Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout18 - General Plan UpdateCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 18 July 25, 2006 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: City Manager's Office Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager 949- 644 -3222, swood @city.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: General Plan Update — Final Environmental Impact Report and all Elements APPLICANT NAME: City of Newport Beach 1. Receive public comments on the Final Environmental Impact Report and final draft of the General Plan. 2. Adopt Resolution No. 2006 - making findings, certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report, and adopting a statement of overriding considerations. 3. Adopt Resolution No. 2006m an amendment to comprehensively update the General Plan. DISCUSSION: The Planning Commission and City Council have completed their detailed review of the proposed General Plan update. The Planning Commission held their final public hearing on the General Plan on July 20, 2006, and recommended that the City Council certify the EIR and approve the General Plan. Their Resolutions are provided as Attachments 1 and 2. The Council has received the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Final EIR, including responses to all comments received on the draft. Reports for previous public hearings have focused on details of the land use plan, policies for affordable housing, and review of policies in all the General Plan elements. In this report, staff will provide a review of the update process, an overview of the proposed General Plan and the differences between it and the existing General Plan, additional revisions to the General Plan, discussion of public comments on the proposed General Plan, analysis required for compliance with Charter Section 423, and EIR findings. General Plan Update Process The process to update the General Plan began on May 23, 2000, when the City Council appointed the General Plan Update Committee (GPUC), and directed them to design and conduct a public outreach process, report on the results and recommend the scope of an General Plan Update July 25, 2006 Page 2 update to the General Plan. GPUC is comprised of three members of the City Council, three members of the Planning Commission, one member each of the Harbor Commission, Aviation Committee, Economic Development Committee, and Environmental Quality Affairs Committee, and one Greenlight supporter. GPUC was considered the "steering committee" on the visioning and General Plan update processes. From their start through early 2006, GPUC held 54 meetings, all of which were noticed and open to the public. Following are the major tasks that were undertaken by GPUC. • Designed visioning process • Reviewed and approved questions for statistically valid telephone survey • Made recommendations to City Council on consultant selection • Reviewed and approved methods and assumptions for traffic and fiscal studies, including trip generation, roadway system, and definition of land use alternatives for further study • Recommended scope of General Plan update • Reviewed all reports, including visioning summary, economic analysis, fiscal impact reports, and traffic reports The visioning process that GPUC designed included a number of public participation activities and events, shown below with the number of participants in each. A total of 3,199 residents and business people participated in the process. • Resident Telephone Survey 1,000 • Business Telephone Survey 175 • GPAC Meetings (12) 30 -37 • Newsletter Mailback 764 • Visioning Festival 400+ • Neighborhood Workshops 450+ • Visioning Summit 350+ • Website Key Questions 38 • Workshop Kit 22 Early in the visioning process, the City Council appointed the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC). This is a 38- member citizen committee that was structured to provide representation from every segment of the community. Members were carefully chosen by the GPUC and City Council to represent all geographic areas, age groups, and areas of interest. Three members each were selected by the business community and the environmental community as a further means of ensuring balance on the Committee. GPAC's responsibilities were to review the input from the visioning process, information provided in technical studies and draft General Plan policies, and to make recommendations to the Planning Commission and City Council. GPAC held 54 meetings since their appointment in 2002, all of which were noticed and open to the public. These meetings alone represent approximately 4,500 hours of volunteer time devoted to the General Plan update, and GPAC members spent countless additional hours reviewing material and preparing for meetings. During its four and a half years, GPAC performed the following tasks: • Reviewed visioning input and wrote Vision Statement to guide update General Plan Update July 25, 2006 Page 3 • Reviewed technical reports on traffic, economics, fiscal impact, biological resources, hazards, and more • Received presentations on Housing Element requirements, regulation of large homes, fiscal impacts of visitor serving uses, the Bolsa Chica experience, and more • Reviewed Guiding Principles for policy development • Developed land use alternatives for nine sub areas • Reviewed traffic, fiscal and environmental impacts of alternatives • Recommended land use plan to Planning Commission and City Council • Reviewed all General Plan policies and made recommendations to Planning Commission and City Council Additional opportunities for public participation were provided during the update process, with two all -day public workshops. GPAC's land use alternatives were presented and discussed in small groups at the first workshop, and the draft General Plan was presented in an open house format, with stations for several specific issues, at the second workshop. Citizen participation in these workshops was 261. In addition to committee review of background information and the foundation for the General Plan update, the Planning Commission and City Council each reviewed the same material at 19 study sessions and regular meetings from 2003 through early 2006. This review included the scope of the update, issues raised in the visioning process and Technical Background Report, Guiding Principles, traffic analysis, fiscal impact analysis, land use alternatives and their impacts, and draft policies. Public hearings on the General Plan update began on April 11, 2006. A total of ten public hearings were held by the Planning Commission, and eight public hearings will have been held by the City Council through July 25, 2006. Overview of General Plan Update This is a comprehensive update of the General Plan, including revisions to all seven elements required by State planning law, as well as minor revisions to the existing Harbor and Bay Element, an optional element, and the addition of optional Arts and Cultural and Historic Resources Elements. In the proposed General Plan, all of these elements are preceded by, and are designed to achieve, the Vision Statement that was prepared by GPAC and adopted by the Planning Commission and City Council at the beginning of the update process. The Vision Statement is the final product of the community visioning process, and expresses the desired end state and what the community hopes to have achieved by 2025. It serves as the foundation for the General Plan, and ties the elements of the General Plan into a comprehensive blueprint for the future of Newport Beach. The existing General Plan has no overall statement of the community's vision for the future. Indeed, the elements were adopted at various times from 1974 to 2003, and they do not work together as a comprehensive guide. The Land Use Element is the backbone of the General Plan. It was most recently amended in 1988, along with the Circulation Element. At that time, the City made an extraordinary effort to comply with State law requiring correlation between these two elements. The result is a Land Use Element that is largely a land use quantity manual, rather than a guide for how future development should meet the City's goals, and complement or change the existing environment. There is no discussion of the character of Newport Beach's varied villages and residential neighborhoods, or policies on how to protect and enhance them. The existing Land General Plan Update July 25, 2006 Page 4 Use Element includes only 12 "policies' (similar to goals in the proposed General Plan). Five of them apply Citywide, and seven address specific issue areas, but none address the needs or desires of the City for its different geographic areas. As a primarily residential community, Newport Beach is not likely to experience land use changes in the vast majority of its land area. Rather, the community wishes to protect and enhance its existing residential neighborhoods and the unique character of each of them. Respecting this community vision, the proposed Land Use Element limits change to nine sub areas. For most of the City, the proposed element establishes goals and policies to protect, maintain and enhance existing residential neighborhoods. While the existing Land Use Element has two policies in this area, four goals and over 30 policies in the proposed element address residential neighborhood issues such as compatible development, neighborhood identification, neighborhood maintenance, character and quality of residential neighborhoods, renovation and replacement of existing residential units, buffering residential areas from adjoining commercial areas, and regulating residential care facilities to the maximum extent allowed by Federal and State law. The nine sub areas where land use changes are proposed are areas where change is likely due to the age of existing development and market forces, and where input from the visioning process indicated that residents are willing to consider changes. These sub areas were identified by GPUC in their scoping of the General Plan update. Even in the sub areas, the Land Use Element does not propose wholesale changes, but builds on existing land use and development patterns. Mixed use is introduced or increased in several areas to provide housing opportunities, especially in close proximity to employment where it can improve traffic flow, and to provide the impetus for revitalization of areas that do not perform well in their current commercial -only designations. The need for more medical office space near Hoag Hospital is recognized with the land use designations proposed for West Newport Mesa. Commercial use is consolidated along Coast Highway in West Newport and in Balboa Village to provide critical mass for the success of these areas. One of the changes in the proposed element is a reduction from the existing plan. The interest of many citizens in having permanent open space on all or a majority of Banning Ranch is recognized with the first priority for Banning Ranch established as open space. Only if acquisition for open space does not occur in a timely manner may this property be developed with a residential village, and even then, a majority of the site must be retained as open space. While the development limits for Banning Ranch constitute a reduction from the existing plan, they still provide the property owners with reasonable development potential that will encourage them to work with the City in reviewing and permitting any development proposal. Each of the nine sub areas, divided into districts and corridors based on their characteristics, has a set of goals and policies to guide the development that is allowed in the proposed Land Use Element. These statements set priorities for land uses, establish development density /intensity limits, provide guidance for design and development and outline strategies to achieve the goals for each sub area. The proposed Land Use Element includes approximately 175 policies for the sub areas, whereas the existing element only provides the quantities of each type of land use that may be developed in each area. The proposed element sets land use limits with the same level of specificity by providing more information on the Land Use Plan map and in tables. General Plan Update July 25, 2006 Page 5 Correlation between the Land Use Element and Circulation Element is maintained in the proposed General Plan. A new traffic model, consistent with requirements of the Orange County Transportation Authority, was prepared for the General Plan update, and was used to analyze the traffic impacts of the land use plan and identify where improvements to the circulation system will be needed to provide acceptable traffic flow upon buildout of the General Plan. The Planning Commission and City Council used the information in the transportation study extensively while reviewing the land use plan during public hearings. They directed staff to make numerous reductions in the density and intensity of development in the plan. The Trip Generation Comparison table (Attachment 3) compares average daily trip generation from buildout of the existing General Plan, the GPAC recommendations, the project analyzed in the EIR, and the project as recommended by the Planning Commission and City Council (including changes through June 27, 2006). The currently recommended land use plan reduces trip generation substantially from the project analyzed in the EIR (59,317 trips), and also reduces trip generation from both the GPAC recommendations (30,431 trips) and the existing General Plan (28,920 trips). These reductions do not include those resulting from the City Council's changes to the land use plan on July 11, 2006, and the reductions will be larger when these land use changes are included in the final run of the traffic model next month. The existing Circulation Element includes policies to construct improvements to accommodate traffic at service levels "as close to Level of Service D as possible." It predicts that some intersections will operate at a level worse than this, and "represents a conscious decision" to accept worse levels of service (LOS) in the Airport Area and focus efforts on portions of the system less impacted by regional traffic. The proposed element also recognizes the significant impact of regional traffic on Newport Beach, as well as the desire of residents — expressed during the visioning process — to maintain the character of the community and not to build oversized streets and intersections. The proposed element takes a different approach from the existing one, and sets a standard of LOS D for a great majority of intersections in Newport Beach. LOS E is set as the standard for a limited number of intersections. Three of these intersections are along Coast Highway, where regional traffic is significant and where improvements to achieve LOS D would be infeasible or would be unacceptable to the community because they would harm the pedestrian character of Corona del Mar. LOS E is also set as the standard for five intersections in the Airport Area that are shared with the City of Irvine, whose standard in the area is LOS E. With the improvements included in the Circulation Element and the land use mix in the Land Use Element, the proposed General Plan will result in only these eight intersections not operating at LOS D or better. Improvements and land uses under the existing General Plan would result in 18 intersections operating at a level worse than LOS D. Just as the existing Land Use Element is more of a land use quantity manual than a policy document, the existing Circulation Element is more a list of circulation system improvements than a policy document. The proposed Circulation Element includes improvements that will achieve better traffic flow than the existing element, and it also includes more policies to improve mobility in Newport Beach. For example, there are new policies for the City to be a strong advocate for the 19th Street Bridge, to improve traffic signal synchronization, and to consider traffic calming measures on local neighborhood streets. The proposed element also General Plan Update July 25, 2006 Page 6 encourages more alternative transportation modes, such as bicycle and pedestrian facilities (including waterfront walkways) and water transportation. The proposed Natural Resources Element is expanded and updated significantly, as well as brought into conformance with the many changes in Federal and State law since adoption of the existing Conservation of Natural Resources Element in 1974. The existing element addresses only six topics: water quality, air quality, beach erosion, mineral resources, archaeological and paleontological resources, and energy conservation. The, proposed element adds the topics of water supply, biological resources (with separate sections on terrestrial and marine resources, environmental study areas, Newport Harbor, Upper Newport Bay and the Natural Communities Conservation Plan), open space resources, and visual resources. Water quality alone — which participants in the visioning process told us is a high priority — is addressed with three goals and 28 policies, and biological resources are addressed with seven goals and 35 policies. In addition, the proposed element is consistent with the recently adopted and certified Coastal Land Use Plan. Some public comments on the draft General Plan and EIR criticize the proposed Natural Resources Element for its naming and treatment of environmental study areas. These areas are called environmentally sensitive areas in the existing Land Use and Recreation and Open Space Elements. A different name is used in the proposed General Plan, but the proposed policies are much stronger and offer much more protection to resources than the existing General Plan does. Existing Land Use Element Policy D begins by prohibiting structures and Iandform alterations in these areas, but it goes on to allow the Planning Commission to determine whether or not an area is environmentally sensitive — without any requirements for professional study — and to approve a development plan in an environmentally sensitive area when the benefits outweigh the environmental impacts. The Recreation and Open Space Element only identifies environmentally sensitive areas; it includes no policies for their protection. The proposed Natural Resources Element, on the other hand, establishes policies that do the following. • Require site specific survey and analysis by a qualified biologist as a filing requirement for any application for development within or contiguous to an environmental study area • Require that siting and design of new development protect any sensitive or rare resources against any significant reduction of habitat values • Limit uses within an area containing any significant or rare biological resources to only those uses that are dependent on such resources, unless this would result in a taking of private property • Maintain a buffer of sufficient size around significant or rare biological resources and require the use of native vegetation • Shield and direct exterior lighting away from significant or rare biological resources • Provide special requirements for Buck Gully, Morning Canyon and Banning Ranch The proposed General Plan also includes improvements over the existing plan in the following areas. Harbor and Bay Element is better integrated into the General Plan, and policies are cross - referenced to other elements. General Plan Update July 25, 2006 Page 7 • Housing Element identifies more sites to meet Newport Beach's fair share of regional housing needs, and more housing opportunities for persons who grew up in Newport Beach and /or who work in the City. Historic Resources and Arts and Cultural issues are addressed for the first time. • Recreation Element includes priorities for development of new parks. • Safety Element is updated, conforms with State law, and continues the City's strong position on expansion of John Wayne Airport. • The Airport Land Use Commission, on July 20, 2006, found the proposed General Plan consistent with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan ( AELUP) for John Wayne Airport and the AELUP for Heliports. New Plan Revisions The final draft of the proposed General Plan, dated July 20. 2006, was distributed to the City Council earlier. This is a "clean" version, including all the revisions shown in strikenut/underline in the July 7, 2006'draft, corrections to that draft noted by Planning Commissioners and staff, and the changes directed by the City Council on July 11, 2006 and by the Planning Commission on July 13, 2006. New or revised policies include the following. New LU 6.14.8 Requires discretionary review of Fashion Island parking structures. At their meeting on July 20, 2006, the Planning Commission revised this policy to read as follows: Require disGFetienary review of new parking structures in Fashion Island to be located and desioned in a manner that is compatible with to BRSUP8 that their I. ration ;and sit° design Fnairtai^ &-the existing pedestrian scale and open feeling of Newport Center Drive. The design of new parking structures in Fashion Island shall incorporate elements (including landscaping) ,nd th.ot the ..rnhit°..twal design of to softens their visual impacts. Revised LU 6.14.1 Clarifies that Newport Center use conversions require City Council approval, and retail floor area added in this General Plan update may not be converted. On July 20, 2006, the Planning Commission revised this policy to include the exact number of square feet that may be converted (213,257) and to require City Council approval of conversions. Revised CE 3.1.5 Adds reference to required environmental review for 19th Street Bridge or alternatives (EIR comment) New NR 1.6 Gives priority for water and sewer supply and services to affordable housing (New State law requirement; also added to H 2.2) The following revisions are recommended for consistency with the new City Council Airport Policy, earlier on this agenda. General Plan Update July 25, 2006 Page 8 Revised S 8.5 Oppose any facility expansions that would increase the operational capacity of John Wayne Airport, except those described in the Settlement Agreement Extension. Noise Element Text, page 12 -6 Many residents of Newport Beach are impacted by noise generated by commercial and general aviation aircraft departing John Wayne Airport (JWA). Owned and oGperated by Orange County, JWA serves both general aviation and scheduled commercial passenger airline and cargo operations. JWA experienced a total of 349,936 aircraft operations (arrivals and departures) in the year-2005 and of those, 246,920 were general aviation operations, 87,130 were air carrier operations, 15 729 were air taxi (commuter) operations and 157 were military operations. with a number of average daily departures of Newport Beach is located immediately south of JWA and is under the primary departure corridor. Although aircraft noise can be heard throughout Newport Beach, the highest noise levels are experienced just south of JWA, in the Airport Area, Santa Ana Heights Area, Westcliff, Dover Shores, the Bluffs, and Balboa Island, and are generated by aircraft departures. Newport Beach has, since the mid- 1970s, actively engaged in efforts to minimize the impact of air ort ^ ^r er ^ %e�on our residents and their quality of life.... Revised N 3 Protection of Newport Beach residents from the adverse noise impacts of commercial air carrier operations at John Wayne Airport as provided in the City Council Airport Policy. Revised N 3.4 Take any action necessary to oppose any attempt to modify the existing noise restrictions, including the existing curfew and General Aviation Noise Ordinance. Revised N 3.5 Take any action necessary to oppose any attempt to construct a second air carrier runway, including the acquisition of land necessary to provide required separation of the existing air carrier runway and any proposed facility. Revised N 3.8 Support means of satisfying some of Orange County's air transportation demand at airports other than John Wayne Airport or through alternative means of transportation. Revised N 3.9(b) Approve amendments of the John Wayne Airport Settlement Agreement to ensure continued validity, provided amendments are consistent with the City Council Airport Policy, do not materially impair the quality of life, and are in the long -term best interests of Newport Beach residents. General Plan Update July 25, 2006 Page 9 New N 3.10 Community and Public Agency Support Take steps necessary to secure broad -based support for all aspects of the City Council Airport Policy. The Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) considered the proposed Newport Beach General Plan at their meeting of July 20, 2006. ALUC determined that, upon final approval of the proposed General Plan by the voters, and with the following revisions, Newport Beach will be a "consistent agency." This status means that Newport Beach is recognizing and appropriately dealing with land use compatibility issues in the John Wayne Airport area, and development projects that comply with the updated General Plan will not require separate review by the ALUC. This is also an important component of the City's discussions with Orange County on sphere issues. Revised LU 6.16.3, H 3.2, R 1.12, N 3.1, and N 3.2 Change reference to "airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport dated December 19, 2002" to "1985 JWA Master Plan." Revised S 8.6 Change reference to "Clear Zone /Runway Protection Zone' to "Traffic Pattern Zone." While not required by ALUC, the following changes requested by John Wayne Airport in a letter dated July 20, 2006 (Attachment 4) are also recommended. In addition, JWA requested a new Housing Element policy regarding sound attenuation for housing within the 60 dBA CNEL contour and buyer notification of JWA's location in the vicinity. Staff is not recommending these changes because Policies N 1.2 and N 1.4 require attenuation to meet interior noise standards, and Policy N 3.2 requires notification to prospective purchasers or tenants in the Airport Area of aircraft overflight and noise. Figure LU 11 Add 65 dBA CNEL contour Safety Element Text, Page 11 -18 John Wayne Airport (JWA) generates nearly all aviation traffic above the City of Newport Beach. On an average business day, 300 commercial and commuter flights (150 departures and 150 arrivals) arrive at and depart from JWA. At the Planning Commission meeting of July 20, 2006, the following corrections and revisions were recommended. Mixed Use Horizontal — MU -H3 Mixed Use The MU -1­13 designation applies to properties located in Residential: maximum of 450 Horizontal 3 —MU- Newport Center. It provides for the horizontal intermixing of units H3 regional commercial office hotel, multi - family residential and Nonresidential: As specified by ancillary commercial uses. Table LU2 General Plan Update July 25, 2006 Page 10 Mixed Use Horizontal MU -H1 Mixed Use Horizontal 1— The MU -111 designation provides for a horizontal Commercial or Office only: MU -111 intermixing of uses. floor area to land ratio of 0.5. For properties located on the inland side of Coast Multi - Family Residential only: Highway in the Mariners' Mile Corridor, (a) the Coast 20.1 -26.7 units per acre. Highway frontages shall be developed for marine - related Mixed-Use Buildings: floor area and highway- oriented general commercial uses in to land ratio of 1.5; where a accordance with CM and CG designations; and (b) minimum floor area to land ratio Portions of properties to the rear of the commercial of 0.25 and maximum of 0.5 frontage ^ ^ ^ «^ ^ ^' ^ « ^: ^• «• ^ ^ «^ may be developed for shall be used for non - residential free - standing neighborhood- serving retail, multi - family purposes and a maximum of 1.0 residential units, or mixed -use buildings that integrate for residential. residential with retail uses on the ground floor in tfaditienalty included in accordance with the CN, RM , CV, or MU -V1 designations determining intensity limits. respectively. Properties located in the Dover DdveMestcliff Drive area may also be developed for professional offices or mixed use buildings that integrate residential with retail or office uses on the ground floor in accordance with the CO and MU -V2 designations respectively. Page 3 -17 Parks and Recreation —PR PARKS AND The PR designation applies to land used or proposed for Not applicable for public uses. RECREATION —PR active public or private recreational use. Permitted uses Private uses in this category may include parks (both active and passive), golf courses, include incidental buildings, such marina support facilities, aquatic facilities, tennis clubs as maintenance equipment and courts, private recreation, and similar facilities. sheds, supply storage, and restrooms, w#ish-are-not tfaditienalty included in determining intensity limits. For golf courses, these uses may also include support facilities for grounds maintenance employees. Other types of buildings and developments are limited as specified in Table LU2. Table LU 2 and Figure LU 13: Anomaly site 46: Add square footage for existing tennis clubhouse building (to be provided in final General Plan) Add anomaly number for Newport Beach Country Club and add square footage for existing clubhouse building (to be provided in final General Plan) Page 5 -17, Second Paragraph, Housing Unit Projections The following text did not include the revised General Plan housing unit calculations. The text is revised as follows. General Plan Update July 25, 2006 Page 11 Updated information from the State Department of Finance estimates the population in 2005 to be 83,120. Pursuant to the updated General Plan, ultimate residential capacity within the City of Newport Beach will be 54786- 49.968 dwelling units, including the Newport Coast area. Policies NR 3.6 and HB 8.6 Represent Newport Beach by participating in watershed -based runoff reduction, water quality control, and other planning efforts with the California Regional Water Quality Control Board ( RWQCB), the County of Orange, and upstream cities. Promote regulation of °°°^•° that ° ^f^•^°M° ^t and °^ '^'^ • ^ genGies regulate upstream dischargers (cities, Orange County, residential and commercial uses) in the San Diego Creek and Santa Ana /Delhi Channel watersheds. Policies HB 7.6 and NR 3.22 Retain qualified and objective water quality ^mfals consultants to thoroughly review all scopes of work for anv proposed water quality study: (a) to be conducted, sponsored or considered by the Watershed Management Committee (or any subcommittee or successor entity) in making any decision affecting water quality in Newport Beach; (b) related to water quality in the San Diego Creek and Santa Ana /Delhi Channel watersheds: and (c) that is relevant to any aspect of the establishment or enforcement of any order of the RWQCB including the Total Maximum Dailv Loads (TMDL) for Upper Newport Bay. ies and Implementation Program This section of the proposed General Plan has been revised significantly since the March 27, 2006 draft; staff, the Planning Commission and City Council have not reviewed these revisions in detail. In addition, the Economic Development Committee is still preparing a Strategic Plan for Fiscal and Economic Sustainability, and its provisions need to be summarized in the General Plan Implementation Program. Although an implementation program is recommended in the General Plan Guidelines of the Governor's Office of Planning and Research, the General Plan will be complete without approving the Implementation Program, and it can be added later without an amendment to the General Plan. The Planning Commission and staff recommend that the City Council adopt the General Plan without the Implementation Program. We will return to the Commission and City Council with a detailed review and revisions, so that it can be approved prior to the public vote on the General Plan. General Plan Update July 25, 2006 Page 12 Public Comments on the General Plan The City has received comments from the public and other public agencies during review of the draft General Plan by the Planning commission and City Council. Staff has forwarded all of these comments to the Commission and Council as we have received them, and new comment letters are attached to this report. In addition, some comment letters on the Draft EIR included comments on the General Plan. A general description of the comments and how they have been addressed is provided below, with the exception of comments from individual property owners who requested changes in land use designations or policies related to their properties, which were considered by the Planning Commission and City Council in previous public hearings. General Plan Comments Letters with similar comments were received from both John Wayne Airport and the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County. Several revisions to the draft General Plan have been made in response to these comments and outlined in reports for the June 22, July 6 and July 13, 2006 hearings. We are awaiting final letters from these agencies, and expect that our revisions will have addressed all of their comments. Numerous property owners in areas with current designation for two- family development sent letters and a -mails requesting that those designations not be changed. The recommended plan makes no changes in those areas. The Harbor View Hills Community Association requested an additional policy in the Circulation Element regarding the widening of MacArthur Boulevard, and that has been added. Property owners in Santa Ana Heights requested that a portion of a proposed equestrian trail along Mesa Drive be eliminated from the Circulation Element. The pre- annexation agreement for Santa Ana Heights does not allow the City to change the General Plan or Specific Plan for this area without consent of the County of Orange. The existing Circulation Element does not include a map of equestrian trails, but the trail in question is in the Specific Plan. For consistency with the pre- annexation agreement, the equestrian trail map was deleted from the proposed Circulation Element. The Airport Working Group requested that the Safety Element include a policy from the existing General Plan regarding opposition to facility expansions at John Wayne Airport, except those described in the Settlement Agreement Extension, and that policy was added. Lori Kiesser expressed concern with Natural Resources Element policies regarding City management of the Upper Newport Bay Nature Preserve and Ecological Reserve, and Peter Bryant testified on the same issue. These policies were revised to refer to cooperative management by various public agencies, non - profit organizations and volunteers. In addition to submitting letters on the DEIR, Greenlight submitted a letter for the City Council meeting of June 27, 2006 (Attachment 5). The letter notes that the Housing Element does not provide the total number of dwelling units that would be allowed by the proposed General Plan Land use Element. Staff assumes this is a reference to Table H 30. The Land Use and General Plan Update July 25, 2006 Page 13 Housing Elements have different purposes. The Land Use Element provides land use categories, densities and intensities of development allowed, and policies to guide that development, for all land in the City and its planning area. The planning horizon of the Land Use Element is 20 years. The Housing Element is required by State law and the Housing Element Guidelines to demonstrate how the City will provide its share of regional housing need during a planning period of five years. The Housing Element must demonstrate that there is enough land available to meet the City's housing needs for the planning period. For this purpose, Table H 30 lists only the areas of the City where larger numbers of units may be developed, and demonstrates that Newport Beach can meet its housing needs. The total number of dwelling units allowed by the Land Use Element is provided in Table 3 -3 of the EIR, and all of the environmental analysis is based on this number. The Housing Element focuses on providing affordable housing for lower income households, because that is what State law requires it to do. It also addresses the need for market rate housing by demonstrating that there is land available to meet Newport Beach's needs at all income levels. As noted in the discussion of the Land Use Element earlier in this report, that element includes many policies to protect all residential neighborhoods. The Planning Commission and City Council based their recommendation to set a goal of 15% for affordable housing on projections of future housing need and the number of units that could be developed over the life of the Land Use Element, which showed that 15% is a reasonable number to meet Newport Beach's housing needs. Regardless of the affordable housing goal, a method to implement that goal is needed, and any method would need to provide for adjustments based on the unique circumstances of future projects. Affordable Housing Implementation Programs (AHIPs) are commonly used, and acceptable to the California Housing and Community Development Department. Sandra Genis submitted a letter to the City Council at the public hearing on July 11, 2006 (Attachment 6), in addition to her comment letter on the DEIR. Following are responses to the points in that letter. Page 1, Second Paragraph: Amount of Non - Residential Development It is unclear how the number of 7.1 million square feet of office use was derived from Table A -2 in the Draft General Plan (March 27, 2006). The mixed use designation in the Airport Area allows other non - residential uses in addition to office, including retail and industrial use. The gross floor area amounts shown in Table A -2 are for all allowed uses, and should be higher than the amount of office use shown in Table 3 -3 of the Draft EIR. Page 1, Third Paragraph: Comment regarding the replacement of existing uses in mixed use and residential areas. The Draft General Plan development buildout estimates for residential and mixed use proposals for the Mariners' Mile, Old Newport Boulevard, Lido Village, Cannery Village, McFadden Square, and Balboa Village sub areas were calculated assuming that all such development would occur as replacement of and not additive to existing development. In mixed -use' designated locations where housing is integrated vertically in buildings with retail and /or office uses (Old Newport Boulevard, Lido Village, McFadden Square, and Balboa Village) it was assumed that 50% of the total land area would be redeveloped with the yield of development based on two factors, depending on location: Cumulative floor area ratio (FAR) of 2.0, with and 1.3 allocated for housing units (with the building area by 1,200 square feet per unit) Cumulative floor area ratio (FAR) ofl.5, with and 1.0 allocated for housing units (with the building area by 1,200 square feet per unit) General Plan Update July 25, 2006 Page 14 0.7 allocated for retail and /or office uses number of units determined by diving the 0.5 allocated for retail and /or office uses number of units determined by diving the Where housing and retail and/or office uses are distributed horizontally, residential units were calculated based on replacement on 75% of the land area in Cannery Village, 25% of the land area on inland properties and 50% of the land area on harbor fronting properties in Mariners' Mile. In the Airport Area, residential uses were assumed to occur as replacement on 100% of the land area in Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) 1380, 1382, 1384, 1393, and 1402; 75% of the land area in TAZ 1406; and 50% of the land area in TAZs 1379, 1381, 1389, and 1390. Infill was assumed only in TAZs 1403, 1404, and 1405. In Newport Center the projected housing units were all assumed to be additive to existing development. Pagel, Fourth and Fifth Paragraphs, and Page 2, First Paragraph and Bullets The reduction in the quantity of residential development does not affect the trip rates used in the Airport Area, as the trip rate reductions were strictly related to the character of the proposed residential use (mid- or high rise apartments). No credit was taken to reflect the enhanced mixed use character of land uses in the Airport Area through the introduction of residential uses. Furthermore, new Policy 6.15.5, with emphasis added, is also relevant: LU 6.95.5 Residential and Supporting Uses Accommodate the development of a maximum of 2,200 multi - family residential units, including work force housing, and mixed -use buildings that integrate residential with ground level office or retail uses, along with supporting retail, grocery stores, and parklands. Residential units may be developed only as the replacement of underlying permitted non- residential uses. When a development phase includes a mix of residential and non- residential uses or replaces existing industrial uses, the number of peak hour trips generated by cumulative development of the site shall not exceed the number of trips that would result from development of the underlying permitted non - residential uses. However, a maximum of 550 units may be developed as infrll on surface parking lots on properties within the Conceptual Development Plan Area depicted on Figure LU 22 provided that the parking is replaced on -site. Page 2, Second Paragraph: Comment regarding correlation of the reduction of residential capacity with increases in commercial capacity. Reduction of residential capacity in the Airport Area was accompanied by a reduction of residential density. In the March 27, 2006 Draft General Plan, a minimum density of 50 units per acres was required for the first phase of residential development, and a minimum density of 30 units per acre was required in subsequent phases. The revised densities include a maximum of 50 units per acre in any phase. Therefore, a lower number of residential units would replace the same amount of non - residential floor area allowed in the existing and proposed General Plans, resulting in lower trip generation. General Plan Update July 25, 2006 Page 15 Page 2, Third Paragraph: Question on Appendix FF of the Traffic study: The reductions shown in Appendix FF (for instance 4.8 million square feet of office use) include the reductions that would result from replacement of the residential units. The further reductions are directly related to the reduced residential densities that result from constructing only 2,200 dwelling units instead of the DEIR With Project total of 3,300 dwelling units. Page 2, Fourth Paragraph: Comment regarding Mariners' Mile development capacities Properties on the inland side of Coast Highway in Mariners' Mile were assumed to have three types of development: retail or office uses along the immediate highway frontage and a mix of properties developed for buildings that vertically mix retail /office and residential uses and those on which only multi - family residential units would be developed. For the latter prototype, estimated to occur on approximate 25% of the land area, no commercial use would occur on the property reducing the area's commercial capacity by the referenced building area. Page 2, Fifth Paragraph: Park Lido area comment: The EIR analyzes the impacts of changes between existing conditions and implementation of the proposed General Plan; it is not a plan -to -plan comparison. Although the existing General Plan sets a floor area ratio of .5005 for the Park Lido area, existing development is in excess of 1.0 FAR. These existing conditions are reflected in Appendix FF. Page 3: Final paragraph: The DEIR represents the worst case in terms of potential traffic impacts. The most current City Council recommendations reduce daily traffic generation by 59,317 compared to the DEIR With Project scenario. Therefore, traffic impacts will be less than those identified in the DEIR. In accordance with CEQA, a project can be approved at levels with less impacts than those studied in the DEIR. Therefore, no additional model run is required as part of the General Plan update environmental process. It should be noted that the City of Newport Beach continuously maintains and updates the City's traffic model. Therefore, future monitoring of traffic conditions and long range improvement needs will take place on an ongoing basis. In the letter included as Attachment 7, Newport Heights residents ask if there are sufficient requirements in the proposed General Plan and City codes to address three issues they have with commercial development on Old Newport Boulevard: noise and safety from commercial trash pick -up, parking on residential streets, and increased traffic on residential streets. Some of the specific issues they raise are outside the scope of the General Plan update, but we will work with the General Services Department and Code and Water Quality Enforcement to address complaints about ongoing operations. Other issues, such as the location of trash bins and specific parking requirements, are more appropriate for ordinances that will implement the General Plan and conditions of approval on specific projects. However, staff notes that the recent amendment to the Zoning Code to increase parking standards for medical offices should assist with the parking issue from future developments of this use. In addition, the proposed General Plan includes policies that require commercial uses adjoining residential neighborhoods be designed to be compatible and minimize impacts (LU 5.2.2); require that buildings and General Plan Update July 25, 2006 Page 16 properties be designed to ensure compatibility between neighborhoods and districts (LU 5.6.1); and require that new development provide adequate, convenient parking for business patrons (CE 7.1.1). The Environmental Quality Affairs Committee (EQAC) submitted a letter to the Planning Commission and City Council on July 17, 2006 (Attachment 8), with comments on the General Plan, which they separated from their earlier comments on the Draft EIR. Their letter requests that the following three issues be addressed, or addressed more aggressively, in the General Plan: air pollution from watercraft in Newport Bay, the level of charter boat activity in the Bay, and regulation of landscape blowers. The letter also suggests that the re- designation of the property on San Miguel Drive, formerly occupied by a child care center, from institutional to residential land use would eliminate a needed ancillary facility and be counter to Policy LU 6.2.5. The Planning Commission felt that air pollution from watercraft is not a General Plan issue, policies in the proposed plan adequately address charter boats and landscape blowers, and the greater detail sought by EQAC is more appropriate for ordinances. The Commission also affirmed their recommendation for residential use on the San Miguel site, because the child care facility is closed and its buildings demolished, and the site is surrounded by residential uses. EIR Comments The Environmental quality Affairs Committee (EQ -50) noted that Policy R 9.5 was unclear as to the beneficiaries of coastal access protection. That policy has been revised to state that the protection is from encroachment from private /gated communities. Greenlight's comment letter on the DEIR contains several comments that are related more to the General Plan than to the EIR. Nonetheless, responses are provided in Chapter 10 of the Final EIR. Policy changes have been made in response to some of these comments, including addition of a policy that prohibits new residential subdivisions (which makes moot a policy regarding buildable acreage) and deleting the policy to amend the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The concept of flexible floor area ratios (FAR) is not included in the proposed General Plan. However, all impacts were analyzed based on the high end of the range of FARs included in the March 27, 2006 draft General Plan. Revisions directed by the Planning Commission and City Council during public hearings have reduced most FARs to the low end of the flexible FAR range included in the existing General Plan. Staff does not understand the comment that density bonuses "well beyond what would be required by state density bonus law" are allowed by the proposed General Plan. Housing element policies make specific reference to State law, and do not go beyond what is required. Philip Arst of Greenlight also testified at the City Council hearing of June 27, 2006, regarding the policy allowing the conversion of hotel rooms in Newport Center to residential entitlement and its inconsistency with Charter Section 423. That policy has been deleted. Newport Banning Ranch LLC also submitted a comment letter on the DEIR that included requests for revisions to the General Plan, and responses are provided in Chapter 10 of the Final EIR. General Plan policies have been revised in the following areas to address these comments: processing of development entitlements and permits during period for open space acquisition, greater detail regarding time and terms for acquisition as open space, additional General Plan Update July 25, 2006 Page 17 requirements to address lighting impacts from development of the property, and additional requirement for biological assessment prior to development of the property. Charter Section 423 Analysis City Council Policy A -18 requires that proposed General Plan Amendments be reviewed to determine if the 100 peak hour trip, 40,000 square foot or 100 dwelling unit thresholds are exceeded. General Plan Amendments which exceed any one of these thresholds are required to be submitted to the electorate for approval. Because this amendment is a comprehensive update of the General Plan including a comprehensive revision of goals policies and land uses in the Land Use Element, the analysis necessarily included the entire Land Use Element Planning area. The following information compares the number of authorized residential units, non - residential floor area (including floor area associated with mixed use development) and both AM and PM peak hour trips in the existing and proposed General Plans, and shows the differential between them. The peak hour trip analysis uses the ITE trip rates established in Council Policy A -18. The proposed project exceeds the 100 residential unit threshold. Therefore Section 423. of the Charter requires that this amendment be submitted to the electorate for approval. The detailed information used to prepare the preceding analysis and a letter report from Urban Crossroads are included as Attachments 9 and10. The spreadsheets provide a breakdown of land uses authorized by the existing and proposed General Plans by statistical area and by sub area for the proposed General Plan as well as all other areas of the City, and the letter from Urban Crossroads explains the peak hour trip analysis. The numbers for the proposed General Plan include all General Plan Amendments approved since adoption of Charter Section 423. This Charter section and Council Policy A -18 require these amendments to be tracked as 'Prior Amendments" at 80% of the increase(s) in 1 This number has been adjust down by 3 trips, to account for the difference between the sub -areas and other areas peak hour reduction table and the full planning area calculated reduction table, which is a result of mathematical rounding. This reduces the PM peak hour reduction of the proposed General Plan by 3 trips. Residential Non - residential A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour units Floor Area Trips Trips Existing General Plan 48,819 31,760,884 sq.ft. 102,435 128,322' Less 20% of Prior Amendments 17 11,726 sq.ft. 35 37 Adjusted Existing GP 48,802 31,749,158 sq.ft. 102,400 128,288 Proposed General Plan 49,968 31,234,660 sq.ft. 101,243 127,287 Differential +1,166 - 514,498s .ft. -1,157 -998 The proposed project exceeds the 100 residential unit threshold. Therefore Section 423. of the Charter requires that this amendment be submitted to the electorate for approval. The detailed information used to prepare the preceding analysis and a letter report from Urban Crossroads are included as Attachments 9 and10. The spreadsheets provide a breakdown of land uses authorized by the existing and proposed General Plans by statistical area and by sub area for the proposed General Plan as well as all other areas of the City, and the letter from Urban Crossroads explains the peak hour trip analysis. The numbers for the proposed General Plan include all General Plan Amendments approved since adoption of Charter Section 423. This Charter section and Council Policy A -18 require these amendments to be tracked as 'Prior Amendments" at 80% of the increase(s) in 1 This number has been adjust down by 3 trips, to account for the difference between the sub -areas and other areas peak hour reduction table and the full planning area calculated reduction table, which is a result of mathematical rounding. This reduces the PM peak hour reduction of the proposed General Plan by 3 trips. General Plan Update July 25, 2006 Page 18 threshold(s) for ten years. This is to determine if minor amendments in a single Statistical Area cumulatively exceed any of the thresholds. To make this analysis consistent with Section 423 tracking requirements, 20% of the units, square footage and peak hour trips of prior amendments have been deducted from the existing General Plan numbers (so they are counted appropriately at 80 %). Prior amendments are included at 100% for the proposed General Plan. As required by Policy A -18, the Prior Amendment Entitlement Table is attached to this report (Attachment 11) Staff is recommending that, to accurately comply with the requirements of Charter Section 423 and Policy A -18, the total land use and trip quantities authorized by the proposed General Plan, including those from prior amendments, be submitted to the electorate. If approved, all prior amendments, as well as all reductions proposed in the General Plan update, will have been approved by the voters. The updated General Plan will represent a fresh start, by establishing new levels of authorized development. It should be noted that, in the cases of non - residential floor area and peak hour trips, these levels would be lower than under the existing General Plan. Once approved by the voters, any future amendments will be subject to all requirements of Charter Section 423. Environmental Review: The Draft EIR for the proposed General Plan was released for public review on April 24, 2006, and the public review period closed on June 13, 2006. Comments were received from 19 agencies, organizations and individuals in 20 response letters. These are addressed in five master responses (that address repetitive comments) and 425 individual responses. The Final EIR is comprised of the Draft EIR, the Technical Appendices and the Responses to Comments, including Text Changes. Errata to the FEIR, correcting typographical and other minor errors, is included as Attachment 12 to this report. In comments on the Draft EIR, the City of Irvine requested that the EIR include analysis of intersections in a certain area of Irvine, which they had requested in their response to the Notice of Preparation of the EIR. In Master Response D and response to comment IR -3, it was concluded that the intersections included in the Transportation Study were appropriate. However, to ensure that complete information is available to the City Council before certifying the EIR, Urban Crossroads performed a supplemental analysis of Irvine intersections (Attachment 13). This analysis confirms the conclusions in the Draft EIR and responses to comments. The proposed General Plan would result in the same intersections experiencing deficient operations as without the project, and the same improvements would be required to achieve acceptable operations, with and without the project. The City of Costa Mesa sent a letter on July 20, 2006 (Attachment 14), after receiving our responses to their comments on the Draft EIR. Costa Mesa acknowledges that revisions to the proposed General Plan reduce trip generation below that for the existing General Plan. If additional traffic analysis is required due to further project modification, Costa Mesa requests that certain intersections in their City be included. Costa Mesa also expresses their wish to collaborate on land use and transportation issues affecting both cities. The Final EIR includes no mitigation measures, since the General Plan was written to be a self - mitigating document through the inclusion of policies that might otherwise be considered General Plan Update July 25, 2006 Page 19 mitigation measures. In fact, the General Plan was revised during the environmental review process to add policies that would avoid environmental impacts. Through this approach, everything that needs to be implemented and enforced to avoid impacts on the environment will be in one document, which will reduce the potential for these provisions to be forgotten in the future. In considering whether to certify the Final EIR, the City Council must make findings related to each significant impact identified in the EIR, provide reasons for rejecting alternatives studied in the EIR, and, when significant impacts are not fully mitigated, adopt a statement of overriding considerations. The Council also should determine that the Final EIR has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the Final EIR was presented to the Commission, the information contained in the Final EIR was reviewed and considered in approving the project, and the Final EIR reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis. The Resolution certifying the EIR (Attachment 15) provides the findings of fact and statement of overriding considerations. It is also noted that the Final EIR was prepared by professional consultants retained by the City with specific expertise in environmental and traffic analysis. Portions of the report were prepared either by or with the participation of persons with education and expertise in a variety of technical disciplines. Additionally, the report was reviewed by various City staff members with direct knowledge of the City of Newport Beach and experience in specific issue areas to assure the report reflected the independent judgment of the City. The Transportation Study was reviewed by an independent consultant retained by the City, James Douglas of Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. He found that the methodologies and analysis are consistent with accepted practice and the resulting forecasts and analysis of future level of service are reasonable. His letter is provided as Attachment 16. Public Notice: Government Code Section 65091 provides that, when the number of property owners to whom notice would be required to be mailed is greater than 1,000 (which is the case with a comprehensive General Plan update), notice may be provided by placing a one - eighth page advertisement in the local newspaper. 'Notice of the Planning Commission and City Council hearings on the General Plan and EIR was provided in this manner on the following dates, with the notice for this particular hearing provided on July 15 and 22, 2006. March 28, 2006 April 8, 2006 April 22, 2006 April 29, 2006 May 6, 2006 May 20, 2006 May 27, 2006 June 3, 2006 June 10, 2006 June 24, 2006 July 1, 2006 July 8, 2006 General Plan Update July 25, 2006 Page 20 July 15, 2006 July 22, 2006 Submitted by: Sharon Wood Assistant City Manager Attachments: 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1692 2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1693 3. Trip Generation Comparison Table 4. Letter from John Wayne Airport, July 20, 2006 5. Letter from Greenlight, June 26, 2006 6. Letter from Sandra Genis, July 11, 2006 7. Letter from Newport Heights residents, July 13, 2006 B. Letter from EQAC, July 17, 2006 9. Charter Section 423 Analysis Tables 10. Section 423 Trip Generation Calculations by Urban Crossroads 11. Prior Amendment Entitlement Table 12. Final EIR Errata 13. Irvine Supplemental Analysis 14. Letter from Costa Mesa, July 20, 2006 15. City Council Resolution certifying EIR 16. Letter from James Douglas, Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc., July 19, 2006 17. City Council Resolution approving General Plan Attachment I RESOLUTION NO. 1692 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH #2006011119)[PA2006 -195]. WHEREAS, after an extensive public participation process, the City prepared a comprehensive update of the Newport Beach General Plan; and WHEREAS, in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was filed with the State Clearinghouse, which assigned State Clearinghouse No. 2006011119, indicating that an Environmental Impact Report would be prepared; and WHEREAS, the NOP and an Initial Study were distributed to all responsible and trustee agencies and other interested parties for a 30 -day public review period commencing on January 20, 2006 and ending on February 27, 2006; and WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA requirements, a Notice of Completion (NOC) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was filed with the State Clearinghouse on April 21, 2006; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was distributed to agencies, interested organizations, and individuals by the City. The distribution list is available at the City of Newport Beach Planning Department. The Draft EIR dated April 2006 was been distributed separately due to bulk and is hereby designated as EXHIBIT EIR -1 of this Resolution as if fully set forth herein; and WHEREAS, a 45 -day public review period for the Draft EIR was established pursuant to State law, commencing on April 21, 2006 and ending on June 5, 2006. The review period was subsequently extended to June 13, 2006; and WHEREAS, all comments received during the public review period for the Draft EIR were responded to in the Response to Comments (RTC) document, which is Chapter 10 of the Final EIR, Volume 1A, dated July 2006. The Response to Comment document has been distributed separately due to bulk and is hereby designated as EXHIBIT EIR -2 of this Resolution as if fully set herein. The Planning Commission considered all comments and responses during its review of the Environmental Impact Report and project, and the process did not raise significant new information of a significant environmental impact that would warrant revision of the EIR or recirculation of the EIR for additional public input and /or comment; and Planning Commission Resolution No. 1692 Page 2 of 5 WHEREAS, on September 9, 2004, December 9, 2004, May 19, 2005, June 9, 2005, August 16, 2005, August 30, 2005 and November 17, 2005, the Planning Commission held noticed public meetings at which time the project description for the Environmental Impact Report was considered; and WHEREAS, on May 4, 2006, May 18, 2006, June 1, 2006, June 15, 2006 and June 22, 2006, the Planning Commission held noticed public hearings at which time the draft Environmental Impact Report was considered. Notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearings was given in accordance with applicable laws and testimony was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the hearings. Responsible and trustee agencies and the public have been given an opportunity to review and comment on the adequacy of the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, on July 13 & 20, 2006, the Planning Commission held noticed public hearings at which time the Environmental Impact Report along with the comments received and responses prepared (Final EIR) were considered. Notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearings was given in accordance with applicable laws and testimony was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the hearings; and WHEREAS, the draft and final EIR analyzes the impacts of the project at the level of a program EIR, analyzes potential cumulative impacts and discusses project alternatives as required by CEQA; and WHEREAS, the Final Environmental Impact Report identifies significant impacts to the environment which are unavoidable in the areas of Aesthetics and Visual Quality, Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Noise, Population and Housing and Transportation/Traffic; and. WHEREAS, the draft Findings of Fact and draft Statement of Overriding Considerations were considered by the Planning Commission and found adequate and satisfactory, and hereby recommends their adoption to the to the City Council. NOW THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: 1. The General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2006011119) attached to this Resolution by reference has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines. 2. The final EIR was presented to the Planning Commission and the Commission reviewed and considered the information contained in the final EIR prior to making its recommendation. 3. The final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission. 1: \Users \PLN \Shared \GP Update GBR \Planning CommissionOR Reso 7- 20- 06FINAL.doc Planning Commission Resolution No. 1692 Page 3 of 5 4. The Planning Commission recommends that the General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2006011119) be certified by the Newport Beach City Council, including the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations. ADOPTED THIS 20TH DAY OF JULY, 2006. BY: Michael Toerge, Acting Chairman Robert Hawkins, Secretary AYES: Eaton, Hawkins, Toerge. Cole, Tucker, NOES: McDaniel, Henn I: \Users \PLN \Shared \GP Update GBR \Planning Commission\EIR Reso 7- 20- 06FINAL.doc Planning Commission Resolution No. 1692 Page 4 of 5 EIR -1 Draft Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan Update including the Technical Appendix (SCH #2006011119) This document is on file with the Planning Department — PA2006 -195 I: \Users\PLN \Shared \GP Update GBRTIanning CommissionOR Reso 7- 20- 06FINAL.doe Planning Commission Resolution No. 1692 Page 5 of 5 EIR -2 Final Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan Update (SCH #2006011119) This document is on file with the Planning Department — PA2006 -195 I: \Users \PLN \Shared \GP Update GBR \Planning CommissionOR Reso 7- 20- 06FINAL.doc Attachment 2 RESOLUTION NO. 1693 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE OF THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN [PA2006- 195] WHEREAS, Section 65300 et seq., of the California Government Code requires cities and counties to prepare long- range, comprehensive guides known as general plans; and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach adopted a general plan consisting of mandatory and optional elements in 1973 through 1975, consisting of text and maps; and WHEREAS, the last major revision of the City of Newport Beach General Plan was accomplished in 1988, being comprehensive revisions to the Land Use and Circulation Elements; and WHEREAS, other elements have been amended and updated from time to time, including the Housing, Noise, and Recreation and Open Space Elements; and WHEREAS, since its original adoption, two optional elements have been added to the General Plan, being the Growth Management and Harbor and Bay Elements; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the existing General Plan, as amended, must be revised to sufficiently address the range and breadth of issues, technological, environmental, economic, and demographic changes, within and outside the city, that have affected Newport Beach since the plan was adopted; and WHEREAS, Section 707 (a) of the Newport Beach Charter requires the Planning Commission to recommend to the City Council the adoption, amendment or repeal of a Master Plan, or any part thereof, for the physical development of the City; and WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65353 requires that, when local regulations have authorized a Planning Commission to review and make recommendations on a proposed General Plan or amendments to a General Plan, the Commission shall hold at least one public hearing before making its recommendation; and Planning Commission Resolution No. 1693 Page 2 of 5 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducte d make recommendations on the project description Environmental Impact Report on the following dates: September 9, 2004 December 9, 2004 May 19, 2005 June 9, 2005 August 16, 2005 — Adjourned Meeting August 30, 2005 — Adjourned Meeting November 17, 2005 a series of meetings to on which to base the WHEREAS, the Planning Commission also conducted a series of meetings to make recommendations to the City Council on the policies to be included in the various elements of the General Plan on the following dates: March 3, 2005 October 4, 2005 — Adjourned Meeting October 20, 2005 — Adjourned Meeting October 20, 2005 November 29, 2005 — Adjourned Meeting December 6, 2005 — Adjourned Meeting January 31, 2006 — Adjourned Meeting March 9, 2006 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered public testimony in a series of public hearings which were fully noticed as required by California Government Code Section 65091 on the following dates: April 6, 2006 April 20, 2006 May 4, 2006 May 18, 2006 June 1, 2006 — Adjourned Meeting June 15, 2006 — Adjourned Meeting June 22, 2006 July 6, 2006 July 13, 2006 — Adjourned Meeting July 20, 2006 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach as follows: Section 1. Adoption of Draft General Plan. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the comprehensive revision of the Newport Beach General Plan (PA 2006 -195, GP2006 -005), including text, I: \Users \PLN \Shared \GP Update GBR \Planning Commission \GP Reso 7- 20- 06FINAL.doc Planning Commission Resolution No. 1693 Page 3 of 5 graphics, and land use map as presented at the public hearing of July 20, 2005. The Planning Commission declares as follows: a. Finding of Completeness and Adequacy. The recommended General Plan contains a thorough and adequate treatment of land use and development issues. The General Plan includes all elements mandated by California planning and development law, and three optional elements: Harbor and Bay, Historical Resources, and Arts and Cultural. The existing Growth Management Element has been incorporated into the Circulation Element. b. Promotion of Public Health, Safety, and Welfare. The plan addresses long -term planning needs for the City's public safety services, incorporating new policies regarding police, fire and emergency services protection, coastal hazards, seismic and geologic hazards, flood hazards, fire hazards, hazardous materials, aviation hazards, and disaster preparedness. C. Based on Community Vision. The plan is based on input received from residents and property and business owners during the visioning and update processes, and the Vision Statement developed at the culmination of the visioning process. d. Good City Planning Practices. The plan calls for improvements in the handling of new development by requiring a high level of architectural design quality, traffic and transportation management, and other initiatives. The plan increases open space and recreation opportunities, recommends traffic calming and neighborhood protection strategies, and offers new policies for the first time in the areas of historical resource management, community arts and cultural resources and community design. The plan also increases housing opportunities in close proximity to and within employment centers, which will reduce traffic within the community, reduce vehicle miles traveled and improve jobs /housing balance. The plan provides a strong correlation between the Land Use and Circulation Elements as required by law. It also strengthens protections for environmental resources, including the Upper Newport Bay and other sensitive habitats. e. Improved Traffic Flow. The land use mix and circulation system improvements in the plan result in the generation of fewer trips over the life of the plan than the existing plan, and an improvement in traffic flow and intersection performance. f. Relationship to General Plan Environmental Determination. It is the intent of the Planning Commission that the General Plan and the Final Environmental Impact Report be seen as integrally related documents. (:\Users \PLN \Shared \GP Update GBR \Planning Commission\GP Reso 7- 20- 06FINAL.doc Planning Commission Resolution No. 1693 Page 4 of 5 1. The Planning Commission declares that the issues and concerns analyzed in the Final EIR have been addressed in the General Plan as policies designed to address those issues and concerns. 2. The Planning Commission declares that adoption of this General Plan and Final EIR does not preclude the necessity or requirement for any further environmental review which would normally be conducted in conjunction with project approvals under the City of Newport Beach policies regarding the implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 2. Consistency with Recent Statutes. In recommending adoption this General Plan, the Planning Commission finds, determines and declares that every reasonable effort has been made to incorporate recent legislation into the General Plan. This includes the incorporation of specific provisions, goals, objectives and policies as follows. a. Water. This includes water supplies, stormwater management and groundwater issues as required by recent legislation. b. Social Services and the Homeless. The General Plan, as recommended by the Planning Commission, contains a series of specific objectives and policies with respect to the provision of social services, and the homeless as provided by relevant provisions of State law. C. Environmental Review. The recommended General Plan is consistent with the provisions of Assembly Bill 3180 (1988) in that it directly incorporates policies to address specific environmental effects. The Planning Commission recommends that the Planning Director or his /her designee shall be the primary party responsible for successful completion of the policies specified in the plan. The Planning Department shall file an annual report with the City Council demonstrating progress toward implementation of the plan. d. Housing. The General Plan, through its Housing Element, provides objectives, quantified targets, and specific policies for development of municipal housing programs consistent with State law. The Housing Element has been previously certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development, and the updated element will be submitted for their review. The updated Housing Element contains substantially the same policies as the certified element, but significantly increases the number of sites available for residential development, which improves the City's ability to fulfill a level of housing production needed to meet the existing and future RHNA goals for the term of the plan. I: \Users\PLN \Shared \GP Update GBR\Planning Commission \GP Reso 7- 20- 06FINAL.doc Planning Commission Resolution No. 1693 Page 5 of 5 Section 3. Consistency with Regional Plans. The Planning Commission finds and declares that through its efforts to reduce vehicle trips, promote walkability, preserve and protect critical watercourses and embrace sustainable technologies, the plan is consistent with: a. The regional Air Quality Management Plan of the South Coast Air Quality Management District; b. The Southern California Association of Governments Regional Comprehensive Plan, C. Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport. Section 5. Public Comment. The Planning Commission affirms that it considered, to the best of its ability, all public testimony and all relevant information provided to it; and that the General Plan recommended by this resolution represents its best effort to accommodate the diverse and competing needs of residents, property owners, and social and economic components of the City's population and workforce. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of July, 2006, by the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach, California. L Michael Toerge, Acting Chairman Robert Hawkins, Secretary AYES: Eaton, Hawkins, Toerge, Cole, NOES: Tucker, McDaniel, Henn (:\Users \PLN \Shared\GP Update GBR\Planning Commission \GP Reso 7- 20- 06FINAL.doc TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON EXISTING GP, GPAC RECOMMENDATIONS, EIR PROJECT & CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATIONS 71, A M 10.%nJORT� Orange County, California Alan L. Murphy Airport Director 3160 Airway Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92626-4608 949.252.5171 949.252.5178 fax www.ocair.com `:V "z _» nM IC F SIPY Attachment COPY 4 IL:J' -1 UL. L v July 20, 2006 rL' NNING "srNlcll I City of Newport Beach City Council and Planning Commission 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Subject: Comments on Draft General Plan Update JUL 2 0 2006 AM M tj Honorable Mayor, City Council Members and Planning Commissioners: John Wayne Airport (JWA) staff has completed review of the City of Newport Beach Draft Revised General Plan dated July 7, 2006 and respectfully requests that you consider the comments offered below prior to the approval of this document. We appreciate the time you and your staff have devoted to preparing this document and working with JWA and Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) staff over the past three months. In a letter dated July 10, 2006 (Attachment 1) the city provided a written summary of the changes made to date in response to ALUC and JWA comments. These changes address many of our previous comments and concerns. The comments below suggest clarifications in just a few areas. 1) Land Use Element: The Land Use, Housing and Noise Elements have been revised to require that all development in the Airport Area must be in conformance with FAA and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics height limits, and residential development must be located outside the 65 dB CNEL noise contours, as identified in the December 19, 2002 AELUP for JWA. It is recommended that the city remove the date of the AELUP since the document may be revised once each year if the Airport Land Use Commission deems it appropriate to do so. If the city desires to identify that Ibis is the largest contour outside which residential development would be located, then it may be advisable to specifically reference the 1985 JWA Master Plan 65 dB CNEL contour. Additionally, it is recommended that Exhibits LUI I and LU22 show the 65 dB CNEL contour for reference purposes. 2) Safety Element: The Safety Element has been revised to require use of the JWA AELUP for evaluation of land use compatibility in areas impacted by JWA operations, in Page 2 July 20, 2006 particular land use decisions within the existing JWA Clear Protection Zone. It is recommended that the city also evaluate safety hazards for proposed land uses within the Inner Turning Zone and Traffic Pattern Zone as (defined in the existing JWA Airport Layout Plan. These zones are shown on the new Figure S5 included in the Safety Element. On Page 11 -18 under the heading Aviation Hazards, the referen a to 300 commercial flights should be changed to 300 commercial and c mmuter flights. The reference to 20 regional flights should be deleted si ce these are included in the total 300 flights. 3) Housing Element: It is recommended that the city consider a policy under H 3.2 to dress sound attenuation for housing within the 60 dB CNEL and buyer notifi ation of airport in the vicinity. , 4) Noise Element: The Noise Element has been revised to include "consideration" of dedications of avigation easements in favor of the County of Orange when n ise sensitive uses are proposed in the JWA Planning Area, as established in e JWA AELUP. It is recommended that the language require dedication of aviga�ion easements for proposed development of noise - sensitive land use . This would protect both the City and County from future noise complaints. Table N2 shows Residential Single Family, Two Family Multiple Family and Mixed Use as being in Zone B, Normally Compatible, except fbi JWA impact zones. It should be clarified that these uses within the JWA impact zone are considered "Normally Incompatible." It is recommended that additional wording be added to the double asterisk ( * *) note as follows: "Except for JWA impact zones, in which the uses are "Normally Inconmatib e." 5) Implementation Program: It is recommended that as development agreements are processe through the city (Imp 15.1) these agreements include a requirement for dedic ation of avigation easements for proposed development of noise-sensitivc land uses around John Wayne Airport. Thank you for considering these recommendations. We will continu to coordinate with the city on this important project as it nears complet n. Should 2 you have any questions, please contact Kari Rigoni, JWA Planning 949.252.5284. Sincerely, Alan L. Murphy f°"I Airport Director cc: James W. Silva, Supervisor, District 2 Airport Land Use Commission Sharon Wood, City of Newport Beach Gregg Ramirez, City of Newport Beach Page 3 July 20, 2006 at July 10, 2006 CITY OF NE WP0 R E C E Ms. Kari A. Rigoni ,JUL, � Executive Officer Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County AIR►'DRTUNDUS 3160 Airway Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Dear Ms. Rigoni: With this letter, I am pleased to submit revisions to Newport Beach's pry Plan, included in the draft dated July 7, 2006 and accompanying figu shows changes from the draft you received in March in strkeoWunde most important to your Commission, the City Council has directed tha Element be revised so that residential use is not permitted within the contour as shown on the John Wayne Airport (JWA) Airport Environs (AELUP). The Housing Element has also been revised to reflect th addition, following is a summary of policies that have been revised or adc to review by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) on May 18, 2006, of June 13, 2006. T BEACH V E a II )osed General =s. This draft ine. Probably the Land Use 35 dBA CNEL and Use Plan > change. In d in response ind your letter LU 3.8 Requires referral of land use regulations and development projects that include buildings with a height greater than 200 feet above round level to ALUC for review. LU 5.6.5 Requires that applicants for heliports or helistops comply with all applicable permit requirements and conditions of approval. LU 6.15.3 Requires all development in the Airport Area to be in conformance with FAA and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics height limits, and that residential development be outside the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour in the JWA AELUP. LU 6.15.16 Requires that neighborhood parks in the Airport Area notifications regarding aircraft overflight and noise. City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard • Post Office Box 1768 Newport Beach California 92658 -8915 • www.citv.newoort- beach. posted with Karl A. Rigoni July 10, 2006 Page 2 H 3.2 Disallows residential development within the 65 dBA CN L noise contour in the JWA AELUP. R 1.12 Requires that public parks in the noise impact zone identified in the JWA AELUP be posted with notifications regarding aircraft over light and noise. S8.7 Requires use of the JWA AELUP for evaluation of land use compatibility in areas impacted by JWA operations, specifically the existing JWA Clear Zone /Runway Protection Zone, shown on new Figure S5. N 3.1 Requires use of JWA AELUP noise contours to ensure ngw development is compatible with the noise environment. N 3.2 Disallows residential development within the 65 dBA CN L noise contour in the JWA AELUP. N 3.3 Requires consideration of avigation easements in favor o Orange County when noise sensitive uses are proposed in the JWA planni g area. In your letter of June 13, 2006, you also commented on several Implementation Program. Although revisions to that section of the ( included in the latest draft, and some of your comments are addressed, the Implementation Program is still undergoing revision. It is likely tha not be finalized by the time the City Council takes action on the Generz which contain all the plan's regulatory provisions. I will senc Implementation Program when it is complete. I believe that the revisions to policies and figures in this submittal comments in your letter of June 13, 2006, and upon adoption of this City of Newport Beach should be considered a "consistent agency." sections of the sneral Plan are (lease note that this section will Plan elements, you the final all of the Plan, the I would like to extend my thanks to your Commission for their courtesy in accommodating the City's schedule for the General Plan update, and to you for your guidance in responding to comments from the ALUC. If you have any questions or concerns with the revisions to the draft General Plan, please call me at 644-3222. Sincerely, Sharon Wood Assistant City Manager cc: Mayor and City Council Homer Bludau, City Manager Robin Clauson, City Attorney Greenlight "RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA " PO Box 3362 PRINTED:" ,n fv Newport Beach, CA 92659 Attachment newportgreenlight@cox.net June 26, 2006 5 Gregg B. Ramirez City of Newport Beach (949) 644 -3219 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92685 -8915 Subject: City Council Agenda Item #33 June 27, 2006 Based upon the contents of the housing element, a statement of the true number of DU's being added by the GPU over the 9 areas of concentration is lacking. Additional DU's authorized under the current GP are omitted. In earlier traffic studies, the traffic generated by these other areas of the city was equal to the amount generated by the proposed increases in the GPU. My questions are: How many DU's are being added in totality by the GPU and permitted under non - changed portions of the current General Plan? How many more can be built using the density bonuses of the State? How many more can be added by converting hotel room entitlements under the GPU to DUs? What is the true traffic generation count? Why are all these factors hidden from the public? The GPU has deceptively hidden this total proposed growth in DU's and traffic and needs to be redone to both correct CEQA violations and to provide a true count of projected growth and its effects upon noise, air quality, water and wastewater supply, traffic generation and other environmental factors required by CEQA. 1 11 According to the EIR, the city had 40,179 dwelling units as of 2002, including Newport Coast units annexed that year. Under the existing GP, they indicate that up to 49,729 units could be provided, i.e. 9,000+ more than exist. The EIR says that with the proposed project, up to 54,394 units could be provided, or an additional 4,666 above the existing GP build out. However, the specific changes they were showing in the EIR for just the nine detailed areas totaled about 2,000 more multi family units (5,796) than what they were showing for a total city wide (3,833), so their totals didn't add up. Why is the housing element dedicated almost exclusively to affordable housing? Don't the remainder of we residents need some guidelines to protect our home investments and quality of life? City's proposal to permit affordable housing compared to what the City requires now (20% inclusionary), the PC recommendation of 15 %, plus a way to wiggle out of even that with AHIPs, is a total giveaway to developers. Thank you for your review of this matter, Greenlight Philip Arst OV38 lWdAGN O A110 W310 A110 3141 3O 3014J® CC: City Council cz: t-d cz rrfm 90. (1.Ai303a Attachment 6 SANDRA GENIS, PLANNING RESOURCES 1586 MYRTLEWOOD COSTA MESA, CA. 92626 PHONE /FAX (714) 754 -0814 July 11, 2006 Honorable Mayor Don Webb and Members of the City Council Newport Beach City Hall 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92685 -8915 Subject: General Plan Update Dear Mayor Webb and City Council, At the City Council meeting of June 27, 2006, I requested clarification regarding future land use in the Airport Area. While my question was answered, subsequent review of the data raises additional issues for which I would appreciate clarification. Specifically, there appeared to be a disparity in the amount of nonresidential development permitted under the plan, with anticipated office use varying from 4.9 million square feet (Table 3 -3, Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR)) to 7.1 million square feet (Table A -2, Draft General Plan Update). As explained, under the currently proposed plan office square footage would be expected to vary, since residential units would generally replace office and /or industrial development, per the council's direction on May 23, 2006. Thus, square footage of office /industrial development would vary inversely with the number of dwelling units provided. It was stated that information in Table A2 in the March draft plan was intended to indicate an either /or situation, whereby either 7.2 million square feet of commercial development would be provided or some reduced amount of commercial development would be provided along with residential development. This same table also includes data for other areas where residential uses in mixed use areas is intended to be additive. The table must clarify where the draft plan proposes that residential development in mixed use areas to be developed instead of commercial uses and where the residential uses would be in addition to commercial uses. The general plan text must also reflect this. The May 23 Council direction reduced future residential development to 2,200 from the 3,300 units permitted under the March 27, 2006 draft plan update. the March draft plan also stated that residential uses: ... may occur as replacement of existing buildings or as infill on parking lots, provided that the parking is replaced in a structure located on -site. Thus, residential development would have been additive, with no reduction in other development required. The March draft plan required only that the no- longer - permitted dwelling units in the Campus Drive tract be allowed only upon reduction of non - residential development. Council direction of May 23 expanded the policy of equivalent reduction to all but 550 dwelling units. Page 1 of 3 The May 9, 2006 staff report and oral presentations indicated that the action ultimately taken on May 23, 2006 would result in a considerable reduction in trips from that assumed in the EIR analysis. According to the DEIR, the traffic model assumed a reduction in traffic generation rates due to mixed use. In that regard, I have a number of questions: • How will the reduction in residential development affect trip generation rates? • What is the minimum proportion of each use which must be provided in order for the model to reduce trip generation to reflect mixed use? I also have serious concerns regarding coordination of anticipated traffic and land use. If most of the residential units are to be provided only in return for reductions elsewhere, then varying the number of units should not affect traffic generation. If an increase in dwelling units must be accompanied by a reduction in other uses, then reducing future residential uses and related traffic would just allow an increase in other uses and related traffic. In addition, the apparent disparity, now explained, first came to my attention as a result of review of data in the DEIR. Data in Appendix FF to the EIR traffic study, titled General Plan Buildout with Project Land Use Change from General Plan Buildout without Project by TAZ, already 'shows a reduction in anticipated office use to about 4.8 million square feet and elimination of 551,930 square feet of industrial use under the proposed update (attached table). It thus appears that the DEIR traffic study anticipated the requirement that residential uses would generally be permitted only as replacement for another use. Inasmuch as Appendix FF already shows a reduction in office space to 4.8 million square feet, how can it be asserted that requiring a reduction in other uses to accommodate residential would reduce trip generation? Does the city proposed to reduce office uses below 4,8 million square feet? Similar anomalies appear elsewhere. In the Mariner's Mile area, for example, the March 2006 draft plan would have allowed commercial floor area ratios (FARs) of up to 0.75 on exclusively retail sites with a FAR of 0.5 permitted for mixed use sites. The existing general plan allows a base floor area of 0.5, with additional square footage allowed only for low traffic generating uses. Thus, allowable commercial development would either remain the same on mixed use sites or increase by up to fifty percent on sites utilized exclusively for commercial use. While data in Appendix FF does reflect the addition of residential uses, the data also shows a reduction in commercial uses of about 100,000 square feet. This is peculiar. The Park Lido area near Hoag Hospital (TAZ's 1713 -1716) is designated for a base FAR of 0.5 under the January 2000 general plan. The March 2006 draft update would have increased the FAR to a maximum 1.25. The Council has since directed a change in the maximum FAR for the area to 0.75. In either case, one would expect a significant increase in anticipated development. Data in Appendix FF show no change at all for the affected area. These are just a few examples. Other apparent anomalies abound. This raises serious questions regarding the traffic analyses in the DEIR. Is it possible that Appendix FF (General Plan Buildout with Project Land Use Change from General Plan Buildout without Project by TAZ), Appendix EE (General Plan Buildout with Project Land Use) and other appendices to the EIR Page 2 of 3 traffic study do not accurately portray the actual land use assumptions which were input to the traffic model and utilized in the traffic study? . If so, accurate tables must be provided. It is recognized that the plan has evolved over the past few months, in many cases resulting in a reduction in proposed development from that provided in the March draft and a related reduction in traffic from the March draft. However, in many cases the development provided under the March draft was not reflected in the land use tables ostensibly utilized for the traffic model to begin with. It is imperative that the traffic model be run again using land use inputs accurately reflecting land use and intensities proposed under the general plan update. It is likewise imperative that environmental analyses be revised to reflect changes in policies in all elements of the general plan update. I look forward to reviewing additional materials as they become available. Yours truly, Sandra L. Genis Page 3 of 3 Airport Area Land Use GP buildout GPU buildout TAZ USE amount amount change AIRPORT 1379 3 0 294 294 1380 (multi - family) 0 334 334 1381 0 275 275 1382 0 609 609 1384 0 132 132 1389 0 132 132 1390 0 87 87 1393 -0-338 338 1404 0 180 180 5 0 128 128 6 0 900 900 3409 3409 7 i 7 0 107 107 8 (hotel) 0 122 122 5 349 349 0 5 164 164 0 471 471 0 total 1 984 12131 229 1373 10 35.08 36.48 1.4 1374 (general commercial) 35.08 42.231 7.151 1375 54.46 61.518 7.058 1376 56.13 67.464 11.334 1377 80.68 74.583 -6.097 1378 91.21 85.378 -5.832 15.011 0 - 15.011 7.87 41.517 33.647 106.11 120.596 14.486 M13941383 46.3 16.191 - 30.109 17.78 19.324 1.544 79.903 81.152 1.249 0 115.4341 115.434 1395 120 20.19 -99.81 1402 0 40.478 40.478 1403 16 26.8 10.8 1405 129.3 128.61 -0.69 Total 890.914 977.946 87.032 1388 16(auto dealer ) -130-1301 0 1373 23 78.13 85.073 6.943 1374 (general office) 78.13 84.463 6.333 1375 117.2 123.035 5.835 1376 125.01 134.927 9.917 1377 179.7 179.7 0 1378 203.14 243.936 40.796 1379 468.349 240.451 - 227.898 1380 152.776 0 - 152.776 1381 213.637 104.211 - 109.426 1382 321.53 74.704 - 246.826 Airport Area Land Use 1383 275.267 202.585 - 72.682 1384 91.756 0 - 91.756 1386 228.21 203.8 -24.41 1387 184.32 1 77.534 -6.786 1389 201.78 105.807 - 95.973 1390 146.48 99.97 -46.51 1391 97.42 72.5 -24.92 1392 160.59 124 -36.59 1396 630.221 630.221 .0 1397 104.42 104.42 0 1398 40 40 0 1399 161.49 161.49 0 1400 48.5 48.5 0 1402 45.794 0 - 45.794 1403 393.05 393.05 0 1404 434.953 434.953 0 1405 688.16 695.157 6.997 total 5870.013 4764.487 - 1105.53 1401124 medical 86.096 86.0961 0 1373 26 12.19 0 -12.19 1374 (Industrial) 12.19 0 -12.19 1375 18.29 0 -18.29 1376 19.51 0 -19.51 1377 28.05 0 28.05 1378 31.7 0 -31.7 1406 430 0 -430 total 551.93 0 - 551.93 1403 37 10.91 10.9 0 (youth ctrlservice City of Newport Beach Gregg B. Ramirez Planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject: General Plan Update Dear Sir, Attachment 7 PLAN CllyGFf,snir PARTMACN AM JUL I' 3 2(JOg 718j90 ,jig ill r J'W Our Newport Heights residential neighborhood is adjacent to the Old Newport Boulevard commercial area. The current increasing impact of this commercial area on our neighborhood has resulted in the diminution of the quality of life for the residents. Generally affected areas include: A) noise and safety concerns from commercial trash pick -up, B) parking on residential streets instead of utilization of assigned commercial parking, & C) increased traffic volume on residential streets, with associated safety concerns. Specific current problems which significantly affect the residential neighborhood include : A 1) commercial trash/restaurant garbage bins located on Westminster Avenue and adjacent to the residential portion of said Avenue - -which is predominately residential. (Does the city have code /planning requirements in the updated general plan that prohibit the location of ansh/garbage bins adjacent to residential areas to minimize the resultant noise, traffic and safety impact on the residents ?) A 2) commercial trash/garbage trucks after the noisy pick -up of trash/garbage on Westminster Avenue drive in reverse with limited visibility out of the trash/garbage storage area onto Westminster and partially block both lanes of the Avenue resulting in a significant safety problem. (Does the city have code/planning requirements which address the location and access of trash/garbage bins and associated traffic safety concerns?) A 3) commercial trashlgarbage trucks after the noisy, pick-up of trash/garbage quite frequently drive an unnecessary circular route through the residential neighborhood. (Does the city have code/planning requirements in the updated general plan that prohibit these large commercial trash/garbage trucks from driving unnecessarily through the residential neighborhood when there have been no service requests made by the residents ?) B 1) employees and/or patrons of nearby businesses (medical, restaurant, commercial, etc.) have been using the residential streets for commercial parking. This leaves the streets of Westminster, Beacon, Broad and Hohnwood with serious parking for the residents of said streets. (Does the city have codelplanning requirements in the updated general plan that specify that employees must park on their business employment parking area and not on the residential streets? Is there a requirement that the parking spaces be specifically and clearly marked/reserved for employees ?) In addition, the alley parallel to Holmwood is predominately residential but is currently used extensively for commercial parking and traffic. This significantly detracts from the residential quality of life. Is this addressed in the updated general plan by prohibiting parking and through traffic in such situations? B 2) additionally, if there is an off -site parking agreement, what are the city requirements for lease duration, legal recordation with accessibility by the public and individual parking spaces signage specifications to assure the markings are clear and specific in the intended usage? What actions are taken by the city and imposed upon the commercial business upon the expiration of said agreement? B 3) again, related to parking, a tent trailer is presently stored on a medical business property - -it is not known if the tent trailer occupies an approved parking space of the business. (Does the city have code /planning requirements in the updated general plan that prohibit the storage of tent trailer, vehicles, etc. on commercial property ?) Many of the above current problems have been previously submitted to Code Enforcement under a separate cover. The future impact of the Old Newport Boulevard commercial area on our neighborhood traffic, safety and parking is very important to our quality of life and will only become more of a concern as the adjacent commercial area continues to undergo redevelopment under the current and Updated General Plan. The future redevelopmendaddition of several medical and multi- purpose buildings will create more traffic and associated safety on our residential streets and potentially more parking issues. These issues have become of paramount important since the demographics of our residential area has recently changed with a significant increase in the number of children in the neighborhood. Attached is a signed list of the residents who are concerned about the various issues. We would like to be assured that the General Plan Update and the associated updated City Code will adequately address and resolve the issues and restore a good quality of life to the neighborhood. We thank you in advance for your prompt consideration of our requests and ask that you please contact us via e-mail. Sincerely, Tom Baker, tomlubaker @hotmO.com Ralph Kafesj aan, ik @yahoo.com zp Signed, �Z Signed, Signed, Attachment 8 July 17, 2006 Honorable Mayor Don Webb Chairman Jeffrey Cole Newport Beach City Council Newport Beach City Planning Commission 3300 Newport Boulevard 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915 Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915 RE: City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Dear Mayor Webb and Members of the City Council and Chairman Cole and Members of the Planning Commission: As you are aware, the Environmental Quality Affairs Committee ( "EQAC ") reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report ( "DEIR ") for the General Plan Update and submitted its comments to the Council on June 5, 2006. During EQAC's review of the DEIR, several issues were raised that, after discussion at our meeting of June 5, 2005, the Committee determined were more relevant to the General Plan Update itself, rather than the DEIR. The Committee is concerned that the DEIR is basically silent on the issue of air pollution control of emissions from the large number of watercraft that navigate Newport Bay. However, after further discussion, the members agreed that the reason the DEIR is silent on this issue is that the General Plan Update does not address this issue. The Committee believes that this is an important issue, and one that has the potential to continue to worsen if it is not addressed in the General Plan Update. There is an apparent endorsement of the current level of charter boat activity on the Bay. The Committee believes that the General Plan Update should look to this activity with an eye to limiting growth. The Committee is also concerned that the use of landscape blowers is a nuisance and pollutant that should be eliminated in the City. While Policy N 7.4 does address this issue, in the spirit of trying to be as responsive as possible, the policy should be strengthened to read that the City will eliminate the use of blowers by the City by 2010 (for example) and require the same on private property. In Section 4.8.2, Other Land Use Changes, the DEIR identifies a parcel which is to be rezoned to multi- family residential. The reason given is consistency with adjacent uses. Since the former use, childcare, does not appear to be in conflict with a residential area, the change seems to eliminate needed ancillary uses without a compelling reason. This is counter to Policy LU 6.2.5, which seeks to allow for complementary uses. Thank you for the opportunity to address these issues relative to the General Plan Update, as well as opportunity to review and comment on the DEIR. THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE Attachment 10 July 21, 2006 Ms. Patricia Temple CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 Subject: Section 423 Trip Generation Calculations Dear Ms. Temple: Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to submit this letter documenting the Charter Section 423 trip generation calculations. The input data, methodology, and resulting trip generation estimates are presented in this letter. INPUT DATA The input data for this analysis was provided by City of Newport Beach staff and corresponds to the most recent City Council direction regarding land use changes from the existing (currently adopted) General Plan land use element. The City Council direction is referred to hereinafter as the "proposed" General Plan land use. Attachment A includes the existing and proposed General Plan land use data that was provided by City staff. Attachment A also includes the calculated differences in land use for each land use type. METHODOLOGY The calculations of differences between the existing and proposed General Plan land uses have been performed using the AM and PM trip generation rates required by Ms. Patricia Temple CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 21, 2006 Page 2 Section 423. Attachment B contains the trip rates information that has been obtained from City Council Policy A -18. Additionally, overall citywide trip generation estimates have been prepared. The explicit Section 423 trip rates have been used to evaluate all land use changes and for the citywide analysis wherever possible. Citywide residential dwelling unit subtotals by residential unit type are not available. Therefore, a "blended" trip rate that averages the trip rates for single family detached units, apartment units, and condominium units has been applied to determine the existing General Plan citywide overall trip generation for comparison purposes. The "blended" rate has only been applied to the total number of housing units that is not changing from the currently adopted General Plan land use to the proposed General Plan land use. Use of the "blended" rate for the housing units that remain the same does not affect the accuracy of the trip difference calculation that is the primary emphasis of Section 423. The proposed General Plan citywide trip generation has then been determined on the basis of the existing citywide trip generation and the explicitly calculated trip generation differences that were determined on the basis of the individual Section 423 trip rates. TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES The trip generation differences for each individual subarea have been calculated using the land use data provided by City staff. Attachment C includes the subarea level trip generation difference calculations. Table 1 summarizes the subarea level differences. As shown on Table 1, most of the subareas experience a decrease in AM and PM peak hour trips with the exception of the following: • West Newport Mesa Stat Area A3 ( +650 AM, +1,390 PM) • Balboa Peninsula ( +73 AM, +80 PM) • Balboa Island ( +1 AM, +1 PM) Ms. Patricia Temple CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 21, 2006 Page 3 • Corona Del Mar ( +464 AM, +593 PM) • Mariner's Mile Subarea ( +127 AM, +150 PM) • Westcliff Plaza Area ( +104 AM, +125 PM) • Newport Center Subarea ( +455 AM, +579 PM) • North Ford ( +150 AM, +237 PM) Overall citywide trip generation calculations have been performed for both the existing (currently adopted) General Plan and the proposed General Plan. Table 2 summarizes the estimated existing General Plan citywide AM and PM peak hour trip generation. The total existing General Plan AM peak hour trip generation is 102,437, and the total existing General Plan PM peak hour trip generation is 128,324. The proposed General Plan land uses have also been used to calculate citywide AM and PM peak hour trip generation. Table 3 summarizes these calculations. As described in the methodology discussion, citywide dwelling unit information by type of dwelling unit is not available, the proposed General Plan residential land use trip generation has been calculated based on the existing General Plan trip generation and the explicit difference that was previously presented for the various subareas. The total existing General Plan AM peak hour trip generation is 101,244, and the total existing General Plan PM peak hour trip generation is 127,287. Table 4 presents the differences between the existing General Plan and the proposed general plan for each land use type and in terms of an overall summary. The differences correspond to the differences previously presented in Table 1. A reduction of approximately 1,000 trips is projected for both AM and PM peak hour trip generation on a citywide basis as a result of the proposed General Plan land use changes. Ms. Patricia Temple CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 21, 2006 Page 4 CLOSING Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to provide this analysis for your use. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at (949) 660 1994 x210. Respectfully submitted, URBAN CROSSROADS, INC. Carleton Waters, P.E. Principal CW:DM:cg J N: 03975 -02 Attachments TABLE 1 SUBAREA TRIP GENERATION DIFFERENCE (PROPOSED - EXISTING) SUBAREA DIFFERENCE AM PM WEST NEWPORT AREA - BANNING RANCH Stat Area -928 -1,209 WEST NEWPORT MESA (Stat Area A2) -401 -268 WEST NEWPORT MESA (Stat Area A3 ) 650 1,390 WEST NEWPORT HIGHWAY Stat Area B1 -14 -20 WEST NEWPORT HIGHWAY Stat Area 82) 0 0 RIVER TRACT Stat Area B3) 0 0 NEWPORT ISLAND Stat Area 134 0 0 CENTRAL NEWPORT (Stat_Area 85 ) -14 -27 LIDO ISLE (Stat Area C) 0 0 BALBOA PENINSULA 73 80 BALBOA ISLAND (Stat Area E ) 1 1 IRVINE TERRACE (Stat Area F1) 0 0 OLD CDM WEST (Stat Area F2) 0 0 CDM SOUTH (Stat Area F3) 0 0 CDM NORTH (Stat Area F4) 0 0 CORONA HIGHLANDS (Stat Area F5) 0 0 CAMEO HIGHLANDS Stat Area F6) 0 0 SHORE CLIFFS (Stat_Area F7) 0 0 CAMEO SHORES Stat Area F8) 0 0 CORONA DEL MAR Stat Area F9) 464 593 PROMONTORY BAY AREA (Stat Area G1 -153 -204 OLD NEWPORT BOULEVARD (Stat Area Stat Area H1) -469 -760 NEWPORT HEIGHTS (Stat Area 1-12 ) 0 0 CLIFF HAVEN (Stat Area H3) 0 0 MARINER'S MILE SUBAREA Stat Area 114) 127 150 DOVER SHORES Stat Area J1 -24 -32 WESTCLIFF PLAZA AREA (Stat Area J2) 104 125 WESTCLIFF AREA (Stat _Area J3) 0 0 HARBOR HIGHLANDS (Stat Area J4) 0 0 WESTBAY AREA Stat Area J5) 0 0 SANTA ANA HEIGHTS (Stat Area J6) -24 -23 NEWPORT DUNES (Stat Area K1 ) -167 -224 THE BLUFFS AREA (Stat Area K2) -44 -59 EASTBLUFF AREA (Stat Area K3) 0 0 NEWPORT CENTER SUBAREA (Stat Area L1) 455 579 BIG CANYON (Stat Area 1-2) 0 0 NORTH FORD (Stat Area 1-3 ) 150 237 AIRPORT SUBAREA (Stat Area 1-4) -537 -807 HARBOR VIEW HILLS (Stat Area M1) 0 0 BUCK GULLY AREA (Stat Area M2) 0 0 PACIFIC VIEW AREA (Stat Area M3) -11 -16 HARBOR VIEW HOMES (Stat Area M4 ) -48 -65 HARBOR RIDGE AREA Stat Area M5) -79 -105 BONITA CANYON (Stat Area M6) -128 -169 NEWPORT COAST /RIDGE Stat Area N -174 -205 TOTAL -1,191 -1,038 U:IUcJobsl_ 0 36 0 0 - 0 400 01_ 03900 1039751Excell[03975- 02.xls)t 1 TABLE 2 EXISTING (CURRENTLY ADOPTED) GENERAL PLAN TRIP GENERATION U: \UcJobs \_03600- 04000 \_ 03900 \03975 \Excel \[03975- 02.xls]t 2 AM PM LAND USE TRIP TRIP TYPE QUANTITY UNITS RATE TRIPS RATE I TRIPS Residential 47,681 DUs 0.56 26,701 ' 0.72 34,330 General Commercial 17,030 TSF 3 51,090 4 68,121 General Office 8,039 TSF 1.56 12,540 1.49 11,978 Medical Office 0 TSF 2.43 0 3.66 0 Industrial 2,021 TSF 1 2,021 1 2,021 Mixed Use - Non Residential 1,665 TSF 3 4,995 4 6,661 Mixed Use - Residential 1,138 DUs 0.51 580 0.62 706 Private Use 3,006 TSF 1.5 4,508 1.5 4,508 TOTAL -- 102,437 -- 128,324 U: \UcJobs \_03600- 04000 \_ 03900 \03975 \Excel \[03975- 02.xls]t 2 TABLE 3 PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN TRIP GENERATION U:IUcJobsl_ 03600- 040001_039001039751Excell [03975- 02.xls]t 3 AM PM LAND USE TRIP RATE L TRIPS TRIP RATE TRIPS TYPE JQUANTITYJUNITS Residential 47,958 DUs Varies 25,965 Varies 33,324 General Commercial 15,913 TSF 3 47,739 4 63,652 General Office 7,797 TSF 1.56 12,164 1.49 11,618 Medical Office 693 TSF 2.43 1,684 3.66 2,536 Industrial 1,287 TSF 1 1,287 1 1,287 Mixed Use - Non Residential 2,237 TSF 3 6,711 4 8,948 MixedUse - Residential 2,010 DUs 0.51 1,025 0.62 1,246 Private Use 3,307 TSF Varies 4,669 11 Varies 4,676 TOTAL 101,244 127,287 U:IUcJobsl_ 03600- 040001_039001039751Excell [03975- 02.xls]t 3 TABLE 4 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EXISTING AND PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN GENERALPLAN TRIPS AM PM Currently Adopted (Existing) 102,437 128,324 Proposed 101,244 127,287 Difference -1,193 1,037 U: \UcJobs \_ 03600. 04000 \_03900\03975 \Excel \[03975- 02.xis]T 4 ATTACHMENT A CITYWIDE LAND USE DATA ATTACHMENT B SECTION 423 TRIP RATES Page 1 of 7 Specific Land Use Unit Period Rate Commei 90 Park - and -Ride Lot w /Bus Service Parking Space AM 0.75 PM 0.63 110 General Light Industrial 1000 sq ft GFA AM 0.92 PM 0.98 120General Heavy Industrial 1000 sq ft GFA AM 0.51 PM 0.68 130 Industrial Park 1000 sq It GFA AM 0.89 PM 0.92 140 Manufacturing 1000 sq ft GFA AM 0.73 PM 0.74 150 Warehousing 1000 sq ft GFA AM 0.45 PM 0.51 151 Mini - Warehouse 1000 sq It GFA AM 0.15 PM 0.26 170 Utilities Acre AM 0.49 PM 0.49 210 Single- Family Detached Housing D.U. AM 0.75 PM 1.01 220Apartment D.U. AM 0.51 PM 0.62 222 High-Rise Apartment D.U. AM 0.30 PM 0.35 223 Mid -Rise Apartment D.U. AM 0.30 PM 0.39 224 Rental Townhouse D.U. AM 0.70 PM 0.72 230 Residential Condominium /Townhouse D.U. AM 0.44 PM 0.54 231 Low -Rise Residential Condominium/Townhouse D.U. AM 0.66 PM 0.83 232 High -Rise Residential Condominium/Townhouse D.U. AM 0.34 PM 0.38 233 Luxury Condominium/Townhouse D.U. AM 0.56 PM 0.55 240 Mobile Home Park D.U. AM 0.40 PM 0.56 http: / /www.newport- beach. ca. us /CouncilPolicies/A -18 ExhibitBSpecificLandUse.htm 7/20/2006 Page 2 of 7 250 Retirement Community D.U. AM 0.17 PM 0.27 251 Elderly Housing - Detached D.U. AM 0.21 PM 0.23 252 Congregate Care Facility D.U. AM 0.06 PM 0.17 253 Elderly Housing - Attached D.U. AM 0.07 PM 0.10 260 Recreational Homes D.U. AM 0.16 PM 0.26 270 Residential Planned Unit Development (PUD) D.U. AM 0.51 PM 0.62 310 Hotel Room AM 0.56 PM 0.61 311 All Suites Hotel Room 'AM 0.38 PM 0.40 312 Business Hotel Room AM 0.58 PM 0.62 320 Motel Room AM 0.45 PM 0.47 330 Resort Hotel Room AM 0.31 PM 0.42 411 City Park - AM - No Peak PM 412CountyPark Acre AM 0.01 PM 0.06 413 State Park Picnic Site AM - No Peak PM 0.55 414 Water Slide Park - AM - No Peak PM 415 Beach Park Acre AM - No Peak PM 1.30 416 Campground /Recreational Vehicle Park Camp Site AM 0.27 PM 0.39 417 Regional Park Acre AM - No Peak PM 0.20 http: / /www.newport- beach. ca. us/ CouncilPolicies /A- 18ExhibitBSpecificLandUse.htm 7/20/2006 Page 3 of 7 418 National Monument Acre AM - No Peak PM 420Marina Berth AM 0.08 PM 0.19 430 Golf Course Acre AM 0.21 PM 0.30 431 Miniature Golf Course Holes AM No Peak PM 0.33 432Goif Driving Range Tees /Driving AM - No Peak Positions PM 1.25 435Multipurpose Recreational Facility Acre AM 1.92 PM 5.77 441 Live Theater Seats AM - No Peak PM 0.02 443 Movie Theater without Matinee 1000 sq ft GFA AM 0.22 PM 6.16 444 Movie Theater with Matinee 1000 sq ft GFA AM - No Peak PM 3.80 491 Tennis Courts Tennis Court AM 1.67 PM 3.88 492 Racquet Club Court AM 1.40 PM 3.85 493 Health Club 1000 sq ft GFA AM 0.30 PM 4.30 494 Bowling Alley Bowling Lanes AM 3.13 PM 3.54 495 Recreational Community Center 1000 sq ft GFA AM _ 1.32 PM 1.75 520 Elementary School Student AM 0.29 PM No Peak 521 Private School (K -12) 1000 sq ft GFA AM 3.54 PM 5.50 522 Middle Schoot(Junior High School 1000 sq ft GFA AM 3.68 PM 1.23 530 High School 1000 sq ft GFA AM 3.22 PM 1.02 http: / /www.newport- beach. ca. us /CouncilPolicies/A -18 ExhibitBSpecificLandUse.htm 7/20/2006 540 Junior /Community College 550 University/College 560 Church 561 Synagogue 565 Day Care Center 566 Cemetery 590 Library 591 Lodge/Fraternal Organization 610 Hospital 620 Nursing Home 630 Clinic 710 General Office Building 714 Corporate Headquarters Building 715 Single Tenant Office Building 720 Medical - Dental Office Building 730 Government Office Building 731 State Motor Vehicles Department 733 Government Office Complex Page 4 of 7 1000 sq it GFA AM 1.62 PM 1.77 Student AM 0.21 PM 0.21 1000 sq ft GFA AM 0.72 PM 0.66 1000 sq it GFA AM 0.33 PM 3.14 1000 sq ft GFA AM 12.71 PM 13.20 Acre AM 0.17 PM 0.84 1000 sq ft GFA AM 1.06 PM 7.09 Member AM 0.01 PM 0.03 1000 sq ft GFA AM 0.97 PM 0.92 1000 sq ft GFA AM 0.40 PM 0.36 1000 sq it GFA AM - No Peak PM 5.18 1000 sq ft GFA AM 1.56 PM 1.49 1000 sq ft GFA AM 1.47 PM 1.39 1000 sq ft GFA AM 1.78 PM 1.72 1000 sq ft GFA AM 2.43 PM 3.66 1000 sq ft GFA AM 5.88 PM - No Peak 1000 sq it GFA AM 9.84 PM 17.09 1000 sq ft GFA AM 2.25 PM 2.86 http: / /www.newport- beach. ca. us/ CouncilPolicies /A- 18ExhibitBSpecificLandUse.htm 7/20/2006 Page 5 of 7 750 Office Park 1000 sq It GFA AM 1.74 PM 1.50 760 Research and Development Center 1000 sq It GFA AM 1.24 PM 1.08 770 Business Park 1000 sq it GFA AM 1.43 PM 1.29 812 Building Materials and Lumber Store 1000 sq ft GFA AM 2.64 PM 4.04 813 Free - Standing Discount Superstore 1000 sq It GFA AM 1.84 PM 3.82 814 Specialty Retail Center 1000 sq it GLA AM - No Peak PM 2.59 815 Free - Standing Discount Store 1000 sq it GFA AM 0.99 PM 4.24 816 Hardware /Paint Store 1000 sq ft GFA AM 1.08 PM 4.42 817 Nursery (Garden Center) 1000 sq It GFA AM 1.31 PM 3.80 818 Nursery (Wholesale) 1000 sq it GFA AM 2.40 PM 5.17 820 Shopping Center 1000 sq it GLA AM 1.03 PM 3.74 831 Quality Restaurant 1000 sq It GFA AM 0.81 PM 7.49 832 High- Turnover (Sit -Down) Restaurant 1000 sq It GFA AM 9.27 PM 10.86 833 Fast -Food Rest. w/o Drive - Through Window 1000 sq It GFA AM 43.87 PM 26.15 834 Fast -Food Rest. w /Drive - Through Window 1000 sq it GFA AM 49.86 PM 33.48 835 Fast -Food Rest. w /Drive - Through Window & No Indoor Seating 1000 sq it GFA AM - No Peak PM 153.85 836 Drinking Place 1000 sq It GFA AM - No Peak PM 11.54 � 837Quick Lubrication Vehicle Shop Servicing Position AM 3.00 PM 5.19 http: / /www.newp6rt- beach. ca. us /Council Policies/ A- 18ExhibitBSpecificLandUse.htm 7/20/2006 Page 6 of 7 840Automobile Care Center 1000 sq ft Occ. GLA AM 2.94 PM 3.38 841 New Car Sales 1000 sq ft GFA AM 2.21 PM 2.80 843Automobile Parts Sales 1000 sq ft GFA AM 2.21 PM 5.98 844 Gasoline /Service Station Vehicle Fuel Position AM 12.27 PM 14.56 845 Gasoline /Service Station w/ Convenience Market 1000 sq ft GFA AM 0.04 PM 0.04 846 Gasoline/Service Staion w/ Convenience Market & Car Wash Vehicle Fuel Position AM 10.64 PM 13.19 847 Self-Service Car Wash Wash Stalls AM - No Peak PM 5.79 848Tire Store 1000 sq ft GFA AM 2.85 PM 4.12 850 Supermarket 1000 sq ft GFA AM 3.25 PM 11.51 851 Convenience Market (Open 24 Hours) 1000 sq ft GFA AM 65.39 PM 53.73 852 Convenience Market (Open 15 -16 Hours) 1000 sq ft GFA AM 31.02 PM 34.57 853 Convenience Market with Gasoline Pumps 1000 sq ft GFA AM 45.58 PM 60.61 854 Discount Supermarket 1000 sq ft GFA AM 1.72 PM 9.83 862 Home Improvement Superstore 1000 sq ft GFA AM 1.48 PM 2.87 863 Electronics Superstore 1000 sq ft GFA AM 0.28 PM 4.50 864Toy /Children's Superstore 1000 sq ft GFA AM - No Peak PM 4.99 870 Apparel Store 1000 sq ft GFA AM 1.00 PM 3.83 880 Pharmacy /Drugstore w/o Drive - Through Window 1000 sq ft GFA AM 3.20 PM 7.63 http: / /www.newport- beach. ca. us / Council Policies /A- 18ExiiibitBSpecificLandUse.htm 7/20/2006 881 Pharmacy /Drugstore w /Drive- Through Window 890 Furniture Store 895 Video Arcade 896 Video Rental Store 911 Walk -in Bank 912 Drive -in Bank Page 7 of 7 1000 sq ft GFA AM 2.66 PM 10.40 1000 sq ft GFA AM 0.17 PM 0.45 1000 sq It GFA AM - No Peak PM 10.64 1000 sq ft GFA AM - No Peak PM 13.60 1000 sq ft GFA AM 4.07 PM 33.15 1000 sq ft GFA AM 3.06 PM 9.37 http: / /www.newport- beach. ca. us /CouncilPolicies /A- 18ExhibitBSpecificLandUse.httn 7/20/2006 General Non - Residential Use Categories Commercial (Retail Service Commercial, Administrative Professional Financial and Recreational and Marine Commercial General Plan Industrial General Plan Public, Semi - Public, & Institutional Page 1 of 1 Unit Period Rate Commei 1000 sq ft GFA AM 3.00 PM 4.00 1000 sq It GFA AM 1.00 PM 1.00 1000 sq it GFA AM 1.50 PM 1.50 http: / /www.newport- beach. ca. us /CouncilPolicies /A -I SExhibitBGeneralNon- ResidentialUs... 7/20/2006 ATTACHMENT C SECTION 423 SUBAREA TRIP DIFFERENCES TPRLEB Setllnn43Malyal¢BS FPRTRAFFIC( . Fqq UCEBSVB ggEg3JVlYSA00j IA1 (B) (C) (B) IEj (F) (G) (N) (1) (1) (K) (L) (M) (N) (C) (P) (p) (R) •EmiadeCMtllWMlbn¢ U1Gn'.�¢LO90tlldq W]1 093 WO919EmN}ZJ TRY ]BTSIIBp_TRVLyj } pTµ TG OIiF mmm MR e�e�e ®eeeeeee ®eeeeeeee ©eases - u�."ir 2:.... �s'L"°1, -;�iu" J�a�C3+i�e::�{-^ew.e k- s1,K�'e �k h i`"E♦u T' �Ti'.£�i1;3� -,.L, niz`�€a -�,^3 rS ,iZ E'u.u�E'.w'iu eG,.^- 'S- -�-3r. r- *T - -`�� .>as�t;;,y5td..wu,�i"e ;�cae��;} k�x a"�J 4't'ii ':k"� ® .R'„x l.=i n�.A�ri' vm. n--��ssr>•: ,I�'i� -aRx s4 - -S e�"crca €?>w rci �r�'R e .siP s' 0. ® �o® mm© 000� ®inmmm ®�mmm ®o ®��mmm ®im ®�a:�. . .. ���m— ooBeomm�m��0000 ®�m�mmoo�® • � o000000nn— �00000000a0000 -• �_ :. ® ® ®om ©000 ®� ®�� ®���� —oo�aa _ ®�� ©mom •EmiadeCMtllWMlbn¢ U1Gn'.�¢LO90tlldq W]1 093 WO919EmN}ZJ TRY ]BTSIIBp_TRVLyj } pTµ TG OIiF Attachment 12 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN 2006 UPDATE Final Environmental Impact Report Errata SCH No. 2006011119 Prepared for City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915 Prepared by EIP Associates 12301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430 Los Angeles, California 90025 July 2006 III Chapter 8 (Introduction to the Final EIR) On pages 9 -3 to 9 -7, Table 8 -1 has been modified to correct the Lido Village data and associated totals for the subarea and citywide amounts for the EIR Project. Table 8 -1 is reproduced with corrections on the following pages. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR ..,, .- i s Erfcittl9 .� .. Ep4iing -i4rea "GP ER Project Airport • Residential: 4,300 • Densities: 30-50 units per acre average over Village area • Nonresidential: per existing GP 117,430 Balboa Village Core: Village • Mixed Use: FAR: 1.5 • Nonresidential: 0.25 to 0.75 Bay Frontage: • FAR: 0.5 to 1.25 Commercial Properties out of Village Core: • 13.4 to 20 du /acre • Reduces residential capacity by 2,100 units (leaving 2,200 total); of these 550 may be developed as inf II on parking lots; 1,650 must replace nonresidential entitlement • Nonresidential: no change 117,430 Minor modification of land use designation boundaries Village Core: • Mixed use: FAR 1.5; min. 0.35 to 0.5 for nonresidential and max. of 1.0 for residential. • Nonresidential: No change Bay Frontage: • FAR 0.75 Commercial Properties out of Village Core: No -11 0 19,981 20,849 19,858 -991 -123 Banning Priority for open space acquisition No change Ranch If not acquired: • 1,375 units subject to development plan if not acquired for open space • 75,000 of retail commercial •75 hotel units 22,075 14,296 14,296 0 -7,779 2 City f Newport wport Beach General Plan Update EIR OW WKIPJOCY 1, 1 p6rPCondCCHeadngs 'GP vs.'ks sci n Cannery Interior Parcels: Interior Parcels: No change Village • Mixed Use: FAR: 1.5 Bayfront Parcels: • Multi-Family: 20.1 to 26.7 du/acre -Mixed Use: FAR 1.5 Bayfront Parcels: • Nonresidential: FAR: 0.5 • Mixed Use: FAR: 1.5 to 2.0 • Nonresidential: FAR: 0.25 to 0.5 14,190 10,342 10,342 0 -3,848 Corona Retail and Service Uses: FAR: 0.5 to 0.75 Retail and Service Uses: No change Del Mar Existing institutional uses re-designated P1 with reduced FAR 54,431 Lido Harbor Frontage: Village • Mixed Use: FAR 1.5 to 2.0 • Nonresidential: 0.25 to 0.5 Interior Parcels: • Mixed Use: FAR 1.5 to 2.0 • Nonresidential: 0.25 to 0.75 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Harbor Frontage: • Residential: 20 du/acre • Mixed Use: FAR 1.5 Existing Sailing Club: • FAR 0.3 Interior Parcels: • Residential: 20 du /acre -4,985 157 m Mariners Mile Mc Fadden Square 0 8,490 E9 Wviecf Bay Fronting Properties: • Commercial: FAR 0.3 to 1.0 • Multi- Family Residential: 20.1 to 26.7 du/acre • Mixed Use: FAR 1.5 Inland side of Coast Highway(W of Rocky Point): • Commercial: FAR 0.5 to 0.75 • Multi - Family Residential: 20.1 to 26.7 du/acre • Mixed Use: FAR: 1.5 Inland side of Coast Highway (E of Rocky Point): • FAR: 0.3 to 0.5 • Mixed Use: FAR 1.5 to 2.0 • Nonresidential: FAR 0.25 to 0.5 12,988 k perrc. onacc neanngs Bay Fronting Properties: • Mixed Use: FAR 1.25 • Commercial: FAR 0.5 • Multi - Family Residential: 12 units per adjusted gross acre, with the number of units calculated based on a maximum of 50% of the property. Inland side of Coast Highway(W of Rocky Point): • Commercial or Office: No change • Multi- Family Residential: No change • Mixed Use: No change Inland side of Coast Highway (E of Rocky Point): • Mixed Use: FAR 1.25 • MnnmeiAcnfi.l• Nn A 47 I 1111 -7.795 -3,879 -3,629 +619 4 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR . , areo -: -GP EIRhgfq t Newport Mixed Use: Center/ • Office: Max 40,000 sf additional Fashion • Residential: Max 600 additional units Island • Hotel: Max: 125 additional rooms Regional Commercial: • Max addition of 425,000 sf of retail and supporting uses • 300,000 sf of retail capacity may transferred for office development Medical Office: • FAR: 0.35 to 1.25 Regional Office: . nmv an nnn of add{li [ 110,372 Old East Side of Old Newport Boulevard: Newport • Mixed Use: FAR 1.5 Blvd • Nonresidential: FAR: 0.25 to 0.75 • Residential: 13.4 to 20 du/acre West Side of Old Newport Boulevard: . Mizad I Im• PAP- 1 5 aerPC anUCC Headi as Mixed Use: • Office: addition is eliminated • Residential: Max 450 additional units • Hotel: Max 65 additional rooms Regional Commercial: • Max addition of 75,000 sf Medical Office: • FAR: 0.75 Regional Office:. • Addition eliminated Entire Area: • General Office: FAR 0.5 - 11,7751 -3,752 -5 West Western Entry Parcel: Western Entry Parcel: Newport • Residential: 20.1 to 26.7 dulacre • Residential: No change Hwy & Inland Parcels: Mix of commercial and housing Inland Parcels: No changes Adjoin. Residential Coastal Side of West Coast Highway: R -2 Coastal Side of West Coast Highway: No change 9,076 9,901 9,876 25 +800 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 5 , �.. .. ' 9 - 6 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 46,038 1 54,769 Recommended ReoWC6ons from EIR PINE West -3,406 Medical Office: Medical Office: Newport 450,697 • FAR 0.25 to 1.25 -Area increased Mesa Residential: • FAR 0.75 • 26.8 to 30 du/acre Residential: 486,094 486,094 General Commercial: • 18 dulacre of City • FAR 0.3 to 0.5 General Commercial: Neighborhood Commercial: • Area decreased 996,108 936,791 • FAR: 0.3 • FAR 0,75 Total Neighborhood Commercial: • No Change Existing institutional uses re- designated PI with reduced FAR 6 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR 46,038 1 54,769 42,632 - 12,137 -3,406 Subarea 477,180 510,014 450,697 - 59,317 - 26,483 Total Remainder 488,531 486,094 486,094 0 -2,437 of City Citywide 965,711 996,108 936,791 - 59,317 - 28,920 Total 6 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR G , <.nI -.-MR11 r.. Chapter 9 (Tent Changes) Errata Page 9 -11 did not identify the complete new text with double underline. It is shown below. Page 4.13 -52, Policy CE 3.1.5 has been amended as follows: Policy CE 3.1.5 Advocate for the implementation of needed regional Master Plan improvements, and be a strong advocate for construction of the 19th Street Bridge across the Santa Ana River. or alternative improvements that achieve, the same, improvements in regional traffic flQm without disproportionate impacts on Newport Beach consistent with all environmental review req ,ir m n . Page 9 -18 did not include the revised Figure 4.1 -3 (Coastal Views), as the change was identified on page 10 -102 in response to comment EQ -7. The revised Figure 4.1 -3, which shows MacArthur Boulevard as a Coastal View Road, is reprinted at the end of this errata document. Page 9 -17 did not correctly identify the purpose of Figure 4.1 -4. This has been revised below, as it was identified on page 10 -70 in response to comment B -4. In addition, Figure S2 from the General Plan Update has been added to the list of revised figures and is reprinted at the end of this errata document, as identified on page 10 -205 in response to comment SA -77. • New-Figure 4.1 -4 (Coastal Views —Map 4 of 4) has been added before page 4.1 -9 of Section 4.1 (Aesthetics and Visual Quality) to provide a fourth Coastal Views Man of the Newport Coast area. • Figure S2 Seismic Hazards of thr General Plan Update has been amended to idendfv a "faul disclosure zone " Chapter 10 (Response to Comments) Errata Page 10 -5 did not identify the complete new double - underlined text. It is shown below. Policy CE 3.1.5 Advocate for the implementation of needed regional Master Plan improvements, and be a strong advocate for construction of the 19th Street Bridge across the Santa Ana River, or olterl2tive improvements that achieve the same improvements in regional traffic flow, without dispronortonate impacts on Newport Beach_ ronsist nt with all environmental review requirements. Page 10 -53 did not show the last page of the City of Costa Mesa letter, as was referenced on page 10 -56 in responses to comments CM -7 and CM -8. The last page of the letter is reprinted on the following page. Page 10 -132 contains a correction to response to comment T -3, as shown below in double underline. A map and brief description of the Congestion Management Program (CMP) will be inserted at the end of Chapter 1. The Orange County CMP requires level of service E at CMP intersections. The City of Newport Beach standard meets or exceeds this requirement, so no further analysis is necessary. There are three CMP intersections in Newport Beach: MacArthur Boulevard (NS) at Jamboree Road (NS), MacArthur Boulevard (NSl t Coast Highway (EW) and Coast Highway (EW) at Newport Boulevard (NS). CMP roadway segments include SR -73 Freeway, SR -55 Freeway, Jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard, Newport Boulevard, and Coast Highway. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Name -d Beach Generd( Pion DER Appendix D Page: &1 19th Street Bridge: There is a brief discussion on the need for 191' Street bridge in order to avoid deficient operations at Superior Avenue/Coast Highway. The study should evaluate the feasibility of mitigation at this location in rotation to the bridge itself. The bridge would connect le Street in Costa Mesa to Banning Avenue in Huntington Beach. Both the Cities are opposed to the bridge. In addition, there are significant environmental and financial considerations that would tender the bridge 'Infeasible in the study timeframe. Therefore, a full analysis of General Plan should be conducted without the bridge, at least as an alternative to got a better understanding of the impacts. 3) The City recommends consistency between the General Plan Buildout network and the OCTA- Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH):. Appendix D Exhibit: 4-A The General Plan 'Buildout network should be consistent with Orange County Transportation Authority's (OCTA) Meister Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) for Bluff Road and West 17th Street. The MPAH shows the Bluff Road extending to WOWS Street and West 1 th Street extending westerly frorn Buff Road and connecting to Coast Highway This should be addressed in the study. • Appendix D Exhibit: 5.8 Several arterials in the OCTA MPAH were excluded from the analysis. This .should be addressed in the study. These include Bluff Road extension to Victoria Street and West 77th Street extension to Coast Highway. Appendix D Page: 6-2 Banning Ranch: The study mentions that "roadway segments through the property (Bluff Road and 15th Street) will not be constructed...0 The General Plan Update does not include Bluff Road extension to Victoria Street and extension of West 17" Street to connect to Coast Highway. These roadways are `part of OCTA MPAH and should be included. 1.1 Id WdLbczO qwE 80 'unL Wit? IISL. 7TL: TN xtld USE04 WiSM d0 A1I0: ,WMIJ Page 10 -143 contains a correction to response to comment N -7, as shown in double underline. N -7 This comment suggests including the requirement of a lighting plan and landscaping plan to mitigate potential impacts due to new sources of light and glare that would be created in the Banning Ranch subarea by new developments under the proposed General Plan. This would include the development of an active community park, which if developed with night lights, as stated as a potential option, could have potentially significant impacts. While the Draft FIR states that no feasible mitigation measures are available for implementation under the General Plan, state and local regulations are in place that would require environmental analysis of future development plans for Banning Ranch that would address potential night lighting impacts, light trespass, and obstruction of views from developed areas onto public viewpoints (e.g. natural resources). Planning for development of Banning Ranch pursuant to Policy LU 6.4.11 will require a separate project -level environmental impact analysis, which would address the impacts of nighttime lighting, light trespass, and impacts to views. It is not the intent of the General Plan to mitigate for all potential project -level impacts resulting from potential future development projects, as these will be addressed at the time development plans are submitted. But the Draft FIR must also not overlook the potential that environmental analysis of development in the future could find imnacta to views ngrentially As such, the language currently contained in the General Plan is sufficient to ensure, by requirement of a master development or specific plan for any development of Banning Ranch, full environmental impact analysis of any development of the property. This impact analysis would address potential impacts of light and glare that could be created by new development in the Banning Ranch subarea. Page 10 -191 contains a correction to response to comment SA -45, as shown in strikethrough. .SA -45 Bluffs would be preserved through proposed General Plan Update Policies LU 6.5.4 and NR 10.10 . These policies provide more specificity and policy guidance to assist the decision - makers to ensure that development would be designed to preserve coastal bluffs. While Policy LU 6.5.4 is identified on page 4.1 -31, Policy NR 10.10 is added to the FIR discussion on page 4.1 26, after the second paragraph as noted below and as shown in Chapter 9 (Text Changes) in the Final FIR. Note that the policy has been revised since publication of the.Draft FIR, and those changes are also identified here: Pages 10 -207 and 10 -208 contain a correction to response to comment SA -100, as shown in strikethrough and double underline. SA -100 As discussed in the description of the watersheds on pages 4.7 -2 to 4.7 -3, the Planning Area is part of four watersheds which consist of 158 acres — square milea of land. The EIR contains a discussion regarding the cumulative impacts of development within the watersheds on water quality on page 4.7 -42. In addition, Section 5.2 (Hydrology and Water Quality) of the TBR provide more information regarding the watersheds. The discussion is qualitative rather than quantitative by necessity. It would be unreasonable to quantify and describe all other new development anticipated in the 158 acres as arm ee it L,of watershed, given the number of jurisdictions and the geographic scope of the watershed. New development would include urban infill and new development typical of Orange County, with residential, commercial, and various other projects. Also note that Page 4.7 -45 of the Draft FIR, Policy NR 3.6 (formerly NR 3.7) has been revised to indicate: City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR .,Errafr'�, Page 10 -210 contains a correction to response to comment SA -105, as shown in strikethrough and double underline. SA -105 As discussed response to comment SA -100, the Planning Area is part of four watersheds which consist of 158 aeres— .c_slnaw mjlec of land. The Draft EIR contains a discussion regarding the cumulative impacts of development within the watersheds on water quality on page 4.7 -42. Section 5.2 (Hydrology and Water Quality) of the TBR provides more information regarding the watersheds. The discussion is qualitative rather than quantitative by necessity. It would be unreasonable to quantify and describe all other new development anticipated in the 158 scseo-cn,.,� �a ±P mifgs of watershed, given the number of jurisdictions and the geographic scope of the watershed. New development would include urban infill and new development typical of Orange County, with residential, commercial, and various other projects. While specific detail is not included in this EIR, given the types of projects anticipated and the types of impacts that could occur, an accurate assessment of cumulative impacts is provided. On page 10 -178, the last page of the comment letter has been corrected to show the bracketing of comment 180. The letter page is reprinted on the following page. To City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Conclusion As currently presented, the DEIR is thoroughly flawed in almost every facet imaginable and utterly fails to fulfill the purposes of CEQA. The document is so fundamentally and basically 180 inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded and the document must be revised and recirculated in accordance with Section 15088.5(a)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines. We look forward to reviewing additional documentation as it becomes available. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Yours Truly, Sandra L. Genis Page 27 of 27 WA %e I I \2 Z t CITY of NEWPORT BEACH �'� A GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EIR Figure 4.1 -3 COASTAL VIEWS MAP 3 OF 4 (HARBOR AREA) r Legend � Public View Point r\� Coastal View Road d .•' '. "... Coastal Zone Boundary �+ .. City Boundary °ed Shoreline Height Z\ Limitation Zone _ . Proposed Park Public Beach or Park I \2 Z t Attachment July 21, 2006 Ms. Sharon Wood CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 Subject: Newport Beach General Plan Update Irvine Supplemental Analysis Dear Ms. Clauson: Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to submit this letter report to the City of Newport Beach summarizing our supplemental analysis regarding the potential impacts of the Newport Beach General Plan update on the City of Irvine. This letter presents the results of our intersection operations analysis for existing conditions, no project conditions, and with project conditions consistent with the description of these scenarios previously presented in the traffic study report dated March 22, 2006. Traffic conditions at the following intersections have been evaluated: Red Hill Avenue (NS) at: • Main Street (EW) MacArthur Boulevard (NS) at: • Main Street (EW) • 1-405 Northbound Ramps (EW) • 1 -405 Southbound Ramps (EW) • Michelson Drive (EW) Ms. Sharon Wood CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH. July 21, 2006 Page 2 Von Karman Avenue (NS) at: • Main Street (EW) • Michelson Drive (EW) Jamboree Road (NS) at: • Main Street (EW) • 1-405 Northbound Ramps (EW) • .1405 Southbound Ramps (EW) • Michelson Drive (EW) Campus Drive (NS) at: • University Drive (EW) Harvard Avenue (NS) at: • Main Street (EW) • Michelson Drive (EW) • University Drive (EW) EXISTING CONDITIONS Existing traffic count data has been compiled / collected and is included as Attachment A to this document. Existing field conditions were inventoried by Urban Crossroads, Inc. staff specifically for this project. The traffic volume and geometric data have been used to evaluate existing peak hour traffic operations at the various analysis intersections. The resulting peak hour operations are summarized on Table 1. As shown on Table 1 most of the intersections being analyzed experience LOS "E" or better (acceptable) traffic operations. The only intersections that do not experience acceptable operations are: Von Karman Avenue (NS) at: • Michelson Drive (EW) Ms. Sharon Wood CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 21, 2006 Page 3 Jamboree Road (NS) at: • Main Street (EW). The detailed intersection capacity utilization (ICU) worksheets are included as Attachment B to this letter report. FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS Future without Project traffic conditions have been evaluated based on the model results previously documented in the Newport Beach General Plan Update Traffic Stud v (Urban Crossroads, Inc., March, 2006). Additional data has been extracted from the model to evaluate conditions at the supplemental intersection analysis locations. The model data has been refined using the same procedures documented for intersections located within the City of Newport Beach. These procedures are consistent with the procedures applied by the City of Irvine in their own traffic model; however, differences in input data, including the level of detail of the traffic analysis zone structure and input data are expected, particularly north of the 1 -405 Freeway. Table 2 summarizes the results of the peak hour intersection operations analysis for Future Without Project conditions. As shown on Table 2, the following intersections are expected to experience deficient peak hour intersection operations, if no improvements are constructed: Red Hill Avenue (NS) at: • Main Street (EW) MacArthur Boulevard (NS) at: • Main Street (EW) • 1 -405 Southbound Ramps (EW) • Michelson Drive (EW) Ms. Sharon Wood CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 21, 2006 Page 4 Von Karman Avenue (NS) at: • Main Street (EW) • Michelson Drive (EW) Jamboree Road (NS) at: • Main Street (EW) • 1-405 Northbound Ramps (EW) 1-405 Southbound Ramps (EW) • Michelson Drive (EW) Campus Drive (NS) at: • University Drive (EW) Harvard Avenue (NS) at: • Michelson Drive (EW) All of the study area intersections are projected to experience acceptable traffic operations if the improvements identified on Table 2 are implemented. All of the improvements consist of turn lanes, with the exception of a third southbound through lane that will be required at the intersection of Red Hill Avenue (NS) at Main Street (EW). The peak hour traffic operations worksheets for Future Without Project conditions both without and with improvements are included as Attachment C to this letter report. FUTURE WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS Future with Project traffic conditions have been evaluated based on the model results previously documented in the Newport Beach General Plan Update Traffic Stud v (Urban Crossroads, Inc., March, 2006). Additional data has again been extracted from the model to evaluate conditions at the supplemental intersection analysis locations. Table 3 Ms. Sharon Wood CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 21, 2006 Page 5 summarizes the results of the peak hour intersection operations analysis for Future With Project conditions. Attachment D includes the Future With Project peak hour traffic operations (ICU) worksheets both without and with improvements. The same intersections previously identified as experiencing deficient traffic operations for Future Without Project conditions would again experience deficient peak hour operations, assuming that no intersection improvements (additional lanes, etc.) are constructed beyond the existing condition. The same improvements previously identified for the Without Project scenario would also be required for the With Project scenario to achieve acceptable peak hour traffic operations. SUMMARY AND CLOSING Based on the supplemental analysis summarized in this letter report, no additional impacts have been identified for With Project conditions compared to Without Project conditions. This is consistent with the findings made in the draft environmental impact report (DEIR) and the response to comments provided in the final environmental impact report (FEIR). Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to provide this analysis for your use. Please feel free to call me at (949) 660 1994 x210 if you have any questions regarding this analysis. Respectfully submitted, URBAN CROSSROADS, INC. Carle %n Waters, P. E. Principal CW:cg JN:04109 -02 Attachments TABLE 1 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS ' When a right turn Is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstdped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; > = Overlap; >> = Free Right TS = Traffic Signal U:1 UcProposalsl_ 941001041091Excel l[Summades.xls]T1 INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES NORTH- SOUTH - EAST- WEST- ICONTROL21L LEVEL OF TRAFFIC BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND ICU SERVICE INTERSECTION T R L T R L T R L T R I AM I PM AM PM Red Hill Av. (NS) at: • Main St. (EW) TS 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 3 0 2 3 0 0.62 0.87 B D MacArthur BI. (NS) at: • Main St. (EW) TS 2 4 1>> 2 4 1 1 3 1> 2 3 1>> 0.59 0.92 A E • 11105 NB Ramps (EW) TS 0 4 2 2 -4 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0.73 0.58 C A • 1-405 SB Ramps (EW) TS 0 4 1> 2 4 1 0 0 0 2 1 1>> 0.62 0.74 B C • Michelson Dr. EW TS 1 4 1 2 4 0 2 2 0 2 1 1> 0.70 0.80 B C Von Karmen Av. (NS) al: • Main St. (EW) TS 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 0 1165 0.74 B C • Michelson Dr. (EW) TS 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 1>> 0.69 1.04 B F Jamboree Rd. (NS) al: • Main SL (EW) TS 2 4 1>> 2 4 1> 2 3 1>> 2 3 1>> 0.85 1.02 D F • 1-405 NB Ramps (EW) TS 0 3 1>> 0 4 2>> 0 0 0 3 0 1>> 0.84 0.86 D D • 1-405 SB Ramps (EW) TS 0 3 2>> 0 4 1>> 1.5 0 2.5 0 0 0 0.86 0.93 D E • Michelson Dr. EW TS 1 4 1 2 4 1>> 2 2 0 2 2 1>> 0.61 0.84 B D Campus Dr. (NS) at: • University Dr. EW TS 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 0.64 0.84 B D Harvard Av. (NS) at: • Main St. (EW) TS 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 0.53 0.59 A A 0.88 • Michelson Dr. (EW) TS 1 2 0 1 2 1 2 2 1>> 1 1 1 0.80 D C • University Dr. (EW) TS 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 0.66 0.57 B A ' When a right turn Is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstdped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; > = Overlap; >> = Free Right TS = Traffic Signal U:1 UcProposalsl_ 941001041091Excel l[Summades.xls]T1 TABLE 2 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT When a right turn Is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. L = Leg; T = Through; R = Right; > = Overlap; >> = Free Right; I= Improvement TS =Traffic Signal U;1 UcProposalsl _041001041091Excell[Su mmaries.xlsjT2 INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WEST- LEVEL OF TRAFFIC BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND ICU SERVICE INTERSECTION CONTROLZ L T R L T R I L T R I L T R I AM PM I AM PM Red Hill Av. (NS) at: • Main St. (EW) TS 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 3 0 2 3 0 1.08 1.44 F F -with improvements TS 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 3 0 2 3 1 0.91 0.96 E E MacArthur Ell. (NS) at: • Main St. (EW) TS 2 4 1>> 2 4 1 1 3 1> 2 3 1>> 0.85 1.38 D F -with improvements TS 3 4 1>> 2 4 1 1 3 2> 2 3 1>> 0.70 0.94 B E • 1 -405 NB Ramps (EW) TS 0 4 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0.96 0.73 E C • 1 -405 SB Ramps (EW) TS 0 4 1> 2 -4 1 0 0 0 2 1 1>> 0.71 0.93 C E • Michelson Dr. (EW) TS 1 4 1 2 4 0 2 2 0 2 1 1> 0.90 1.01 D F -with improvements TS 1 4 1 2 4 0 2 2 0 2 1 2> 0.90 0.72 D C Von Karmen Av. (NS) at: • Main St. (EW) TS 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 0 0.93 1.45 E F -with improvements TS 2 2 1 2 2 1 3 3 1 2 3 2> 0.85 1.00 D E • Michelson Dr. (EW) TS 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 1» 1.09 1.67 F F -with improvements TS 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 1>> 0.77 0.95 C I E Jamboree Rd. (NS) at: • Main St. (EW) TS 2 4 1>> 2 4 1> 2 3 1>> 2 3 1>> 0.91 1.09 E F -with improvements TS 2 4 1>> 2 4 1> 2 3 1>> 3 3 1>> 0.86 0.99 D E • 1-405 NB Ramps (EW) TS 0 3 1>> 0 4 2>> 0 0 0 3 0 1>> 0.96 0.96 E E • 1 -405 SB Ramps (EW) TS 0 3 2>> 0 4 1>> 1.5 0. 2.5 0 0 0 1.07 1.05 F F -with improvements TS 0 3 2>> 0 4 1>> 226 0 2.5 0 0 0 0.97 0.91 • Michelson Dr. (EW) TS 1 4 1 2 4 1>> 2 2 0 2 2 1>> 0.93 1.17 E F -with improvements TS 2 4 2 2 4 1>> 2 3 0 2 2 1>> 0.79 0.97 C E Campus Dr. (NS) at: • University Dr. (EW) TS 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1.14 1.19 F F -with improvements TS 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 3 2> 0.85 0.93 D E Harvard Av. (NS) at: • Main St. (EW) TS 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 0.63 0.79 B C • Michelson Dr. (EW) TS 1 2 0 1 2 1 2 2 1>> 1 1 1 1.23 0.98 F E -with improvements TS 1 2 0 1 2 2 2 2 1>> 1 1 1 0.94 0.98 E E • University Dr. EW TS 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 0.80 0.69 C B When a right turn Is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. L = Leg; T = Through; R = Right; > = Overlap; >> = Free Right; I= Improvement TS =Traffic Signal U;1 UcProposalsl _041001041091Excell[Su mmaries.xlsjT2 TABLE 3 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT ' When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; > = Overlap; >> = Free Right; I= Improvement TS =Traffic Signal U9UoProposalsl_ 04100 \0410inExcell[Summarles.xls]T3 INTERSECTION APPROACH L LANES NORTH- - - S SOUTH- E EAST- W WEST- L ICONTROL 2 LEVEL OF TRAFFIC B BOUND B BOUND B BOUND B BOUND I ICU S SERVICE INTERSECTION I 2 L L T T R R L L T T R R L L T T R R L L T T R R A AM P PM A AM P PM Red Hill Av. (NS) at: • Main St. (EW) T TS 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 3 0 0 2 2 3 3 0 0 1 1.04 1 1.46 F F F F -with improvements T TS 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 0 0 2 2 3 3 1 1 0 0.92 0 0.99 E E E E MacArthur BI. (NS) at: - • Main St. (EW) T TS 2 2 4 4 1 1>> 2 2 4 4 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 1> 2 2 3 3 1 1>> 0 0.86 1 1.37 D D F F -with improvements T TS 3 3 4 4 1 1>> 2 2 4 4 1 1 1 1 3 3 2 2> 2 2 3 3 1 1>> 0 0.71 0 0.93 C C E E • I-405 NB Ramps (EW) T TS 0 0 4 4 2 2 2 2 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 2 0 0.99 0 0.75 E E C C • I-405 SB Ramps (EW) T TS 0 0 4 4 1 1> 2 2 4 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 1 1 1>> 0 0.69 0 0.89 B B D D • Michelson Dr. (EW) T TS 1 1 4 4 1 1 2 2 4 4 0 0 2 2 2 2 0 0 2 2 1 1 1 1> 0 0.91 1 1.02 E E F F -with improvements T TS 1 1 4 4 1 1 2 2 4 4 0 0 2 2 2 2 0 0 2 2 1 1 2 2> 0 0.91 0 0.72 E E C C Von Karmen Av. (NS) at: • Main St. (EW) T TS 2 2 2 2. 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 3 3 1 1 2 2 3 3 0 0 0 0.93 1 1.46 E E F F -with improvements T TS 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 1 2 2 3 3 2 2> 0 0.84 1 1.00 D D E E • Michelson Dr. (EW) T TS 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 2 2 0 0 1 1 2 2 1 1» 1 1.08 1 1.72 F F F F -with improvements T TS 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 0 0 1 1 2 2 1 1>> 0 0.77 0 0.97 C C E E Jamboree Rd. (NS) at: • Main St. (EW) T TS 2 2 4 4 1 1>> 2 2 4 4 1 1> 2 2 3 3 1 1>> 2 2 3 3 1 1>> 0 0.91 1 1.10 E E F F -with improvements T TS 2 2 4 4 1 1>> 2 2 4 4 1 1> 2 2 3 3 1 1>> 3 3 3 3 1 1>> 0 0.85 1 1.00 D D E E • 1-405 NB Ramps (EW) T TS 0 0 3 3 1 1>> 0 0 4 4 2 2>> 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 1 1>> 0 0.97 0 0.95 E E E E • 1-405 SB Ramps (EW) T TS 0 0 3 3 2 2>> 0 0 4 4 1 1>> 1 1.5 0 0 2 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.06 1 1.06 F F F F -with improvements T TS 0 0 3 3 2 2>> 0 0 4 4 1 1>> 2 2.5 0 0 2 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.95 0 0.92 E E E E • Michelson Dr. (EW) T TS 1 1 4 4 1 1. 2 2 4 4 1 1>> 2 2 2 2 0 0 2 2 2 2 1 1>> 0 0.91 1 1.18 E E F F -with improvements T TS 2 2 4 4 2 2 2 2 4 4 1 1>> 2 2 3 3 0 0 2 2 2 2 1 1>> 0 0.79 0 0.98 C C E E Campus Dr. (NS) at: _ _ • University Dr. (EW) T TS 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 1.17 1 1.22 F F I F F -with im rovements T TS 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 3 2 2> 0 0.86 0 0.94 D D E E Harvard Av. (NS) at: • Main St. (EW) T TS 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 3 3 1 1 2 2 3 3 1 1 0 0.63 0 0.78 B B C C • Michelson Dr. (EW) T TS 1 1 2 2 0 0 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1>> 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.20 0 0.98 F F E E -with improvements T TS 1 1 2 2 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1>> 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0.93 0 0.98 E E E E • University Dr. (EW) T TS 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 0 0.79 0 0.69 C C B B When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; > = Overlap; >> = Free Right; I= Improvement TS =Traffic Signal U9UoProposalsl_ 04100 \0410inExcell[Summarles.xls]T3 FROM :CITY OF COSTA MgSR I FAX NO. :714 754 4856 Jul. 20 2006 03:27PM P2 July 20, 2006 Mr. Gregg B. Senior Plann City of Newp PO Box 176E Newport Bea SUBJECT: Dear Mr. R We have rep General Plan projected trip current Gene required for tl direction, or Boulevard, Iry We wish to c( land use and recognize the( Study and ext completed, ar Newport Bead Beach CA Plan. are that Please forward this consideration durinc Sincerely, MICHAEL Attachment 14 ITY OF COSTA MESA BOX 1200 • 77 FAIR DRIVE • CALIFORNIA 92020 -1200 SERVICES DEPARTMENT 5 TO COMMENTS, GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EIR Response to Comments document prepared for the City's R and note that the revised proposed General Plan reduces to a level that 1:3 below the projected trip generation for the We respectfully request that if additional traffic analysis is Plan update due to further project modification, City Council umstances, that Costa Mesa's intersections on Newport , and Superior Avenue be included in the traffic study. to collaborate and cooperate with the City of Newport Beach on ort tfon issues that affect both of our cities. Furthermore, we en Jing regional traffic studies, such as the deletion of the SARX of he SR -55 that affect multiple jurisdictions that have yet to be these studies will analyze impacts to both Costa Mesa's and en I Plans. cc: Donald D. Lamm, Peter Naghavi, Tr �I Building Division (714)1 FAX to both your Planning Commission and City Councif for their deliberations on the General Plan update. r_1Cy;J Director City Mgr., Dev. Svs. Director )tion Services Mgr. $7.73 • Cade Enfomemarl (714) 754.5023 • Planning DlWslon (714) 754.5246 Y64d88 • TOD (714) 7645244 vxw.ri.CM1a- mass.ce.us Attachment 15 RESOLUTION NO. 2006- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH. NO. 2006011119) FOR THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN 2006 UPDATE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND STATE AND LOCAL GUIDELINES, MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS THERETO AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, did on the 25th day of July, 2006, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider: (1) the certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), (2) the adoption of certain findings and determinations and adopt statement of overriding considerations; and WHEREAS, the Planninw Commission of the City of Newport Beach, California, did on the 6t ", and 20th days of April, the 4t and 18th days of May and the 1St, 15th and 22 "d of June„ did hold duly noticed public hearings and carefully reviewed and considered the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach did, on the 13th and 20th day of July, 2006, hold duly noticed public hearings on the Final EIR, the comments thereon, and the responses to those comments. On July 20th, the Planning Commission considered the draft Findings of Fact and the draft Statement of Overriding Considerations; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 20th day of July, 2006, adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council certify the EIR prepared for the City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update, including the Findings of Fact and the Statement of Overriding Considerations; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and duly considered the recommendation of the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the EIR has been prepared and circulated for public review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. ( "CEQA "); and WHEREAS, it was determined pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code of Regs. sections 15000 et seq.) that the Project could have a significant effect on the environment, and thus warranted the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report ( "EIR "); and WHEREAS, on January 20, 2006, the City of Newport Beach, as lead agency under CEQA, prepared a Notice of Preparation ( "NOP ") of the EIR; mailed that NOP to public agencies, organizations, and persons likely to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed Project; and thereafter held a public scoping meeting to gather public and agency comments concerning the preparation of the EIR; and WHEREAS, the City thereafter caused to be prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report ( "DEIR "), which, taking into account the comments it received on the NOP, described the Project and discussed the environmental impacts resulting therefrom, and on April 21, 2006, circulated the DEIR for public and agency comments; and WHEREAS, the public comment period closed on June 5, 2006, and was subsequently extended until June 13, 2006; and WHEREAS, staff of the City of Newport Beach has reviewed the comments received on the draft EIR, has prepared full and complete responses thereto, and on July 11, 2006 distributed the responses in accordance with Public Resources Code section 21092.5; and WHEREAS, a combined Final Environmental Impact Report (collectively, "FEIR ") for the Project was presented to the City Council, as the decision making body of the lead agency, for certification as having been completed in compliance with the provisions of CEQA and State and local guidelines implementing CEQA; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information and the comments pertaining to the DEIR and FEIR at a duly noticed meeting held on the 25th day of July, 2006; and WHEREAS, the City Council has read and considered all environmental documentation comprising the FEIR, including the comments and the responses to comments, and has found that the FEIR considers all potentially significant environmental impacts of the proposed project and is complete and adequate, and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA and of the State and local CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, prior to action on this Project, the City Council has considered all significant impacts and Project alternatives identified in the FEIR and has found that all potentially significant impacts of the Project have been lessened or avoided to the extent feasible; and WHEREAS, CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines provide that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed and which identifies one or more significant effects of the project unless the public agency makes written findings for each of the significant effects, accompanied by a statement of facts supporting each finding; and WHEREAS, CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines require, where the decision of the City Council allows the occurrence of significant environmental effects which are identified in the EIR, but are not mitigated, the City Council must state in writing the reasons to support its action based on the FEIR and /or other information in the record; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the Project is necessary to serve the existing and future needs of the City of Newport Beach. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: SECTION 1. Certification. Based on its review and consideration of the FEIR, all written communications and oral testimony regarding the Project which have been submitted to and received by the City Council, the City Council certifies that the FEIR for the Project has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the State and local CEQA Guidelines. The City Council, having final approval authority over the Project, adopts and certifies as complete and adequate the FEIR, which reflects the City Council's independent judgment and analysis. The City Council further certifies that the FEIR was presented to the City Council and that the City Council reviewed and considered the information contained in it prior to approving the Project. SECTION 2. CEQA Finding and Statement of Facts. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15091, the City Council has reviewed and hereby adopts the CEQA Finding and Statement of Facts as shown on the attached Exhibit "A" entitled "CEQA Finding and Statement of Facts," which exhibit is incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 3. Statement of Overriding Considerations. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15093, the City Council has reviewed and hereby makes the Statement of Overriding Considerations to adverse environmental impacts, attached also as Exhibit "A" entitled "Statement of Overriding Considerations," which exhibit is incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 4. Location and Custodian of Record of Proceedings. The City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, located at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92263, is hereby designated as the custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council's decision is based, which documents and materials shall be available for public inspection and copying in accordance with the provisions of the California Public Records Act (California Government Code Section 6250 et seq.). SECTION 6. Notice of Determination. The Community Development Director shall cause the filing of a notice of determination with the County Clerk of the County of Orange and with the state Office of Planning and Research within five working days of this approval. SECTION 6. Certification, Posting and Filing. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, and the City Clerk shall certify to the vote adopting this resolution and shall cause a certified copy of this resolution to be filed. The City Clerk shall post the resolution in three conspicuous places in the City of Newport Beach. ADOPTED this 25th day of July 2006 MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK EXHIBIT "A" CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN 2006 UPDATE Findings of Fact/ Statement of Overriding Considerations Prepared for City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915 Prepared by EIP Associates 12301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430 Los Angeles, California 90025 July 2006 CHAPTER1 Introduction ............................................................................... ............................1 -1 CHAPTER2 CEQA Findings .......................................................................... ............................2 -1 2.1 Introduction ......................................................................................... ............................2 -1 CHAPTER3 Findings Regarding Project Alternatives ................................... ............................3 -1 3.1 Introduction ..::..................................................................................... ............................3 -1 3.2 Project Objectives .............................................................................. ...........................3 -11 3.3 Selection of Alternatives ..................................................................... ............................3 -3 3.4 Project Alternative Findings ............................................................. ...........................3 -23 CHAPTp.R 4 Statement of Overriding Considerations ................................... ............................4 -1 4.1 Introduction ......................................................................................... ............................4 -1 4.2 Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts ....................................... ............................4 -1 4.3 Findings ................................................................................................. ............................4 -3 4.4 Overriding Considerations ................................................................. ............................4 -3 Table Table2 -1 CEQA Findings ............................................................................................ ............................2 -2 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Findings of Fact /Statement of Overriding Considerations ifi This document presents the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations that must be adopted by the City of Newport Beach (City) pursuant to the requirements of Sections 15091 and 15093, respectively, of the California Environmental Quaky Act Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines) prior to the approval of the City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update (proposed project). This document is organized as follows: Chapter 1 Introduction to the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations. Chapter 2 Presents the CEQA Findings of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), including the identified significant impacts. Chapter 3 Presents the alternatives to the proposed project and evaluates them in relation to the findings contained in Section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. The City must consider and make findings regarding alternatives when a project would involve environmental impacts that cannot be reduced to a less - than - significant level, or cannot be substantially reduced, by proposed mitigation measures. Chapter 4 Presents a Statement of Overriding Considerations that is required in accordance with Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines for significant impacts of the proposed project that cannot be mitigated to a less - than - significant level. As noted in Chapter 8 of the Final EIR, since publication of the Draft EIR, the City Council and Planning Commission have conducted eighteen public hearings each to discuss the proposed General Plan Update. As a result of this public's input during this process and to lessen the environmental impacts identified in the EIR, the City Council has directed City staff to make changes to the proposed General Plan Update that would reduce the Project's land use intensities and add circulation system improvements to reduce traffic impacts. In addition, the Council has made policy additions and other revisions to reduce environmental impacts. These changes are discussed in Chapters 8 and 9 of the Final EIR, with land use density and intensity reductions and resulting reductions in average daily trip generation shown on Table 8 -1, and policy additions and revisions in response to DEIR comments shown in Chapter 9, Text Changes. In addition, two circulation system improvements have been added to the Circulation Element: a second left tam lane at Riverside Drive and Coast Highway, and an additional right turn lane and through lane at Campus Drive and Bristol Street. These improvements decrease the number of intersections that would operate at a level of service worse than "D," and allow the Circulation Element policy to establish LOS D as the City's standard for two additional intersections. These Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations reflect the reductions and changes to the project that the Planning Commission and City Council have indicated should be incorporated into the proposed General Plan prior to its adoption. All recommended reductions, revisions and policy modifications to the proposed General Plan Update that occurred after the issuance of the Draft FIR are within the scope of impacts analyzed in the EIR and would eliminate or reduce the severity of environmental impacts, rather than result in an increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Draft City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Findings of Fact /Statement of Overriding Considerations 1 -1 EIR. As such, recirculation of the EIR is not required, in accordance with Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. 1 -2 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Findings of Fact /Statement of Overriding Considerations 2.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter presents the potential impacts that were identified in the EIR and the findings that are required in accordance with Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines. The possible findings for each significant and /or potentially significant adverse impact are as follows: (a) Changes or alterations have been requited in, or incorporated into the project which avoid, substantially lessen, or reduce the magnitude of the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR ("Finding 1"). (b) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the findings. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. ("Finding 2 ") (c) Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives in the EIR ("Finding Y). Table 2 -1 (CEQA Findings) summarizes the significant unavoidable impacts of the General Plan Update, as currently proposed for adoption. - Additional facts that support the findings are set forth in the Draft EIR, the Final EIR, the staff report to the City Council, and the record of proceedings. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Findings of Fact /Statement of Overriding Considerations 2 -1 Ch`apte %2CEQAzFindm9s " :'? Aesthetics and Visual Qw Impact 4.1.3 New sources of light If Banning Ranch is not acquired for open space, and glare would be created in the the introduction of residential and commercial Banning Ranch subarea by new development would introduce new sources of developments under the nighttime lighting, which could affect existing proposed General Plan Update. adjacent land uses and the sensitive habitat areas within the site. Air Quality Impact 4.2.1 Implementation of The proposed General Plan Update would be the proposed General Plan consistent with the 2003 AQMP in the reduction Update would conflict with or of vehide miles traveled, but the DEIR found that obstruct implementation of the Air the project would be inconsistent with the 2003 Quality Management Plan. AQMP because buildout of the proposed project would result in population levels above those uses in the 2003 AQMP. With the reductions in the project the City Council is considering for adoption, the population at buildout of the General Plan would be 94,060, less than the SCAG projection of 94,167 and therefore fully included in the AQMP. Finding Nos. 1' and 3. No feasible mitigation is available. However, General Plan policies that address this significant environmental effect to the extent feasible were developed and incorporated into the project. Specifically, Policy LU 5.5.3 requires that outdoor lighting be located and designed to prevent spillover onto adjoining properties or significantly increase the overall ambient illumination of their location. In addition, Policy LU 5.1.1 requires the establishment of development regulations that insure compatibility of residential development with other land uses. Policies such as LU 6.1.3 and 6.2.5 allow for the integration of uses to be designed specifically to assure development compatibility by addressing issues such as lighting. Policy 6.4.11 was revised in response to DEIR comments to require exterior lighting guidelines. However, as stated in the EIR, these policies are not sufficient to reduce the impact to a less -than- significant level. Banning Ranch is currently developed only with low- intensity oil drilling and related uses.. If the area is ultimately developed, the introduction of new sources of lighting alone would present a significant impact to the Aesthetics and Visual Quality of the Banning Ranch area. Therefore, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable. Finding Nos. 1. Two measurement tools are available to determine whether a project would be in conformance with the AQMP: consistency with applicable assumptions used in the development of the AQMP; and a minimization of vehicle miles traveled within the project area and the surrounding areas. General Plan policies that address this significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR were developed and incorporated into the project. For example, Policy NR6.1, NR6.2, and NR6.3 would reduce vehicle trips through land use planning through mixed -use development or siting of amenities in proximity to residential or employment areas. Policy NR6.4 and NR6.5 would promote Transportation Demand Management programs, which encourage the use of alternative transportation modes, and coordination with transit agencies to promote mass transit use. These planning policies serve to encourage the use of transit, reduce the number of vehicle trips and miles traveled, and create further opportunities for residents and employees of the City to walk and bike to work or shop. The reduced project that the City Council is considering for adoption is consistent with the 2003 AQMP, and therefore this impact is not significant. 2-2 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Findings of Fact /Statement of Overriding Considerations Impact 4.2.2 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would result in construction emissions that would contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. SCAQMD recommended thresholds are established for individual development projects. Because it is assumed that some of the projects that would occur under the proposed General Plan Update could individually exceed the SCAQMD thresholds, the total amount of construction within the Planning Area under the proposed General Plan Update could also exceed the SCAQMD's recommended thresholds of significance. Finding Nos. 1 and 3. No feasible mitigation is available. General Plan policies that address this significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR were developed and incorporated into the project. Specifically, General Plan policy NR 8.1 would help reduce construction- related impacts by reducing air pollutant emissions from construction activities. These policies call for the maintenance of construction equipment, the use of non - polluting and non -toxic building equipment, and minimizing fugitive dust. However, these policies identified in the EIR and incorporated in the proposed General Plan are not sufficient to reduce the total emissions generated by new uses within the City to levels that are less than the SCAQMD's recommended thresholds of significance for construction of individual development projects. There are no additional mitigation measures available. Therefore, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable. Impact 4.2.3 Implementation of Because it is not possible to quantity the exact Finding Nos. 1 and 3. the proposed General Plan reduction in emission that would be provided by No feasible mitigation is available. General Plan policies that address this significant Update would result in a General Plan policies, development under the environmental effect as identified in the EIR were developed and incorporated into the project. cumulatively considerable net General Plan may not meet the performance Specifically, policies that are aimed at air pollution reduction are included in the Natural increase of criteria pollutants for standard for annual emissions reductions. Resources chapter. Policies under Goal NR6 would reduce mobile source emissions through the which the region is in reduction of vehicle travel, cleaner vehicles, and promotion of alternative transportation. Policies nonattainment under an under Goal NR7 would reduce emissions from stationary sources by promoting best management applicable national or State practices and efficiency to minimize pollution, incentives for new technologies, and discouraging ambient air quality standard. the use of blowers by the City and private users. Policies under Goal NR9 would reduce air pollution emissions from aircraft associated with John Wayne Airport. It can be reasonably assumed from the CEQA Air Quality Handbook data that the policies would reduce the potential emissions that would otherwise be generated within the City by at least one percent on an annual basis. However, it is not possible to quantity the exact reduction in emissions that would be provided by these policies. No additional mitigation is considered feasible to reduce this impact to a less -than- significant level. Therefore, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Findings of Fact /Statement of Overriding Considerations 2 -3 Chapter 2 CEQA'1indings Cultural Resources Impact 4.4.1 Development under Implementation of the General Plan Update the proposed General Plan would minimize the probability of demolition of Update would result in the historic resources, but would not prevent the demolition of historic structures. ultimate demolition of such resources. Finding Nos. 1 "and 3. No feasible mitigation is available. General Plan policies that address this significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR were developed and incorporated into the project. Specifically, Policies HR1.1 through HR1.5 require that the Historical Resources Inventory be maintained and updated, encourage the preservation and adaptive reuse of historic structures, promote the placement of historical landmarks throughout the City, encourage adaptive reuse, and mandate the incorporation of historical elements in new redevelopment projects. Policy HR1.6 would reduce this impact by requiring the developers of a property containing a historic resource to retain a qualified consultant to record the structure in accordance with the U.S. Secretary of Interior Guidelines, and HR1.7 would require the developer of a project that would demolish a historic structure to offer the structure for relocation, which could result in the preservation of the structure. However, these policies would not ensure that historic resources would not be demolished. No additional mitigation is considered feasible to reduce this impact; thus, this is considered a significant and unavoidable impact. 2-4 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Findings of Fact /Statement of Overriding Considerations :( k Chgpfer 2, CEQA,FrncJrngs." Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact 4.6 -7 Should residenfial The DER found that the opportunity for the Finding No. 1. development be constructed development of new residential neighborhoods General Plan policies that address this significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. within the 65 dBA CNEL noise within the 65 dBA CNEL contour for JWA could were developed and incorporated into the project. Specifically, policies S8.1 through S8.4 would contour, implementation of the proposed General Plan Update represent a potential hazard to future employees and residents within this area and a significant ensure preparation and minimize risk in the case of an aviation accident. Additionally, the could result in a safety hazard for environmental impact. The reduced General California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook would be utilized in the preparation of people residing or working in the Plan that the City Council is considering for environmental documents for all new development projects located within the AELUP boundaries. Planning Area as a result of the adoption does not permit any residential LU Policy 6.15.24 requires that all development be constructed within the height limits and proximity of a public airport. development within the 65 dBA CNEL contour, residential uses be located outside of areas exposed to the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour specified and includes new policies requiring ALUC review by the AELUP. With these policies, and the changes and additional policies in the proposed of buildings higher than 200 feet above ground General Plan, this impact is less than significant. level (LU 3.8), conformance of all development in the Airport Area with FAA and Caltrans height limits (LU 6.15.3), evaluation of land use compatibility in areas impacted by JWA operations (S 8.7) and requires the City to consider avigation easements when noise sensitive uses are proposed in the JWA planning area (N3.3). Land Use and Planning Impact 4.8.1 Should residential The DER found that, if residential development Finding No. 1. development be constructed within the 65 dBA CNEL noise were allowed within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour, exposing residents to exterior noise With changes to the proposed General Plan which eliminates the potential for residential contour, implementation of the levels of 65 dBA or greater and daily aircraft development within the 65 dBA CNEL contour, this impact is less than significant. proposed General Plan Update overflight, land use conflicts could occur. The could involve new uses and reduced General Plan that the City Council is structures that may result in considering for adoption does not permit any intensification of development residenfial development within the 65 dBA CNEL within the Planning Area that contour. creates incompatibilities with adjacent land uses. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Findings of Fact /Statement of Overriding Considerations 2.5 Ch`apte %2CEQAzFindm9s " :'? Aesthetics and Visual Qw Impact 4.1.3 New sources of light If Banning Ranch is not acquired for open space, and glare would be created in the the introduction of residential and commercial Banning Ranch subarea by new development would introduce new sources of developments under the nighttime lighting, which could affect existing proposed General Plan Update. adjacent land uses and the sensitive habitat areas within the site. Air Quality Impact 4.2.1 Implementation of The proposed General Plan Update would be the proposed General Plan consistent with the 2003 AQMP in the reduction Update would conflict with or of vehide miles traveled, but the DEIR found that obstruct implementation of the Air the project would be inconsistent with the 2003 Quality Management Plan. AQMP because buildout of the proposed project would result in population levels above those uses in the 2003 AQMP. With the reductions in the project the City Council is considering for adoption, the population at buildout of the General Plan would be 94,060, less than the SCAG projection of 94,167 and therefore fully included in the AQMP. Finding Nos. 1' and 3. No feasible mitigation is available. However, General Plan policies that address this significant environmental effect to the extent feasible were developed and incorporated into the project. Specifically, Policy LU 5.5.3 requires that outdoor lighting be located and designed to prevent spillover onto adjoining properties or significantly increase the overall ambient illumination of their location. In addition, Policy LU 5.1.1 requires the establishment of development regulations that insure compatibility of residential development with other land uses. Policies such as LU 6.1.3 and 6.2.5 allow for the integration of uses to be designed specifically to assure development compatibility by addressing issues such as lighting. Policy 6.4.11 was revised in response to DEIR comments to require exterior lighting guidelines. However, as stated in the EIR, these policies are not sufficient to reduce the impact to a less -than- significant level. Banning Ranch is currently developed only with low- intensity oil drilling and related uses.. If the area is ultimately developed, the introduction of new sources of lighting alone would present a significant impact to the Aesthetics and Visual Quality of the Banning Ranch area. Therefore, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable. Finding Nos. 1. Two measurement tools are available to determine whether a project would be in conformance with the AQMP: consistency with applicable assumptions used in the development of the AQMP; and a minimization of vehicle miles traveled within the project area and the surrounding areas. General Plan policies that address this significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR were developed and incorporated into the project. For example, Policy NR6.1, NR6.2, and NR6.3 would reduce vehicle trips through land use planning through mixed -use development or siting of amenities in proximity to residential or employment areas. Policy NR6.4 and NR6.5 would promote Transportation Demand Management programs, which encourage the use of alternative transportation modes, and coordination with transit agencies to promote mass transit use. These planning policies serve to encourage the use of transit, reduce the number of vehicle trips and miles traveled, and create further opportunities for residents and employees of the City to walk and bike to work or shop. The reduced project that the City Council is considering for adoption is consistent with the 2003 AQMP, and therefore this impact is not significant. 2-2 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Findings of Fact /Statement of Overriding Considerations Impact 4.2.2 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would result in construction emissions that would contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. SCAQMD recommended thresholds are established for individual development projects. Because it is assumed that some of the projects that would occur under the proposed General Plan Update could individually exceed the SCAQMD thresholds, the total amount of construction within the Planning Area under the proposed General Plan Update could also exceed the SCAQMD's recommended thresholds of significance. Finding Nos. 1 and 3. No feasible mitigation is available. General Plan policies that address this significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR were developed and incorporated into the project. Specifically, General Plan policy NR 8.1 would help reduce construction- related impacts by reducing air pollutant emissions from construction activities. These policies call for the maintenance of construction equipment, the use of non - polluting and non -toxic building equipment, and minimizing fugitive dust. However, these policies identified in the EIR and incorporated in the proposed General Plan are not sufficient to reduce the total emissions generated by new uses within the City to levels that are less than the SCAQMD's recommended thresholds of significance for construction of individual development projects. There are no additional mitigation measures available. Therefore, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable. Impact 4.2.3 Implementation of Because it is not possible to quantity the exact Finding Nos. 1 and 3. the proposed General Plan reduction in emission that would be provided by No feasible mitigation is available. General Plan policies that address this significant Update would result in a General Plan policies, development under the environmental effect as identified in the EIR were developed and incorporated into the project. cumulatively considerable net General Plan may not meet the performance Specifically, policies that are aimed at air pollution reduction are included in the Natural increase of criteria pollutants for standard for annual emissions reductions. Resources chapter. Policies under Goal NR6 would reduce mobile source emissions through the which the region is in reduction of vehicle travel, cleaner vehicles, and promotion of alternative transportation. Policies nonattainment under an under Goal NR7 would reduce emissions from stationary sources by promoting best management applicable national or State practices and efficiency to minimize pollution, incentives for new technologies, and discouraging ambient air quality standard. the use of blowers by the City and private users. Policies under Goal NR9 would reduce air pollution emissions from aircraft associated with John Wayne Airport. It can be reasonably assumed from the CEQA Air Quality Handbook data that the policies would reduce the potential emissions that would otherwise be generated within the City by at least one percent on an annual basis. However, it is not possible to quantity the exact reduction in emissions that would be provided by these policies. No additional mitigation is considered feasible to reduce this impact to a less -than- significant level. Therefore, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Findings of Fact /Statement of Overriding Considerations 2 -3 Chapter 2 CEQA'1indings Cultural Resources Impact 4.4.1 Development under Implementation of the General Plan Update the proposed General Plan would minimize the probability of demolition of Update would result in the historic resources, but would not prevent the demolition of historic structures. ultimate demolition of such resources. Finding Nos. 1 "and 3. No feasible mitigation is available. General Plan policies that address this significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR were developed and incorporated into the project. Specifically, Policies HR1.1 through HR1.5 require that the Historical Resources Inventory be maintained and updated, encourage the preservation and adaptive reuse of historic structures, promote the placement of historical landmarks throughout the City, encourage adaptive reuse, and mandate the incorporation of historical elements in new redevelopment projects. Policy HR1.6 would reduce this impact by requiring the developers of a property containing a historic resource to retain a qualified consultant to record the structure in accordance with the U.S. Secretary of Interior Guidelines, and HR1.7 would require the developer of a project that would demolish a historic structure to offer the structure for relocation, which could result in the preservation of the structure. However, these policies would not ensure that historic resources would not be demolished. No additional mitigation is considered feasible to reduce this impact; thus, this is considered a significant and unavoidable impact. 2-4 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Findings of Fact /Statement of Overriding Considerations Chapter' 2` CEQA:Fhdin9s , ,'.S ge Noise Impact 4.9.1 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would generate or expose persons to ambient noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Noise levels in excess of standards established by the City could occur where schools, libraries, health care facilities, and residential uses within the City are, and will continue to be, exposed to exterior noise levels that exceed the City's standard of 65 dBA CNEL. The areas with the greatest potential for this to occur are those roadway segments where the 65 dBA CNEL noise contours extend beyond the roadway right- Finding Nos. 1' and 3. No feasible mitigation is available. General Plan policies that address this significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR were developed and incorporated into the project. Specifically, policies associated with Goals N1 and N2 would reduce noise impacts to future land uses, but would do little to remediate noise effects on existing land uses. No additional mitigation is considered feasible to reduce this impact; thus, this is considered a significant and unavoidable impact. Impact 4.9.2 Implementation of Construction activities that would occur under Finding No. 3. the proposed General Plan the proposed General Plan Update would have No feasible mitigation is available. The only mitigation that could eliminate the vibration impact is Update would expose persons to the potential to generate groundbome vibration. ensuring a distance of approximately 150 feet between construction and existing sensitive vibration levels generated during Construction activities will occur at discrete receptors. Since it is not feasible to prohibit construction within 150 feet of all existing sensitive construction activities that would locations in the City and vibration from such receptors, there is no feasible mitigation available to reduce this impact. Thus, this is considered a exceed 72 vibration decibels activity may impact existing buildings and their significant and unavoidable impact. (VdB). occupants if they are located close enough to the construction sites. Impact 4.9.3 Implementation of Under the proposed General Plan Update, the proposed General Plan development within the City limits would Update would result in substantial increase and result in a subsequent increase in permanent increases in traffic- traffic volumes, which would result in increased related ambient noise levels. ambient noise levels in the vicinity of each roadway segment. Finding Nos. 1 and 3. No feasible mitigation is available. General Plan policies that address this significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR were developed and incorporated into the project. Specifically, Policy N2.2— Design of Sensitive Land Uses or Policy N2.6— Barrier Construction Funding, would mostly influence noise impacts on new receptors. Existing receptors cannot easily be redesigned to provide greater noise attenuation, and it is not always feasible to construct barriers between existing development and roadways. Therefore, along select roadway segments, a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels would result and no additional feasible mitigation is available to reduce this impact. Thus, this is considered a significant and unavoidable 2 -6 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Findings of Fact /Statement of Overriding Considerations za aj a r r ...:Cj�aP_fer,2 CEp Fmtlmg §= Impact 4.9.5 Implementation of The DER found that, if residences are allowed Finding No. 1. the proposed General Plan within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour, exterior With changes to the proposed General Plan that the City Council has directed, which eliminates Update would expose sensitive noise would exceed allowable noise levels for the potential for residential development within the 65 dBA CNEL contour, this impact is less than receptors in proximity to the John residential areas. The reduced General Plan that significant. Wayne Airport to excessive noise the City Council is considering for adoption does levels. not permit any residential development within the 65 dBA CNEL contour and Impact 4.10.1 Implementation of This increase in residential units and the Finding Nos.1 and 3. the proposed General Plan associated increase in population in the project No feasible mitigation is available. The residential portion of buildout under the General Plan Update would induce substantial as analyzed in the DER would increase Update, as reduced by the City Council, would substantially increase population growth within the growth in an area, either directly population by 43% over the 2002 number, and City, the population projection at buildout of the General Plan but would be slightly less than or indirectly. exceed current SCAG projections. The reduced current SCAG projections for 2030. While policies are included in the resource sections that project being considered for adoption by the City analyze the direct impacts of population growth, there are no mitigation measures to reduce the Council would increase population by 30%. This substantial increase in growth in and of itself. In reducing the number of dwelling units from the would still be a significant impact, but the revised originally proposed project, the City Council has reduced this impact somewhat. No additional population projection would be slightly less than mitigation is considered feasible to reduce this impact; thus, this is considered a significant and the SCAG projection. unavoidable impact. Impact 4.13 -2 Implementation of The increases in traffic volumes, resulting from Finding No. 2. the proposed General Plan increased development and population that Even with anticipated regional improvements, three segments, in addition to one existing deficient Update would contribute to a would occur under the proposed General Plan, segment, would be deficient under the General Plan buildout scenario. Although the General Plan substantial increase in deficient would result in a greater number of freeway Update alone would not cause any freeway segment to become deficient, development would freeway segments and ramps. segments and ramps operating with traffic contribute to a significant cumulative impact since needed improvements exceed the current volumes in excess of their capacity. maximum planned improvements. Mainline freeway operations can also be affected by ramp operational problems; eight ramps would experience operational deficiencies under the General Plan. Measures to reduce impacts to freeway segments and ramps would need to be implemented through Caltrans. Implementation of such mitigation is outside the jurisdiction of the City. Therefore, although feasible mitigation may be available to reduce impacts, it cannot be guaranteed that such measures would be implemented. As such, no feasible mitigation is available to the City to reduce impacts to freeway ramps and segments. Thus, this is considered a significant and unavoidable impact. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Findings of Fact /Statement of Overriding Considerations 2 -7 3.1 INTRODUCTION The EIR prepared for the Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update considered four alternatives to the proposed project. Pursuant to Section 15126.6(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, the primary intent of an alternatives evaluation is to "describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives." This chapter describes the project objectives and design criteria used to develop and evaluate project alternatives presented in the Draft EIR. A description of the alternatives compared to the proposed project and the findings regarding the feasibility of adopting the described alternatives is presented for use by the City in the decision- making process. 3.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES The project seeks to achieve the following objectives, many of which were identified by the community during the extensive public outreach and participation process, as expressed in the Visioning Statement developed by the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) and approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council: Preserve and enhance Newport Beach's character as a beautiful, unique residential community. • Reflect a conservative growth strategy that: > Balances needs for housing, jobs and services > Limits land use changes to a very small amount of the City's land area > Directs land use changes to areas where residents have expressed a willingness to consider change and where sustainable development can occur > Protects natural resources, open space, and recreational opportunities • Protect and enhance water quality. • Protect and enhance recreational opportunities and public access to open space and natural resources. • Modify land uses, densities, and intensities so that traffic generation is controlled. • Improve traffic flow without changing the character of the City. • Preserve and enhance parks, art, cultural and educational facilities and programs that contribute to residents' quality of life. • Ensure the City has adequate municipal revenue to provide first rate municipal services, such as police, fire, lifeguard, library, recreation, refuse collection and recycling, and infrastructure maintenance. • Attract visitors to Newport Beach's harbor, beaches, hotels, restaurants, and shops with as little impact as possible on residents and natural resources. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Findings of Fact /Statement of Overriding Considerations 3 -1 • Encourage revitalization of older and economically challenged commercial areas so that the areas continue to be community resources and have a positive impact on the value of nearby property and the local economy. • Maintain Newport Harbor as one of the premier small boat recreational boating harbors in the world, while causing little or no impact on the environment. • Control and contain noise and traffic impacts from operations at John Wayne Airport to protect the residents' quality of life and property values. • Modify the Land Use Element and other elements to reflect changes in the law and planning practices that have occurred in the 17 years since the last comprehensive amendments were approved. • Provide effective means to ensure compliance with Section 423 of the City Charter. 3.3 SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES The range of feasible alternatives was selected and discussed in a manner to foster meaningful public participation and informed decision - making. Among the factors that were taken into account when considering the feasibility of alternatives (as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[£][1]) were environmental impacts, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and attainment of project objectives. As stated in Section 15126.6(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR need not consider an alternative whose effects could not be reasonably identified, whose implementation is remote or speculative, or one that would not achieve the basic project objectives. The analysis includes sufficient information about each alternative to provide meaningful evaluation, analysis and comparison with the proposed project. 3.4 PROJECT ALTERNATIVE FINDINGS The following is a description of the alternatives evaluated in comparison to the proposed project, as well as a description of the specific economic, social, or other considerations that make them infeasible for avoiding or lessening the impacts. The City finds that the adoption of any of the alternatives to the project is infeasible. The reasons for each finding are provided following the description of the alternative, and are further described in the Draft EIR. As shown below and in Chapter 5 (Alternatives) of the Draft EIR, four alternatives, including the No Project /No Development alternative, were evaluated in comparison to the proposed project. The environmental advantages and disadvantages of each of these alternatives are described. The alternatives that were selected for analysis include: • Alternative 1: No Project /No Development —With this alternative, development under the proposed General Plan Update would not occur. The Planning Area would remain developed with existing land uses and intensities. • Alternative 2: No Project /No Action (Existing General Plan) —With this alternative, development under the proposed General Plan Update would not occur. Development would be guided by the existing General Plan. • Alternative 3: GPAC Recommendations With this alternative, development would be guided by a General Plan consisting of the land use recommendations formulated by the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC), which would generally result in less development. 3 -2 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Findings of Fact /Statement of Overriding Considerations ■ Alternative 4: Subarea Only Minimum —With this alternative, development would be guided by a General Plan consisting of land uses resulting in the lowest density of all the alternatives (except the existing General Plan) studied during the preparation of the General Plan Update. This alternative would result in the least amount of new development, when considered against the other action alternatives. Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Evaluation As stated previously, Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines sets forth the requirement to consider and discuss a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project. The alternatives to be discussed must be both reasonable and feasible. During the public review period of the Draft EIR, an additional alternative, irrespective of those analyzed in the Draft EIR, was suggested. Specifically, a number of potential improvements that were intended to reduce congestion along East Coast Highway in Corona del Mar were proposed. These suggestions were responded to in the Final EIR, Response to Comments in responses R1 -3. Additionally these have all previously been suggested to the City Council and discussed at previous City Council meetings. During these deliberations, the City Council received analysis and testimony by both the Director of Public Works and the City Traffic Engineer outlining the costs, difficulties in design and construction, lack of available right -of -way and the implications to the residential and commercial interests in Corona del Mar. Testimony was also received from the Corona del Mar Business Improvement District and the Corona del Mar Residents Association in opposition to these suggestion. Based on all this information and public comment, the City Council concluded that the suggestions were either physically infeasible, to implement, or would result in serious economic and social implications which were unacceptable to the City, including adverse impacts to the businesses along Coast Highway and the community's and City goal to support and enhance the pedestrian orientation of the area. For these reasons, these suggestions were not added to alternatives under consideration in the Environmental Impact Report. Alternative 1: No Project /No Development Alternative The No Project /No Development Alternative would prohibit all new development, restricting urban growth to its current extent. This alternative assumes that no additional development and growth within the Planning Area would occur. The population would remain at existing levels of approximately 83,120 residents, and no construction of additional dwelling units or non - residential building area would occur. No alterations to the City would occur (with the exception of previously- approved development) and all existing facilities including residential development and commercial and industrial uses would generally remain in their current condition. Some minor population growth could occur within the City, to the extent that existing residential units or units that have already been approved could accommodate additional residents. None of the impacts of the proposed General Plan Update would result. Future conditions within the City, except for the impacts of regional growth, would generally be the same as existing conditions, which were described in the environmental setting section for each environmental topic. It should be noted that implementation of this alternative would not result in the construction of transportation improvements identified in the proposed project. Regional traffic growth would still occur, resulting in the potential for traffic impacts that would otherwise be mitigated by the proposed project. Notwithstanding this effect, this alternative would result in less severe impacts than under the proposed project. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Findings of Fact /Statement of Overriding Considerations 3 -3 Findings The City hereby finds that the No Project /No Development Alternative is infeasible for the following environmental, economic, social, and other considerations: • Adequate housing would not be provided to meet the City's obligations to provide its fair share of regional population and housing growth per SCAG and the RHNA. The Housing Element could not be implemented, or would have to be amended in a manner that probably would not be certified by the State Department of Housing and Community Development. • Jobs /housing balance, which helps to locate residents closer to their jobs, would not improve. • Street intersection improvements, which would mitigate increases in traffic congestion resulting from regional and local growth, would have to be funded from sources other than developer contributions, and might not be implemented. • Acreage of the City's parklands, in the western portion of the City and on Banning Ranch, would not increase. • Economic vitality or physical quality of Balboa Village, Mariners' Mile, Lido Village, West Newport Highway, Cannery Village, or Mc Fadden Square would not improve. • Due to the absence of policy, protection of the City's water quality, biological resources, visual resources, and other important natural resources would not be assured. • Municipal revenue increases related to land use would be limited to allowable annual increases in property tax, transfer of real property, and any sales increases that could be accommodated within existing commercial space. ■ Opportunities for participation by the City's residents in arts and cultural activities would not increase. • The City could not legally implement this alternative since it would require the City to stop all future development. This is beyond the City's legal ability. Alternative 2: No Project /No Action Alternative (Existing General Plan) Implementation of the No Project /No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) would result in development within the Planning Area that would not meet all of the project objectives established for the proposed General Plan Update for the City of Newport Beach. The No Project /No Action Alternative represents the continuation of the City's existing General Plan to guide future growth and development within the City. For this alternative, impacts would be analyzed under a maximum buildout scenario within the City with the allowed land uses and approved transportation improvements that are designated in the City's existing General Plan. Compared with the proposed project, the overall development potential in the City under this alternative would generally be reduced for some land use types, but would be increased for other types. The existing General Plan allows more square feet of office space, commercial and industrial land uses than the proposed General Plan Update, while the proposed General Plan Update would allow more residential, visitor - serving commercial (hotel /motel), institutional and park land uses than the existing General Plan. This alternative is considered environmentally superior in certain issue areas (per the CEQA Guidelines) but would also result in potentially greater environmental impacts than the proposed project in other areas. For example, and as shown in Chapter 5 of the Draft EIR, Alternative 2 would result in potentially greater environmental impacts than the proposed project with respect to: 3.4 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Findings of Fact /Statement of Overriding Considerations • Aesthetics —Due to a lack of community character and neighborhood protection policies, as well as the potential for more intense development of Banning Ranch, without an open space option, impacts would be potentially greater. • Biological Resources —Due to the potential for more intense development of Banning Ranch, without an open space option, impacts would be potentially greater. • Recreation and Open Space —The overall amount of land designated for parks and active open space under this alternative would be less than the proposed project, thereby increasing the potential use and subsequent degradation of those facilities /opportunities both within and surrounding the City. • Transportation —This alternative does not include the same degree of intersection improvements as the proposed General Plan Update, and would result in more intersections operating at LOS E or F. Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in lesser environmental impacts than the proposed project with respect to Land Use and Planning, Noise, Population and Housing, and Public Services due to the lesser level of development and /or changes to existing land uses that would occur within the City. Impacts with respect to Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Utilities and Service Systems would result in impacts similar to the proposed project under this alternative. Findings The City hereby fords that the No Project /No Action Alternative (Existing General Plan) is infeasible for the following environmental, economic, social, and other considerations: • While it provides adequate housing supply to meet the City's obligations to provide its fair share of regional population and housing growth per SCAG and the RHNA to 2008, it is unlikely that there would be sufficient capacity for the 20 year time frame of the updated General Plan. • Jobs /housing balance, which helps to locate residents closer to their jobs, would not improve. • Development that is reflective of the intended scale of the City's neighborhoods and districts (due to the absence of policy) would not be assured. • No differentiation would occur between the scale and character of the City's commercial districts, including those that would be pedestrian- oriented (due to the absence of policy). • Street intersection improvements, which would mitigate increases in traffic congestion resulting from regional and local growth, would have to be funded from sources other than developer contributions, and might not be implemented. • Acreage of the City's parklands, in the western portion of the City and on Banning Ranch, would not increase. • Economic vitality or physical quality of Balboa Village, Mariners' Mile, Lido Village, West Newport Highway, Cannery Village, or Mc Fadden Square would be less likely to improve without the potential for residential use. • Due to the absence of policy, protection of the City's water quality, biological resources, visual resources, and other important natural resources would not be assured. • Opportunities for participation by the City's residents in arts and cultural activities would not increase. ■ The City's General Plan would remain out of date and out of compliance with changes in State law. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Findings of Fact /Statement of Overriding Considerations 3 -5 ■ The City would continue to be considered a "non- conforming agency" by the Airport Land Use Commission. ■ This Alternative would not be consistent with the recently certified Coastal Land Use Plan. Alternative 3: GPAC Recommendations This alternative would result in less commercial and industrial development than the proposed General Plan Update. In addition, mixed use along Old Newport Boulevard and Balboa Peninsula would be less than under the proposed General Plan Update, and there would also be a somewhat different mix of uses in Balboa Village. Outside the subareas, potential residential density would be reduced in Lido Isle, Balboa Island and West Newport. This alternative would still increase development citywide, when compared to existing conditions. Policies within the proposed General Plan Update would still be adopted, except those related to residential development in the Airport Area. Implementation of the GPAC Recommendations Alternative (Alternative 3) would result in development within the Planning Area that would generally meet the project objectives established for the proposed General Plan Update for the City of Newport Beach. Under this alternative, the potential environmental impacts due to implementation of GPAC recommendations would increase measurably with respect to Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The alternative would result in greater industrial and fewer commercial uses compared to the proposed project. As such, impacts related to the routine transport, use, or disposal, as well as those related to reasonably foreseeable upset conditions, would be greater than the proposed project as a result of more frequent use of hazardous materials. Impacts with respect to Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology /Mineral Resources, Hydrology and Water Quality, Public Services, Recreation and Open Space, Transportation, and Utilities and Service Systems would be less than the proposed project, while impacts related to Aesthetics, Land Use and Planning, Noise, and Population and Housing would be similar in nature and scale to the proposed General Plan Update. Findings The City hereby finds that the GPAC Recommendations Alternative is infeasible for the following environmental, economic, social, and other considerations: ■ This alternative would generate at least 30,431 more average daily trips than the reduced project being considered by the City Council for approval. ■ This alternative would allow residential development in the 65 dBA CNEL contour for John Wayne Airport, resulting in significant unavoidable impacts from the exposure of sensitive land uses to hazards and noise. IN Alternative 4: Subarea Only Minimum Under the Subarea Only Minimum Alternative (Alternative 4), new development would be less than the proposed General Plan Update. In addition, the amount of new development would be reduced when compared to development allowed under the existing General Plan and under Alternative 3, the GPAC Recommendations. Specifically, under this alternative, residential land uses would be less than the proposed project in the Airport Area, Balboa Peninsula, West Newport Mesa, Balboa Village, and Old 3 -6 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Findings of Fact /Statement of Overriding Considerations Newport Boulevard. No residential development would occur in Banning Ranch. Office uses would be less in West Newport Mesa, Newport Center /Fashion Island, and Old Newport Boulevard (where no office uses are proposed). Commercial uses would be less in Newport Center /Fashion Island, Airport Area, Balboa Peninsula, West Newport Highway, Old Newport Boulevard, and Banning Ranch (where no commercial uses are proposed). Industrial uses are proposed in West Newport Mesa, but at a level significantly below the proposed project, while industrial uses in the Airport Area would be greater than under the proposed project. Finally, institutional uses would be the same or less under this alternative for all areas where such uses are proposed under the proposed project. Policies within the proposed General Plan Update would still be adopted. No potential environmental impacts resulting from the implementation of this alternative would be greater, in terms of level of significance, than the proposed project. The Subarea Only Minimum Alternative (Alternative 4) is considered to be the environmentally superior alternative. Findings The City hereby fords that the Subarea Only Minimum Alternative is infeasible for the following environmental, economic, social, and other considerations: • Economic vitality or physical quality of Balboa Village, Mariners' Mile, Lido Village, West Newport Highway, Cannery Village, or Mc Fadden Square would be less likely to improve without the potential for residential development. • Generation of municipal revenue to provide municipal services would be less than under the proposed project. • Jobs /housing balance would not be improved as much as under the proposed project. Reduced Project As noted in Chapter 1 of this document and in Chapter 8 of the Final EIR, since publication of the Draft EIR, the City Council and Planning Commission have conducted eighteen public hearings to discuss the proposed General Plan Update. As a result of this public involvement process and the information provided in the EIR, the City Council has directed changes to the proposed General Plan Update that would reduce the Project's land use intensities and add circulation system improvements to reduce traffic impacts. In addition, the Council has made policy additions and revisions to reduce environmental impacts. For the most part, these changes are discussed in Chapters 8 and 9 of the Final EIR, with land use density and intensity reductions and resulting reductions in average daily trip generation shown on Table 8 -1, and policy additions and revisions in response to DEIR comments shown in Chapter 9, Text Changes. Land use density and intensity changes include reduction of residential development in the Airport Area of 2,100 units (and restriction of residential development to areas outside the John Wayne Airport 65 dBA CNEL contour); reduction of residential density in Lido Village, Mariners' Mile and West Newport Mesa; reduction of floor area ratios in Balboa Village, Cannery Village, Corona del Mar, Lido Village, Mariners' Mile, McFadden Square, Old Newport Boulevard, West Newport Mesa, and Westchff Drive; and the following reductions in Newport Center: 150 residential units, 40,000 square feet of office development, 50,000 square feet of retail development, and 60 hotel rooms. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Findings of Fact /Statement of Overriding Considerations 3 -7 Ctiaptei3 Firidings Re "garding= Project AlfernatiSe's',' „ + ' In addition, two circulation system improvements have been added to the Circulation Element: a second left turn lane at Riverside Avenue and Coast Highway, and an additional right turn lane and through lane at Campus Drive and Bristol Street. These improvements decrease the number of intersections that would operate at a level of service worse than "D," (from 10 to 8) and allow the Circulation Element policy to establish LOS D as the City's standard for two additional intersections. These reductions and changes in the project avoid or reduce the magnitude of the following significant environmental impacts, as discussed in greater detail in Chapter 2, CEQA Findings: • Aesthetics and Visual Quality Impact 4.1 -3 will be lessened by the addition of requirements for exterior lighting guidelines for Banning Ranch • Air Quality Impact 4.2 -1 will be reduced to a less than significant level because the projected population at buildout of the reduced project General Plan will be less than the SCAG projection. • Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact 4.6 -7 will be reduced to a less than significant level because residential development will not be permitted within the JWA 65 dBA CNEL contour. • Land Use and Planning Impact 4.8 -1 will be reduced to a less than significant level because residential development will not be permitted within the JWA 65 dBA CNEL contour. • Noise Impact 4.9 -5 will be reduced to a less than significant level because residential development will not be permitted within the JWA 65 dBA CNEL contour. • Population and Housing Impact 4.10 -1 will be lessened because the projected population at buildout of the seduced project General Plan will be less than the SCAG projection. Findings The City finds that it is the intent of the City Council to approve the Reduced Project described above, including all reductions and revisions to the General Plan to reduce environmental impacts, as described above. 3 -8 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Findings of Fact /Statement of Overriding Considerations " 4.1 INTRODUCTION Section 15093 of the CEQA guidelines states: (a) CEQA requires the decision - making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable." (b) When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reason to support its actions based on the final EIR and /or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (c) If an agency makes -a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. The City of Newport Beach (City) proposes to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding the potential unavoidable significant impacts of the proposed project. This section describes the anticipated economic, social, and other benefits or other considerations of the proposed project to support the decision to proceed with the project even though all of the identified impacts are not mitigated to a less - than- significant level. 4.2 UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS The City is proposing to approve the proposed project, with reductions and revisions to reduce environmental impacts, and has prepared an FIR requited by CEQA. Even with reductions and revisions in the project, the following impacts are unavoidable because it has been determined that no feasible mitigation is available. Refer to Chapter 2 (CEQA Findings) for further clarification regarding the impacts listed below. Aesthetics Impact 4.1 -3 If development ultimately occurs in Banning Ranch, the proposed project would result in increased light effects caused by new development. Cumulative development, in conjunction with the proposed project, would result in significant unavoidable impacts related to new sources of nighttime lighting within the Banning Ranch Area. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Findings of Fact /Statement of Overriding Considerations 4 -1 Air Qualify Impact 4.2 -2 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would result in construction emissions that would contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Impact 4.2 -3 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the region is in nonattainment under an applicable national or State ambient air quality standard. Cumulatively, the proposed project would also have significant and unavoidable impacts with regards to the above - mentioned impacts. Cultural Impact 4.4 -1 Development under the proposed General Plan Update would result in the demolition of historic structures. Cumulatively, the proposed project would also have a significant and unavoidable impact with regards to the above - mentioned impact. Noise Impact 4.9 -1 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would generate or expose persons to ambient noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Impact 4.9 -2 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would expose persons to vibration levels generated during construction activities that would exceed 72 VdB. Impact 4.9 -3 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would result in substantial permanent increases in traffic - related ambient noise levels. Population and Housing Impact 4.10 -1 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would induce substantial growth in an area, either directly or indirectly. Transportation Impact 4.13 -2 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would contribute to a substantial increase in deficient freeway segments and ramps. Cumulatively, the proposed project would also have a significant and unavoidable impact with regards to the above - mentioned impact. 4 -2 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Findings of Fact /Statement of Overriding Considerations IN Short -Term Impacts Of the thirteen significant unavoidable impacts directly attributable to the proposed project and associated cumulative impacts, as identified above, none would be classified as short-term. Because this document is programmatic in nature and would be used to guide future development and subsequent environmental analysis within the City, potential short -term impacts will be analyzed during specific projects CEQA review. Long -Term Impacts Of the thirteen significant unavoidable impacts directly attributable to the proposed project and associated cumulative impacts, as identified above, all of the aforementioned impacts are considered long- term. 4.3 FINDINGS The City has evaluated all feasible mitigation measures and project revisions with respect to these impacts (see Chapter 2, CEQA Findings). The City has also examined a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project (see Chapter 3, Findings Regarding Project Alternatives). Based on this examination, the City has determined that the Subarea Only Minimum Alternative (Alternative 4) is considered to be the environmentally superior alternative. While the Subarea Only Minimum Alternative would potentially result in less significant environmental impacts than the proposed project, the City finds this alternative infeasible and less desirable than the proposed project and has rejected this altemative from further consideration because it would not achieve the environmental, economic, social, and other considerations outlined in Chapter 3 (Findings Regarding Project Alternatives). 4.4 OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Specific economic, social, or other considerations outweigh the impacts stated above. The reasons for proceeding with the proposed project, even though all of the identified impacts are not fully mitigated to a less - than- significant level, are described below. Proposed Project Benefits 1. The updated General Plan substantially increases opportunities for employees to live in proximity to their jobs, reducing the number and length of vehicle commutes. The existing General Plan Housing Element, adopted in August 2003, specified a capacity of 582 housing units, which would increase to 727 units if all parcels exercised their density bonus for affordable units. The updated Plan provides for the conversion of retail, office, and industrial properties for residential purposes, increasing the City's total housing capacity to approximately 7,000 units. Of these, the majority of units are integrated into the Airport Area, West Newport Mesa, and in Newport Center, directly supporting and within a one - quarter mile walking distance of the City's principal jobs centers. 2. The updated Plan emphasizes the development of mixed -use structures that integrate housing with ground level retail and office uses. In addition to providing opportunities for residents to live closer to their jobs (live /work and other facilities), residents would be located closer to retail, commercial City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Findings of Fact /Statement of Overriding Considerations 4 -3 Chapter 4 Statement of Ouefr ding Cons tlerations;: services, and entertainment. The Institute of Transportation and Traffic Engineering indicates that mixed use development can reduce trips by at least 10 percent from single use developments. Additionally, locating residents in proximity to commercial uses increases the customer base and economic activity of businesses, provides an "eyes -on" mixed use community that improves public safety, and increases pedestrian activity within the area. 3. The updated General Plan provides for the development of a mix of commercial and residential uses that will facilitate the economic improvement and revitalization of deteriorated districts including _Balboa Village, Mariners' Mile, West Newport highway, Lido Village, Cannery Village, and McFadden Square. The City's Retail Market Analysis, prepared by Applied Development Economics, documents the lack of economic performance of businesses in these areas and promotes their revitalization through consolidation of retail uses, replacement and infill of obsolete businesses, and introduction of housing in mixed -use projects. All of these are provided for in the updated General Plan and are seen as key strategies to maintain the City's municipal revenue, as well as to improve the quality of development in these areas. 4. The updated General Plan provides development and design guidelines that will maintain and enhance the character of the City's residential neighborhoods, commercial districts, and business parks. It provides for the management of the design and scale of new and replacement housing in the City's neighborhoods to preserve their character and quality. It distinguishes pedestrian from automobile- otiented commercial districts, by regulating the location and design of sidewalk fronting building elevations, location of parking, and implementation of streetscape amenities in the latter. 5. The updated General Plan recognizes the importance of Newport Harbor to the City and region by establishing policies regarding the development of appropriate uses along its periphery, maximizing opportunities for water recreational and marine commercial uses, assuring public access to the waterfront, controlling off -site drainage into the Harbor and improving water quality, enhancing its visual character, and coordinating ongoing Harbor operations and activities. 6. The updated General Plan assures compatibility of land uses located in the environs of John Wayne Airport through requirements that new development be constructed in compliance with the height restrictions set forth by the Federal Aviation Administration and residential development outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour specified in the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP). 7. The updated General Plan specifies improvements at intersections throughout the City that will reduce congestion and improve traffic flows from conditions that would result from the existing General Plan. Generally, these improvements involve the re- striping and /or widening of intersections adding turn lanes and pockets that can largely be accomplished within existing right -of- ways or with little acquisition of land. 8. The updated General Plan establishes standards for traffic level of service (LOS) at intersections. 9. The updated General Plan will improve the opportunities for parks and recreation facilities to serve the City's residents and visitors. It provides for the development of a new park at Banning Ranch, whether acquired as open space or partially developed, that will provide playfields and passive recreational opportunities for the underserved western portion of the City. Additionally, the Plan, for the first time in Policy R 1.9, prioritizes park and recreational facility improvements. 10. The updated General Plan, for the first time, provides new strategies for the protection of the City's historic buildings and districts in accordance with state and federal statutes. 4 -4 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Findings of Fact /Statement of Overriding Considerations Chapter 4,Stalement of Overriding Conside'r'6tions, 11. Similarly, for the first time, the updated General Plan enhances opportunities for the public's participation in the rich diversity of arts and cultural facilities and events in the City. These address the programming of events, development of facilities, and funding of both. 12. For the first time, the updated General Plan defines comprehensive policies to protect Newport Beach's important natural environmental resources. These establish regulations for land use and capital improvements that will improve the quality of terrestrial waterways, Newport Harbor, and Upper Newport Bay; reduce air emissions and degradation of the airshed; limit development intrusion into natural habitats; and protect coastal dunes, archaeological and paleontological resources, mineral resources, and visual resources. Among the extensive policies that will improve the area's water quality are the control of runoff and discharge into the storm drainage system, control of chemical uses, use of Best Management Practices in development, integration of natural wetlands in development, and minimization of impervious surfaces. Biological resources are protected through requirements for environmental study areas: site - specific surveys to identify the presence of listed animal and plant species, limitation on the taking of any species and mitigation of impacts, establishment of buffers for developments abutting such resources, compliance with the Orange County Natural Communities Conservation Plan, support of giant kelp reforestation and eelgrass protection programs, and management of resources in Upper Newport Bay. 13. The updated General Plan improves public safety for Newport Beach's residents through an integrated program of standards for the location and design of development, hazard abatement and risk mitigation, and emergency preparedness and response. These address risks from coastal hazards (tsunamis and rogue waves, storm surges, and coastal erosion), geologic hazards, seismic hazards, flooding, urban and wildland fires, hazardous materials, and aviation hazards. City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Findings of Fact /Statement of Overriding Considerations 4 -5 Attachment 16 ®® Kimley -Horn ® and Associates, Inc. July 19, 2006 suite 140 2100 W. Orangewood Avenue Orange, California Ms. Sharon Wood 92000 Assistant City Manager City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd PO Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: General Plan Transportation Study Peer Review Dear Ms. Wood: I am writing to document my involvement as a peer reviewer of the City's General Plan Transportation Study, conducted by Urban Crossroads. My involvement has included reviewing several reports prepared during the study, providing comments on the reports, and meeting with City staff and Urban Crossroads staff to discuss the analysis and methodology. I have reviewed each of the following documents: • Baseline Data and Analysis • Traffic Model Technical Documentation Report (Revised) • Preliminary Altematives Analysis . • General Plan Transportation Study Based on these reviews and discussions, I have concluded that the methodologies and analysis are consistent with accepted transportation planning practice, and that the resulting traffic forecasts and analysis of future levels of service represent a reasonable portrayal of future traffic conditions with development of the City's proposed General Plan. If I can answer any questions or provide additional information, please contact me at the above address. Very truly yours, KIMLEY -HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. ames G. Douglas Senior Project Manager TEL 714 939 1030 FAX 714 938 9488 Attachment 17 RESOLUTION NO. 2006- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO COMPREHENSIVELY UPDATE THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN [PA2006 -195] - WHEREAS, Section 65300 et seq., of the California Government Code authorizes cities and counties to prepare long- range, comprehensive guides known as General Plans; and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach adopted a General Plan consisting of mandatory and optional elements in 1973 through 1975, consisting of text and maps; and WHEREAS, the last major revision of the City of Newport Beach General Plan was accomplished in 1988, being comprehensive revisions to the Land Use and Circulation Elements; and WHEREAS, other elements have been amended and updated from time to time, including the Housing, Noise, and Recreation and Open Space Elements; and WHEREAS, since its original adoption, two optional elements have been added to the General Plan, being the Growth Management and Harbor and Bay Elements; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the existing General Plan, as amended, must be revised to sufficiently address the range and breadth of issues, technological, environmental, economic, and demographic changes that have affected Newport Beach since the plan was adopted; and WHEREAS, subsequent analyses prepared by both the Planning Department and its consultants demonstrated that the City's General Plan required many other technical modifications; and WHEREAS, on May 23, 2000, the City Council initiated the comprehensive revision of Newport Beach's General Plan by establishing the Ad Hoc General Plan Update Committee to guide the process of the General Plan update; and WHEREAS, the City subsequently initiated a wide- ranging, five -year citizen participation program including a comprehensive Visioning Program, the on -going participation of the General Plan Advisory Committee and four community -wide workshops; and City Council Resolution No. 2006 -XXX Page 2 of 8 WHEREAS, the Visioning Program was comprised of a Visioning Festival held on January 12, 2002, nine neighborhood workshops held over successive weeks in March and April, 2002, a newsletter mail -back questionnaire, website questions and a statistically valid survey conducted in October, 2002, and the concluding Visioning Summit; and WHEREAS, the General Plan Advisory Committee was established in April, 2001, and was appointed in January, 2002; was comprised of 38 members representing a cross - section of the community; and was involved at all steps in the General Plan Update process, including over 50 meetings and three community -wide workshops; and WHEREAS, Section 707 (a) of the Newport Beach Charter requires the Planning Commission to recommend to the City Council the adoption, amendment or repeal of a Master Plan, or any part thereof, for the physical development of the City; and WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65353 requires that, when local regulations have authorized a Planning Commission to review and make recommendations on a proposed General Plan or amendments to a - General Plan, the Commission shall hold at least one public hearing before making its recommendation; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a series of meetings to make recommendations on the project description on which to base the Environmental Impact Report on the following dates: September 9, 2004 December 9, 2004 May 19, 2005 June 9, 2005 August 16, 2005 — Adjourned Meeting August 30, 2005 —Adjourned Meeting November 17, 2005 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission also conducted a series of meetings to make recommendations to the City Council on the policies to be included in the various elements of the General Plan on the following dates: March 3, 2005 October 4, 2005 — Adjourned Meeting October 20, 2005 — Adjourned Meeting October 20, 2005 November 29, 2005 — Adjourned Meeting December 6, 2005 — Special Meeting January 31, 2006 — Adjourned Meeting I: \Users \PLN \Shared\GP Update GBR \City Council \GP Reso 7- 25- 06(3).doc City Council Resolution No. 2006 -XXX Page 3 of 8 March 9, 2006 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered public testimony in a series of public hearings which were fully noticed as required by California Government Code Section 65090 on the following dates: April 6, 2006 April 20, 2006 May 4, 2006 May 18, 2006 June 1, 2006 — Adjourned Meeting June 15, 2006 — Special Meeting June 22, 2006 July 6, 2006 July 13, 2006 — Adjourned Meeting July 20, 2006 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the draft comprehensive General Plan and the accompanying Final Environmental Impact Report; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a series of meetings and gave staff direction on the project description on which to base the Environmental Impact Report on the following dates: September 14, 2004 December 14, 2004 — Study Session January 11, 2005 — Study Session April 24, 2005 June 28, 2005 — Study Session August 16, 2005 — Special Meeting August 30, 2005 —Adjourned Meeting September 13, 2005 October 4, 2005 — Adjourned Meeting WHEREAS, the City Council also conducted a series of meetings and gave staff direction on the policies to be included in the various elements of the General Plan on the following dates: October 4, 2005 — Adjourned Meeting October 25, 2005 — Study Session November 8, 2005 November 22, 2005 — Study Session November 29, 2005 — Adjourned Meeting December 7, 2005 — Special Meeting January 24, 2006 — Study Session I: \Users \PLN \Shared \GP Update GBR \City CouncIRGP Reso 7- 25- 06(3).doc City Council Resolution No. 2006 -XXX Page 4 of 8 January 31, 2006 — Adjourned Meeting WHEREAS, the City Council considered public testimony in a series of public hearings which were fully noticed as required by California Government Code Section 65090 on the following dates: April 11, 2006 April 25, 2006 May 9, 2006 May 23, 2006 June 13, 2006 June 27, 2006 July 11, 2006 July 25, 2006 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach as follows: A. COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN Section 1. Adoption of Draft General Plan. The City Council HEREBY APPROVES and ADOPTS the comprehensive revision of the Newport Beach General Plan (PA 2006 -195, GP2006 -005), including text, graphics, and land use map as presented at the public hearing of July 25, 2006. The City Council FURTHER DECLARES as follows: a. Finding of Completeness and Adequacy. The adopted General Plan contains a thorough and adequate treatment of land use and development issues. The General Plan includes all elements mandated by California planning and development law, and three optional elements: Harbor and Bay, Historical Resources, and Arts and Cultural. The existing Growth Management Element has been incorporated into the Circulation Element. b. Promotion of Public Health, Safety, and Welfare. The plan addresses long -term planning needs for the City's public safety services, incorporating new policies regarding police, fire and emergency services protection, coastal hazards, seismic and geologic hazards, flood hazards, fire hazards, hazardous materials, aviation hazards, and disaster preparedness. C. Based on Community Vision. The plan is based on input received from residents and property and business owners during the visioning and update processes, and the Vision Statement developed at the culmination of the visioning process. I: \Users \PLN \Shared \GP Update GBR \City Council \GP Reso 7- 25- 06(3).doc City Council Resolution No. 2006 -XXX Page 5 of 8 d. Good City Planning Practices. The plan calls for improvements in the handling of new development by requiring a high level of architectural design quality, traffic and transportation management, and other initiatives. The plan increases open space and recreation opportunities, recommends traffic calming and neighborhood protection strategies, and offers new policies for the first time in the areas of historical resource management, community arts and cultural resources and community design. The plan also increases housing opportunities in close proximity to and within employment centers, which will reduce traffic within the community, reduce vehicle mines traveled and improve jobs /housing balance. The plan provides a strong correlation between the Land Use and Circulation Elements as required by law. It also strengthens protections for environmental resources, including the Upper Newport Bay and other sensitive habitats. e. Improved Traffic Flow. The land use mix and circulation system improvements in the plan result in the generation of fewer trips over the life of the plan than the existing plan, and an improvement in traffic flow and intersection performance. f. Relationship to General Plan Environmental Determination. It is the intent of the Council that the General Plan update and the Final Environmental Impact Report be seen as integrally related documents. 1. The City Council DECLARES that the issues and concerns analyzed in the Final EIR have been addressed in the General Plan as policies designed to address those issues and concerns. 2. The City Council DECLARES that adoption of this General Plan and Final EIR does not preclude the necessity or requirement for any further environmental review which would normally be conducted in conjunction with project approvals under the City of Newport Beach policies regarding the implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 2. Consistency with Recent Statutes. In adopting this General Plan, the City Council HEREBY FINDS, DETERMINES, and DECLARES that every reasonable effort has been made to incorporate recent legislation into the General Plan. This includes the incorporation of specific provisions, goals, objectives and policies as follows. a. Water. This includes water supplies, stormwater management and groundwater issues as required by recent legislation. b. Social Services and the Homeless. The General Plan, as adopted by Council, contains a series of specific objectives and policies with respect I: \Users\PLN \Shared \GP Update GBR \City Council\GP Reso 7- 25- 06(3).doc City Council Resolution No. 2006 -XXX Page 6 of 8 to the provision of social services and the homeless as provided by relevant provisions of State law. C. Environmental Review. The adopted General Plan is consistent with the provisions of Assembly Bill 3180 (1988) in that it incorporates specific mitigation measures directly in the draft General Plan as policy. The - Council DECLARES that the Planning Director or his /her designee shall be the primary party responsible for successful completion of the policies specified in the plan. The Planning Department shall file an annual report with the City Council demonstrating progress toward implementation of the - plan. d. Housing. The General Plan, through its housing element, provides objectives, quantified targets; and specific policies for development of municipal housing programs consistent with State law. The Housing Element has been previously certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development, and the updated element will be submitted for their review. The updated housing element contains substantially the same policies as the certified element, but significantly increases the number of sites available for residential development which improves the City's ability to fulfill a level of housing production needed to meet the existing and future RHNA goals for the term of the plan. Section 3. Consistency with Regional Plans. The City Council FINDS and DECLARES that through its efforts to reduce vehicle trips, promote walkability, preserve and protect critical watercourses and embrace sustainable technologies, the plan is consistent with: a. The regional Air Quality Management Plan of the South Coast Air Quality Management District; b, The Southern California Association of Governments Regional Comprehensive Plan, C. Applicable adopted Airport Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport. Section 4. Public Comment. The City Council AFFIRMS that it considered, to the best of its ability, all public testimony and all relevant information provided to it; and that the General Plan adopted by this resolution represents its best effort to accommodate the diverse and competing needs of residents, property owners, and social and economic components of the City's population and workforce. B. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN 1AUsers \PLN \8haredlGP Update GBR \City Council \GP Reso 7- 25- 06(3).doc City Council Resolution No. 2006 -XXX Page 7 of 8 Section 5. Effective date- Voter Approval. The City Council HEREBY DIRECTS that the General Plan approved by this Resolution shall become effective in its entirety immediately upon voter approval of the Land Use Plan and Land Use Tables adopted as part of the Land Use Element of the General Plan which shall be submitted to the voters on November 7th 2006 as required by section 423 of the Newport Beach City Charter. The City Council may amend any section or provision of the General Plan other than a future initiated major amendment requiring voter approval pursuant to Charter section 423. Section 6. Notification of Public Agencies: Transmittal of Adopted Plans. The City Council HEREBY DIRECTS the City Clerk to transmit one copy of the approved plan to the following state, regional, and county agencies as provided by law: Air Resources Board California Department of Transportation Division of Mines and Geology Department of Housing and Community Development Governor's Office of Planning and Research Southern California Association of Governments Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region South Coast Air Quality Management District Orange County Transportation Authority County of Orange, Planning and Development Services Department Section 7. Direction to Prepare and Publish. The City Council HEREBY DIRECTS the Planning Director or designee to publish a revised edition of the General Plan containing all final revisions as bound in the copy on file with the Council and presented at the public hearing of July 25, 2005. Copies of this resolution shall be bound into the final General Plan. Section 8. Authority to Incorporate Corrections. The City Council HEREBY DIRECTS that, given the size and complexity of the document, the General Plan text, exhibits, figures and plan map may be corrected without further amendment. This provision applies only to errors of fact, language consistency between elements and policies, calculations and /or scribe's errors. All revisions made pursuant to this section shall be reported to Planning Commission for affirmation. Section 9. Annual Report. Consistent with the provisions of State law, the Planning Department shall file an annual report with the City Council demonstrating the status of the General Plan and its implementation. Upon receipt and action by the City Council, one copy shall be transmitted to the State Office of Planning and Research. I:1Users\PLNlSharedlGP Update GBR1City Council \GP Reso 7- 25- 06(3).doc City Council Resolution No. 2006 -XXX Page 8 of 8 Section 10. Zoning Ordinance Revisions. The City Council HEREBY DIRECTS the Planning Department to begin the preparation of revised zoning, subdivision and other ordinances necessary to implement the new General Plan. The City Council anticipates that pending adoption of such ordinances, persons may apply for City development permits requiring a finding of consistency with both the General Plan and zoning regulations. The Planning Commission, Planning Director and Zoning Administrator shall be authorized to consider such requests within the limitations of the revised General Plan and existing ordinances. Section 11. Primacy of General Plan. The City Council HEREBY FINDS, DETERMINES, and DECLARES that once effective, the revised General Plan represents the City's officially adopted policy for the growth, land use, development, and protection of Newport Beach. Except as provided in section 10, In the event that the General Plan is found to conflict with any City statute, ordinance, policy, rule, regulation, or action, it is the intent of the City Council that the General Plan shall have precedence. Section 12. Statement Concerning Vested Development Rights. The City Council HEREBY FINDS, DETERMINES and DECLARES that adoption of this General Plan provides no vested rights with respect to any preceding General Plan or zoning ordinance, to any owner of property not expressly protected by an existing development agreement, land use agreement, settlement agreement or similar tool, reviewed and approved by the City Council prior to the effective date of this plan. Section 13. Severability. The City Council HEREBY FINDS and DECLARES that it has adopted this General Plan in its entirety. In the event that any court of competent jurisdiction declares any part of this General Plan to be null and void, the remaining portions shall remain in full force and effect. The City Council declares that it adopted this General Plan as if it had adopted each phrase, sentence and element thereof separately. Section 14. Passage and Adoption. The Mayor shall sign, and the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution, and thereupon the same shall take effect and be in force. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of July, 2006, by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK I:Wsers \PLN \Shared \GP Update GBR \City CounciAGP Reso 7- 25- 06(3).doc 3. Revisions to Table LU 2 Anomaly Table Page 3 -19 Table Anomay statistical : Land Use Development Development Number Area Desi nation Limit (so Limit (Otheo Additional Information 1.700 Theater Seats (not 44 L1 CR 1,619,525 included in totalsquare footage) 46 L1 MU -H3 /PR 3 725 24 Tennis Courts Residential permitted in accordance with MU -H3 75 1-1 PR 35 000 Corrected Table, Staff Report, Page 17 ' ' This number has been adjust down by 3 trips, to account for the difference between the sub -areas and other areas peak hour reduction table and the full planning area calculated reduction table, which is a result of mathematical rounding. This reduces the PM peak hour reduction of the proposed General Plan by 3 trips. Residential Non - residential A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour units Floor Area Trips Trips Existing General Plan 48,819 31,760,884 sq.ft. 102,435 128,322' Less 20% of Prior Amendments 17 11,726 sq.ft 35 37 Adjusted Existing GP 48,802 31,749,158 sq.ft. 102,400 128,285 Proposed General Plan 49,968 31,234,660 sq.ft. 101,243 127,287 Correction for Newport Center 65 Hotel Rooms 0 65,000 sq.ft. 36 40 Corrected 49,968 31,299,660 sq.ft. 101,279 127,327 Proposed General Plan Corrected +1,166 - 449,498 sq.ft. -1,121 -958 Differential ' ' This number has been adjust down by 3 trips, to account for the difference between the sub -areas and other areas peak hour reduction table and the full planning area calculated reduction table, which is a result of mathematical rounding. This reduces the PM peak hour reduction of the proposed General Plan by 3 trips. RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -75 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH. NO. 2006011119) FOR THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN 2006 UPDATE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND STATE AND LOCAL GUIDELINES, MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS THERETO AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, did on the 25th day of July, 2006, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider: (1) the certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), (2) the adoption of certain findings and determinations and adopt statement of overriding considerations; and WHEREAS, the PlanningR Commission of the City of Newport Beach, California, did on the 6th, and 201h days of April, the 4 and 18th days of May and the 1st, 151" and 22nd of June, did hold duly noticed public hearings and carefully reviewed and considered the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach did, on the 13th and 20th day of July, 2006, hold duly noticed public hearings on the Final EIR, the comments thereon, and the responses to those comments. On July 20th, the Planning Commission considered the draft Findings of Fact and the draft Statement of Overriding Considerations; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 20th day of July, 2006, adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council certify the EIR prepared for the City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update, including the Findings of Fact and the Statement of Overriding Considerations; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and duly considered the recommendation of the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the EIR has been prepared and circulated for public review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. ( "CEQA "); and WHEREAS, it was determined pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code of Regs. sections 15000 et seq.) that the General Plan 2006 Update could have a significant effect on the environment, and thus warranted the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report ( "EIR "); and WHEREAS, on January 20, 2006, the City of Newport Beach, as lead agency under CEQA, prepared a Notice of Preparation ( "NOP ") of the EIR; mailed that NOP to public agencies, organizations, and persons likely to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed project; and thereafter held a public scoping meeting to gather public and agency comments concerning the preparation of the EIR; and WHEREAS, the City thereafter caused to be prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (T EIR"), which, taking into account the comments it received on the NOR described the proposed project ( "EIR Project) and discussed the environmental impacts resulting there from, and on April 21, 2006, circulated the DEIR for public and agency comments; and WHEREAS, the public comment period closed on June 5, 2006, and was subsequently extended until June 13, 2006; and WHEREAS, staff of the City of Newport Beach has reviewed the comments received on the draft EIR, has prepared full and complete responses thereto, and on July 11, 2006 distributed the responses in accordance with Public Resources Code section 21092.5; and WHEREAS, a combined Final Environmental Impact Report (collectively, "FEIR ") for the EIR Project was presented to the City Council, as the decision making body of the lead agency, for certification as having been completed in compliance with the provisions of CEQA and State and local guidelines implementing CEQA; and WHEREAS, a as result of the numerous public hearings and the extensive public input and involvement, and in light of the information in the EIR, the City Council directed that changes be made to the EIR Project in order to reduce land use intensity, and make certain other changes regarding type of use and policy revisions which would reduce the impacts of the General Plan Update, as is further described in Section 8.3 of the FEIR; WHEREAS, the reduced General Plan Update described in Section 8.3 of the FEIR is hereinafter described as the 'Reduced Project; WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information and the comments pertaining to the DEIR and FEIR at a duly noticed meeting held on the 25th day of July, 2006; and WHEREAS, the City Council has read and considered all environmental documentation comprising the FEIR, including the comments and the responses to comments, and has found that the FEIR considers all potentially significant environmental impacts of the EIR Project and the Reduced Project, and is complete and adequate, and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA and of the State and local CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, prior to action on the Reduced Project, the City Council has considered all significant impacts and project alternatives identified in the FEIR and has found that all potentially significant impacts of the Reduced Project have been lessened or avoided to the extent feasible; and WHEREAS, CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines provide that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed and which identifies one or more significant effects of the project unless the public agency makes written findings for each of the significant effects, accompanied by a statement of facts supporting each finding; and WHEREAS, CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines require, where the decision of the City Council allows the occurrence of significant environmental effects which are identified in the EIR, but are not mitigated, the City Council must state in writing the reasons to support its action based on the FEIR and /or other information in the record; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the Reduced Project is necessary to serve the existing and future needs of the City of Newport Beach. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: SECTION 1. Certification. Based on its review and consideration of the FEIR, all written communications and oral testimony regarding the EIR Project and the Reduced Project which have been submitted to and received by the City Council, the City Council certifies that the FEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the State and local CEQA Guidelines. The City Council, having final approval authority over the Reduced Project, adopts and certifies as complete and adequate the FEIR, which reflects the City Council's independent judgment and analysis. The City Council further certifies that the FEIR was presented to the City Council and that the City Council reviewed and considered the information contained in it prior to approving the Reduced Project. This certification is made for the Reduced Project and its implementation only. Neither this certification nor the underlying FEIR shall be used by the City or third parties as the CEQA documentation for any project which is more intense than, or inconsistent with, the Reduced Project. SECTION 2. CEQA Finding and Statement of Facts. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15091, the City Council has reviewed and hereby adopts the CEQA Finding and Statement of Facts as shown on the attached Exhibit "A" entitled "CEQA Finding and Statement of Facts," which exhibit is incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 3. Statement of Overriding Considerations. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15093, the City Council has reviewed and hereby makes the Statement of Overriding Considerations to adverse environmental impacts, attached also as Exhibit "A" entitled "Statement of Overriding Considerations," which exhibit is incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 4. Location and Custodian of Record of Proceedings. The City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, located at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92263, is hereby designated as the custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council's decision is based, which documents and materials shall be available for public inspection and copying in accordance with the provisions of the California Public Records Act (California Government Code Section 6250 et seq.). SECTION 5. Notice of Determination. The Community Development Director shall cause the filing of a notice of determination with the County Clerk of the County of Orange and with the state Office of Planning and Research within five working days of this approval. SECTION 6. Certification, Postinq and Filinq. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, and the City Clerk shall certify to the vote adopting this resolution and shall cause a certified copy of this resolution to be filed. The City Clerk shall post the resolution in three conspicuous places in the City of Newport Beach. ADOPTED this 25th day of July 2006. ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR NO CHANGE TO EXHIBIT Agenda Item No. 18 July 25, 2006 PREAMBLE TO THE GENERAL PLAN This General Plan is the first comprehensive revision of the City's General Plan in more than 30 years and is the result of more than four years of work by 38 residents representing all segments of this community. These residents — members of the General Plan Advisory Committee or GPAC - developed this plan after thorough study of input from thousands of their neighbors that was received during the most extensive public outreach in the City's history. After receiving community input, GPAC developed a "Vision Statement" — a description of the City that residents want Newport Beach to be now and in 2025 - to serve as a blueprint for this General Plan Update. GPAC, with the assistance of planning professionals and using the Vision Statement as a guide, then developed this General Plan to ensure that the City achieves the vision by, among many other things, doing the following. • Reducing traffic citywide by 28,920 trips each day over the life of the plan; • Reducing potential new commercial, office and industrial space by 1.45 million sq. ft.; • Supporting efforts to acquire Banning Ranch for permanent open space; • Creating and implementing a long term strategy to control John Wayne Airport impacts; • Taking strong action to prevent or reduce water pollution in the bay and ocean; • Enhancing natural resources such as Upper Newport Bay; • Improving circulation by synchronizing traffic lights and making road improvements that respect our community character; • Creating guidelines that preserve the charm and beauty of our residential neighborhoods; • Preserving public views of the ocean, harbor and bay; • Continuing to provide first -class service to seniors; • Continuing to offer education and recreation programs such as Junior Lifeguards; • Maintaining a world -class public library system with branches convenient to residents; and • Promoting revitalization of older commercial areas like West Newport and Balboa Village. ' RECEIV -D AFTER AGENDA PRINTIEV'-IF 49 /1" AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION DRAME MUM FOR ORANGE COUNTY 3160 Airway Avenue - Costa Mesa, California 92626 - 949.252.5170 fax: 949.252.6012 July 25, 2006 City of Newport Beach City Council 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Subject: Comments on Draft Creneral Plan Honorable Mayor and CitX,9z'h4ncil Members: During its regular mediiing of July 20, 2006, the Airport Land Use C6imnission (ALUC) for Orange County,onsidered the City of Newport Beach draft General lan (dated July 7, 2006) for Consistency with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELOf) for John Wayne Airport,OWA) and AELUP for lVeliports. The ALUC took action to find the City ofNewport$ eachsstentLUPfgt�X6LrialcdatLUR,or,.Heliports, subject to final oP#kle4G� ral f'Fan b Yhe.Ioreoet, the ALU did request that the following items be revised in rbe Creneral Plan document. 1) Land Used IIeusidk�sn_ioise Elefnent'; These elements now require`thatall development in the Airport Area ur� be in confb{katarlcerwnth,FPfA•and Caltrans Division of Aerpriautio5 �1}�e�vgb limits, and resideatief`devela ,,- Wrocate4o4zde the 65 d� CNtL n8isd contours, 2) as It is reeo*meadeoit the citf reniove fh €da`teAf the -ARLUY 'since the document berme d e3ft"ackJ2e (r ICAV,4 bVC deems it appropriate to do so. TS the city desires to identify that this is the largest contour outside whieb residential development would be located, then it may be advisable to specifically reference the 1985 JWA Master Plan 65 dB C'NEL contour. Safety Element: This element now requires use of the JWA AEL UP for evaluation of land use compatibility in areas impacted by JWA operations, in particular land use decisions within the existing JWA Clear Zone/Runway Protection Zone. E /z'd aet "ON NOISSIWW00 3sn awu-1 i6odJiiu WdOT:b 900Z'Sz,-inr Page 2 July 25, 2006 It is recommended that the city also evaluate safety hazards for proposed land uses within the Inner Turning Zone and Traffic Pattern Zone as defiued in the existing JWA Airport Layout Plan. These zones are shown on the City's new Figure $5 included in the Safety Element. The City of Newport Beach has engaged in a very cooperative work effort with ALUC staff throughout the General Plan Update process. We greatly appreciate the work of City staff throughout this process. It appears that the majority of the ALUC concerns and Comments have been addressed. Please notify the ALUC should any significant further changes be made as a result of your Council action. Sincerely, G•'0�- Karl A. Rigoni Executive Officer cc, Airport Land Use Commissioners Alan L. Murphy, Director, JWA Sharon Wood, City of Newport Beach Gregg Ramirez, City of Newport Beach 2 E /E'd eet "OW WOISSIWWOD 3sn aHui i8od8Id WdTT:b 3e0Z'SZ'-1nr "RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA FROM : SRNDY`S_PLRNNING PHONE NOPRINTE0.Trj5�l,P 'IO Ju6 1. 25 2006 01:42PM P2 SANDRA GENIS, PLANNING RESOURCES 1586 MYRTLEWOOA COSTA MESA, CA. 92626 PHONEYAX (714) 754 -0814 July 11, 2006 0 �-n ` Honorable Mayor Don Webb and Members of the City Council Newport Beach City Hall - r M 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92685 - 8915 ='" rn < Subject: Agenda Item 18, General Plan Update w M Dear Mayor Webb and City Council, T �t I would like to thank the City for providing the General Plan Update EIR Addendum containing the response to comments to allow more than the statutory minimum ten days for review, Volume 1 A does contain some new, useful information in response to public comment, such as the map of coastal views in the Newport Coast area. However, generally speaking, the Response to Comments does little to remedy deficiencies in the Draft EIR. Many, if not most, of the responses are aon- responsive, only partially responsive and /or dismissive. The numerous inadequate responses are too numerous to describe individually within the time constraints of this review for both the public and the City Council, Just a few of the major failings are discussed below. The EIR fails 1 provide a stable, comnlete, and accurate project description. The documentation still fails to provide a complete description of the proposed project, which is a comprehensive amendment of the city's general plan. In response to requests for information regarding what, specifically, in the general plan is being changed, the respondent first indicates that this is not required, since an EIR is required to analyze impacts utilizing the existing physical environment as a baseline. It is true that the appropriate baseline for impact analysis is the existing physical setting, but the response confuses CEQA requirements regarding the description of the existing setting i.e. the existing physical setting which will form the baseline for future analysis in`the EIR (Guideline Sec. 15125) with CEQA requirements regarding the description of the proposed project in the ETR (Guidelines Sec. 15124). Individual requesting more information regarding the proposed project are also referred to the General Plan Update document itself, which was released in March 2006 and had already been revised by the time the close of the DEIR comment period in .tune 2006. In any case, the draft update document provided to the public does not contain any material indicating where policies are new or altered, nor is there any listing of deleted policies, nor do maps delineate sites where uses or land use intensities would be changed. There is no strikeout/underline format or map overlay indicating which sites would be subject to changes in land use designations. The project is a major general plan amendment which as it sits, will be amending certain existing unidentified policies; adding other unidentified polices; and possibly deleting certain existing, unidentified policies. While the ETR maps and describes land use designations for nine page 1 of 10 FROM : SRNDY`S_PLANNING PHONE NO. : Jul. 25 2006 01:42PM P3 major planning areas, the EIR fails to identify those sites where land use designations would change and where the land use designations would remain the same. It is only by referring back and forth to descriptions and mapping in the existing general plan and in the general plan update documents that one can painfidly ferret out where, within those nine areas, the same land use designations would be retained and where land use designations would be altered. Maps are not even provided for other areas potentially changed, such as the Westeliff area. Ironically, after asserting that a description of the existing general plan is largely irrelevant to the environmental review, in response to questions regarding specific items in the plan, the preparers repeatedly state that the material in question is part of the existing, adopted general plan and therefore no impacts will occur. Further, although the respondents correctly asserted that the appropriate environmental baseline for impact analysis is the existing physical setting, the Response to Comments sloughs off concerns regarding future impacts by stating that the proposed policies would result in less impact than existing policy. This was repeated numerous times in response to questions from various parties regarding comments on impacts to such varied factors as aesthetics and biological resources. The EIR fails to provide an adequate analysis of cumulative impacts In response to several comments, a master response regarding cumulative impacts as provided. The response confirmed that the EIR had utilized the judicially repudiated comparative /ratio approach to determining significant cumulative impacts. The response then listed each topic of the environmental review and identified the appropriate scope of the cumulative impact review. For example, the appropriate scope of impacts on schools was appropriately stated to be the affected school district. However, the response then failed utterly to provide an analysis based on the defined scopes. A project's contribution to a cumulative impact is considered significant if it is "cumulatively considerable ": "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other cun•ent projects, and the effects of probable future projects." (Guidelines 15065) Yet, no past, current or probable future projects are identified. In some cases, such as runoff, it was stated that it was just too much trouble to identify other past, present and reasonably foreseeable development in the impact area. Or nobody returned the city's phone call to an unidentified party at the relevant agency. This is used to justify failure to assess either individual or cumulative impacts on schools in the Santa Ana Unified School District. Yet, in one mouse click from the Santa Ana schools home page, i was able to find the name and contact information for the individuals charged with facilities planning in the district. With a second click 1 found the following on the district's site, which I had never visited before: Page 2 of 10 FROM : SRNDY'S_PLRNNING PHONE NO. : Jul. 25 2006 01:43PM P4 SAUSD is the second most overcrowded school district in California and the most crowded district in Orange County. Enrollment has grown more than 23% in the past 10 years. There are portable classrooms in 94% of the schools (49 schools) in the District, which means these schools are overcrowded. More than 40% of the students (24,071) in the District are in portable classrooms. Five schools have more than 1,000 students in portable classrooms. If the number of students in portables were a separate school district, it would be the 8th largest in Orange County and 43rd largest in California, which has more than 1,000 school districts. Yet, the EIR concludes that no significant impact will occur because nobody returned their phone call. In other cases, the EIR just remains silent. For example, the response to comments identifies the entire county as the appropriate area for evaluation Of Cumulative impacts to population and housing. The EIR states that the proposed amendment would add `only" one percent to growth anticipated for the county under long range plans, However, there is no consideration, or even mention, of other growth due to amendment of planning programs in other Orange County cities, though a quick review of the postings on the State Clearinghouse list many recent environmental documents for general plan amendments in other nearby cities which would provide for thousands of additional dwelling units, including, but not limited to, the 1901 Plaza Newport project mentioned in my original comments, the Newland project in Huntington Beach, and additional urban residential development in the Costa Mesa Town Center area. The EIR responses also dismiss inclusion of past projects in analysis of cumulative impacts on the basis that analyses for those projects identified no cumulative impact. If those projects had occurred prior to the General Plan Update, then it is entirely possible that the preparers of those analyses identified no cumulative impact because project impacts were, on their own, not significant. The impacts might only become cumulatively significant when considered in the light of the proposed General Plan Update and /or other projects that have since come upon the horizon, it may just be that the other communities also failed to prepare an adequate analysis of cumulative impacts. In fact, though the Response to Comments indicates that development in the Irvine Business Complex would not contribute to cumulative impacts along with development under the proposed general plan update, the City of Newport Beach has retained attorneys to assert the opposite on its behalf. In a letter dated February 15, 2006, Michael Colantuano, Special Counsel to the City of Newport Beach, declares that the 1BC mixed use overlay would result in a "plethora of cumulative impacts" and that it was "irrational" to find that the cumulative impacts of the IBC overlay were less than significant. How, then, can the City of Newport Beach now claim that the IBC overlay should not be considered in its analysis of cumulative impacts of the General Plan Update? This, too, is irrational. Pagc 3 of 10 FROM : SRNDY'S_PLRNNING PHONE NO. : Jul. 25 2006 01:43PM P5 The Response to Comments improperly seeks to justify evasion of lead agency responsibilities. It is the responsibility of the lead agency to prepare a comprehensive environmental document examining all potential environmental impacts of a proposed project. In response to comments regarding asking for analysis of potential impacts not addressed in the DEIR, rather than provide the requested analysis, the respondents repeatedly reply that. nobody had previously told them to analyze that. impact. An example would be analysis of barely functional intersections on Newport Boulevard which would be expected to accommodate even more traffic due to the proposed amendment. The respondents also appear to expect commenters to provide the analyses which should have been provided in the DEIR by the preparers. For example, where the commenter requested that the EIR examine whether increased traffic congestion would interfere with emergency response, the respondent suggested that it was the commenter's responsibility to identify how and where this would occur. Where the DEIR discussion of a significance threshold regarding riparian and "other sensitive natural communities" addressed only riparian habitat, a comment noted the limited discussion and asked about "other sensitive natural communities• ". Rather than identify- these other habitats or state that no other sensitive communities existed, the respondents asserted that it was the commenter's responsibility to identify the sensitive communities. In response to numerous comments regarding potential future impacts not addressed, the respondents merely state that the impact wasn't covered under one of the thresholds. In some cases, the response so defies common sense as to be almost. comical. For example, though the DEIR indicates that constraints on the electricity system to serve the proposed additional development could be addressed through rolling blackouts, this is not significant because the only relevant threshold would be whether new facilities would be built. Apparently, it is not significant if portions of the community left in the dark due to increased power demand. The Response to Comments repeatedly utilized the limited scope of the thresholds to avoid discussion of potential impacts, apparently limiting the scope of the EIR analysis before even a cursory investigation had even commenced. The Response to Comments even attempts to place responsibility For the chosen thresholds on others. The Responses refer to use of thresholds as directed by the CEQA Guidelines and to the state - issued thresholds, when in fact there is no such thing. The respondents have apparently taken the sample environmental checklist contained in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines which is suggested for use as part of an initial review and treated the suggested topics as an exclusive, cast -in- concrete mandate regarding significance of environmental impacts. However, as stated in Guidelines Section IS064(f): ... Sample forms for an applicant's project description and a review form for use by the lead agency are contained in Appendices G and H.... These forms are only suggested, and public agencies are free to devise their own format for an initial study. As noted in "The New and Improved Guidelines Revisions: Important Guidance for Controversial Issues ", by Maureen Gorsen, General Counsel to the Resources Agency, the Page 4 of 10 FROM : SANDY`S_PLANNING PHONE NO. : Jul. 25 2006 01:44PM P6 existing list in Appendix G "was drafted ...at a time when CEQA was a new law and the question of what is a `significant effect on the environment' was unknown and unclear ", A new listing of potential significant impacts was set forth in 1998 as part of a comprehensive revision of the CEQA Guidelines and suggested for use as significance thresholds. However, most of the revision was set aside upon judicial review, in large part due to possible pre - emption of local authority to determine significance (Communities for a Reiter rnwronment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal. AppAth 98). The EIR improperly continues to assume mitigation of future impacts due to future environmental review. CEQA provides for tiering of environmental documents, whereby a program may be provided for broad planning programs with more detailed documents prepared for specific project in the future. In such cases, the analysis typically identifies those impacts which can be addressed at the program stage and indicates that other potential impacts, which may be identified in a general way; will be addressed by future environmental reviews. By contrast, in response to comments by myself and others regarding potential future impacts, the responses repeatedly indicate that concerns are "speculative" and that impacts would be mitigated due to future environmental documentation. While it may be speculative to assert that certain impacts absolutely will occur at this time, it is equally speculative to assert that impacts won't occur. In response to a comment directly regarding the CEQA process the respondents did admit that preparation of an environmental document does not guarantee that impacts will be mitigated. However, that did not prevent the respondents from asserting that firture impacts would be mitigated by future environmental review in numerous responses to comments. In addition, the EIR unrealistically assumes that future environmental review actually will occur. Some future projects may require no discretionary action which would trigger CEQA review, Other projects may be exempt. Though a comment noted CEQA's statutory exemption for residential infill projects complete with statute number, the respondents addressed this statutory exemption, established by the California legislature, as if it were a categorical exemption established by the Resources Secretary and subject. to CEQA review in certain circumstances. The responses conclude that impacts will not occur on a Speculative basis. While one should not conclude an impact will occur on a speculative basis, it is equally wrong to assume one won't occur on a speculative basis. As noted above, concerns regarding potential future impacts are dismissed as "speculative ". However, instead of identifying the area of concern as an issue for further study, the DEIR blithely concludes not that a significant impact would potentially occur, or that a potentially significant impact might potentially occur but stoutly declares that. no significant impact would occur. An example would be impacts on schools discussed above. To accept findings of no significant impact without substantial evidence is an invitation to abuse, whereby unreturned phone calls and lack of follow up would result in findings of no impact based on no analysis at all. It could eventually lead to lack of investigation as a means to avoid dealing with impacts. Page 5 of 10 FROM : SRNDY'S_PLRNNING PHONE NO. : Jul. 25 2006 01:45PM P7 The FIR also bases its traffic analysis on construction of a Nineteenth Street bridge, even though the Response to Comments indicates that this project is only considered likely if Measure M were to pass. The E1R assumes that no impacts will occur because the proposed update includes policies that encourage a quality environment. However, many of these policies are non - specific and even somewhat nebulous, such as those that call for "high quality" architectural design. Some policies, such as those regarding pesticides entail no real action from the city except encouragement to other agencies that may or may not take action. Others have laudable goals, but may never be achieved, such as use of provision of over one hundred additional acres of parkland. When EQAC asked for an implementation schedule, the respondents indicated that such a schedule would be appropriate for a mitigation monitoring program, but not for the proposed policies. Thus, there is no guarantee that the policies which are purported to reduce or eliminate impacts will actually be implemented, and based on the response to EQAC's request there appears to be limited commitment to do so in a timely manner. Many remonses misstate the comment or fail to address the actual comment made. Some of the responses were so tenuously related to the original comment that several times this reviewer flipped back in the document to verify that the response was actually intended to address a particular comment. A response to a comment regarding an existing power plant addressed only new plants. A response to a comment regarding; non -ESA resources went into a lengthy discussion ofNCCP. (Incidentally the preparers appear to believe that the NCCP system protects a broader range of resources than it is designed to protect.) A response to a question regarding increased volumes of runoff launched into a lengthy discussion of waster quality and the NPDES program. A response regarding fault ground rupture addressed only ground shaking. In some cases, the response cherry- picked the comment, responding only to one portion of a comment, For example in a question regarding other cumulative development in the area a few examples were sited. Some of these were discussed as not relevant with reasons stated, but other development examples, to which the stated exclusions would not apply, were not discussed at all. Notably, to this reviewer, where a comment noted the need to recirculate in accordance with Section 15088.5(a)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines, which require recirculation when a DE1R is so flawed meaningful review is impaired, the response addressed recirculation under Section 15088.5(b) when added information is insignificant. The respondent concluded that recirculation was not necessary. The Response to Comments insolently dictates what commenters "need to know ". In response to several comments, including a request for such basic project information as land use acreage, the commenter is told that they don't "need to know" the requested information. In a few cases the information requested was not strictly a CEQA issue, but in others it clearly is. It is the purpose of the E1R to inform decision makers and the public generally of the information Page 6 of 10 FROM : SRNDY`S_PLFNNING PHONE NO. : Jul. 25 2006 01:45PM P8 they need in order to properly evaluate a project. It is not the role of the Elk prcparer to ration information on a "need -to- know" basis. In this case, the EIR's public information is especially important since the public will ultimately make the decision regarding approval of the proposed general plan amendment as provided under Charter Section 423. In addition, some comments dismissed as "not CEQA issues" or "not Elk issues" were improperly so dismissed. Questions regarding clarification of certain policies were dismissed as not Elk issues, although one would need a clear understanding of the proposed amendment in order to consider its environmental effects. These included questions regarding such basic issues as land use intensity. In many cases commenters, notably EQAC, indicated that the proposed policies would not assure that no impact would occur and suggested additional, alternate policies or alternate wording. These comments were dismissed as not Elk issues despite the fact that the proposed policies served as the only mitigation proposed for potential impacts; despite the fact that the policy gaps and weaknesses identified belied the assertion of no impact, and despite CEQA's mandate that alternatives be considered. The respondents flatly dismissed any discussion of social or economic impacts. While social and economic effects of an action need not be analyzed in and of themselves, the CEQA Guidelines and judicial history indicate that economic and social factors are important on two scores: Economic and social factors may bear on the significance of physical change; and Economic and social effects of a project may result in physical changes which are themselves significant, (Guidelines Sec. 15131, Sec. 15064) In Citizens Assn. for Sensihle Development of Bishop Area v. County of kayo (1985) 172 Cal.App3d 151 [217 Cal.kptr. 8931, the appellate court held that: ...the lead agency shall consider the secondary or indirect environmental consequences of economic and social changes, but may find them to be insignificant. Such an interpretation is unequivocally consistent with the mandate that secondary consequences of projects be considered... subdivision (f) [of Guidelines Sec. 15064, since re- enumerated] expressly gives the agency discretion to determine whether the consequences of economic and social changes are significaot, which is not the same as discretion to not consider these consequences at all. [emphasis added] Indeed, the physical change caused by economic or social effects of a project. may be regarded as a significant effect in the same manner as any other physical change resulting from the project may be regarded as a significant effect. In this case the commenter requested information geared to determining whether the housing to be provided in missed use areas would fit the socioeconomic profile of employees in those areas. If not, the assumed trip reductions for mixed use would likely not come to fruition. Page 7 of 10 FROM : SRNDY'S_PLRNNING PHONE NO. : Jul. 25 2006 01:46PM P9 Reiteration of Inadenuacies Numerous responses just reiterate the existing inadequacies or ambiguities in the DEIR, merely referring the commenter back to the pages in the DEIR that prompted the question originally. Examples include comments regarding water quality, soil erosion and biological resources. Often commenters requesting a detailed analysis were referred back to a page in the DEIR that barely mentioned the topic addressed. In some cases the respondents so emphatically declared that the missing information could be found on a given page, that this reviewer started to wonder if all parties were looking at the same EIR. This happened most frequently for response to comments from EQAC. The -Response to Comments mvides conflicting information In some cases the response directly conflicts with information provided in the DEIR or in another response. For example, in response to concern that the DETR appeared to understate ultimate population under the general plan update due to the exclusion of pre - annexation residents of Newport Coast, the response indicates that the estimate of future population was based on Southern California Association of Governments (SLAG) estimates of future growth presented previously in the DEIR. This is in direct conflict with the section questioned, which indicated that fixture population was calculated by adding anticipated population which would occupy additional dwelling units to the incorporated city's 2002 population as reported by the State Department of Finance. Not only was this response inconsistent with the DEM, it failed to resolve potential problems with other analyses in the ETR which may be based on the apparently erroneous population projection. The Response to Comments indicates many times that studies were based on a worst case, maximum build scenario. However, in a response to a question regarding why the DEIR showed only a modest increase in traffic generated in an area where allowable floor areas would more than double, the respondent indicated that it was assumed that some existing, lower intensity uses would remain. The Reponse to Comments indicates that no significant impacts on water quality wiil occur. However, the also indicates that that pollution will only be reduced to the extent "practicable ". There may be a wide gulf between what is deemed practicable in a given circumstance by a given person and what is needed to eliminate impacts. The Response to Comments indicates that all mixed use projects reviewed showed a marked decrease in traffic generation. However, the cited summary of mixed use projects which is included as Appendix D to the ETR traffic study states that some differences in trip generation were not statistically significant, and one mixed use project discussed in Appendix U resulted in a peak hour increase over trip generation that would have been anticipated for the individual uses independently. Page 8 of 10 FROM : SRNDY'S_PLRNNING PHONE NO. : Jul. 25 2006 01:47PM P10 These inconsistencies also occur in the Gencral Plan Update itself. Open space acquisition is identified as a priority use at Banning Ranch, but Banning Ranch is also identified as an available site for meeting the city's Regional Housing Needs Assessment. The Response to Comments takes circular and unsubstantiated nositions Perhaps most annoying are conclusory responses that pretty much state that "there's no impact because we said there's no impact," This is used in response to questions regarding various issues including water. The Response to CommentsNolume IA perpetuates mathematically or logically peculiar conclusions Some of the conclusions in the DEIR just don't make sense. Where commenters have pointed this out, the respondents either avoid the issue or cling desperately to the original assertion. This includes the ridiculous assertion that rolling blackouts are a reasonable strategy for dealing with limitations in electricity infrastructure. Another example is water consumption. It was pointed out that the DEIR estimates showed water consumption to be only about one fourth wastewater generation. The DEIR then rationalized a gross reduction in anticipated wastewater generation on the logical basis that wastewater generation should not exceed water consumption. The response indicated that wastewater generation was likely to be 60 to 90 percent of water consumption. (It may be noted that this is slightly above EPA estimates, which indicate that forty tour percent of water consumed by residential users in California is used outdoors, mostly in landscaping but also washing cars and filling swimming pools. Water used outdoors does not normally enter the sanitary sewer system,) The response then indicates that likely wastewater generation is in the range of 710,593 to 1,065,890 per day. This equates to only twenty two to thirty four gallons per person per day, if all wastewater anticipated were generated by residential uses. The lower end of the scale is about what goes down the drain in a single shower with restricted flow. The response utterly fails to consider whether water consumption was accurately estimated. Even if all additional water consumption were for residential use, water consumption by the approximately 31,000 additional residents contemplated under the General Plan update would be only about 38 gallons per person per day, well below typical consumption rates. That is enough to take a bath, but not to also wash dishes, do laundry and flush the toilet. If some of the additional water is allocated to making coffee, cleaning floors, and flushing toilets in commercial buildings, per capita water for residential uses would allow only a quick shower —and no flushes. Also in the discussion of water supply, the DEIR stated that the UWIv1P indicates that the city would have adequate water through the year 2030, and since general plan buildout would occur in that time frame, water would be adequate. Curious, 1 asked what was to happen in 2030. Was some other user, such as Arizona, going to demand full use of previous allocations? Would some unspecified water supply rule go into effect? The response was that since the LRMP anticipated that water supplies would be adequate to handle growth through 2030, any growth that occurred prior to 2030, no matter now massive, could be accommodated. This is not logical. Page 9 of 10 FROM : SRNDY`S_PLRNNING PHONE NO. : Jul. 25 2006 01:47PM Pll The response fails to consider that the LRVW's projection of water adequacy was predicated on growth already anticipated at the time the plan was prepared. Unless the preparers were remarkably prescient, the plan would presumably not have anticipated the additional growth contemplated under the General Plan Update. Perhaps most critical are mathematical anomalies regarding traffic generation. In area after area, massive increases in permitted floor area are shown to result in moderate to nominal increases in trip generation. For example, along Mariner's Mile, allowable commercial floor area ratios were increased by fifty to one hundred percent and then a residential component was added on top of that, yet traffiC was projected to increase by less than ten percent. Then, to compound matters, when the City Council indicated its preference for lower floor area ratios in the area, resulting in commercial floor area ratios which are basically the same as existing commercial floor area ratios, but still adding the residential component besides, the documents assume a reduction in trip generation not only below that previously projected for the increased floor areas in the DEK but below that projected for uses permitted under the existing general plan. Other examples have been cited in previous documents. Land use inputs to the traffic model for each zone and for both the existing general plan, the proposed March 2006 general plan update and the currently proposed general plan update must be reviewed in a public forum and any errors corrected. The City cannot logically make findings of no significant impact hased on the record thus fa r The materials in the DEIR and Volume IA fail to support findings of no significant impact for the numerous areas where it is claimed no impact would occur, It is hoped that the tight time frames imposed to get the General Plan Update on the November ballot have not caused the preparers to rationalize away inadequacies and errors rather than corrected errors or supplement inadequate analyses with additional meaningful information, It is important that all environmental issues for this critical project be fully investigated, taking the time necessary to prepare meaningful, accurate, and complete information. The City is urged to recirculate the document as revised to reflect the proposed, revised plan and to include additional analysis and information as requested, particularly as regards cumulative impacts. As currently presented, the EIR does not provide adequate information to fitlfill the purposes of CEQA nor are planning efforts ensured of a successful outcome. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. Yours trul , andra L. Gems Pagc 10 of 10 Newport Beach GENERAL PLAN UPDATE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE City Council Tuesday, July 25, 2006 Newport Beach GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PROCESS Newport Beach GENERAL PLAN UPDATE General Committee • Established May 23, 2000 • Steering Committee • City Council, Commission and Greenlight representatives • 54 public meetings Newport Beach GENERAL PLAN UPDATE General • Accomplishments Committee (continued) ➢ Designed and managed Visioning Process ➢ Recommended consultant selection ➢ Reviewed and approved methods and assumptions for traffic and fiscal studies, and reviewed all reports ➢ Recommended scope of General Plan Update Newport Beach GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Visioning Process Resident Telephone Survey ................1,000 Business Telephone Survey ..................175 GPAC Meetings ( 12 ) .........................30 -37 Newsletter Mailback ............................764 Visioning Festival .... ...........................400+ Neighborhood Workshops ....................450+ Visioning Summit ..... ...........................350+ Website Key Questions ..........................38 Workshop Kit .......... .............................22 TOTAL ............ ............................... 3J99 Newport Beach GENERAL PLAN UPDATE _N- General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) • Established 2002 • 38- member citizen committee • Representation from all geographic area, age groups, genders and areas of interest • Environmental and business groups appointed 3 members each • 54 public meetings, 4,500 volunteer hours Newport Beach GENERAL PLAN UPDATE r■ Ar `VV� �L�� �MrM� • GPAC Accomplishments ➢ Vision Statement ➢ Reviewed all technical reports ➢ Developed land use alternatives for 9 sub areas ➢ Reviewed impacts of alternatives ➢ Recommended land use plan ➢ Reviews and recommended policies Newport Beach GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Public Workshops June 25, 2005, Land Use Alternatives • April 1, 2006, Draft General Plan • 261 Participants Newport Beach GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Planning Commission • 19 Study sessions and meetings, 2003 -2006 • 10 public hearings since April 2006 City Council • 19 Study sessions, 2003 -2006 • 8 public hearings since April 2006 Newport Beach GENERAL PLAN UPDATE GENERAL PLAN OVERVIEW Newport Beach GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Existing GP not comprehensive or coordinated, elements from 1974 to 2003 Update is Comprehensive • 7 required elements • Harbor and Bay Element updated • New Arts and Cultural Element • New Historic Resources Element with • All preceded by and designed to achieve Vision Statement Newport Beach GENERAL PLAN UPDATE - 1988 Land Use Element • Land use quantity manual, not a guide for future development and City goals • 12 policies — none address geographic areas or villages • 2 policies address residential neighborhood protection Newport Beach GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Proposed Land Use Element • No land use changes to majority of Newport Beach — our residential neighborhoods • 4 goals and 30 policies address residential neighborhoods ➢ Compatible development ➢ Neighborhood identification ➢ Neighborhood maintenance ➢ Character and quality ➢ Renovation and replacement of homes ➢ Buffering from commercial areas ➢ Regulation of residential care facilities Newport Beach GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Land Element (continued) • 9 sub areas with changes ➢ Development is older and market supports change ➢ Visioning told us residents would consider change ➢ Changes build on existing land uses ➢ Policies for each sub area on land uses, development density /intensity, design and development Newport Beach GENERAL PLAN UPDATE - Proposed Land Use Element (continued) • Mixed use introduced or increased ➢ Housing opportunities ➢ Impetus for revitalization • More medical office near Hoag Hospital Newport Beach GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Banning Ranch • Open Space is 1St priority • If not acquired, residential village may be developed • Reductions from existing General Plan ➢ 2,735 to 1,375 residential units ➢ 301,340 to 75,000 sq.ft. commercial ➢ 164,000 to 0 sq.ft. industrial ➢ 75 hotel rooms Newport Beach GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 1988 Circulation Element • Policy is "as close to LOS D as possible" • Accepts worse LOS in Airport Area • Projects 18 intersection worse than LOS D • Includes list of improvements, but has few policies Newport Beach GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Circulation Element • Policy is LOS D, except • LOSE ➢ 3 Coast Highway intersections ➢ 5 intersections shared with Irvine • 28,920 fewer daily trips than existing General Plan • 2,079 fewer peak hour trips than existing General Plan Newport Beach GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Proposed Circulation Element (continued) • Additional Policies ➢ Advocate for 19th Street Bridge ➢ Traffic signal synchronization ➢ Traffic calming on neighborhood streets ➢ Bicycle and pedestrian facilities ➢ Water transportation Newport Beach GENERAL PLAN UPDATE I U / ft %IVIIv"XGI VCILIVII VI M2LLIFC11 Resources Element • Addresses 6 topics • No discussion or policies on biological resources Proposed Natural Resources Element • Addresses 10 topics • Biological resources has 5 sections, with 7 goals and 35 policies • Water quality has 3 goals and 28 policies Newport Beach GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ESAs • Current General Plan ➢ "Environmentally sensitive areas" ➢ Identified in Recreation and Open Space Element ➢ Land Use policy prohibits structures and landform alterations, but: ■ Planning Commission may determine if an area is a ESA ■ Planning Commission may approve development when benefits outweigh environmental impacts Newport Beach GENERAL PLAN UPDATE maMS tcontinuea) • Proposed General Plan ➢ "Environmentally study areas" ➢ Identified in Natural Resources Element Newport Beach GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ➢ Policies: ESAS (continued) ■ Survey by qualified biologist for ESA or contiguous area ■ Siting and design to protect sensitive or rare resources ■ In areas with resources, allow only uses depending on resources ■ Maintain buffers and require native vegetation ■ Shield and direct exterior lighting from resources ■ Special requirements for Buck Gully, Morning Canyon and Banning Ranch Newport Beach GENERAL PLAN UPDATE her General Plan Improvements • Harbor and Bay Element integrated into plan • Housing Element identifies more sites to meet Newport Beach share of regional needs, and more housing opportunities for people who grew up or work here • Recreation Element includes priorities for new parks • Safety Element is updated, conforms with State Law, and continues strong position on JWA • ALUC found General Plan consistent with AELUP Newport Beach GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Places identified as Environmentally Sensitive Areas in existing Recreation and Open Space Element and as Environmental Study Areas in the proposed Natural Resources Element: ➢ Environmental Nature Center ➢ Banning Newport Ranch (precise locations to be determined ➢ Seminuik Slough ➢ San Diego Creek ➢ Big Canyon Park Newport Beach GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ➢ Eastbluff Remnant (Continued) ➢ John Wayne Gulch /Newporter Knoll ➢ Buck Gully ➢ Morning Canyon ➢ Bonita Canyon Creek Watershed (near SR 73) ➢ Harbor View Nature Park ➢ Los Trancos Canyon ➢ Upper Newport Bay Newport Beach GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Additional places identified as Environmental Study Areas in proposed Natural Resources Element ➢ North Star Beach ➢ De Anza Bayside Marsh Peninsula ➢ Newporter North (northerly of John Wayne Gulch) ➢ Newport Beach Marine Life Refuge ➢ Castaways ➢ Newport Coast (Muddy Canyon) ➢ Pelican Hill • Resumes of EIR Preparers 0 July 25, 2006 Item No. 18 ELWOOD C. TESCHER, AICP Principal. Director of Urban Planning and Design Woodier Tcscher brings more than 30 years of award winning urban design, planning and public facilitation ex per icncc to 111 1). TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES • Oversees all urban planning and design programs for Ell) Associates throughout California. • Recognized for advancing the statcof-thc -art in the development and application of plarming and design approaches that achieve community visions and alliance the livability of neighborhoods and vitality of commercial and community ccutcrs, including pedestrian - oriented, transit- oricutcd, mixed hvc /work, and traditional residential dcvclopmaus. • Particularly skilled in the formulation of planning and design documents that are implemented by public and private clients. • An experienced and skilled facilitator of public involvement programs that reconcile the ofren- couflicting objectives of residents, developers, and property owners. • Consistently involved in the coordination of multi- disciplinary teams in challenging complex planning and design assignments. EDUCATION AND AFFILIATIONS M.A., Architecture and Urban Design, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) B.A., Architecture, University of Southern California Mcmber, American planning Association Member. (:ahfi)rrda Planning Roundtable Member, W'estside Urban Forum Instructor, Urban Derign course, UCLA Extcnsion AWARDS AND HONORS 2004 Santa Clarita Valleywide General Plan and Visioning Project - Outstanding Public Outreach and Involvement. Association of Environmental Professionals 2001 Distinguished Service Award, Planning Organuarion (California Planning Roundtable); member CCAPA 2000 Outstanding Planting Achievement for Comprehensive Planting for University Commnuty Concept Plan, Central Scctiun CCAPA 2000 Outstanding Planning Achievement for Comprehensive Plain iug. Ontario SOI Integrated Biological Resources and Parks /Recreation plan. Inland Empire Section CCAPA 1997 Outstanding Planning Acbicvcmcnt for Comprehensive planning for the City of Los Angeles Gecral Plan Framework, CCAPA 1997 Outstanding planning Achievement Award for Comprehensive Planing for the City of I luutington Beach General Plan, Orangc Section, CCAPA 1997 Focused Issue Planning Award for the Long Beach Bast Village Arts District Guide for Development, Los Angeles Section, CCAPA 1994 Outstanding planning Achievement Awaol for Comprehensive planning for the San Clemente General plan, Orauge Scctiun, CCAPA 1992 Distutguishcd Planner Award, CCAPA 1990 Westgidc prize for the Santa Monica 97drd Street Promenade, Wcstside Urban Forum 1989 Outstanding planning Achievement Award for Comprehensive Planning for the City of West I lollywood General plan. CCAPA 1978 Award of Merit for the Montezuma Transmission Corridor Environmental Assessment for Pacific Gas and Nectric Corridor, APA PROJECT EXPERIENCE General Plans General plan Update, City of American Canyon General plan Update. City of Coruna General plan Update, City of Beverly Ifills General plan Update. City of I luntingmn Beach General Plan Update. City of Lancaster General plan Framework. City of leas Angeles Newport Beach — phase L Visioning, City of Newport Beach Outario Sphcre of Influence, City of Ontario Oxnard — phase I Visioning, City of Oxnard Central plan Update, City of Palmdale General plan Update, City of Rcdoudo Beach General plan Update. City of San Bernardino Sauna Clarita Valleywidc General plan. City of Santa Clarita and County of Santa Clarita General plan Update, City of San Clemente General plan Update. City of West I lollywoo d General Plan Update. City ofWestlake Village Neighborhood and Community Plans Altadena Community plan Castaic Corridor Plan Glendale "Model' Neighborhood planning program Universiq of California hAlerced Community plan. Merced County Specific Plans Beverly 1 fills Industrial Area Big Bear lake Moonridge HI Scgundo Downtown Fontana Southwest and Jurupa Industrial Parks Inglewood International Business Park Kem County -City of Bakersfield Casa Loma Specific Plan and Enterprise Zone Application Los Angeles Coastal Transportation Corridor Los Angeles County Malibu Ceucr Los Angeles Port Area lutcgratcd land Use Transportation Specific Plan San Gabriel Valley Boulevard Neighborhoods Sustaivability Plan, Los Angeles County Santa Monica'1'hird Street Promenade Stuck Bauch (City of Citrus I leights) Redevelopment /Retwalization Bakersfield Downtown Redevelopment Element Beverly - Fairfax Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Buena park Central Business District Redevelopment Project Central long Beach Guide for Development 0 lI1 u 0 Eli Segundo Downtown Vision Plan Lancaster Central Business District Redevelopment Project Long Beach Gast Village Arts District Guide for Development San Pedro Central Business District Revitalization Project West Altadena Community Redevelopment Project ViisionbW and Strategic Plans Agoura I [ills Agoura Village Vision Plan Culver City Vision Plan and Community Indicators Downtown Manhattan Beach Strategic Action Plan Bast Compton Redevelopment Project Regional Plans policy Documents for the Iw,s Angeles .Sub - Region for SCAG's Regional Comprehensive plan Comprehensive Plan for North I,os Angeles County (Antelope and Santa Clarity Valleys) Development Master Plans I Inward I lughes (:enter Master Plan Playa del Rey Bluffs Development flan I learnt Rauch Master Plan Baldwin I fills Master Plan Balsa Chica New Town Master Plan Tres I lermanns Ranch Master plan City of Commerce Master Plan . Urban Design San Bernardino Uptown Redevelopment Project Urban Design Plan and Architectural Design .Standards Planning Studies Santa Barham Downtown'1'ransitional Areas Rezone Study Regional Conservation Element for Fresno County Conservation and Urban Space Elements for the City of Palmdale Land Use and Environmental Components for the Areawide Water Quality Management Plan for Latimer and Weld Counties, CO Environmental Impact Reports /Assessments Pacific Gas and Iileetrie Company Environmental Systems EIR Public Involvementand Conflict Resolution Boyle I leights Los Angeles Design Action Planning'1'eam Workshop Corona City I fall Planning and Design Charcette Regional Urban Design Assistance and Team Wutksbops for Downtown l Landon, Virginia and Thousand Oaks Boulevard Taylor Yard Planning and Design Workshop l EIP z HARRIET LAI ROSS Senior Planner Harriet Lai Ross is a Land Use and Environmental Planner with experience in Preparing both Planning reports and environmental documentation under the California Environmental Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES • Experience in managing and preparing planning reports such as General Plan updates for several municipalities in California. • Skilled in designing and implementing community outreach activities including community workshops, visioning events, and stakeholder interviews. • Experienced in managing multiple projects simultaneously. • Successfully interacts and coordinates with clients, sub - consultants, private developers, and governmental agencies. • Experience in managing multiple subconsultants and large project budgets. • Ability to maintain tight schedules and to carefully manage budgets. • Proficient with NEPA and CEQA State Guidelines. • Prepared various environmental documents including Environmental Impact Reports (EIR), Environmental Impact Statements (EIS), Initial Studies /Mitigated Negative Declarations (IS /MND), Environmental Assessments (EA) and Mitigation Monitoring Programs (MbIP). EDUCATION AND AFFILIATIONS MLA., Urban Planning, University of California, Los Angeles B.S., Environmental Studies, University of California, Santa Barbara BA., Geography, University of California, Santa Barbara Member, Urban Land Institute Member, American Planning Association PROJECT EXPERIENCE General Plans and General Plan EIRs Sacramento General Plan Update and EIR, City of Sacramento Newport Beach General Plan Update, City of Newport Beach Corona General Plan Update, City of Corona Santa Clarita Valleywide General Plan, City of San Clarita and County of L.os Angeles Pomona General Plan Update, City of Pomona Corona General Plan Update EIR, City of Corona Alixed Use /Development /Redevelopment EIRs Valley Boulevard Neighborhoods Sustainability Plan EIR, City of San Gabriel New Santa Monica library EIR, City of Santa Monica New Roads Educational Village, City of Santa Monica I lomburg Jaguar ]expansion h IR, City of Santa Monica Rose Bowl EIR, City of Pasadena PacifiCenter at Long Beach Draft EIR, City of Long Beach Second Phase Playa Vista Project, City of Los Angeles, CA Water Resource EIRs District Services Plan EIR, Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District Cross Levee EIR, Reclamation District 2062 Chico Storm Drainage Master Plan EIR, City of Chico City of Roseville Water Treatment Plant Expansion Project and 60 -Inch Raw Water Pipeline Project EIR, City of Roseville Deer Creek Hills General Plan Amendment and Rezone EIR, Sacramento County Technical Reports Hastings College of the Law Institutional Master Plan, Hastings College of the law Initial Site Assessment for State Route 132 Improvements from Riverside Drive to Santa Fe Avenue, Stanislaus County State Route 132 Major Investment Study, Stanislaus County County of Santa Barbara Quarterly Surface Water Quality Monitoring Report, Exxon Corporation State Route 275 Negative Declaration /Finding of No Significant Impacts, City of West Sacramento Higher Education EIRs UCLA Long Range Development Plan EIR, UCLA Northwest Housing EIR, UCLA Specific Plan EIRs Turn of the Century Specific Plan EIR, City of Woodland North Roseville Specific Plan Phase 3 EIR, City of Roseville K -12 Facilities Facilities Expansion Projects, Lynwood Unified School District Energy Projects Pacific Gas & Electric Company Hydroelectric Generation Assets Valuation and Divestiture EIR, California Public Utilities Commission Public Facilitation Sacramento General Plan Visioning for the General Plan Update, City of Sacramento Culver City Visioning and Strategic Plan, City of Culver City Oxnard Visioning for the General Plan Update, City of Oxnard Valley Boulevard Neighborhoods Sustainability Plan, City of San Gabriel Environmental Assessments White Memorial Medical Center Environmental Assessment Basewide Demolition Program Environmental Assessment and Supporting Documents, Vandenberg Air Force Base San Antonio Creek Short -term Flood Control Project Environmental Assessment, Vandenberg Air Force Base Range System Automation -IIA Facility Site Preparation Environmental Assessment, Vandenberg Air Force Base A division of PES] 0 0 0 0 • JESSIE BARKLEY Associate Planner Jessie Barkley has over five years of experience managing a variety of urban and regional planning potjcets throughout California. [let extensive experience includes general plan updates, infrastructure plans, stare and federally mandated lousing documents, and focused studies. TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES • Extensive experience in preparing general plan updates, long -range development plans, infrastructure capacity studies, consolidated plans, housing elements, fair (musing assessments, and specialized policy papers. • Skilled in community outreach activities including community workshops, public hearings, visioning events, and stakeholder interviews. • Working knowledge of sratc, regional, and meal housing policy issues, including preparation of I lousing 11cmcnrs. • Expertise in project coordination including managing client relationships, project budgets, and directing efficient production of wnrk from staff. • Served as Project Planner for the City of Brea General Plan Update (California APA Project Award \tlimct 2004), City of Newport Beach (icneral plan Update, City of Riverside General Plan Update, and City of Claremont General Plan Update. EDUCATION AND AFFILIATIONS MLA., Urban and Regional Planning, University of California, Irvine (UC Irviuc) B.A., Geography, with Hmiort, Unuvcrsity of British Columbia Post (iraduatc Certificate, Markctingand Communications, UC Irvine Awards Director, Los Angeles APA Board Dlcmbct,'ferm 2006 -2008 Member, American Planning Association PROJECT EXPERIENCE General Plans General Plan Update, City of Brea (Cah fnttua APA Ptojecr Award Winner 2004) General plan Update, City of Newport Beach General Plan Update, City of Riverside General Plan Update, City of Claremont Housing Plans /Elements I musing Element, City of I lawthomc I I"using Elcmenr, City of La Canada I'linrtidgc I lousing Element, City, of King City I lousing Llerncm, City of Avalon I lousing Element, City of Lawndalc 1- lousing Element, City of Arcadia Analysis oflnrpedimcars to Fair Housing Choice (Al) AI City of Corona Al Citc of Chino . Al City of Polo Springs Al City of Gardena Al City of I lawthomc Al City of Glendale AI City of Moreno Valley AI City of Rancho Cucamonga Al City of I lesperia AI Los Angeles Urban County AI San joayuin County Al City of Stockton Consolidated Plans Consolidated Plan, City of I lawthomc Consohdated Plan, City of Garden Gtovc Consolidated Plan, City of Santa Monica Focused Housing Studies I Inuring Profile Study, City of Burbank, Rent Crnttmrl Policy Analysis, City of Burbank, luchusionary I lousing Survey, City of Burbank Other Planning Studies Municipal Scrviec Itmew and Sphcte of Influence Updarc, West Valley Water District and San Bernatelmo LAPCO KIMBERLY AVILA, AICP Project Manager Kim Avila is a Project Manager with 12 years of public and planning experience of laud development, rransportatiun- rclared and infrastructure projects; planning and development under both the National Environmental Policy Act (NI-TA) and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); technical reviews of ElSs. LIRs, environmental assessments (11A.4). initial studies, technical studies, and joint documents; and overall environmental compliance. TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES • Project management of infrastructure projects including transportation and water supply • Former instructor in Calrraus Local Assistauce Procedures • Planning, redevelopment and infill projects with emphasis on cultural resources, visual quality, land use compatibility and urban design issues • Regulatory compliance with LSA. CWA issues EDUCATION AND AFFILIATIONS ALA. School of International and Public Affairs, Columbia University, New l ork City H.A. Guvemmen% I larvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts Member, American Institute of Certified Planners, 1999 (No. 015226) Mcmbcr, American Planning Association Member. Association of Environmental Professionals PROJECT EXPERIENCE Mixed -Use Tlne Shops ar Santa Anira Specific Plan OR, Caruso Affiliated I Ioldings. lie. City of lake Forest Opporruuiries Srudy project EIR. City of Lake Forest Project GIR and EA for City Offices and Affurdable Housing Projccr, Myers Development Mitigated Negative Dcelarimuin sud ISA for Geary Street Senior Affordable I ]musing and Community Ccnrcr, BRIDG 1; I lousing Mitigated Negative Declaration for Expansion of Boutin Bakery at Fisherman's Wharf, Andre- Boudin Bakeries Project EIR fill the 3rd & Broadway Mixed Use Prujem David Taylor Interests Recreational Prujccr EIR for the Rose Bowl Renovation Prujccr, City of Pasadena Prujccr EIR for the Embareadero I Intel, Stanford I lurcls Pogram ISIR for the Roseville Bicycle Master Plan Update, City of Roseville Project VIR for the San Ftanciscu Giants PacBcR Park Project, San Francisco Giants Pngccr ISIR for the Santa Clam County Fairgrounds Revitalization Prujccr, Santa Clara County Redevelopment Prugtam EIR fur the Bayview I lunrcrs Point Redevelopment Projects and %oni ng, San Francisco Redevek'Pmcnr Agency' Mitigated Negative Decimation for the lltird & Armstrong Senior Affordable Ilousing Project, BRIDGE I lousing Program EIR for the Downtown Specific Plan Update, (:try of Plcasammn Program and Project FIR for the Rcdevelupmenr Plan Amendment, City of Union City Mission Hay Redevelopment Plans Subsequent ISEi, Carcllus Developmenr Corporation ]Pater South San Francisco Ferr) Terminal Project MR /ISA, San Francisco Hay Area Water Transit Authority Unviroumenral Document for Expanded Ferry Plait in San Francisco Hay, Sau Francisco Hay Area Water Transit Authority ISlivironmcnral Analysis ul' Tidal Marsh Restoration ill San Francisco Hay, San Francisco Airport Commission Program and Prujccr EIR fur the Water Supply Projccr, Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Project 11IR for the Pebble Beach Company Development Proposal, Monterey County Deparrmenr of Planning and Building Inspection Transportation ISIR /ISIS for Interchange and Improvements of Interstate 80 and Interstate 680, Sulauu'l'ranspurrariou Authority Mitigated Negative Declaration, Permits, and I labirar Concept Plan for the Bernal Avenue Bridge and Road Widening. Biggs Cardusa Mitigated Negative Declaration slid Technical Reports fur the Lower Sacramento Road Widening. Mark 'I humas & Company Institutional Master ISIR for Genentech Corporate Facilities Master Plan Update and Research & Development Overlay District Expansion, City of South San Francisco Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) South Region Elementary School #2 EIR. Los Angeles Unified School District LAUSD South Region Middle School #4 EIR, LAUSD Environmental Assessment for Medical Office Building and Parking Structure at San Francisco Veterans Administration Medical Centel, Northern California Institute for liuscareh and Education On -Call Environmental Scrviecs, Califurtua Public Utilities Commission I %uviruumcnnl Analysis, Ptomeul- I•evrl Surveys, Permit Applications, and Arcbaculogical Resources luvevury for nce Rancho laguuitas Detention Basin project, City of Vacaville Program I'M for Loug liaugc Devclopmcnu flan, University of Califunnia, Sau Francisco Applied Materials Anrycs Camprs Specific Plan ISIR, City of Sunnyvale Prtijar ISIR for rile Kaiser Permaneure Medical Center FIR, Kaiser Pcrmanenrc • • 11 0 • • BRUCE D. BARNETT, PH.D. Director of Natural Resource Services Dr. Barnett has over 20 years experience in the study of biology; community and population ecology; and habitat assessment, management and monitoring for development projects involving: energy and natural raourec development (hydroelectric, petroleum, natural Ems, geothermal, wind, mining); water management systems (Flood control, dams, reservoirs); linear facilities (pipelines, transmission lines, fiber -optic cables, transportation corridors); forest products, and wildlife refuge. /natural areas in the United States. Dr. Barnett also coordinates U.S. and California agency pem fitting and funding consultation and conducts NAPA (U.S) and CEQA (California) compliance and other environmental reviews. TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES • Manages the preparation of Environmental Assessments, Biological Assessments, Cumulative Effects Analyses, and Environmental Management Plans for U.S. resource agencies. • Extensive experience in preparing NFPA and CI :QA analyses and documentation; and conducting energy project evaluation, permitting and compliance. • Expertise in conducting formal agency consultations under the U.S. Endangered Species and Clean Water Acts and California Endangered Species Act. • Technical expertise in coordinating environmental assessment, permitting and management planning services for development projects. • Experience includes providing biological support services for hydroelectric FERC license and Exhibit E preparation. • I has experience conducting resource inventory analyses and preparing land use and management plans for parks, wildlife refuges and other natural areas in California. EDUCATION AND AFFILIATIONS Ph.D., Zoology, University of California, Davis, 1985 ALA., Zoology, University of California, Davis, 1983 M.S., Zoology, Ohio State University, 1978 B.A., Sociology, Washington University, 1974 International Association for Impact Asscssmcut (]AAA) American Association for the Advancement of Science (HAAS) 'll nc Iicological Society 'lhe Nature Conservancy The Wildlife Society I labitat ]:valuation Procedures (I IEP) Certification — 2 August 2002 PROJECT EXPERIENCE Energy andHydi ]oche Environmental Performance Report of California: Electric Generation Facilities Biological Resources Analysis, California F,uergy Commission I labitat Equivalency Study for the proposed Morro Bay Power Plant, California Energy Commission Biological Resources Assessment of Application for Certification of Palomar Energy's Proposed 500 MW Power plant in I iscoudido, California Energy Commission Jefferson \lartiu'l'ransmission Project JAR Biological Resources Analysis, California Public Utilities Commission Biological Resources Analysis for the Los Banos —Cates 500 Kv (Path 15) "Pmnsmission Project Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR), California Public Utilities Commission Biological Issues Consultation for the Atlantic -pct Mar Reinforcement Projcct (PG &li Rocklin Upgrade), California Public Utilities Commission Upper American River I lydrocicctric Project, Botanical and Cultural Inventories, Sacramento Municipal Utility District Lake Orovi le I lydrocicctric Reliccnsiug Project, California Department of Water Resources Alturas Transmission Line, California and Nevada, Sierra Pacific Power Company Clavcy River I lydroclectric,Tuolumne Irrigation District Griswold Crock I lydrocicctric Tuolumne Couuty,Tuolumne Regional Water District Walterville /Lcaburg I lydrocicctric Project, Eugenc, Oregon, Eugene Water and Electric Board Kern River Gas Transmission System, Dames & Moore Coastal Saltwater Wetlands, Chevron Refinery, Chevron Chemical Chevron Refinery Wetlands Delineation and Assessment, Chevron Chemical Chevron Refinery Groundwater Protection System Project, Chevron U.S.A Unocal Sot de Mariana Geothermal Concession, Bolivia, Dames & Moore Fluou Gas Pipeline, Bolivia, Enron Cogeneration Power Plant and Ancillary Facilities Biological Study, Sicmets /Bonncvillc Occidental Oil Field and Production Facilities Biological Resource Asse55mcut, Impact Analysis and Fuvironmental Management Flan, Ecuadorian Amazon, Occidental Exploration and Production Company Pucallpa Natural Gas Fields and Refinery Environmental Assessment, Pucallpa, Peru, Maple Gas Corporation Petrochemical Industrial Park Development Environmental Assessment, Vera Cruz, Mexico, Morelos Petrochemicals Exxon Oil Production Fields and Pipeline World Bauk Terms of Reference and Niviroumental Assessment, Chad & Cameroon, Exxon Company International Eucrgia Mayakan (Villatncrmosa- Valladolid) Natural Gas Pipeline, Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico, Trans- Canada Pipeline Biological Resources Cache Crock Resources Alanagcuteut Plan and Cache Crock Improvement Program SI :I R, Yo lo County Nortlnstar- arlahoc I :xpansiun I:nviruunncutal Technical Studies and Permitting, past West Partners Newport I..akc Development Spccial- Status Species Study, Seccon Financial & Construction Company Mokclumne Wilderness Management Plan Environmental Assessment, LI Dorado National Forest, Alpine, Calaveras, Amador Counties, U.S. Forest Service Buzzard Roost Timber Sale Environmental Assessment, Stanislaus National Forest Crissy Field Wetlands Restoration, San Francisco Presidio, U.S. National Park Service Captain's Table Marina and Motel Biological Assessment, Captain's Table I Intel, IJ,C Mather Sewer line Rehabilitation Project Biological Impact Assessments, Sacramento County Rio Linda Last Blain Drain Improvcmcnt'hcchnical Studies, Sacramento County Biological Resources Analysis for the Kinder Morgan, Concord to Sacramento Pipeline Project EIR, California State lauds Commission I labitat Criteria Report (I ICR) for the Park \venue Basin Complex of the Tucson Drainage Area Project (I labitat LP), U.S. Army Corps of linginccn, I,os Angeles District EIS/EIR to Support a Feasibility Study for Ecosystem Restoration at the Morro Bay Estuary, U.S. Corps of Engineers, loxes Angeles District Lower Colorado River Boundary and Capacity Preservation Project EIS, U.S. Army Corps of Fnginccrs, Los Angeles District Wildlife Technical Reports and Biological Impact Assessment for the Combined Array for Research in Millimeter - Wave Astronomy (CAROL\) Project, California Institute of Technology O V RO Beazer /Koppers Feather River Plant Wctlaud Delineation and Assessment, Beazer Elsmce landfill Facility Biological Evaluation, County of t.os Angeles and Angles National Forest Buck Center Revised Final EIR Biological Resources Study, Marin County Panama Canal Improvements Project Biological Impact Assessment and Mitigation Plan, Commission for the Study of Alternatives to the Panama Canal ECOFORI'S'I' 2000 Afforestation Project Environmental Assessment, Ecuador, International Finance Corporation (World Bank) Cameroon Pulp & Paper Complex Environmental Assessment, Africa, Cameroon Pulp & Paper Company Livorno Ammo Storage Arm Restoration and Ecosystem Management Plan, Italy, U.S. Corps of Engineers, European District Transportation Amtrak / Folsom Light Rail Corridor, Sacramento Regional Transit District South Sacramento Light Rail Lxtcnsion, Sacramento, Califonna Wcst Jefferson Boulevard Expansion Biological Resources Studies, City of West Sacramento Middle Bar Bridge Rehabilitation, Calaveras and Amador Counties Fiddlctown Road Bridge Replacement, Amador County Sutter Creek Bridge Replacement and Road Improvement Gmstraints Analysis, Amador County Skyline Road Lxtcnsion Natural Ei virommcut Studies and Wetland Report, lasscn County Skyline Road East New Road Natural Environment Studies and Wetland Report, Lassen County Skyline Road South New Road Natural Environment Studies and Wetland Report, Lassen Comity County Road A -2 Natural Environment Smdy and Biological Technical Studies, Lassen County County Road 56 Natural Environment Study and Biological Technical Studies, Modoc County County Road P Bridge and ]toad Improvement Biological Technical Studies, Glenn County Placerville Drive Bridge Replacement Natural Environment Study, LI Dorado County On -Call Biological Services Mono and Inyo Counties, Caltrans District 9 Routes 41, 178, 180, and 33 Improvement Projects Natural linvironmcnt Studies Fresno and Madera Counties, Caltrans District 6 California Forest Road 124 /Foresthill Road Widening Special- Status Specks Studies Placer County, Federal I lighway Administration FJ Dorado Route 49 Lxpansion Biological Resources Studies, Caltrans District 3 Grass Valley Route 49 Expansion EAR, Caltrans District 3 Cirby /Linda /Dry Creek Flood Control EIR Biological Resources Studies, City of Roseville Old Auburn Road Realignment EAR Biological Resources Studies, City of Roseville I lickcy Boulevard Extension EAR Biological Resources Studies, City of Colma Stockton Street Improvement EIR Biological Resources Studies, City of Stockton Resource permitting Sacramento Suburban Water Agency — CWA, Section 404 Nationwide Permit 7. CWA, Section 401 Water Quality Certification. 11iSA, Section 7 consultation. Pine I lill Industrial Park — CWA, Section 404, Nationwide Permit 39. CWA, Section 401 Water Quality Certification.. ITSA, Scctiou 7 consultation. Bradshaw Christian School - CWA, Section 404, Nationwide Permit 39. CWA, Section 401 Water Quality Certification.. FESA, Section 7 consultation. South Lincoln Sewer lane - CWA, Section 404, Nationwide Permit 12. CWA, Section 401 Water Quality Certification.. FLSA, Section 7 consultation. Robert's Boat Dock - CWA, Section 404, Regional General Permit 23 City of Sacramento, 65th St & Broadway detention basin - CWA, Section 404, Individual Permit LI Dorado Comity Irrigation District, recycled water storage project - CWA, Section 404, Individual Permit Sundanec Properties, retention basin and conservation bank - CWA, Section 404, Individual Permit. CWA, Section 401 Water Quality Certification. FE SA, Section 7 consultation. Sacramento County Water Resources Agency - CWA, Section 404, Individual Permit. CWA, Section 401 Water Quality Certification. PISA, Section 7 consultation. St. Anton partners, Lincoln Creek Apts. — PISA, Section 10 VELB Incidental Takc Authorization. Ca. Fish & Came Code, Section 2081 Incidental Takc. D &S Development- PISA, Section 10 VF.LB Incidental Take Authorization. 0 • E i� 0 1/ 11 u --E-IT NEILL E. BROWER Senior Environmental Manager — CEQA /NEPA Neill Brower is an Environmental Planner and Cultural Resources Specialist managing and providing technical assistance for a variety of environmental documentation, natural resources permitting, and urban planning projects. Neill has been involved in cultural resources management and environmental planning since 1991, in bath the academic and professional fields. TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES • Thoroughly proficient with CEQA Guidelines. • Has managed several controversial CEQA documentation projects. • Prepares documents required by Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act, and by Section 1600 of the Fish and Game Code of California. • FAtensive archaeological experience in the Southern California region, and has participated in a wide range of cultural resource investigations within the public and private sectors, and is skilled in research, writing and illustration, mapping, field survey, test excavation, site monitoring, materials analysis, and collections management. EDUCATION AND AFFILIATIONS B.A., Anthropology, University of California, L,os Angeles GIS Certificate Program, Environmental Systems Research Institute (In Progress) Forensic Sciences Seminar Series, San Diego Museum of Dian Member, Society for Historical Archaeology Member, National Trust for Historic Preservation Member, Los Angeles Conservancy SELECTED PROJECT EXPERIENCE Historic Resources Wattles Gardens Cultural Landscape Report, Hollywood, California I'listorie Research for the Academic Health Center Westwood Campus Facility Reconstruction Project, UCLA UCLA Geffen Theater Expansion Project Initial Stud' /Mitigated Negative Declaration, UCLA Abbott I louse I Iistorie American Budding., Survey (I IABS) Report, Lynwood Unified School District College Licighs Lemon Packing House NABS Report and Interpretive Display, City of Claremont Higher Education 2002 Long Range Development Plan and Northwest Housing Infll Project FIR, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Academic Health Center Facilities Reconstruction Plan Program FIR, UCLA Luck Research Laboratory and Related Facilities EIR, UCLA Intramural Field Parking Structure EIR, UCLA Gast Campus Student Apartments Project EIR, U.C. Irvine 2003 Long -Range Development Plan EIR, U.C. Riverside Santa Mumea College Parking Structure B Replacement Project FIR, (Sty of Santa Monica CEQA Implenrenradon Guidelines University of California CEQA Handbook 2001 Update Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority CEQA Handbook Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority CFQA Document Review and Compliance Assistance Transit and Ud /ides Mid- City/Westside Transit Corridor Study, Metropolitan Transit Authority, City of Los Angeles BART Oakland Airport Connector EA /EIR, City of Oakland Pacific Gas and Electric Company Hydroelectric Facilities Divestiture EIR, California Public Utilities Commission Monterey Agreements Amendment EIR, California Department of Water Resources Redevelopment Mission Bay Redevelopment Plan Subsequent EIR, City and County of San Francisco Culver City Redevelopment Area Merger Subsequent FIR, Citv of Culver City Pico -Union Block 6 Redevelopment Project Revised FIR, City of lsos Artgcl �+Cornmuruty lkcdevclopmcnt Agency Specific Flans Dana Point Headlands Specific Plan Program EIR, Ciy of Dana Point Cabrillo Plaza Specific Plan FIR, City of Santa Barbara Brea Industrial Specific Plan EIR, City of Brea Downey Lauding Specific Plan FIR, City of Downey Claremont Village West Specific Plan program EIR, City of Claremont Residential Development Wes Thompun Ranch Development Pmicct F]It, City of Santa Clarita Northam Ranch House EIR, City of Huntington Beach Northam Ranch IIou.se /Sunset Assisted Living Facility Focused FIR Addendum, City of Huntington Beach Hotels /Resorts Waterfront Grand Resort & Conference Center Supplemental EIR Addendum, City of Huntington Beach The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach (Block 104/105) Subsequent EIR, City of Iuntington Beach Sporrs/Recrearional Facilides Stockton Event Center EIR, City of Stockton San Francisco Giants Ballpark at China Basin EIR, City and County of San Francisco Golden Gate Park Concourse Authority Projects EIR, City and County of San Francisco City of Ontario Sphere of Influence Parks, Recreation, and Biological Resources Implementation Program Jurisdictional pemrirdng /Ahernarives Analyses 'Fesnro I )ci Valle Alteruaticrs Analvsi., and Environmental Permitting, County of Los Angeles Southlands Church International Jurisdictional Delineation and Environmental permitting, County of Los Angeles A division of PES61 EIP . 1, _. Urban Planning University Community Concept Planning Process for the University of California, Merced City of Arroyo Grande Comprehensive General Plan Update City of Corona General Plan Update and EIR Other CEQA Studies Southlands Church Expansion Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration, County of Los Angeles Homburg jaguar Dealership Expansion EIR, City of Santa Monica Cultural Resources Surveys Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of Camp Big Pines, Angeles National Forest, Los Angeles County Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed Shadow Pines Residential Development Area, Los Angeles County Phase I Cultural Resource, Survey of the Proposed Lindero Canyon Park, Wutlake Village, I.os Angeles County phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Proposed Adelanto Wastewater Facility, Adelanto, San Bernardino County Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of Tract 15788, Highland, San Bernardino County Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of Tract 15544, Bloomington, San Bernardino County Archaeological Data Recovery and Analysis phase III Archaeological Investigations for the California Department of Forestry Facility (CA -CAL- 1633), Murphys, Calaveras County Cultural Resource Monitoring Programs Archeological Monitoring program for the Puente Bills County landfill Phase IV Expansion, Los Angeles County Archeological Monitoring program for the Landing, 750 LLC, City of Fontana A division of • • EIP JULIAN CAPATA Environmental Analyst Julian Capata is an environmental analyst providing technical support for a variety of environmental documentation projects. TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES • Experience in evaluating and analyzing CEQA documents. • Project experience involving federal and state environmental policy. • Skilled in ArcGIS, Arcview and MapInfo, and all aspects of cartographic and geographic theory. • Experience wing MapInfo to import, edit, and create GIS data layers within set timeframes. • Organized, facilitated, and served as featured speaker at several local environmental organization meetings to market their programs to local communities, elected officials, and other funding organizations. • Ability to coordinate various groups to achieve mutually agreeable solutions and common goal:. EDUCATION AND AFFILIATIONS N.A., Geography, emphasis on Environmental Studies, California State University, Northridge Member,. \ssociation of Environmental Professionals . PROJECT EXPERIENCE Environmental Impact Reports The Shops at Santa Anita Park Specific Plan, City of Arcadia South San Francisco Derry Terminal Project, San Francisco Nay Area Watcr Transit Authority Genentech Corporate Facilities Master Plan Update, City of South San Francisco Lake Forest Opportunity Study FIR, City of Iake Forest A�div�isioonn of 1�a73jy MELISSA DUNCAN Associate Manager Melissa Duncan is an Associate Managet ptoviding project management and cnvitonmcntal analysis for a variety of environmental documents. TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES • Experience in the preparation of Environmental Impact Reports, Mitigated Negative Declarations, Environmental Impact Statements, and linvimnmenml Assessments. • Technical capabilities include environmental analysis for the following topics: population and housing, aesthetics, agricultural resourecs, public services and utilities, hazardous materials, socio- economic and environmental justice, land use, and planning. • Serves as Project Manager and Deputy Project Manager coordinating EI It preparation. EDUCATION B.S., Environmental Policy Analysis and Planning, Un versity of California, Davis PROJECT EXPERIENCE CEQA Peaceful Oaks Estates EIR, Tuolumne County Orchard Estate., Subdivision FIR, Stanislaus County Lower lagoon Valley Development Project MR, City of Vacavifc REA Building I'M Cite of Sacrament,, Riverside Motorsports Park Environmental Gmstrants Analysis, Riverside Motorsports Pork I.LC Oak Valley Subdivision and Conceptual Master Plan Focused EIR and Recirculated EIR, City of Cluco Dixon Downs Racetrack and Mixed Use Development EIR, City of Dixon Village 23 Addendum, City of Lincoln Nader Property Project MR, City of Lincoln Marina University Villages Specific flan Project, City of Matins 'llnc Point at Seaside Negative Declaration, City of Seaside ParkeBridge EIR, City of Sacramenm Sutter Medical (:enter, Sacramento, Master Plan EIR, City of Sacramento Trinity Cathedral EIR, City of Sacramento 'Phe Towers on Capitol Mail EIR, City of Sacramento El Dorado Irrigmiim District Recycled Water Seasonal Storage EIR, H Dorado Irrigation District Kansas Woodland Business Park EIR, City of Modesto Mercy General Heart Center I?IR, City of Sacramento 5400 Geary Boulevard Project Mitigated Negative Deelatatiim, City and County of San Francisco Regional University Specific Plan P:IR, Placer County Mercy I lousing Addendum, City and County of San Francisco Independence /Gmstitutiim General Plan Amendment and Rezoning Project IAR, City of Menlo Park cBAR'1' 1!Ilt /1?I5, B,11fI' and 14deral'I'ransit Administration Napa County Sales'1'ax Ordinance and'1'ramsportation Improvement Expenditure Plan Program MR, Napa Vallcy Transportatiom Authority Sand I fill Road Ilotel and Offer Development Project, City of Menlo Park Genera! Plans /Specific Plans Salida Community Plan Update /River lunch Specific flan Fllt, titanislaus County West Salida Specific flan FIR, titanislaus County Regional University Specific flan, Placer County City of Sacramento General flan Update and FI R, City of Sacramento City of Petaluma General flan Update FIR, City of Petaluma Roadn^ay/Transportation 7th Street Extension Project EIR and EA, City of Sacramento and Federal I lighway Administration 1 -5 Rivcr&ont Reconnectiim PEAR, City of Sacramento Gladdi ng Parkway MR, City of Lincoln City of Petaluma General ]'fail Update Ill R, City of Petaluma Cl • • u DEMIAN EBERT Fisheries and Wildlife Biologist Dcmian Ebert has over ld years of experience conducting fisheries and wildlife investigations. I tip responsibilities include preparation of environmental analyses for development plans and projects, endangered species evaluations, field investigations, and mitigation monitoring. Ili, extensive background often allows him to develop comprehensive mitigation measures that help minimize project effects on the environment. TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES • Skilled in conducting instrcxm Fisheriex resource evaluations, performing literature reviews, research, and monitoring to assess impacts to fish and wildlife resources from multiple sources and to formulate or evaluate mitigation measures. • Extensive experience in the preparation of technical documents, mitigation and management plans that evaluate potential impacts from development, diversion, or other iustrcam activities on fish and wildlife resource.. • Extensive experience conducting instream fisheries resource evaluations using a wide variety of methods. • Assists with preparation of CEQA documents and mitigation to evaluate and mitigate impacts from development, diversion, or other instream and upslope activities on fish and wildlife resources. • Assists with the design of fisheries, wildlife, and habitat restoration plans, including the development of technical drawings, specifications, bid packages, and implementation schedules. • Develop, aquatic species management plans that allow client's compliance with state and federal liccusi ng requirements. • Manages projects in which fisheries and wildlife issues are of primary concern. EDUCATION AND AFFILIATIONS B.A., Biology. University of California, Santa Cruz Member, American Fisheries Society Member, Association of Field Onuithologists Member. American girding Association PROJECT EXPERIENCE Biological Assessment Significant Natural Resource Areas Management Plan, City and County of San Francisco, Recreation and Park Department Pacifica Quarry Biological Constraints Analysis, Peebles Development Corp. .State Route 152/156 Interchange Project Natural Environment Study, \'ages. Transportation Authority Oyster Point Ucny 'Yerminal Natural Environment Study, Water Transit A utlmrity Oyster Point Ferry 'fcrmival Weiland Delineation Biological Assessment of the Potential Effects of hrchaumcl Mining on Four Federally Protected Species at I lansuu Aggregates Sisquoc River Plant, Santa Barbara County. California, I Jansen Aggregates Section 7 Consultation for Bay Bridge Replacement Project, I'll(: Biological Assessments and Pre- construction Surveys in the San Francisco Bay Area and Southern California. Ralph Osterhng Consultants, Inc. Murphy Ridge /Asa Bean Biological Assessment, Round Valley Indian Tribes North Fork Biological Assessment, Round \'alley Indian Tribes CEQA Services General flan and ISI R, Biological Constraints Analysis, City of Brentwood Waterfront 1 lotel Initial Study /Negative Declaration. City of Burlingame Santa Clara Comity Subdivision EI R, Santa Clara County Iatwer Silver Creek Watershed Project IS /EA, Sams Clara Valley Water District Lower Guadalupe River QA /QC Services, Santa Clara Valley Water District BART- Oakland Airport FIR, Bay Area Rapid Transit. Petaluma General flan, Ciq of Petaluma Farmers lane Extension Iql?, City of Santa Rosa I ligh Speed Rail Phase II Environmental Review, I high Speed Rad AuthorityStxte Route 152/156 Interchange Project ISIR /IiIS, ValleyTransportatiun Authority Lake Forest Opportunities Study Program EIR, City of lake Purest Salida Community flan Update /River Rauch Specific flan EIR, Stanislaw, County eBART, San Francisco Bay Area Rapid'fcansit Pleasant Hill Land Analysis. City of Pleasant I fill .Stanford Hotel and Office Complex Project, City of Menlo Park Oystcr Point I +erry'I'crminal E.IR /EIS, Water'lransit Authority Morgan I lill Urban limit Line Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration, City of Morgan Ifill Truusdale Pump Station and Water Main Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, City of Burlingame San lose Singleton Spurts Park EIR, City of San lose Sonoma County Outdoor Recreation Plan FIR, Sonoma County Regional Parks Department Pacific Ridge Environmental Review Services, Ailanto Properties and I Toward, Rice, Nemcrovski, Canady, Palk & R.abkin Alum Rock I.RI' Ii1R /ISIS, Santa Clara Valley Trausportxtiou Authority Wildlife Investigations South Bast Santa Rosa Biological Studies, fine Creek Development Corp. Madrigal Wetlands Opportunities Analysis, Green \'alley Consulting 17'ngmccr% Selby fond — Wetland Assessment. Mitigation Cost Estimate, and Pcrmitting'Cimeline, Earth Lech 275 Industrial Way, California Red - legged Frog Surveys. City of San Carlos ERIN EFNER Associate Manager Erin Efner is an Associate Manager providing project management experience for a multitude of National Environmental Policy Act and California Environmental Quality Act compliance as well as for urban planning projects. TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES • Project management and coordination expertise with (:I ?QA /NEPA compliance regulations. • Extensive knowledge of the Endangered Species Act. Clean Water Act. Clean Air Act. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation. and Liability Act (Superf nid), and NEPA /CEQA Guidelines. • Skilled in environmental research, technical writing, critical analysis, and environmental risk assessment. • Extensive experience in domestic and international environmental policy analysis. • Extensive knowledge and expertise involving environmental issues in natural and social sciences. • Experience conducting outreach and public relation activities. EDUCATION AND AFFILIATIONS M.A., Public Policy — Environmental Policy, University of Maryland. School of Public Affairs B.A.. Environmental Studies and Geography, University of California, Los Angeles Member, American Planning Association Member, Womeu's Environmental Council PROJECT EXPERIENCE Environmenta/lmpact Reports Santa Anita Racetrack Specific Plan EIR, City of Arcadia 77 -Room Ocean Avenue lintel EIR, City of Santa Movies General Plan Update EIR, City of Newport Beach Newland Street Residential EIR City of I luatingtou Beach IA)s Angeles Unified School District Central Region Elementary School #15 MND, le>s Angeles Unified School District ( LAUSD) IAx; Angeles Unified School District Central Region Elementary School #13 EIR, LAUSD LAUSD Valley Region Elementary School #8 EIR L.AUSD LAUSD South Region I ligh School #3 EIR I,WSD LAUSD Valley Region High School #5 EIR. LAUSD Pacific City IiIR City of Huntington Beach General Plan Amendment Ella, City of Lake Forest Perris Industrial EIR City of Perris Monterey Amendment EIR Department of Water Resources UCSB Ellwood Dcvcmm EIR, University of Cafifumia. Santa Barbara Gateway South EIR, City of Scotts Valley Burbank Density and Design. City of Burbank Santa Ana Unified School District Supplemental EIR, Santa Ana Unified School District Countryside Specific Plait EIR, City of Ontario Long Beach Marina Shores EIR, City of Long Beach Sutter Medical (:enter EIR, Suttcr I Icalth Peninsula Medical Center Replacement EIR City of Burhugnmc La Canada Phutridgc'l'cntativc'l'ract Map and Variance EIR, City of la Canada Flumidgc Land Use and Mobility Elements Update, City of Long Beach ;Stockton Event Center EIR, City of Stockton Genera /Plans General Plan Technical Background Report. City of Beverly I IiOs General Plan Technical Background Report, City of Newport Beach General Plan Technical Background Report, City of Pomona General Plait Opportunities and Challenges Report. City of Santa Monica CEQA Categoric al E.scmption Class 32 Categorical Exemption, City of Santa Monica Mitigated Negative Declarations LAUSD Central Rcgiou Elementary School #15 MND, l,'WSD City of Carsou South Bay PaviGat MND, City of Carsou Transportation /NEPA En vimnmenta /Assessments SR 152/156 Improvement Project IS /F.A. Santa Clara Valley '1'ranspurtation Authority Santa Clara Alum Rock Corridor IS /EIS, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Watershed Management Plan Ballona Watershed Management Plan, Los Angeles County • • 0 1] • 0 California Red- legged frog Surveys and Status Report, lake Merced. City and County of San Francisco. Recreation and Parks Department Crystal Springs Reservoir Dam Abutment Improvement Project. I=labitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. City and County of San Francisco. Public Utilities Commission lake Merced Biological Resources Evaluations, friends of Recreation and Parks Department Power Plant Biological Surveys - Petaluma,'FRC Sand I fill Road Bridge Retrofit Project, California Red- legged Frog Surveys. City of Palo Alto Surveys for Fresno Kangaroo Rat and San)nayuin Kit Fox. University of California. Merced Bird Nest Surveys along Old Alameda Creek. Oliver Iiaate and Tract Special Status Species Surveys at Sisyuoc Gravel Plant. I Janson Aggregates Northern Elephant Seal Pup Mortality. University of Califomna, Santa Cruz Dietary Analysis of A`hite- tailed Kites. University of (:Iliforuia• Santa Crn'r. Northern Spotted Owl Surveys. Sonoma, lake, Mendocino, and'frinity counties Nesting Bird Surveys, Pecos National Forest, New Mexico, U.S. Forest Service Afit)ation Plans Crystal Springs Reservoir Dam Abutment Improvement Project, I labitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, City and County of Sail Francisco, Public Utilities Commission Belmont Creek Mitigation Plan, City of San Carlos Airport Way Wetlands Delineation and Mitigation Plan, City of San Carlos Operations and Maintenance Compliance Tool, Contra Costa Water District Carranza Basin I labitat Reclamation Plan, I lansou Aggregates Little Lucy Basin Conceptual I labitat Reclamation Plan, I Ianon Aggregates Alameda Creek Diversion Dam: Mitigation Site Planting Plan, City and County of San Francisco, Public Utilities Commission Colma Creek Flood Control Project: Mitigation Site Design, San Mateo County Flood Control District Mount Eden Buffer Zone Channel Design Evaluation, Rose Landscape Associates landscape Architects Delta In- channel Islands Biotechnical Erosion Control Demonstration Project, Department of Water Resources Permitting /Monitoring Sail Quentin Shoreline Repairs Final Measures Initial Study /Environmental Assessment, California Department of Corrections slid Department of General Services Level 3 Long I laul Project Biological and Environmental Scrvicc,, BI lli, Inc. Priest Reservoir Bypass Project, City and County of San Francisco, Utilities Fogineeriug Bureau Vallejo Bap link ferry ibfainteuance Facility Construction Permuting, Winder & Kelley Belmont Creek Permitting Assistance, G W Williams Inc. Carter I till West: Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration, Wetland Delineation, Permitting Assistance. Coastside County Water District Fisheries Mitigation Compliance Testing of the Potter Valley Project fish Screen Facility. Pacific Gas and Electric Company Tulle River Fish Return Plan. Southern California Edison Dcsiym. Construction Monitoring, and Compliance Testing of Bypass Modifications to the Potter Valley Project Fish Screen Facility. Pacific Gas and F leetrie Company Fisheries Monitoring/Investigations, Lake Elsinore Fisheries Management Plan, lake Elsinore San )aeimo Watershed, Authority 'Pule River Native Aquatic Species Management Plan. Southem California Edison Santa Ana River Aquatic and Riparian Monitoring Project. Southern California Edjson El Sur Ranch Water Rights ffl It. I Junta Ruiz Monterey Amendments PAR. Department of Waco Resources Upper American River Relieensing - Biological Resources /Pollution. Sacramento Municipal Utilities District Alameda County (:]call Water Program, Alameda County Department of Public Works, Clean Water Division Pacific Gas & Electric Crnnpany McDonald Island Gas Storage and Pipeline, TRC Pacific Gas & Electric Company I lydroe]eetrie Facility Divestiture EIR, California Public Utilities Commission Big Bear Crock Hlectrofishing Survey, Big Bear Municipal Water District Potter Valley Project Monitoring Program, Effects of Operations oil Upper fuel River Anadromous Salmuuids, Pacific Gas and Iilectcic Company Passive Integrated Tagging Investigations of Juvertilc Steelhead in the Upper fuel River, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Decline of Salmonids in the Russian River, Sonoma County Water Agency and Circuit Rider Productions Stream I labitat Surveys of Murphy and I loose Creeks Round %'alley Indian -tribes t ERIK W. HANSEN Environmental Scientist Erik Hansen is an Environmental Scientist who provides expertise for a variety of environmental /natural resource projects and documents. TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES Working knowledge of the NEPA /CL'QA guidelines. • Prepares categorical exemptions, initial studies, technical reports, and technical s. crions for environmental/ natural resource projects and documents. • Produces shapefles in the creation of land use maps for environmental analysis and documentation. • Collects, compiles, and analyzes field data for environmental analysis and documentation. EDUCATION AND AFFILIATIONS B.S., Forestry and Natural Resources, Minors: Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and Water Science, Cahfomia Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Certificate, Technical Communication, College of Liberal Arts, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Member (2005 - Current), Association of Environmental Professionals — Los Angeles Chapter Member (President, 2002 - 2004), AEP —Cal Poly (Channel Island, Chapter) Member, (Secretary, 2001-2004) Society for Technical Communication — Cal Poly' (National Chapter) PROJECT EXPERIENCE Environmental Documentation Annandale Canyon Estate, EIR, City of Pasadena Glendale Downtown Specific Plan Program EIR, City of Glendale Metropolitau Transit Authority (Tight of Way Transportation District Zoning Ordinance Amendment MND, City of Santa Monica ISI Dorado Park /Iamg Beach Nauofiltration Project MND, City of Long Beach Fairfield Residential Development MND, City of Burbank La Canada /Flintridge Town Center h9ND, City of La Canada /Flintridge La Canada /I-lintridge Tract 5364 EIR, City of La Canada /Flintridge Metro 1!agt Mixed Use Development Program Ii1R /EIRs (2). City of Santa Ana Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR, City of Newport Beach Santa Anita Park Specific Plan EIR, City of Arcadia South Region Elementary School #4 (South Gate) EIR, Los Angeles Unified School District South Region Middle School #2 (Belt) EIR, Los Angeles Unified School District South San Francisco Ferry Tem»nal EIR, San Francisco WatcrTrangit Authotity Springville Residential Development Specific Plan EIR, City' of Camarillo Urbun Planning Pwiects La Canada /lIntridge Genera) Plan Update and EIR, City of La Canada /Mintridge Lake Forest Opportunities Study EIR, City of lake Forest Ontario Countryside Specific Plan, City of Ontario Prater Resources Cal Poly — Swanton Pacific Ranch, Digital Mapping of Water Resources, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo (Undergrad) Chino I lilts Tentative Tract Map Biological Technical Report, City of Chino I fill, Santa Anita River Fishery and Riparian Monitoring, Southern California Edison Iinvirmtmental Compliance Implementation Planning attd Monitoring, Three Valleys Municipal Water District Geographic InloRnation Systems Digital Mapping of Archaeological and Biological Studies within San Luis Obispo County, County of San Luis Obispo Department of Building and Planning (Undngrad) • E • • 1 L GEOFFREY H. HORNEK Senior Scientist 11 Geoff lturnck is an Environmental Engincer and Scientist will, ever 28 years of experience preparing complex technical environmental documens and managing projects with emphasis on air quality and uuisc analysis and mitigation development. TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES • Senior in -house expert on environmemal air quality and noise problems, their public had, implications, and their solutions. • Gxhcusivc experience measuring ambient air pollman, and uuisc levels. computer modeling of air pollutam dispersion and uuisc attenuation, air toxic health risks assessments, and altetuainc strategics to mitigate identified environmental effects. • Managed and prepared environmental documents in cumpliattee will, federal, snhe and local air pollueam /noise regulations. • Excellent working relationship with public agency contacts and enmonmeneal professwoals in a wide variety of gov¢nmen, and industry sectors including urban and transportation planning, power generation, chemical manufacture, metal fabrication /coating, and printing. • Developed methods for reconstructing occupational air pollutant exposure hiswrics from fimited measurement data using computer models and statistical techniques. EDUCATION AND AFFILIATIONS Currcttdy working towards an M.P.11. in Enviroomeneal I ]call],. University of Mimtesom, School of Public I lcalth, Al'un eapolis, MN M.S., Applied Seienee /Nigineering, University of California, Davis /Livermore B.A., Physics, Qnccns College, NY Member, American Physical Sueicty PROJECT EXPERIENCE Air Polluranr /Norse Modeling Air Pullumm Emissions and Noise levels. San Francisco Giatus Ballpark, Sail Francisco Les Masson Provencal Senior Center Carbon Monoxide Modeling, City of Saratoga SLAB I lcavy'1'uxie Gas Dispersion Model Development, Bay Area Air Quality Management District Russell Ranch Sound Wall Specifications, (:ity of Folsom Mcahh Care /Research Palo Alto Medical Foundation — New San Carlos Campus University of California at Davis, Medical (:enter Expansion Kaiser Permanents I lospinl /McJical Office lxpansion, Ciy of San Francisco University of California at San Francisco, Campus Lung Range Development Plan California Department of Ilealth Services Laburmory Relocation, Ciy of Berkeley Belles Biuseiences, City of Richmond Energy SOCAL Gas Company NaNral Gas Transmission line 6902 Replacement Project; I layficld to Calexico Southeast Desea Wind Energy Planning Area Constraims Analysis (Bureau of Land Managcmrnt), California Tri -County Wind linergy Ordinance, Solano, Comm Coset and Alameda Counties Wildhorse Geothermal Development, Sonoma County I Ianvood Biomass- 11ueled Power Plant, Mendocino County Santa Clara Civic ( ,'enter Cogencrating Power Plain, Santa Clan County Transporwrion Saud I fill Road Lxtension, Cities of Palo Alto and Menlo Park dth Street Widening Noise Impact and Mitigation Study. City of Gruver Bead Willow Avenue Widening /Impruvemcm, Ciy of Fresno Tun¢r (:curt C rpor ®ion Yard, Alameda Couiny Gruver Beach h4uhimudal (:enter, City of Gruver Beach San Carlos Caltrain Grade Separation, City of San Carlos Lawrence I?xpressway I 10 lanes, City of Sunnyvale Residential /Commercial /Rerail Developmenr Sand I fill Road I loccl /Office lark, City of Menlo lark I tome Depot, City of Sane Rosa Vineyards at Glen lima lunch, (:ity of ( tiboy Oaks Paaory Outlet, (:iy of Buelhon Woodland Pla>a Shopping Center. (:ity of Paso Rubles I lamilton Field Master flan, City of Novato NATALIE IRWIN Associate Scientist Natalie Irwin is an associate scientist providing project management and environmental analysis. Natalie has technical experience in all aspects of CEQA including hazardous materials, air quality, and noise analysis. She is familiar with CEQA /NFPA guidelines, and a variety of environmental regulations. TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES • Experience preparing components of environmental impact assessments, studies, mid reports prepared under CL:QA /NEPA, • Technical capabilities include air quality, noise analysis, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, and hazardous materials. She is also familiar with regulations applicable to these areas. • Experience working with Phase I and 11 Environmental Site Assessments as well as perfonning environmental database review. • Experience measuring ambient air pollutant, computer modeling of air pollutant dispersion, air toxic health risks asxssmcuts, and alternative strategies to mitigate identified environmental effects. • Experience measuring ambient noise levels, computer modeling of noise attenuation for traffic and point sources such as construction, and strategies to mitigate identified environmental effects. • Skilled in the use of Geographic Information System software such as Arc View, ERDAS Imagine, 1IEC- I lydmlogic Modeling System EDUCATION AND AFFILIATIONS M.S., Environmental Analysis and Decision Making, Ricc University B.A., Integrative Biology, University of California, Berkeley PROJECT EXPERIENCE Instinitional /Medical Sonoma Valley I lospital Replacement Project EIR, Sonoma Valley I lealth Cam District Palo Alto Medical Foundation - San Carlos Medical Center /Specific Plan El R, City of San Carlos Palo Alto Acute Psychiatric Replacement Facility EA/ FONSI, Department of Veterans Affairs Menlo Park Psychiatric facility IiA /FONSI, Department of Veterans Affairs Urban Redevelopment 18001'rousdale Drive Condominium Project IS /MNU, City of Burlingame 1840 Ogden Condominium Project, San Matco County 101^ and Market EIR Addendum, City of San Francisco 178 Townsend Street IS/MND, City of San Francisco 1655 Scott Boulevard IS /MNU, City of Santa Clara Commercial /Industrial Development ludepcudeuce /Constitution General Plan Amcodmcot sod Rezoning Project E R, City of Menlo Park Stanford I Iotel aiul Office Complex EIR, City of Menlo Park I home Depot FIR, City of Santa Rosa Gateway South SI9R, City of Scotts Valley I lastings Parking Garage Project Supplemental EI R, University of California, I lastings College of law General Plan Studies General Plan Update FIR, City of Newport General Plan Update EIR, City of Petaluma Morgan I'lill Urban Limit Line and General Plan Amendment IS /MNU, City of Morgan Ifill Pleasanton General Plan Update EIR, City of Pleasanton Specific Plan /blGrd Use Studies West Artesia Boulevard Specific Plan, City of Bellflower Valley Vision Neighborhood Sustainubility Plan Eovimnnnnal Impact Report, City of San Gabriel Santa Anita Park Specific plan EIR, City of Arcadia Transportation /Transit Studies cBART EIS /EIR, BARTand Federal Transit Administration BART Seismic Safety Program CFQA /NEPA Documentation, Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) South San Francisco Ferry Terminal Project IiIR /IiA, San Francisco Bay Area Water Transit Authority Programmatic FIR for the Adoption of the Napa County Transportation Agency'fax Ordinance and Transportation Improvement Expenditure Plan State Route 152/ State Route 156 Interchange IS /EA - Negative Declaration /binding of No Silmificant Impact (FOB 1SI), Sena Clan Valley Transportation Authority and California Department of Transportation Infrastructure Trousdole Pump Station and Water Main Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS /MNU), City of Burlingame • • is EIP DANIEL KENNY Environmental Specialist — CEQA /NEPA Daniel Kenny is an environmental specialist providing technical assistance for a variety of environmental documentation projects. TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES Experience researching and preparing environmental legislation summaries. Prepared a paper and presentation to be published in the California Geographic Society annual. Experience in fundraising and publicity having served as an intern for both Barbara Boxer for Senate and I Toward Dean for President. EDUCATION AND AFFILIATIONS B.A., Environmental Studies, University of Southern California PROJECT EXPERIENCE CEQA /NEFA Genentech Facilities Master Plan and Overlay Distribution Expantion FIR, City of South San Francisco San Francisco Bay Area Water Transit Authority Ferry Terminal in South San Francisco EIR /EIS, San Frand <o Bay Area Water Transit Authority Santa Monica 77 -Room Hotel EIR, City of Santa Monica Huntington Beach Newland Street Residential Project FIR, City of Iluntington Beach Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR, City of Newport Beach Lake Forest Opportunities Study Program EIR, City of Lake Forest Santa Anita Park Mixed -Use Development EIR, City of Arcadia Educational Facilidcs South Region Elementary School No. 4 FIR, Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) South Region Middle School No. 2 EIR, LAUSD A division of MV EdR SHANNON KIMBALL Planning Specialist Shannon Kimball is a planning specialist with over four years of experience in current and advance land use planning. Her experience ranges from managing controversial residential and commercial discretionary projects to updating zoning ordinances, historic resources surveys, and a comprehensive general plan. TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES Familiar with CEQA and NEPA Guidelines, zoning code ordinances, general plans and Geographic Information Systems (GIS). Skilled in research, critical writing, and analysis, for advanced planning projects. Extensive experience reviewing and processing administrative and discretionary development applications, managing and updating Historic Resources Surveys, and amending zoning ordinances. EDUCATION/AFFILIATIONS/CERTIFICATES M.A., Planning, emphasis in Urban Design, University of Southern California B.A., Humanities and English Composite, Brigham Young University Certificate in Historic Preservation, University of Southern California Member, American Planning Association PUBLICATIONS Extensive research and drafts for publication of African Americans' Access to Healthy Food Options in South I,os Angeles Restaurants, 2005 PROJECT EXPERIENCE Genera/P/ans/Spechic Plans /Zoning Ordinances Mixed Use Overlay Zone and EIR, City of Santa Ana Property Development Standard Options, City of Ontario General Plan Update, City of Santa Clarita General Plan Update and EIR, City of Newport Beach General Plan Update and EIR, City of Beverly Hills Fusion at South Bay 280 Unit Planned Development and Specific Plan, City of Hawthorne Long Beach Recycling Market Development Zone Expansion, City of Hawthorne Ballona Creek Bicycle Master Plan, City of Culver City Secondary Dwelling Units, Zoning Ordinance, City of Culver City Residential Design Standards, Zoning Ordinance, City of Redondo Beach Historic Resources I listoric Resources Survey, City of Redondo Beach Technical Studies Best Practices for Transit Oriented Development, Gateway Cities Council of Governments Efficient /Equitable and Cost Effective Methods for Clean -up of Brown Field Sites, USC Center for Economic Development Growth Visioning Public Outreach Growth Visioning in Los Angeles County, Gateway Cities Council of Governments A division of >W'# 0 '/ 11 u 0 0 • 0 EIP SHELDON K. NYLANDER Scientist — Air Quality/Noise Sheldon Nylandcr is an experienced air quality and noise analyst providing technical expertise for a variety of environmental documentation, natural resource, permitting, and urban planning projects. TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES • .Assists in the preparation of CEQA documentation (i.e. EIRs, MNDs, NDs) throughout California. • Skilled in research, writing, critical analysis, and environmental risk assessment. • Expertise involving environmental issues in natural and social sciences. • Develops project - specific au quality and noise models as needed to provide accurate impacts analyses and identify appropriate solutions. • provided air quality and noise analyses for a number of controversial projects, including the Rose Bowl Stadium Renovation project FIR, the Springville Specific plan EIR, and the City of Lake Forest Opportunities Study program, and has provided expertise on numerous aspects of the Los Angeles Unified School District's New School Construction Program. EDUCATION /AFFILIATIONS /CERTIFICATIONS H.A., Cinema and Television Arts, California State University, Northridge Certified Fugitive Duct Control Superviosr, South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2005 SELECTED PROJECT EXPERIENCE Environmental Documentation 2002 Long Range Development Plan, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Northwest Housing Infill project FIR, University of California, I,os Angeles UCLA Life Sciences Replacement Building FIR, UCLA UCSB Ellwood Dcvcrcux Joint Open Space and Habitat Conservation plan EIR, University of California, Santa Barbara West Roseville Specific plan EIR, City of Roseville Banner Island EIR, City of Stockton Dana Point Ileadlands Specific plan program EIR, City of Dana point Annandale Canyon Estates EIR, City of Pasadena The Strand (Blocks 104/105) EIR, City of Huntington Beach Pacific City EIR, City of Huntington Beach Rose Bowl Stadium Renovation project EIR, City of Paaadcna City of Lake Forest Opportunities Study program EIR, City of Lake Forest Santa Anita Park Specific Plan EIR, City of Arcadia .Springville Specific Plan EIR, Ciry of Camarillo .San Antonio Spreading Grounds Conjunctive Use project JAR, Santa Clara Valley Water District Long Term Facilities plan and Annexations Program EIR, Orange County Water District School Projects Los Angeles Unified School District ( LAUSD) Valley Region High School #5, LAUSD Los Angeles Unified School District Valley Region Elementary School #8, LAUSD Los Angeles Unified School District South Region Elementary School #4, LAUSD I.os Angeles Unified School District South Region Middle School #2, LAUSD Los Angeles Unified School District Central Region Elementary School #13, LAUSD Los Angeles Unified School District South Los Angeles High School #3, LAUSD Banning High School Sport Fields Improvements Noise Study, LAUSD Transit Projects Mid- City /Wcstsidc Transit Corridor Study, Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority Urban Planning Projects General Plan Technical Background Report and EIR , City of Corona General Plan Technical Background Report, City of Newport Beach General plan Update, City of Lake Forest A division of EI P JOHN J. SPRANZA, II Project Manager — Water Resources Mr. Spranza serves in both managerial and technical roles at his current position at EIP, and for the last three years, has also been an Instructor of Environmental Science at Pierce College. As an environmental specialist for more than 8 years; and CEQA specialist for 5 years, Mr. Spranza has been involved with the preparation and /or management of environmental documents and technical studies for projects under both CEQA and NEPA. TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES • Has successfully guiding clients through complicated regulatory processes as a project manager for both CEAQ /NEPA projects and Technical Studies. • Directs EIP's southern California Biological and Natural Resources staff • Has extensive experience in aquatic ecosystem assessment, watershed assessment, stream and riverine ecology, fisheries ecology /management, and advanced statistics. • Advises clients on the interpretation and use of current CEQA Statutes and Guidelines, pertinent federal and state regulations, and recent CEQA- related case law • 'Technical responsibilities include project and technical management of EIR's, natural resource studies,study design, and data and statistical analyses. • Technical experience includes stream and river fisheries assessments, Rosgen stream classification, aquatic community composition and species distribution, stream ecosystem modeling, watershed assessment, determination of life - history, fecundity, and growth rates of stream and river fish, spatial analysis of floodplain and wedand ecosystems and communities, river restoration with respect to dam removal projects, and water quality assessment and analysis. • Regularly performs surveys for terrestrial wildlife and botanical species. • Regularly performs jurisdictional /wetland defincatiom, has undergone extended training in Clean Water Act permitting, and has experience in both state and federal jurisdictional watco permitting. EDUCATION AND AFFILIATIONS B.S., Aquatic Biology, 1996, UC Santa Barbara M.S., Zoology / Aquauc Ecology, 1998, Oklahoma State University Ph.D ,(incomplete), Aquatic Ecology 1998 -2000, University of Wisconsin, Madison CTQA Politics & Compliance, UCLA Extension 2001 River Morphology and Applications, Rosgen Stream Classification. Wildland Hydrology Inc. 2005 Applied Fluvial Geomorphology, Ito sgen Stream Classification Wildland Hydrology Inc. 2003. Advanced Wedand Permitting. Federal Wetlands /Waters Regulatory Policy, 2003 Nation Wide Permits Complete. Wedand Training Institute, 2003 Basic Wetland Delineation Wedand Training Institute, 2002. Member, American Fisheries Society Member. American Society of Limnologq and Oceanography Member, Ecological Society of America :Member, North American Benthological Society PUBLICATIONS Spranza,)). And Ebert, D, 2004. Watching Courts, Sharpening Skills; Permitting Is More Than just Paperwork. Stormmater, November/ December. Spranza,). J. and E. H. Stanley. 2000 Condition, growth, and reproductive styles of fishes exposed to different environmental regimes in a prairie stream. Environmental Biology of Fishes. 59: 99 -109. Spmnza J.J. 1998 Spatial and temporal differences in assemblages, condition factors, and growth rates of warm - water stream fishes in north - central Oklahoma. MS thesis. Oklahoma State University. PROJECT EXPERIENCE Enwronmenta /Impact Reports San Antonio Springs Conjunctive Use Plan EIR, Three Valleys Municipal Water District Orange County Water District Facilities Master Plan Program EIR Opportunities Study Program EIR, City of Lake Forest Perris Industrial Site EIR, City of Perris Rose Bowl Stadium EIR, City of Pasadena La Canada I:srates EIR, City of La Canada Flintridge Pacific City Development EIR, City of I-luntingron Beach UCSB Open Space Plan, Faculty and Family Housing and LRDP Amendment EIR Annandale Canyon Estates EIR, City of Pasadena West Roseville Sphere of Influence Amendment and Specific Plan EIR, City of Roseville Springville Specific Plan EIR, City of Camarillo Marina Shores East Commercial Center EIR, City of Long Beach UCLA Long Range Development Plan Update EIR UCLA Northwest Ilousing Project EIR Armstrong Ranch Development Project EIR Watershed and Water Quality Projects L.ns Angeles County Integrated Water Management Plan 2006, Los Angeles County San Timoteo Watershed Management Authority's Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Tapia Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent Alternative (TEA) Study, Las Virgines Municipal Water District Ballona Creak Watershed Management Plan Santa Ana River Integrated Watershed Management Plan Technical Reports Ernloeiral Reports .Santa Ana River Fisheries and Riparian Habitat Monitoring Plan, August, 2005 Hansen Dam Recreation A rca Wetlands Restoration Plan, 2005 San Gabriel River Discovery Center Restoration Plan, 2005. Lake Elsinore Fisheries Management Plan, 2004 of • • • 0 r1 � A El P Upper Owens River Temperature Monitoring and Fishery Report. December 2003 Impacts of discharge limits, flow regimes and flooding on Walnut Groves along the Stanlalaus River, 2003 Arundo Removal Protocol, Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority, 2002 lVedlandi Rehnrtr Weiland Dehneation Newland Street Residential Development Huntington Beach, CA 2005 Wetland Delineation of Perris Industrial Site, Perris, CA. December, 2004 Wetland Delineation of Marina Shores Commercial Development Site, Long Beach, CA. June 2004 Wetland Delineation of Tentative'fract Map 53647, La Canada Flintrige, CA December 2002 Wetland Delineation of Annandale Canyon Estates, Pasadena, CA October 2002 lVildble /Fisheries Investigations Fisheries Monitoring Report: 2005 Monitoring Results (Year One) Santa Ana River 1 & 3 Hydroelectric Project (iTRC # 1933), Southern Cahfornia Edison Wildlife and Habitat survey and Biological Technical Report for Newland Street Residential Development Huntington Beach, CA 2005 Wildlife and habitat survey and Biological Technical Report for Newland Street Residential Development Huntington Beach, CA 2005 Wildlife and Vegetation survey for Opportunities Study program EIR, City of lake Forest, CA 2005 U.Sf•'WS protocol surveys for Nevins Barberry (Mahonia nevinu), San Antonio Spreading Grounds, Claremont, CA 2005 Wildlife survey and Biological Technical Report for San Antonio lipreading Grounds, Claremont, CA 2005 Wildlife and Habitat survey of Perris Industrial Site, Perris, CA 2004 Wildlife and Habitat survey of Marina Shores Development Site, Long Beach, CA 2004 Wildlife and I labitat survey of San Antonio Springs Spreading Grounds. 'Three Valleys Water District, Claremont, CA 2004 Vernal pool Brachiopod USFWS Protocol Surveys, Morreno Valley, CA 2003 Wildlife survey of Garnindale Estates, Camarillo, CA 2004 Wildlife survey Sakioka Farms, Oxnard, CA 2003 Wildlife survey of Annandale Canyon Estate tract, Pasadena, 2003 Biological Assessment of Tract number 5349, Camarillo CA. August 2002 Wildlife survey of UCLA Costal Sage Chaparral and associated vegetation patches. Los Angeles, California, 2002 Wildlife survey of Castaic tract 53933, Castaic, California, 2002 population assessment and radio tracking of the Paddlefish (P6y1 odou Spathula), Arkansas River, Oklahoma, 1996 Fisheries survey of Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), and Brown Trout (Salem truita). Black Earth Creek, Wisconsin. 1999 Fisheries survn, of depth distribution of Largemouth Bass (Aftooptenu salmoides) and Spotted Bass (Alirroptena pnptnlatus), Keystone reservoir, Oklahoma. 1996 -7 Hydroelectric Projects Baraboo (liver Dam Removal Project, Wisconsin Inst` earn Flow Studies Wild 1-log Creek Instream Flow Evaluation, Oklahoma Ecological Studies Ecology and water chemistry of the Wisconsin River floodplain. Baraboo, Wisconsin 2001 Impact assessment of environmental stressors on Prairie stream fish reproduction, growth rates, and condition. The Nature Conservancy, Oklahoma 1998 Impacts of varying environmental fluctuations, water quality, and disturbance regimes on stream fish community structure species diversity, and reproduction. The Nature Conservancy, Oklahoma 1998 Assessment of the influence of spatial scale analysis (size of study area) on the mechanisms structuring stream fish communities. The Nature Conservancy, Oklahoma 1998 Short -term effects of fire on Prairie stream ecosyitems,'fhe Nature Conservancy, Oklahoma 1997 Marie Experience Community structure and territoriality in rocky reef fishes of the Sea of Cortez. Bahia de Los Angeles, Mexico. Distribution and density of Giant help (AfarroryslB pyrifen) off Arrow Point, Catalina Island. Species composition and densities of phytoplankton within Marine Snow. University of California, Santa Barbara. Intertidal distribution and relative densities of two species of gastropods (Awnihina ange6w and A4amlofmruginara), Bahia de Loa Angeles, Mexico. Densities and distribution of intertidal gastropods within the Dana Point Marine Life Refuge. Dana Point, California. Vertical diversity, distribution, and densities of gastropods on pier pilings within the Santa Monica Bay. Santa Monica and Malibu, California. A division of ,5 SHAI MORRIS Associate Manager Shai Morris is an associate manager providing technical, analytical, and project management expertise for a multitude of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance projects. TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES • Extensive project management and coordination expertise with CI?QA /NIiPA compliance regulations. • Working kuowlcdgc of the Clean Air Act legislation, SPCC Rides, Brownfidds legislation, and Brownficlds redevelopment projects. • Working knowledge of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). In charge of drafting a new policy to address the RCRA as it apphen to academic laboratories for die U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of the Administrator. • Served as Sector Policy Analyst and Liaison for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Washington DC, speaking at national cunfcrences, developing national campaigns to support the implementation of em irunmemtal management systems and perfomance measurement techm,lecs, and managing multiple stakeholders, including six trade association partners, and three work groups with representative from colleges and univcrsitics, states, nonprofits, and EPA Regional offices. • Represented EPA Region 2 in meetings with local governments, developers, consultants, and the community to discuss plans for Brownfields redcvelopmcm. • Skilled in environmental research, technical writing, critical analysis, and crtvimnmental risk assessment. • Extensive experience in domestic and international environmental policy analysis. • Extensive experience conducting outreach and public relations activities. EDUCATION AND AFFILIATIONS MA,, Public Policy and Administration, School of Imtcmntional and Public Affairs, Columbia University B.A., Geography and Environmental Studies, University of California, Los Angeles Board Member, I,os Angeles Chapter of the Association of Lanvironmcutal Professionals PROJECT EXPERIENCE Mhved -Use Residential Development Protects Mctro Pau Mixed Use Overlay Zone'Ilnrce- Volumc MR, City of Santa Ana La Canada Town Center MNU, City of La Canada Flintridge I luntington Brach Newland Street Residential Project III R, City of l luntington Beach Santa Anita Park Mixed -Usc Development GIR, City of Arcadia Redevelopment Projects Santa Monica Ocean Avenue I lotel RIII, City of Santa Monica Big -Boas Retail Projects Lakewood /Artesia Specific Plan EIR, City of Bellflower Water Projects C':I Dorado Park Recycled Water Namofiltratiou Project MNU, City of Long Beach Transportation Projects San Francisco Bay Arca Water Transit Authority Ferry 'terminal in South San Francisco GIR /EIS, Sat Francisco Bay Area \latcr Transit Authority Land Use Planning Projects Beverly I ]ills General Plan Update, City of Beverly I fills Newport Beach General Plan Update MR, City of Newport Beach Genentech Facilities Master Plan /Overlay Dist. Expansion lglt. City of South San Francisco n U • • U CHRISTOPHER MUNDHENK Associate Manager Chris Mundhenk is an Associate Manager providing project management experience for a multitude of National Environmental Policy Act and California Environmental Quality Act compliance projects. TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES • lixtensive project management and coordination expertise with CEQA /NEPA compliance regulations. • Experience conducting biological surveys, noise and air quality modeling and monitoring, and general construction monitoring. • Knowledge of the California Coastal Act. EDUCATION AND AFFILIATIONS B.A., Biology /Public Policy Analysis, Pomona Collcge Member, Association of Environmental Professionals PROJECT EXPERIENCE Educational Projects Central Ian Angeles Area New Learning Center #1 EIR, Los Angeles Unified School District Central I,os Angeles Area I ligh School #9 FIR, Los Angeles Unified School District • Central Los Angeles Area I ligh School #10 EIR, LA)s Angeles Unified School District Ramona Opportunity I ligh School IS /MND, Los Angeles Unified School District fast I.os Angeles I ligh School Ella, Ims Angeles Unified School District Atberwood Elementary School Initial Study, Simi Valley Unified School District I larbor College blaster Plan EIR Addendum, Los Angeles Community Colleges Transportation Projects Southern California Association of Governnents Regional 'transportation Plan Ella, Southern California Association of Governments Water Projects OC-88 Pump Station Energy Savings Modifications IS /MND and Addendum, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Weymouth Filtration Plant Solids I landling Facilities IS /HIND, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Central Pool Augmentation Program Addendum, Metropolitan Water District of Southcm California Jensen Filtration Plant Oxidation Retrofit Program Construction Monitoring, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Mills Filtration Plant Oxidation Retrofit Program Construction Monitoring, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Ellis Pump Station Supplemental EIR, Orange County . Sanitation District Lancaster \Vltl' 2020 Facilities Ilan EIR, County Sanitation Districts of Los Angel" County Port Projects San )'sidro Border Station Expansion EIR /EIS, General Services Administration Land Use Planning Projects Imma Alta Park Gymnasium and General Improvements IS /MND, Ims Angeles County Department of Public Works New South Coast County Golf Coupe EIR, Iw)s Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation SHRADDHA NAVALLI Environmental Planner Shraddha Navalli is an environmental planner providing technical support for a variety of environmental documentation projects. TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES • Working knowledge of CEQA /NEPA, redevelopment issues, and sustainable development. • Experience preparing feasibility studies and formulating Smart Growth policies and design guidelines. • Cxpericuce working ou conditional use permits yid variances with au entitlement company. • I;xperieucc managing a I lighway, Performance Monitoring System project involving the coordination of 187 cities. • Authored, edited, and proofread desihm pages for architacmrc journal. EDUCATION AND AFFILIATIONS M.A., Planning, University of Southern California B.A., Architecture, "I'.Y.B. School of I labitat Studies, Dclhi, India PUBLICATIONS "Sustainable Industrial Development, Charting the Frontiers of Research," Cu- authored Report for National Science Foundation, and presented at the Greening Conference, 2004. Navalli, Shraddha 2003, Debate Time Cities — Faceless palimpsest. Anliledum +Derign, May June, Vol. XX No. 3, p. 68, published in New Delhi, India. Navalli, Shraddha, 2003, News — Chhattisgarh's New Capital City, Anhiledure + Design, Nlarch —April 2003, Vol. XX, Nu. 2, p.16. Navalli, Shraddha 2001, Safe As I louses, Daum To Earle, Vol. 9, No. 24, May 15, 2001, pp. 26 -32. Navalli, Mahapatra 2002, Stumbling Blocks, Down To Earle, Vol. 9, No. 20, March 15, 2002, pp. 21 -23, published in New Delhi, India. Navalli, Shraddha, 2002, Private Waters Run Deep, AnbueRmr: Time, Space and People, I one 2002, pp. 28 -31, published in New Deflu, India. PROJECT EXPERIENCE Environmental Impact Reports (ex. Dixon Downs EIR, City of Dixon) Geographic Informadion Systems 0 r� Is i CA 0 r� �J • `/ 1I u JAMES C. SONGCO Graphic/Web Specialist Mr. Songco specializes in creating highly innovative and effective graphic designs that greatly facilitate public interest and involvement. To communicate each project's goals and objectives effectively, Mr. Songco utilizes his depth of experience with major computer design programs, as well as a personal understanding of the requirements specific to the public outreach process. Mr. Songco s poster boards, Web sites, newsletters, brochures, information booklets, flyers, templates, and activity guides are key elements in creating presentations that accomplish complete project understanding and useful public feedback and facilitate public interest and participation. TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES • PowerPoint Iudesigu Pagemakcr Quark, \press Phutoshop ImageReady Illustrator Freehand Acrobat Streamline Drcamwcavcr Fireworks I I "1'NII, I Iutmcdia PRINT AND WEB CAPABILITIES • NVebsite Development • Animated (;if • Poster • Documentation • Logo • Bntchurc • Annual Report • Promo /Markcring Materials • Cover /CD design • Figures /Chart • 'I'radeshow /Workshops • Photography • Newsletter • PowerPoint • Ad /Flyer Design EDUCATION AND AFFILIATIONS B.A. in Graphic Design, Cal State Fullerton, june 2000 PUBLIC WORKSHOP EXPERIENCE Corona General flan Community Visioning Workshop Redondo Beach "1 [cart of the City" Public Scopmg Workshop Santa Clarita Valleywide General flan Visioning Project University Community Plan /UC Merced Planning Fair West I lollywood General flan Update GRAPHIC DESIGN EXPERIENCE General Plan Update Santa Clarita Valleywide General flan Visioning Project City of West I Iollywood Framework City of Newport Beach City of Long Beach Oxnard Visioning City of Sacramento WPatemlied Plan Santa Ana Watershcd Project Authority (SAWPA) San Gabriel Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy Ballsna Creek Watershed Management flan Compton Crcck Watershed Management flan Historic Preservation Wattles Estates and Gardens Cultural landscape Report Claremont College heights Lemon Packaging I louse Fort Mason (:enter EIR UCLA I.RDP EIR Specific Plan Azusa Pacific University Springville San Gabriel Valley Boulevard Neighborhoods Misc A rondo Removal Prraocol City of Burbank Density and Design Study Merced County University Community Plan WEB DESIGN EXPERIENCE City of Lung Beach General Plan Update City of Oxnard Visioning Process for the GPU Netbased Incorporated i MARISSA STAPLES Environmental Professional Marissa Staples is an Environmental Professional with experience performing general project management services, site - specific land - use analysis for Brownfield redevelopment projects, and writing technical sections for CEQA documents. TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES Experience performing land -use analysis to determine types and levels of contamination associated with targeted Brownfield sites. Familiarity with Wetlands Protection Act and regulations, Zoning and Subdivision Control laws, and federal and state environmental laws. lixperienee in the preparation of Environmental Impact Reports and Environmental Impact Statements, including sections oil aesthetics, public services and utilities, hazardous materials, land use and planning, and open space and recreation. Serves as Project Manager and Deputy project Manager coordinating and preparing EIRs. EDUCATION AND AFFILIATIONS M.S., Environmental Science and policy, Clark University, MA BS,, Iinvimnmcntal Seienec and Policy, Clark University, MA PROJECT EXPERIENCE Bmnm6eld Redevelopment Putnam Mill Mixed -Use Redevelopment Project Management, Private Client Bellingham Mill Conversion Project, Town of Bellingham, MA I lighway Adjacent- Vaeaut Property Acquisition and preliminary Redevelopment, private Client Building Complex Demolition /Redevelopment project Management, private Client CEQA Independence /Constitution General plan Amendment and Rezoning project Ell?, City of Menlo park Tenth and Market Streets EIR Review /Addendum, City of Sail Francisco Palo Alto Medical Facility EIR, City of San Carlos Genentech blaster plan EIR, City of South San Francisco Sonoma Valley I lospital Replacement project LIR, City /County of Sonoma 1840 Ogden Drive Condominium project IS /MND, City of Burlingame 'Prousdale Pump Station MND, City of Burlingame Downtown'fraey Urban Design and Specific Plan 11111, City of'liacy General plans /Specilc Plans City of Newport Beach General plan Update, City of Newport Beach 0 0 ►.J n t, J MARIANNE TANZER Senior Manager Marianne Tanzcr provides project management and environmental analysis for California Fnvironmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Pohcy Act (NEPA) documentation. 11cr work on numerous controversial poiccts provides her with the understanding of the need for attention to project detail and preparation of a technically sound and legally defensible document. TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES • Advises client., on the interpretation and use of current CEQA Statutes and Guidelines, pertinent federal and state regulations, and recent CEQA - related case law. • Gxpericucc and c.pertisc necessary for analysis of urban in -fill and rcdcvclupmc ll projects. • 10 years experience in CFQA implementation • Specializes in the integration of CEQA and NFI'A with other local, State, and federal statutes, such as air uoucs regulations, Section 4(f), and Executive Order 12898 on Enviroumcntal J ustice. • Project management experience includes locally important projects throughout Southern California, including work in the cities of South Pasadena, Redondo Beach, Carson, I luntingtun Beach, and Santa Ana. EDUCATION AND AFFILIATIONS B.A., Environmental Studies, University of California, Los • Angcics omr 'Non eat Sibi "CummM uy Service Alward (1992) Member, American Planning Association Member, Westside Urban Forum PROJECT EXPERIENCE MLxed -Use and Residenda/Developmenr Projects Mission and Meridian Mixed -Use TOD Project, City of South Pasadena Armstrong Ranch Program Ella, City of Santa Ana Monarch Point Reserve SEIR, County of Santa Barbara Bluffs at Mesa Oaks EK County of Santa Barbara UCSB Faeulq and Family Student I lousing, and Open Space flan EIR, University of California, Santa Barbara Stevenson Ranch Phase V EIR, Lunar Ilomes Robertson I lousing Development MND, County of Santa Barbara Pacific City FIR, City of I luntingtun Beach Redevelopment Projects City of ltedoudu Beach I leart of the City Specific flan, City of Redondo Beach and Redondo Beach Redevelopment Agency City of Carson Rcdcvclnpment flan Amendments and Addition of Project Area Nu 4 EIH, Carson Iedevelopment Agency Coastal Developmem Projects Aircraft Carrier l lomcpurting NS, US Navy, Southwest Division Port of Los Angeles I larbor Deepening IqR /S, port of Los Angles and USACE ]'on of Oakland 50 -font Deepening lqS /FIR /Ili, Port of Oakland and USACE' Pon of Long Beach Pier S'ferminal 1 ?I1ly Port of 1 ung Beach. Purt of long Beach Berth'1121 FIR, Port of lung Beach Palcta Crock EIS, US Navy, Southwest Division Facilities to Support Dccp -Draft Power Intensive Ships EIS, US Navy, Southwest Division Invasivu Spartina Eradication Project EIS /fAl?, California Coastal Conservancy. Sao Francisco Lung -Tema Management Strategy EIS /Ell?, US EPA Rgiun IX and USACE Vandenberg Air Force Base Operational Support Building IAA\ Educarnnal /Institutional Uses Facilities Expansion Projects, Lynwood Unified School District Santa Barbara City College lung -Range Development flan (LRDI') EM, Santa Barbara City College Val Verde Conditional Use Permit Ellt, County of Santa Barbara St. Francis Medical facility Expansion Elft, City of Santa Barbara Turn Canyon School MMRP, Carpinteria Unified School District UC Iverside LRDP FIR, University of California, Riverside General Plans /SpeciTc Plans Monarch Point Reserve SIAR, County of Santa Barbara Toro Canyon flan FIR, County of Santa Barbara Telecommunications Projects Global West Cable Project FIR and MMP, Statc lands Cornmission AT &'f japan -US MND, State lands Commission AT&I' China -US MND, State ].ands Commission Metromedia Fiber Network Services MND, California Public Utlhties Commission Nextel Cellular Site MND, County of Santa Barbara � i EIP TERRI S. VITAR Associate Vice President, Senior Program Manger — Los Angeles Terri Vitar is a multi- disciplinary specialist with more than 19 years experience in CEQA and NEPA documentation, natural resources management, transportation planning, and water resources planning. TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES • Thoroughly familiar with CEQA /NEPA compliance and other pertinent federal and state regulations. • Specializes in those projects that require the integration of CEQA /NEPA with other relevant environmental statutes and guidelines, such as Sections 401, 402, or 404 of the Clean Water Act, the State and federal Endangered Species Acts, the Fish and Game Code of California, and the CaGfomia Coastal Act. • Manages many high profile and controversial projects that require the preparation of state and federal environmental documents. • Ilas obtained both a Traffic Engineering Certificate from the University of California, Berkeley, and au Urban Mass Transit Certificate from the Federal Highway Administration. • Teaches the CEQA update class for the Orange County and Los Angeles Chapters of the Association of Environmental Professionals. EDUCATION AND AFFILIATIONS B.A., Chemistry and Mathematics, Hood College, MD USAGE Wetlands Delineations Methods, Wetland Training Institute Land Use Law Update, University of California, Irvine Member, Society of Wedand Scientists Member, Association of Environmental Professionals Member, American Planning Association Member, Institute of Transportation Engineers Urban Mass Transit Certificate, Federal Highway Administration Southern California Water Committee, Member Traffic Engineering Certificate, University of California, Berkeley Environmental Consultation and Permitting Requirements for CEQA /NEPA Projects, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) PROJECT EXPERIENCE Mixed Use /Development /Redevelopment Labmna Woods Senior Residential Project Initial Study, Robert Mayer Corporation Waterfront Development Addendum, City of Huntington Beach Northam Ranch I louse, EIR City of Huntington Beach The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach (Blocks 104/105) Redevelopment Project FIR, City of Huntington Beach Culver City Redevelopment Program Subsequent EIR, City of Culver City Pico -Union Block 6 Redevelopment EIR, City of Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency Peter J. Pitchess Honor Rancho Mitigated Negative Declaration, County of Los Angeles, Sheriffs Department Berkeley Manor Condominium Class 32 Categorical Exemption and Technical Reports, City of Santa Monica New Santa Monica Library EIR, City of Santa Monica Santa Barbara Aquarium EIR, City of Santa Barbara NEPA Studies Section 108 Loan Guarantee Funds EA, City of 1 luntington Beach Transportation Projects Foothill Transportation Corridor - -South EIS /Supplemental El It, Orange County Mid - City /Wcstsidc Transit Corridor Study EIR /EIS and Urban Design Report, Los Angles Metropolitan Transportation Authority El Segundo Circulation Element LI It, City of EI Segundo Bicycle / Pedestrian Path Mitigated Negative Declaration, City of San Clemente Genera/ /Specific Plans Lake Forest Opportunities Study Program EIR, City of Lake Forest Dana Point Headlands General Plan Amendment EIR, City of Dana Point Village West Specific Plan EIR, City of Claremont Infrastructure Kinder- Morgan Carson Terminal Expansion EIR, City of Carson East Garden Grove- Winhrsburg /Oceanside Channel System (CO5 /CO6) Flood Control Improvement Project El It, County of Orange Transmission Line, Reservoir, and Pump Station Mitigated Negative Declaration, Castaic Lake Water Abmncy Puente Hills Waste Management Facilities EIR, Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts Recreation Lake Perris Recreation Area Mitigated Negative Declaration, State of California, Department of General Services Higher Education UCLA Long Range Development Plan EIR, UCLA Intramural Field Parking Structure EIR, UCLA Santa Monica College Parking Structure B EIR, City of Santa Monica Industrial Brea Industrial Specific Plan Program F.1 It, City of Brea • A division of J�j� n 0 IJ TAMARINE WEULE Environmental Professional 1J Wculc is an Environmental Planner who provides analytical assistance for a variety of environmental documcutation and urban planning projects at lil P. TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES • Experience in preparing various CEQA /NEPA documents including Initial Studies /Mitigated Negative Declarations (IS /MND), Environmental Impact Reports (FIR), Envirmrmcntal Assessments (IiA), and Mitigation Monitoring Programs (MMP). • Skilled in research, critical analysis, technical writing, and environmental risk assessment. • Performs environmental analyses ou a wide variety of issue areas including water quality, geology, mineral resources, aesthetics, land use, recreation, and public services and utilities • Expertise in environmental issues such as, natural and social sciences, watershed planning, conservation biology, biudiversity, and habitat restoration EDUCATION AND AFFILIATIONS B.A., Environmental Studies and Geography, University of California, Santa Barbara Member, Association of Environmental Professionals Orange County Planning Officials Forum, November 2002. CEQA Compliance Training Seminar, December 2002. "IRreshokls of Significance in Environmental Planning Seminar, Map 2003, Sixth Annual Global Green USA Sustainability Symposium, 2003 PROJECT EXPERIENCE Environmental Impact Reports Pacific City UR, City of l lunthrg+tun Beach Rose Bowl Stadium FIR, City of Pasadena Valley Boulevard Neighborhoods Sustahrability Plan EIR, City of Sao Gabriel Springville Specific Plan FUR, City of Camarillo Lake Forest Opportunities Study & MR, City of Lake Forest Bayvicw Bunters Pout Redevelopment Plan EIR, San Francisco Redevelopment Agency Annandale Canyon Estates FIR, City of Pasadena I.a Canada I lillside EIR, City of I.a Canada Flintridge West Roseville Specific Plan EIR, City of Roseville Azusa Pacific Specific flan, City of Azusa /Azusa Pacific University Pasadena City I lall Seismic Retrofit Project El R, City of Pasadena I lumburg Jaguar Expansion EIR, City of Santa Monica New Roads- Educational Village EIR, City of Santa Monica Stockton Event Center, City of Stockton The Strand (Blocks 104/105) Redevelopment Project MR, City of I luntington Beach Lynwood Unified School District Negative Declaration University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Lung Range Development Plan 2002 Update El It Palencia Gardens l lope VI Public I lousing Project Environmental Assessment, San Francisco Mayor's Office of I lousing Genes /P /an Updates land Use & Mobility Elements General Plan Update MR, City of long Reach General Plan Update Teclnrical Background Report, City of Newport Beach General Plan UpdateTcchnical Background Report, City of Pomona General Plan Update ]'!III, City of Comm General Plan Visioning, City of Oxnard General flan Update, City of West I Iollywnod Biological Restoration and Experience Coal Oil Point Reserve habitat restoration, exotic plant removal, re- vegetation, trail maintenance, Goleta, CA Ucvercux Slough wetland restoration, exotic plant removal, re- vegetation, Goleta, CA Goleta Slough wetland restoration, exotic plant removal, re- vegetation, maintenance, Goleta, CA �1 Carleton Waters, P. E. Principal Carleton Waters, P.E. has worked professionally in transportation engineering and related fields since 1981. He received his Master of Science degree in civil engineering from the University of California, Irvine, where he specialized in transportation and urban systems planning. Mr. Waters has been involved in numerous traffic and air quality impact studies during his career, including many different residential, commercial, and employment- oriented studies. Types of analyses completed by Mr. Waters include off -site traffic and air quality impacts, site access features, queuing requirements, parking needs, construction management, and traffic diversions. His experience in performing analyses for unusual land uses and situations include the transport of hazardous materials and the impacts of alternative modes of transport, such as light and heavy rail. Engineering design work is also part of Mr. Waters' professional history. His relevant experience includes the preparation of intersection improvement and signalization plans, coordinated traffic signal timing plans, roadway signing and striping plans, construction detour plans, and construction quantity and cost estimates. Mr. Waters' current primary emphasis is the development and application of travel demand models which encompass citywide, county, and regional areas. Models developed and /or applied by Mr. Waters in Orange County, California include the Irvine Transportation Analysis Model, the Santa Ana River Area Model, and the South Orange County Traffic Model, version 2.7. • Mr. Waters was responsible for developing /applying the Ramona Expressway Corridor Study model, the City of Moreno Valley Traffic Model, and the Beaumont Area Traffic Model /Analyzer in the County of Riverside. In San Bernardino County, his model development efforts include the Chino Traffic Model and the Regional Statistical Area 33 Model, which encompasses the Morongo Basin area. Mr. Waters also played a key role in updating the model structure which is being used to analyze subregional transportation issues in the urbanized portions of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. Mr. Waters is also responsible for developing /applying a number of travel demand models which are designed to evaluate the unique travel characteristics of a number of less- urbanized areas. Recreational areas for which Mr. Waters developed travel demand models include the Mammoth Transportation Model (Town of Mammoth Lakes, California), the Conway, New Hampshire travel demand model, and the Palm Desert Traffic Model. Mr. Waters led the effort to develop the Imperial County Traffic Model for Imperial County, California, whose unique aspects include agricultural truck traffic, cross - border international truck and passenger vehicle traffic (interactions with Mexico), and the incorporation of a heavy duty truck model component. Many of these efforts required integrating data from Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and travel demand surveys conducted specifically to support model development efforts. • n u • Marlie Whiteman, P. E. Senior Engineer Marlie Whiteman, P.E. has worked professionally in transportation planning, traffic engineering, and applications of AutoCAD since 1995. Ms. Whiteman received a Bachelor of Science degree in civil engineering from the University of California, Irvine. She has worked on a variety of transportation planning and traffic engineering projects, with an emphasis on travel demand forecasting. Ms. Whiteman's experience in transportation planning includes travel demand modeling and traffic impact analysis. Modeling experience includes model data development, consistency, validation, preparation of future forecasts, post - processing, as well as circulation planning, intersection capacity analysis, parking demand analysis, site access evaluation, geographic information systems applications, and staff training. Ms. Whiteman's work experience with the development of traffic models includes the Imperial County Traffic Model, the Palm Desert Model, the South Orange County Traffic Model, the Santa Ana River Crossings Model (SARX), the Pass Area Model, the Tejon Traffic Model, the Irvine Traffic Analysis Model, and the Newport Beach Traffic Model. Her experience working with existing traffic models includes the Chino Traffic Model, Moreno Valley Traffic Model, Beaumont Area Traffic Model /Analyzer, San Juan Capistrano model, Orange County Transportation Analysis Model, Split RIVSAN model, and Ramona Expressway Corridor Study Model. She is also familiar with the Comprehensive Transportation Plan Model. She has performed modeling and analysis activities for the 1 -405 Major Investment Study. Additional modeling support activities include Scholle Development TDR forecast preparation, on -call services for the Cities of Moreno Valley and Irvine, and for the County of Orange (including staff training activities), and forecast preparation in support of traffic studies for Pacific City, and Parker Hannifin. General Plan traffic study preparation activities include the Cities of Rancho Santa Margarita, San Jacinto, Moreno Valley, Beaumont, Indian Wells, Palm Desert, and Newport Beach. Ms. Whiteman's traffic study experience includes Lake Elsinore Unified School District Elementary and Middle Schools in Riverside County, Temescal Hills development, Quincy residential, the Orange County High School of the Arts, the Moreno Valley Industrial Area Plan, the Great Park and Millennium Plans (El Toro Base Reuse), the Banning Ranch project in Newport Beach and the 1998/99 citywide evaluation of intersections and street segments prepared for the City of Irvine. Her design experience includes assisting in the preparation of traffic control plans, traffic signal modification, and signal interconnect plans. She participated in the preparation of traffic signal interconnect plans along Alton Parkway, Bake Parkway, Barranca Parkway, and Jeffrey Road in Irvine. f� Professional Credentials and Affiliations MA, Urban and Regional Planning, University of California at Los Angeles BA, Geography and Political Science, University of California at Los Angeles American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP), American Planning Association, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Transportation Research Board Special Qualifications JD Douglas specializes in urban and regional transportation planning and local circulation system analysis. He has managed or served as task leader for assignments involving transportation planning, traffic engineering, transit, parking, traffic management, and traffic design projects, combining aspects of alternatives analysis and long -range planning with practical traffic operation and engineering considerations. His experience includes project management and lead technical roles for the assignments described below. Relevant Victor Valley Transportation Study, San Bernardino County, CA — Project Manager. KHA has been selected by the San Bernardino Associated Governments to develop a comprehensive transportation plan for the Victor Valley encompassing the Town of Apple Valley, the Cities of Adelanto, Hesperia, and Victorville, and unincorporated areas of San Bernardino County. The study includes evaluation of transportation and land use alternatives, development of a funding strategy including consideration of development impact fees and user fees (tolls), and preparation of a strategy for right -of -way preservation. Moreno Highlands peer review– Mr. Douglas is assisting the City of Moreno as peer reviewer of the traffic modeling and analysis for the Moreno Highlands project, the last major vacant development area in the City. His role involves coordination with the applicant's traffic consultant throughout the study, reviewing and developing consensus on assumptions, methods, and results of the traffic forecasting and analysis. Traffic Analysis for SR -79 Realignment Study Project Report/Environmental Document (PRIED) – Project Manager. KHA is responsible for the traffic analysis portion of the PRIED for the SR -79. Mr. Douglas is responsible for the evaluation of alternatives, preparation of the traffic analysis report, provision of technical input to the EIR document, and provision of input to responses to public comments. City of Corona On -call Traffic and Transportation Services, Corona, CA — Project Manager & Transportation Planning Services. KHA has been selected by the City of Corona to provide as- needed transportation planning, traffic engineering, and municipal engineering consulting services to the City. Rail Crossing Grade Separation Prioritization Study, Riverside County, CA— Project Manager. KHA has been retained by the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) to • update the priority list for developing grade separations for at -grade railroad crossings in the Copyright 02004, KimteyHom andASSodates, Inc. Kimley -Hom ❑� ❑ and Associates, Inc. Riverside County portion of Alameda Corridor East. The priority evaluation is based on the following criteria: existing and future vehicular delay, accident reduction, distance from other grade separations, emission reduction, noise reduction, and local priority. South Valley Parkway Alignment Study, Coachella Valley, CA — Project Manager for an alignment study for the South Valley Parkway, a proposed six -lane expressway in a 220 -foot right - of -way following the alignment of 62nd Avenue in the southeastern Coachella Valley. The study involves three components: (1) evaluation of traffic volumes and capacity needs with buildout of the County's General Plan land use; (2) conceptual geometric design to identify an alignment that minimizes interference with existing development or other constraints; and (3) environmental analysis to identify potential corridor constraints, and to delineate subsequent environmental studies that will be needed. Prior to his employment with Kimley -Horn, Mr. Douglas performed the following assignments: Circulation Element Update Circulation Study, Mission Viejo, California — project manager for developing a citywide traffic forecasting model for the City of Mission Viejo and evaluating roadway improvement needs for the City's General Plan update. The model is being developed to be consistent with the Orange County Transportation Analysis Model (OCTAM), and will include post - processing capability to estimate future turning movement volumes and levels of service at key intersections throughout the City. • 1 -15 Comprehensive Corridor Study, San Bernardino County, California -- project manager for a 40 -mile corridor study of 1 -15 from SR -60 to Victorville. The corridor traverses the San Bernardino Mountains through Cajon Pass, and carries significant volumes of trucks and includes a parallel Burlington Northern Santa Fe intercontinental rail line. Long -term alternatives to be studied include exclusive truck lanes and potential opportunities for shift of goods from trucks to rail. Traffic Monitoring Report for Irvine Business Complex (IBC) Sliding Interim Year Analysis & Citywide Circulation Phasing Analysis -2003, City of Irvine, California: Project Manager. PB was a subconsultant responsible for forecasting traffic volumes and intersection turn movements for a citywide 2002 Circulation Phasing Analysis and the 2002 Irvine Business Complex Sliding Interim Year Analysis using the Irvine Traffic Analysis Model (ITAM) 3.01. The project included validation of a 2002 ITAM and a forecast for 2007. City of Orange Traffic Model, Orange, California -- project manager for developing a citywide traffic forecasting model for the City of Orange. The model is being developed to be consistent with the Orange County Transportation Analysis Model (OCTAM), and will include post - processing capability to estimate future turning movement volumes and levels of service at key intersections throughout the City. Anaheim General Plan Circulation Element Update, Anaheim, California -- project manager for the Circulation Element update being conducted as part of Anaheim's comprehensive general plan update. The Circulation Element update includes development of a citywide traffic forecasting model, evaluation of transportation conditions associated with alternative future land use scenarios, and recommendation of future circulation improvements for the City. Western Riverside County Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP), California: project manager for developing a comprehensive transportation plan for western Riverside County. Phase I included initiation of a transportation and land use information system and identification of existing and future transportation problems and issues. Phase II included evaluation of regional land use Copyright 01004, Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Kimley +bm and Asscoates, Inc. and circulation alternatives, development of a multimodal transportation blueprint, and development of long -range transit plan. Phase III includes development of a strategy for dealing with goods movement needs and issues, preparation of a phasing strategy for rail crossing improvements, technical support for development of a uniform transportation mitigation fee (TUMF) program, and preparation of a phasing and funding plan. Four Corners Study, California -- project manager of a study of transportation needs and strategies to serve the area where the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside converge. The study evaluates alternative strategies to serve future transportation needs, and focuses on developing a consensus improvement program with the multiple agencies involved including ten cities, four counties, four county transportation commissions, three districts of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), State Parks Department, local environmental groups, the Building Industry Association, and property owners. Inland Goods Movement Corridor Study, San Bernardino County, California — project manager of a study to identify transportation improvements to facilitate the Flow of goods and people in San Bernardino County. The first component studies the rail crossings in the San Bernardino County portion of Alameda Corridor East, extending north to Barstow, and identifies improvements to reduce future motorist delays at at -grade crossings. The second component identifies key truck routes linking key terminals (intermodal terminals, truck terminals, and warehousing facilities) with the regional highway system, and identifies improvements to minimize future truck delay along those routes. Corona Comprehensive Traffic Improvement Program (CTIP), Corona, California — project manager of a study to prioritize citywide traffic improvements in the City of Corona. The study involved development of a prioritization process using the City's Geographic Information System (GIS), and evaluation and prioritization of needed near -term and long -term improvements to facilitate the Flow of traffic. At the end of the project, the prioritization templates were delivered to city staff for use on future updates. Burbank Transportation Element EIR, Burbank, California -- project manager for the transportation impact analysis of the general plan transportation element. The evaluation included two alternatives in addition to the proposed element, and considered impacts on traffic, transit, parking, and right -of -way. Hawthorne Boulevard Corridor Study, Torrance, California — project manager for the development of a specific plan for the primary commercial corridor in Torrance. The project included land use planning, design guidelines, roadway and transit programs, transportation demand management, parking utilities, and programs for financing and implementation. Santa Ana Circulation Element Update, California -- project manager for a comprehensive update of multimodal circulation plan, with EIR, improvement priority program, and traffic forecasting model. Copynght 02004, Kimley -Horn and Associales, Inc. E_" KimleyHom M and As=ates, Inc. CJ 0 SHARON ZYWIAK WOOD PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Assistant City Manager City of Newport Beach May 1996 to present Responsibilities • Manage Planning Department and Economic Development program • Co- manage Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division • Labor relations and contract negotiations with 10 employee associations • Board of Directors, Metro Cities Fire Authority, joint powers authority for fire and medical dispatch • Manage environmental and planning review of complex, precedential and sensitive projects • Staff support to City Council, Planning Commission, Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee, Committee to Promote Revitalization of our Peninsula, Economic Development Committee, Environmental Quality Affairs Committee, General Plan Update and Advisory Committees Accomplishments • Completion and implementation of Balboa Peninsula Planning Study, including . community outreach, financing, public improvements and parking management • Update of Housing Element and certification by State Housing and Community Development Department • Development of 120 -unit senior affordable housing project, including securing site, providing City financial assistance, and coordinating development of adjacent property as City park in accordance with conditions of California Coastal Commission • Certification of Environmental Impact Report for development of hotel on City Bayfront property and submittal of project to electorate • Completion of four -year process to develop community vision and prepare comprehensive General Plan update and Environmental Impact Report Director of Community Development City of Claremont March 1984 to April 1996 Responsibilities • Manage department comprised of planning, building, engineering and economic development divisions • Manage Redevelopment Agency • Staff support to City Council, Planning Commission, Environmental Quality Commission, Architectural Commission and various citizen committees • Develop and implement programs for business retention and recruitment Accomplishments • City acquisition of 1,200 acres of hillside open space, including agreement with sellers, annexation of land to City, development entitlements and development agreement for 125 residential units, Environmental Impact Report, and Los Angeles County open space grant • Development agreement for phased build -out of college property in historic residential neighborhood, providing additional educational facilities, strengthening the neighborhood and ending a decade of dispute • First major commercial development in Claremont Village in 10 years, including sale of Redevelopment Agency land, Agency assistance with financing, parking and public improvements, and environmental and design review • Redevelopment Agency loan program for seismic retrofit, facade improvements and small business expansion and relocation • Update of Housing Element, including self - certification by City Council Senior Planner City of Irvine November 1979 to March 1984 Responsibilities • Manage Growth Management, General Plan, and Intergovernmental Services Divisions • Administer General Plan and supervise all amendments, both City- and developer- initiated Fiscal impact analysis of major development projects Staff support to City Council and Planning Commission Accomplishments • Settlement of litigation with County of Orange regarding environmental review of Bee Canyon (now Frank R. Bowerman) solid waste landfill • General Plan amendment and Environmental Impact Report (prepared in- house) to relocate park site • $100,000,000 bond issue and development agreement for construction of 2,000 affordable housing units to implement settlement agreement on Housing Element litigation • Revision of Noise, Housing, Parks and Recreation and Energy Elements of General Plan Assistant, Senior, Principal Planner City of Paterson, New Jersey March 1975 to October 1979 Responsibilities • Function as Assistant Planning Director • Review and prepare reports on all cases heard by Planning Board • Application for and administration of federal grants, including NSA, Section 701, EDA Title 10 and Department of Energy • Liaison with Redevelopment and Economic Development staff 2 CDBG, UDAG, r1 U 0 i • Accomplishments • Policy framework for comprehensive revision of Master Plan • Comprehensive revision of Zoning Ordinance • Local Public Works grants for construction of City Hall Complex • Successful local survey to amend US Census population appropriate level of Federal funding to City 11 EDUCATION and Police and Fire estimate and return Master of Science in Urban Planning, 1974 Bachelor of Arts, 1972 Graduate School of Architecture and Planning Economics Department Columbia University Emmanuel College New York, New York Boston, Massachusetts PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS /REGIONAL PLANNING ACTIVITIES Planning Directors Association of Orange County, 1996 to present Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Planning Directors Committee, 1986 to 1994, Chairman, 1991 -1993 San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments Planning Directors Committee, Steering Committee, and representative to Subregional Coordinating Group San Gabriel Valley Commerce and Cities Consortium National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials (NAHRO), Southern California Chapter Board of Directors, 1985 to 1986 David A. Kiff Resume • EXPERIENCE Assistant City Manager (June 2002 to present) Newport Beach, California (population 84,000) Deputy City Manager (January 2000 to June 2002) Assistant to the City Manager (January 1998 to January 2000) • Oversee City's Utilities Department (Water, Wastewater, Oil 8 • Liaison with County, State, and Federal government relating Gas) — includes with 61 employees and a $23 million to environmental protection and water quality. operating budget with $2 -7 minion CiP. • Staff six Councillcitizens committees, including the • Oversee Harbor Resources Division (administration of CoaslalBay Water Quality Committee, a redevelopment Newport Harbor) — 5 employees. Project Advisory Committee, and the Marina Park Planning • Co-manage Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division — Committee. 5.5 employees. • Coordinate city's legislative program. • Manage two budget divisions. • Secured more than $2 minion in water quality grants the past • Coordinate annexation program, including completing five three years. separate annexations. • Serve on regional water quality task force, overseeing • Administer City's environmental restoration programs. NPDES compliance, TMDL administration, Newport Bay • Served as the League of California Cities' representative to management, more. the State of California on Federal Clean Water Act • Member of the Orange County City Managers' Association's implementation (AB 982) urban runoff task force. Assistant to the City Manager (October 1996 - December 1997) Orange, California (population 115,000) Executive Assistant, Supervisor Marian Bergeson (1994 -96) County of Orange, California Staff Consultant, Senate Local Government Committee (1988 -94) • California State Senate EDUCATION Master of Government Administration (MGA) (may 1994) Fels Center of Government, University of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, PA) • Fels Scholarship, 1992 and 1993 • Fels Class Commissioner, 1993.1994 • intern, Township of Lower Merion PA • Final GPA = 3.78 Bachelor of Sciences, Business Administration (with honors, May 1988) California State University, Sacramento • Senate Fellowship, California Senate 1988.89 • Delta Gamma Sigma Member, 1988 • CSUS Senior Achievement Award, 1988 • Hewlett Packard Company Scholar, 1987 • CSUS Outstanding Public Management Student, 1988 COMMUNITY -CIVIC INVOLVEMENT — Member, Newport Bay Naturalists and Friends Member, Surfrider Foundation Member, Orange County CoastKeeper Volunteer, Laguna Beach Festival of the Arts • • Patricia Temple 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 949- 644 -3228 ptemple@city.newport-beach.ca.us WORK HISTORY Jan 1996 - Present Plannina Director City of Newport Beach Newport Beach, CA Manage a Department of 20 employees. Responsibilities: • Member of Executive Management Team • Prepare and administer annual budget of $2.6M • Personnel administration • Guide department staff on City policies and procedures • Oversee preparation of Planning Commission Agenda including staff report preparation • Provide staff support at Planning Commission meetings . Prepare reports on planning projects for City Council • Provide staff support at City Council meetings • Manage or participate in priority City and Department projects Achievements: • Certification of Coastal Land Use Plan (2006) (OCAPA award recognition) • Adoption of comprehensive Sign Code update (2005) (OCAPA award recognition) • Comprehensive General Plan Update, including a Community Visioning Process and extensive public outreach program (2001 -2006) • Comprehensive Update of Subdivision Code (2001) • Update of Recreation and Open Space Element of General Plan (1998) • Comprehensive Zoning Code Update completed(1997) Aug 1990 - )an 1996 Planning Manager City of Newport Beach Newport Beach, CA Manage the Advance Planning Division of the Planning Department. Responsibilities: • Oversee administration and maintenance of the City's General Plan . Guide division staff on City policies and procedures • Prepare reports to Planning Commission and City Council and attend meetings as necessary • Provide personnel administration, performance review, coaching and discipline to division employees Prioritize workload of division employees Achievements: Comprehensive Zoning Code update(1994 - 1997) • Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement (CIOSA) (1992) • Master Plan for Hoag Memorial Hospital (1992) • Supervise principal staff for major development projects • One Ford Road • Bonita Canyon Pre - Annexation General Plan and Zoning Feb 1984 - Aug 1990 Principal Planner/ Environmental Coordinator and Principal Project Planner City of Newport Beach Newport Beach, CA Serve as project planner for major development proposals and manage the City's environmental review process (CEQA Compliance). Responsibilities: • Advise project proponents of City development regulations • Review development applications for compliance with General Plan policies and standards, the Zoning Code, and the Subdivision Code • Determine the appropriate level of environmental review • Provide environmental review and coordinate environmental services for private development submittal and all City projects subject to CEQA • Select environmental consultants and review work product • Staff Citizens' Environmental Quality Advisory Committee (CEQAC) • Coordinate application review with other City Departments Prepare staff reports and action documentation (Resolutions, Ordinances, Findings and Conditions of Approval) Achievements: • Land Use and Circulation Element updates (1988) • Review and approval of Newport Center build -out proposals and numerous residential subdivisions • Preparation and certification of numerous Environmental Impact Reports and Mitigated Negative Declarations, with no legal challenges. Sep 1979 - Feb 1984 Senior Planner City Of Newport Beach Newport Beach, CA Perform project planner assignments in Advance Planning. Responsibilities: Prepare Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan and achieve certification by California Coastal Commission 2 • Staff Local Coastal Program Citizens' Advisory Committee • Process General Plan Amendments required for development projects Achievements: Certification of LCP, Land Use Plan (1981) • Completion of General Plan Amendments for proposals such as Banning Newport Ranch Feb 1975 - Sep 1979 Assistant Planner City of Newport Beach Newport Beach, CA Perform entry-level planning assignments in Advance and Current Planning. Responsibilities: • Administer Community Development Block Grant program (CDBG) • Staff Community Development Citizens' Advisory Committee • Conduct zoning compliance review of building plans • Review requests for "Approval in Concept" for projects in the Coastal Zone • Advise architects, engineers, property owners, residents and interested persons on the requirements of the City's Zoning Code • Accomplishments: Funding to acquire land and building to establish a senior citizen center with CDBG funds Develop a conceptual framework for the establishment of the OASIS Senior Citizen Center • Efficient and accurate plan review of permit applications EDUCATION Oct 1972 - Jun 1974 University of California Irvine, CA Bachelor of Arts Degree; Program in Social Ecology; Major emphasis in City Planning and Public Policy Making PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS • American Planning Association • Planning Directors' Association of Orange County 0 Richard M. Edmonston EDUCATION Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering from the University of California, Berkeley, 1968. Numerous additional short courses through the U.C. Institute of Transportation Studies including Certificate programs in Transportation Systems Management and Transportation Demand Management. WORK EXPERIENCE Caltrans, Bridge Department Junior Civil Engineer 1968 -70 Assistant Civil Engineer 1970 -1973 Caltrans, Traffic Branch Associate Civil Engineer 1973 -1975 City of Newport Beach Assistant Traffic Engineer 1975 -1978 City Traffic Engineer 1978 -1995 Transportation & Development Services Manager 1995 -2006 PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION Civil Engineer — California C 22045 Traffic Engineer — California TR 747 PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS Institute of Transportation Engineers — Past President, Southern California Section American Public Works Association Orange County Traffic Engineering Council - Past President City Traffic Engineers - Past Chairman • • • GREGG B. RAMIREZ 11 GOLDEN EAGLE COURT . ALISO VIEJO, CA 92656 949.338.1795 EMPLOYMENT HISTORY City of Newport Beach, Newport Beach, CA Senior Planner, June 2005— Present • Manage the City's General Plan update in collaboration with the Assistant City Manager and Planning Director; develop general plan elements, maps, exhibits and related CEQA documents • Made presentations of recommendations, findings and studies to the Planning Commission, City Council and various committees and advisory boards • Provide technical and functional supervision to professional, technical and clerical planning staff • Perform advanced level professional planning work and provide assistance to the Planning Director • Develop and present recommendations on various development permits and applications, including the preparation of appropriate reports • Confer with engineers, developers, architects, a variety of agencies and the general public in acquiring information and coordinating planning and zoning matters • Interpret and apply environmental quality laws and regulations to ensure that development, City projects and municipal code amendments are in compliance • Conduct and supervise planning studies in the community to gather data for evaluating current and advance planning projects • Review development proposals and work with developers to reach agreement on acceptable site plans; review various development applications for compliance with appropriate regulations and policies and prepare reports of recommendations . Perform extensive research regarding implementation of regulations and policies established by the General Plan, Municipal Code Ordinance, Coastal Commission or other land use and development ordinances Associate Planner, September 2002 — June 2005 • Performed professional work in the field of current and advanced local government planning • Reviewed department proposals, applications and architectural /site plans for compliance with applicable regulations and policies; prepared staff reports and made presentations of recommendations to the Planning Commission, City Council and various committees and advisory boards • Researched, analyzed and interpreted social, economic, population and land use data and trends • Compiled information and made recommendations on special studies; prepared planning reports; collected, recorded and summarized statistical and demographic information • Assisted in the administration, management and implementation of the various elements of the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program • Checked development plans for zoning compliance; processes permit applications and calculated appropriate fees • Conducted field investigations and analysis • Prepared initial studies and assisted in preparing and /or reviewing environmental documents and studies • Managed consultant contracts • Conferred with and advised architects, builders, attorneys, contractors, engineers and the general public regarding City regulations, policies and standards • Responded to and resolved citizen inquiries and comments regarding the City's planning functions • Coordinated and participated in City planning activities with other City departments and outside agencies Assistant Planner, September 2000 — September 2002 • Checked proposed residential and commercial developments for compliance with the City Zoning Code, General Plan, applicable conditions of approval and other land use regulations and policies • Consulted with representatives from other City departments regarding proposed residential and commercial developments '.J t Provided the public, developers, contractors, architects and engineers, with zoning, General Plan and other land use ordinance and development regulations at the counter and over the telephone Assisted in the review of planning applications including: modification permits, lot line adjustments and parcel maps Prepared approval /disapproval letters for applications and requests heard by the Modifications Committee County of Riverside, Murrieta, CA Planner III, January 2000 — September 2000 • Processed current planning applications including: conditional use permits, variances, tentative parcel and tract maps, zone changes and General Plan amendments • Reviewed applications and exhibits for consistency with the General Plan, zoning ordinance and other local, state and federal regulations • Prepared and reviewed initial studies, EIR's and other CEQA documents for a variety of development projects Reviewed environmental, biological, archaeological, traffic and other technical reports and documents • Conducted field studies at project sites and surrounding areas • Consulted with representatives from other County agencies, special districts, state agencies, federal agencies and municipal governments regarding current and long range planning cases and issues • Prepared staff reports and presented information at Planning Commission and other public hearings • Met with applicants, consultants and the public regarding current and future planning cases and issues Land Use Technician II, June 1999 — January 2000 • Interpreted and applied county land use ordinances related to planning and the construction of structures at the public counter • Accepted and reviewed for completeness planning applications including conditional use permits, public use permits, changes of zone, and tentative maps • Reviewed building permit applications and checked plans for compliance with the General Plan, zoning ordinance, applicable conditions of approval and a multitude of other environmental and planning policies • Provided the public, developers, contractors, architects and engineers with zoning, General Plan and other land use ordinance and development regulations at the counter and over the telephone • EDUCATION • California State University, Fullerton, Bachelor of Arts in Geography with a Concentration in Environmental Analysis, January 1999 (With Honors) • ., if • Cl Daniel Campagnolo 6163 Camino Forestal San Clemente, CA 92673 (949) 429 -2855 - Home (949) 735 -7509 - Mobile don-loura1@cox.net OBJECTIVE: To obtain a Geographic Information Systems(GIS) position with a local government agency where I can utilize my technical and creative GIS knowledge. EDUCATION: California State University, Long Beach, BA Geography TECHNICAL SKILLS: • ArcGIS Suite • ArcIMS • Adobe Photoshop / Illustrator • Database Management • Cartographic Design EXPERIENCE: • AutoCAD • GPS Data Collection • Data Analysis • Powerpoint May 2004 to Present GIS Analyst - Planning Department City of Newport Beach • Work with GIS staff in creating mapping and database applications based on user needs and requirements • Provide technical assistance to users and staff related to the operation of GIS applications • Performing analysis and creating exhibits for the City's Local Coastal Program • Assisted in a detailed 'plan to plan' comparison and mapping for the City's General Plan Update • Performed various height anaiysis using the City's Digital Elevation Model • Maintain all of the geographic data for the Planning Department i.e. Zoning, General Plan, Setbacks, Height Zones iI1,T Daniel Campagnolo Resume Page 2 of 2 January 1997 to May 2004 Associate Planner / GIS Specialist City of Laguna Niguel, CA • Administrator of the City's Geographic Information Systems, including software and hardware upgrades, creating City General Plan, Zoning and various other spatial layers • Supervise GIS Assistant • Customize ArcIMS applications to create a user - friendly interface to serve geographic information to staff • Geo- referenced City's parcel basemap to City's aerial imagery • Use ArcView's 3D Analyst and Photoshop to simulate 3D photo renderings and animations for proposed projects • Designed GIS database utilizing linear referencing for City's Trails Master Plan • Prepare maps for all departments citywide • Produce various discretionary permits and project review • Coordinate the City's Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) • Lead contact working with and providing geographic information for Census 2000 • Responsible for producing creative PowerPoint presentations for Planning Commission and City Council meetings. • Handle all general 'IT' issues for the Community Development Department. • Involved in all aspects of 'advanced planning' for the City • Assisted in the development of the City's Local Implementation Plan for urban runoff References available upon request • • q9 Parma, Public Law Section (714) 641 -3413 kjen.,on@mtin.com mciacom Areas of Experience I .evieonewnral law Land use Public Law Education Ohio State Univetsitt, College of law luris Doctor Degree March 1983 Class Rank : Upper 3% (5th of 209) Cl,, eland State University, Bachelor of Ares, 1980 4lajoe Political Science Grade Point Average 3.89 M. Katherine Jenson U.S. Supreme Court, 1991 California State Bar, 1983 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 1984 United States District Court for the Central District, 1984 United States District Court for the Northern and Southern Districts 1999 LEGAL EXPERIENCE Rutan & Tucker, LLP June - September 1982 March 1983 — present Contract City Attorney, City of La Quinta, June 2002 to Present Chair of the Land Use /Natural Resources Practice Group CASES ARGUED BEFORE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT City of Long Beach v. Department of Industrial Relations, California Supreme Court Case. No. 5118450 (October 2004) Honors Ohio state university College of law PUBLICATIONS Order of the CniF Graduated Summa Cum Laude For Overall Pa&rnnance During 1981_82 Academic Year: C.,Pus n Twenty l! ays to Improve Your Administrative Record and In rea e Your Inri> secundum :beard rot Chances for Success in CE QA Litigatmn", Public Law Journal, California Significant Legal Scholarship The Donald C. pow , Enna for State Bar, Vol. 22, No. 4, Fall 1999; the College of 1.1w The John Rosenbmugh lfemorial Schohrship " Nonresident Plaints Lack Standing to Challenge Amendment to For Performance in *Fort, The Redevelopment Plan ", Redevelopment Journal, April 1995, p. 2; John E. Haden Memorial Award; "rhe American l,dquiidence Book Award "A Plaintiff With Standing - Every Lawsuit Needs One ", Los Angeles For Performance in Fcidence: rhe American lunprudence Book Dailv Journal, Practitioner, July 1, 1993, p. 7; San Francisco Daily A, aid Journal, Practitioner, July 1, 1993, p. 5; CIIIdied State I,jno 11,41 Graanatea summa Cum I,.aude PUBLISHED CASES Political Science Student of the Sear Aw -ard, 1980 Torres v. City of Yorba Linda (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 1035; Butcher v. City of Newport Beach (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1472; Clarke. CitvCity of Hermosa Beach (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1152; City of Vernon et al. v. Board of Harbor Commissioners, et al. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 677; Cantrell v. City of Long Beach et al, (9th Cir. 2001) 241 F.3d 674; City of Long Beach v. Department of Industrial Relations (2004) 34 Cal.4th 942; California Earth Corps California State Lands Law Review Page 1 of 3 M. Katherine Jenson 1182 -83 Issue Planning Editor, Oleo Commission (2005) 128 Ca1.App.4th 756. State I. , journal 1981 -82 Staff Membcq Oluo State I ov joumal, Member of the Issue Planning Committee 'S,,,,c ,. F/,,.m . The rr t 1ls. ,„ UNPUBLISHED APPELLATE DECISIONS Xaeud IP'iiman ?' 43 Ohio State hum journal 491 (1982). Stop Taking Our Parks et al v. City of Long Beach, Second District, Court of Appeal, Div. One, Case No, B156347; Citizens of Orange Park Acres Coalition v. City of Orange, et al Fourth Dist. Court of Appeal, Div. Three, Case No. G024841; Huell Howser v. City of Long Beach, Second Appellate Dist., Court of Appeal, Div. 7, Case Professional Organizations P%eanivc Cmunittee Member - Legral No. 13123336; Sierra Club v. City of Palm Springs, et al., Fourth nd°ocacp c- ommittee- League of Dist. Court of Appeal, Div. Two, Case No. E023399; Huell Howser California Cities - City Attorneys Division, v. City of Long Beach, Ninth Circuit Case No. 98- 55351; Friends of Dirccua, orange County Bar Coachella Valley v. County of Riverside, Fourth Appellate Dist., Association, I larbor Division (1994 - 1997); Member, orange Court of Appeal, Div. Two, Case No. B017901 (tentative opinion); county Bar Association, 1983- Ignacio Barajas, et al. v. City of Santa Ana and Orange County Present 1992 Vicc -Cha person, 1993 Reg�ter, Fourth Dist. Court of Appeal, Div. Three, Case No. Chairpeann, Orange County Bar G011307; Raphael Babay, et al. v. City of Lynwood, et al., Second \ssociation, Appellate Iaw section; Dist. Court of Appeal, Div. Two, Civil No. B046883; Homer Croy. Robert A. Banvard American Inn of et al. v. Michigan Millers Mutual Insurance Company, et al., Fourth Court, Pupil For Fiat Chartered Year, 1987.1988; Barrister 1993- Dist. Court of Appeal, Div. Three, Case No. G008885; Eric 1999 Hexbure. et al. v. Superior Court of the State of California (Orange Pc6ual Bar Association; C.Uonca Bar Association; Public La,v - Coun , Fourth Dist. Court of Appeal, Div. Three, Case No. and Litigation Sections of G006286; Cabrillo Land Company v. Soquel Creek Water District, CaGfouea Bar Association; - Sixth Dist. Court of Appeal, Case No, H002002; Carlos Zambrano, Civic Activities et al. v. Superior Court of the State of California for Orange County Volunteer for Pubhc Lav, Center Served as judge Pn, •rem for La,c and (Fireside Thrift), Fourth Dist. Court of Appeal, Div. Three, Case Mot ion; No. G002370. Director, Orangc County Legal Aid Socivt (1997 -2WO) %Ivmbcrbfthe Ne,vport Buulc,ard COURSES TAUGHT Specific Plan Study Committee for the City of Costa Mesa, 1995 to completion and approval of Plan Overview of General Plain; Specific Plarn, and Zoning, Rutan & Tucker in 1996 MCLE, March 2003 The Do's and Don'LJ in Repirienting Developers and Agenciej in Public Hearings for Development Projects, Moderator, Rutan & Tucker MCLE Seminar, March 2003 A Guide to Planning Commission Meetings, Rutan & Tucker MCLE Seminar, February 2003 CEaQA Overview and Practice Tips, Rutan & Tucker MCLE Seminar, September 2002 CF,QA Tips, Rutan & Tucker MCLE Seminar, May 2002 Page 2 of 3 M. Katherine Jenson A CEQA Overview, for the City of La Quinta Planning Department, City of La Quinta, May 2002 Defending Land Use Approvals in CEQA Ldtigalion and from Cba!lenges under the Federal and State Endangered Species Ac7, for the League of California Cities, City Attorneys Conference, Spring 2000 lVbat's New and Exciting Under the California EnvironmentalQuabiyAct for the California Chapter, American Planning Association Annual Conference - October 1996 CEQA Guerrilla Warfare - A Ldtigator's Perspective for The Cahuilla District of the American Planning Association - March 1996 Calforma EnvironmenialQuality Act MCLE Seminar for the City of Long Beach, City Attorney and Planning Departments - September 1994 California EnvironmentalQualityAct Seminar for the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Long Beach - December 1994 Recent Developments Regarding the California EnvironmenialQuality Act - American Planning Association Nuts and Bolts Conference on Zoning - March 1994 Ovennew of the Government Tort Claims Act - Rutan & Tucker Public Law MCLE Seminar - February 1993 The Public Records Act - Rutan & Tucker Public Law MCLE Seminar —July 1992 Emerging Trends in Section 1983 Liabilidy - Avoiding Section 1983 Lzability For Regulation of First Amendment Rigbis - 1991 Continuing Education Seminar for Municipal Attorneys, League of California Cities The Rzgbi ofAccess to Information Held by Public Agencies - American Planning Association - State Conference 1990 Page 3 of 3 BIOGRAPHICAL SUMMARY By way of professional background, Kathy Jenson has been practicing public law since joining R &T in 1983. The primary focus of her practice has been environmental and land use entitlement and litigation. She has handled over two dozen CEQA challenges, many of which have involved projects in the Coachella Valley. She is the chair of the firm's Land Use /CEQA practice group. Her land use /environmental public entity clients include the Cities of Long Beach, Marina, Torrance, Palm Springs, La Quinta, Yorba Linda, and Indian Wells, the Port of Long Beach, the Solana Beach School District and the El Cajon Union School District. She has served as legal counsel for various private developers and have successfully defended projects approved by other public entities, including the Cities of Santa Ana and Orange, and the County of Riverside. For nearly six years, she has served as the contract City Attorney for La Quinta, one of the fastest growing cities in the State. In this role, she has address CEQA and land use issues relating to development and redevelopment on an ongoing basis. She has successfully defended La Quinta in three CEQA challenges over the last few years. She has also written several articles and taught numerous courses regarding CEQA compliance. For example, in Fall of 1999, she published an article in the Public Law Journal (a California State Bar publication) entitled "Twenty Ways to Improve Your Administrative Record and Increase Your Chances for Success in CEQA Litigation." In 2000, she taught a course entitled "Defending Land Use Approvals in CEQA Litigation and from Challenges under the Federal and State Endangered Species Act" for the League of California Cities, City Attorneys Conference. The program received the highest audience rating of all the programs in the Conference. She has also been asked to speak on CEQA topics before the California Chapter of the American Planning Association ( "What's New and Exciting Under the California Environmental Quality Act'), as well as its Orange County Chapter ( "Recent Developments Regarding the California Environmental Quality Act") and its Coachella Valley Chapter ( "CEQA Guerrilla Warfare —A Litigator's Perspective "). Finally, she has taught numerous MCLE courses to other attorneys on CEQA and other land use issues. 119/099999 -0084 106663.01 a06/29/06 REPRESENTATIVE LIST OF CEQA/NEPA CASES HANDLED BY M. KATHERINE JENSON 1. City of Torrance v. State of California Ex Rel. Department of Transportation et al Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BS098761 (Responsible Attorneys: Bower /Jenson) This case arose from a controversial project involving the Cities of Los Angeles and Torrance and Caltrans. At the request of the City of Los Angeles, and over the vigorous objection of the City of Torrance, Caltrans approved the installation of a traffic signal on Western Avenue, a state highway, at 235th Street, which is the boundary between the City of Torrance and the City of Los Angeles. Because the signal would result in cut - through traffic on Torrance's local residential streets, Torrance objected to the project and requested that Caltrans conduct appropriate CEQA review before moving forward. Caltrans ignored Torrance's request and approved a categorical exemption in connection with the project. The City of Torrance filed a petition for writ of mandate, and was successful in an action to set aside the approval on the grounds that a categorical exemption was improper, due to unusual circumstances surrounding the project. Mr. Bower was the lead attorney on the matter and Ms. Jenson assisted him. 2. Save Our Peninsula Committee v. City of Marina, et al Monterrey Superior Court, Case No. M75191 (Responsible Attorneys: Jenson /Houston) This case involved a 420 -acre redevelopment project within the former Fort Ord base in the City of Marina, known as the Marina University Villages ( "UV ") project. The UV project included the demolition of 943 military structures, removal of below- and above - ground infrastructure to support the new UV project, which consists of 1,237 residential units, 750,000 sq. ft. of retail uses, 760,000 sq. ft. of office uses, and 500 hotel rooms. Ms. Jenson worked closely with City staff and consultants in "bulletproofing" the EIR during the administrative process. Mr. Houston assisted the City and the Consultants in complying with the water assessment and CEQA compliance with respect to the water supply issues. Ms. Jenson was 119/099999 -0091 293221.02 a06/29/06 also part of the defense team that successfully defeated Save Our Peninsula Committee's writ of mandate petition. The petition challenged the UV Project upon alleged CEQA violations and purported inconsistencies with the City's general plan. Among other contributions, Ms. Jenson successfully opposed the Petitioner's request to augment the Administrative Record with over 755 pages of extra - record documents, consisting largely of a -mails to and from the developer and the developer's legal team. The City's legal team successfully obtained a judgment in favor of the City of Marina and against the Petitioner, and will be seeking costs. 3. Dunbar Lane Task Force v. Cajon Valley Union School District San Diego Superior Court, Case No. GIE018395 (Responsible Attorneys: Jenson /Bower /Houston) This case involved a CEQA challenge to the Blossom Valley Area Middle School project, which is to be located on an 82 -acre site in the County of San Diego. The EIR for the project was challenged by a group of neighboring property owners. The District needed to obtain an expedited determination in the case in order to secure state funding and to construct and open the school by the Fall of 2005. Ms. Jenson and Mr. Houston worked closely with District staff to prepare the 15- volume record of proceedings in the matter in a two -week time period. Rutan & Tucker then filed an ex parte hearing and obtained an abbreviated briefing schedule and a hearing date that was scheduled less than four months after the action was filed. Based upon Rutan & Tucker's advice, the District closely tracked all expenses it incurred in the preparation of the record, including District staff time. Rutan & Tucker then succeeded in obtaining a court order requiring the property owners to post a bond for the total cost of the record, which exceeded $19,000. When the owners failed to post the bond by the date ordered by the court, Rutan & Tucker commenced proceedings to dismiss the action. Ultimately, the property owners agreed to dismiss the action with prejudice in exchange for a waiver of costs. This dismissal occurred less than two months after the filing of the action. 119/099999 -0091 293221.02 a06/29/06 -2- 4. Jensen's Complete Shopping, Inc. v. City of La Quinta, etc. et al Riverside County Superior Court, Case No. INC 033597 (Responsible Attorneys: Jenson) This lawsuit involved a CEQA challenge to the Mitigated Negative Declaration for a 488,050 square foot commercial project, which includes a Target, a Big 5 Sporting Goods Store, a Henry's Market, a bank, and miscellaneous retail and restaurant uses. The lawsuit included challenges to the traffic and hydrology analysis. Ms. Jenson defeated the attempt of the petitioner to enjoin the grading of the site, and the petitioner subsequently agreed to dismiss the action in exchange for a waiver of costs. 5. South of Airport Neighborhood Association v. The City of La Quinta, etc. et al Riverside County Superior Court, Case No. INC 028505 (Responsible Attorneys: Ramirez/Jenson /Duzman) This case involved a challenge to the EIR for the City of La Quinta's 2002 General Plan update. The revised General Plan establishes the permitted land uses within the City and within a 16- square mile future annexation area. Ms. Jenson obtained a dismissal of the matter due to a procedural error on the part of the Petitioner, and also defeated a motion for relief from default filed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 473. The City has been awarded $4,500.00 in costs against Petitioner. 6. California Earth Corps v. State Lands Commission and City of Long Beach Sacramento Superior Court, Case No. 01 CS01556 (Responsible Attorneys: Bower /Jenson) This case involved a challenge to a land exchange agreement involving tidelands between the City of Long Beach and the State Lands Commission, and the subsequent development of a $130 - million waterfront project at Queensway Bay (commonly known as "The Pike at Rainbow Harbor'), located between the Long Beach Convention Center and the Aquarium of the Pacific. The proposed project included restaurants, retail shops, a movie theatre, a parking structure, and numerous entertainment - related uses. The challenge, brought by the California Earth Corps, was based upon constitutional and statutory claims relating to 119/099999 -0091 293221.02 a06/29/06 -3- tidelands trust issues, and upon an alleged violation of the California Environmental Quality Act. Mr. Bower and Ms. Jenson obtained an across - the -board victory from the Sacramento Superior Court in this action, and was awarded $5,521.19 in costs against the petitioner. The Project is now under construction. 7. Stop Taking Our Parks and California Earth Corps v. City of Long Beach Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BS071279 (Responsible Attorneys: Jenson /Bower) This action involved a challenge to the City of Long Beach's decision to use a portion of a municipal park for a police station. Two environmental groups challenged the EIR that was certified for the project, claiming that it failed to comply with the requirements of CEQA with regard to the alternative and mitigation analysis. The groups made additional challenges under the City's General Plan and Zoning Code, as well as under the Federal Land and Water Conservation Act. Ms. Jenson and Mr. Bower won an across - the -board victory in front of Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Dzintra Janays. The trial court decision was obtained in less than five months following service of the action. Ms. Jenson and Mr. Bower then defeated petition for a writ of supersedeas in the Second District Court of Appeal, and after extensive briefing, the Court refused to enjoin the construction of the police station pending appeal. This decision was affirmed in full by the Second District Court of Appeal, Division One in an opinion filed on October 30, 2002. The City was able to recover its costs on appeal from the environmental groups. The project is now under construction. 8. City of Indio v. City of La Quinta Riverside County Superior Court, Indio Branch Case No. INC 025560 (Responsible Attorney: Jenson /Duzman) This action involved a CEQA challenge to road improvements being made by the City of La Quinta. The road improvements impact street access rights. Ms. Jenson, with Mr. Duzman's assistance, defeated a preliminary injunction in the action by demonstrating that the 119/099999 -0091 293221.02 a06129/06 -4- street improvements were exempt from CEQA. The City of Indio subsequently dropped the action. 119/099999 -0091 293221.02 a06/29/06 -5- 9. Kimberly Bird; Conserve Our Village Environment v. City of La Quinta Riverside County Superior Court Case No. INC 021658 (Responsible Attorneys: Jenson) In this action, Ms. Jenson defended the City of La Quinta's approval of a six -story Embassy Suites hotel project in the La Quinta Village. The project was approved with a mitigated negative declaration. The action was defended at no cost to the City due to a "defense and indemnification" condition of approval that Ms. Jenson recommended be added to the project. The Real Party in Interest and the Petitioners reached an amicable settlement through a redesign of the project which involved a slight reduction in the height of the hotel. The project is now under construction. 10. Robert M. Ready v. City Council of the City of La Quinta Riverside County Superior Court Case No. INC 018982 (Responsible Attorneys: Jenson) In this action, Ms. Jenson successfully defended the City of La Quinta's approval of a specific plan and conditional use permit for the La Quinta Arts Foundation's new headquarters and festival grounds. It was approved on the basis of a mitigated negative declaration. The project involved a facility just under 20 acres immediately adjacent to a residential project on one side, and endangered species habitat on the other. Ms. Jenson successfully argued to the Court that the Petitioner had missed the deadline for filing a CEQA action, and that therefore all of the findings in the negative declaration, and the resolution certifying it, were binding on the petitioners' other claims relating to consistency with the general plan and zoning. The action was defended at no cost to the City. The judgment is now final. The City collected over $2000 in costs against the Petitioners. The first phase of the project has been constructed. 11. Citizens of Orange Park Acres Coalition v. City of Orange Orange County Superior Court Case No. 797433; Fourth Dist. Court of Appeal, Div. Three, Case No. G024841 (Responsible Attorneys: Bower /Jenson) In this action, Mr. Bower and Ms. Jenson represented the Salem Lutheran Church, which obtained a conditional use permit for the expansion of its school and church in the City of 119/099999 -0091 293221.02 a06/29/06 -6- Orange. The lawsuit, filed in July of 1998, challenged the conditional use permit and the negative declaration. On December 17, 1998, Mr. Bower and Ms. Jenson succeeded in obtaining a dismissal of the case based upon the Petitioner's failure to comply with the procedural requirements imposed by CEQA. The case was affirmed on appeal in March of 2001. The project has been built. 12. Anne Cantrell, et al. v. City of Long Beach, et al. Ninth Circuit Case No. 98 -56940 (Responsible Attorney: Jenson /Bower) In this action, Ms. Jenson and Mr. Bower represented the City of Long Beach and the Board of Harbor Commissioners in a challenge brought by local residents to prevent the reuse of the Long Beach Naval Station and Shipyard. The lawsuit included numerous challenges, including environmental claims under NEPA. Ms. Jenson and Mr. Bower successfully defended the Long Beach defendants against numerous attempts by the plaintiffs to enjoin the project. Ms. Jenson and Mr. Bower were successful in obtaining a dismissal of the action against the Long Beach defendants in the U.S. District Court, which was upheld by the Ninth Circuit. Mr. Bower and Ms. Jenson then assisted the U.S. Attorneys in obtaining a dismissal of the NEPA action against the U.S. Navy. 13. The Robert Mayer Corporation et al. v. City of Santa Fe Springs, et al. Los Angeles Superior Court Case BS053799 (Responsible Attorney: Jenson /Bower) In this action, Ms. Jenson and Mr. Bower represented the owners and operators of the Huntington Beach Waterfront Hilton in a CEQA action to prevent the reopening of an oil refinery and the off -shore oil terminal that had been involved in the American Trader oil spill. Ms. Jenson and Mr. Bower successfully prevented the reopening of the refinery and terminal by working on all regulatory fronts, including SCAQMD, the State Lands Commission, and the California Coastal Commission. Shortly after Mr. Bower and Ms. Jenson filed the CEQA action, CENCO Refining Company and Golden West Refining Company entered into an agreement in 119/099999 -0091 293221.02 a06/29/06 -7- which they committed to permanently close the off -shore terminal, to dismantle the interconnected on -shore "oil tank farm," and to complete soil remediation. 14. Roosevelt Base Foundation and El Dorado Audubon v. City of Long Beach, et al. Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BS052267 (Responsible Attorney: Jenson /Bower) In this case, Ms. Jenson and Mr. Bower represented the City of Long Beach and the Port of Long Beach in a CEQA challenge to the reuse plan for the Long Beach Naval Station and Naval Shipyard, which were being redeveloped as a marine container facility. The case was filed in June 1998. The case involved challenges regarding the project's impacts on historical resources and bird populations. In December of 1998, the Court granted a motion to dismiss the CEQA claim, and shortly thereafter entered judgment in favor of the City and Port. The project has been constructed. 15. Sierra Club v. City of Palm Springs Riverside County Superior Court Case No. INC. 004263; Fourth Dist. Court of Appeal, Div. Two, Case No. E023399 (Responsible Attorney: Jenson) In this action, Ms. Jenson represented the City of Palm Springs in a challenge to a golf course /resort project (the "Shadowrock Project ") which is to be constructed near the Palm Springs Tramway. The Sierra Club contended that significant changes to the project and to the surrounding area had occurred since the project was originally approved (four years earlier), and that a subsequent Environmental Impact Report was required before further project approvals could be issued. The case involved endangered species issues. The case was tried in May 1998, before the Honorable Douglas Miller in Indio. Ms. Jenson obtained a judgment in favor of the City on all claims. Ms. Jenson then successfully defended the matter on appeal. 16. State of California Department of Fish and Game v. City of La Quinta, et al. Riverside County Superior Court Case No. INCO03070 (Responsible Attorney: Jenson) In this action, Ms. Jenson represented the City of La Quinta in a challenge to a golf course /residential project (the "Tradition Project ") which was being constructed near the Coral 11 9/0 9 9 9 99 -00 91 293221.02 aO6/29/06 -8- Reef Mountains in La Quinta. The project was approved based upon a mitigated negative declaration. The case was successfully settled in July 1998, when the Department of Fish and Game agreed to dismiss its case and waive any claims for attorneys' fees or costs if the City would consider approving fencing for a portion of the project. The City was not obligated to approve the fencing, and ultimately declined to require the fencing. The Department had agreed to abide by the City's decision. This defense was undertaken at no expense to the City due to a defense and indemnity provision that Ms. Jenson had recommended to the City. The project has been completed. 17. National Audubon Society, Los Angeles Audubon Society, and El Dorado Audubon Society. Petitioners in Intervention v. The Port of Long Beach, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BSO41659; City of Vernon v. Board of Harbor Commissioners, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC158591; City of Compton v. Board of Harbor Commissioners, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC158534; Long Beach Heritage v. The Port of Long Beach, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BSO41659 (Responsible Attorneys: Jenson / Oderman) In these consolidated actions, Ms. Jenson and Mr. Oderman successfully defended the Long Beach Naval Station reuse plan and the Environmental Impact Report certified in conjunction therewith from numerous attacks. The challenges included the Environmental Impact Report's treatment of the project's biological, historical, transportation, and cumulative impacts. The project alternatives analysis was also challenged. There were claims that the project had been improperly segmented. In addition, the challengers contended that Long Beach had improperly precommitted to approving the project before the Environmental Impact Report was prepared. Ms. Jenson and Mr. Oderman won on all issues at the Court of Appeal. The litigation resulted in a published decision from the Second District Court of Appeal. See City of Vernon, et al. v. Board of Harbor Commissioners, et al. (1998) 63 Cal.AppAth 677. Ms. Jenson obtained and collected nearly $7000 in costs from the National Audubon Society. The marine terminal has been constructed, and is now fully operational. 119/099999 -0091 293221.02 x06/29/06 -9- 18. Citv of Cathedral Citv v. Countv of Riverside. Riverside Countv Board of Supervisors, City of Indio, Midland Properties, Inc., and Del Webb California Corp. Riverside County Case No. Coachella Valley, Robert L. Frink, 083455, v. County consolidated of Riverside, with Friends of Riverside County Board of Supervisors, City of Indio, Midland Properties, Inc., and Del Webb California Corp. Riverside County Case No. 083468 (Responsible Attorney: Jenson) In this action, Ms. Jenson represented Riverside County, the Board of Supervisors, the City of Indio, Midland Properties and Del Webb in two consolidated challenges to an auto mall and retail commercial project at the Interstate- 10/Washington Street Interchange. The challengers made numerous attacks on the project, including a claim that the mitigated negative declaration certified in conjunction with the project violated CEQA. In December of 1995, Ms. Jenson successfully tried the matter before Judge Dougherty in Palm Springs and defeated all challenges to the project. Ms. Jenson was able to secure a favorable disposition of the case at the trial court in just over six months. The project has been constructed. 19. Residents Opposing Airport Rezoning and Expansion v. City of Palm Springs, Riverside County Superior Court Case No. 083063 (Responsible Attorney: Jenson) Ms. Jenson defended the City of Palm Springs' certification of its EIR prepared in conjunction with the City's update of its Airport Master Plan and Federal Aviation Regulation Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study. The Master Plan included the controversial extension of the runway which was opposed by area residents. Because the City wished to have a quick resolution of the case, Ms. Jenson filed a motion to have the petition for writ of mandate heard and denied rather than waiting for the challengers to proceed. At the same time, Ms. Jenson filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. After receiving Ms. Jenson's moving papers in August of 1995, ROARE opted to voluntarily dismiss its challenges in exchange for the City's waiver of costs. The litigation was resolved in just over two months. The project has now been constructed. 119/099999 -0091 293221.02 a06/29/06 -10- 20. PNS Stores, Inc. v. Redevelopment Agency of the City of Long Beach, et al. Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BS 032117 (Responsible Attorney: Jenson) Ms. Jenson represented the City of Long Beach and the Long Beach Redevelopment Agency in a challenge to a negative declaration, certified in conjunction with a disposition and development agreement ( "DDA ") for the redevelopment of the Los Altos Shopping Center. PNS Stores contended that an EIR was required for the project due to traffic and air quality impacts. The lawsuit was served in late January, 1995. Ms. Jenson successfully defended the negative declaration, and was able to bring the matter to hearing and conclusion at the trial court level within three months of being served with the lawsuit. The project has been consructed. 21. City of Long Beach v. City of Los Angeles, et al. (LAXT), Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. NS002790 (Responsible Attorneys: Jenson /Oderman) Ms. Jenson represented the City of Long Beach in a challenge to an EIR certified by the Los Angeles Harbor Department, relating to the approval of the Pier 300 Dry Bulk Terminal in the Port of Los Angeles. The project is designed to have an ultimate annual throughput capacity of 20 million tons of coal, petroleum coke and copper concentrate. These materials are transported to the Port via truck and train and are subsequently shipped overseas. The challenge to the EIR focused primarily on air quality issues relating to coal and coke transportation, handling and storage. The case involved SCAQMD rules and regulations, EPA standards and CEQA issues. The case was shortly settled before trial when Los Angeles agreed to conduct the air quality monitoring Long Beach had originally requested. 22. Baraias v. City of Santa Ana /Orange County Register Orange County Superior Court Case No. 649077; Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Three No. G011307 (Responsible Attorneys: Jenson /Hampel) Ms. Jenson represented Freedom Newspapers, Inc., and the Orange County Register in a challenge to their plan to expand the Register's Santa Ana production facility. The EIR for the project was challenged under CEQA, and the land use approvals were also challenged based 119/099999 -0091 293221.02 a06/29/06 -11- upon alleged inadequacies in the City's general plan. The expansion necessitated the demolition of approximately 200 apartment units occupied by low income persons. The primary challenge was focused upon the adequacy of the tenant relocation program, the mitigation measures relating to housing issues, and the analysis of cumulative impacts. On behalf of the Register and City, Ms. Jenson filed a joint motion to bring the petition for writ of mandate on for hearing and for denial of the petition. The motion was granted. A judgment upholding the project was entered within months of the action being filed in Court. The petitioners appealed. The Fourth District Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the judgment denying the appeal and awarded the Register its costs. 23. Committee for Responsible Planning, et al. v. City of Indian Wells Riverside Superior Court Case No. Indio 50665MF; Friends of Indian Wells, et al. v. City of Indian Wells Riverside Superior Court Case No. Indio 56733 (Responsible Attorney: Jenson) These actions challenged the City of Indian Wells' 1989 General Plan update, which included a 4000 -room hotel development. When Rutan & Tucker was retained to defend the City, the City already had a writ of mandate issued against it due to a prior ruling that its General Plan and the Negative Declaration it had adopted in conjunction therewith were invalid. The 1989 General Plan update and the EIR prepared therefor were challenged on numerous grounds, including alleged violations of CEQA and the Planning Act. Ms. Jenson filed a successful motion to have judgment entered for the City. Ms. Jenson also able to obtain a court order granting the City approximately $40,000 in costs. The matter was ultimately settled while pending on appeal for a waiver of costs. 24. Steptall, Inc. v. City of Palm Springs, et al. Riverside Superior Court Case No. Indio 64937 (Responsible Attorney: Jenson) This CEQA action was filed to challenge the City of Palm Springs' approval of development permits for a hotel project. Ms. Jenson represented the City, and obtained an outright dismissal of the CEQA claim. Ms. Jenson then moved to enforce a Release and 119/099999 -0091 293221.02 a06/29/06 -12- Covenant Not to Sue that the petitioner had executed when it previously sold property to the developer. The motion was successful, and judgment was entered in favor of the City. The City was also awarded its attorneys' fees and costs. 25. California Department of Fish & Game v. City of Palm Springs, Palm Springs Citv Council and Shadowrock Ventures (1993) Riverside Superior Court Case No. 1- 69777 (Responsible Attorney: Jenson) In this CEQA action, Ms. Jenson represented the City and City Council of Palm Springs. The Department of Fish & Game challenged the EIR for the Shadowrock Development, a 900 acre hotel /residential development near the base of the tramway in Palm Springs. The case involved alleged impacts on threatened and endangered species. After extensive negotiation, the case settled through agreed modifications to the project. 26. California Department of Fish and Game v. City of Anaheim Orange County Superior Court Case No. 685938 Mountain Lion Foundation, et al. v. City of Anaheim, Coal Canyon Co., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 685859 (Responsible Attorneys: Hampel/Van Ligten /Jenson) In this action, Ms. Jenson represented Coal Canyon Company, an affiliate of Hon Development Company. In two related actions the California Department of Fish and Game and certain private groups challenged the City of Anaheim's approval of an 800 -acre mixed -use development project which included approximately 1,550 new dwelling units. Our office was successful in getting the Department's action dismissed on the ground that Fish and Game had no statutory authority or standing to bring suit against such a project approval. Ms. Jenson successfully defended the City on appeal. The private action was successfully defended by Ms. Jenson after a two day court trial. The court upheld a statement of overriding considerations adopted by the City which allowed the project to go forward even though the EIR found the project would cause severe impacts on wild life in the Chino Hills area. 119/099999 -0091 293221.02 a06/29/06 -13- 9laslo� 7/2512066 S:49 AM FROM: 949 -548 -6326 TO: 644 -3229 PAGE: 061 OF 00° JAN D. VANDERSLOOT, M.D. 2221 East 166 Street Home Phone (949) 548 -6326 NeKPort Beach, CA 92663 Office FAX (714) 848 -6643 July 24, 2006 Mr. Greg Ramirez, Senior Planner Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report April 2006 By Fax: 949.644.3229 Dear Mr. Ramirez, Thank you for the opportunity to cormnent on the Draft EIR for the General Plan Update. This is an objection to the responses to my comments as contained in the July 2006 Final EIR General Plan 2006 Update, Vol. 1 A, which includes the Response to Comments. The responses to these comments are on page 10 -267 to 10 -269. In my letter of June 12, 2006, I asked how much of the current ESA's (sensitive areas) might be lost due to the change to ESA's (study areas), including an analysis of acreage in each area that will be protected under the policies that govern environmentally sensitive areas in the City. The Response to Comments does not answer this question and does not evaluate the impacts of developing some of the environmentally sensitive areas that are protected under the existing General Plan. Instead they attack my interpretation of how much protection the ESA's (Environmentally Sensitive Areas) currently have, even though the current policy prohibits the location of structures in environmentally sensitive areas as identified in the Recreation and Open Space Element Plan Map (see page 10 -267, JA-3). Under JA -3, they say that this is incorrect because they say the Map does not show these areas. Please provide a copy of the Map and include this Map in the Admirvstrative Record so that this allegation can be checked out. In my letter of June 12, 2006, I included the maps that were shown in the Recreation and Open Space Element of the different service areas that had ESA's (Enviromnentally Sensitive Areas) clearly shown. Under paragraph JA -2, the Response to Comments say that the current Recreation and Open Space Element states that ESA's may warrant protection, so they say that I am incorrect to say that protection is afforded to ESA's, even though Policy 9. 1, Preservation 9/25/2006 2:49 AM FRS: 949 -548 -6326 TO: 644 -3229 PAGE: 002 OF 003 JAN D. VANDERSLOOT, M.D. 2221 East 161h Street Home Phone (949) 548 -6326 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Office FAX (714) 848 -6643 of Sensitive Areas, states clearly that "Preserve and enhance the City's Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA's), coastal bluffs and bluff tops and wetland areas, ..." See: "Objective 9- Environmental Resources ", on page 3 -17 of the current Recreation and Open Space Element, that I included with my June 12, 2006 letter. This same page of the Recreation and Open Space Element, page 3 -17, also has the Implementation Action of "Prohibit the location of structures, except as provided below, in the following environmentally sensitive areas...." The Response to Continents say the ESA (study areas) "may" support sensitive species and habitats, even though "These existing environmentally sensitive areas are described in detail in the Local Coastal Program. The Recreation and Open Space Element contains policies designed to etiliance recreational and open space qualities, consistent with their sensitivity and their overriding need for preservation as expressed in the LCP." (page 1 -9, as included in my June 12 letter). The Responses do point out that the current General Plan has a loophole where the Planning Commission can approve a development in an environmentally sensitive habitat area or riparian area, if there is mitigation, etc. Policy D (page 10 -268). Although this loophole has been used in the past, it is not applicable in the coastal zone, since the Coastal Act prohibits development not compatible with ESHA (ratified in the 1999 Bolsa Chica Decision at the Appellate Court level). Instead of an overriding need for preservation in the current General Plan, the ESA's have been changed to study areas that merely require a "qualified biologist" to do a site - specific survey and analysis as a filing requirement for development permit applications (see JA -2, page 10 -267). Preposterously, they say the "proposed new policies provide greater protection to the sensitive habitats and species" As an example of this fallacy, the City -hired "qualified biologist" completely missed two wetlands on the Bayview Landing property that were subsequently determined to be wetlands at the Coastal Commission. On page 10 -269, the City says how the Coastal Commission staff advised City staff about the importance of ESHA, therefore the City changed its language to ESA (study area). The City fails to mention however, that the Coastal Commission staff then made the City rewrite its language in the LCP so that the ESA study area is presumed to be ESHA unless proven not to be. Of course, this opens the door to a "qualified biologist" to find that ESHA is not ESHA. Then the Responses says it superseded the Chambers 2002 ESHA report with an October 2003 EIP Addendum to change the ESHA's to ESA study areas, to "more correctly identify the twenty -eight areas as 'environmental study areas "' (page 10 -269). Instead, the Chambers report is the more accurate of the two, showing where the Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas actually are in the City. The EIP degrades the ESHA's identified in the Chambers report by changing them to merely study areas. Then the Responses says: "The change in terminology does not result in a change in the 7/25/2006 8:49 AM FAOM: 949 -548 -6326 TO: 644 -3229 PAGE: 003 OF 003 JAN D. VANDERSLOOT, M.D. 2221 East 16th Street Home Phone (949) 548 -6326 Newport Beach CA 92663 Office FAX (714) 848 -6643 ESHA protection policies of the Coastal Act, the Coastal Land Use Plan, or the proposed General Plan' This is patently false due to taking acknowledged environmentally sensitive areas and turning them into study areas. The EIR never determines how much acreage this would involve. The ESA (Environmentally Sensitive Areas) areas in the current Recreation and Open Space Plan Map need to be quantified and evaluated, as well as any other currently identified Environmentally Sensitive Areas in the City. The EIR is deficient until the current ESA (Environmentally Sensitive Areas) are quantified as to location and acreage, before they are turned into ESA ( Enviromnemtal Study Areas) in the General Plan Update, where large swaths of formerly ESA (Environmentally Sensitive Areas) may be rejected as not being environmentally sensitive and may be subject to development as a result of a "qualified biologist' study purporting to show that areas within an ESA (Environmental Study Area) are not environmentally sensitive in order to allow development within an ESA, Please make sure to include the Recreation and Open Space Plan Map in the Final EIR. The EIR has not provided an evaluation of the impacts of developing some environmentally sensitive areas that will be made possible by the change of definition of the environmentally sensitive areas to environmental study areas. Therefore the EIR is deficient. The lack of impact definition does not answer my questions. Thanks again for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, fan 0. Vanderaloot, MD Jan D. Vandersloot, MD