conversion of hotel to office, this factor in and of itself
does not directly conflict with the policy found in "Opportunities for change" in LU3.3, or
the policy overview related to Newport Center and Fashion Island, or the related goals
and policies under LU 6.14. This is especially true in the context of LU 6.14 objective that
Newport Center and Fashion Island be a successful mixed use district that integrates an
economic and commercial center serving the needs of Newport Beach residents and the
sub -region with expanded opportunities for residents to live close to jobs, commerce,
entertainment and recreation and is supported by a pedestrian friendly environment. The
Planned Community Regulations and Guidelines and the authorized uses and
development of office in conjunction with the additional of 430 residential units and the
existing Island Hotel, along with the modest expansion authorized by the General Plan for
additional retail in Fashion Island, all integrate within the context of the overall goals and
policies of the General Plan for Newport Center and do not create any direct conflict with
any policy or objective.
RC:da
F:W semXcatishared\Projects WewportCenter\memo\PCgpeir.doc
GRF
November 27, 2007
HAND DELIVERED TO:
Mr. David Lepo
Planning Director
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Re: Request for City Council General Plan Determination
Dear David:
GOLF REALTY FUND
ONE UPPER NEWPORT PLAZA
NEWPORTBEACH
CALIFORNIA 92660
(949) 251 -2025
(949) 25 1 -2085 FAX
Per your recommended alternative offered in your December 28, 2006 letter to me, this letter is
Golf Realty Fund's request for a hearing, as soon as possible, before the City Council regarding
whether MU -H3/PR category for Anomaly 46 prohibits The Bungalows, which is a 27 unit
visitor - serving boutique hotel, set out in NBCC Planned Community Text.
Based upon Byron de Arakal's recent conversation with Rosalinh Ung and as a follow -up to my
letter to you dated November 2, 2007, it is apparent that City staff is staying with the
interpretation that the NBCC Planned Community Text, showing a boutique hotel consisting of
27 Bungalows with amenities was not provided for in the November 7, 2006 General Plan
Amendment approved by the voters. Jim Lawson's letter to you dated December 6, 2006; my
letter to Sharon Wood dated December 6, 2006; John Flynn's letter to Sharon Wood dated March
26, 2007; John Flynn's letter to you dated April 11, 2007; Jim Lawson's letter to you dated April
25, 2007; and my letter to you dated November 2, 2007, among other correspondence and emails
and numerous meetings, put forth in considerable detail why we respectfully believe that City
staff's subject interpretation is incorrect. Further, there are a number of ironies that make this
interpretation, which first surfaced through Assistant City Manager Sharon Wood during the City
condemnation effort and post- November 7, 2006, inequitable, including the following:
The application for the NBCC PC Zone Change (PA 2005 -140) was filed on June 20, 2005,
for the second time, with the help and even the instructions of the Planning Department after
discussion of the proposed uses;
• The record shows that members of the Planning Commission, the City Council, and Assistant
City Manager Sharon Wood discussed and were aware that The Bungalows were "daily rental
hotel units" and "a boutique visitor- serving hotel use" in approving the MU -H3/PR General
Plan category for NBCC PC sent to the voters of the City of Newport Beach;
• The words "residential use may be permitted," which is now being construed as meaning only
residential use may be allowed in the MU -H3/PR category, was requested by me because the
MU -H3/PR allowed hotel use and multi - family residential, but not specifically single - family
residential, which we preferred for the 5 single family homes known as The Villas;
The Bungalows, upon stabilized occupancy, will generate over $1 Million in bed tax for the
City of Newport Beach, and is important for ensuring the retention of the Toshiba Classic,
which brings over $1 Million a year to Hoag Hospital, and tens of millions of dollars a year
in revenue to City merchants;
The efforts and the votes of the thousands of members of the Golf Club and Tennis Club,
who saw the benefits of the revitalization of a premier amenity within the City, were
instrumental in the November 7, 2006 passage of the General Plan Amendment by the voters
of the City of Newport Beach; and
The revitalization results in significant improvements within the NBCC PC which benefits
the entire City, including the significant landscape buffer of the new Golf Club parking lot
along Pacific Coast Highway and new Tennis Clubhouse with a small fitness center and
Center Stadium Court, which can be used by Hoag for Team Tennis, as well as the two other
major charity tennis tournaments each year.
We very much regret the need for this matter to go before the City Council because it will be
time consuming and generate concern and anxiety from many wonderful citizens of our great
City. However, the timing of our request determination is urgent because we just learned that all
65 of the hotel units for Newport Center, of which we thought the NBCC PC had first claim on
due to its June 2005 application followed by the General Plan Amendment process, is being
allocated in the Development Agreement to The Irvine Company. The result is only 20
residential units are left to draw from in Newport Center. Dan Miller has told us that he
explained to City staff that The Irvine Company did not want to exceed the number of units
needed to allow the NBCC PC to proceed forward.
Thank you
Sincerely,
ec: City Council Members
Planning Commission Members
City Manager Homer Bludau
Assistant City Manager Sharon Wood
Assistant City Manager Dave Kiff
City Attorney Robin Clauson
Associate Planner Rosalinh Ung
Dan Miller, VP The Irvine Company
Byron de Arakal
Michael Leifer
John J. Flynn
City Council Presentation
November 27, 2007
Good evening. My name is Larry Tucker and 1 have been a resident of Newport Beach
for 30 years. I am here tonight to talk about the election of 2006. That may seem odd to
you, but some of those who were on the losing end of two ballot propositions appearing
on that ballot seem unwilling to acknowledge the people have spoken.
The 2006 ballot had two propositions with radically different visions for the future of our
City. One was a general plan update that completely re-wrote the City's General Plan.
That update was crafted by 38 public members representing all points of view in our City
and largely confirmed as proposed by the Planning Commission and the City Council.
There were scores of public meetings and a lot of give and take arriving at the final
version of the general plan update. The other ballot proposition was drafted by a handful
of people from the Greenlight political organization to effectively restrict much of the
City's unbuilt entitlement by forcing a public vote as a precondition for use of much of
that unbuilt entitlement. No public input was asked for or received on the Greenlight
vision for the future.
The update of the general plan passed by a comfortable margin while the Greenlight
vision of the future was overwhelmingly rejected.
Some Greenlight acolytes now complain that a development agreement which will
implement a portion of the new General Plan pertaining to Newport Center is somehow a
rush job that is unfavorable to the City. On the contrary, the matter will be heard by the
Planning Commission twice and twice at the Council as well. But their real complaint is
that they do not like what the new General Plan provides. Think about it. The plan for
the build out of Newport Center does NOT require a general plan amendment. Which is
the same thing as saying the plan is NOT inconsistent with the new General Plan. In fact,
every last aspect of The Irvine Company plan is entirely consistent with the new General
Plan. So it is disingenuous for the losers of last year's election to writs letters and emails
to the Daily Pilot to try to persuade the public that what is being proposed is something in
addition to what is allowed in the new General Plan. It is not.
Lastly, the recommendation to allow residential uses in Newport Center came from the
citizens' advisory committee, NOT The Irvine Company. Sure The Irvine Company will
benefit, but it was not their idea in the first place. The Development Agreement that is
being negotiated provides tens of millions of dollars of public benefit to the City. That is
a huge amount of money to receive from a landowner for giving the public exactly what
the public authorized in the new General Plan: Residential uses in Newport Center. I
find it highly ironic that those complaining the loudest that the deal is not rich enough are
the very people who wanted no units at all. Those who sanctimoniously insisted that past
ballot propositions be implemented as the will of the people apparently have no use for
the will of the people when it is not their will.
City Council Presentation
November 13, 2007
My name is Larry Tucker. I am here tonight to talk about the proposed Development
Agreement between the City and The Irvine Company which will be before the Planning
Commission on Thursday
First, I would like to add some context to the discussion as to what is the appropriate
amount of public benefit for The Irvine Company to bestow upon the City. This
discussion necessarily starts with the Visioning Process which gave rise to the general
plan update confirmed by the electorate last November. The Visioning Process suggested
that residential units be added to Newport Center. That concept was hashed out, and then
recommended by the 38 member citizens General Plan Advisory Committee to the
Planning Commission. So the concept of adding residential units to Newport Center was
not something The Irvine Company asked for. Rather, it was part of a multi -year
planning process that was undertaken on a City wide basis through a litany of public
meetings. As a then member of the City's Planning Commission, I can assure you and
the public that the motivation to add residential units to Newport Center was to
implement an extensive planning effort. In other words, the City was not selling
entitlements for money. The Visioning process ultimately yielded a planning
recommendation that it was a good idea to add residential units to Newport Center.
Once it was clear that residential units were to be added to Newport Center, the Planning
Commission recommended to the City Council that those who availed themselves of the
units be required to sign a Development Agreement. The purpose of this requirement
was to recognize that those who used the units would be receiving a financial windfall.
The Planning Commission believed that the City ought to receive some level of public
benefit out of the process. But again, the threshold planning concept was clear.
Residential units were an appropriate use in certain areas of Newport Center.
As for the level of public benefits disclosed in the Planning Commission staff report, I am
satisfied that it meets the intent of the General Plan. In fact, I am more than satisfied that
Mayor Rosansky and Mayor Pro Tern Selich have negotiated an outstanding agreement,
especially since the Development Agreement was not borne out of a request by an
applicant for additional entitlement. The only legitimate reason 1 can think of to not vote
for the proposed Development Agreement is because one believes that insufficient public
benefit has been offered. It is a huge amount of money; quite frankly, those who suggest
it is not enough, in my opinion, have lost track of the fact it was the City's idea that
residential be added to Newport Center. That vision, confirmed by the electorate, ought
to be implemented. And since it was my recommendation to the Planning Commission to
add the Development Agreement requirement to this portion of the General Plan in the
first place, 1 would hope my opinion as to what is appropriate will count for something.
If the ante is raised, The Irvine Company has the right to say no thanks, and that would be
a shame.
Thanks for your time.
Larry Tucker
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
REPORT OF THE CITY HALL SITE REVIEW COMMITTEE
MAY 1, 2006
PUBLIC OUTREACH; SCOPE OF ASSIGNMENT.
On January 24, 2006, the City Council established the City Hall Site Review Committee.
The members of the Committee appointed by the City Council are: Larry Tucker (Chair),
Stephen Brahs, John Hamilton, Lloyd Ikerd, Donald Krotee, Wallace Olson, Gordon
Glass, Rush Hill, Roberta Jorgensen, John Nelson and Scott Riddles. The Council also
appointed Councilmembers Tod Ridgeway, Steve Rosansky and Ed Selich as liaisons to
the Committee. In establishing the Committee, the Council adopted the following
mission statement for the Committee: "To identify and assess all reasonable potential
sites within the boundaries of Newport Beach for a city hall facility and provide a written
report and oral assessment report to the City Council, along with Committee
recommendations as to the best location(s) for further City Council consideration no later
than May 1, 2006."
In order to solicit the Community to receive suggestions about potential City Hall
locations, an outreach program was conducted. The Chairman of the Committee
authored a letter to the Editor of the Daily Pilot soliciting site suggestions. The letter was
printed in a prominent location by the Daily Pilot on February 2, 2006. The Daily Pilot
also published a front page article on the topic on February 16, 2006, where, again, site
suggestions were solicited. Additionally, all members of City Committees and
Commissions were asked to suggest sites. The Council liaisons informed the public of
the Committee's work and solicited sites at Council meetings. Also, anyone who had e-
mailed the Internet address established by the City to accept comments on the City Hall
topic, was asked about any ideas each might have for a City Hall site. And finally,
anyone who had spoken to the City Council at a Council meeting about any aspect of the
City Hall project, and whose address was available to the City Clerk, was also solicited
for site suggestions.
The Committee met on six occasions: February 13, March 6, March 20, April 3, April 17
and May 1, 2006. Each meeting was open to the public, and the agenda for each meeting
was published on the City's website. Most of the meetings lasted two hours. Detailed
minutes of the meetings have been published and are available for public review.
SUGGESTED SITES.
The Committee received 76 comments relating to site suggestions. (See attachment of
suggestions.) From these comments, 22 different sites were suggested. The sites were as
follows:
1. Vacant Site north of San Miguel between MacArthur /Avocado
2. Art Museum (old Library site) in Newport Center
3. Land Rover dealership/Police and Fire Station properties
-1-
4. Vacant land /existing building in Corporate Plaza West on PCH
5. Newport Beach Country Club parking lot
6. Banning Ranch land in West Newport
7. Newport-Mesa Unified School District site on east boundary of Banning Ranch
8. Edler Building at Campus/Dove
9. Back Bay View Park at PCH/Jamboree
10. The Newport Dunes property
11. Camelback building adjacent to Self Storage/Temple Bat Yam
12. Inland Portion ofArdell Parcel
13. Birch/Mesa comer property
14. Existing City Hall site
15. Coyote Canyon Landfill
16. City Parking lot in Mariners Mile
17. Northwest comer of PCH and Bayside Drive
18. Rogers Gardens
19. Lower Castaways
20. The Lawn Bowling Park off San Joaquin Hills Drive, near San Miguel
21. Medical buildings on Dover Drive, between Cliff Drive and West 16th
22. Two buildings in San Joaquin Plaza (presently occupied by Pacific Life)
The sites fell into one or more of the following four categories: (i) Those that were
geographically unsuitable; (ii) Those that were technically or practically infeasible; (iii)
Those that were not presently or in the near term available because the owner or another
party with a long term position was not interested in selling or yielding its interest in the
site within the foreseeable future, without other conditions and (iv) Those that merited
further consideration.
SITES ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION.
Those sites deemed geographically unsuitable were: Banning Ranch land in West
Newport ( #6); Newport Mesa Unified School District land adjacent to Banning Ranch
( #7) the Edler Building at Campus/Dover ( #8); Birch /Mesa comer property ( #13); and
Coyote Canyon Landfill ( #15). Additionally, the Impact Mortgage Building on Dove
Street in the airport area was suggested after the site analysis part of the Committee's
work was completed. However, in connection with the evaluation of the Edler Building
in the airport area ( 0), the Committee concluded that the airport area is geographically
unsuitable for a City Hall site.
Those sites deemed technically or practically infeasible were: Vacant site north of San
Miguel between MacArthur and Avocado due to traffic congestion and site design issues
( #1); Back Bay View Park due to costly site constraints, present use as a City Park, need
for a General Plan Amendment with likely Measure S vote and Coastal Commission
approval ( #9); Newport Dunes due to State restrictions on tideland uses ( #10);
Camelback building adjacent to self storage/Temple Bat Yahm due to access issues
( #11); Inland portion of Ardell site due to its location in an already congested area and its
incompatibility with contiguous residential uses (# 12); City Parking lot in Mariner's Mile
Ira
due to its small size ( #16); Lower Castaways due to access issues ( #19); Lawn Bowling
park due to its use as a park, the need to relocate major Edison lines, its incompatibility
with surrounding residential and the likely need to make improvements to Crown Drive
that would alter the character of a road adjacent to homes ( #20); Medical buildings on
Dover Drive due to long term leases of certain tenants, location near residential, need to
include former Bank of Newport property for sufficient land and desire of owner to
ground lease property ( #21); and The Pacific Life Buildings I & 5 in San Joaquin Plaza
due to building sizes and configuration, non - contiguous location, and shared parking in
an office complex ( #22).
Those sites for which an owner, or other interest holder was not willing to sell, or had
other conditions (such as related entitlements on a portion of the same property), were:
Art Museum (old Library site) in Newport Center —still using property and expects to be
doing so for the foreseeable future ( #2); Newport Beach Country Club parking lot —
complicated due to ownership of land and golf course being different and each having its
own lender ( #5); Northwest corner of PCH and Bayside Drive —owner working on
development plans and would consider City Hall use in connection with other land use
changes on the property ( #17); and Rogers Gardens—owner has no interest in selling
( #18). The former Newport Technology Center site was not included in the list of
suggested sites since the site was purchased by Hoag Hospital about the time the
Committee was appointed and its representatives indicated the Hospital planned to use
the site for medical office purposes.
SITES FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION.
After the elimination of the sites described above, that left three (3) suggested sites
including the existing City Hall site for further consideration by the Committee. The two
other sites were the Land Rover/Police/Fire Station and the Corporate Plaza West site.
While the Land Rover site is not available because the owner is not interested in selling
the site, there is a parking lot north of the fire station that is owned by The Irvine
Company (TIC) and is part of San Joaquin Plaza (formerly Civic Plaza). TIC would
consider discussing a joint use parking structure on that land.
CONSTRAINTS AND CONSIDERATIONS USED TO EVALUATE REMAINING
SITES.
Based upon Council guidance and the Committee's perception of important
considerations for a City Hall location, the Committee established a matrix of constraints
and considerations to evaluate each site not otherwise eliminated from consideration.
Included in the constraints and consideration matrix were the following factors:
Site availability
Sufficient parcel size
-3-
Site configuration
Centrally located
Ease of travel
Ease of ingress /egress
Utilities/Public Services availability
Physical constraints
Environmental hazards
General Plan/zoning designations
Adjacent uses compatibility
Measure S (Greenlight) vote required
Approval of other agencies required
Compliance with CEQA
Timing of potential sale
Private use restrictions
Cost to acquire land
Cost to improve site /retrofit building
Timing to begin construction
Unique characteristics
Relocation costs
The issues with the sites that merit consideration are as follows:
3. Police and Fire Station properties, with joint use parking structure. The details of
a joint use parking structure would have to be worked out, including the design,
ownership, financing and use. Of coarse, there can be no assurance that an acceptable
arrangement can be worked out. This site has some additional special challenges because
it is the home to the City Police Department and a fire station. Each of those facilities
may have to be relocated or rebuilt to accommodate a new City Hall on this site. That
might entail expenditure of funds for such facilities earlier than otherwise might have
occurred. The square footage that will need to be added to the site will require a Measure
S Vote. CEQA analysis will be necessary. The Committee concluded that this site likely
has too many issues to be resolved to be a feasible alternative in the near term.
4. Vacant land /existing building in Corporate Plaza West on PCH — TIC owns both
the building and the vacant lot. The building is the western most of the two buildings
owned by TIC in that location and according to TIC representatives is approximately
42,000 s.f. of useable area. The building is vacant presently and is now being marketed
by TIC. The vacant land has been entitled by the City for an approximately 42,000
square foot office building with required parking. The Committee assumed that the
existing building could be retrofitted to meet the City's office needs, while the vacant
land could be improved with new facilities to accommodate the unique parts of City
requirements such as a City Council Chambers and other meeting rooms. The Committee
identified the following issues with respect to this site: (i) TIC has indicated it is not
typically a seller of its office properties in Newport Center, but rather a landlord, but has
indicated that the site would be a suitable location for a City Hall and is open to
discussions with the City about the site, (ii) the cost to acquire the land and building is
unknown, (iii) the cost to retrofit the building is unknown and (iv) the timing of the
project would be subject to making an agreement with TIC and processing the project
through the Coastal Commission. Although beyond the purview of the Committee, some
members suggested that all of the Corporate Plaza West property be considered for
acquisition to allow the City to consolidate other facilities on this site to create a more
complete Civic Center complex in a central location.
14. Existing City Hall site. The Committee identified the following issues with
respect to the existing City Hall site: It is a small in size, it is not centrally located; ease
of travel is an issue; it lies within the Coastal Zone; a temporary relocation off site during
construction would be costly, it would involve additional costs to build a parking
structure due to its size and finally, the land may be more valuable for residential
purposes so there could be a lost opportunity cost in not selling the land and buying
cheaper land zoned and/or already improved for office purposes.
ALTERNATIVE USES FOR EXISTING CITY HALL.
The Committee also considered alternative uses for the existing City Hall location if
another location proved feasible for City Hall. Based upon the input of several
Committee members that residential land values would be the highest and best use of the
site, the Committee requested that one of its members inquire about the value of the land
for residential purposes from a reputable homebuilding firm. The information reported
back to the Committee was that the value of the land, zoned at 25 units per acre, in a two -
story configuration could equate to more than $6,000,000 per acre, fully entitled. The
Committee has received other information that this amount may be low. The Committee
did not undertake to ascertain the net amount of land at the existing City Hall site that
would be available for residential use if City Hall were moved.
COST AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS.
For the two sites that seem to have the most promise as a new City Hall site, the
Committee endeavored to identify cost and other considerations associated with each of
the sites that may be of use to the Council in reaching its conclusion. (1) The Corporate
Plaza West building would have to be retrofitted to be used for City Hall purposes. The
adaptability of the space, including for unique City needs (such as a Council Chamber or
Planning/Building Counter area), has not been reviewed by the Committee, but such a
professional review should be conducted prior to any Council decision on the Corporate
Plaza West Property. Further, the Committee is not in a position to determine if the cost
to retrofit would be extraordinary or typical of an office space renovation. (2) It appears
that the Corporate Plaza West land and existing building would be able to provide
adequate parking without incurring the cost of a parking structure. (3) The existing City
Hall site would need a parking structure. (4) There would be a cost to move the City's
operations twice if the existing City Hall location were to become the new City Hall site
ME
(i.e. move out, construct, move back). (5) If another site becomes the new City Hall site,
then the City will save money by not having to lease and adapt temporary City Hall
offices during construction (i.e. City Hall would remain where it is until the new facility
is ready to occupy). (6) However, if the City retained ownership of the existing City Hall
site until a new City Hall in a new location is ready for occupancy, the City may own two
parcels (i.e. the existing City Hall site and the new City Hall site) until after the City
moves into the new location and completes the sale of the existing City Hall site. (7) If
the City is to maximize the value of the existing City Hall site, the City would need to
incur the time and expense of completing the entitlement of the existing City Hall site for
residential use. (8) The existing City Hall site would require no additional planning for a
City Hall use, other than Coastal Commission approval. Further, the site has already
gone through the preliminary design phase for a new facility. This existing level of
planning and design and the fact that the City owns the site would allow a project at this
site to proceed expeditiously. (9) Any other significant construction costs that might be
unique to a particular site.
FINANCIAL COMPARISIONS.
The City has already generated considerable information concerning the budget of a new
facility at the existing City Hall site. Missing information with respect to a project at the
existing City Hall site would need to be ascertained (e.g. costs associated with a
temporary City Hall and to move twice). In order to be able to understand the financial
aspects of the Corporate Plaza West location, the City would need to retain a real estate
professional to gather needed information to be able to make a financial comparison of a
new City Hall on the Corporate Plaza West site versus the existing City Hall site. That
information would include but not be limited to preparation of a reliable, all - inclusive
budget (hard costs, soft costs, land and existing building acquisition costs, costs to carry
that site before and during construction, and all other costs related to acquisition,
ownership, design, financing and construction) of the Corporate Plaza West site. The
City would also need to address the manner in which it would finance a new location
while likely still owning its existing location. Ultimately, if the Council deems it
appropriate, the Council should determine how the budget for a new City Hall at the
Corporate Plaza West site (less the net proceeds to the City in connection with the sale of
the existing City Hall site) would compare with an all- inclusive budget for the
conceptually designed new City Hall at the present site (without the fire station
component).
CONCLUSION.
Based upon the above, the Committee recommends to the City Council for further
consideration the Corporate Plaza West building and vacant land and the existing City
Hall site.
The Committee approved this Report by on a unanimous vote.
Respectfully submitted,