Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout13 - General Plan Land Use Element AmendmentCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Staff Report July 8, 2014 Agenda Item No. 13 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Kimberly Brandt, Community Development Director — (949) 644-3226, kbrandt@newportbeachca.gov PREPARED BY: Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner PHONE: (949) 644-3219 TITLE: General Plan Land Use Element Amendment - Citywide (PA2013-098) ABSTRACT: The project is an amendment to the City of Newport Beach (City) General Plan Land Use Element, Glossary and Implementation Program (Amendment). The Amendment is intended to shape future development within the City and involves the alteration, intensification, and redistribution of land uses in certain subareas of the City, including major areas such as Newport Center/Fashion Island, the Newport Coast, and the area near John Wayne Airport. The Amendment will also include Land Use Element Policy revisions related to land use changes, in support of recent Neighborhood Revitalization efforts and other updates/refinements. Subsequent amendments the Newport Beach Coastal Land Use Plan (LUP), and Zoning Code and Map will be necessary to reflect the Amendment. RECOMMENDATION: a) Conduct a public hearing; b) Adopt Resolution No. 2014-58 (Staff Report Attachment CC1), A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach Certifying Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No. ER2014-002, including a Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, in Accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and State and Local Guidelines for the General Plan Land Use Element Amendment (PA2013-098); c) Adopt Resolution No. 2014-59 (Staff Report Attachment No. CC2), A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach Overruling the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission's Determination that the General Plan Land Use Element Amendment Project is Inconsistent with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for the John Wayne Airport, and Finding the General Plan Land Use Element Amendment Project is Consistent with the Purposes of Public Utilities Code Section 21670 (PA2011-134); and d) Adopt Resolution No. 2014-60 (Staff Report Attachment CC3), A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach Approving General Plan Amendment No. GP2013-001 to Amend the Land Use Element and Glossary and Implementation Plan of the General Plan (PA2013-098), as recommended by the Planning Commission that does not include the Lyon Communities or The Hangars proposals in the 233 Airport Area. Note that the draft resolutions will be updated for consistency to reflect any action taken by the City Council. FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: The proposed Land Use Element Amendment was developed over a concentrated twelve month process which included facilitation of the Land Use Element Amendment Advisory Committee and public outreach, as well as the preparation of technical studies and the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR). Consultant services in the amount of $820,340 were needed to assist staff in the Amendment process which included: 1) PlaceWorks, Inc. who facilitated the Committee, authored the Amendment, and prepared the SEIR ($500,000); Urban Crossroads who conducted the traffic analysis ($228,400), Applied Development Economics who developed the Fiscal Impact Analysis ($14,940), and FSB Core Strategies who assisted with community outreach ($77,000). The fiscal impact to the City of the proposed Amendment was also analyzed. Please see the following Discussion section and Attachment CC 10 for more details. The proposed citywide Amendment was initiated by the City Council on May 28, 2013. Since adoption of the 2006 General Plan and 2010 Zoning Code, a need has become apparent to amend the Land Use Element to adjust the development potential in certain areas of the City to reflect what will not be developed, as well as to create additional development opportunities in areas where there is interest and need. The City was approached by various property owners regarding the limitations of the Land Use Element, and staff recognized that certain areas may benefit from reallocation of un -built building intensity and/or residential units from other areas within the community. The project was pursued assuming that the cumulative scope of these development intensity and residential unit adjustments will require consideration by the voters, per City Charter Section 423. Land Use Element Amendment Advisory Committee In May 2013, the Land Use Element Amendment Advisory Committee (Committee) was formed by the City Council to guide the Land Use Element Amendment. The Committee consisted of two Council Members (Nancy Gardner and Ed Selich), two Planning Commissioners (Kory Kramer and Larry Tucker) and five at - large residents (Craig Batley, Michael Melby, Patricia Moore, Jim Walker and Paul Watkins). The Committee reviewed the proposed land use changes, new and revised policies, and revisions to the Glossary and Implementation Program at 13 publicly noticed meetings. Each meeting included opportunity for public comment on the issues discussed by the Committee. Public Outreach In addition to the Committee's public meetings, staff met with the following community groups to introduce the proposed Amendment, respond to questions, and highlight opportunities for public input. The groups included: Big Canyon Homeowners Association Corona Del Mar Residents Association Newport Beach Chamber of Commerce Speak Up Newport 234 SPON (Stop Polluting Our Newport) Additionally, two well -attended public information meetings were held in the Civic Center Community Room. The first, on September 9, 2013, introduced the Amendment process. The second public meeting was conducted on April 10, 2014, and reviewed the proposed project and findings of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Draft SEIR). City Council and Planning Commission Study Sessions The City Council and Planning Commission both held study sessions in September of 2013 regarding the scope of the project, with a focus on the proposed land use designation and allocation changes. The land use changes discussed at those study sessions were only slightly different than the project studied in the Draft SEIR. More recently, the Planning Commission held study sessions on May 8, 2014 and May 22, 2014. Proposed land use changes, policy changes, and the Draft SEIR were the main topics. The study sessions provided the public the opportunity learn about and comment on the proposed amendments. Amendment Description The proposed Amendment consists of changes to: 1) land use designation; 2) land use capacity; 3) policies and related text; 4) Glossary; and 5) Implementation Program. Land Use Designation Changes There are three land use designation changes which reflect the existing development and use of each property. In essence, the land use designation changes resolve existing nonconformities. These changes include the King's Liquor site on Placentia Avenue, the Gateway Park site on Newport Boulevard, and a day spa at 813 East Balboa Boulevard. For a list of all the proposed amendments, please refer to Attachment CC5 — Land Use Amendment and ADT Tables. To view the map amendments, please refer to Attachment CC3, Exhibit B. Reduced Future Development Capacity The Amendment includes several amendments that would not change the land use designation but, would reduce the development capacity limit. Most notable are the reduction of hotel rooms in Newport Coast, dwelling units in Newport Ridge, and floor area at Westcliff Plaza and Newport Coast Center. Increased Future Development Capacity The Amendment includes several increases in development capacity limit. Most notable are increases in Newport Center/Fashion Island and the Airport Area. Some proposed amendments include both designation changes and development capacity increases while others are only increases in development capacity limits. Vehicle Trips The proposed Amendment results in a change to the daily trips attributed to each parcel as compared to the 2006 General Plan at build -out conditions. Land use changes which reduce development capacity would also reduce daily trips, while increased development capacity would increase trips. The average daily trips (ADT) associated with land use changes would increase or decrease depending on the change. The following lists the citywide ADT at build -out conditions for three project options: "Project" per Supplemental EIR — Increase 8,537 average daily trips No Airport Alternative per Supplemental EIR — Decrease 2,234 average daily trips Planning Commission Recommendation (eliminate Lyon and Hangars properties) — Increase 2,417 average daily trips 235 For site specific ADT information, refer to Attachment CC5 — Land Use Amendment and ADT Tables New and Revised Policies The proposed Land Use Element Amendment includes policy changes in four general categories: City policy and regulatory documents adopted since 2006 Legislative changes since 2006 Best practices — Healthy Communities Changes as a result of proposed land use designation and capacity changes The policy additions or revisions can be found in the Land Use Element and are shown in underline/strikeout. (Attachment CC3, Exhibit A). The Commission made several minor revisions to the policy amendments suggested by the Committee. The Committee's policy changes are also attached (Attachment CC4) City Policy and Regulatory Documents Adopted Since 2006 The policy amendments in this category reflect the work of the Citizen Advisory Panels (CAPS) over the last several years. CAPS were created for several areas in the City including Balboa Village, Lido Marina Village, Santa Ana Heights, West Newport, and Corona del Mar. Policy changes reflect a variety of plans and guidelines that address architecture, streetscapes, parking, preferred uses, and other issues specific to each area. Examples of work products include the Lido Village Design Guidelines and the Balboa Village Master Plan. Legislative Changes Since 2006 The policy amendments in this category are primarily related to climate change legislation. The new policies have been written to comply with these State requirements and to reflect existing City codes and policies related to water quality, energy conservation, and green building codes. Notable legislation includes the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 32) and the Sustainable Communities Act (Senate Bill 375). The policy additions can be found under Goal 4 in the proposed Land Use Element and are shown in underline/strikeout. Reflect Best Practices — Healthy Communities The policy amendments also include policies that address issues related to sustainability and healthy communities. Although some are new for the General Plan, the concepts are not new to the City. The new policies, which are located under Goals 1 and 2 in the Land Use Element promote and encourage programs and uses that contribute to the health of the community. These policies are consistent with many existing programs such as the City's Healthy Eating Active Living (HEAL), support of the Corona del Mar Farmers' Market, and City Council adopted Energy Action Plan. Land Use Designation or Capacity Changes These policy amendments or additions are intended to provide additional guidance to several of the land use changes. Included among these are a policy related to development agreements for the Airport Area Amendments (LU7.14.14) and a policy related to building height in Newport Center regarding the proposed hotel amendment at 150 Newport Center Drive (Policy LU7.13.4) Glossary and Implementation Program Revisions to the Glossary and Implementation Program were made, as necessary, to ensure consistency with the Amendment. A comprehensive update was not made of these sections. Glossary changes were primarily necessary because of the new sustainability policies. New terms include Climate Action Plan, Climate Change, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction, Infill, LEED Certified 236 and Sustainability. Glossary and Implementation Program changes are located in Attachment No CC3, Exhibit A. As a result of new policies, the Implementation Program has been revised to include: Prepare a Climate Action Plan Administer the Energy Action Plan Maintain and Implement Energy Management Plans and Encourage Conservation Planning Commission Public Hearing and Recommendation On June, 5, 2014, the Planning Commission reviewed the Amendment at a noticed public hearing. The Commission discussed the proposed land use changes, policy revisions/additions and the findings of the Draft SEIR. The Commission also heard public comments from ten members of the public, most of whom were property owner representatives who spoke in favor of the project. Those opposed cited several issues including increased traffic and changing the City's character from a primarily residential community. Additionally, several letters were received both in favor and opposition of the Amendment. Following the public testimony, the Commission continued their discussion which focused on the Airport Area amendments. As a result of the deliberations, The Hangars proposal was removed at the request of the property owner, and the Lyon Communities' request was removed due to lack of interest/representation from the property owners. The Commission also was concerned about the potential to create non- conforming uses if the land use designations were changed For more details, please see the approved Planning Commission minutes. (Attachment CC7) At the conclusion of the hearing, the Commission voted 4-0 (1 abstention, 2 excused absences) to adopt Resolution No. 1946 (Attachment CC6) recommending certification of Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No. ER2014-002 and approval of General Plan Amendment No. GP2013-001 to amend the Land Use Element as proposed with the removal of The Hangars and Lyon Communities proposals. Airport Area — Remaining Development Capacity The Amendment includes additional development capacity in the Airport Area. The following discussion details the current un -built residential development potential for the Airport Area as allowed by the 2006 General Plan. The MU -H2 (Mixed Use — Horizontal) designation, which applies to a majority of properties outside the high noise levels from John Wayne Airport, allows a maximum of 2,200 residential units at a maximum density of 50 units per adjusted gross acre. A total of 550 of these units are identified as "additive" units meaning they may be constructed as infill on existing surface parking lots or areas not occupied by buildings within the Conceptual Development Plan (ICDP), as depicted on Figure LU22 Airport Area of the Land Use Element. The remaining 1,650 units are replacement of the allowed commercial floor area of a site. The number of replacement units allowed is based on the number of peak hour trips generated by the underlying commercial floor area of a site. In other words the replacement units must be trip neutral. In simple terms, in order to build 2.29 dwelling units, 1,000 square feet of office development is removed. For commercial development, the removal of 1,000 square feet allows 5.4 dwelling units to be built. Unlike the additive units, the replacement units can be located on any property with the MU -H2 designation. In September of 2010, the City approved the Koll-Conexant ICDP, which provides a framework for the redevelopment of the 25 -acre site (formally known as Conexant), and for the redevelopment of a 15 -acre portion of the 75 -acre Koll Center Newport office park. The ICDP intends to carefully integrate new residential development and open space with the existing office buildings and parking structures. Koll has submitted an application requesting entitlement of 260 units, but the application is currently incomplete. 237 In March 2013, the City Council approved the Uptown Newport project which included 290 additive units and 632 replacement units. Therefore, of the 2006 General Plan's allocation of 2,200 units, there remains 260 additive units and 1,018 replacement units that have not been entitled through a Zoning and site development review process in the Airport Area. Environmental Review A Draft SEIR has been prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts resulting from the Amendment, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), and the State CEQA Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.). The Draft SEIR was released for public review and comment on March 17, 2014. The 45 -day public review period ended on April 30, 2014. During that period the City received 31 comment letters from governmental agencies, organizations, and individuals. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines, the City has evaluated all substantive comments received on the Draft SEIR, and has prepared written responses to those comments. The Final SEIR consists of the Draft SEIR, public comments, responses to comments, Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program, and revisions to the Draft SEIR (Attachment CC1, Exhibit A.) On the basis of the entire environmental review record, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact upon the environment with the incorporation of mitigation measures through the implementation of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, with the exception of the following significant and unavoidable impacts: Greenhouse Gas Emissions — Long term GHG reductions goals are not achievable without additional statewide measures and advancement in technology. However, per capita GHG emissions would be reduced in comparison to 2006 General Plan. Noise and Vibration — Construction impacts would result in short term/temporary vibration impacts. No feasible mitigation available to eliminate potential vibration impacts at the program level analysis. Population and Housino — Buildout of the General Plan with the proposed amendments would result in a population increase that exceeds the 2035 SCAG projections. However, SCAG projections are based on data provided by the City. Should the amendment be adopted, the City will update SCAG during future collaborative projects. Transportation and Traffic — Project trip generation would worsen operations at freeway mainlines and ramps operating at unacceptable levels of service. Project traffic with increased traffic from Airport Settlement Agreement could impact intersection levels of service. At the time of preparing the Draft SEIR, the EIR analysis of the JWA Airport Settlement Agreement was not available for public review. The Notice of Preparation for the JWA Settlement Agreement EIR was released October 1, 2013. However, numerous assumptions would be required to conduct a cumulative traffic analysis based on the NOP project description. Because of the uncertainty of the traffic related to the JWA Settlement Agreement, the cumulative environmental effects were considered significant and unavoidable. For a more complete discussion of these impacts, please refer to Chapter 6 of the Draft SEIR. If the City Council chooses to support the project, they will need to decide whether the benefits of the proposed project outweigh the identified significant environmental impacts. If the City Council believes the overriding considerations, including project benefits, outweigh these unavoidable impacts, Council should adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Attachment CC 1 Exhibit B)._ The No Airport Area Project Alternative The Draft SEIR analyzed an alternative project identified as the No Airport Area Land Use Changes Alternative (Draft SEIR Volume 1, Section 7-3.). This alternative eliminates the Saunders Properties, The 238 Hangars, Lyon Communities and UAP Companies amendments from the project. As explained in the Draft SEIR, the alternative scenario was selected for study because of its potential to reduce impacts related to John Wayne Airport, the potential to reduce traffic impacts and cumulative and unknown impacts related to the pending Airport Settlement Agreement. In summary, the Draft SEIR concluded that the No Airport Area Project Alternative: Is the Environmentally Superior Alternative Lessens impacts for all environmental impacts including significant impacts (GHG, construction vibration, traffic and population) Meets most project objectives Would not eliminate any significant unavoidable impacts under the proposed project Airport Land Use Commission Airport Land Use Commission Consistency Determination California Public Utilities Code Section 21676(b) and John Wayne Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) Section 4.11 require the City to refer proposed Land Use Element Amendments to the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for consistency determination with the AELUP. On April 17, 2014, the ALUC held a public hearing and found the proposed amendments to be inconsistent with the AELUP for John Wayne Airport and the AELUP for Heliports on a 3-2 vote. The determination letter provided by ALUC indicates that the primary concerns were with the addition of residential units in the Airport Area and specifically listed the following reasons: Aircraft noise impacts in the area. Significant overflight of General Aviation (GA) aircraft — the area is under the GA flight path The location of one property (Saunders), a portion which is within two safety zones (one of these safety zones, Safety Zone 3, limits residential uses to very low density). As a final review authority on legislative acts, the City Council may, after a public hearing, choose to overrule the ALUC's decision by following the procedure established in Public Utilities Code Sections 21676 and 2176.5. This two-step procedure requires the City Council to conduct two separate noticed public meetings. The initial step is to notify ALUC and State Division of Aeronautics of the City's intention to overrule the ALUC's determination by adopting a resolution of intent at least 45 days in advance of the overruling; and the second meeting is to make specific findings that the proposed overruling is consistent with the purposes stated in Public Utilities Code Section 21670. On May 13, 2014, the City Council completed the first step to overrule ALUC's determination by adopting a resolution of intent to overrule the ALUC's decision by a 7-0 vote. City staff subsequently notified ALUC and the State Division of Aeronautics of the City's intent. The Council's adoption of the notification resolution did not constitute the project's approval nor did it predispose the City's future action on the project. ALUC Response to Intent to Overrule Pursuant to State law, the City gave a 45 -day advance notice to the ALUC and the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Division of Aeronautics of the City's intention to overrule the ALUC's determination. Staff received a a written reposnse from ALUC but not Caltrans (Attachment CC8). The ALUC correspondence (June 11, 2014) reiterates their previous determination that the proposed amendments, in particular the Saunders property amendments, are inconsistent with the AELUP for the following reasons: proximity to the runway, potential for noise impacts, safety issues and the question whether a future project could feasibly comply with the noise, height, safety and standards. 239 Staff believes that development of the Saunders property with residential or mixed-use will be challenging but, there is adequate land area (8.25 acres approx.) outside the 65 CNEL and Safety Zone 3 that could accommodate a development that complies with all AELUP and City standards and regulations. Additionally, future development will require the review and adoption of zoning amendments and other applicable discretionary applications. Staff believes that the City Council can make the necessary findings to overrule the ALUC determination of inconsistency, as demonstrated in the draft resolution (Attachment CC2). A Council action to overrule the ALUC's determination will require a two-thirds (2/3) vote. It should be noted that Council approval of any form of the Amendment will require an overrule action. Charter Section 423 (Measure S) Analysis City Council Policy A-18 requires that all proposed General Plan Amendments be reviewed to determine if the amendment generates 100 AM or 100 PM additional peak hour trips, results in an increase of 40,000 square feet of nonresidential uses, and/or 100 additional dwelling units. 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 citywide project affecting multiple Statistical Areas, the following summary in Table 1 is cumulative citywide computation of all the proposed changes in development allocations. The analysis also includes 80 percent of the cumulative total of all General Plan amendments approved after adoption of the 2006 General Plan, pursuant to Council Policy A-18. For the complete Section 423 analysis that includes calculations for each land use amendment, please refer to Attachment CC 9. Additionally, Table 2 provides the figures for the Planning Commission recommended project and Table 3 provides the figures for the No Airport Alternative studied in the SEIR. Table 1 423 Analysis — Proposed Amendments Table 2 423 Analysis — Planning Commission Recommendation Residential Non -Residential A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Floor Area (1) Units -32,658 sq ft. Hour Trips Hour Trips Proposed +1,317 2,036 2,733 Amendment Amendment Prior Prior Amendments -73 +178,980 sq ft. 426 551 80% (80%) Differential +1,244 +146,322 sq ft. +2,462 +3284 (1) Square feet (SF) includes hotel rooms. One hotel room is equivalent to 1,000 SF, per Policy A-18. Table 2 423 Analysis — Planning Commission Recommendation 240 Residential Non -Residential A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Floor Area (1) Units Hour Trips Hour Trips Proposed +467 -19,282 sq ft. 2009 2,768 Amendment Prior Amendments -73 +178,980 sq ft. 426 551 (80%) Differential +394 +159,698 sq ft. +2,435 +3,319 (1) Square feet (SF) includes hotel rooms. One hotel room is equivalent to 1,000 SF, per Policy A-18. 240 Table 3 423 Analysis — No Airport Area Alternative As indicated above, each of the three Amendment scenarios exceed at least two of the thresholds therefore, Section 423 of the City Charter requires that this Amendment be submitted to the electorate for approval, should the City Council adopt the Amendment. Economic Analysis Fiscal Impact Analysis In accordance with Implementation Program 12.2 of the General Plan, a Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA) has been prepared for the proposed Land Use Element amendment (Attachment CC9). The fiscal impact model calculates public service impacts for specific land uses that support the residential population, the employment base and the visitor population in Newport Beach. It also calculates the public revenues that each type of land use typically generates for the City, including property taxes, sales taxes and other taxes as well as a variety of user charges and fees. The FIA concludes that: Buildout of the land uses allowed within the 2006 General Plan as compared to existing land uses would result in a positive fiscal impact of nearly $22 million per year. The proposed land use amendments have the potential to reduce net revenue by $5.3 million, which reduces the beneficial impact of the overall General Plan by about 24 percent. The City should still expect to experience a positive fiscal impact from further implementation of the General Plan, estimated at $16.4 million, even if the proposed GPAs are adopted. Airport Area — Financial Feasibility Discussion In addition to the FIA, the financial feasibility of residential redevelopment in the Airport Area was analyzed (Attachment CC10). The analysis concluded that residential development is feasible when a density of 50 dwelling units/acre is developed on sites, other than those where multi -story developments are being replaced. Both the Lyon and Saunders proposals could be developed with 50 du/acre in addition to the commercial uses that could be accommodated by the proposed non-residential development capacity. SB18 Tribal Consultation Guidelines Government Code Section 65352.3 requires a local government to contact the appropriate tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) each time it considers a proposal to adopt or amend the General Plan. If requested by any tribe, the local government must consult for the purpose of preserving or mitigating impacts to cultural resources. The City received comments from the NAHC indicating that nine tribe contacts should be provided notice regarding the proposed project. The appropriate tribe contacts supplied by the NAHC were provided notice via e-mail and US Certified Mail on December 5, 2013, and December 6, 2013 respectively. Section 65352.3 of the California Government Code requires 90 days to allow tribe contacts to respond to the request to consult unless the tribe contacts mutually agree to a shorter time period. To date, the City received two responses requesting that measures 241 Residential Non -Residential A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Floor Area (1) Units Hour Trips Hour Trips Proposed +138 -359,315 sq ft. 1127 1612 Amendment Prior Amendments -73 +178,980 sq ft. 426 551 (80% Differential +6 +180,335 sq ft. +1,553 +2,163 (1) Square feet (SF) includes hotel rooms. One hotel room is equivalent to 1,000 SF, per Policy A-18. As indicated above, each of the three Amendment scenarios exceed at least two of the thresholds therefore, Section 423 of the City Charter requires that this Amendment be submitted to the electorate for approval, should the City Council adopt the Amendment. Economic Analysis Fiscal Impact Analysis In accordance with Implementation Program 12.2 of the General Plan, a Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA) has been prepared for the proposed Land Use Element amendment (Attachment CC9). The fiscal impact model calculates public service impacts for specific land uses that support the residential population, the employment base and the visitor population in Newport Beach. It also calculates the public revenues that each type of land use typically generates for the City, including property taxes, sales taxes and other taxes as well as a variety of user charges and fees. The FIA concludes that: Buildout of the land uses allowed within the 2006 General Plan as compared to existing land uses would result in a positive fiscal impact of nearly $22 million per year. The proposed land use amendments have the potential to reduce net revenue by $5.3 million, which reduces the beneficial impact of the overall General Plan by about 24 percent. The City should still expect to experience a positive fiscal impact from further implementation of the General Plan, estimated at $16.4 million, even if the proposed GPAs are adopted. Airport Area — Financial Feasibility Discussion In addition to the FIA, the financial feasibility of residential redevelopment in the Airport Area was analyzed (Attachment CC10). The analysis concluded that residential development is feasible when a density of 50 dwelling units/acre is developed on sites, other than those where multi -story developments are being replaced. Both the Lyon and Saunders proposals could be developed with 50 du/acre in addition to the commercial uses that could be accommodated by the proposed non-residential development capacity. SB18 Tribal Consultation Guidelines Government Code Section 65352.3 requires a local government to contact the appropriate tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) each time it considers a proposal to adopt or amend the General Plan. If requested by any tribe, the local government must consult for the purpose of preserving or mitigating impacts to cultural resources. The City received comments from the NAHC indicating that nine tribe contacts should be provided notice regarding the proposed project. The appropriate tribe contacts supplied by the NAHC were provided notice via e-mail and US Certified Mail on December 5, 2013, and December 6, 2013 respectively. Section 65352.3 of the California Government Code requires 90 days to allow tribe contacts to respond to the request to consult unless the tribe contacts mutually agree to a shorter time period. To date, the City received two responses requesting that measures 241 be taken and qualified individuals be on-site during ground disturbances and grading. These requests are consistent with CEQA requirements and City Council Policy K-5 - Archaeological Guidelines. Additional Options The City Council has latitude when making its decision. The Final SEIR analysis included all the proposed land use amendments so it is essentially a "worst case" analysis of the potential environmental impacts. Therefore, the Council could include all, none, or some combination of the proposed land use amendments and the project would still be within the scope of the Final SEIR, and therefore Council's action would conform with CEQA. Specifically, the impacts would be no greater than those analyzed in the Final SEIR and would likely be reduced by some degree if any of the proposed amendments were removed from the project. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Staff recommends the City Council find the requirement for environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") is satisfied by the discussion on and action recommended earlier in this staff report. NOTICING: 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 the proposed Amendment), notice may be provided by placing a one-eighth page advertisement in the local newspaper. Notice of the City Council public hearing was a one-eighth display advertisement that appeared in the June 28, 2014, Daily Pilot. Additionally, notices were mailed to affected property owners which included property owners, as well as property owners within 300 feet, of properties designated for amendment, as well as HOA's and interested parties, and notice was provided to subscribers to the City's Select Alert/Newsplash System. The mailing and notifications occurred at a minimum 10 days in advance of the meeting, consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Code. The environmental assessment process has also been noticed consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act. Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. ATTACHMENTS: Description CC1 - Draft Resolution SEIR CC2 - Draft Resolution ALUC Overrule CC3 - Draft Resolution Land Use Element GPA CC4 - LUE Committee Policy Revisions CC5 Land Use Element Amendment and ADT Tables CC6 - Planning Commission Resolution No. 1946 CC7 - Planning Commission Minutes, June 5, 2014 CC8 - ALUC Letter, June 5, 2014 CC9 - Charter Section 423 Analysis CC10 - Fiscal Impact Analysis CC11 - Financial Feasibilty Memo - Airport Area CC12 - Public Comments CC13 - 5-22-14 PC Correspondence CC14 - 6-5-14 PC Correspondence 242 Attachment No. CC 1 Draft Resolution SEIR, including: Exhibit A Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (under separate cover) Draft SEIR Appendices A through I (under separate cover) Final SEIR (under separate cover) a. Introduction to Final SEIR b. Response to Comments C. Corrections and Additions to the Draft SEIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Exhibit B Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Consideration 243 244 RESOLUTION NO. XX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CERTIFYING FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. ER2014-002 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND STATE AND LOCAL GUIDELINES FOR THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT (PA2013- 098) II:I:go] I1111'106111► Is] Igo] aIa: KiiIV901001: kU91ffl:i■:11 MAT4I:ICI01 OKI : I0-yaa101910.1v2go] II101TIT& 1 SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. On May 28, 2013, the Newport Beach City Council initiated an amendment to the 2006 General Plan Land Use Element to review its effectiveness in achieving the community's vision, and to update it to reflect legislative changes, emerging best practices, and changing economic markets (Amendment). 2. On May 28, 2013, the Land Use Element Amendment Advisory Committee (Committee), comprised of two council members, two planning commissioners, and five at -large members, was appointed by the Newport Beach City Council to receive public input, consider options, and develop the amendment in order for the Amendment to be reviewed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. (CEQA). 3. The Amendment (Project) considered by the Committee and evaluated in the draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) includes land use changes, policy revisions and related changes to the glossary and Implementation Plan. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. 1. Pursuant to CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code of Regulations, Sections 15000 et seq.), and City Council Policy K-3, the Amendment could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the environment, and thus warranted the preparation of a SEIR to the 2006 General Plan EIR. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21166; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15162-15163.) 2. On October 22, 2013, the City, as lead agency under CEQA, prepared a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") of the SEIR and mailed that NOP to public agencies, including responsible and trustee agencies, organizations and persons likely to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed Project. 3. On November 5, 2013, the City held a public scoping meeting to present the proposed Project and to solicit input from interested individuals regarding environmental issues that should be addressed in the SEIR. 4. The City thereafter caused to be prepared a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (No. ER2014-002, SCH No. 2013101064) ("Draft SEIR") in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and City Council Policy K-3, which, taking into 245 City Council Resolution No. XX account the comments it received on the NOP, described the Project and discussed the environmental impacts resulting there from. 5. The Draft SEIR was prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15163 as supplemental information to the 2006 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2006011119) on the basis that: 1) the Project does not propose substantial changes which require major revisions of the previous General Plan EIR; 2) no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Project would be undertaken and which would require major revisions of the previous General Plan EIR; and 3) and no new information of substantial importance has been identified which would require major revisions to the 2006 General Plan EIR. 6. The Draft SEIR was circulated for a 45 -day comment period beginning on March 17, 2014, and ending April 30, 2014. 7. The Final SEIR identifies significant impacts to the environment which are unavoidable in the areas of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise and Vibration, Population and Housing and Transportation/Traffic. 8. On May 8, 2014 and May 22, 2014, the Planning Commission held study sessions in the City Hall Council Chambers, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach to review the proposed Amendment and Draft SEIR. 9. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 5, 2014, in the City Hall Council Chambers, at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of the time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was provided in accordance with CEQA and the Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC"). The Draft SEIR, draft Responses to Comments, draft Revisions to the Draft SEIR, draft Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program, draft Findings of Fact and draft Statement of Overriding Considerations, staff report, and evidence, both written and oral, were presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the scheduled hearing. 10. On June 5, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1946 by a vote of 4-0 (1 recusal, 2 absences) recommending certification of the General Plan Land Use Element Amendment FSEIR (SCH No 2013101064) and approval of the Land Use Element Amendment Project to the City Council, as amended to include two of the airport area amendments Saunders Properties & UAP properties). 11. The City Council held a public hearing July, 8, 2014, in the City Hall Council Chambers, at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of the time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was provided in accordance with CEQA and the NBMC. The environmental documents for the Project comprising the Final SEIR, including the Responses to Comments and Revisions to the Draft SEIR, and the Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program, Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, staff report, and evidence, both written and oral, were presented to and considered by the City Council at the scheduled hearing, as the decision-making body of the lead agency, for certification as 246 City Council Resolution No. XX having been completed in compliance with the provisions of CEQA and State and local guidelines implementing CEQA. 12. The City Council has reviewed the Revisions to the Draft SEIR Section of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No. ER2014-002 and determined that none of the new material contained in this section constitutes the type of significant new information that requires recirculation of the Draft SEIR for further public comment pursuant to CEQA, specifically CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. None of the new material indicates that the project will result in a significant new environmental impact not previously disclosed in the Draft SEIR. Additionally, none of this material indicates that there would be a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified environmental impact that will not be mitigated, or that there would be any of the other circumstances requiring recirculation described in Section 15088.5. 13. The City Council has read and considered the SEIR and has found in its independent review and discretion, that the SEIR considers all potentially significant environmental effects of the Project and is complete and adequate, and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA and of the State and local CEQA Guidelines. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Certification. Based on its independent review and consideration of the SEIR attached as Exhibit A, staff report, and evidence, both written and oral, regarding the Project that have been submitted to and received by the City Council, the City Council certifies that the SEIR consisting of the Draft SEIR and Appendices, Final SEIR which consists of the Responses to Comments, Revisions to Draft SEIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 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 SEIR, which reflects the City Council's independent judgment and analysis. The City Council further certifies that the SEIR was presented to the City Council and that the City Council reviewed and considered the information contained in it and the full administrative record prior to approving the Project. SECTION 2. CEQA Findings of Fact. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, the City Council has reviewed and hereby adopts the CEQA Findings and Facts in Support of Findings as shown on the attached Exhibit "B" entitled "Findings and Facts in Support of Findings for the General Plan Land Use Element Amendment, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2013101064," 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 "B" entitled "Statement of Overriding Considerations," which exhibit is incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 4. Location and Custodian of Record of Proceedings. The Community Development Department of the City of Newport Beach, located at 100 Civic Center Drive, 247 City Council Resolution No. XX Newport Beach, California 92663, 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. 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. This Resolution was approved, passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, held on the 8th of July, 2014. Rush N. Hill, II, Mayor ATTEST: Leilani I. Brown, City Clerk no City Council Resolution No. XX EXHIBIT A FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ER2014-002 (SCH No. 2013101064) Consists of: 1. Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) dated March 2014 (under separate cover) 2. Appendices A through I (under separate cover) 3. Final SEIR (underseparate cover) a. Introduction to Final SEIR b. Response to Comments c. Revisions to the Draft SEIR 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program The Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report is available for review at the Planning Division of Community Development Department or at www.newportbeachca.gov/cegadocuments 249 250 May 2014 1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT /_\►�il4N�7►'Fi1Qh for City of Newport Beach Prepared for.- City or: City of Newport Beach Contact: Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 949.644.3219 Prepared by. Place Works Contact: JoAnn Hadfield, Principal 3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100 Santa Ana, California 92707 714.966.9220 info@placeworks.com www.placeworks.com PLACEWORKS 251 252 GP LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Table of Contents Section Paye MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM.... 1.1 PURPOSE OF MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM 1.2 PROJECT LOCATION.................................................................... 1.3 PROJECT SUNINIARY...................................................... List of Tables Table Paye Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring Requirements May 2014 Page i 253 GP LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Table of Contents Thisj age intantronplly l0 blank Page ii PlareForkr 254 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 1.1 PURPOSE OF MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM This Mitigation Monitoring Program has been developed to provide a vehicle by which to monitor the mitigation measure outlined in the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Draft SEIR), State Clearinghouse No. 2013101064. The Mitigation Monitoring Program has been prepared in conformance with Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code and the City of Newport Beach Monitoring Requirements. Section 21081.6 states: (a) When making findings required by paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 21081 or when adopting a mitigated negative declaration pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 21080, the following requirements shall apply: (1) The public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. For those changes which have been required or incorporated into the project at the request of a responsible agency or a public agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the project, that agency shall, if so requested by the lead or responsible agency, prepare and submit a proposed reporting or monitoring program. (2) The lead agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which its decision is based. The State CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 provides clarification of mitigation monitoring and reporting requirements and guidance to local lead agencies on implementing strategies. The reporting or monitoring program must be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. The City of Newport Beach is the lead agency for the General Plan Land Use Element Amendment and is therefore responsible for implementing the MMRP. The MbIRP has been drafted to meet the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 as a fully enforceable monitoring program. The MMRP consists of the mitigation program and the measures to implement and monitor the mitigation program. The MMRP defines the following for the mitigation measure outlined in Table 1, Mitigaton Monitoring Requirements. May 2014 Page 1 255 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ■ Definition of Mitigation. The mitigation measure contains the criteria for mitigation, either in the form of adherence to certain adopted regulations or identification of the steps to be taken in mitigation. ■ Responsible Party or Designated Representative. Unless otherwise indicated, the project applicant is the responsible party for implementing the mitigation, and the City of Newport Beach or a designated representative is responsible for monitoring the performance and implementation of the mitigation measures. To guarantee that the mitigation measure will not be inadvertently overlooked, a supervising public official acting as the Designated Representative is the official who grants the permit or authorization called for in the performance. Where more than one official is identified, permits or authorization from all officials shall be required. ■ Time Frame. In each case, a time frame is provided for performance of the mitigation measure or review of evidence that mitigation has taken place. The performance points selected are designed to ensure that impactrelatedcomponents of project implementation do not proceed without establishing that the mitigation is implemented or ensured. All activities are subject to the approval of all required permits from local, state, and federal agencies with permitting authority over the specific activity. The numbering system in Table 3-1 corresponds with the numbering system used in the Draft SEIR. The last column of the MMRP table will be used by the parties responsible for documenting when implementation of the mitigation measure has been completed. The ongoing documentation and monitoring of mitigation compliance will be completed by the City of Newport Beach. The completed MMRP and supplemental documents will be kept on file at the Planning Division of the City of Newport Beach Community Development Department. 1.2 PROJECT LOCATION The City of Newport Beach is on the southwestern boundary of Orange County and bordered by Huntington Beach to the northwest, Costa Mesa to the north, Irvine to the northeast, and unincorporated areas of Orange County to the southeast. Regional access to the City is provided by Interstate 405 (1-405) running north to south across Southern California and State Route 55 (SR -55) which also runs north to south and intersects with 1-405, terminating in the City of Costa Mesa. State Route 73 (SR -73) runs along the northwestern boundary of the City and connects with Interstate 5 (I-5) farther south of Newport Beach in Laguna Beach. In addition, Highway 1 runs along the entire California coast and through the City of Newport Beach. 1.3 PROJECT SUMMARY The 2006 City of Newport Beach General Plan includes 10 elements: Land Use, Harbor and Bay, Housing, Historical Resources, Circulation, Recreation, Arts and Cultural, Natural Resources, Safety, and Noise. The proposed project is an amendment to the Land Use Element (LUE). The amendment is intended to shape future development in the City and involves the alteration, intensification, and redistribution of land uses in certain subareas of the City, including major areas such as Page 2 PlareWlork r 256 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Newport Center/Fashion Island, Newport Coast, and the Airport Area near John Wayne Airport. The proposed land use map designation changes include increases and/or reductions in development capacity in various subareas. Specific subareas proposed for change are: ■ Airport Area The Hangars Saunders Properties • Lyon Communities • LAP Companies ■ Newport Coast Area • Newport Coast Hotel • Newport Ridge • Newport Coast Center ■ Newport Centex/Fashion Island Newport Center/Fashion Island 150 Newport Center Drive 100 Newport Center Drive ■ Bayside Center ■ The Bluffs ■ Gateway Park ■ Westcliff Plaza ■ 1526 Placentia Avenue (Kings Liquor) ■ 813 East Balboa Boulevard The General Plan Land Use Element Amendment will also include new and modified Land Use Element policies related to land use changes, in support of recent Neighborhood Revitalization efforts, and, as appropriate, updates/refinements to policies. Some of the policies apply City-wide and others are community specific. Subsequent amendments to the Newport Beach Coastal Land Use Plan (LUP), the Newport Coast Local Coastal Program (LCP), and Zoning Code and Map will be necessary to reflect the amendment to the General Plan. May 2014 Page 3 257 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Thisj age intantronplly l0 blank Page 4 PlareForkr 258 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 5.2 AIR QUALITY AQ -1 The City of Newport Beach shall evaluate new development Project Applicant and City Prior to the issuance of City of Newport Beach Proposals for sensitive land uses (e.g., residential, schools, day of Newport Beach building permits Community Development care centers) within the City for potential incompatibilities with Department — Planning regard to the California Air Resources Board's Air Quality and Division Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (2005). Applicants for sensitive land uses that are within the recommended buffer distances shall submit a health risk assessment (HRA) to the City of Newport Beach prior to future discretionary project approval. The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and the South Coast Air Quality Management District. The latest OEHHA guidelines shall be used for the analysis, including age sensitivity factors, breathing rates, and body weights appropriate for children age 0 to 6 years. If the HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk exceeds ten in one million (10E-06), the appropriate noncancer hazard index exceeds 1.0, or if the PM10 or PM2.5 ambient air quality standard exceeds 2.5 pg/ri the applicant will be required to identify and demonstrate that mitigation measures are capable of reducing potential cancer, noncancer, and ambient air quality risks to an acceptable level (i.e., below ten in one million, a hazard index of 1.0, or particulate matter concentrations exceed 2.5 pg/m3), including appropriate enforcement mechanisms. Measures to reduce risk may include but are not limited to: ■ Air intakes away from high-volume roadways and/or truck loading zones. ■ Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems of the buildings provided with appropriately sized maximum efficiency rating value (MERV) filters. May 2014 Page 5 259 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Mitigation Measure Responsibility for Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Monitor (Signature Required) Date of Com liance Mitigation measures identified in the HRA shall be identified as mitigation measures in the environmental document and/or incorporated into the site development plan as a component of the proposed project. The air intake design and MERV filter requirements shall be noted and/or reflected on all building plans submitted to the City and shall be verified by the City's Planning Division. Page 6 PlaceWlorks 260 City Council Resolution No. XX *013r111111 1 FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION FOR THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH No. 2013101064) 261 CEQA FINDINGS OF FACTS REGARDING THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT Citv of Newport Beach STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2013101064 Exhibit B INTRODUCTION The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that a number of written findings be made by the lead agency in connection with certification of an environmental impact report (EIR) prior to approval of the project pursuant to Sections 15091 and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines and Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code. The State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 provides: (a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an FIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FIR. 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can or should be adopted by such other agency. 3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final FIR. (b) The findings required by subdivision (a) shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (c) The finding in subdivision (a)(2) shall not be made if the agency making the finding has concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with identified feasible mitigation measures or alternatives. The finding in subsection (a)(3) shall describe the specific reasons for rejecting identified mitigation measures and project alternatives. (d) When making the findings required in subdivision (a)(1), the agency shall also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects. These measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. General Plan Land Use Element Amendment CEQA Findings of Fact 1 262 (e) The public agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other materials which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which its decision is based. (1) A statement made pursuant to Section 15093 does not substitute for the findings required by this section. Public Resources Code section 21061.1 defines "feasible" to mean "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors." CEQA Guidelines section 15364 adds another factor: "legal" considerations. (See Citi.Zens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 565 (Goleta 11),) The concept of "feasibility" also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project. (California Native Plant Soc. v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 1001 ["an alternative 'may be found infeasible on the ground it is inconsistent with the project objectives as long as the finding is supported by substantial evidence in the record"'].) An alternative may also be rejected because it "would not 'entirely fulfill' [a] project objective." Citi.Zens for Open Government v. City of I-odi (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 296, 314-315.) "[F]easibility" under CEQA encompasses 'desirability' to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors." (City of Del Mar P. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417; see also Sequoyab Hills Homeowners Assn. P. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.AppAth 704, 715.) With respect to a project for which significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened, a public agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve the project if the agency first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the specific reasons why the agency found that the project's "benefits" rendered "acceptable" its "unavoidable adverse environmental effects." (CEQA Guidelines, CC 15093, 15043, subd. (b); see also Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (b).) The California Supreme Court has stated, "[t]he wisdom of approving ... any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced." (Goleta 11, supra; 52 CAM at p. 576.) When adopting Statements of Overriding Considerations, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 further provides: (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 proposal project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable." (b) Where 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 reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. This 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 General Plan Land Use Element Amendment CEQA Findings of Fact - 2 - 263 notice of determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091. Having received, independently reviewed, and considered the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Draft SEIR) and the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Final SEIR) for the General Plan Land Use Element Amendment project, SCH No. 2013101064 (collectively, the SEIR), as well as all other information in the record of proceedings on this matter, the following Findings and Facts in Support of Findings (Findings) and Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) are hereby adopted by the City of Newport Beach (City) in its capacity as the CEQA Lead Agency. These Findings set forth the environmental basis for the discretionary actions to be undertaken by the City for adoption and implementation of the Land Use Element Amendments. This action includes the approval of the following for the General Plan Land Use Element Amendment: ■ Supplemental Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2013101064 A. Document Format These Findings have been organized into the following sections: 1) Section 1 provides an introduction. 2) Section 2 provides a summary of the project, overview of the discretionary actions required for approval of the project, and a statement of the project's objectives. 3) Section 3 provides a summary of previous environmental reviews related to the project area that took place prior to the environmental review done specifically for the project, and a summary of public participation in the environmental review for the project. 4) Section 4 sets forth findings regarding the environmental impacts that were determined to be—as a result of the Initial Study, Notice of Preparation (NOP), and consideration of comments received during the NOP comment period—either not relevant to the project or clearly not at levels that were deemed significant for consideration given the nature and location of the proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendments. 5) Section 5 sets forth findings regarding significant or potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the Draft SEIR that the City has determined are either not significant or can feasibly be mitigated to a less than significant level through the imposition of Project Design Features, standard conditions, and/or mitigation measures. In order to ensure compliance and implementation, all of these measures will be included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MAW) for the project and adopted as conditions of the project by the Lead Agency. Where potentially significant impacts can be reduced to less than significant levels through adherence to Project Design Features and standard conditions, these findings specify how those impacts were reduced to an acceptable level. Section 5 also includes findings regarding those significant or potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the Draft SEIR that will or may result from the project and which the City has determined cannot feasibly be mitigated to a less than significant level. 6) Section 6 sets forth findings regarding alternatives to the proposed project. General Plan Land Use Element Amendment CEQA Findings of Fact - 3 - 264 B. Record of Proceedings For purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the Record of Proceedings for the proposed project consists of the following documents and other evidence, at a minimum: ■ The NOP and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the proposed project ■ The Draft SEIR for the proposed project ■ The Final SEIR for the proposed project ■ All written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public review comment period on the Draft SEIR ■ All responses to written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public review comment period on the Draft SEIR ■ All written and verbal public testimony presented during a noticed public hearing for the proposed project ■ The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ■ The reports and technical memoranda included or referenced in the Response to Comments ■ All documents, studies, EIRs, or other materials incorporated by reference in the Draft SEIR and Final SEIR ■ The Resolutions adopted by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the proposed project, and all documents incorporated by reference therein, including comments received after the close of the comment period and responses thereto ■ Matters of common knowledge to the City of Newport Beach, including but not limited to federal, state, and local laws and regulations ■ Any documents expressly cited in these Findings ■ Any other relevant materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code Section 21167.6(e) The documents and other material that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings are based are located at the City of Newport Beach Community Development Department. The custodian for these documents is the City of Newport Beach. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(2) and 14 California Code Regulations Section 15091(e). C. Custodian and Location Of Records The documents and other materials that constitute the administrative record for the City's actions related to the project are at the City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, 100 Civic Center Drive, General Plan Land Use Element Amendment CEQA Findings of Fact - 4 - 265 Newport Beach, California 92660. The City's Community Development Department is the custodian of the administrative record for the project. Copies of these documents, which constitute the record of proceedings, are and at all relevant times have been and will be available upon request at the offices of the Community Development Department. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(2) and Guidelines Section 15091(e). II. PROJECT SUMMARY A. Project Location Located on the southwestern boundary of Orange County, the City of Newport Beach is approximately 40 miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles and 10 miles southwest of Irvine. The surrounding cities include Costa Mesa to the north, Huntington Beach to the northwest, Irvine to the northeast, and unincorporated areas of Orange County to the southeast. The Pacific Ocean abuts the City's entire southwestern boundary. Regional access to the City is provided by Interstate 405 (I-405) and State Route 55 (SR 55), which both run north to south through Orange County. SR55ends in the City of Costa Mesa, just north of Newport Beach. In addition, State Route 73 (SR -73) runs along the northwestern boundary of the City and connects with Interstate 5 (I-5) just south of Newport Beach in Laguna Beach. Highway 1 also provides access to the City since it runs along the entire California coast. B. Project Description The 2006 City of Newport Beach General Plan includes ten elements: Land Use, Harbor and Bay, Housing, Historical Resources, Circulation, Recreation, Arts and Cultural, Natural Resources, Safety, and Noise. The proposed project is an amendment to the Land Use Element (LUE) (also referred to as the Amendment or Project). The amendment is intended to shape future development in the City and involves the alteration, intensification, and redistribution of land uses in certain subareas of the City, including major areas such as Newport Center/Fashion Island, Newport Coast, and the Airport Area near John Wayne Airport. The proposed land use map designation changes include increases and/or reductions in development capacity in various subareas. Specific subareas proposed for change are: ■ Airport Area • The Hangars • Saunders Properties • Lyon Communities • UAP Companies ■ Newport Coast Area • Newport Coast Hotel • Newport Ridge • Newport Coast Center ■ Newport Center/Fashion Island Newport Center/Fashion Island 150 Newport Center Drive 100 Newport Center Drive General Plan Land Use Element Amendment CEQA Findings of Fact 5 266 ■ Bayside Center ■ The Bluffs ■ Gateway Park ■ Westcliff Plaza ■ 1526 Placentia Avenue (Kings Liquor) ■ 813 East Balboa Boulevard The following table provides the Citywide net land use change statistics if the LUE Amendment is adopted as proposed: Table 1 2006 General Plan and Proposed Project Buildout, Statistical Land Use Residential 46,601 DUs 48,330 DUs 1,729 DUs" 4% Hotel 5,561 rooms 4,860 rooms (701 rooms) -13% Commercial 7,280,934 SF 7,352,044 SF 71,110 SF 10% Office 11,279,966 SF 11,773,643 SF 493,677 SF 4% Elementary/High School Students 6,511 students 6,583 students 72 students 1 % The General Plan Land Use Element Amendment will also include new and modified Land Use Element policies related to land use changes, in support of recent Neighborhood Revitalization efforts, and, as appropriate, updates/refinements to policies. Some of the policies apply City-wide and others are community specific. Subsequent amendments to the Newport Beach Coastal Land Use Plan (LUP), the Newport Coast Local Coastal Program (LCP), and Zoning Code and Map will be necessary to reflect the amendment to the General Plan LUE. C. Discretionary Actions Implementation of the project within the City of Newport Beach will require several actions by the City, including ■ Supplemental Environmental Impact Report SCH#2013101064. Certification of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) evaluating the environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended (Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.), and the State CEQA Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000 et seq.). ■ Adoption of the LUE Amendments and updated zoning code and Coastal Plan amendments to ensure consistency. The Final SEIR provided environmental information to responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and other public agencies that may be required to grant approvals and permits or coordinate with the City of Newport Beach as a part of project implementation. These agencies include, but are not limited to: General Plan Land Use Element Amendment CEQA Findings of Fact -6 - 267 Airport Land Use Commission of Orange County (ALUC). The project is within the boundaries of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP). The overseeing agency, ALUC, must review the proposed project and determine its consistency with the AELUP. The ALUC considered the project at its April 17, 2014, public meeting and voted to find the project inconsistent with the Commission's AELUP. Approval of the project would require the Newport Beach City Council to override this determ nation with a two- thirds vote. California Coastal Commission (CCC). The project would change land use designations in areas of the City that ate within the Newport Beach Coastal Land Use Plan. Designations under the Coastal Land Use Plan take precedent over any provisions in the City's General Plan, zoning, or other ordinances. Thus, the CCC must review the proposed project and certify an amendment to the Coastal Land Use Plan in order to maintain land use designation consistency. D. Statement of Project Objectives The statement of objectives sought by the project and set forth in the Final SEIR is provided as follows: 1. Preserve and enhance Newport Beach's character as a beautiful, unique residential community. 2. Reflect a conservative growth strategy that a. Balances needs for housing, jobs and services. b. Limits land use changes to a very small amount of the City's land area. c. Directs land use changes to areas where residents have expressed a willingness to consider change and where sustainable development can occur. d. Protects natural resources, open space, and recreational opportunities. 3. Protect and enhance water quality. 4. Protect and enhance recreational opportunities and public access to open space and natural resources. 5. Modifv land uses, densities, and intensities so that traffic generation is controlled. III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION In conformance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Newport Beach CEQA Guidelines, the City conducted an extensive environmental review of the proposed project. ■ The City of Newport Beach determined that an SEIR would be required for the proposed project and issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study on October 22, 2013. The NOP was sent to all responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and the Office of Planning Research and posted at the Orange County Clerk -Recorder's office and on the City's website on October 22, 2013. The 30 -day public review period extended from October 22, 2013, to November 21, 2013. ■ Based upon the Initial Study and Environmental Checklist Form, the City of Newport Beach staff determined that a Draft Supplemental FIR (Draft SEIR) to the 2006 General Plan FIR should be prepared for the proposed project. (Pub. Resources Code, � 21166; CEQA Guidelines, 5( 15162-15163.) A scoping meeting was held during the NOP review period to solicit additional suggestions on the scope of the Draft SEIR. Attendees were provided an opportunity to identify verbally or in writing the issues General Plan Land Use Element Amendment CEQA Findings of Fact -7- K-1J 7- they felt should be addressed in the Draft SEIR. The scoping meeting was held on Tuesday, November 5, 2013, at the Newport Beach Central Library at 1000 Avocado Avenue, Newport Beach, CA 92660. The notice of the public scoping meeting was included in the NOP. The scope of the Draft SEIR was determined based on the City's Initial Study, comments received in response to the NOP, and comments received at the scoping meeting conducted by the City on November 5, 2013. Section 2.3 of the Draft SEIR describes the issues identified for analysis in the Draft SEIR. The City of Newport Beach prepared a Draft SEIR, which was made available for a 45 -day public review period beginning March 17, 2014, and ending April 30, 2014. The Draft SEIR consists of three volumes: Volume I contains the text of the Draft SEIR and analysis of the General Plan Land Use Element Amendment project and Appendix A, Initial Study and Notice of Preparation. Volume II contains Appendices B through L In addition, a continuation of the full appendices was provided in two separate binders, Full Appendices — Part 1 and Part 2. The Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft SEIR was sent to all interested persons, agencies and organizations. The Notice of Completion (NOC) was sent to the State Clearinghouse in Sacramento for distribution to public agencies. The NOA was posted at the Orange County Clerk -Recorder's office on March 17, 2014. Copies of the Draft SEIR were made available for public review at the City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, Newport Beach Central Library, Newport Beach Balboa Branch Library, Newport Beach Mariners Branch Library, and Newport Beach Corona del Mar Branch Library. The Draft SEIR was made available for download via the City's website: http://www.newportbeachca.gov. Two study sessions were held by the Planning Commission on May 8, 2014 and May 22, 2014 in the City Hall Council Chambers, at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California 92660. Notices of time, place, and purpose of the aforesaid meetings were provided in accordance with CEQA and the City's Municipal Code. The draft General Plan Land Use Element Amendment, findings of the Draft SEIR, project alternatives, general topics of public review comments received, staff report, and evidence, both written and oral, were presented to the Planning Commission at these study sessions. Additionally, the items appeared on the agenda for these study sessions, which was posted at City Hall and on the City's website. Preparation of the Final SEIR includes comments on the Draft SEIR, responses to those comments, clarifications/revisions to the Draft SEIR, and appended documents. The Final SEIR was released on May 30, 2014 and posted on the City's website. A Planning Commission Public Hearing was held on June 5, 2014 in the City Hall Council Chambers, at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California 92660. A notice of time, place, and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was provided in accordance with CEQA and the City's Municipal Code. The Draft and Final SEIR, staff report, and evidence, both written and oral, were presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at this hearing. 0 Government Code Section 65091 provides that, when the number of property owners to who notice would be required to be mailed is greater than 1,000 (which is the case with the proposed Land Use Element Amendment), notice may be provided by placing a one-eighth page advertisement in the local newspaper. Notice of the Planning Commission Public Hearing was a one-eighth page display ad in the May 24, 2014, Daily Pilot. Additionally, notices were mailed to over 1,500 affected property owners which included property owners, and property owners within 300 feet of properties designated for amendment; HOAs and interested parties; and subscribers to the City's Select Alert/Newsplash System. The General Plan Land Use Element Amendment CEQA Findings of Fact 8 269 mailing and notifications occurred at a minimum 10 days in advance of the meeting, consistent with the provisions of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. The environmental review process has also been consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act. Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. • In compliance with Section 15088(b) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (State CEQA Guidelines), the City has met its obligation to provide written Responses to Comments to public agencies at least 10 days prior to certifying the Final SEIR. • The City Council public hearing was held on July 8, 2014, in the City Hall Council Chambers, at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California 92660. A notice of the time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was provided in accordance with CEQA and the City's Municipal Code. The Final SEIR, staff report, and evidence, both written and oral, were presented to and considered by the City Council at this hearing. 0 Government Code Section 65091 provides that, when the number of property owners to who notice would be required to be mailed is greater than 1,000 (which is the case with the proposed Land Use Element Amendment), notice may be provided by placing a one-eighth page advertisement in the local newspaper. Notice of the Planning Commission Public Hearing was a one-eighth page display ad in the Daily Pilot. Additionally, notices were mailed to over 1,500 affected property owners which included property owners, and property owners within 300 feet of properties designated for amendment; HOAs and interested parties; and subscribers to the City's Select Alert/Newsplash System. The mailing and notifications occurred at a minimum 10 days in advance of the meeting, consistent with the provisions of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. The environmental review process has also been consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act. Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES THAT WERE DETERMINED NOT TO BE POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT A. Impacts Determined To Be Less Than Significant in the Initial Study As a result of the project scoping process including the NOP circulated by the City on October 22, 2013, in connection with preparation of the Draft SEIR, the preparation of the Initial Study, and the Public Scoping meeting, the City determined, based upon the threshold criteria for significance, that the project would have no impact or a less than significant impact on the following potential environmental issues, and therefore, determined that these potential environmental issues would not be addressed in the Draft SEIR. Based upon the environmental analysis presented in the Draft SEIR, and the comments received by the public on the Draft SEIR, no substantial evidence was submitted to or identified by the City which indicated that the project would have an impact on the following environmental areas: (a) Aesthetics: The project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway, or create a new source of substantial light or glare. (b) Agriculture and Forestry Resources: The project area does not contain Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. No portion of the project area is covered by a Williamson Act Contract. Additionally, the project site does not include forest resources, including timberlands, and is not zoned for agriculture. General Plan Land Use Element Amendment CEQA Findings of Fact -9 - 270 (c) Air Quality: The project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. (d) Biological Resources: The project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any sensitive species, riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities, or federally protected wetlands. It would not interfere with the movement of native resident or migratory wildlife species, impede wildlife nursery sites, conflict with local policies protecting biological resources (e.g., tree preservation policy), or conflict with provisions of an adopted local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. (e) Cultural Resources: The project would not impact historic resources or disturb any known human remains. (f) Geology and Soils: The project would not expose people or structure to potential substantial adverse effects involving rupture of a known earthquake fault as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Zoning Map or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault, or expose people or structures to landslides. It would not have any significant impacts related to rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, seismic -related ground failure (e.g., liquefaction), landslides, soil erosion, or soil subsidence. The proposed project would not use septic systems or alternative waste water disposal systems. (g) Hazards and Hazardous Materials: The project would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment through transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, or through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions. The project also would not handle or operate hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. It would not be located near the vicinity of a private airstrip, impair implementation of an adopted emergency response/evacuation plan, or expose people to wildland fire hazards. (h) Hydrology and Water Quality: The project would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with recharge, alter existing drainage patterns causing erosion or flooding, add substantial sources of polluted runoff, or otherwise degrade water quality. The project would not place housing or structures within a 100 -year flood hazard area, or expose people or structures to flood hazards or inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. (i) Land Use and Planning: The project would not divide an established business community or conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. (j) Mineral Resources: The project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource or locally important mineral resource recovery site. (k) Noise and Vibration: The project traffic would not be located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. (1) Population and Housing: The project would not displace any housing or people. (m) Public Services: The project would not create significant impacts related to other public facilities aside from fire, police, schools, and parks. (n) Recreation: The project would meet the City's parkland dedication requirements, and physical impacts to recreational and park spaces would not be significant. (o) Transportation and Traffic: The project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns, substantially increase hazards due to design features or incompatible uses, or result in inadequate emergency access. (p) Utilities and Service Systems: The project would not exceed waste water treatment requirements of Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. General Plan Land Use Element Amendment CEQA Findings of Fact 10 - 271 All other topical areas of evaluation included in the Environmental Checklist were determined to require further assessment in the Draft SEIR. B. Impacts Determined To Be Less Than Significant in the Draft SEIR This section identifies impacts of the proposed project deterrfined to be less than significant without implementation of project -specific mitigation measures. This determination, however, does assume compliance with Existing Regulations and relevant General Plan policies as detailed in each respective topical section of Chapter 5 in the Draft SEIR. (a) Aesthetics: The project would not have a substantial adverse effect on scenic vistas or degrade the existing visual character or quality of the area. (b) Air Quality: Similar to the 2006 General Plan, the project would not be consistent with the applicable air quality management plan, and would generate short-term emissions and criteria air pollutant emissions in exceedance of SCAQMD's threshold criteria. However, the incremental change associated with the project would be less than significant. (c) Cultural Resources: The project would not adversely affect archaeological or paleontological resources. (d) Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. (e) Hazards and Hazardous Materials: The project would not be located on a site included on a list of hazardous materials, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area per the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport, or expose people or structures to significant hazards from wildland fires. (f) Hydrology and Water Quality: The project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, or otherwise substantially degrade water quality. (g) Land Use and Planning: The project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. (h) Noise and Vibration: The project traffic would not expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established by the City, increase permanent or temporary ambient noise levels, or cause a substantial increase in noise levels due to proximity to the John Wayne Airport. (i) Public Services: The project would not create significant impacts related to fire protection, police protection, school, or park services. (j) Transportation and Traffic: The project would not conflict with an applicable congestion management program or conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. (k) Utilities and Service Systems: Project -generated wastewater would not exceed the capacity of existing sewer pipelines and treatment plants; the project would be adequately served by existing water supply and delivery systems; stormwater flow would be adequately served by existing drainage systems; the Frank R. Bowerman, Olinda Alpha, and Prima Deshecha landfills would have sufficient capacity to accommodate project -generated solid waste; and the project demand for electricity and natural gas would be nominal. General Plan Land Use Element Amendment CEQA Findings of Fact 11 - 272 V. FINDINGS REGARDING POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The following potentially significant environmental impacts were analyzed in the Draft SEIR, and the effects of the project were considered. Because of environmental analysis of the project and the identification of relevant General Plan policies; compliance with existing laws, codes, and statutes; and the identification of feasible mitigation measures (together referred herein as the Mitigation Program), some potentially significant impacts have been determined by the City to be reduced to a level of less than significant, and the City has found—in accordance with CEQA Section 21081(a)(1) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a) (1)— that "Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment." This is referred to herein as "Finding 1." Where the City has determined—pursuant to CEQA Section 21081(a)(2) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(2)—that "Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency," the City's finding is referred to herein as "Finding 2." Where, as a result of the environmental analysis of the project, the City has determined that either (1) even with the identification of project design features, compliance with existing laws, codes and statutes, and/or the identification of feasible mitigation measures, potentially significant impacts cannot be reduced to a level of less than significant, or (2) no feasible mitigation measures or alternatives are available to mitigate the potentially significant impact, the City has found in accordance with CEQA Section 21081(a)(3) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(x)(3) that "Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report." This is referred to herein as "Finding 3." A. Impacts Mitigated To Less Than Significant The following summary describes impacts of the proposed project that, without mitigation, would result in significant adverse impacts. Upon implementation of the mitigation measures provided in the Draft SEIR, the impacts would be considered less than significant. 1. Air Quality Environmental Impact: Placement of new residents and other sensitive land uses proximate to State Route 73 and major stationary source emitters in the Airport Area would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Finding 1 — Mitigation Measure AQ -1 would reduce pollutant concentration impacts to sensitive receptors. Thereby, the City makes Finding 1, and impacts are mitigated to less than significant levels. Facts in Support of Finding Mitigation measure AQ -1 would require project applicants for sensitive land uses to prepare a health risk assessment (HRA) to the City prior to future discretionary project approval. The HRA would indicate any potential health risks (e.g., cancer risks, air quality) on the project site and provide mitigation measures, which would be incorporated into the development plan as a component of the proposed project. Thus, future sensitive land use developments near State Route 73 and major stationary source emitters in the Airport Area would be protected from potential health risks. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measure was included in the Draft and Final SEIR, and is applicable to the proposed project. General Plan Land Use Element Amendment CEQA Findings of Fact - 12 - 273 AQ -1 The City of Newport Beach shall evaluate new development proposals for sensitive land uses (e.g., residential, schools, day care centers) within the City for potential incompatibilities with regard to the California Air Resources Board's Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (2005). Applicants for sensitive land uses that are within the recommended buffer distances shall submit a health risk assessment (HRA) to the City of Newport Beach prior to future discretionary project approval. The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and the South Coast Air Quality Management District. The latest OEHHA guidelines shall be used for the analysis, including age sensitivity factors, breathing rates, and body weights appropriate for children age 0 to 6 years. If the HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk exceeds ten in one million (10E-06), the appropriate noncancer hazard index exceeds 1.0, or if the PM1a or PM2.5 ambient air quality standard exceeds 2.5 µg/m3, the applicant will be required to identify and demonstrate that mitigation measures are capable of reducing potential cancer, noncancer, and ambient air quality risks to an acceptable level (i.e., below ten in one million, a hazard index of 1.0, or particulate matter concentrations exceed 2.5 µg/m3), including appropriate enforcement mechanisms. Measures to reduce risk may include but are not limited to: • Air intakes away from high-volume roadways and/or truck loading zones. Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems of the buildings provided with appropriately sized maximum efficiency rating value (MERV) filters. Mitigation measures identified in the HRA shall be identified as mitigation measures in the environmental document and/or incorporated into the site development plan as a component of the proposed project. The air intake design and MERV filter requirements shall be noted and/or reflected on all building plans submitted to the City and shall be verified by the City's Planning Department. General Plan Land Use Element Amendment CEQA Findings of Fact - 13 - 274 City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions There are no specific City -adopted standard operating conditions of approval related to air quality that are applicable to the proposed project at this time. However, project -specific conditions of approval may be applied to future development proposed under the amended LUE during the discretionary approval process for those projects (site development review, tentative tract map, etc.), subsequent design, and/or construction process. B. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts The following summary describes the significant, unavoidable adverse impacts of the proposed project 1. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Environmental Impact: Although compared to the 2006 General Plan, the proposed project would achieve South Coast Air Quality Management District's efficiency metric by decreasing GHG emissions on a per capita basis, similar to impacts under the 2006 General Plan FIR, the City would not achieve the long-term GHG reductions goals under Executive Order 5-03-05 if the proposed project were implemented. Finding 3 —The City hereby makes Finding 3 and determines that there are no mitigation measures to reduce this impact to less than significant levels. This impact is significant and unavoidable and would require the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Facts in Support of Finding The proposed project would result in a substantial increase in the total magnitude of GHG emissions emitted Citywide from those originally identified as part of the 2006 General Plan EIR, but would decrease GHG emissions on a per capita basis due to increased plan efficiency, including locating housing to employment centers. Although the LUE Amendment incorporates planning measures and policies to minimize GHG emissions, additional statewide measures would be necessary to reduce GHG emissions under the proposed project to meet the long-term GHG reduction goals under Executive Order 5-03-05, which identified a goal to reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent of 1990 levels by 2050. At this time, there is no plan past 2020 that achieves the long-term GHG reduction goal established under Executive Order S-03-05. As identified by the California Council on Science and Technology, the State cannot meet the 2050 goal without major advancements in technology. Since no additional statewide measures are currently available, the impact is significant and unavoidable and would require a Statement of Overriding Considerations. C^ty of Newport Beach Standard Conditions There are no specific City -adopted standard operating conditions of approval related to greenhouse gas emissions that are applicable to the proposed project at this time. However, project -specific conditions of approval may be applied to future development proposed under the amended LUE during the discretionary approval process for those projects (site development review, tentative tract map, etc.), subsequent design, and/or construction process. General Plan Land Use Element Amendment CEQA Findings of Fact - 14 - 275 2. Noise and Vibration Environmental Impact: Construction activities as a result of higher development intensity would have the potential to result in substantial vibration impacts to uses adjacent to the sites identified for changes in land uses and intensities. Finding 3 — The City hereby makes Finding 3 and determines that there are no mitigation measures to reduce this impact to less than significant levels. This impact is significant and unavoidable and would require the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Facts in Support of Finding New development in accordance with the proposed project would increase groundbome vibration related to construction activities. Grading and demolition activities typically generate the highest vibration levels during construction activities. In particular, pile driving and rock blasting can generate high levels in excess of 100 PPV at 25 feet away. Typical construction projects do not require these methods, or if necessary, can usually be mitigated with alternative methods such as non -explosive rock breaking (instead of rock blasting) and drilled piles (instead of impact pile driving), which do not exceed the thresholds for architectural damage, and do not reach levels that are considered annoying at distances greater than 200 feet. However, since construction equipment for subsequent projects are unknown as of now, there would be no feasible mitigation available to eliminate potential vibration impacts if receptors are located in close proximity and pile driving/rock blasting equipment or other activities that generate high levels are necessary for future developments. Furthermore, intensification of land uses at some of the proposed project's subareas could result in vibration impacts greater than the 2006 General Plan. Therefore, this impact is significant and unavoidable and would require a Statement of Overriding Considerations. City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions There are no specific City -adopted standard operating conditions of approval related to noise and vibration that are applicable to the proposed project at this time. However, project -specific conditions of approval may be applied to future development proposed under the amended LUE during the discretionary approval process for those projects (site development review, tentative tract map, etc.), subsequent design, and/or construction process. 3. Population and Housing Environmental Impact: Buildout of the General Plan LUE Amendment would directly result in an estimated population increase of up to 3,838 persons in comparison to buildout of the 2006 General Plan (approximately 3.7 percent increase). This increase would exceed the 2035 SCAG population projections for the City by almost 18 percent, but slightly improve the jobs -housing balance. Finding 3 — The City hereby makes Finding 3 and determines that there are no mitigation measures to reduce this impact to less than significant levels. This impact is significant and unavoidable and would require the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Facts in Support of Finding The incremental change between buildout of the 2006 General Plan and the proposed project is an additional 3,838 persons, which totals to a population of 106,197 by 2035. This exceeds the 2035 Southern California Association of Governments population projection for Newport Beach of 90,030 by 16,167 persons (approximately 18 percent). There are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce population growth. Thus, the impact would be significant and unavoidable and would require a Statement of Overriding Considerations. General Plan Land Use Element Amendment CEQA Findings of Fact 15 276 4. Traffic and Transportation Environmental Impact: Vehicular traffic from the proposed project in conjunction with the amendment of the Airport Settlement Agreement could result in significant impacts at study area intersections. Findings 2 & 3 — This impact has been determined to be potentially significant and unavoidable pending the results of the JWA Airport Settlement Agreement extension. It is not possible at the time of the Final SEIR to know the probable cumulative impacts of the proposed project in combination of possible impacts of the Airport Settlement Agreement because the terms of any potential extension of the Agreement are not vet known. The County has only released a Draft FIR of the proposed extension and alternatives to the extension for review and comment. The City therefore hereby makes Finding 2 to address potential traffic impacts that could be the responsibility of another jurisdiction (e.g., cumulative impacts on intersections/roadways within Cities of Irvine, Costa Mesa, or on Caltrans facilities). The City hereby also makes Finding 3 and determines that there are no mitigation measures to reduce th s impact to less than significant levels. This impact is significant and unavoidable and would require the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Facts in Support of Finding The Airport Settlement Agreement NOP was released to the public in October 2013 and the Draft FIR was released May 23, 2014 after preparation of the Draft SEIR for the LUE Amendment. The FIR analysis for the amendment of the Airport Settlement Agreement had therefore not been released for public review at the time of the Draft SEIR. Therefore, it was not possible to identify with precision all potential cumulative environmental impacts of the proposed project and Airport Settlement Agreement as they relate to traffic. At the time of the writing of these Findings, no feasible mitigation measures can be identified to reduce significant impacts at potentially affected intersections. Environmental Impact: Vehicular traffic from the proposed project in conjunction with cumulative traffic would result in significant impacts to the following freeway main line segments: SB I-405, North of SR55Freeway • NB SR -73, North of Jamboree Road • NB SR 55, Dyer Road to MacArthur Boulevard • NB SR 55, MacArthur Boulevard to I-405 Freeway • NB SR -55,1-405 Freeway to SR -73 • NB SR -55, SR -73 Freeway to Mesa Drive And the following freeway ramps: I-405, NB OffRampat MacArthur Boulevard I-405, SB Loop OffRampat MacArthur Boulevard Finding 2 — The City hereby makes Finding 2. Changes or alterations that could mitigate this impact are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency. This impact is significant and unavoidable and would require the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations. General Plan Land Use Element Amendment CEQA Findings of Fact - 16 - 277 Facts in Support of Finding Caltrans has not adopted a fee program that can ensure that locally contributed impact fees will be tied to improvements to freeway main lines and ramps, and only Caltrans has jurisdiction over freeway main line and ramp improvements. No feasible mitigation measures that can be implemented by the City of Newport Beach have been identified. General Plan Land Use Element Amendment CEQA Findings of Fact - 17 - 278 City of NeaTort Beach Standard Conditions There are no specific City -adopted standard operating conditions of approval related to traffic and transportation that are applicable to the proposed project at this time. However, project -specific conditions of approval may be applied to future development proposed under the amended LUE during the discretionary approval process for those projects (site development review, tentative tract map, etc.), subsequent design, and/or construction process. General Plan Land Use Element Amendment CEQA Findings of Fact - 18 - 279 VI. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES A. Alternatives Considered and Rejected During the Scoping/Project Planning Process The following is a discussion of the alternatives considered during the scoping and planning process and the reasons why they were not selected for detailed analysis in the Draft SEIR. Alternative Project Location CEQA requires that the discussion of alternatives focus on alternatives to the project or its location that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project. Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[f] [2] [A]). An evaluation of an alternative to the project location is appropriate for a site-specific development project. This Draft Supplemental EIR is prepared for a General Plan LUE Amendment that applies to the entire City of Newport Beach. An "altemative location" to the City is not a feasible alternative. However, the land use alternative evaluated in this chapter (No Airport Area Alternative) does evaluate an alternative that eliminates development within one of the subareas of the City. B. Alternatives Selected for Further Analysis In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15163, a Supplemental EIR "need only contain the information necessary to make the previous FIR adequate for the project as revised." The following alternative has been determined to represent a reasonable range of alternatives to supplement the alternatives previously considered in the 2006 General Plan EIR that could potentially attain most of the basic objectives of the project and has the potential to avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects of the project. The alternative analyzed in detail in addition to the No Project Alternative included the: ■ No Airport Area Alternative An FIR must identify an "environmentally superior" alternative, and where the No Project Alternative is identified as environmentally superior, the FIR is required to identify as environmentally superior an alternative from among the others evaluated. Each alternative's environmental impacts are compared to the proposed project and determined to be environmentally superior, neutral, or inferior. However, only significant and unavoidable impacts are used in making the final determination of whether an alternative is environmentally superior or inferior to the proposed project. Only the impacts involving greenhouse gas emissions, construction noise, population growth, and traffic were found to be significant and unavoidable. Section 7.4 of the Draft SEIR identifies the environmentally superior alternative. No Project Alternative The City Council rejects the No Project Alternative on the basis of policy and economic factors as explained herein. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21061.1; CEQA Guidelines, C 15364; see also City of De1Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417; California A'ative Plant Son. P. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 1001; Seguoy'ah Hills Homeowners 19 rsn. v. Cite of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715.) General Plan Land Use Element Amendment CEQA Findings of Fact 19 - MM Description: The No Project alternative is implementation of the existing 2006 General Plan. The Draft SEIR evaluates the incremental environmental impact of buildout of the 2006 General Plan in comparison to buildout of the proposed General Plan LUE Amendment. As such, the analysis throughout the Draft SEIR represents the impacts of the proposed project relative to the No Project Alternative. Environmental Effects: The No Project alternative would eliminate the significant impacts of the proposed project, including significant, unavoidable impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions, noise and vibration (construction related vibration), population and housing (population growth), and transportation and traffic (freeway main line and ramp impacts and potentially significant cumulative impact related to Airport Settlement Agreement trip generation). The No Project alternative would also eliminate a significant air quality impact related to placing sensitive receptors (housing and congregate care) proximate to high pollutant concentrations in the Airport Area. This impact, however, would be mitigated to less than significant under the proposed project. Note that although the No Project alternative would eliminate the significant unavoidable impact of the incremental increase in GHG emissions, construction vibration, population and air quality related to health risks to proximity to sensitive resources, these impacts would also be significant for the existing 2006 General Plan (No Project). The No Project alternative would not have the benefit of the new and/or modified Land Use Element policies. The updated policies reflect State of California legislation subsequent to adoption of the 2006 General Plan and new best planning practices since 2006 addressing sustainability, climate change, and healthy communities. Ability to Achieve Project Objectives: The No Project Alternative would continue to attain the project objectives detailed in Section II(D), in particular objectives Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 5. Compliance with 2006 General Plan policies would preserve and enhance the City's character; protect and enhance water quality; protect and enhance recreational opportunities and public access to open space and natural resources; and control traffic generation. In comparison to the General Plan LUE Amendment, however, the No Project alternative would not be as effective in achieving balancing needs for housing, jobs, and services. The proposed project is in response to changing demand for housing and commercial uses; therefore, the project would add housing and slightly improve the City's jobs -housing balance (from 1.83 to 1.76). Since the City is considered to be "jobs rich," this is a benefit of the proposed project that would not be realized under the No Project alternative. The No Project alternative may also not be as responsive to Project Objective 2.c, regarding "directing land use changes to areas where residents have expressed a willingness to consider change...." The proposed project's land use changes are in response to property owners' request for change. This may or may not, however, reflect "resident" willingness. The No Project alternative would not change land uses in comparison to the proposed project and so would not generate additional vehicle trips in comparison to the proposed General Plan LUE Amendment. Therefore, it may be considered more effective in achieving Project Objective No. 5. Feasibility: The No Project Alternative would be physically feasible but would not be as economically, legally or technologically as feasible or as desirable as the proposed LUE Amendment. The proposed LUE Amendment is needed to reflect to recent legislation (compliance with AB 32 and furtherance of the Orange County Sustainable Communities Strategy, for example), the economy and market, and emerging best practices. The reasoning behind decreasing and increasing development capacity in certain subareas of Newport Beach under the proposed project is to reflect current changing demands for housing and commercial uses, particularly near public transit. Finding: In comparison to the proposed project, the No Project Alternative would reduce impacts to aesthetics, air quality, hazards and hazardous materials, public services, transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems. In addition, significant unavoidable impacts to construction vibration, air quality (sensitive receptors), population growth, and transportation and traffic (cumulative impacts to freeway main line and ramps and trip contribution to a potential, cumulative traffic impact associated with the Airport General Plan Land Use Element Amendment CEQA Findings of Fact - 20 - 281 Settlement Agreement) would be avoided under this alternative. Further, the No Project Alternative would not require an amendment to the Coastal Land Use Plan because no changes would occur to coastal zone land use designations. Cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, hydrology and water quality, and land use and planning impacts would be similar to the proposed project. Overall, the No Project Alternative would have fewer environmental impacts than the proposed project and would eliminate significant, unavoidable impacts, making it the environmentally superior alternative. However, from a policy perspective, this alternative would maintain its existing 2006 Land Use Element policies and designations, which would not reflect updated state legislation (AB 32 and SB 375), best practices related to sustainability, climate change, and healthy communities, or support recent Neighborhood Revitalization efforts. Further, the No Project Alternative fails to meet the following project objectives: No. 2(a) achieving balancing needs for housing, jobs, and services, and No. 2(c) directing land use changes to areas where residents have expressed a willingness to consider change and where sustainable development can occur. Therefore, it has been rejected by the City in favor of the proposed project, as amended. No Airport Area Alternative The Citv Council rejects the No Airport Area Alternative on the basis of policy and economic factors. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21061.1; CEQA Guidelines, § 15364; see also City of Del Marv. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410,417; California Native Plant Son P. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.AppAth 957, 1001; Seguoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Ca1.App,4th 704, 715.) Description: This alternative would eliminate the proposed land uses changes in the Airport Area subareas, including changes to the Saunders Properties, The Hangars, Lyon Communities, and UAP Companies. The proposed changes for these properties under the General Plan LUE Amendment are summarized in Table 3- 1, Proposed Land Use Changer, and shown on Figure 3-4, Airport Area Proposed Changes in the Draft SEIR. It was selected for evaluation based on its potential to reduce or eliminate each of the impacts identified as significant for the General Plan LUE Amendment as proposed. As shown below in Table 2, Proposed Project vs. No Airport Area Alternative Statistical Comparison, this alternative would substantially reduce the overall intensity of land uses proposed. Therefore, it would reduce both construction -related vibration impacts, and greenhouse gas impacts. It was selected in particular for its potential to reduce impacts related to the proximity to the John Wayne Airport. Avoiding intensification of land uses within this subarea has the potential to reduce or eliminate the significant traffic impacts related to freeways and intersections proximate to this subarea as well as potential cumulative impacts associated with the Airport Settlement Agreement. And finally, although the significant air quality impact associated with placing sensitive receptors (housing and congregate care) proximate to major air pollutant sources would be mitigated to less than significant under the proposed project, this alternative would be reduced for this alternative. Table 2 Proposed Project vs. No Airport Area Alternative Statistical Comparison Land Use Residential 1,729 DUs* 144 DUs (1,591 DUs) -92.0% Hotel (701) rooms (851) rooms (150 rooms) -21.4% Commercial 71,110 SF (25,690 SF) (96,800 SF) -136% Office 493,677 SF 255,600 SF (238,077 SF) -48.2% Elementary/High School Students 72 students 72 students 0 students 0% General Plan Land Use Element Amendment CEQA Findings of Fact - 21 - 282 Table 2 Proposed Project vs. No Airport Area Alternative Statistical Comparison ' The 1,729 DU buildout was maculated by adding the allowable dwelling unit developments in each subarea as proposed by the General Plan Land Use Element Amendment. This includes Newport Center (500 DUs), Saunders Properties (329 DUs), Lyon Communities (850 DUs), Newport Ridge (-356 DUs), and other minor changes (-6 DUs). Furthermore, density bonuses on Lyon Communities (297 DUs) and Saunders Properties (115 DUs) were added to the buildout to achieve 1,729 DU. The No Airport Area Alternative would include the same changes to the General Plan LUE policies as the proposed project, with the exception of any policies specifically altered to accommodate the proposed Airport Area land uses changes under the proposed project. Such policies would not be included in this alternative (e.g., LU 6.15.5 Residential and Supporting Uses, regarding the maximum number of replacement units). Environmental Effects: A full discussion of the No Airport Area Alternative's environmental impacts compared to the proposed projects is set forth in Section 7.3 of the Draft SEIR, which is hereby incorporated by reference. In comparison to the proposed project, the No Airport Area Alternative would reduce impacts to aesthetics, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise and vibration, population and housing, public services, transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems. Cultural impacts under this alternative would be similar to the proposed project. This alternative would eliminate a significant impact at one I-405 freeway ramp but would not eliminate any other unavoidable impacts of the LUE Amendment as proposed. It would, however, reduce all of the significant, unavoidable impacts of the proposed project. It would reduce population growth, greenhouse gas emissions, and construction -vibration impacts. These impacts, however, would remain significant and unavoidable for this alternative. The alternative would substantially reduce trip generation relative to the proposed General Plan LUE Amendment by 10,771 average daily trips (ADTs). The alternative would not eliminate the number of main line freeway segments impacted, but would eliminate an impact to one of two freeway ramps (I-405, NB off - ramp at MacArthur Boulevard would no longer be impacted). Ability to Achieve Project Objectives: The No Airport Area alternative would be consistent with most of the proposed project's objectives, detailed in Section 7.1.2 of the Draft SEIR. The alternative would not jeopardize the potential to preserve and enhance the city's character (No. 1); protect and enhance water quality (No. 3); and protect and enhance recreational opportunities and public access to open space. This alternative would be more successful in achieving project objective No. 5, "modify land uses, densities and intensities so that traffic generation is controlled." It would not eliminate significant traffic impacts, but would reduce them relative to the proposed project. The extent to which this alternative would achieve Project Objective No. 2 is less apparent. Compared to the proposed project, it would more successfully "limit land use changes to a very small amount of the City's land area" but would be considered less successful in balancing need for housing, jobs and services. It would provide fewer housing opportunities and new jobs and slightly increase the jobs -housing balance in the City, which is already jobs -rich. Moreover, only some of the property owners have requested the Airport Area changes. Feasibility: The No Airport Area Alternative would be physically feasible but may not be as responsive to the project objectives with respect to economic, considerations as the proposed project. Some of the Airport Area property owners requested the proposed changes in the subarea to respond to current changes in demand for residential and commercial uses. Table 2 outlines the substantial reduction in allowable General Plan Land Use Element Amendment CEQA Findings of Fact - 22 - 283 residential, hotel, commercial, and office use under the No Airport Area Alternative. This would result in fewer residents, visitors, and employment opportunities and associated economic benefits to the City of Newport Beach in comparison to the proposed project. Finding: The No Airport Area Alternative would reduce impacts to aesthetics, air quality, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, public services, and utilities and service systems. Cultural resource and housing impacts would be similar. Significant unavoidable impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions, population growth, transportation and traffic, construction vibration would also be reduced, but not eliminated under this alternative. More specifically, the alternative would substantially reduce trip generation relative to the proposed General Plan LUE Amendment by 10,771 ADTs and would eliminate significant impacts to one of two freeway ramps significantly impacted by the project. It would not, however, eliminate significant impacts to main line freeway segments or one freeway ramp. Further, it would not eliminate the potentially significant impact associated with the Airport Settlement Agreement The No Airport Area Alternative would have fewer environmental impacts than the proposed project. The alternative would achieve most of the project objectives with the exception of Objective No. 2(a) since the alternative would provide fewer housing opportunities compared to jobs, increasing the jobs - housing balance in an already "jobs -rich" City. In summary, the No Airport Area Alternative would eliminate the significant impact to one of two freeway ramps significantly impacted by the project, and would reduce but not eliminate any of the other significant traffic impacts or other significant impacts (air quality, construction vibration, and population) of the project as proposed. In addition, the No Airport Area Alternative would reduce or eliminate impacts that ate directly related to the proposed land use changes within the Airport Area, including: ■ Cumulative impacts associated with the Airport Settlement Agreement (including the uncertainty related to changes in hazards and noise zones) ■ Land use compatibility with industrial uses in Airport Area (including health risk) ■ Cumulative traffic impacts (although detailed, cumulative analysis of Airport Settlement Agreement traffic and LUE Amendment traffic has not been conducted, it is anticipated that cumulative impacts could be expected proximate to the John Wayne Airport and Airport Area land use changes) ■ ALUC determination of the proposed project inconsistency with AELUP (ALUC concluded in its Draft SEIR comment letter that ALUC's preferred project is the No Airport Area Alternative) Further, similar to the proposed project, it would be consistent with most of the 2006 General Plan's objectives. For these reasons, the City finds that the No Airport Area Alternative is preferred over the proposed project. General Plan Land Use Element Amendment CEQA Findings of Fact - 23 - Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element Amendment Statement of Overriding Considerations Exhibit B Statement of Overriding Considerations Introduction The City is the Lead Agency under CEQA responsible for preparation, review, and certification of the Final Supplemental EIR for the General Plan Land Use Element Amendment (the "Project'). As the Lead Agency, the City is also responsible for determining the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Project and which of those impacts are significant, and can be mitigated through imposition of feasible mitigation measures to avoid or minimize those impacts to a level of less than significant. CEQA then requires the Lead Agency to balance the benefits of a proposed action against its significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts in determining whether or not to approve the proposed project. In making this determination, the City is guided by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 which provides as follows: CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region -wide or statewide environmental 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, including region - wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable." 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 reasons to support its action 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. 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. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091. In addition, Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) requires that where a public agency finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in an EIR and thereby leave significant unavoidable effects, the public agency must also find that overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects of the project. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) and the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City has balanced the benefits of the Project against the following unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the Project and has adopted all feasible mitigation measures with respect to these impacts. The City also has examined alternatives to the Project, none of which both meet most of the Project objectives and is environmentally preferable to the proposed Project for the reasons discussed in the Findings and Facts in Support of Findings. 1 285 Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element Amendment Statement of Overriding Considerations The City of Newport Beach City Council, the Lead Agency for this project, having reviewed the Final Supplemental EIR prepared for the General Plan Land Use Element Amendment, and reviewed all written materials within the City's public record and heard all oral testimony presented at public hearings, adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations, which has balanced the benefits of the proposed project against its significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts in reaching its decision to approve the Project. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts Although most potential Project impacts have been substantially avoided or mitigated, as described in the Findings and Facts in Support of Findings, there remain some Project impacts for which complete mitigation is not feasible. For some impacts, mitigation measures were identified and adopted by the Lead Agency, however, even with implementation of the measures, the City finds that the impact cannot be reduced to a level of less than significant. The impacts and alternatives are described below and were also addressed in the Findings. The SEIR identified the following unavoidable adverse impacts of the proposed Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions EIR Impact 5.4-1: The proposed Project would achieve SCAOMD's efficiency metric and would not conflict with plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Compared to the 2006 General Plan, the Project would result in a substantial increase in the total magnitude of GHG emissions but would decrease GHG emissions on a per capita basis (i.e., increase plan efficiency by allowing increased density in certain areas located near public transit stops). The policies and implementation actions in the City's General Plan would ensure that GHG emissions from buildout of the proposed General Plan LUE Amendment would be minimized to the extent practicable. However, additional statewide measures would be necessary to reduce GHG emissions under the proposed project to meet the long-term GHG reduction goals under Executive Order S-03-05, which identified a goal to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and 80 percent of 1990 levels by 2050. At this time, there is no plan past 2020 that achieves the long-term GHG reduction goal established under S-03-05. As identified by the California Council on Science and Technology, the state cannot meet the 2050 goal without major advancements in technology. Since no additional statewide measures are currently available, Impact 5.4-1 would remain significant and unavoidable. Noise and Vibration EIR Impact 5.8-6: Similar to the 2006 General Plan, development in accordance with the proposed project would increase groundborne vibration related to construction activities. Grading and demolition activities typically generate the highest vibration levels during construction activities. In particular, pile driving and rock blasting can generate high levels in excess of 100 peak particle velocity at 25 feet away. Typical construction projects do not require these methods, or if necessary, can usually be mitigated with alternative methods such as nonexplosive rock breaking (instead of rock blasting) and drilled piles (instead of impact pile driving), which do not exceed the thresholds for architectural damage and do not reach levels that are considered annoying at distances greater than 200 feet. However, as discussed in the 2006 General Plan EIR, since construction equipment for subsequent projects is unknown, there would be no feasible mitigation available to eliminate potential vibration impacts to nearby receptors if pile driving/rock blasting equipment or other activities that generate high levels are necessary for future developments. Furthermore, intensification of land uses at some of the proposed project's subareas could result in greater vibration impacts than the 2006 General Plan. Therefore, impacts would be significant and unavoidable. 2 Mi Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element Amendment Statement of Overriding Considerations Population and Housing EIR Impact 5.9-1: Buildout of the General Plan LUE Amendment would directly result in an estimated population increase of up to 3,838 persons in comparison to buildout of the 2006 General Plan (approximately 3.7 percent increase). This increase would exceed the 2035 SCAG population projections for the City by almost 18 percent, but slightly improve the jobs -housing balance. Traffic and Transportation EIR Impact 5.11-3: The County of Orange prepared a Draft EIR to analyze the potential impacts associated with the proposed amendment of the John Wayne Airport Settlement Agreement. The proposed amendment for the Airport Settlement Agreement would expand the number of annual passengers and average daily departures from January 1, 2021, to December 31, 2035 which would result in a greater number of automobiles and buses providing access to JWA. The increased number of vehicles may result in traffic congestion and deterioration of level of service on the roadways and intersections surrounding JWA. The Settlement Agreement Draft EIR was not available at the time of preparation of the LUE Amendment Draft SEIR (it was released for public review on May 23, 2014). The Draft SEIR, therefore does not include a detailed analysis of the future plus project traffic impacts of the proposed project with the JWA Settlement Agreement, in part because it is not clear what project the County will approve related to the Settlement Agreement amendment. Because it could not be determined if significant impacts would occur and, if so, if mitigation measures would be feasible, impacts were concluded to be potentially significant and unavoidable. EIR Impact 5.11-5: Project -related trip generation would contribute trips to six existing and forecast deficient main line segments of the 1-405, SR -73, and SR -55 freeways and contribute to deficient ramp operations at two 1-405 off -ramps. Caltrans does not have an adopted fee program that can ensure that locally contributed impact fees will be tied to improvements, and such improvements would be out of the control of the City of Newport Beach. These freeway main line and ramp impacts would be a cumulatively considerable and significant. Alternatives In addition, the EIR evaluated the No Project alternative and one modified General Plan Amendment alternative (No Airport Area Alternative). The Supplemental EIR analyzed whether these alternatives could avoid or substantially lessen the unavoidable, significant environmental impacts of the proposed Project. While the No Project Alternative would lessen and avoid some of the unavoidable impacts of the proposed Project, it would not achieve most of the project objectives. The No Airport Area Alternative would reduce environmental impacts and would eliminate the significant impact at one 405 freeway ramp but would not eliminate any of the remaining significant, unavoidable impacts of the proposed Project. As stated in Section 6 of the Facts and Findings, the No Airport Alternative was determined to be feasible and preferable to the LUE Amendment as proposed. The No Airport Alternative was determined to be preferable to the proposed project for the following reasons: • This alternative would clearly be consistent with most of the 2006 General Plan's objectives. • It would reduce environmental impacts to every topical area including each of the significant, unavoidable impacts of the proposed project. • It would eliminate the significant impact at one 405 off ramp (at MacArthur Boulevard) 287 Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element Amendment Statement of Overriding Considerations • It would substantially reduce or eliminate impacts that are directly related to the proposed land use changes within the Airport Area, including: Cumulative impacts associated with the Airport Settlement Agreement (including the uncertainty related to changes in hazards and noise zones) o Land use compatibility with industrial uses in Airport Area (including health risk) o Cumulative traffic impacts (particularly those that are within the airport area) ALUC determination of project inconsistency with AELUP (ALUC concluded in their Draft SEIR comment letter that they preferred No Airport Area project alternative). Overriding Considerations The City, after balancing the specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits including region -wide or statewide environmental benefits, of the proposed Project, has determined that the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts identified above may be considered acceptable due to the following specific considerations which outweigh the unavoidable, adverse environmental impacts of the proposed Project, in accordance with CEQA Section 21081(b) and State CEQA Guideline Section 15093. The substantial evidence supporting the various benefits can be found in the preceding findings, which are incorporated by reference into this Section, and in the documents found in the Record of Proceedings. Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element Amendment Statement of Overriding Considerations Reduction in vehicle miles travelled and associated greenhouse gas emissions by designating compact, concentrated mixed-use development in Newport Center/Fashion Island and the Airport Area. 2. Increase in use of non -motorized transportation such as walking and biking by locating land uses such as housing, essential neighborhood -serving retail, and employment together to reduce distances between destinations and to facilitate use of public transportation. 3. Consistency with the following strategies outlined in the Orange County Council of Government's 2011 Sustainability Communities Strategy: - Support mixed-use development and thereby improve walkability of communities Improve jobs -to -housing ratio by increasing development potential for uses that would create additional full time jobs for local residents - Promote land use patterns that encourage the use of alternatives to single -occupant automobile use 4. Proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendment goals and associated policies that address citywide and neighborhood -specific sustainability and healthy communities' strategies. 5. Reflect changes in the economy and the market to benefit the overall financial health of the City. 6. Proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendment policies that address development agreements and corresponding public improvements and public benefits to be contributed by the developer. 9.21 290 Attachment No. CC 2 Draft Resolution — ALUC Overrule 291 292 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OVERRULING THE ORANGE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION THAT THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT PROJECT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE AIRPORT ENVIRONS LAND USE PLAN FOR THE JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT AND FINDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSES OF PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE SECTION 21670 (PA2011-134) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. On May 28, 2013, the Newport Beach City Council initiated an amendment to the 2006 General Plan Land Use Element to review its effectiveness in achieving the community's vision, and to update it to reflect legislative changes, emerging best practices, and changing economic markets. 2. The Land Use Element Amendment Advisory Committee (Committee), comprised of two council members, two planning commissioners, and five at -large members, was appointed by the Newport Beach City Council to receive public input, consider options, and develop the amendment to be evaluated in a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 3. The Land Use Element Amendment (Project) considered by the Committee and evaluated in the draft SEIR includes land use changes and policy revisions. 4. The State Aeronautics Act (SAA) and, specifically, Public Utilities Code Section 21676, subdivision b, requires the City of Newport Beach to refer the proposed amendment to the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for consistency with the 2008 John Wayne Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP). Public Utilities Code section 21674.7 also provides that an ALUC that formulates, adopts or amends a comprehensive airport land use plan shall be guided by information prepared and updated pursuant to Section 21674.5 and referred to as the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook ("Handbook") published by the Division of Aeronautics of the Department of Transportation. 5. At a duly -noticed public hearing on April 17, 2014, the ALUC found the proposed Project to be inconsistent with the AELUP. The ALUC determined that the residential uses proposed in the Airport Area (Area 4), and specifically the Saunders property located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Campus Drive and 293 Council Resolution No. Page 2 MacArthur Boulevard, were not appropriate in the Airport Area based on the following: a. Airport noise impacts; b. Significant overflight of General Aviation aircraft — the area is under the General Aviation flight path; and c. The location of one property (Saunders), a portion of which is within two safety zones, including Safety Zone 3 which, in the AELUP and California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (Handbook) (2011), limits residential uses to very low density and, in the 2011 Handbook, to allow infill in urban areas at up to the average of the surrounding residential area. (See 2011 Handbook, p. 4-22, Note B) 6. Pursuant to Public Utilities Code Sections 21670 and 21676, the City of Newport Beach may, after a public hearing, propose to overrule the ALUC's incompatibility determination with a two-thirds vote of the City Council, if the Council makes specific findings that the proposed Project is consistent with the purposes of Public Utilities Code Section 21670, which are to protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports, to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses.. 7. A public hearing was held on May 13, 2014 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the City Council at this meeting. 8. On May 13, 2014, following a duly -noticed public hearing, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach adopted Resolution No. 2014-40 and notified the ALUC and the State Division of Aeronautics of the City Council's intent to overrule the ALUC's determination of inconsistency for the General Plan Land Use Element Amendment. 9. Pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21676(b), the City provided notice of a public hearing on the City Council's intent to overrule the ALUC determination to be held on July 8, 2014, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place, and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the City Council at the public hearing. 10. In correspondence dated June 11, 2014, ALUC Chairman Gerald Bresnahan submitted comments in response to receiving notice of the City Council's intent to overrule ALUC's inconsistency determination. 294 Council Resolution No. Page 3 11. Correspondence from the Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics (Division), in response to the City Council's intent to overrule was not received. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. 1. The General Plan Land Use Element Amendment Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No. ER2014-002 (SCH No. 2013101064) was prepared for the Project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K-3. By Resolution No. 2014-_„ the City Council, having final approval authority over the Project, adopted and certified as complete and adequate the General Plan Land Use Element Amendment Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2013101064), and adopted Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the General Plan Land Use Element Amendment Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. Resolution No. 2014-_ is hereby incorporated by reference. SECTION 3. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: The City Council of the City of Newport Beach does hereby resolve as follows: The City Council has considered the comments received from the Airport Land Use Commission in their entirety prior to rendering a final decision to overrule the ALUC determination. 2. The City Council does hereby overrule the ALUC determination that the proposed Project is inconsistent with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport, finds the Project is consistent with the purposes of Public Utilities Code 21670, and adopts the required findings in support of the City's overrule of the ALUC determination, as shown in Exhibit "A", and incorporated herein by this reference. 3. This resolution was approved, passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, held on the 8th day of July, 2014, by the following vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT, COUNCIL MEMBERS 295 Council Resolution No. Page 4 MAYOR ATTEST: Leilani Brown, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM, OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY: Aaron Harp, City Attorney for the City of Newport Beach 296 Council Resolution No. Page 5 */ Owl 1-1111iiLVi FINDINGS OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH IN SUPPORT OF THE CITY'S DECISION TO OVERRULE THE AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION DETERMINATION THAT THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE AIRPORT ENVIRONS LAND USE PLAN FOR THE JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT Public Utilities Code Section 21676(b) provides that the City of Newport Beach may overrule the determination by the Airport Land Use Commission that the Project is inconsistent with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for the John Wayne Airport, by a two- thirds vote of the City Council, if it makes specific findings that the Project is consistent with the purposes of in Public Utilities Code Section 21670. The purposes of Public Utilities Code Section 21670 are included is subsection (a)(2), which reads as follows: It is the purpose of this article to protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses. Finding A The Project is consistent with the legislative purpose set forth in California Public Utilities Code Section 21670(a)(2) to protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports. Facts in Support To provide for the orderly development of John Wayne Airport (JWA) and the area surrounding the airport, the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) adopted the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for the John Wayne Airport, which was most recently amended on April 17, 2008. The AELUP guides development proposals to provide for orderly development of the airport and the area surrounding the airport through implementation of the standards for aircraft noise, safety compatibility zones, and building height restrictions in AELUP Section 2.1. The AELUP relies on a 2002 version of the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook which has since been updated (Oct. 2011). The purpose of the Handbook is to provide guidance for conducting airport land use compatibility planning as required by Public Utilities Code Sections 21670 - 21679.5. 297 Council Resolution No. Page 6 2. The ALUC staff report dated October 18, 2012, reflects that ALUC's staff reviewed the Project with respect to compliance with the AELUP, including review of appropriate noise standards, height restrictions, imaginary surfaces, safety zones, and environmental compliance, and recommended that ALUC find the Project consistent with the AELUP. 3. The Project is consistent with the noise, height and safety standards set forth in the AELUP, and therefore provides for the orderly development of the airport and the area surrounding the airport, based on the following: a. The residential and commercial land uses for the Project are consistent with the noise standards of the AELUP. AELUP Section 2.1.1 sets forth the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) standards. The Project includes land use changes, two of which are located in the 65 CNEL and/or 60 CNEL contours for JWA. AELUP Section 3.2.4 defines the noise exposure to be "Moderate Noise Impact" in the 60-65 dBA CNEL noise contour, which is Noise Impact Zone 2. The City's General Plan Land Use and Noise Elements require that residential development in the Airport Area be located outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour (Policies LU 6.15.3 and N 3.2). A portion of the Saunders property is located within the 65 CNEL, therefore future specific development projects would be limited to office or other non-residential uses on the affected portion of the property. The AELUP also identifies land uses that are "normally consistent" and "conditionally consistent" in each noise impact zone delineated by the CNEL noise contour. AELUP Section 3 Table 1 (Limitations on Land Use Due to Noise) identifies the 60 CNEL contour for residential and commercial uses as "normally consistent" requiring "no special noise reduction requirements." The Newport Beach General Plan Noise Element additionally requires residential developers to notify purchasers or tenants of aircraft overflight and noise. The Project does not amend the City's Noise Element. Future developments will be subject to further review which will include consideration of compliance with the applicable Noise Element policies. Compliance with these policies and regulations will ensure that future development within the JWA Airport Planning Area will follow the noise standards of the AELUP. The anticipated continuation of the JWA curfew pursuant to the proposed Settlement Agreement amendment e Council Resolution No. Page 7 would also continue to prevent sleep disturbance and noise levels to any future residents that may reside within the Airport Area. The ALUC comment letter dated June 10, 2014, indicates that ALUC "...has historically not looked favorably on residential uses so close to JWA and where properties are partially within the 65 CNEL...... The Saunders property is actually made of multiple properties. The portion of the area outside both Safety Zone 3 and the 65 CNEL contour is approximately 8.25 acres. As stated above, future projects will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable City, FAA and AELUP noise, height and safety standards. The ALUC comment letter dated June 11, 2014, does not change City Council's conclusion that the Project is consistent. b. The residential and commercial land uses for the Project are consistent with the safety standards of the AEL UP. AELUP Section 2.1.2 sets forth Safety Compatibility Zones to support the continued use and operation of an airport by establishing compatibility and safety standards to promote air safety and reduce potential safety hazards for persons living, working, or recreating near JWA. The land use changes proposed in the Airport Area (Area 4) fall within the Safety Zones for JWA. The Airport Area land use changes, with the exception of a portion of the Saunders property, are all within Safety Zone 6. Risk factors associated with Safety Zone 6 generally include a low likelihood of accident occurrence. Allowed uses in Safety Zone 6 include residential and most nonresidential uses, with the exception of outdoor stadiums and similar uses with very high intensities. (See also Handbook, p. 4-25.) Uses that should be limited include children's schools, large day-care centers, hospitals, and nursing homes. A portion of the Saunders property is in Safety Zone 3. Safety Zone 3 limits residential uses to very low density (if not deemed unacceptable because of noise), and advises to avoid nonresidential uses having moderate or higher usage intensities. The 2011 Handbook Compatibility Policies also contemplate infill projects in urban areas at up to the average number dwelling units in surrounding residential areas. (Handbook, p. 4-22, Note B.) General Plan Safety Element Policy S 8.6 demonstrates that the City acknowledges the importance of the JWA Safety Zones which reads as follows: "S 8.6 John Wayne Airport Traffic Pattern Zone 299 Council Resolution No. Page 8 Use the most currently available John Wayne Airport (JWA) Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) as a planning resource for evaluation of land use compatibility and land use intensity in areas affected by JWA operations. In particular, future land use decisions within the existing JWA Clear Zone/Runway Protection Zone (Figure S5) should be evaluated to minimize the risk to life and property associated with aircraft operations." Compliance with these policies and regulations will ensure that future development within the JWA Airport Planning Area will follow the safety standards of the AELUP. The ALUC comment letter dated June 10, 2014, suggests that the entire Saunders property is located within Safety Zone 3 or within the 65 CNEL contour. As stated above under Finding 3, the portion of the Saunders property located outside of Safety Zone 3 and the 65 CNEL Contour is approximately 8.25 acres. Additionally, all future specific development projects will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable City, FAA and AELUP, noise, safety and land use policies regulations and standards. The ALUC comment letter dated June 11, 2014, does not change City Council's conclusion that the Project is consistent with the AELUP. C. The residential and commercial land uses for the Project are consistent with the height standards of the AELUP. Some of the proposed land use changes fall within the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Notification Area and the Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 Obstruction Imaginary Surfaces for JWA. The Newport Beach General Plan does not specify height limits. Height limits would be established in zoning code and planned community amendments. However, General Plan Policy LU 6.15.3 states that all development shall be required to conform with the height restrictions set forth by the FAA and FAR. Therefore through the project review process, compliance with Policy LU 6.15.3 would be demonstrated. The ALUC comment letter dated June 11, 2014 expresses concern that residential development on the Saunders property may result in residential structures where height is a concern. Since the General Plan land use designations do not guarantee development rights, all proposed projects are subject to future review during zoning code amendments and other discretionary reviews. As indicated, all proposed development will be reviewed for compliance with applicable City, FAA and AELUP height standards, regulations and restrictions. Moreover, a state permit would be required for construction of buildings or objects that would affect the navigable airspace. These 300 Council Resolution No. Page 9 objects include: (1) any structure taller than 500 feet above ground level, unless the height of the structure is required to be approved by the Federal Communications Commission or the Federal Aviation Administration (Pub. Util. Code section 21656); and (2) any structure or object of natural growth which would exceed the height limits specified in FAR Part 77, Subpart C, unless the FAA has determined that the object's construction, alteration, or growth would not constitute a hazard to air navigation or otherwise create conditions unsafe for air navigation (Pub. Util Code sections 21658-21659). (Handbook, p. 5- 12.) The ALUC comment letter dated June 11, 2014, does not change City Council's conclusion that the Project is consistent with the AELUP. Finding B The Project is consistent with the legislative purpose set forth in California Public Utilities Code Section 21670(a)(2) to ensure the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses. Facts in Support To protect the public health, safety and welfare by ensuring orderly expansion of airports, the ALUC adopted the AELUP. The AELUP standards guide development proposals to provide for the orderly development of the airport and the area surrounding the airport through implementation of the standards and policies in AELUP Sections 2 and 3. As set forth above, the proposed land use changes are consistent with the AELUP noise, safety, and building height standards. 2. To protect the public health, safety and welfare the ALUC adopted the AELUP to outline land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent these are not already devoted to incompatible uses. The AELUP provides land use policies in Section 3 that govern noise, safety and height. As set forth above, the proposed land use changes are consistent with AELUP noise, safety, and building heights standards. 3. The Newport Beach General Plan Noise Element additionally specifies that residential development in the Airport Area must be outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour and requires residential developers to notify purchasers or tenants of aircraft overflight and noise. The proposed project is largely outside the 65 dBA, within which residential uses are prohibited under the General Plan.Prospective purchasers and tenants will also be notified. The proposed project is consistent with these policies, which are the same policies that ALUC deemed consistent with the AELUP on July 20, 2006. 301 Council Resolution No. Page 10 4. The ALUC comment letter dated June 11, 2014 suggests that placing residential uses (Saunders property) in close proximity to JWA and in an area where general aviation traffic is operating in very close proximity as "poor land use planning." The general plan allocates a potential development capacity and does not on its own, grant land uses entitlements. Any future specific proposed development projects require submittal of detailed development plans and is reviewed for compliance with all applicable City, FAA and AELUP standards, regulations and restrictions. Additionally, proposed projects will be individually evaluated in accordance with CEQA requirements. The ALUC comment letter dated June 11, 2014, does not change City Council's conclusion that the Project is consistent with the AELUP. Finding C The City Council finds the ALUC's determination that the Project is inconsistent with the AELUP is not based on substantial evidence that was introduced, commented on, or identified in support of the inconsistency finding. Facts in Support 1. The 2006 General Plan includes the goal of establishing the Airport Area as a mixed-use community that provides jobs, residential, and supporting services in close proximity, with pedestrian -oriented amenities that facilitate walking and enhance livability. The proposed land use changes serve to further implement the goals of the 2006 General Plan. Furthermore, the General Plan includes polices requiring consistency with AELUP safety, height and noise standards. The ALUC comment letter dated June 11, 2014 suggests that the proposed amendment to allow residential/mixed-use development on the Saunders property does not meet the goals and objectives of the General Plan. Since a portion of the Saunders property (approximately 8.25 acres) is outside both Safety Zone 3 and the 65 CNEL contour, the amendment would condition development of the site subject to future detailed review and approval by the City for compliance with all applicable development standards and with General Plan goals and policies, including the 65 CNEL limit. 302 Attachment No. CC 3 Draft Resolution — General Plan Land Use Element Amendment Exhibit A Amended Land Use Element (Text, Policies, Glossary and Implementation Plan Exhibit B Amended Anomaly Table (Table LU2) and Affected Attachment Name 303 304 RESOLUTION NO. XX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GP2013-001 TO AMEND THE LAND USE ELEMENT AND GLOSSARY AND IMPLMENTATION PLAN OF THE GENERAL PLAN(PA2013-098) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: 0:101111111610 MERIr-A Arawla►rIto] 01U16r,0l 1. On May 28, 2013, the Newport Beach City Council initiated an amendment to the 2006 General Plan Land Use Element to review its effectiveness in achieving the community's vision, and to update it to reflect legislative changes, emerging best practices, and changing economic markets (Amendment). 2. On May 28, 2013, the Land Use Element Amendment Advisory Committee (Committee), comprised of two council members, two planning commissioners, and five at -large members, was appointed by the Newport Beach City Council to receive public input, consider options, and develop the amendment in order for the Amendment to be reviewed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. (CEQA). 3. The Amendment (Project) considered by the Committee and evaluated in the draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) includes land use changes, policy revisions and related changes to the glossary and Implementation Plan. 4. Pursuant to Section 65352.3 of the California Government Code, the appropriate tribe contacts identified by the Native American Heritage Commission were provided notice of the proposed General Plan Amendment on December 5, 2013. The California Government Code requires 90 days to allow tribe contacts to respond to the request to consult unless the tribe contacts mutually agree to a shorter time period. No requests were received within the 90 days. However, Mr. Andy Salas submitted comments in regards to the draft SEIR and identified his concerns and requests regarding monitoring during ground disturbing activities. No additional requests for consultation were received. 5. City Council Policy A-18 requires that proposed Amendment be reviewed to determine if a vote of the electorate would be required. If a project (separately or cumulatively with other projects over a 10 -year span) exceeds any one of the following thresholds, a vote of the electorate is required: if the project generates more than 100 peak hour trips (AM or PM); adds 40,000 square feet of non-residential floor area; or, adds more than 100 dwelling units in a statistical area. The proposed land use changes, which are detailed in Exhibit B (Anomaly table and maps) and Exhibit C (Charter Section 423 Analysis), exceed the thresholds that require a vote pursuant to Charter Section 423. The subject Amendment, in its entirety, shall go into effect only if the electorate approves the related land use changes. 305 City Council Resolution No. XX 6. A public hearing was held on June 5, 2014, in the City Hall Council Chambers, at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of the time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was provided in accordance with CEQA and the Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC"). The draft SEIR, draft Responses to Comments, draft Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program, staff report, and evidence, both written and oral, were presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the scheduled hearing. 7. On June 5, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1946 by a vote of 4-0 (1 recusal, 2 absences) recommending certification of the General Plan Land Use Element Amendment Final SEIR (SCH No 2013101064) and approval of the Land Use Element Amendment Project, as amended, to the City Council. 8. The City Council held a public hearing July, 8, 2014, in the City Hall Council Chambers, at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of the time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was provided in accordance with CEQA and the NBMC. The environmental documents for the Project comprising the SEIR, Responses to Comments, Revisions to Draft SEIR, Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program, Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, staff report, and evidence, both written and oral, were presented to and considered by the City Council at the scheduled hearing, 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. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. 1. The General Plan Land Use Element Amendment Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No. ER2014-002 (SCH No. 2013101064) was prepared for the Project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K-3. By Resolution No. 2014-_, the City Council, having final approval authority over the Project, adopted and certified as complete and adequate the General Plan Land Use Element Amendment Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2013101064), and adopted "Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the General Plan Land Use Element Amendment Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. Resolution No. 2014-_ is hereby incorporated by reference. SECTION 3. FINDINGS. 1. Amendments to the General Plan are legislative acts. Neither the City nor State Planning Law set forth any required findings for either approval or denial of such amendments. 2. In adopting the Amendments to the 2006 General Plan, the City Council hereby finds, determines and declares that every reasonable effort has been made to incorporate 306 City Council Resolution No. XX and consider the potential effects of the Land Use Element Amendments on climate change and sustainability into the amended General Plan. This includes the incorporation of specific provisions, goals, objectives and policies. 3. The City Council finds and declares that it has eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects of the Amendments on the environment where feasible as explained in the CEQA Findings of Facts Regarding the Final SEIR, and determined that any remaining significant effects on the environment found to be unavoidable are acceptable due to overriding concerns as described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. 4. The City Council finds and declares that through its efforts to promote walkability and embrace sustainable technologies, the Amendments are consistent with the Orange County Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) and Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). 5. 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 Land Use Element amendments 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. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves General Plan Amendment No. GP2013-001 which consists of: a. Land Use Element and General Plan amendments, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. b. Land use and map revisions, attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference. 2. Should the Land Use Element Amendment be approaved by the electorate, the City Council herby directs the Community Development Department to prepare applicable zoning code and map amendments, and amendments to the City's Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP). 3. This resolution was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, held on the 8th day of July, 2014, by the following vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCILMEMBERS NOES, COUNCILMEMBERS 307 City Council Resolution No. XX ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS Rush N. Hill, II, Mayor ATTEST: Leilani I. Brown, MMC, City Clerk M. City Council Resolution No. XX 1*:/:11-311x_1 AMENDED LAND USE ELEMENT/GENERAL PLAN The amendments to the Land Use Element (narratives, goals, policies, glossary and implementation plan) are shown as strike -outs (deletions) and underlined (inserts). 309 310 312 Land Use Element LAND USE Primarily a Residential Community That Businesses, and Visitors, with -e Introduction Consistent with state law, the Land Use Element provides guidance regarding the ultimate pattern of development for Newport Beach at build -out. As such, it is based on and correlates the policies from all elements into a set of coherent development policies, which serve as the central organizing element Newport Beach Pier in the 1920s Pier in 1921 Newport Beach General Plan 313 Land Use Element for the General Plan as a whole. Policies for the conservation of natural resources and protection of residents and businesses from the risks of hazards are reflected in the distribution and densities of uses. The quantity and location of uses are linked to the City's objectives for economic development, jobs generation, and fiscal balance, as well as intentions for urban form and community character. Their capacities are, in turn, correlated with the provision of adequate housing and services to meet the needs of its resident population and transportation, parking, and utility infrastructure that support residents, employees, and visitors. Implicitly, the Land Use Element serves as the final arbiter on how the City of Newport Beach shall evolve and mature over the next 20 years. Its policies are directly correlated and supported by those in all other General Plan elements. Cumulatively, the Land Use Element's policies directly affect the establishment and maintenance of the neighborhoods, districts, corridors, and open spaces that distinguish and contribute to Newport Beach's livability, vitality, and image. Policies for the development of individual parcels are inseparable from those that address how they will fit together to create places that are valued by the City's MOM% 1116111 Balances the Needs of Residents, residents—safe and attractive neighborhoods, walkable and active commercial districts, and hillsides, beaches, water, and open spaces that provide recreation and respite from an active lifestyle. As Newport Beach is almost fully developed, the Land Use Element focuses on how population and employment growth can be accommodated and still preserve its distinguishing and valued qualities. It recognizes that most of the City will be conserved with its existing pattern of uses and establishes policies for their protection and long term maintenance. It recognizes that there are limited areas of the City that are not achieving their full potential and establishes strategies for their enhancement and revitalization. It also recognizes the evolving needs of the marketplace and considerable pressures for population growth in the region and proposes creative strategies for the re -use of land to provide Newport Beach in the twenty-first century Newport Beach General Plan 314 Land Use Element opportunities for new housing that will complement and enhance Newport Beach's character and livability. These strategies are carefully considered in context of community objectives for the provision of an efficient transportation system that minimizes congestion for residents, employees, and visitors. At the same time, it recognizes the needs to balance mobility objectives with priorities of Newport Beach's residents for the character of its neighborhoods and commercial districts and corridors. Our Starting Point—Newport Beach's Existing Land Uses Newport Beach has a unique physical setting with many visual, recreational, and environmental resources that has influenced the type and form of land uses within the community. The majority of the community is fully developed with a diverse mixture of residential, institutional, commercial, industrial, and recreational and open space uses. Residential uses represent the largest portion of land uses within the City, characterized by many distinct neighborhoods. Older communities were first developed along the coast line including the Peninsula, West Newport, Balboa Island, and Lido Isle. This early housing is characterized by a diversity of multi -family, single-family and mixed-use housing located within proximity of commercial and visitors serving uses. As development spread further inland and proceeded north and east, the residential pattern changed, becoming more suburban in character and characterized by single-family ranch -style homes on larger lots. While single-family attached and detached homes comprise the majority of housing in the community, the City contains many multi -family homes including condominiums, apartments, duplex, triplex, and fourplex units. These are located in older neighborhoods near the beaches including West Newport, Balboa Peninsula, Balboa Island, and Corona del Mar as well as in the northern portions of the community such as Bonita Canyon Village, and Newport Center. Mobile homes are found along Coast Highway in West Newport, west of Newport Dunes and near the Newport Pier. A variety of retail uses are located throughout Newport Beach including neighborhood shopping centers, commercial strips and villages, and shopping centers. The largest retail center in the City is Fashion Island, a regional attraction that is framed by a mixture of office, entertainment, and residential uses. Newport Beach also has many neighborhood shopping centers that service nearby residential neighborhoods with convenience goods. Many of the older commercial villages located along the coast and harbor include specialty shops, entertainment, and marine uses that serve nearby residents and visitors. These retail villages are located within Balboa Island, Balboa Village, Cannery Village, McFadden Square, and Corona del Mar. Much of the City's office space is located in Newport Center and the Airport Area. Newport Center is an area of both high- and low-rise offices surrounding the Fashion Island retail area. The Airport Area encompasses the properties abutting and east of John Wayne Airport QWA) and is in close proximity to the Irvine Business Complex and University of California, Irvine. This area includes a mixture of low-, medium-, and high-rise office uses as well as research and development and high technology businesses. Industrial uses are primarily located within the West Newport Mesa area east of Banning Ranch. A variety of industrial, manufacturing, and supporting retail uses are located within this area. Research and development uses are clustered in the Airport Area. Government, educational and institutional uses include the City Hall, schools, libraries, museums, and religious uses. IffNewport Beach General Plan 315 Land Use Element The City has approximately 2 X450 acres of developed parks. Newport Beach's parklands range in size from mini -parks such as the Lower Bay Park to the 39 -acre Bonita Canyon Sports Park. Additionally, bikeways, jogging trails, pedestrian trails, recreation trails, and regional equestrian trails are also available in Newport Beach. Numerous open space areas are located within the community, including water front areas such as beaches, Newport Bay, and Newport Harbor. There are also numerous undeveloped areas supporting natural habitats and sensitive biological resources including Banning Ranch, Irvine Coast Marine Life Refuge, Coyote Canyon, Bonita Canyon Creek Watershed, Upper Newport Bay State Marine Park (formally Ecological Reserve) and Upper Newport Bay Nature Preserve. Other resources include the-C-ity's-many undeveloped canyons and hillsides located primarily in the Newport Coast area. Goals and Policies LU 1 A unique,12rimarily residential community with diverse coastal and upland neighborhoods, which values its colorful past, high quality of life, and community bonds, and balances the needs of residents, businesses, and visitors, �- Policy LU 1.1 Unique Environment Maintain and enhance the beneficial and unique character of the different neighborhoods, business districts, and harbor that together identify Newport Beach. Locate and design development to reflect Newport Beach's topography, architectural diversity, and view sheds. (Imp 1.1. 50.31 LU 1.2 Citywide Identity While recognizing the qualities that uniquely define its neighborhoods and districts, promote the identity of the entire City that differentiates it as a special place within the Southern California region. (Imp 1.1) LU 1.3 Natural Resources Protect the natural setting that contributes to the character and identi€}-ident of Newport Beach and the sense of place it provides for its residents and visitors. Preserve open space resources, beaches, harbor, bavs. channels. parks, hkrf€s preserves, and estuaries as visual, recreational and habitat resources and promote preservation of coastal bluffs. (Imp 1.1 29.3) Newport Beach General Plan = 316 Land Use Element LU 1.4 Growth Management Implement a eonse tvrgtowth strategy that enhances the quality of life of residents and balances the needs of all constituencies with the preservation of open space and natural resources. (Imp 1. 1, 10.2) LU 1.5 Economic Health Encourage a local economy that provides adequate commercial, office, industrial, and marine -oriented opportunities that provide employment and revenue to support high-quality community services. (Imp 1. 1, 24.1) LU 1.6 Environmental Health Promote sustainable land use and development practices that minimize the use of non-renewable resources and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Qmp 2.1. 32.1. 33.1) LU 1.7 Healthy Population Promote land use and development practices that contribute to the health and wellness of Newport Beach's residents. affo 2.1. 16.1) LU 441.8 Public Views Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points. (Imp 1.1) LU 1.9 Compatible Land Uses Require that the scale and massing of new development provide appropriate transitions in building location, height, and bulk at their edges that are sensitive to the physical and visual character of adjoining neighborhoods and districts that have lower development intensities and building heights. � 2.1) LU 2 A living, active, and diverse environment that complements all lifestyles and enhances neighborhoods, without compromising the valued resources that make Newport Beach unique. It contains a diversity of uses that support the needs of residents, sustain and enhance the economy, provide job opportunities, serve visitors that enjoy the City's diverse recreational amenities, promote public health, and protect its important environmental setting, resources, and quality of life. LU 2.1 Resident -Serving Land Uses Accommodate uses that support the needs of Newport Beach's residents including housing, retail, services, employment, recreation, education, culture, rNewport Beach General Plan 317 Land Use Element entertainment, medical and health facilities, civic engagement, and social and spiritual activity that are in balance with community natural resources and open spaces. (Imp 1. 1, 2J. 29.3) LU 2.2 Economically Sustainable and Complete Community Emphasize the development of uses that enable Newport Beach to continue as an economically self-sustaining community and minimize the need for residents to travel outside of the community for retail, goods and services, and employment. (Imp 1. 1, 24.1) LU 2.3 Range of Residential Choices Provide opportunities for the development of residential units that respond to community and regional needs in terms of density, size, location, and cost. Implement goals, policies, programs, and objectives identified within the City's Housing Element. (Imp 1. 1, 8.1, 25.1) Bonita Canyon, Balboa Island, Cannery Village, and Newport Center residential neighborhoods LU 2.4 Recreational Centers Maintain and enhance a network of recreational facilities and programs to serve all chases of life. nmp 23.2.29.3) LU 2:42_5 Economic Development Accommodate uses that maintain or enhance Newport Beach's fiscal health and account for market demands, while maintaining and improving the quality of life for current and future residents. (Imp 1. 1, 24.1) Newport Beach General Plan 318 Land Use Element Fashion Island Neighborhood Commercial Balboa Village Koll Center LU 242_6 Harbor and Waterfront Uses Preserve the uses of the Harbor and the waterfront that contribute to the charm and character of Newport Beach and provide needed support for recreational and commercial boaters, visitors, and residents, with appropriate regulations necessary to protect the interests of all users as well as adjoining residents. (Imp 1.1, 2.5, 5.1, 2J_21.4, 24.1) LU 242_7 Visitor Serving Uses Provide uses that serve visitors to Newport Beach's ocean, harbor, open spaces, and other recreational assets, while integrating them te-protecting the quality of life for neighborhoods and residents. (Imp 1. 1, 2.1, 5.1, 24.1) LU 2.8 Locally -Grown Food Promote the production and distribution of locally grown food by allowing farmers markets, food cooperatives, and neighborhood or community gardens. amp. 8.1 LU 242.9 Oil and Gas Facilities Prohibit the construction of new onshore oil processing, refining, or transportation facilities, including facilities designed to transport oil from offshore tracts, with the exceptions of slant drilling from onshore oil fields or for the consolidation and more efficient production of wells should Banning Ranch be annexed to the City. (Imp 2.1, 5.1) Newport Beach General Plan 319 Land Use Element LU 242.10 Adequate Infrastructure Accommodate the types, densities, and mix of land uses that can be adequately supported by transportation and utility infrastructure (water, sewer, storm drainage, energy, technology cabling and so on) and public services (schools, parks, libraries, seniors, youth, police, fire, and so on). (Imp 1. 1, 10.2, 11.1 19.1 22.1 LU 3 A development pattern that retains and complements the City's residential neighborhoods, commercial and industrial districts, open spaces, and natural environment. POROWs: LU 3.1 Neighborhoods, Districts, Corridors, and Open Spaces Substantially Almaintain Newport Beach's pattern of residential neighborhoods, business and employment districts, commercial centers, corridors, and harbor and ocean districts. (Imp 1.1) LU 3.2 Community Connectivity Promote improved connectivity between Newport Beach's key districts through well -landscaped and safe pedestrian corridors, bicycle trails, wayfmding sign_aee, and similar elements. amp 16.11, 20.1) LU 323_3 Growth and Change Enhance existing neighborhoods, districts, and corridors, allowing for re -use and infill with uses that are complementary in type, form, scale, and character. Changes in use and/or density/intensity should be considered to accommodate Newport Beach's share of projected regional population growth, improve the relationship and reduce commuting distance between home and jobs, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption on an overall citywide basis, facilitate walking, bicycling, and transit use, provide places for people to congregate and interact socially. or enhance the values that distinguish Newport Beach as a special place to live and work for its residents. The scale of growth and new development shall be coordinated with the provision of adequate infrastructure and public services, including standards for acceptable traffic level of service. (Imp 1.1, 2.1, 5.1, 10.2, 16.2, 16.3, 17.1, 18.1, 19.1, 22.1, 23.1, 23.2) LU 333_4 Opportunities for Change Provide opportunities for improved development and enhanced environments for residents in the following districts and corridors, as specified in Polices 6.3.1 through 6.22.7: Newport Beach General Plan M 320 Land Use Element ■ West Newport: consolidation of retail and visitor -serving commercial uses, with remaining commercial areas developed for residential units. ■ West Newport Mesa: re -use of underperforming or underutilized commercial and industrial properties for offices and other uses that support Hoag Hospital's medical activities, improvement of remaining industrial properties adjoining the City of Costa Mesa, accommodation of non -water dependent marine -related industries, and development of residential in proximity to jobs and services. ■ Santa Ana Heights: use of properties consistent with the adopted Specific Plan. ■ John Wayne Airport Area: re -use of underperforming or underutilized commercial industrial and office properties and development of an urban mixed-use district with resident -serving uses enabling employees to live n proximity to jobs and services. ■ Fashion Island/Newport Center: expanded retail and office uses and hotel rooms and development of residential in proximity to jobs and services. While ■ Balboa Peninsula: more efficient patterns of use that consolidate the Peninsula's visitor -serving and mixed uses within the core commercial districts; encourage marine -related uses especially in commercial areas along the bay front; integrate residential with retail and visitor -serving uses in Lido Village, McFadden Square, Balboa Village, and along portions of the Harbor frontage; re -use interior parcels in Cannery Village for residential and limited mixed-use and live/work buildingsand tedevelap underperforming , . Infill development shall be designed and sited to preserve the w: `_-,..-' snd _4ite....-_-' c Lri_character of these districts. ■ Mariners' Mile: re -use of underperforming or underutilized properties for retail, visitor -serving, and marine -related uses, integrated with residential and expand public and private parking ■ Corona del Mar: enhancement of public improvements and eland public and private parking, ([mp 1. 1, 2.1, 5.1 16.10) LU 343_5 Banning Ranch Prioritize the acquisition of Banning Ranch as an open space amenity for the community and region, consolidating oil operations, enhancing wetland and other habitats, and providing parkland amenities to serve nearby neighborhoods. If the property cannot be acquired within a time period and pursuant to terms agreed to by the City and property owner, allow for the development of a compact residential village that preserves the majority of the site as open space and restores critical habitat in accordance with Policies 6-.34.7.2.1 through ' 7.4.6. (Imp 1. 1, 2.1, 5.1, 14.7, 14.11) LU 343_6 Coastal -Dependent and Related Businesses Design and site new development to avoid impacts to existing coastal -dependent and coastal -related developments. When reviewing proposals for land use changes, give full consideration to the impact on coastal -dependent and coastal - Newport Beach General Plan 321 Land Use Element related land uses, including not only the proposed change on the subject property, but also the potential to limit existing coastal -dependent and coastal -related land uses on adjacent properties. (Imp 2.1, 5.1, 7.1) LU 343_7 Waterfront Access Use public beaches for public recreational uses and prohibit uses on beaches that interfere with public access and enjoyment of coastal resources. Encourage the expansion and improvement of access to the waterfront and water -related uses that provide important links to waterfront uses such as beaches, launching facilities, public docks, and other similar public water area uses. (Imp 1. 1, 5.1. 20.2) LU 3.73_8 Natural Resource or Hazardous Areas Require that new development is located and designed to protect areas with high natural resource value and protect residents and visitors from hazards that pose a threats to life or property. (Imp 2.1, 6.1) LU 33_9 Project Entitlement Review with Airport Land Use Commission Refer the adoption or amendment of the General Plan, Zoning Code, specific plans, and Planned Community development plans for land within the John Wayne Airport planning area, as established in the JWA Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP), to the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) €6 f Orange County for review, as required by Section 21676 of the California Public Utilities Code. In addition, refer all development projects that include buildings with a height greater than 200 feet above ground level to the ALUC for review. (Imp 14.3) Sustainable Development LU 4 Land use development practices that contribute to a sustained natural environment for use by future generations, economy. and well-being of Newport Beach's residents, while reducing�oreenhouse gas emissions and impacts on climate change. P011ON! LU 4.1 Regulating Sustainable Development Promote and, where appropriate, require new development and reconstruction to comply with sustainable building_ practices incorporating a "whole system" approach to designing and constructing buildings that consume comparatively less energy, water, and other resources, facilitate natural ventilation, use daylight effectively, and are healthy, safe, comfortable, and durable. apm 1.1, 32.1, 33.1, 34.1) LU 4.2 Existing Structure Reuse Encourage the retention, adaptive reuse, and renovation of existing buildings with "green" building technologies to retain the structure's embodied energy, increase energy efficiency, and limit the generation of construction waste. Jmp 7.1) Newport Beach General Plan 322 Land Use Element LU 4.3 Sustainable Sites and Land Development Promote land development practices that reduce energy and water consumption, pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and waste generation incorporating such techniques as: ■ Concentrating and designing development to promote walking, bicycling, and use of public transit as an alternative to automobile travel: Capturing and re -using stormwater runoff on-site for irrigation and/or groundwater percolation: Managing_ wastewater and using recycled water, including encouraging the use of prey water: • Orienting buildings to maximize opportunities for solar energy use, dalrhting, and ventilation: Using landscapes that conserve water and reduce ,green waste: • Shading of surface parking, walkways, and plazas: and/or Recycling and/or salvagmg for reuse of construction and demolition debris. am b 2.1. 7.1. 8.2� LU 4.4 Revitalization of Obsolete and Underused Properties Encourage the consolidation of small commercial, industrial, and mixed-use parcels to facilitate revitalization and redevelopment. &� 2.1. 24.1) LU 4.5 Heat Island Effect Reduce the "heat island effect" by promoting such features as reflective roofing, green roofs, fight -colored paving. and reducing the unshaded extent of parking lots with a tree canopy. am b 7.1, 32.1, 33.1, 34.1) LU 4.6 Orange County Sustainable Communities Strategy Implement practices for infill and mixed use development, affordable housing, and density to achieve obiectives for a reduction of vehicle trips and commute distances, air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption and improvement of public health consistent with applicable policies of the Orange Counh, Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS). am S. 1, 32.1, 33.1, 34.1J Newport Beach General Plan 323 Land Use Element LU 45 Management of growth and change to protect and enhance the livability of neighborhoods and achieve distinct and economically vital business and employment districts, which are correlated with supporting infrastructure and public services and sustain Newport Beach's natural setting. LU 445_1 Land Use Diagram Accommodate land use development consistent with the Land Use Plan. Figure LU1 depicts the general distribution of uses throughout the City and Figure LU2 through Figure LU15 depict specific use categories for each parcel within defined Statistical Areas. Table LU1 (Land Use Plan Categories) specifies the primary land use categories, types of uses, and, for certain categories, the densities/intensities to be permitted. The permitted densities/intensities or amount of development for land use categories for which this is not included in Table LU1, are specified on the Land Use Plan, Figure LU4 through Figure LU15. These are intended to convey magnum and, in some cases, minimums that may be permitted on any parcel within the designation or as otherwise specified by Table LU2 (Anomaly Locations). The density/intensity ranges are calculated based on actual land area, actual number of dwelling units in fully developed residential areas, and development potential in areas where the General Plan allows additional development. To determine the permissible development, the user should: a. Identify the parcel and the applicable land use designation on the Land Use Plan, Figure LU4 through Figure LU15 b. Refer to Figure LU4 through Figure LU15 and Table LUl to identify the permitted uses and permitted density or intensity or amount of development for the land use classification. Where densities/intensities are applicable, the maximum amount of development shall be determined by multiplying the area of the parcel by the density/intensity. c. For anomalies identified on the Land Use Map by a symbol, refer to Table LU2 to determine the precise development limits. d. For residential development in the Airport Area., refer to the policies prescribed by the Land Use Element that define how development may occur. (Imp 2.1, 5.1, 10.2) Newport Beach General Plan 324 Land Use Element VISITOR SERVING The CV designation is intended to provide for Floor area to land area ratio or COMMERCIAL—CV accommodations, goods, and services intended to cumulative development primarily serve visitors to the City of Newport Beach. indicated on Land Use Plan. 01 Newport Beach General Plan 325 Land Use Category Uses Density/ Intensity RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS SINGLE UNIT RESIDENTIAL Single Unit Residential The RS -D category applies to a range of detached single- Not applicable Detached—RS-D family residential dwelling units on a single legal lot and does not include condominiums or cooperative housing. Single Unit Residential The RS -A category applies to a range of attached single- Not applicable Attached—RS-A family residential dwelling units on a single legal lot and does not include condominiums or cooperative housing. TWO UNIT The RT category applies to a range of two family Not applicable RESIDENTIAL—RT residential dwelling units such as duplexes and townhomes. MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL Multiple Residential—RM The RM designation is intended to provide primarily for Units per acre or cumulative multi -family residential development containing attached amount of development as or detached dwelling units. specified on the Land Use Figures Multiple Residential The RM -D designation is intended to provide primarily for Units per acre or cumulative Detached—RM-D multi -family residential development exclusively containing amount of development as detached dwelling units. specified on the Land Use Figures COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS AND CORRIDORS NEIGHBORHOOD The CN designation is intended to provide for a limited Floor area to land area ratio or COMMERCIAL—CN range of retail and service uses developed in one or more cumulative development distinct centers oriented to primarily serve the needs of indicated on Land Use Plan. and maintain compatibility with residential uses in the immediate area. CORRIDOR The CC designation is intended to provide a range of Floor to land area ratio or COMMERCIAL—CC neighborhood -serving retail and service uses along street cumulative development frontages that are located and designed to foster indicated on Land Use Plan. pedestrian activity. GENERAL COMMERCIAL— The CG designation is intended to provide for a wide Floor area to land area ratio or CG variety of commercial activities oriented primarily to serve cumulative development citywide or regional needs. indicated on Land Use Plan. RECREATIONAL AND The CM designation is intended to provide for commercial Floor area to land area ratio or MARINE COMMERCIAL— development on or near the bay in a manner that will cumulative development CM encourage the continuation of coastal -dependent and indicated on Land Use Plan. coastal -related uses, maintain the marine theme and character, encourage mutually supportive businesses, encourage visitor -serving and recreational uses, and encourage physical and visual access to the bay on waterfront commercial and industrial building sites on or near the bay. VISITOR SERVING The CV designation is intended to provide for Floor area to land area ratio or COMMERCIAL—CV accommodations, goods, and services intended to cumulative development primarily serve visitors to the City of Newport Beach. indicated on Land Use Plan. 01 Newport Beach General Plan 325 Newport Beach General Plan M 326 Land Use Element Table LU I Land Use Plan Categories Land Use Category Uses Density/ Intensity REGIONAL The CR designation is intended to provide retail, As specified by Table LU2 COMMERCIAL—CR entertainment, service, and supporting uses that serve local and regional residents. Typically, these are integrated into a multi -tenant development that contains one or more 'anchor uses to attract customers. Automobile sales, repair, and service facilities, professional offices, single -destination, and other highway -oriented uses are not permitted. COMMERCIAL OFFICE DISTRICTS GENERAL COMMERCIAL The CO -G designation is intended to provide for Floor area to land area ratio or OFFICE—CO-G administrative, professional, and medical offices with cumulative development limited accessory retail and service uses. Hotels, motels, indicated on Land Use Plan. and convalescent hospitals are not permitted. MEDICAL COMMERCIAL The CO -M designation is intended to provide primarily for Floor area to land area ratio of OFFICE—CO-M medical -related offices, other professional offices, retail, 0.75, except as specified on the short-term convalescent and long-term care facilities, Land Use Plan. research labs, and similar uses. REGIONAL COMMERCIAL The CO -R designation is intended to provide for As specified by Table LU2 OFFICE—CO-R administrative and professional offices that serve local and regional markets, with limited accessory retail, financial, service, and entertainment uses. INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS GENERAL INDUSTRIAL—IG The IG designation is intended to provide for a wide range Floor area to land area ratio of of moderate to low intensity industrial uses, such as light 0.75, except as specified on the manufacturing and research and development, and limited Land Use Plan. ancillary commercial and office uses. AIRPORT SUPPORTING DISTRICTS AIRPORT OFFICE AND The AO designation is intended to provide for the Floor area to land area ratio of SUPPORTING USES—AO development of properties adjoining the John Wayne 0.5, except for warehousing Airport for uses that support or benefit from airport which may be developed at a operations. These may include professional offices, floor area to land ratio of 0.75. aviation retail, automobile rental, sales, and service, hotels, and ancillary retail, restaurant, and service uses. MIXED-USE DISTRICTS MIXED USE VERTICAL— The MU -V designation is intended to provide for the Mixed -Use buildings: floor area MU -V development of properties for mixed-use structures that to land ratio of 1.5; where a vertically integrate housing with retail uses including minimum floor area to land ratio retail, office, restaurant, and similar nonresidential uses. of 0.35 and maximum of 0.5 For mixed-use structures, commercial uses characterized shall be used for nonresidential by noise, vibration, odors, or other activities that would purposes and a maximum of 1.0 adversely impact on-site residential units are prohibited. for residential. Sites may also be developed exclusively for retail or office Nonresidential buildings: floor uses in accordance with the CN, CC, CG, or CO -G area to land area ratio of 0.75. designations. Newport Beach General Plan M 326 Land Use Element Mixed -Use Horizontal 2— The MU -H2 designation applies to properties located in Residential: maximum of 2,200 Land Use Category Uses Density/ Intensity MIXED-USE HORIZONTAL— The MU -H designation is intended to provide for the development of areas for a horizontally MU -H distributed mix of uses, which may include general or neighborhood commercial, commercial family residential, vertical mixed-use buildings, industrial, offices, multi -family residential, visitor -serving and marine -related uses, and/or buildings that vertically integrate residential with commercial uses. units per adjusted gross acre, of Mixed -Use Horizontal 1— The MU -Ht designation provides for a horizontal Commercial or Office only: MU -H1 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. Mixed -Use Horizontal 3— Highway frontages shall be developed for marine -related Mixed -Use Buildings: floor area MU -H3 and highway -oriented general commercial uses in to land ratio of 1.5; where a accordance with CM and CG designations; and minimum floor area to land ratio (b) portions of properties to the rear of the commercial of 0.25 and maximum of 0.5 frontage may be developed for free-standing shall be used for nonresidential neighborhood -serving retail, multi -family residential units, purposes and a maximum of 1.0 or mixed-use buildings that integrate residential with retail for residential. uses on the ground floor in accordance with the CN, RM , CV, or MU -V designations respectively. Properties located in the Dover DrivelWestcliff 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 -V designations respectively. Mixed -Use Horizontal 2— The MU -H2 designation applies to properties located in Residential: maximum of 2,200 MU -H2 the Airport Area. It provides for a horizontal intermixing of units as replacement of existing uses that may include regional commercial office, multi- office, retail, and/or industrial family residential, vertical mixed-use buildings, industrial, uses at a maximum density of 50 hotel rooms, and ancillary neighborhood commercial uses. units per adjusted gross acre, of which a maximum of 550 units may be developed as infill. Nonresidential Uses: as defined by Table LU2 Mixed -Use Horizontal 3— The MU -H3 designation applies to properties located in Residential: maximum of 450 MU -H3 Newport Center. It provides for the horizontal intermixing units of regional commercial office, hotel, multi -family Hotel: 65 rooms in addition to residential and ancillary commercial uses. Within the those specified in Table LU2 Tennis Club, residential uses may be developed as single- Other: Nonresidential: As family units. specified by Table LU2 Newport Beach General Plan 327 Land Use Element Land Use Category Uses Density/ Intensity Mixed -Use Horizontal 4— The MU -114 designation applies to properties where it is Mixed -Use Buildings: floor area MU -114 the intent to establish the character of a distinct and to land area ratio of 1.5, where a cohesively developed district or neighborhood containing minimum floor area to land area multi -family residential with clusters of mixed-use and/or ratio of 0.25 and maximum 0.5 commercial buildings in such locations as the interior shall be used for retail uses and parcels of Cannery Village and 15th Street on Balboa maximum of 1.0 for residential. Peninsula. Permitted uses include (a) Multi -Family Commercial only: floor area to Residential, (b) General or Neighborhood Commercial, land area ratio of 0.5. and/or (c) Mixed -Use structures, where the ground floor Multi -Family Residential only: shall be restricted to nonresidential uses along the street 20.1-26.7 units per net acre. frontage such as retail sales and restaurants and the rear and upper floors used for residential including seniors units and overnight accommodations (comparable to MU -V). Mixed-use or commercial buildings shall be required on parcels at street intersections and are permissible, but not required, on other parcels. MIXED-USE WATER The MU -W designation is intended to provide for commercial development on or near the bay RELATED—MU-W in a manner that will encourage the continuation of coastal -dependent and coastal -related uses in accordance with the Recreational and Marine Commercial (CM) designation, as well as allow for the integrated development of residential. Mixed -Use Water 1— The MU -W1 designation is applied to waterfront locations Mixed -Use Buildings: floor area M1J-W1 along the Mariners' Mile Corridor in which marine- to land ratio of 1.25; where a related, visitor -serving, commercial and residential uses minimum floor area to land ratio are intermixed with buildings that provide residential uses of 0.35 and maximum of 0.5 above the ground floor. Permitted uses include those shall be used for nonresidential permitted by the CM, CV, Multi -Family Residential (MFR), purposes and the number of and Vertical Mixed -Use (MU -V) designations. A minimum residential units shall not exceed of 50% of the permitted square footage shall be used for the cumulative total for Multi - the CM or CV land uses. No more than 50% of the Family Residential specified waterfront area between the Arches Bridge and the Boy below. Scout Sea Base may be developed with mixed-use Commercial only: floor area to structures. A master or specific plan shall be required to land area ratio of 0.5. ensure that the uses are fully integrated and impacts from Multi -Family Residential only: their differing functions and activities are fully mitigated. 12 units per acre, with the number of units calculated based on a maximum of 50% of the property. Newport Beach General Plan 328 Land Use Element Land Use Category Uses Density/ Intensity Mixed -Use Water 2— The MU -W2 designation is applied to waterfront locations Mixed -Use Buildings: floor area MU -W2 in which marine -related uses may be intermixed with to land ratio of 1.25; where a buildings that provide residential on the upper floors. minimum floor area to land ratio Permitted uses include those permitted by the CM, CV, of 0.35 and maximum of 0.5 and MU -V designations. Free-standing residential shall shall be used for nonresidential not be permitted. purposes and maximum of 0.75 for residential. In Lido Marina Village, the maximum floor area to land ratio shall be 1.5; where a minimum floor area to land ratio of 0.35 and maximum of 0.7 shall be used for nonresidential purposes and a maximum of 0.8 for residential. Nonresidential buildings: floor area to land area ratio of 0.5. Newport Beach General Plan 329 PUBLIC, SEMI-PUBLIC, AND INSTITUTIONAL PUBLIC FACILITIES—PF The PF designation is intended to provide public facilities, Not applicable. including public schools, cultural institutions, government facilities, libraries, community centers, public hospitals, and public utilities. PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS— The PI designation is intended to provide for privately Floor to land area ratio or PI owned facilities that serve the public, including places for cumulative development religious assembly, private schools, health care, cultural indicated on Land Use Plan. institutions, museums, yacht clubs, congregate homes, and comparable facilities. OPEN SPACE—OS The OS designation is intended to provide areas for a Open spaces may include range of public and private uses to protect, maintain, and incidental buildings, such as enhance the community's natural resources. maintenance equipment and supply storage, which are not traditionally included in determining intensity limits. OPEN SPACE/ The OS(RV) designation is intended for the preservation Priority: Open spaces, habitat RESIDENTIAL VILLAGE— of Banning Ranch as open space, restoration of wetlands restoration, and parks. OS(RV) and other habitats, development of a community park, and Alternative: Maximum of 1,375 consolidation of oil extraction and processing facilities. residential units, 75,000 sf of Should the property not be acquired, the designation retail commercial, and 75 hotel permits the development of a planned residential rooms. community that integrates a mix of single-family detached, single-family attached, two family, and/or multi -family residential, with supporting schools, parks, community services, local -serving convenience commercial uses and services, and open spaces. A master or specific plan is required to depict the uses, street and infrastructure improvements, open spaces, development standards, design guidelines, and financial plan. Newport Beach General Plan 329 Land Use Element Land Use Category Uses Density/ Intensity 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, not 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. TIDELANDS AND The TS designation is intended to address the use, Not applicable. SUBMERGED LANDS—TS management, and protection of tidelands and submerged lands of Newport Bay and the Pacific Ocean immediately adjacent to the City of Newport Beach. The designation is generally not applied to historic tidelands and submerged lands that are presently filled or reclaimed. Calculation of floor area shall not include parking structures. Newport Beach General Plan 330 Land Use Element Table Anomaly Number statistical Area Land Use Designation Development Limit (so Development Limit Other Additional Information 1 L4 MU -H2 460,095 471 Hotel Rooms (not included in total square footage) 2 L4 MU -H2 1,052,880 2.1 L4 MU -H2 18,810 11,544 sf restricted to general office use only (included in total square footage) 3 L4 CO -G 734,641 4 1.4 MU -H2 250,176 5 1.4 MU -H2 32,500 6 L4 MU -H2 46,044 Congregate care use allowed with development limit of 148.000 sq. ft., if pro act is trio -neutral 7 1.4 MU -H2 81,372 8 L4 MU -1-12 442,775 9 L4 CG 120,000 164 Hotel Rooms (included in total square footage) 10 L4 MU -1-12 31,362 349 Hotel Rooms (not included in total square footage) 11 L4 CG 11,950 12 L4 MU -H2 457-,880463409 13 L4 CO -G 288,264 14 L4 CO-GIMU-H2 860,884 15 L4 MU -H2 228,214 16 L4 CO -G 344,231 17 1.4 MU -H2 33,292 384256 Hotel Rooms (not included in total square footage) 18 L4 CG 225,280 19 L4 CG 228530226 910 21 J6 CO -G 687,000 Office: 660,000 sf; Retail: 27,000 sf Cv 300 Hotel Rooms 22 J6 CO -G 70,000 Restaurant: 8000 sf, or Office: 70,000 sf 23 K2 PR 15,000 24 L3 IG 89,624 25 1.3 PI 84,585 26 1.3 IG 33,940 27 L3 IG 86,000 28 L3 IG 110,600 29 L3 CG 47,500 30 M6 CG 54;00050 462 31 L2 PR 75,000 32 L2 PI 34,000 33 M3 PI 163,680 Administrative Office and Support Facilitates: 30,000 sf Community Mausoleum and Garden Crypts: 121,680 sf Family Mausoleums: 12,000 sf 34 L1 CO -R 484,348 35 L1 CO -R 4-99,09550246 Newport Beach General Plan 331 Land Use Element Table Anomaly Number Statistical Area Land Use Designation Development Limit (so Development Limit Other Additional Information 35.1 L1 MU -H3 32500 35.2 L1 MU -H3 125 Hotel Rooms 36 L1 CO -R 227,797 37 L1 CO -R 131,201 2,050 Theater Seats (not included in total square footage) 38 Lt CO -M 443,627 39 1.1 MU -H3 48110@4697059 40 L1 MU -H3 4,426,6341.593.109 425 295 Hotel Rooms (included in total Square Footage) 41 L1 CO -R 327,671 42 L1 CO -R 286,166 43 L1 CV 64-1-532 Hotel Rooms 44 L1 CR 4§49,5251.636.025 1-708680 Theater Seats (not included in total square footage) 45 L1 CO -G 162,364 46 L1 MU-H3/PR 3,725 247 Tennis Courts and 27 Hotel Rooms (not including total square Residential permitted in accordance with MU -H3. foots e 47 L1 CG 105,000 48 L1 MU -H3 3974 495 550524 Dwelling Units 49 L1 PI 45,208 50 Li CG 25,000 51 K1 PR.. 20,000 52 K1 CV 479 Hotel Rooms 53 K1 PR 567,500 See Settlement Agreement 54 J1 CM 2,000 55 H3 PI 119,440 56 A3 PI 1,343,238 990,349 sf Upper Campus 577,889 sf Lower Campus In no event shall the total combined gross floor area of both campuses exceed the development limit of 1,343,238 sq. ft. 57 Intentionally Blank 58 J5 PR 20,000 59 H4MU-W1 247,402 144 Dwelling Units (included in total square footage) 60 N CV 2,660,000 1,659,000 2,1691 149 Hotel Rooms (included in total square footage) 61 N CV 125,000 62 L2 CG 2,300 63 G1 CN 66;08065634 64 M3 CN 74;00072143 65 M5 CN 80,000 66 J2 CN 438,500122986 67 D2 PI 20,000 68 L3 PI 71,150 69 K2 CN 75,000 70 D2 RM -D Parking Structure for Bay Island (No Residential Units) Newport Beach General Plan 332 Land Use Element Table Anomaly statistical Land Use Development Number Area Designation Limit (so Development Limit Other Additional Information 71 L1 CO -G 11,630 72 L1 CO -G 8,000 73 A3 CO -M 350,000 74 L1 PR 56,000 City Hall, and the administrative offices 75 L1 PF of the City of Newport Beach, and related parking, pursuant to Section 425 of the City Charter. 1.0 FAR permitted, provided all four 76 Ht CO -G 0.5 FAR legal lots are consolidated into one parcel to provide unified site design 77 H4 Cv 240,000 157 Hotel Rooms (included in total square footage) 78 B5 CM 139,840 Development limit of 19,905 sq.ft. 79 H4 CG 0.3/0.5 permitted, provided all six legal lots are consolidated into one parcel to provide unified site design 80 Reserved 81 Reserved 82 N CN 103912 83 L4 AOMU=H2 545 000 329 Dwelling Units (not included in totalsauarefootage l Regional Office: 500.000 sf Regional Commercial: 50.000 sf 84 Lt CO -R. CO -M, 550 000 500 Dwelling Units (not included in Allowed in Statistical Area L1 in addition CR. MU -H3 total square footage) to other development limits LU 4.25.2 Prohibition of New Residential Subdivisions Prohibit new residential subdivisions that would result in additional dwelling units exceeding those permitted by the General Plan unless authorized by an amendment of the General Plan (GPA). Lots that have been legally merged through the Subdivision Map Act and City Subdivision Code approvals are exempt from the GPA requirements and may be redeveloped or re -subdivided to the original underlying legal lots. This policy is applicable to all Single Unit, Two Unit, and -Multiple Unit Residential and Mixed -Use land use categories. (Imp 6.1) LU 4,35_3 Transfer of Development Pdg4ksAllocations Permit the transfer of development rtgk+s-allocations from a property to one or more other properties when: a. The donor and receiver sites are within the same Statistical Area. b. The reduced density/intensity on the donor site provides benefits to the City such as, but not limited to, the (1) provision of open space exceeding standard requirements, public visual corridor(s), parking or other amenities; (2) preservation of a historic building or property or natural landscapes; (3) improvement of the area's scale and development character; (4) Newport Beach General Plan 333 Land Use Element consolidation of lots to achieve a better architectural design than could be achieved without lot consolidation; and/or (5) reduction of local vehicle trips and traffic congestion; c. The increment of growth transferred to the receiver site complements and is in scale with surrounding development, complies with community character and design policies contained in this Plan, and does not materially degrade local traffic conditions and environmental quality. d. Transfer of Development Paglt-srAllocations in Newport Center is governed by Policy 67.13.3 and the Airport Area by Policy 7.14.6 (Imp 2.1, 5.1, 10.2, 22.2 Newport Beach General Plan 334 Land Use Element Figurel.1.11 General Plan Overview Map 11x17 color Newport Beach General Plan 335 BLANK Land Use Element Newport Beach General Plan 336 Land Use Element Figure 1.1.12 Index Map 11X17 color =Newport Beach General Plan 337 BLANK Land Use Element Newport Beach General Plan 338 Land Use Element Figure LU3 Statistical Area Map 11x17 color Newport Beach General Plan 339 BLANK Land Use Element Newport Beach General Plan 340 Land Use Element Figure 1.1.14 Statistical Area D3, D4, E1 -E3 1 1x1 7 color Newport Beach General Plan 341 BLANK Land Use Element Newport Beach General Plan 342 Land Use Element Figure LUS Statistical Area C1, C2, Dl, D2 11 X 17 color ®Newport Beach General Plan 343 BLANK Land Use Element Newport Beach General Plan 344 Land Use Element Figure 1.1.16 Statistical Area 63, B4, B5 I I X 17 color Newport Beach General Plan 345 BLANK Land Use Element Newport Beach General Plan 346 Land Use Element Figure 1.1.17 Statistical Area B1, B2 11 X 17 color Newport Beach General Plan 347 BLANK Land Use Element Newport Beach General Plan 9M. Land Use Element Figure 1.1.18 Statistical Area Al - A3 11 X 17 color Newport Beach General Plan 349 BLANK Land Use Element Newport Beach General Plan 350 Land Use Element Figure 1.1.19 Statistical Area H1 — H4 11 X 17 color Newport Beach General Plan 351 BLANK Land Use Element Newport Beach General Plan 352 Land Use Element Figure LU 10 Statistical Area GI, J1 - J5, KI, K2 11 X 17 color Newport Beach General Plan 353 BLANK Land Use Element Newport Beach General Plan 354 Land Use Element Figure LU 11 Statistical Area J6, L4 11 X 17 color MNewport Beach General Plan 355 BLANK Land Use Element Newport Beach General Plan 356 Land Use Element Figure LU12 Statistical Area K3, 1.3, M6 11 X 17 color Newport Beach General Plan 357 BLANK Land Use Element Newport Beach General Plan 358 Land Use Element Figure LU13 Statistical Area Fl, Ll, 1.2, M1 -M5 I X 17 color Newport Beach General Plan 359 BLANK Land Use Element Newport Beach General Plan 360 Land Use Element Figure LU14 Statistical Area F2 - F8 11 X 17 color =Newport Beach General Plan 361 BLANK Land Use Element Newport Beach General Plan 362 Land Use Element Figure LU 15 Statistical Area N 11 X 17 color ®Newport Beach General Plan 363 BLANK Land Use Element Newport Beach General Plan M 364 Land Use Element Goals and policies provide for the maintenance and enhancement of Newport Beach's residential neighborhoods, commercial districts, employment centers, corridors, and open spaces, assuring that new development complements and reinforces these characteristics. In addition to those listed below, community design policies are defined in the section beginning with Policy LU 66.0-7.1 to reflect the specific community character objectives for a number of the City's districts and corridors. Residential Neighborhoods LU 5.46.1 Residential neighborhoods that are well-planned and designed contribute to the livability and quality of life of residents, respect the natural environmental setting, and sustain the qualities of place that differentiate Newport Beach as a special place in the Southern California region. Policies ALL NEIGHBORHOODS LU 5.6.1.1 Compatible but Diverse Development Establish property development regulations for residential projects to create compatible and high-quality development that contributes to and sustains neighborhood character. (Imp 2.1) -- - - - - - - Moved i Polia LU ra -..36.1.2Neighborhood Identification Encourage and support the identification of distinct residential neighborhoods. (Imp 1. 1, 1.3) LU 5.4:46.1.3Neighborhood Maintenance Promote the maintenance of existing residential units through code enforcement and promotion of County and local rehabilitation programs and public education. This may include providing information, guidance, and assistance where feasible. (Imp 23.3, 25.1, 26.1, 29.1) WNewport Beach General Plan 365 Land Use Element SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED AND TWO -UNIT NEIGHBORHOODS LU AI56.1.4Character and Quality of Single -Family Residential Dwellings Require that residential units be designed to sustain the high level of architectural design quality that characterizes Newport Beach's neighborhoods in consideration of the following principles: ■ Articulation and modulation of building masses and elevations to avoid the appearance of "box -like" buildings • Compatibility with neighborhood development in density, scale, and street facing elevations ■ Architectural treatment of all elevations visible from public places ■ Entries and windows on street facing elevations to visually "open" the house to the neighborhood ■ Orientation to desirable sunlight and views (Imp 2.1) Illustrates articulation of single-family residential building volume, variation of rooBines, street orientation, well-defined entries, landscaping, parkways, and minimization of driveway paving. LU A I 66.1.5Character and Quality of Residential Properties Require that residential front setbacks and other areas visible from the public street be attractively landscaped, trash containers enclosed, and driveway and parking paving minimized. (Imp 2.1) LU rh 1 76.1.6 Renovation and Replacement of Existing Residential Units Require that residential units that are renovated and rebuilt in existing single- family neighborhoods adhere to the principles for new developments, as specified by Policy4- 6.1.4 above, and avoid. significant changes in building scale and character. (Imp 2.1, 8.2) LU 3:1-.86.1.7ParkingAdequacy Require that new and renovated single-family residences incorporate adequate enclosed parking in consideration of its floor area. (Imp 2.1) Newport Beach General Plan 366 Land Use Element Multi -Family Neighborhoods LU 5.1.96.1.8 Character and Quality of Multi -Family Residential Require that multi -family dwellings be designed to convey a high quality architectural character in accordance with the following principles (other than the Newport Center and Airport Area, which are guided by Goals 7.136.14 and H�57.14, respectively, specific to those areas): Building Elevations Treatment of the elevations of buildings facing public streets and pedestrian ways as the principal facades with respect to architectural treatment to achieve the highest level of urban design and neighborhood quality Architectural treatment of building elevations and modulation of mass to convey the character of separate living units or clusters of living units, avoiding the appearance of a singular building volume • Provide street- and path -facing elevations with high-quality doors, windows, moldings, metalwork, and finishes Illustrates multi -family residential infill townhomes, rowhouses, and apartments. Modulation of building volume and heights, articulated elevations, and orientation of residential units to the street. Ground Floor Treatment Where multi -family residential is developed on large parcels Afeft and West Newpaft Mesa: ■ Set ground -floor residential uses back from the sidewalk or from the right-of- way, whichever yields the greater setback to provide privacy and a sense of security and to leave room for stoops, porches and landscaping Newport Beach General Plan 367 Land Use Element ■ Raise ground -floor residential uses above the sidewalk for privacy and security but not so much that pedestrians face blank walls or look into utility or parking spaces • Encourage stoops and porches for ground -floor residential units facing public streets and pedestrian ways ■ Where multi -family residential is developed on small parcels, such as the Balboa Peninsula, the unit may be located directly along the sidewalk frontage and entries should be setback or elevated to ensure adequate security (as shown below). Illustrates multi-temily residential with lobbies and entry gates located on each street and pedestrian -way frontage. Roof Design ■ Modulate roof profiles to reduce the apparent scale of large structures and to provide visual interest and variety. Parkin • Design covered and enclosed parking areas to be integral with the architecture of the residential units' architecture. Open Space and Amenity ■ Incorporate usable and functional private open space for each unit. ■ Incorporate common open space that creates a pleasant living environment with opportunities for recreation. (Imp 2.1 29.3 Commercial Districts LU 546.2 Commercial centers and districts that are well-designed and planned, exhibit a high level of architectural and landscape quality, and are vital places for shopping and socialization. Policies LU 56.2.1 Architecture and Site Design Require that new development within existing commercial districts centers and corridors xhibit a high level of architectural and site design in ,.__ ,a ._ - - #19-Laccordance with the following principles: Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element ■ Seamless connections and transitions with existing buildings, except where developed as a free-standing budding ■ Modulation of building masses, elevations, and rooflines to promote visual interest ■ Architectural treatment of all building elevations, including ancillary facilities such as storage, truck loading and unloading, and trash enclosures ■ Treatment of the ground floor of buildings to promote pedestrian activity by avoiding long, continuous blank walls, incorporating extensive glazing for transparency, and modulating and articulating elevations to promote visual interest ■ Clear identification of storefront entries ■ Incorporation of signage that is integrated with the buildings' architectural character ■ Architectural treatment of parking structures consistent with commercial buildings, including the incorporation of retail in the ground floors where the parking structure faces a public street or pedestrian way ■ Extensive on-site landscaping, including mature vegetation to provide a tree canopy to provide shade for customers ■ Incorporation of plazas and expanded sidewalks to accommodate pedestrian, outdoor dining, and other activities ■ Clearly delineated pedestrian connections between business areas, parking, and to adjoining neighborhoods and districts (paving treatment, landscapinge, wayfmding signage, and so on) ■ Integration of building design and site planning elements that comparatively reduce the consumption of water, energy, and other nonrenewable resources (Imp 2.1) Newport Beach General Plan 369 Land Use Element Illustrates pedestrian -activated commercial "village° character with buildings fronting onto wide sidewalks and plazas, outdoor dining, modulation and articulation of building elevations, integrated signage, orientation of storefronts to the pedestrian, and streefscape amenities. LU 3.2-.26.2.2Buffering Residential Areas Require that commercial uses adjoining residential neighborhoods be designed to be compatible and minimize impacts through such techniques as: ■ Incorporation of landseapelandscaning, decorative walls, enclosed trash containers, downward focused lighting fixtures, and/or comparable buffering elements; ■ Attractive architectural treatment of elevations facing the residential neighborhood; ■ Location of automobile and truck access to prevent impacts on neighborhood traffic and privacy. (Imp 2.1) LU cT .36.2.3Alley Design Improve and enhance the aesthetic quality of alleys without impacting service and resident access. (Imp 6.1, 8.1) Mixed -Use Districts and Neighborhoods LU 5:36_3 Districts where residents and businesses are intermixed that are designed and planned to ensure compatibility among the uses, that they are highly livable for residents, and are of high quality design reflecting the traditions of Newport Beach. Newport Beach General Plan M 370 Land Use Element Policies , LU 3.3.16.3.1Mixed-Use Buildings Require that mixed-use buildings be designed to convey a high level of architectural and landscape quality and ensure compatibility among their uses in -s�4accordance with the following principles: ■ Design and incorporation of building materials and features to avoid conflicts among uses, such as noise, vibration, lighting, odors, and similar impacts • Visual and physical integration of residential and nonresidential uses • Architectural treatment of building elevations and modulation of their massing ■ Separate and well-defined entries for residential units and nonresidential businesses ■ Design of parking areas and facilities for architectural consistency and integration among uses ■ Incorporation of extensive landscape appropriate to its location; urbanized streetscapes, for example, would require less landscape along the street frontage but integrate landscape into interior courtyards and common open spaces (Imp 2.1) Illustrates mixed-use buildings that integrate ground floor retail and upper floor residential Modulated building volumes and articulated elevations, separate entries for retail and residential, and orientation of the building to pedestrian -oriented streets. LU 3-.3-.26.3.2Mixed-Use Building Location and Size of Nonresidential Uses Require that 100 percent of the ground floor street frontage of mixed-use buildings be occupied by retail and other compatible nonresidential uses, unless VNewport Beach General Plan 371 Land Use Element specified otherwise by policies for a s ecific district or corridor. (Imp 2.1) LU 3-.3-.36.3.3 Parcels Integrating Residential and Nonresidential Uses Require that properties developed with a mix of residential and nonresidential uses be designed to achieve high levels of architectural quality in accordance with policies LU ` 6.1.8 and LU 6.2.4 6.2.1 and planned to ensure compatibility among the uses and provide adequate circulation and parking. Residential uses should be seamlessly integrated with nonresidential uses through architecture, pedestrian walkways, and landscape. They should not be completely isolated by walls or other design elements. (Imp 2.1) LU 3-.3-.46.3.4 Districts Integrating Residential and Nonresidential Uses Require that sufficient aereage-area be developed for an individual use located in a district containing a mix of residential and nonresidential uses to prevent fragmentation and ensure each use's viability, quality, and compatibility with adjoining uses. (Imp 2.1, 6.1) All Commercial and Mixed -Use Districts LU 5.3.56.3.5Pedestrian-Oriented Architecture and Streetscapes Require that buildings located in pedestrian -oriented commercial and mixed-use districts (other than the Newport Center and Airport Area, which are guided by Goals 6447.13 and 6-.137.14, respectively, specific to those areas) be designed to define the public realm, activate sidewalks and pedestrian paths, and provide "eyes on the street" in accordance with the following principles: ■ Location of buildings along the street frontage sidewalk, to visually form a continuous or semi -continuous wall with buildings on adjacent parcels ■ Inclusion of retail uses characterized by a high level of customer activity on the ground floor; to insure successful retail -type operations, provide for transparency, elevation of the first floor at or transitioning to the sidewalk, floor -to -floor height, depth, deliveries, and trash storage and collection ■ Articulation and modulation of street -facing elevations to promote interest and character • Inclusion of outdoor seating or other amenities that extend interior uses to the sidewalk, where feasibleLand ■ Minimization of driveways that interrupt the continuity of street facing building elevations, prioritizing driveway their --locations to side streets and alleys where feasible_ (Imp 2.1) Newport Beach General Plan 372 Land Use Element 11 Illustrates pedestrian-onented characteristics of commercial and mixed-use projects, with transparent and articulated building elevations, wide sidewalks, and streetscape amenities. LU 5.366.3.6Parking Adequacy and Location Require that adequate parking be provided and is conveniently located to serve tenants and customers. Set open parking lots back from public streets and pedestrian ways and screen with buildings, architectural walls, or dense landscaping. (Imp 2.1) Office and Business Parks Goal LU 5.46.4 Office and business districts that exhibit a high quality image, are attractive, and provide quality working environments for employees. Policies LU 5.4.16.4.1 Site Planning Require that new and, to the extent feasible, renovated office and retail development projects be planned to exhibit a high-quality and cohesive "campus environment," characterized by the following: ■ Location of buildings around common plazas, courtyards, walkways, and open spaces ■ Incorporation of extensive on-site landscaping that emphasizes special features such as entryways ■ Use of landscape and open spaces to break the visual continuity of surface parking lots Newport Beach General Plan 373 Land Use Element ■ Common signage program for tenant identification and wayfinding ■ Common streetscapes and lighting to promote pedestrian activity ■ Readily observable site access, entrance drives and building entries and minimized conflict between service vehicles, private automobiles, and pedestrians (Imp 2.1) Illustrates massing of industrial and commercial buildings around pedestrian -oriented plazas and open spaces, inclusion of extensive landscape, common signage and streetscapes, and modulation of building volumes and articulation of elevations. LU A 426.4.2Development Form and Architecture Require that new development of business park, office, and supporting buildings be designed to convey a unified and high-quality character in eensidermien ofaccordance with the following principles: ■ Modulation of building mass, heights, and elevations and articulation of building ■ Avoidance of blank building walls that internalize uses with no outdoor orientation to public spaces ■ Minimize the mass and bulk of building facades abutting streets ■ Consistent architectural design vocabulary, articulation, materials, and color palette ■ Clear identification of entries through design elements ■ Integration of signage with the building's architectural style and character • Architectural treatment of parking structures consistent with their primary commercial or office building (Imp 2.1) Newport Beach General Plan W 374 Land Use Element Industrial Districts W LU x56.5 Districts that provide for the manufacturing of goods and research, and development that are attractive, compatible with adjoining nonindustrial uses, and well maintained. WWI" LU §.x.1-6.5.1 Site Planning and Building Design Require that new and renovated industrial properties and structures be designed to exhibit a high quality of design and maintenance characterized by the following: ■ Incorporation of extensive on-site landscaping ■ Incorporation of landscape, decorative walls, and other elements that visually screen areas used for outdoor storage, processing, and other industrial operations from public places ■ Architectural treatment of all visible building elevations ■ Consistent and well-designed signage ■ Control of on-site lighting, noise, odors, vibrations, toxic materials, truck access, and other elements that may impact adjoining nonindustrial land uses. (Imp 2.1) LU 5.5.26.5.2Property Maintenance Encourage and, where subject to redevelopment, require owners of visually unattractive or poorly maintained industrial properties to upgrade existing structures, facades, and properties to improve their visual quality. (Imp 26.1) Public and Institutional Uses and Districts! The City of Newport Beach contains a diversity of public and institutional uses including civic and government administrative facilities (City Hall), corporate yards, fire and police facilities, libraries, cultural institutions, art museum, marine science center, environmental interpretative center, senior and youth facilities, schools, and hospitals. Major public uses include the Civic Center. including -City Hall, d Police Department in Newport Center, eight fire stations distributed throughout the community, Central Library in Newport Center and three branches, OASIS Senior Center in Corona del Mar, and community facilities available at various locations for residents for recreational and meeting use. Newport Beach is served by two public and one private high school, one public and one private middle school, and eight public and four private elementary schools. Hoag Hospital is a major medical center that serves the City and region and is supported by numerous medical offices and related facilities. ' NOTE: This section was incorrectly located in the General Plan (listed as Goal 6.1 and Policies 6. 1.1 through 6.1.5) and has been moved. No text changes have been made, other than those indicated herein. Newport Beach General Plan 375 Land Use Element LU 66_6 A diversity of governmental service, institutional, educational, cultural, social, religious, and medical facilities that are available for and enhance the quality of life for residents and are located and designed to complement Newport Beach's neighborhoods. Policies LAND USES LU 6.1.1-6.6.1 Adequate Community Supporting Uses Accommodate schools, government administrative and operational facilities, fire stations and police facilities, religious facilities, schools, cultural facilities, museums, interpretative centers, and hospitals to serve the needs of Newport Beach's residents and businesses. (Imp 1. 1, 2.1) LU 4A-.26.6.2 Siting of New Development Allow for the development of new public and institutional facilities within the City provided that the use and development facilities are compatible with adjoining land uses, environmentally suitable, and can be supported by transportation and utility infrastructure. (Imp 1. 1, 14.2, 22.1-23.2) DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT LU 6�36.6.3Architecture and Planning that Complements Adjoining Uses Ensure that the City's public buildings, sites, and infrastructure are designed to be compatible in scale, mass, character, and architecture with the district or neighborhood in which they are located, following the design and development policies for private uses specified by this Plan. Design impacts on adjoining uses shall be carefully considered in development, addressing such issues as lighting spillover, noise, hours of operation, parking, local traffic impacts, and privacy. (Imp 22.1-23.2) LU 6.1-.46.6.4 Compatibility of Non -City Public Uses Encourage school and utility districts and other government agencies that may be exempt from City land use control and approval to plan their properties and design buildings at a high level of visual and architectural quality that maintains the character of the neighborhood or district in which they are located and in consideration of the design and development policies for private uses specified by this Plan. (Imp 14.1, 14.15) STRATEGY LU 6 1.56.6.5Hoag Hospital Campus Support Hoag Hospital and related medical uses in its -their mission to provide adeeluffte-sufficient facilities to meet the needs of area residents. Work with the Newport Beach General Plan m 376 Land Use Element Hospital and related medical uses to ensure that future development plans consider its.—their relationship to and ensure compatibility with adjoining residential neighborhoods and mitigate impacts on local and regional transportation systems. (Imp 24.1) All Neighborhoods, Districts, and Corridors Goal LU "6.7 Neighborhoods, districts, and corridors containing a diversity of uses and buildings that are mutually compatible and enhance the quality of the City's environment. LU 5446.7.1 Compatible Development Require that buildings and properties be designed to ensure compatibility within and as interfaces between neighborhoods, districts, and corridors. (Imp 2.1) LU -.6-.26.7.2Form and Environment Require that new and renovated buildings and structures be designed to avoid the use of styles, colors, and materials that unusually impact the design character and quality of their location such as abrupt changes in scale, building form, architectural style, and the use of surface materials that raise local temperatures, result in glare and excessive illumination of adjoining properties and open spaces, or adversely modify wind patterns. (Imp 2.1) LU 5 A 36.7.3Ambient Lighting Require that outdoor lighting be located and designed to prevent spillover onto adjoining properties or significantly increase the overall ambient illumination of their location. (Imp 2.1) LU A A 46.7.4Conformance with the Natural Environmental Setting Require that sites be planned and buildings designed in consideration of the property's topography, landforms, drainage patterns, natural vegetation, and relationship to the Bay and coastline, maintaining the environmental character that distinguishes Newport Beach. (Imp 2.1, 8.1) LU 6% 6 56.7.5Heliport/Helistop Compatibility Require that all applicants for the construction or operation of a heliport or helistop comply with state permit procedures, file a Form 7480 (Notice of Landing Area Proposal) with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and comply with all conditions of approval imposed by the FAA, Caltrans/Division Newport Beach General Plan 377 Land Use Element of Aeronautics and Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for Orange County. (Imp 14.9) Goals and policies provide for the maintenance of existing neighborhoods, districts, corridors, and public and civic uses, managing growth and change to ensure that their character, livability, and economic value are sustained. NOTE: This section was incorrectly located in the General Plan (listed as Goal 6.1 and Policies 6.1.1 throueh 6.1.5) and has been moved (renumbered as Goal 6.6 and Policies 6.6.1 throu hg 6.6.5). No text changes have been made, other than those indicated herein. Newport Beach General Plan M 378 - - - ■. _ - NOTE: This section was incorrectly located in the General Plan (listed as Goal 6.1 and Policies 6.1.1 throueh 6.1.5) and has been moved (renumbered as Goal 6.6 and Policies 6.6.1 throu hg 6.6.5). No text changes have been made, other than those indicated herein. Newport Beach General Plan M 378 Land Use Element Residential Neighborhoods Newport Beach is a community of distinct residential communities formed by the natural landscape and the built environment. Many of the City's older communities are located near the coast, and are characterized by small lots and the close grouping of structures. Newer residential communities, located east of the bay, have been built according to specific regulations to encourage their individual characters. Residential neighborhoods first began to develop on the Peninsula, West Newport, Balboa Island, and Lido Isle. These early neighborhoods following a traditional subdivision pattern of homes on streets designed in a linear grid and are generally pedestrian -oriented and include alleyways. Some of these older residential areas are within close proximity of commercial and visitors serving uses and are impacted by limited parking, noise, and traffic generated by commercial and visitor activities. When development spread further inland and proceeded north and east, the residential pattern changed, becoming less traditional, and more suburban in character with curvilinear streets and ranch style homes on larger lots. Examples of this type of development are the Westcliff community and Cliff Haven. As residential expanded across the bay and to the east, new styles such as attached town homes and gated communities were constructed. The Bluffs and Big Canyon communities illustrate this type of development. Newport Beach General Plan 379 Land Use Element More recent residential development patterns have resulted in numerous distinct neighborhoods with a single builder constructing most or all of the homes. Many of the these communities were designed as master planned communities allowing for unique and specialized development standards, as opposed to the application of traditional, standardized zoning regulations. Examples include Bonita Canyon, Newport Ridge, and Newport Coast. There are approximately 12-5-150 homeowners associations in Newport Beach. These associations govern the maintenance of common areas and the administration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Many of these associations are active in the City's decision-making process and may have unique development standards that are not enforced by the City. Newport Beach includes a variety of residential neighborhoods As the community has approached build -out, little vacant land remains. New development has focused on nontraditional sites such as infill and mixed-use development on smaller vacant and underutilized sites in or near commercial areas. Other residential development issues in the community include the replacement of original single- family homes, duplexes, and triplexes with larger homes. Many of these homes are built to the full limit of the City's development regulations in neighborhoods where many houses are much smaller in scale. The policy framework for neighborhoods is geared toward strengthening and expanding the framework of healthy, cohesive, and identifiable neighborhoods throughout the City. Newport Beach General Plan M Land Use Element LU 67_1 Residential neighborhoods that contain a diversity of housing types and supporting uses to meet the needs of Newport Beach's residents and are designed to sustain livability and a high quality of life. POIIe{e8 LU b 2 17.1.1 Residential Supply Accommodate a diversity of residential units that meets the needs of Newport Beach's population and fair share of regional needs in accordance with the Land Use Plan's designations, applicable density standards, design and development policies, and the adopted Housing Element. (Imp 1. 1, 2.1, 25.1) LU 6447.1.2Allowing Rebuilding Legal nonconforming residential structures shall be brought into conformity in an equitable, reasonable, and timely manner as rebuilding occurs. T meed ieff&vft etts-Renovations that improve the physical quality and character of the buildings but are limited in scope may be allowed. Rebuilding after catastrophic damage or destruction due to a natural event, an act of public enemy, or accident may be allowed in limited circumstances that do not conflict with the goals of the Land Use Element. (Imp 2.1, 7.1) LU 4-.2-.37.1.3 Residential Affordability Encourage the development of the tomes of residential units that are affordable for these effiployed in the G onsistent with the Housing Element. (Imp 25.1) LU b 2 47.1.4Accessory Units Permit conditionally the construction of one granny unit (accessory age -restricted units for one or two adult persons who are sififty-five years of age or older) per single-family residence within single-family districts, provided that such units meet set back, height, occupancy, and other applicable regulations set forth in the Municipal Code. (Imp 2.1) LU 44.67.1.5Neighborhood Supporting Uses Allow for the integration of uses within residential neighborhoods that support and are complementary to their primary function as a living environment such as schools, parks, community meeting facilities, religious facilities, and comparable uses. These uses shall be designed to ensure compatibility with adjoining residential addressing such issues as noise, lighting, and parking. (Imp 2.1) LU A 2 47.1.6Home Occupations Allow for small scale home occupations in Newport Beach's residential neighborhoods provided that they do not adversely impact traffic, parking, noise, lighting, and other neighborhood qualities. (Imp 2.1) Newport Beach General Plan 381 Land Use Element LU 6:2.77.1.7Care Facilities Regulate Day Care and Residential Care facilities to the maximum extent allowed by federal and state law to minimize impacts on residential neighborhoods-,-ftxl prohibit an over eafteeftfiation of reeovery homes or sober living hernes-ift was. (Imp 2.1) LU &.?87.1.8Manufactured Housing Permit by right manufactured housing on individual lots in residential zones as per state law. Ensure compatibility with surrounding conventional dwelling uses by adhering to development standards within the Municipal Code -ng to . (Imp 2.1) LU A 2 97.1.9Private Open Spaces and Recreational Facilities Require the open space and recreational facilities that are integrated into and owned by private residential development are permanently preserved as part of the development approval process and are prohibited from converting to residential or other types of land uses. (Imp 6.1, 13.1 29.3 LU 607.1.10 Gated Communities Discourage the creation of new private entry gates in existing residential neighborhoods that currently do not have a gate located at the entrance of the community. (Imp 9.1, 29.1) Districts Districts are uniquely identifiable by their common functional role, mix of uses, density/intensity, physical form and character, and/or environmental setting. Generally, they encompass large areas that often extend equally in length and breadth. They represent common gathering places for commerce, employment, entertainment, culture, and for living. While Newport Beach contains many districts, the General Plan policies in the following sections focus on those that are likely to change over the next 20 years as existing viable districts are enhanced, underperforming properties are revitalized, and opportunities are provided to accommodate the City's fair share of regional housing needs, as shown on Figure LU16. Policies are directed to the management of these changes to ensure that they complement the characteristics that are valued by Newport Beach's residents. Development in each district will adhere to policies for land use type and density/intensity (Policy LU 445 1, Table LU1) and community character (LU `x.86_1), except as amended in this section of the Plan. The goals and policies for each district are preceded by a description of its uses and characteristics in 2005 and public input from the General Plan Update Visioning Process and Public Workshops that was considered in their formulation. Newport Beach General Plan M 382 Land Use Element Banning Ranch Located within the City's Sphere of Influence (SOI), the Banning Ranch area encompasses approximately 518 acres, of which 465 acres (includes 47 acres of water features) are under the jurisdiction of Orange County, and 53 acres within the jurisdiction of the City of Newport Beach. Banning Ranch is located in the western -most portion of the Newport Beach Planning Area, north of Coast Highway and the Newport Shores residential community, immediately east of the Santa Ana River, and west and south of residential and industrial uses. The eastern portion of the site is higher in elevation and contains the western edge of Newport Mesa that slopes gently from east to west. Bluffs form the western edge of the mesa, and are located in the central portion of the Banning Ranch area. The western portion of the site, which is lower in elevation, historically contained a tidal marsh associated with the Semeniuk Slough and Santa Ana River. Aerial view of the Banning Ranch area Currently, the Banning Ranch area is primarily undeveloped with some historic oil extraction infrastructure located in the central and southern portions of the site that includes wells, pipelines, buildings, improved and unimproved roads, and open storage pipes and machinery. Oil extraction activities date back at least 75 years. Although the Banning Ranch site contains an assemblage of diverse habitats that have been historically disturbed, when this area is considered with the contiguous Semeniuk Slough and restored wetlands, it provides wildlife with a significantly large, diverse area for foraging, shelter, and movement. Biological studies performed for Banning Ranch indicate that, while disturbance associated with oil activities diminishes the quality of existing habitat to some extent, overall, the area should be regarded as relatively high-quality wildlife habitat due to its size, habitat diversity, and continuity with the adjacent Semeniuk Slough and federally -restored wetlands. A preliminary field evaluation of Banning Ranch was conducted by a consultant as a general indicator of the presence of habitat and species that may be subject to regulatory review. Based on this analysis, the property is estimated to contain approximately 69 acres with a habitat value rank of "l," which are primarily concentrated in the northwestern portion of the site. These areas are considered to have a high biological resource value, and are likely to require a resource permit from federal and/or state agencies prior to development. Other areas scattered throughout the site may also be of biological value but to a lesser extent. Areas with a rank of "2" (approximately 96 acres) may need a resource permit for development, where additional studies would be required to make this determination. More than likely, areas with a rank of "3" (approximately 118 acres) contain habitat and species that are not likely to require resource permitting for development. Resource permitting would likely result in the need for mitigation measures associated with development such as payment of mitigation fees, habitat INNewport Beach General Plan 383 Land Use Element restoration, or off-site habitat replacement. The actual acreage subject to environmental permitting will be determined in subsequent studies to be conducted in accordance with state and federal regulations. Newport Beach General Plan 384 Land Use Element Figure LU16 Planning Sub -Areas Pg 1-8.5x11 color =Newport Beach General Plan 385 Pg 2-8.5x11 color Land Use Element Newport Beach General Plan 9M Land Use Element 1 69.. 2 96 3 1 118 �[.SF7��l:B1• Additionally, Banning Ranch exhibits distinctive topography that is a physical and visual resource for the community. The property is divided into lowland and highland mesa areas. Bluff faces traverse the property generally in a north -south direction, separating these and forming an important visual backdrop from West Coast Highway. Drainage from upland areas in and adjoining the City of Costa Mesa formed a number of arroyos with riparian habitats. The bluff face geology is highly erodible and has experienced sliding over the years. Figure LU17 illustrates these constraints. During the visioning process, residents were divided in opinion regarding the future of Banning Ranch. Many residents preferred preserving Banning Ranch as open space at the beginning of the public process. However, many participants in the process later indicated their willingness to support some development of the property if it would generate revenue to help fund preservation of the majority of the property as open space. Policy Overview The General Plan prioritizes the acquisition of Banning Ranch as an open space amenity for the community and region. Oil operations would be consolidated, wetlands restored, nature education and interpretative facilities provided, and an active park developed containing playfields and other facilities to serve residents of adjoining neighborhoods. Should the property not be fully acquired as open space, the Plan provides for the development of a concentrated mixed-use residential village that retains the majority of the property as open space. This would contain a mix of housing types clustered around a "village center" of leeftlresident- serving commercial uses, small boutique hotel, active park, and possibly a school. Buildings would be located and designed and an interconnected street system provided to enhance pedestrian activity and reduce vehicular trips. Development would be concentrated to preserve the majority of the property as open space, while oil operations would be clustered and wetlands restored. An internal trail system would be developed to link uses within its neighborhoods and districts and provide access to adjoining neighborhoods. While the Plan indicates the maximum intensity of development that would be allowed on the property, this will ultimately by determined through permitting processes that are required to satisfy state and federal environmental regulatory requirements. LUI 4:37.2 Preferably a protected open space amenity, with restored wetlands and habitat areas, as well as active community parklands to serve adjoining neighborhoods. Newport Beach General Plan 387 Land Use Element Policies LAND USES (designated as "OS(RV]') LU 4-.347.2.1 Primary Use Open space, including significant active community parklands that serve adjoining residential neighborhoods if the site is acquired through public funding. (Imp 2. 1, 23.1, 23.5, 30.2) STRATEGY LU 6.3 27.2.2Acquisidon for Open Space Support active pursuit of the acquisition of Banning Ranch as permanent open space, which may be accomplished through the issuance of state bonds, environmental mitigation fees, private fundraising, developer dedication, and similar techniques. (Imp 9.1, 14.7, 14.11, 30.2) LU "7.33 If acquisition for open space is not successful, a high-quality residential community with supporting uses that provides revenue to restore and protect wetlands and important habitats. Policies LAND USES LU 4447.3.1 Alternative Use If not acquired for open space within a time period and pursuant to terms agreed to by the City and property owner, the site may be developed as a residential village containing a mix of housing types, limited supporting retail, visitor accommodations, school, and active community parklands, with a majority of the property preserved as open space. The property owner may pursue entitlement and permits for a residential village during the time allowed for acquisition as open space, (Imp 2.1) Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element Figure LU 17 Banning Ranch Development Constraints Pg 1-8.5x11 color Newport Beach General Plan 90 Pg 2-3.5x11 color Land Use Element Newport Beach General Plan M 390 Land Use Element DEVELOPMENT DENSITY/INTENSITY AND CAPACITY Note. These represent general development capacity estirvates, with the propery's ultimate development footprint and capacity determined through required federal and state rzgulatory environmental permitting processes and a planned community developmentplan approved by the City ofNewpori Beach. LU 6-.4.27.3.2 Residential Accommodate a maximum of 1,375 residential units, which shall consist of a mix of single-family detached, attached, and multi -family units to provide a range of choices and prices for residents. (Imp 2.1) LU 4,"7.3.31letail Commercial Accommodate a maximum of 75,000 square feet of retail commercial uses that shall be oriented to serve the needs of local and nearby residents. (Imp 2.1) L U 6 447.3.4 Overnight Accommodations Accommodate a maximum of 75 rooms in a small boutique hotel, "bed and breakfast," or other overnight accommodations. (Imp 2.1) DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT LU 6-.4.57.3.5Planned Residential Village Require that Banning Ranch, if not retained as open space, be developed as a cohesive urban form that provides the sense of a complete and identifiable neighborhood. Establish a development pattern that ties together individual uses into a cohesive neighborhood addressing the location and massing of buildings, architecture, landscape, connective street grid and pedestrian walkways and trails, use of key landforms, and similar elements. (Imp 3.1, 4.1) LU 6,4.67.3.6Approaches for a Livable Neighborhood Site and design development to enhance neighborhood quality of life by: Establishing a pattern of blocks that promotes access and neighborhood identity Designing streets to slow traffic, while maintaining acceptable fire protection and traffic flows Integrating a diversity of residential types within a neighborhood, while ensuring compatibility among different residential types Orienting and designing the residential units to relate to the street frontage Locating and designing garages to minimize their visual dominance from the street Incorporating sidewalks and parkways to foster pedestrian activity Promoting architectural diversity (I)V 3.1, 4.1) LU 64-.77.3.7Neighborhood Structure and Form Establish a "village center" containing local serving commercial, community parks, community meeting facilities, hotel, and/or other amenities as the focal Newport Beach General Plan 391 Land Use Element point. Buildings in the village center shall be designed to enhance pedestrian activity (e.g., visual transparency and facade modulation and articulation), integrating plazas and open spaces for public events. (Imp 3.1, 4.1 21.31 LU A 487.3.8Open Space Network and Parklands Establish a framework of trails, community parklands, and natural habitats that provide the framework around which the residential village's uses are developed and interconnect residential districts, the village center, other uses, and open spaces. (Imp 3.1, 4.1) LU 4447.3.9 Circulation Facilitate development of an arterial highway linking Coast Highway with Newport Boulevard to relieve congestion at Superior Avenue, if the property is developed. (Imp 3.1, 4.1, 16.1) LU 607.3.10 Sustainable Development Practices Require that any development of Banning Ranch achieve high levels of environmental sustainability that reduce pollution and consumption of energy, water, and natural resources to be accomplished through land use patterns and densities, site planning, building location and design, transportation and utility infrastructure design, and other techniques. Among the strategies that should be considered are the concentration of development, reduction of vehicle trips, use of alternative transportation modes, maximized walkability, use of recycled materials, capture and re -use of storm water on-site, water conserving fixtures and landscapes, architectural elements that reduce heat gain and loss, and preservation of wetlands and other habitats. (Imp 3.1, 4.1, 7.1, 16.8, 17.1, 19.1) STRATEGY LU 1, 441-7.3.11 Comprehensive Site Planning and Design Require the preparation of a master development or specific plan for any development on the Banning Ranch specifying lands to be developed, preserved, and restored, land uses to be permitted, parcelization, roadway and infrastructure improvements, landscape and streetscape improvements, development regulations, architectural design and landscape guidelines, exterior lighting guidelines, processes for oil operations consolidation, habitat preservation and restoration plan, sustainability practices plan, financial implementation, and other appropriate elements. (Imp 3.1, 4.1) Newport Beach General Plan 392 Land Use Element Policies Pertaining to Both Land Use Options (Goals "7.22 and 6-47_3) PERMITTED USES LU 6.5.17.4.1 Oil Operations Relocate and cluster oil operations. (Imp 3.1, 4.1) LU 63 27.4.2Active Community Park Accommodate a community park of 20 to 30 acres that contains active playfields that may be lighted and is of sufficient acreage to serve adjoining neighborhoods and residents of Banning Ranch, if developed. (Imp 3.1, 4.1) LU Ara 37.4.3Habitat and Wetlands Restore and enhance wetlands and wildlife habitats, in accordance with the requirements of state and federal agencies. (Imp 3.1, 4.1, 14.7, 14.11) DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT LU 64r47.4.4Relationship of Development to Environmental Resources Development should be located and designed to preserve and/or mitigate for the loss of wetlands and drainage course habitat. It shall be located to be contiguous and compatible with existing and planned development along its eastern property line, preserving the connectivity of wildlife corridors, and set back from the bluff faces, along which shall be located a linear park to provide public views of the ocean, wetlands, and surrounding open spaces. Exterior lighting shall be located and designed to minimize light trespass from developed areas onto the bluffs, riparian habitat, arroyos, and lowland habitat areas. (Imp 3.1, 4.1) LU 6.5.5 7.4.5 Public Views of the Property Development shall be located and designed to prevent residences on the property from dominating public views of the bluff faces from Coast Highway, the ocean, wetlands, and surrounding open spaces. Landscape shall be incorporated to soften views of the site visible from publicly owned areas and public view points. (Imp 3.1, 4.1) STRATEGY LU 63 67.4.6 Coordination with State and Federal Agencies Work with appropriate state and federal agencies to identify wetlands and habitats to be preserved and/or restored and those on which development will be permitted. (Imp 14.7, 14.11) Newport Beach General Plan 393 Land Use Element West Newport Mesa The West Newport Mesa area contains a mix of residential, office, retail, industrial, and public uses. It is immediately abutted by Hoag Hospital, the City of Costa Mesa to the north, and Banning Ranch to the west. Development in the area dates back to the mid -twentieth century. Hoag Hospital is a major activity center that continues to affect development in the area. It generates a strong market for the development of uses that support the hospital's medical activities such as doctors' offices, convalescent and care facilities, medical supply, pharmacy, and similar uses. Retail commercial uses serve medical purposes, as well as nearby residents. Northern portions of the area are largely developed with light manufacturing, research and development, and business park uses. In many respects, these transition with comparable patterns of development in the Westside Costa Mesa area to the north. A number of Newport Beach's marine - related businesses have relocated to the area over recent decades as coastal land values have escalated. Most of the properties are developed for single business tenants and have little landscape or architectural treatment, typical of older industrial districts of Southern California. Office and commercial buildings in West Newport Mesa The majority of properties between the industrial uses and medical center are developed with multi- family uses, including a few mobile home parks. The latter represent has been a resource of affordable housing in the City. These are interspersed with a school and other civic uses. Newport Beach General Plan M 394 Land Use Element The area's considerable mix of uses is not always complementary, nor at its edges where it abuts residential neighborhoods and other uses. The 2006 General Plan Vv_isioning process participants indicated that the West Newport Mesa area would benefit from revitalization. The development of additional medical offices and other facilities supporting Hoag Hospital and additional residential units were widely endorsed. Participants were divided in their support for the retention of industrial uses. Policy Overview The General Plan provides for a mix of land uses for West Newport Mesa that include office, research, convalescent care, and retail facilities supporting Hoag Hospital, a consolidated light industrial district where non -water -dependent marine -related businesses would be encouraged to locate, enhanced housing opportunities, and supporting retail commercial services. While distinct sub -districts are defined by the Land Use Plan, the assembly and planning of multiple parcels across these districts to create a unified center that is linked by pedestrian walkways, parklands, and other amenities is encouraged. LU 6.67.5 A medical district with peripheral medical services and research facilities that support the Hoag Hospital campus within a well-planned residential neighborhood, enabling residents to live close to their jobs and reducing commutes to outlying areas. Policies LAND USES (refer to Figure LU 18) LU 67.5.1 Hospital Supporting Uses Integrated with Residential Neighborhoods Prioritize the accommodation of medical -related and supporting facilities on properties abutting the Hoag Hospital complex [areas designated as "CO -M (0.5)" (Figure LU18, Sub -Area A)] with opportunities for new residential units [areas designated as " RM(18/ac)"] and supporting general and neighborhood -serving retail services ["CG(0.75)" and "CN(03)"] respectively. (Imp 2.1) LU 6 A 27.5.2 Residential Types Promote the development of a mix of residential types and building scales within the densities permitted by the "RM" (Figure LU18, Sub -Area C) designation, which may include single-family attached, townhomes, apartments, flats, and comparable units. Residential densities may be increased on a property as a means of promoting a variety of housing types within West Newport Mesa, provided that the overall average density of 18 units per acre is not exceeded. (Imp 2.1) Newport Beach General Plan 395 Land Use Element STRATEGY LU 6-.6-.37.5.3 Cohesive and Integrated Medical Campus Development Encourage the development of a master plan for streetscape, pedestrian, signage, and other improvements that contribute to a definable district. Land use boundaries delineated on the Land Use Diagram may be modified by a specific plan to achieve cohesive districts that integrate a variety of land uses. (Imp 3.1, 4.1) LU &"7.5.4Livable Residential Neighborhood WeAE -with Encourage the preparation of a master plan for the residential neighborhood defining park and streetscape improvements that provide afftefAtramenities for local residents and enhance the area's identity. (Imp 3.1, 4.1) Goal LU 6:77_6 A general industrial district that transitions between the Hoag Hospital medical and residential community and industrial uses in the City of Costa Mesa, providing opportunities for needed uses that cannot be accommodated elsewhere in Newport Beach. Policies LAND USES [designated as "IG(0.75),"refer to Figure LU18, Sub -Area BI LU 67.6.1 Primary Uses Encourage the development of small-scale incubator industries. (Imp 2.1, 24.1) LU 6�27.6.2Marine Based Businesses Encourage and provide incentives for the relocation of marine -based Newport Beach businesses, including boat storage and recreational vehicles, to properties retained for industrial purposes. (Imp 2.1, 24.1) Balboa Peninsula The Balboa Peninsula comprises a series of districts linked by the Newport Boulevard/Balboa Boulevard commercial and residential corridor. These include Lido Village, Cannery Village, McFadden Square, Balboa Village, and surrounding residential neighborhoods. Newport Beach General Plan in 396 Land Use Element Figure LU 18 West Newport Mesa Pg 1-8.5x11 color =Newport Beach General Plan 397 Pg 2-3.5x11 color Land Use Element Newport Beach General Plan M Land Use Element Lido Village Lido Village is primarily developed with commercial uses including grocery stores, restaurants, salons, home furnishings, apparel, and other specialty shops. It also includes Lido Marina Village, a pedestrian - oriented waterfront development that includes visitor -serving commercial uses, specialty stores, and marine uses. Lido Village's southern edge contains specialty retail and restaurants, the Cie Gerrterformer City Hall complex planned for redevelopment as a boutique hotel, and churches. Lido Marina Village has experienced a high number of building vacancies and many retail stores are underperforming. Parking is limited. Multiple property ownerships have traditionally inhibited cohesive and integrated development. Lido Village has a unique location at the turning basin in Newport Harbor. The channel is wider than in other locations, providing an opportunity for waterfront commercial uses that will not negatively impact residential uses across the channel. In 2011. the City Council appointed a Citizen Advisory Panel (CAP) to prepare architectural and landscape design guidelines for the Lido Village. After several CAP meetings, a public open house, and review by the Neighborhood Revitalization Committee, the Lido Village Design Guidelines were approved by the City Council in December 2011. The Design Guidelines establish the vision for the rebirth of Lido Village as the gateway to the Balboa Peninsula. Movie theater in Lido Village Pedestdan-onented retail use in Lido Village Cannery Village Cannery Village is the historic center of the City's commercial fishing and boating industry and contains a mix of small shops, art galleries, professional offices, and service establishments. Marine -related commercial (boat sales) and marine -related industrial uses (boat repair) are also found in the area. Redevelopment of properties for residential, loft, and mixed residential and commercial uses, including live/work facilities, appears to be an emerging trend. Older developments include some single-family residential units combined with commercial uses on single lots. Although the residential component of mixed-use projects has performed well, there has been less success in attracting the commercial uses envisioned for the area particularly on the waterfront. WNewport Beach General Plan 399 Land Use Element Cannery Village McFadden Square McFadden Square surrounds the Newport Pier and extends between the ocean front and harbor. It was the center of the City's early shipping industry. Located adjacent to Newport Pier is the Dory Fishing Fleet. The fleet and open-air fish market have operated at this location since the fleet's founding in 1891 by Portuguese fishermen. The last remaining fleet of its type, it is a designated historical landmark. Commercial land uses are largely concentrated in the strips along Balboa and Newport Boulevards, with residential along the ocean front and marine -related uses fronting the harbor. Numerous visitor -serving uses include restaurants, beach hotels, tourist -oriented shops (t -shut shops, bike rentals, and surf shops), as well as service operations and facilities that serve the Peninsula. There are several bars in the area with some featuring live music, especially along the ocean and Bav front. Historically, the area has been known for its marine -related industries such as shipbuilding and repair facilities and boat storage on the harbor, some of which have been in continuous operation for over fifty years. Public parking is available in three lots, which primarily serve the beach users, tourists, and the restaurant patrons. Retail use in McFadden Square Residential in McFadden Square Much of the McFadden Square area is pedestrian -oriented, with storefronts facing the street, the presence of signage at a pedestrian scale, and outdoor furniture, providing a pleasant environment for Newport Beach General Plan o Land Use Element visitors. However, certain areas present difficulty for pedestrian street crossing. Specifically the intersection of Newport and Balboa Boulevards, known as the "Mixmaster," is one such crossing, as the roadway configuration at this location allows traffic flow from different directions and the street is wide. Balboa Villaae Balboa Village is the historic center for recreational and social activities on the Peninsula. It has had a strong marine heritage, and has attracted fishermen, recreational boaters, summer residents, and beachgoers. Many of the retail uses are visitor -oriented and seasonal in nature, including a "fun zone" along Edgewater Place that contains entertainment uses. Marine -related commercial uses, including ferries to Balboa and Catalina Islands and harbor tours, are present in the area. In general, Balboa Village is pedestrian -oriented with articulated building facades and signage that is pedestrian scale. The Balboa Village core is surrounded by residences, with isolated pockets of commercial uses scattered along Balboa Boulevard. Peninsula Park also serves the area. Balboa Village and the greater Peninsula have experienced a transition to year-round residential occupancy while the visitor uses have continued. Cumulatively, there is more commercial space than can be supported by local residents, and marginal commercial space is used by businesses that are seasonal and do not thrive throughout the year. Visitor -serving retail in Balboa Village Housing in Balboa Village Participants in the 2006 General Plan Vv_isioning process indicated that Lido Village, Cannery Village, McFadden Square, and Balboa Village need continuing revitalization, and the City could be proactive in creating a vision for reinforcement of Lido Village and McFadden Square as primary activity nodes, with the interior of Cannery Village allocated for residential or mixed-use development. The integration of uses in these areas and the harbor and bay was emphasized. While overnight lodging was not WNewport Beach General Plan 401 Land Use Element supported in the Visioning process survey and public meetings, in the opinion of the General Plan Advisory Committee smaller bed and breakfast and boutique hotels could be designed and scaled to complement the pedestrian -oriented village character of Lido Village, McFadden Square, and Balboa Village, as well as help the City's fiscal balance through the revenue that would be contributed. In 2006, Tthe public also supported the concentration of commercial uses in the core of Balboa Village, with the re -use of outlying commercial properties for housing and priority for water -oriented and visitor -serving commercial uses. Additionally, Balboa Village was identified as a suitable location for mixed-use development. The Cit;t Council appointed a five -member Citizen Advisory Panel (CAP) in June 2011 to set a new vision and implementation strategy for the revitalization of Balboa Village. Following a several month process which included input from the community, the CAP developed the Balboa Village Master Plan that includes strategies addressing parking, zoning, annearance and new commercial investment in Balboa Village. In September 2012, the Cite Council approved the Balboa Village Master Plan. followed by the formation in September 2012 of the Balboa Village Advisory Committee to oversee implementation of the Master Plan. Policy Overview The General Plan provides for the enhancement of Lido Village, Cannery Village, McFadden Square, and Balboa Village as distinct pedestrian -oriented centers of Balboa Peninsula that would be interconnected through improved streetscapes along Newport/Balboa Boulevard, a waterfront promenade on Newport Harbor, and cross -access between the Harbor and beachfront. Lido Village, McFadden Square, and Balboa Village would contain a mix of visitor -serving, retail, small overnight accommodation facilities, and housing. In Cannery Village, commercial or mixed-use buildings would be developed at street intersections with intervening parcels developed for mixed-use or free- standing housing. Throughout the Peninsula, r-aftted Rses land use designations are arranged to provide for a mix of commercial, retail, service, marine -related and residential uses that are complimentary and compatible with one another and promote economic vitality, environmental integrity and aesthetic quality. Late night service uses Balboa Peninsula Areawide LU X67_7 A series of commercial, retail, restaurant, recreation and visitef—,evvk-it,-marine-related uses, eivie and residential neighborhoods that are vibrant throughout the year, differentiated by their historic and functional characteristics and architectural style, yet integrated by streetscape amenities. Policies LU 6-.8.17.7.1 Urban Form Establish development patterns that promote the reinforcement of Balboa Peninsula's pedestrian scale and urban form as a series of distinct centers/ nodes and connecting corridors surrounded bh and linked to residential neighborhoods whose scale and character are maintained. (1mp 1.1) Newport Beach General Plan M 402 Land Use Element LU 6.8.27.7.2 Component Districts Lido Village, Cannery Village, and McFadden Square should be emphasized as the primary activity centers of the northern portion of the Peninsula, linked by corridors of retail, resident and visitor -serving uses along Newport Boulevard and a mix of marine -related and residential uses on the Bay frontage. These surround a residential core in the inland section of Cannery Village. Balboa Village will continue to serve as the primary center of the lower Peninsula, surrounded by residential neighborhoods along and flanking Balboa Boulevard. (Imp 1.1) LU 6.837.7.3Marine-Related Businesses Protect and encourage marine -related businesses to locate and expand on the Peninsula unless present and foreseeable future demand for such facilities is already adequately provided for in the area. (Imp 2.1, 24.1) LU 6.8471AShared-Parking Facilities Encourage the development of shared parking facilities and management programs among private property owners that provides for adequate parking for residents, guests, and business patrons. (Imp 16.10) LU 7.7.5 Access to Parking Facilities Prohibit the use of code -required parking spaces for other purposes, except as permitted on a case-by-case basis to accommodate temporary events or emergency operations provided that adequate parking can be assured to support the primary use. a2O 16.10 LU 6.8.57.7.6 Quality of Place/Streetscapes Develop a plan to fund and implement streetscape improvements that improve Balboa Peninsula's visual quality, image, and pedestrian character. This should include well-defined linkages among individual districts, between the ocean and Bay, and along the Bay frontage, as well as streetscape and entry improvements that differentiate the character of individual districts. (Imp 20.1) Illustrates streetscape amenities including wide sidewalks, trees providing shade for pedestrians, benches and outdoor seating, and pedestrian -scaled signage and lighting. Newport Beach General Plan 403 Land Use Element LU 6$67.7.7Historic Character Preserve the historic character of Balboa Peninsula's districts by offering incentives for the preservation of historic buildings and requiring new development to be compatible with the scale, mass, and materials of existing historic structures, while allowing opportunities for architectural diversity. (Imp 2.1) LU 6$77.7.81'roperty Improvement Provide incentives for and work with property owners to improve their properties and achieve the community's vision for the Balboa Peninsula. (Imp 24.1, 29.1) Lido Village [designated as "MU -W2," "CM(0.3)," "RM(20/ac)," and "PI(0.75),"refer to Figure LU 19[ LU 647.88 A vibrant pedestrian -oriented village environment that reflects its waterfront location at the gateway to Newport Beach's historic Balboa Peninsula that provides; pfeviding a mix of uses se nne 3 visitors and-leeal residents. Policies LAND USES LU X17.8.1 Priority Uses Encourage uses that take advantage of Lido Village's location at the Harbor's turning basin and its vitality and pedestrian character, including visitor -serving and retail commercial, tomlodging facilities (bed and breakfasts, itmrsboutiue hotels), and mixed-use buildings that integrate residential with retail uses [areas designated as "MU -W2", Subarea "A']. A portion of the Harbor frontage and interior parcels (Subarea "B") may also contain multi -family residential [designated as "BM(20/ac)"], and the parcel adjoining the Lido Isle Bridge, a recreational and marine commercial use [designated as "CM(0.3)"]. (Imp 2.1, 24.1) LU 6AL27.8.2Discouraged Uses Discourage the development of new office uses on the ground floor of buildings that do not attract customer activity to improve the area's pedestrian character. (Imp 2.1) LU 7.8.3 Vested Uses Allow existing commercial buildings that exceed the maximum floor area and/or that do not provide the minimum number of parking spaces to be re -constructed to their pre-existing floor area provided that no less than the pre-existing number of parking spaces is provided. Im 2.1, 5.1, 16.10) Newport Beach General Plan m Land Use Element DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT LU 7.8.4 Lido Village Design Guidelines Achieve a distinctive identity and quality for Lido Village through implementing guidelines for design and landscape specified by the Lido Village Design Guidelines. Irr 2.1� LU 7.8.5 Multi -Modal Village Enhance Lido Village's accessibility for residents and visitors by providing all common modes of transportation for residents and visitors including walking, bicycling, watercraft, and vehicles. Qmp 16.11, 16.12 LU 7.8.6 Gateway Create a vibrant gateway village in the heart of Newport Beach's historic Balboa Peninsula, with landscaping and streetscape. Imp 20.1) LU 7.8.7 Character and Design Maintain a high quality of development design in Lido Village in consideration of the following design objectives, as reflected in the Lido Village Design Guidelines: ■ Unification: Creating a sense of place through a unifying theme for Lido Village with defined gathering spaces, increased connectivity, and improved wayfinding: ■ Visual Appeal: Creating a distinct identity for Lido Village by encourages Coastal and Mediterranean architecture, creating an attractive gateway, maximizing view corridors and scenic opportunities, and incorporating art andlandscaping�and • Sustainability: Promoting economic and environmental sustainability by encouraging energy and water efficient practices in consideration of economic realities and viability, and celebrating California -friendly landscapes. (Lmp 2.1, 7.1, 20.1, 20.3) Cannery Village Interior Parcels [designated as "MU -H4," Figure LU19, Sub -Area C] Goal LU 6497_9 A pedestrian -oriented residential neighborhood that provides opportunities for live/work facilities and supporting retail uses. Newport Beach General Plan 405 Land Use Element Figure LU19 Balboa Peninsula Lido Village/Cannery Village/McFadden Square Pg 1-8.5x11 color Newport Beach General Plan M M. Land Use Element Pg 2-3.5x11 color Newport Beach General Plan 407 Land Use Element Policies LAND USES LU 6.1-0.1-7.9.1 Priority Uses Allow multi -family residential and mixed-use buildings that integrate residential above retail or live -work units throughout Cannery Village. Require mixed-use, live -work, or commercial buildings to be developed on coiner parcels e. e. xcent adjacent to Villa Way where these are encouraged. (Imp 2.1) DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT LU 6.10.27.9.2 Residential Character and Architecture Require that residential buildings be designed to contribute to an overall neighborhood character, locating buildings along the street frontage to form a continuous or semi -continuous building wall. (Imp 2.1) Bayfront Parcels [designated as "MU -W2," Figure LU19, Sub -Area El LU 64-1-7.10 A water -oriented district that contains uses that support and benefit from its location fronting onto the bay, as well as provides new opportunities for residential. Policies LAND USES LU 6.11.17.10.1 Priority Uses Accommodate water -oriented commercial uses that support harbor recreation and fishing activities, and mixed-use structures with residential above ground - level water -oriented uses. (Imp 2.1, 8.1, 21.2) Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element McFadden Square, West and East of Newport Boulevard [designated as "MU -W2," Figure LU19, Sub -Area E[ Goad LU 4427.11 A pedestrian -oriented village that reflects its location on the ocean, pier, and bay front, serving visitors and local residents. Policies LAND USES LU 6.12.17.11.1 Priority Uses Accommodate visitor- and leettlresident-serving uses that take advantage of McFadden Square's waterfront setting including specialty retail, restaurants, and small scale everftiglrt—hotel accommodations, as well as mixed-use buildings that integrate residential with ground level retail. (Imp 2.1) Balboa Village LU "7.12 An economically viable pedestrian -oriented village that serves local residents and visitors and provides residential in proximity to retail uses, entertainment, and recreation. Policies PRIORITY USES (refer to Figure LU20) LU 7.12.1 Balance and Mix of Uses-Areawide Accommodate a mix of land uses including residential, restaurants, retail shoos and services that cater to both residents and visitors. ao 2.1, 5.1) LU X17.12.2 Village Core [designated as "MU -V" Sub Area `B"J Encourage local- and visitor -serving retail commercial and mixed-use buildings that integrate residential with ground -level retail or office uses on properties, especially adjacent to Balboa Boulevard, Main Street, and Palm Street. (Imp 2.1) UNewport Beach General Plan * Figure LU20 Balboa Village Pg 1-8.5x11 color Land Use Element Newport Beach General Plan 410 Land Use Element Pg 2-8.5x11 color MNewport Beach General Plan 411 Land Use Element LU 627.12.3 Bay Frontage/Bayfront Promenade [designated as "CV(0.75)" Sub Area AJ Promote access to the Bay and beach and Pprioritize water -dependent, marine - related retail and services and visitor -serving retail such as sport fishing, boat rentals, tour boats, and excursion boats. (Imp 2.1, 24.1) LU A 12 27.12.4 Commercial Properties out of Village Core [designated as "RT" Sub Area CJ Promote re -use of isolated commercial properties on Balboa Boulevard for residential units. (Imp 2.1) LU 7.12.5 Balboa Village Fun Zone Accommodate a mix of land uses capitalizing on the area's historic identity and character and bayfront setting including restaurants, retail shops and services catering to both residents and visitors. L 2.1. 5.1. 21.3. 29.2) DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT LU 6.3.47.12.6 Streetscapes and Visual Quality Enhance the visual quality of Balboa Village's streetscapes promoting a pedestrian -oriented environment and offering incentives for owners to improve their properties. (Imp 20.1) LU 7.12.7 Balboa Village Design Guidelines. Require that development exhibits a high quality of site and building design in conformance with the Balboa Village Design Guidelines. am 2.1.5.1) STRATEGY LU A 12 57.12.8 Rebuilding of Nonconforming Structures Permit existing commercial buildings that exceed the permitted development intensities to be renovated, upgraded, or reconstructed to their pre-existing intensity and, at a minimum, pre-existing number of parking spaces. (Imp 2.1) LU A 12 67.12.9 Enhancing Balboa Village's Viability and Character Provide incentives for owners to improve their properties, to develop retail uses that serve adjoining residential neighborhoods, and retain and develop marine - related uses along the harbor frontage. (Imp 24.1) Newport Center/Fashion Island Newport Center/Fashion Island is a regional center of business and commerce that includes major retail, professional office, entertainment, recreation, and residential in a master planned mixed-use development. Fashion Island, a regional shopping center, forms the nucleus of Newport Center, and is framed by this mixture of office, entertainment, and residential. Newport Center Drive, a ring road that Newport Beach General Plan M 412 Land Use Element surrounds Fashion Island, connects to a number of interior roadways that provide access to the various sites within the Center and to the four major arterials that service this development. High-rise office and hotel buildings to the north of the Center form a visual background for lower rise buildings and uses to the south and west. Interspersed in the Newport Center area are two hotels, public and semi-public uses including the Newport Beach Police and Fire Departments and Orange County Museum of Art, and entertainment uses (along the perimeter of Newport Center Drive). It is also the location of a transportation center, located at San Joaquin Hills Road and MacArthur Boulevard. Multi -family residential is located east of the Police Department. Lands adjacent to Coast Highway and Jamboree Road are developed for the Newport Beach Country Club and The Tennis Club, with adjoining single-family attached residential uses. The Newport Beach Civic Center and Libra" expansion were completed in 2013, creating a major civic presence in Newport Center along MacArthur Boulevard. In addition, a new public park and dogl2ark were added, which bring additional pedestrian -oriented opportunities to this area. Newport Center commercial, office, hotel, and residential While master planned, the principal districts of Newport Center/Fashion Island are separated from one another by the primary arterial corridors. Fashion Island is developed around an internal pedestrian network and surrounded by parking lots, providing little or no connectivity to adjoining office, entertainment, or residential areas. Since the 2006 General Plan visioning process, the changing economy, legislative mandates to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and initiatives to promote a healthier population support the creation of Newport Beach General Plan 413 Land Use Element more compact, denser, and mixed-use development which enable residents to walk and bigycle to local shopping and jobs. As the most intense center of economic activity in Newport Beach, Newport Center/Fashion Island offers opportunities to enhance its mix of uses with infill housing, offices, and retail uses meeting these objectives. Ongoing private investment in the area runs parallel to the civic development and infrastructure improvement being led by the City of Newport Beach, including the building of a new City Hall and Civic Center, parkland expansion, Central Library renovation and roadway circulation improvements. Policy Overview The General Plan provides for additional retail and office opportunities at Fashion Island and hotel rooms and housing units in Newport Center. Emphasis is placed on the improvement of the area's pedestrian character, by improving connectivity among the "superblocks," installing streetscape amenities, and concentrating buildings along Newport Center Drive and pedestrian walkways and LU 647.13 A successful mixed-use district that integrates economic and commercial centers serving the needs of Newport Beach residents and the subregion, with expanded opportunities for residents to five close to jobs, commerce, entertainment, and recreation, and is supported by a pedestrian -friendly environment. Policies LAND USES [refer to Figure LU21] LU A 1417.13.1 Fashion Island ["CR" designation] Provide the opportunity for st—additional ftneher -__-_., _.u__ retail, and entertainment, ander supporting uses that complement, are integrated with, and enhance the economic vitality of existing development. ^ — — of 243,'-'' . (Imp 2.1) Newport Beach General Plan , r 414 IN , 1111 1111111 1111111 - - Policy Overview The General Plan provides for additional retail and office opportunities at Fashion Island and hotel rooms and housing units in Newport Center. Emphasis is placed on the improvement of the area's pedestrian character, by improving connectivity among the "superblocks," installing streetscape amenities, and concentrating buildings along Newport Center Drive and pedestrian walkways and LU 647.13 A successful mixed-use district that integrates economic and commercial centers serving the needs of Newport Beach residents and the subregion, with expanded opportunities for residents to five close to jobs, commerce, entertainment, and recreation, and is supported by a pedestrian -friendly environment. Policies LAND USES [refer to Figure LU21] LU A 1417.13.1 Fashion Island ["CR" designation] Provide the opportunity for st—additional ftneher -__-_., _.u__ retail, and entertainment, ander supporting uses that complement, are integrated with, and enhance the economic vitality of existing development. ^ — — of 243,'-'' . (Imp 2.1) Newport Beach General Plan , r 414 Land Use Element LU 6.14.27.13.2 Newport Center ["MU -H3," "CO -R," "CO M," and "RM" designations] Provide the opportunity for limitretail, residential, hotel, and office development in accordance with the limits specified by Tables LU1 and LU2. (Imp 2.1) DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT LU 6.14.37.13.3 Transfers of Development Right-RAllocations Development .—allocations may be transferred within Newport Center, subject to the approval of the City with the finding that the transfer is consistent with the intent of the General Plan and that the transfer will not result in any adverse traffic impacts. (Imp 2.1) LU A 1447.13.4 Development Scale Reinforce the original design concept for Newport Center by concentrating the greatest building mass and height in the easterly—northern section of Newport Center , where the natural topography is highest and progressively scaling down building mass and height to follow the lower elevations toward the southwesterly edge along East Coast Highway. Allow for increased height for the development of a hotel on the eastern portion of the 100 block provided that the project exhibits distinguished and quality architectural and site design. (Imp 2.1, 3.1, 4.1) LU A 1457.13.5 Urban Form Encourage that some new development be located and designed to orient to the inner side of Newport Center Drive, establishing physical and visual continuity that diminishes the dominance of surface parking lots and encourages pedestrian activity. (Imp 2.1, 3.1, 4.1) LU A 167.13.6 Pedestrian Connectivity and Amenity Require, where feasible. €meeeeagetl pedestrian access and connections among uses within the district be improved with additional walkways and streetscape amenities concurrent with the development of expanded and new uses. (Imp 3. 1, 4.1) LU A 177.13.7 Fashion Island Architecture and Streetscapes Encourage that new development in Fashion Island complement and be of equivalent or higher design quality than existing buildings. Reinforce the existing promenades by encouraging retail expansion that enhances the storefront visibility to the promenades and provides an enjoyable retail and pedestrian experience. Additionally, new buildings shall be located on axes connecting Newport Center Drive with existing buildings to provide visual and physical connectivity with adjoining uses, where practical. (Imp 3.1, 4.1) WNewport Beach General Plan 415 Land Use Element STRATEGY LU6.1-4.87.13.8 Development Agreements(2006) Require the execution of Development Agreements for residential and mixed-use development projects that use the residential 450 units identified in Table LU2 (Anomaly Locations). Development Agreements shall define the improvements and benefits to be contributed by the developer in exchange for the City's commitment for the number, density, and location of the housing units. (Imp 13.1) LU 7.13.9 Development Agreements (2014) Require the execution of Development Agreements for residential and mixed-use development projects that use the 500.000 SF of office. 50.000 SF of regional commercial. and 500 dwelling units identified in Table LU2 (Anomaly Location 841. Development Agreements shall define the improvements and benefits to be contributed by the developer in exchange for the City's commitment for the number. density. and location of the office. regional commercial and housing units. � 13.1) LU 6.14.97.13.10 Fashion Island Parking Structures Require new parking structures in Fashion Island to be located and designed in a manner that is compatible with 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) to soften their visual impact. (Imp 8.2) Newport Beach General Plan 416 Land Use Element Figure LU21 Newport Center/Fashion Island Pg 1-8.5x11 color Newport Beach General Plan 417 Pg 2-8.5x11 color Land Use Element Newport Beach General Plan CM M. Land Use Element Airport Area The Airport Area encompasses the properties abutting and east of QWA) and is in close proximity to the Irvine Business Complex and University of California, Irvine (UCI). This proximity has influenced the area's development with uses that support JWA and UCI, such as research and development, high technology industrial and visitor -serving uses, such as hotel and car rental agencies. A mix of low-, medium-, and high-rise office buildings predominate, with lesser coverage of supporting multi -tenant commercial, financial, and service uses. A number of buildings are occupied by corporate offices for industry and financial uses. Koll Center, at MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road, was developed as a master planned campus office park. Manufacturing uses occupy a small percentage of the Airport Area. Three large hotels have been developed to take advantage of their proximity to JWA, local businesses, and those in the nearby Irvine Business Complex. The area immediately abutting JWA, referred to as the "Campus Tract," contain a diverse mix of low intensity industrial, office, and airport -related uses, including a number of auto -related commercial uses including carwash, auto -detailing, rental, repair, and parts shops. In comparison to properties to the east, this area is underutilized and less attractive. Office in Airport Area Hotel in Airport Area Development in the Airport Area is restricted due to the noise impacts of JWA. Much of the southwestern portion of the area is located in the 65 dBA CNEL, which is unsuitable for residential and other "noise -sensitive" uses. Additionally, building heights are restricted for aviation safety. Recent development activity in the City of Irvine's Business Complex to the north has included the transfer of development rights, bringing more intense development closer to the Airport Area and resulting in the conversion of office to residential entitlement. This activity is changing the area to a mixed-use center. Through the 2006 Vv_isioning process and preparation of the General Plan, the public preferred revitalization of the Airport Area with income -generating land uses. Generally, a range of development types were acceptable as long as traffic is not adversely affected. However, a majority believed that the Airport Area is urban in character, different than other City neighborhoods. Additional density and traffic congestion were considered more acceptable here than other parts of the City. There was strong support for new hotels and broad consensus on mixed-use development with residential and revenue - generating uses. M. Newport Beach General Plan 419 Land Use Element Policy Overview The General Plan provides for the development of office, industrial, retail, and airport -related businesses in the Airport Area, as well as the opportunity for housing and supporting services. The latter would be developed as clusters of residential villages centering on neighborhood parks and interconnected by pedestrian walkways. These would contain a mix of housing types and buildings that integrate housing with ground -level convenience retail uses and would be developed at a sufficient scale to achieve a "complete" neighborhood. Housing and mixed-use buildings would be restricted from areas exposed to noise levels of 65 dBA CNEL and higher. Over time, commercial and industrial properties located in the Campus Tract would be revitalized including street frontage landscape and other improvements. LU "7.14 A mixed-use community that provides jobs, residential, and supporting services in close proximity, with pedestrian -oriented amenities that facilitate walking and enhance livability. Policies URBAN FORM AND STRUCTURE [refer to Figure LU22] LU +17.14.1 Land Use Districts and Neighborhoods Provide for the development of distinct business park, commercial, and airport - serving districts and residential neighborhoods that are integrated to ensure a quality environment and compatible land uses. (Imp 1. 1, 2.1) LU 7 27.14.2 Underperforming Land Uses Promote the redevelopment of sites with underperforming retail uses located on parcels at the interior of large blocks for other uses, with retail clustered along major arterials (e.g., Bristol, Campus, MacArthur, Birch, and Jamboree), except where intended to serve and be integrated with new residential development. (Imp 2.1, 24.1) LU X37.14.3 Airport Compatibility Require that all development be constructed in conformance with the height restrictions set forth by Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77, and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, and that residential development be located outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour specified by the 1985 JWA Master Plan. (Imp 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 14.3) Newport Beach General Plan W 420 Land Use Element Figure LU22 Airport Area Pg 1-8.5x11 color Newport Beach General Plan 421 Pg 2-3.5x11 color Land Use Element Newport Beach General Plan 422 Land Use Element Mixed -Use Districts [Subarea C, "MU -H2" designation] PRIMARY/UNDERLYING LAND USES LU 6 154 47.14.4 Priority Uses Accommodate office, research and development, and similar uses that support the primary office and business park functions such as retail and financial services, as prescribed for the "CO -G" designation, while allowing for the re -use of properties for the development of cohesive residential villages that are integrated with business park uses. (Imp 2.1) RESIDENTIAL VILLAGES LAND USES LU 6.15.57.14.5 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. The residential units may consist of (a) a maximum of 1.650 units that may be constructed as replacement of permitted non- residential uses provided that Residenti?J witits may be developed aAy as the :_'-mss, 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 perniitted allocated nonresidential uses.- ffewt-verand ( a maximum of 550 units may be developed as infill on surface parking lots or areas not used as --for occupiable buildings on properties within the area depicted on the "Airport Area Residential Villages Illustrative Concept Diagram" (Figure LJJ22ZLU23) provided that the parking is replaced on site. The residential units described in 2.1) LU 7.14.6 Transfer of Development Allocations Permit transfer of development allocations within the Airport Area Mixed -Use districts subject to the approval of the City with the finding that the transfer is consistent with the intent of the General Plan and the transfer will not result in any adverse traffic impacts. (Imp 2.1) MINIMUM SIZE AND DENSITY LU A 15% 67.14.7 Size of Residential Villages [refer to Figure LU23J Allow development of mixed-use residential villages, each containing a minimum of 10 acres and centered on a neighborhood park and other amenities (as conceptually illustrated in Figure LU23). The first phase of residential development in each village shall encompass at least 5 gross acres of land, exclusive of existing rights-of-way. This acreage may include multiple parcels Newport Beach General Plan 423 Land Use Element provided that they are contiguous or face one another across an existing street. At the discretion of the City, this acreage may also include part of a contiguous property in a different land use category, if the City finds that a sufficient portion of the contiguous property is used to provide functionally proximate parking, open space, or other amenity. The area depicted in the "Airport Area Residential shown on Figure L—U22 shall be exempt from the 5 -acre minimum (Imp 2.1, 3.1, 4.1) LU 7.14.8 Affordable Housing Projects Permit housing12rojects that include a minimum of 30 percent of the total units for affordable to lower income households and are developed at a minimum density of 30 units per acre to be constructed on parcels of 5 acres or greater as an exception from Residential Village requirements for a minimum 10 acres in lot size and phasing described in Policy LU 7.14.7 to facilitate the development of affordable housing consistent with the Housing Element. (Imp 1.2, 1.3.21.51 LU 6.16.77.14.9 Overall Density and Housing Types Require that residential units be developed at a minimum density of 30 units and maximum of 50 units per net acre averaged over the total area of each residential village. Net acreage shall be exclusive of existing and new rights-of-way, public pedestrian ways, and neighborhood parks. Within these densities, provide for the development of a mix of building types ranging from townhomes to high-rises to accommodate a variety of household types and incomes and to promote a diversity of building masses and scales. (Imp 2.1, 3.1, 4.1) LU bear 87.14.10 First Phase Development Density Require a residential density of 45 to 50 units per net acre, averaged over the first phase for each residential village. This shall be applied to 100 percent of properties in the first phase development area whether developed exclusively for residential or integrating service commercial horizontally on the site or vertically within a mixed-use building. On individual sites, housing development may exceed or be below this density to encourage a mix of housing types, provided that the average density for the area encompassed by the first phase is achieved. (Imp 2.1, 3.1, 4.1) LU A I A 97.14.11 Subsequent Phase Development Location and Density Subsequent phases of residential development shall abut the first phase or shall face the first phase across a street. The minimum density of residential development (including residential mixed-use development) shall be 30 units per net acre and shall not exceed the maximum of 50 units per net acre averaged over the development phase. (Imp 2.1, 3.1, 4.1) Newport Beach General Plan qM 424 Land Use Element STRATEGY AND PROCESS LU 6.1-5.1-97.14.12 Regulatory Plans Require regulatory plan for each residential village, Whieh shah eantai- containing a minimum of 10 acres, developed consistent with the landscaping, lighting, walls/fencing, signage. common areas, and comparable elementsplan the location and phasing of bu ldings. ef-new parks, streets, artd pedestrian ways, and infrastructure and other facilities; set forth a strategy to accommodate neighborhood -serving commercial uses and other amenities; establish pedestrian and vehicular connections with adjoining land uses; and ensure compatibility with office, industrial, and other nonresidential uses. (Imp 2. 1, 3.1, 4.1, 13.1 31.11 Newport Beach General Plan 425 Land Use Element Figure LU23 Airport Area Residential Villages Illustrative Concept Diagram Pg 1-8.5x11 color Newport Beach General Plan EM 426 Land Use Element Pg 2-8.5x11 color Newport Beach General Plan 427 Land Use Element LU c 15 127.14.13 Development Agreements(2006) Require tV-a Development Agreement shall be required for aay al�-projects that includes irrfil�-residential units. The Development Agreement shall define the improvements and public benefits to be provided by the developer in exchange for the City's commitment for the number, density, and location of the housing units. (Lmp 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 13.1) LU 7.14.14 Development Agreements (2014) Require a Development Agreement for any project that includes commercial development exceeding a 0.5 FAR and any residential units for properties designated MU -H2 located northwest of the MacArthur Boulevard and Birch -- - �ii►zisrasa:ev.�saysaa� -- - - - LU c 15 127.14.13 Development Agreements(2006) Require tV-a Development Agreement shall be required for aay al�-projects that includes irrfil�-residential units. The Development Agreement shall define the improvements and public benefits to be provided by the developer in exchange for the City's commitment for the number, density, and location of the housing units. (Lmp 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 13.1) LU 7.14.14 Development Agreements (2014) Require a Development Agreement for any project that includes commercial development exceeding a 0.5 FAR and any residential units for properties designated MU -H2 located northwest of the MacArthur Boulevard and Birch exchange for the City's commitment for the number, density, and location of the commercial development and housing units.nr 2.1. 3.1, 4.1, 13.1) DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT Neighborhood Parks LU 6.15..-137.14.15 Standards aiRequire dedication and improvement of at least 8 percent of the gross land area (exclusive of existing rights-of-way) of the first phase development in each neighborhood, or 1/2 acre, whichever is greater, as a neighborhood park to movide a focus and identitv for the entire neighborhood and to serve the dailv recreational and commercial needs of the community within easy walking distance of homes. In every case, the neighborhood park shall be at least 8 percent of the total Residential Village Area or one acre in area, whichever is greater, and shall have a Newport Beach General Plan M Land Use Element minimum dimension of 150 feet along any edge of the park site, except as may be approved by the Planning Commission. Park acreage shall be exclusive of existing or new rights-of-way, development sites, or setback areas. A neighborhood park shall satisfy some or all of the requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance, as prescribed by the Recreation Element of the General Plan. This requirement may be waived by the City where it can be demonstrated that the development parcels are too small to feasibly accommodate the required park area or inappropriately located to serve the needs of local residents, and when an in -lieu fee is paid to the City for the acquisition and improvement of other properties as parklands to serve the Airport Area. (Imp 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 23.1, 30.2) Illustrates integration of public parks in high density residential developments. Parks are surrounded by streets and incorporate a diversity of active and passive recreational facilities LU 647.14.16 Location Require that each neighborhood park is clearly public in character and is accessible to all residents of the neighborhood. Each park shall be surrounded by public streets on at least two sides (preferably with on -street parking to serve the park), and shall be linked to residential uses in its respective neighborhood by streets or pedestrian ways. (Imp 2.1, 3.1, 4.1) LU 657.14.17 Aircraft Notification Require that all neighborhood parks be posted with a notification to users regarding proximity to John Wayne Airport and aircraft overflight and noise. (Imp 23.2) =Newport Beach General Plan 429 Land Use Element On -Site Recreation and Open Space LU 6.15167.14.18 Standards Require developers of multi -family residential developments on parcels 8 acres or larger to provide on-site recreational amenities. For these developments, 44 square feet of on-site recreational amenities shall be provided for each dwelling unit in addition to the requirements under the City's Park Dedication Ordinance and in accordance with the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan. On-site recreational amenities can consist of public Cuban plazas or squares where there is the capability for recreation and outdoor activity. These recreational amenities may also include swimming pools, exercise facilities, tennis courts, and basketball courts. Where there is insufficient land to provide on-site recreational amenities, the developer shall be required to pay cash in -lieu that would be used to develop or upgrade nearby recreation facilities to offset user demand as defined in the City's Park Dedication Fee Ordinance. The acreage of on-site open space developed with residential projects may be credited against the parkland dedication requirements where it is accessible to the public during daylight hours, visible from public rights-of-way, and is of sufficient size to accommodate recreational use by the public. However, the credit for the provision of on-site open space shall not exceed 30 percent of the parkland dedication requirements. (Imp 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 23.2. 23.5, 30.2) Streets and Pedestrian Ways LU 6 15177.14.19 Street and Pedestrian Grid Create a pattern of streets and pedestrian ways that breaks up large blocks, improves connections between neighborhoods and community amenities, and is scaled to the predominantly residential character of the neighborhoods. (Imp 3. 1, 4.1, 16.1) LUI 6 1& 1 A7.14.20 Walkable Streets Retain the curb -to -curb dimension of existing streets, but widen sidewalks to provide park strips and generous sidewalks by means of dedications or easements. Except where traffic loads preclude fewer lanes, add parallel parking to calm traffic, buffer pedestrians, and provide short-term parking for visitors and shop customers. (Imp 3.1, 4.1, 16.1, 20.1) Illustrates pedestrian oriented multi -family residential streets with wide sidewalks, on -street parking, parkways, and units fronting onto streets. Newport Beach General Plan= 430 Land Use Element LU 697.14.21 Connected Streets Require dedication and improvement of new streets as shown on Figure LU23. The illustrated alignments are tentative and may change as long as the routes provide d -reasonable connectivity. If traffic conditions allow, connect new and existing streets across Macarthur Boulevard with signalized intersections, crosswalks, and pedestrian refuges in the median. (Imp 16.1) LU 6.15.207.14.22 Pedestrian Improvements Require the dedication and improvement of new pedestrian ways as conceptually shown on Figure LU23. The alignment is tentative and may change as long as the path provides the intended connectivity. For safety, the full length of pedestrian ways shall be visible from intersecting streets. Te ffiftintftin ftft intimftte ___'_ an Pedes"iaft ways shall be open to 4te publie at all lffeui!s. (Imp 16.11) Parking and Loading LU 63:217.14.23 Required Spaces for Primary Uses Consider revised parking requirements that reflect the mix of uses in the neighborhoods and overall Airport Area, as well as the availability of on -street parking. (Imp 2.1) Relationship of Buildings to Street LU 6.15.237.14.24 Sustainable Development Practices Require that development includes measures that comparatively ttel-'ie-v�es ft WO H4 efti'Affs-ftffi-enfal reduces pollution and consumption of energy, water, and natural resources. This may be accomplished through the mix and density of uses, building location and design, transportation modes, and other techniques. Among the strategies that should be considered are the integration of residential with jobs -generating uses, use of alternative transportation modes, maximized walkability, use of recycled materials, capture and re -use of storm water on-site, water conserving fixtures and landscapes, and or architectural elements that reduce heat gain and loss. (Imp 3.1, 4.1, 16.11, 17.1, 19.1) Campus Trac f ["AO" designation Sub -Area B[ LAND USES I U 6.15.2 4 7.14.25 Primary Uses Accommodate professional office; aviation retail; automobile rental, sales, and service, subjeef te diseretienary r&view ef the Platining Gammi ; hotels; and Newport Beach General Plan 431 Land Use Element ancillary retail, restaurant, and service uses that are related to and support the functions of John Wayne Airport, as permitted by the "AO" designation. (Imp 2.1) STRATEGY LU 6.15.257.14.26 Economic Viability Provide incentives for lot consolidation and the re -use and improvement of properties located in the "Campus Tract," west of Birch Street. (Imp 2.1, 24.1) LU 6.15.267.14.27 Automobile Rental and Supporting Uses WaAt L PP �e Enco�ura�e automobile rental ansupporting uses to eet�selidat orrconsolidate and visually improvetriett ea auto storage, service, and storage facilities. (Imp 24.1) LU 6.15.277.14.28 Site Planning and Architecture Encourage and, when property improvements are subject to discretionary review, require property owners within the Campus Tract to upgrade the street frontages of their properties with laxdseapelandscanine, well-designed signage, and other amenities that improve the area's visual quality. (Imp 3.1, 7.1, 8. 1,) Commercial Nodes ]"CG" designation Sub -Area C—part] LU 6.15.287.14.29 Priority Uses Encourage the development of retail, financial services, dining, hotel, and other uses that support the John Wayne Airport, the Airport Area's office uses, and, as developed, its residential neighborhoods, as well as automobile sales and supporting uses at the MacArthur Boulevard and Bristol Street node. (Imp 2.1, 24.1) Commercial Office District ]"CO -G" designation Sub -Area C—part] LU 6.15.297.14.30 Priority Uses Encourage the development of administrative, professional, and office uses with limited accessory retail and service uses that provide jobs for residents and benefit adjoining mixed-use districts. (Imp 2.1, 24.1) Corridors Corridors share common characteristics of Districts by their identifiable functional role, land use mix, density/intensity, physical form and character, and/or environmental setting. They differ in their linear configuration, generally with shallow -depth parcels located along arterial streets. They are significantly impacted by traffic, often inhibiting access during peak travel periods. Their shallow depths make them unsuitable for many contemporary forms of commercial development that require large building footprints and extensive parking. While the City is crossed by a number of commercial corridors, the General Plan's policies focus on those in which change is anticipated to occur during the next 20 years. Additionally, they provide Newport Beach General Plan 432 Land Use Element guidance for the maintenance of a number of corridors in which it is the objective to maintain existing types and levels of development. Development in each corridor will adhere to policies for land use type and density/intensity (LU 4.1, Table LU1) and community character (LU 5.0), except as specified in this section of the General Plan. LU 667.15 Development along arterial corridors that is compatible with adjoining residential neighborhoods and open spaces, is well designed and attractive, minimizes traffic impacts, and provides adequate parking. Policies LU 6.1-6.17.15.1 Efficient Parcel Utilization Promote the clustering of retail and hotel uses by the aggregation of individual parcels into larger development sites through incentives such as density bonuses or comparable techniques. (Imp 2.1, 24.1) LU 6.16.2 7.15.2 Private Property Improvements Encourage the upgrade of existing commercial development including repair and/or repainting of deteriorated building surfaces, well-designed signage that is incorporated into the architectural style of the building, and expanded landscaping. (Imp 24.1) LU 637.15.3 Property Access Minimize driveways and curb cuts that interrupt the continuity of street -facing building elevations in pedestrian -oriented districts and locations of high traffic volumes, prioritizing their location on side streets and alleys, where feasible. (Imp 2.1) LU 6.1-6-.47.15.4 Shared Parking Facilities Encourage the more efficient use of parcels for parking that can be shared by multiple businesses. (Imp 16.10) LU 657.15.5 Compatibility of Business Operations with Adjoining Residential Neighborhoods .v,___ __:.L ,__ L._ :_. . ._ _Ensure that retail, office, and other uses do not adversely impact adjoining residential neighborhoods. This may include strategies addressing hours of operation, congregation of employees. loitering, trash pickup, truck delivery hours, customer arrivals and departures, and other activities. (Imp 8.2) LU 6 14 67.15.6 Design Compatibility with Adjoining Residential Neighborhoods Require that building elevations facing adjoining residential units be designed to convey a high-quality character and ensure privacy of the residents, and that properties be developed to mitigate to the maximum extent feasible impacts of d Newport Beach General Plan 433 Land Use Element lighting, noise, odor, trash storage, truck deliveries, and other business activities. Building elevations shall be architecturally treated and walls, if used as buffers, shall be well-designed and landscaped to reflect the area's residential village character. (Imp 2.1) West Newport The West Newport Coast Highway Corridor extends from Summit Street to just past 60th Street. It is a mixed commercial and residential area, with the former serving the adjoining Newport Shores residential neighborhood, the West Newport residential neighborhood south of Coast Highway, and beach visitors. Commercial uses are concentrated on the north side of Coast Highway at the Orange Street intersection and east of Cedar Street to the Semeniuk Slough. Intervening areas are developed with a mix of multi -family apartments and, west of Grant Avenue, mobile and manufactured homes. Primary commercial uses include community -related retail such as dry cleaners, liquor store, deli, and convenience stores, as well as a few visitor -serving motels, dine -in, family -style restaurants, and fast- food establishments. Generally, they are developed on shallow parcels of substandard size and configuration due to past widening of West Coast Highway and contain insufficient parking. Many of the commercial buildings appear to have been constructed in the 1960s to 1980s, although some motels have been recently upgraded. A portion of the mobile homes are situated along Semeniuk Slough and the Army Corps restored wetlands, while a number of the single-family homes outside the area are also located along the Slough. A mobile home park containing older units, many of which appear to be poorly maintained, is located on the westernmost parcels and a portion of the tidelands. This site serves as the "entry" to the City and as a portal to the proposed Orange Coast River Park. This area is regtilated by a" adepted Speeifie P4aft, whieh was intended �o pfomote its order Residential in West Newport Commercial in West Newport The 2006 General Plan visioning process found that the West Newport Corridor is among those that require revitalization. Clustering of commercial uses to enhance their economic vitality and improve the appearance of the area was supported, as was the improvement of the quality of commercial development on the Highway. Redevelopment of the westernmost parcel occupied by a trailer park was a high priority for the neighborhood. In 2011, the City Council appointed a Citizen Advisory Panel (CAP1 to develop a preliminary design for a Capital Improvement Project for beautification of West Coast Highway from the Santa Ana River to Newport Beach General Plan 434 Land Use Element the Arches Bridge and of Balboa Boulevard from West Coast Highway to McFadden Square. In December 2011, the City Council approved the landscape design concepts which are intended to enhance the corridor and give it a more welcoming feel for residents and visitors of this part of Newport Beach. Policy Overview The General Plan provides for the improvement of Coast Highway fronting properties in West Newport by concentrating local and visitor -serving retail in two centers at Prospect Street and Orange Street with expanded parking, enhancing existing and allowing additional housing on intervening parcels, and developing a clearly defined entry at its western edge with Huntington Beach. The latter may include improvements that would support the proposed Orange Coast River Park. Goal LU 677.16 A corridor that includes a gateway to the City with amenities that support the Orange Coast River Park, as well as commercial clusters that serve local residents and coastal visitors at key intersections, interspersed with compatible residential development. Policies M LAND USES [refer to Figure LU241 LU 6.1177.17.16.1 Western Entry Parcel [designated as "RM(26/ac)" and "RM/0S(85du)' J �ottfity to _acilitate the acquisition of a portion or all of the property as open space, which may be used as a staging area for Orange Coast River Park with parking, park -related uses, and an underpass to the ocean. As an alternative, accommodate multi -family residential on all or portions of the property not used for open space. (Imp 14.3, 2J_29.1) STRATEGY LU 6 17 27.16.2 Improved Visual Image and Quality Implement streetscape improvements consistent with the design concepts developed by the 2011 Citizen Advisory Committee to enhance the area's character and image as a gateway to Newport Beach and develop a stronger pedestrian environment at the commercial nodes. (Imp 20.1) LU 6.1-7.37.16.3 Streetscape Require that upgraded and redeveloped properties incorporate landscaped setbacks along arterial streets to improve their visual quality and reduce impacts of the corridor's high traffic volumes. (Imp 2.1) Newport Beach General Plan 435 Land Use Element Old Newport Boulevard (old Newport Boulevard was formerly the primary roadway leading into the city from the north, containing a diversity of highway -oriented retail and office uses. Shifting of vehicle trips to the parallel {ft v Newport Boulevard reduced the corridor's traffic volumes and economic vitality, resulting in significant changes in its land use mix. Newport Beach General Plan 436 Land Use Element Figure LU24 West Newport Pg 1-8.5x11 color Newport Beach General Plan 437 Pg 2-3.5x11 color Land Use Element Newport Beach General Plan CM M. Land Use Element Office and retail on Old Newport Boulevard The corridor is abutted by residential neighborhoods to the east and Hoag Hospital west of Newport Boulevard. Today, the area is primarily developed with commercial and professional offices. Secondary uses include personal services, restaurants, and specialty shopping such as home furnishing stores and beauty salons. Most specialty retail appears to occupy converted residential buildings. A number of auto -related businesses and service facilities are located in the corridor. Many of these are incompatible with the predominant pattern of retail service and office uses. Medical office uses have expanded considerably during recent years, due to the corridor's proximity to Hoag Hospital, which is expanding its buildings and facilities. This corridor does not exhibit a pedestrian -oriented character. While there are some walkable areas, Newport Boulevard is wide and there is a mix of uses and lot configurations that do not create a consistent walkway. Newport Beach General Plan 439 Land Use Element In 2006 B ittle public input was received pertaining to Old Newport Boulevard during the General Plan's preparation. In general, the preservation of the status quo was supported. Although, the public supported the development of mixed-use buildings that integrate residential with ground floor retail and townhomes on the east side of Old Newport Boulevard as a transition with adjoining residential neighborhoods. Policy Overview In the Old Newport Boulevard area, the General Plan provides for the development of professional offices, retail, and other uses that support Hoag Hospital, and retail uses serving adjoining residential neighborhoods. Pedestrian walkways within and connections west to Hoag Hospital would be improved and streetscapes installed. LU 6487.17 A corridor of uses and services that support Hoag Hospital and adjoining residential neighborhoods. Policies LAND USES [designated as "CO-G(0.5),"refer to Figure LU251 LU 648.17.17.1 Priority Uses Accommodate uses that serve adjoining residential neighborhoods, provide professional offices, and support Hoag Hospital. (Imp 2.1) LU 6.1-3.27.17.2 Discouraged Uses Highway -oriented retail uses should be discouraged and new "heavy" retail uses, such as automobile supply and repair uses, prohibited. (Imp 2.1) DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT LU 6 19 37.17.3 Property Design Require that buildings be located and designed to orient to the Old Newport Boulevard frontage, while the rear of parcels on its west side shall incorporate landscape and design elements that are attractive when viewed from Newport Boulevard. (Imp 2.1) LU 647.17.4 Streetscape Design and Connectivity Develop a plan for Streetscape improvements and improve street crossings to facilitate pedestrian access to Hoag Hospital and discourage automobile trips. (Imp 20.1) Newport Beach General Plan M 440 Land Use Element Figure LU25 Old Newport Boulevard Pg 1-8.5x11 color Newport Beach General Plan 441 Pg 2-3.5x11 color Land Use Element Newport Beach General Plan CM 442 Land Use Element Mariners' Mile Mariners' Mile is a heavily traveled segment of Coast Highway extending from the Arches Bridge on the west to Dover Drive on the east. It is developed with a mix of highway -oriented retail and marine - related commercial uses. The latter are primarily concentrated on bay -fronting properties and include boat sales and storage, sailing schools, marinas, visitor -serving restaurants, and comparable uses. A large site is developed with the Balboa Bay ` lub-t' Resort, a hotel, private club, and apartments located on City tidelands. A number of properties contain non -marine commercial uses, offices, and a multi -story residential building. Harbor, retail, and visitor -serving uses in Mariners' Mile Inland properties are developed predominantly for highway -oriented retail, neighborhood commercial services. A number of sites contain automobile dealerships and service facilities and neighborhood - serving commercial uses. The latter includes salons, restaurants, apparel, and other specialty shops ranging from wine stores to home furnishings stores. While single use free-standing buildings predominate, there are a significant number of multi -tenant buildings that combine a number of related or complementary uses in a single building or buildings that are connected physically or through design. The Mariners' Mile Strategic Vision and Design Plan provides for the area's evolution as a series of districts serving visitors and local residents. Along the northern portion of Coast Highway in the vicinity of Tustin Avenue, Riverside Avenue, and Avon Street, it provides for a pedestrian -friendly retail district. In the western and easternmost segments, the Plan provides for the infill of the auto - ® Newport Beach General Plan 443 Land Use Element oriented retail and visitor -serving commercial uses. Along the Harbor frontage, the Vision and Design Plan emphasizes the development of Harbor -related uses and proposes a continuous pedestrian promenade to create a vibrant public waterfront. Throughout the corridor, the Plan proposes to upgrade its visual character with new landscaping and streetscape amenities, as well as improvements in private development through standards for architecture and lighting. Plans provide for the widening of Coast Highway, reducing the depth of parcels along its length. Recent development projects have set back their buildings in anticipation of this change. Traffic along the corridor and the potential for widening also impact the ability to enhance pedestrian activity and streetscape improvements; unless overhead pedestrian crossings are considered. The 2006 General Plan *visioning process participants identified Mariners' Mile as a location that needs revitalization and suggested that an overall vision be defined to meet this objective. It was also defined as a location appropriate for mixed-use development integrating residential and commercial or office space. A majority opposed hotel development in Mariners' Mile. Participants were divided on the questions of preserving opportunities for coastal -related uses in Mariners' Mile and whether the City should require or offer incentives to ensure such uses. Property owners noted that high land values and rents limit the number of marine -related uses that can be economically sustained in the area. Although the public supported the development of residential in Mariners' Mile, there was a difference of opinion regarding whether it should be located on the Harbor frontage or limited it to inland parcels. In 2011. the City Council also recognized the need to revitalize Mariners' Mile by designating it as one of six "revitalization areas." A series of Citizen Advisory Panels were formed to focus on the other revitalization areas which included, Corona del Mar, Balboa Village, Lido Village, West Newport and Santa Ana Heights. The Council's direction indicated a multi -layered approach was required to consider the complex issues within Mariners' Mlle. Policy Overview The General Plan provides for the enhanced vitality of the Mariners' Mile corridor by establishing a series of distinct retail, mixed-use, and visitor -serving centers. Harbor -fronting properties would accommodate a mix of visitor -serving retail and marine -related businesses, with portions of the properties available for housing and mixed-use structures. View and public access corridors from Coast Highway to the Harbor would be required, with a pedestrian promenade developed along the length of the Harbor frontage. Parcels on the inland side of Coast Highway, generally between Riverside Avenue and the southerly projection of Irvine Avenue, would evolve as a pedestrian - oriented mixed-use "village" containing retail businesses, offices, services, and housing. Sidewalks would be improved with landscape and other amenities to foster pedestrian activity. Inland properties directly fronting onto Coast Highway and those to the east and west of the village would provide for retail, marine -related, and office uses. Streetscape amenities are proposed for the length of Mariners' Mile to improve its appearance and identity. LU "7.18 A corridor that reflects and takes advantage of its location on the Newport Bay waterfront, supports and respects adjacent residential neighborhoods and exhibits a quality visual image for travelers on Coast Highway. Newport Beach General Plan 444 Land Use Element Policies STRUCTURE LU 6.1.1 7.18.1 Differentiated Districts Differentiate and create cohesive land use districts for key subareas of Mariners' Mile by function, use, and urban form. These should include (a) harbor -oriented uses with limited residential along the waterfront, (b) highway -oriented commercial corridor (see Figure LU26), and (c) community/neighborhood- serving "village" generally between Riverside Avenue and the southerly extension of Irvine Avenue. (Imp 1. 1, 2.1 20.1 20.2 LAND USES (refer to Figure LU26) LU 6.19.27.18.2 Bay Fronting Properties [designated as "MU --W1" Sub Area AJ Encourage marine -related and visitor -serving retail, restaurant, hotel, institutional - recreational, and recreational uses, and allow residential uses above the ground floor on parcels with a minimum frontage of 200 lineal feet where a minimum of 50 percent of the permitted square footage shall be devoted to nonresidential uses. No more than 50 percent of the waterfront latid-area between the Arches Bridge and the Boy Scout Sea Base may be developed with mixed-use structures. (Imp 2.1, 5.1, 24.1) LU A 137.18.3 Marine -Related Businesses Protect and encourage facilities that serve marine -related businesses and industries unless present and foreseeable future demand for such facilities is already adequately provided for in the area. Encourage coastal -dependent industrial uses to locate or expand within existing sites and allow reasonable long- term growth. (Imp 2.1, 5.1, 24.1) LU 6 19 47.18.4 Inland side of Coast Highway [designated as "MU -H1," "CG(0.3),"and "CG(0.5)"SubAreas Band CJ Accommodate a mix of visitor- and leealresident-serving retail commercial, residential, and public uses. The Coast Highway frontage shall be limited to nonresidential uses. On inland parcels, generally between Riverside Avenue and Tustin Avenue, priority should be placed on accommodating uses that serve upland residential neighborhoods such as greeery stores specialty retail, small service office, restaurants, coffee shops, and similar uses. (Imp 2.1, 5.1) LU 61 957.18.5 Parking Require adequate parking and other supporting facilities for charters, yacht sales, visitor -serving, and other waterfront uses. (Imp 2.1, 5.1) WNewport Beach General Plan 445 Land Use Element DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT Corridor LU 6 19 67.18.6 Corridor Identity and Quality Implement landscape, signage, lighting, sidewalk, pedestrian crossing, and other amenities consistent with the Mariners' Mile Strategic Vision and Design Plan. (Imp 20.1) Harbor -Fronting Properties LU 6.19.77.18.7 Architecture and Site Planning While a diversity of building styles is encouraged, the forth, materials, and colors of buildings located along the harbor front should be designed to reflect the area's setting and nautical history. (Ibo 8.1, 8.2) LU 6.19.87.18.8 Integrating Residential -Site Planning Principles Permit properties developed for residential to locate the units along the Harbor frontage provided that portions of this frontage are developed for (a) retail, restaurant, or other visitor -serving uses and (b) plazas and other open spaces that provide view corridors and access from Coast Highway to the Harbor. The amount of Harbor frontage allocated for each use shall be determined by the City during the Development Plan review process. (Imp 2.1, 5.1) LU 6.19-_97.18.9 Harbor and Bay Views and Access Require that buildings be located and sites designed to provide clear views of and access to the Harbor and Bay from the Coast Highway and Newport Boulevard rights-of-way in accordance with the following principles, as appropriate: ■ Clustering of buildings to provide open view and access corridors to the Harbor ■ Modulation of building volume and masses ■ Variation of building heights ■ Inclusion of porticoes, arcades, windows, and other "see-through" elements in addition to the defined open corridor ■ Minimization of landscape, fencing, parked cars, and other nonstructural elements that block views and access to the Harbor • Prevention of the appearance of the public right-of-way being walled off from the Harbor ■ Inclusion of setbacks that in combination with setbacks on adjoining parcels cumulatively form functional view corridors ■ Encouragement of adjoining properties to combine their view corridors that achieve a larger cumulative corridor than would have been achieved independently Newport Beach General Plan= Land Use Element Figure LU26 Mariners' Mile Pg 1-8.5x11 color Newport Beach General Plan 447 Pg 2-3.5x11 color Land Use Element Newport Beach General Plan CM M. Land Use Element A site-specific analysis shall be conducted for new development to determine the appropriate size, configuration, and design of the view and access corridor that meets these objectives, which shall be subject to approval in the Development Plan review process. (Imp 2.1) LU 607.18.10 Waterfront Promenade Require that development on the bay frontage implement amenities that ensure access for coastal visitors. Pursue development of a pedestrian promenade along the Bayfront. (Imp 2.1, 20.2) LU 7.18.11 Guiding Development of a District Corridor Initiate a process to review and, as appropriate, revise existing development standards and the Mariners' M le Strategic Vision and Design Framework to (a) encourage less intensity along the Bayfront in exchange for more intensity of inland parcels and (b) ensure they adequately implement the vision for the form and quality of Mariners' Mile's coastal and inland development for such elements as viewshed and resource protection; building location, scale, mass, and heights; architectural character and design: streetscape amenities; site access and parking; traffic and connectivity to the Bayfront. api2.1, 5.1. 16.10, 20.2) Community/Neighborhood Village LU 617.18.12 Pedestrian -Oriented Village Require that inland properties that front onto internal streets within the Community/Neighborhood Village locate buildings along and forming a semi - continuous building wall along the sidewalk, with parking to the rear in structures or in shared facilities and be designed to promote pedestrian activity. (Imp 2.1, 16.10) LU 6 19 27.18.13 Properties Abutting Bluff Faces Require that development projects that include coastal bluffs locate and design buildings to maintain the visual quality and maintain the structural integrity of the bluff faces. (Imp 2.1) STRATEGY LU 6 19 37.18.14 Lot Consolidation on Inland Side of Coast Highway Permit development intensities in areas designated as "CG(0.3)" to be increased to a floor area ratio of 0.5 where parcels are consolidated to accommodate larger commercial development projects that provide sufficient parking. (Imp 2.1, 5.1, 16.10 LU 6.19.147.18.15 Parking Lot Relocation Consider options for the relocation of the City parking lot on Avon Street to better support the corridor's retail uses. (Imp 16.10) Newport Beach General Plan 449 Land Use Element LU 6.1-9.1-67.18.16 Parking and Supporting Facilities for Waterfront Uses Explore additional options for the development and location of parking and other supporting facilities for charters, yacht sales, and other waterfront uses. qV 16.10) Corona del Mar The Corona del Mar corridor extends along Coast Highway between Avocado Avenue and Hazel Drive. It is developed with commercial uses and specialty shops that primarily serve adjoining residential neighborhoods, with isolated uses that serve highway travelers and coastal visitors. Among the area's primary uses are restaurants, home furnishings, and miscellaneous apparel and professional offices including architectural design services. Almost half of the commercial uses are located in multi - tenant buildings with retail on the ground floor and professional services above. Other uses include the Sherman Library and Gardens, a research library and botanical garden open to the public, and an assisted -living residential complex. Buildings in the Corona del Mar corridor mostly front directly on and visually open to the sidewalks, with few driveways or parking lots to break the continuity of the "building wall" along the street. These, coupled with improved streetscape amenities, landscaped medians, and a limited number of signalized crosswalks, promote a high level of pedestrian activity. Views of Corona del Mar along Pacific Coast Highway The Corona del Mar Vision Plan, developed by the Business Improvement District, is intended to enhance the shopping district through community improvements. These envision a linear park -like environment with extensive sidewalk landscaping, street furniture, pedestrian -oriented lighting fixtures, activated crosswalks, parking lanes, and comparable improvements. The 2006 General Plan Vv_isioning process participants expressed support for protecting Corona del Mar as an important historic commercial center that serves adjoining neighborhoods. Avocado Avenue to Dahlia Avenue. This effort also included the preparation of an Entryway Enhancement Project in coordination with the Corona del Mar Business Improvement District. Newport Beach General Plan = 450 Land Use Element Policy Overview The General Plan sustains Corona del Mar as a pedestrian -oriented retail village that serves surrounding neighborhoods. New development largely would occur as replacement of existing uses and developed at comparable building heights and scale. Additional parking would be provided by the re -use of parcels at the rear of commercial properties and/or in shared parking lots or structures developed a" near Coast Highway. LU b.W7.19 A pedestrian -oriented "village" serving as the center of community commerce, culture, and social activity and providing identity for Corona del Mar. Policies LAND USES [designated as "CC," refer to Figure LU271 LU 6.29.17.19.1 Primary Uses Accommodate neighborhood -serving uses that complement existing development. (Imp 2.1) LU X27.19.2 Shared Parking Structures Accommodate the development of structures on public or private parcels and other public/private arrangement that provides additional off-street parking ee pafeels-for multiple businesses along the corridor, provided that the ground floor of the s"eet corridor frontage is developed for pedestrian -oriented retail -uses. (Imp 2.1, 16.10) LU A 20 27.19.3 Expanded Parking Accommodate the redevelopment of residential parcels immediately adjoining commercial uses that front onto Coast Highway for surface parking, provided that adequate buffers are incorporated to prevent impacts on adjoining residential (see "Design and Development" below). (Imp 2.1) DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT LU A 20 47.19.4 Pedestrian -Oriented Streetscapes Work with business associations, tenants, and property owners to implement Corona del Mar Vision Plan streetscape improvements that contribute to the corridor's pedestrian character. (Imp 20.1) WNewport Beach General Plan 451 Land Use Element STRATEGY LU 620.57.19.5 Complement the Scale and Form of Existing Development permit new commercial development at a maximum intensity of 0.75 FAR, but allow existing commercial buildings that exceed this intensity to be renovated, upgraded, or reconstructed to their pre-existing intensity and, at a minimum, pre- existing number of parking spaces. (Imp 2.1) LU 620.67.19.6 Expanded Parking Opportunities Work with local businesses and organizations to explore other methods to provide parking convenient to commercial uses, such as a parking district or relocation of the City parking lot at the old school site at 4`' Avenue and Dahlia Avenue. (Imp 16.10) Newport Beach General Plan 452 Land Use Element Figure LU27 Corona Del Mar Pg 1-8.5x11 color Newport Beach General Plan 453 Pg 2-8.5x11 color Land Use Element Newport Beach General Plan CM 454 CHAPTER 14 Glossary 2014 Land Use Element Amendment Retained and modified 2014 Land Use Element Amendment policies will continue to be informed by the definitions outlined in Chapter 14 of the General Plan. The Amendment also established new policies focusing on best planning practices addressing such topics as sustainability, climate change, and healthy communities which have emerged since adoption of the 2006 General Plan. Not all terms defined in the Glossary are used in the General Plan. Definitions aoDly regardless whether they are capitalized in the text of the General Plan. Access—A way of approaching or entering a property, including ingress (the right to enter) and egress (the right to leave). Accrete—To add new material gradually to pre-existing material; opposite of erode. Accretion—Enlargement of a beach area caused by either natural or artificial means. Natural accretion on a beach is the build-up or deposition of sand or sediments by water or wind. Artificial accretion is a similar build-up due to human activity, such as the accretion due to the construction of a groin or breakwater, or beach fill deposited by mechanical means. Acres, Net—The portion of a site that can actually be built upon. The following generally are not included in the net acreage of a site: public or private road right-of-way, public open space, and floodways. ADT—See Average Daily Traffic Air Basin—One of 14 self-contained regions in California minimally influenced by air quality in contiguous regions. Air Pollutant Emissions—Discharges into the atmosphere, usually specified in terms of weight per unit of time for a given pollutant from a given source. Air Pollution—The presence of contaminants in the air in concentrations that exceed naturally occurring quantities and are undesirable or harmful. Airport -related Business—A use that supports airport operations including, but not limited to, aircraft repair and maintenance, flight instruction, and aircraft chartering. Air Quality Standards—The prescribed level of pollutants in the outside air that cannot be exceeded legally during a specified time in a specified geographical area. Alley—A narrow service way, either public or private, that provides a permanently reserved but secondary means of public access not intended for general traffic circulation. Alleys typically are located along rear property lines. Alluvial—Soils deposited by stream action. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act—California state law that mitigates the hazard of surface faulting to structures for human occupancy. Ambient—Surrounding on all sides; used to describe measurements of existing conditions with Page I 1 455 respect to traffic, noise, air and other environments Ambient Noise Level– The combination of noise from all sources near and far. In this context, the ambient noise level constitutes the normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given location. Anaerobic Soil—Soil that is devoid of interstitial oxygen. In wetlands this condition most normally occurs because of the sustained presence of water, which limits contact with the atmosphere. Anchorage Area—A water area outside of navigation channels designated for the temporary anchorage of vessels, using their own anchoring tackle. Annexation—The incorporation of a land area into an existing city with a resulting change in the boundaries of that city. Apartment—(1) One or more rooms of a building used as a place to live, in a building containing at least one other unit used for the same purpose. (2) A separate suite, not owner occupied, that includes kitchen facilities and is designed for and rented as the home, residence, or sleeping place of one or more persons living as a single housekeeping unit. Appealable Area—That portion of the coastal zone within an appealable area boundary adopted pursuant to Section 30603 of the California Coastal Act and approved by the Coastal Commission and depicted on the Permit and Appeal Jurisdiction Map. Approach Zone—The air space at each end of a landing strip that defines the glide path or approach path of an aircraft and which should be free from obstruction. Aquifer—An underground bed or layer of earth, gravel, or porous stone that contains water. Area; Area Median Income—As used in California housing law with respect to income eligibility limits established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), "area" means metropolitan area or nonmetropolitan county. In non -metropolitan areas, the "area median income" is the higher of the county median family income. Armor—To fortify a topographical feature to protect it from erosion (e.g., constructing a wall to armor the base of a sea cliff). Arterial—A major street carrying the traffic of local and collector streets to and from freeways and other major streets, with controlled intersections and generally providing direct access to nonresidential properties. Artificial Hard Structure—Docks, floats, boat bottoms, bulkheads, seawalls, and other hard surfaces that provide attachment surfaces for marine organisms. ASBS—Area of Special Biological Significance designation by the California Water Resources Control Board for a coastal habitat that is susceptible to the effects of waste discharge. Assisted Housing—Generally multi -family rental housing, but sometimes single-family ownership units, whose construction, financing, sales prices, or rents have been subsidized be federal, state, or local housing programs, including, but not limited to, federal Section 8 (new construction, substantial rehabilitation, and loan management set -asides), federal Sections 213, 236, and 202, federal Section 221(d)(3) (below-market interest rate program), federal Section 101 (rent supplement assistance), CDBG, FmHA Section 515, multi -family mortgage revenue bond programs, local redevelopment and in lieu fee programs, and units developed pursuant to local inclusionary housing and density bonus programs. Page 1 2 456 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)—Number of vehicles (cars, trucks, etc.) on a road over a 24-hour period (measured in vehicles per day). A -Weighted Decibel or dB(A)—A numerical method of rating human judgment of loudness. The A -weighted scale reduces the effects of low and high frequencies in order to simulate human hearing. Backbeach (Dry Beach)—The sand area inundated only by storm tides or extreme high tides. These areas supply sands to the dune system. Base Flood Elevation—The highest elevation, expressed in feet above sea level, of the level of flood waters expected to occur during a 100 -year flood (i.e., a flood that has one percent likelihood of occurring in any given year). Beach Nourishment Program—Plan for conducting a series of beach nourishment projects at a specific location, typically over a period of 50 years. The program would be based on establishing the technical and financial feasibility of beach nourishment for the site and would include plans for obtaining funding and sources of sand for its duration. Beach Nourishment Project—Placement of sand on a beach to form a designed structure in which an appropriate level of protection from storms is provided and an additional amount of sand (advanced fill) is installed to provide for erosion of the shore prior to the anticipated initiation of a subsequent project. The project may include dunes and/or hard structures as part of the design. Beach—The expanse of sand, gravel, cobble or other loose material that extends landward from the low water line to the place where there is distinguishable change in physiographic form, or to the line of permanent vegetation. The seaward limit of a beach (unless specified otherwise) is the mean low water line. Bed and Breakfast—Usually a dwelling unit, but sometimes a small hotel, that provides lodging and breakfast for temporary overnight occupants, for compensation. Bedrock—Solid rock underlying soil and younger rock layers; generally the oldest exposed geological unit. Berm—A nearly horizontal portion of the beach or backshore formed by the deposit of material by wave action. Some beaches have no berms and others may have one or several. Berth—A generic term defusing any location, such as a floating dock, slip, mooring and the related water area (berthing area) adjacent to or around it, intended for the storage of a vessel in water. Best Management Practices (BMPs)—Schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, operation and maintenance procedures, and other management practices to prevent or reduce the conveyance of pollution in stormwater and urban runoff, as well as, treatment requirements and structural treatment devices designed to do the same. Bicycle Lane (Class II facility)—A corridor expressly reserved for bicycles, existing on a street or roadway in addition to any lanes for use by motorized vehicles. Bicycle Path (Class I facility)—A paved route not on a street or roadway and expressly reserved for bicycles traversing an otherwise unpaved area. Bicycle paths may parallel roads but typically are separated from them by landscaping. Bicycle Route (Class III facility)—A facility shared with motorists and identified only by signs, a bicycle route has no pavement markings or lane stripes. Page 1 3 457 Bikeways—A term that encompasses bicycle lanes, bicycle paths, and bicycle routes Biodiversity—A term used to quantitatively or qualitatively describe the species richness and abundance of plants and animals within an ecosystem. Biological Community—A naturally occurring group of different plant and animals species that live in a particular environment. Bluff Edge—The upper termination of a bluff, cliff, or seacliff: In cases where the top edge of the bluff is rounded away from the face of the bluff as a result of erosional processes related to the presence of the steep bluff face, the bluff line or edge shall be defined as that point nearest the bluff beyond which the downward gradient of the surface increases more or less continuously until it reaches the general gradient of the bluff In a case where there is a steplike feature at the top of the bluff face, the landward edge of the topmost riser shall be taken to be the bluff edge. Bluff edges typically retreat landward due to coastal erosion, landslides, development of gullies, or by grading (cut). In areas where the bluff top or bluff face has been cut or notched by grading, the bluff edge shall be the landward most position of either the current of historic bluff edge. In areas where fill has been placed near or over the historic bluff edge, the original natural bluff edge, even if buried beneath fill, shall be taken to be the bluff edge. Bluff Face—The portion of a bluff between the bluff edge and the toe of the bluff. Bluff Top Retreat (or cliff top retreat)—The landward migration of the bluff or cliff edge, caused by marine erosion of the bluff or cliff toe and subaerial erosion of the bluff or cliff face. Bluff, Coastal—A bluff overlooking a beach or shoreline or that is subject to marine erosion. Many coastal bluffs consist of a gently sloping upper bluff and a steeper lower bluff or sea cliff. The term "coastal bluff" refers to the entire slope between a marine terrace or upland area and the sea. The term "sea cliff' refers to the lower, near vertical portion of a coastal bluff. For purposes of establishing jurisdictional and permit boundaries coastal bluffs include, (1) those bluffs, the toe of which is now or was historically (generally within the last 200 years) subject to marine erosion; and (2) those bluffs, the toe of which is not now or was not historically subject to marine erosion, but the toe of which lies within an area otherwise identified as an Appealable Area. Bluff—A high bank or bold headland with a broad, precipitous, sometimes rounded cliff face overlooking a plain or body of water. A bluff may consist of a steep cliff face below and a more sloping upper bluff above. Breach—A breakthrough of part, or all, of a protective wall, beach sand barrier, beach berm, or the like by ocean waves, river or stream flow, mechanical equipment, or a combination of these forces. Breaching is sometimes purposefully done to protect a region from river overflow. Breakwater—A structure or barrier protecting a shore area, harbor, anchorage, or basin from waves, usually constructed as a concrete or riprap (rock wall) structure. Buffer—A strip of land designated to protect one tape of land use from another incompatible use. Where a commercial district abuts a residential district, for example, additional use, yard, or height restrictions may be imposed to protect residential properties. The term may also be used to describe any zone that separates two unlike zones, such as a multi -family housing zone between single- family housing and commercial uses. Building—Any structure having a roof supported by columns or walls and intended for the shelter, housing or enclosure of any individual, animal, process, equipment, goods, or materials of any kind or nature. Page 1 4 Building Height—The vertical distance from the average contact ground level of a building to the highest point of the coping of a flat roof or to the deck line of a mansard roof or to the mean height level between eaves and ridge for a gable, hip, or gambrel roof. The exact definition varies by community. For example, in some communities building height is measured to the highest point of the roof, not including elevator and cooling towers. Buildout; Build-out—Development of land to its full potential or theoretical capacity as permitted under current or proposed planning or zoning designations. (see "Carrying Capacity (3).'� Bulkhead Line—Harbor land/water perimeter lines established in Newport Harbor by the federal government, which define the permitted limit of filling or solid structures that may be constructed in the Harbor. Bulkhead—Vertical walls built into and along the Harbor shoreline preventing the erosion of land into the water and to protect the land from wave, tide and current action by the water, similar to a "retaining wall" on land. Bulkheads may be directly bordered by water, or may have sloped stones (riptap) or sand beach between the bulkhead and the water and land areas. Busway—A vehicular right-of-way or portion thereof—often an exclusive lane—reserved exclusively for buses. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)—A state law (California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) requiring state and local agencies to regulate activities with consideration for environmental protection. If a proposed activity has the potential for a significant adverse environmental impact, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared and certified as to its adequacy before taking action on the proposed project. General Plans usually require the preparation of a "Program FIR." California Housing Finance Agency (CHFA)—A state agency, established by the Housing and Home Finance Act of 9975, authorized to sell revenue bonds and generate funds for the development, rehabilitation, and conservation of low- and moderate -income housing. California Least Tern—An endangered bird species that nests on beaches and in salt marshes along California; smallest of the terns. Caltrans—California Department of Transportation. Canyon Edge—The upper termination of a canyon: In cases where the top edge of the canyon is rounded away from the face of the canyon as a result of erosional processes related to the presence of the canyon face, the canyon edge shall be defined as that point nearest the canyon beyond which the downward gradient of the surface increases more or less continuously until it reaches the general gradient of the canyon. In a case where there is a steplike feature at the top of the canyon face, the landward edge of the topmost riser shall be taken to be the canyon edge. Capital Improvement Program (CIP)—A proposed timetable or schedule of all future capital improvements (government acquisition of real property, major construction project, or acquisition of long lasting, expensive equipment) to be carried out during a specific period and listed in order of priority, together with cost estimates and the anticipated means of financing each project. Capital improvement programs are usually projected five or six years in advance and should be updated annually. Carbon Dioxide—A colorless, odorless, non-poisonous gas that is a normal part of the atmosphere Page 1 5 459 Carbon Monoxide—A colorless, odorless, highly poisonous gas produced by automobiles and other machines with internal combustion engines that imperfectly burn fossil fuels such as oil and gas. Caulerpa Algae—An invasive Mediterranean seaweed introduced to southern California in 2000 that has a potential to cause severe ecological damage to coastal and nearshore waters. CDFG—California Department of Fish and Game (also known as DFG). Census—The official decennial enumeration of the population conducted by the federal government. Channel—A water area in Newport Harbor designated for vessel navigation, with necessary width and depth requirements, and which may be marked or otherwise designated on federal navigation charts, as well as in other sources. Charter Vessel—A vessel used principally for charter purposes, a "charter" being a rental agreement, generally for a period of one day or more. City—City, with a capital "C," generally refers to the government or administration of a city. City, with a lower case "c" may mean any city. City Council—The governing board of the City. The €weseven-member elected council is responsible to the electorate for keeping pace with changing community needs, for establishing the quality of municipal services through the open conduct of public affairs, and for encouraging constructive citizen participation. Clast—An individual constituent, grain, or fragment of a sediment or rock, produced by the mechanical weathering (disintegration) of a larger rock mass. Cliff—A high, very steep to perpendicular, or overhanging face of rock Climate Action Plan (CAP)—A policy document enabling Newport Beach to comply with State requirements for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions including Executive Order 5-3-05: Assembly Bill 32, The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: and Senate Bill 375 and consistency with the Orange County Sustainable Communities Strategy. CAPS provide analyses of the GHG emissions attributable to the community: estimates of how those emissions are expected to increase to 2020 and the horizon year of the General Plan: and recommended policies and actions that can reduce GHG emissions to meet regional and state targets. Climate Change—Changes in average winter and spring temperatures during the past 50 years, with reduction in snowpack coverage, water runoff and supply, and drier vegetative cover, and changes in sea level. Cluster Development—Development in which a number of dwelling units are placed in closer proximity than usual, or are attached, with the purpose of retaining an open space area. CNDDB—California Natural Diversity Database. Coastal Access—The ability of the public to reach, use or view the shoreline of coastal waters or inland coastal recreation areas and trails. Coastal Commission—The California Coastal Commission, the state agency established by state law responsible for carrying out the provisions of the California Coastal Act and for review of coastal permits on appeal from local agencies. Page 1 b M/ Coastal Development Permit (CDP)—A permit for any development within the coastal zone that is required pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 30600. Coastal Plan—The California Coastal Zone Conservation Plan prepared and adopted by the California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission and submitted to the Governor and the Legislature on December 1, 1975, pursuant to the California Coastal Zone Conservation Act of 1972 (commencing with Section 27000). Coastal Zone—That land and water area of California from the Oregon border to the border of the Republic of Mexico, specified on the maps identified and set forth in Section 17 of that chapter of the Statutes of the 1975/76 Regular Session enacting this division, extending seaward to the state's outer limit of jurisdiction, including all offshore islands, and extending inland generally 1,000 yards from the mean high tide line of the sea. In significant coastal estuarine, habitat, and recreational areas it extends inland to the first major ridgeline paralleling the sea or five miles from the mean high tide line of the sea, whichever is less, and in developed urban areas the zone generally extends inland less than 1,000 yards. The coastal zone does not include the area of jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, established pursuant to Title 7.2 (commencing with Section 66600) of the Government Code, not any area contiguous thereto, including any river, stream, tributary, creek, or flood control or drainage channel flowing into such area. Coastal -dependent Development or Use—Any development or use which requires a site on, or adjacent to, the sea to be able to function at all. Coastal -related Development—Any use that is dependent on a coastal -dependent development or use. Collector—A street for traffic moving between arterial and local streets, generally providing direct access to properties. Collector Roadway—A collector roadway is a two -to -four -lane, unrestricted access roadway with capacity ranging from 7,000 VPD to 20,000 VPD. It differs from a local street in its ability to handle through traffic movements between arterials. Community Care Facility—Any facility, place, or building which is maintained and operated to provide non-medical residential care, day treatment, adult day care, or foster family agency services for children, adults, or children and adults, including, but not limited to, the physically handicapped, mentally impaired, incompetent persons, and abused or neglected children, and includes residential facilities, adult day care facilities, day treatment facilities, foster family homes, small family homes, social rehabilitation facilities, community treatment facilities, and social day care facilities. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)—A grant program administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) on a formula basis for entitlement communities, and by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for non -entitled jurisdictions. This grant allots money to cities and counties for housing rehabilitation and community development, including public facilities and economic development. Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL)—The average equivalent sound level during a 24- hour day, obtained after addition of five decibels to sound levels in the evening from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. and after addition of 10 decibels to sound levels in the night after 10 p.m. and before 7 a.m. See also "A -Weighted Decibel." Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA)—A local agency created under California Redevelopment Law, or a local legislative body that has elected to exercise the powers granted to such Page 1 7 461 an agency, for the purpose of planning, developing, re -planning, redesigning, clearing, reconstructing, and/or rehabilitating all or part of a specified area with residential, commercial, industrial, and/or public (including recreational) structures and facilities. The redevelopment agency's plans must be compatible with adopted community general plans. Compatibility—The characteristics of different uses or activities that permit them to be located near each other in harmony and without conflict. The designation of permitted and conditionally permitted uses in zoning districts are intended to achieve compatibility within the district. Some elements affecting compatibility include: intensity of occupancy as measured by dwelling units per acre; building heights and mass: architectural design: pedestrian or vehicular traffic generated; volume of goods handled; and such environmental effects as noise, vibration, glare, air pollution, or the presence of hazardous materials. On the other hand, many aspects of compatibility are based on personal preference and are much harder to measure quantitatively, at least for regulatory purposes. Condominium—A building, or group of buildings, in which units are owned individually, and the structure, common areas and facilities are owned by all the owners on a proportional, undivided basis. Congestion Management Plan (CMP)—A mechanism employing growth management techniques, including traffic level of service requirements, development mitigation programs, transportation systems management, and capital improvement programming, for the purpose of controlling and/or reducing the cumulative regional traffic impacts of development. AB 1791, effective August 1, 1990, requires all cities, and counties that include urbanized area, to adopt and annually update a Congestion Management Plan. Congregate Care Housing—Generally defined as age -segregated housing built specifically for the elderly that provides services to its residents, the minimum of which is usually an on-site meal program, but which may also include housekeeping, social activities, counseling, and transportation. There is generally a minimum health requirement for acceptance into a congregate facility as most do not offer supportive health care services, thus differing from a nursing home. Residents usually have their own bedrooms and share common areas such as living rooms, dining rooms, and kitchens; bathrooms may or may not be shared. Conservation—The management of natural resources to prevent waste, destruction, or neglect Contour—A line on a topographic map or bathymetric (depth) chart representing points of equal elevation with relation to a datum (point or set of points). Contour lines are usually spaced into intervals for easier comprehension and utilization. Council of Governments (COG)—A regional planning and review authority whose membership includes representation from all communities in the designated region. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is an example of a COG in Southern California. Coverage—The proportion of the area of the footprint of a building to the area of the lot on which its stands. Cretaceous—A period of geologic time spanning 136-64 million years ago. Critical Facility—Facilities housing or serving many people which are necessary in the event of an earthquake or flood, such as hospitals, fire, police, and emergency service facilities, utility "lifeline" facilities, such as water, electricity, and gas supply, sewage disposal, and communications and transportation facilities. Cul-de-sac—A short street or alley with only a single means of ingress and egress at one end and with a turnaround at its other end. Page 1 8 462 Cumulative Effect (Cumulative Impacts)—The incremental effects of an individual project shall be reviewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. Current—A flow of water in a particular direction. Such flows can be driven by wind, temperature or density differences, tidal forces, and wave energy. Currents are often classified by location, such as longshore current, surface current, or deep ocean currents. Different currents can occur in the same general area, resulting in different water flows, for example, a rip current can flow perpendicular to the shore through the surf zone, a long shore current may flow southerly, parallel to the coast and a seasonal deep water current may flow to the north. Day -Night Average Level (LdJ—The average equivalent sound level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of 10 decibels to sound levels in the night after 10:00 P.M. and before 7:00 A.M. See also "Community Noise Equivalent Level." Decibel (dB)—A unit for describing the amplitude of sound, as it is heard by the human ear. See also "A -Weighted Decibel," "Community Noise Equivalent Level," and "Day -Night Average Level." Dedication—The turning over by an owner or developer of private land for public use, and the acceptance of land for such use by the governmental agency having jurisdiction over the public function for which it will be used. Dedications for roads, parks, school sites, or other public uses often are made conditions for approval of a development by a city. Dedication, In lieu of—Cash payments that may be required of an owner or developer as a substitute for a dedication of land, usually calculated in dollars per lot, and referred to as in lieu fees of in lieu contributions. Demolition—The deliberate removal or destruction of the frame or foundation of any portion of a building or structure for the purpose of preparing the site for new construction or other use. Density—The number of families, individuals, dwelling units or housing structures per unit of land; usually density is expressed "per acre." Thus, the density of a development of 100 units occupying 20 acres is 5 units per acre. Density Bonus—The allocation of development rights that allow a parcel to accommodate additional square footage or additional residential units beyond the maximum for which the parcel is zoned, usually in exchange for the provision or preservation of an amenity at the same site or at another location. Density Transfer—A way of retaining open space by concentrating densities, usually in compact areas adjacent to existing urbanization and utilities, while leaving unchanged historic, environmentally sensitive, or hazardous areas. Developable Acres, Net—The portion of a site that can be used for density calculations. Some communities calculate density based on gross acreage. Public or private road rights-of-way are not included in the net developable acreage of a site. Developable Land—Land that is suitable as a location for structures and that can be developed free of hazards to, and without disruption of, or significant impact on, natural resource areas. Developer—An individual who or business which prepares raw land for the construction of buildings or causes to be built physical building space for use primarily by others, and in which the preparation of the land or the creation of the building space is in itself a business and is not incidental Page 1 9 463 to another business or activity Development—The division of a parcel of land into two or more parcels; the construction, reconstruction, conversion, structural alteration, relocation or enlargement of any structure; any mining, excavation, landfill or land disturbance, and any use or extension of the use of land. Development Impact Fees—A fee or charge imposed on developers to pay for the costs to the city of providing services to a new development. Development Plan—A plan, to scale, showing uses and structures proposed for a parcel or multiple parcels of land. It includes lot lines, streets, building sites, public open space, buildings, major landscape features, and locations of proposed utility services. Development Rights—The right to develop land by a landowner that maintains fee -simple ownership over the land or by a parry other than the owner who has obtained the rights to develop. Such rights usually are expressed in terms of density allowed under existing zoning. For example, one development right may equal one unit of housing or may equal a specific number of square feet of gross floor area in one or more specified zone districts. Disturbed—A term used to identify a biological habitat that has been altered by natural or man-made events. Dock—A structure generally linked to the shoreline, to which a vessel may be secured. A dock may be fixed to the shore, on pilings, or floating in the water. Dominant—The major plant or animal species in a community. Downcoast—In the United States usage, it is the coastal direction generally trending toward the south; also the way in which current flows. DPR—California Department of Parks and Recreation Dry Storage—Dry storage of vessels includes all on -land storage of vessels including vessels normally stored in open or enclosed rack structures, on trailers, on cradles, on boat stands, or by other means. Dune—Ridges or mounds of loose, wind-blown material usually sand. A dune structure often has a back and foredune area. Stable dunes are often colonized by vegetation. Duplex—A detached building under single ownership that is designed for occupation as the residence of two families living independently of each other. Dwelling—A structure or portion of a structure used exclusively for human habitation. Dwelling Unit—One or more rooms, designed, occupied or intended for occupancy as separate living quarters, with cooking, sleeping and sanitary facilities provided within the unit for the exclusive use of a single family maintaining a household. Dwelling, Multi-family—A building containing two or more dwelling units for the use of individual families maintaining households; an apartment or condominium building is an example of this dwelling unit type. Dwelling, Single-family Attached—A one -family dwelling attached to one or more other one - family dwellings by a common vertical wall; duplexes and townhomes are examples of this dwelling unit type. Dwelling, Single-family Detached—A dwelling which is designed for and occupied by not more Page 1 10 UM than one family and surrounded by open space or yards and which is not attached to any other dwelling by any means. DWR—California Department of Water Resources. Easement—A limited right to make use of a land owned by another, for example, a right of way across the property. Ebb Tide—The period of tide between high water and the succeeding low water; a falling tide (opposite =flood tide). Economic Base—The production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services within a planning area. Eelgrass—A marine flowering plant (Zostera marina) that is found primarily in coastal bays and estuaries on soft substrate. Elderly Housing—Typically one- and two-bedroom apartments or condominiums designed to meet the needs of persons 62 years of age and older or, if more than 150 units, persons 55 years of age and older, and restricted to occupancy by them. (See "Congregate Care.' El Nino—A term used to describe a cyclic weather pattern caused by changes in tropical ocean current patterns that result in worldwide changes in weather patterns. Element—A division of the General Plan referring to a topic area for which goals, policies, and programs are defined (e.g., land use, housing, circulation). Embodied Energy—An accounting method which aims to find the sum total of the energy necessary for an entire product life -cycle. Emergency Shelter—A facility that provides immediate and short-term housing and supplemental services for the homeless. Shelters come in many sizes, but an optimum size is considered to be 20 to 40 beds. Supplemental services may include food, counseling, and access to other social programs. (See "Homeless" and "Transitional Housing.' Eminent Domain—The authority of a government to take, or to authorize the taking of, with compensation, private property for public use. Emission Standard—The maximum amount of pollutant legally permitted to be discharged from a single source, either mobile or stationary. Endangered Species—A species of animal or plant is endangered when its prospects for survival and reproduction are in immediate jeopardy from one or more causes. Energy Facility—Any public or private processing, producing, generating, storing, transmitting, or recovering facility for electricity, natural gas, petroleum, coal, or other source of energy. Entertainment/Excursion Vessels—Commercial vessels engaged in the carrying of passengers for hire for hire for the purposes of fishing, whale watching, diving, educational activities, harbor and coastal tours, dining/drinking, business or social special events and entertainment. Environment—The sum of all external conditions and influences affecting the life, development, and survival of an organism. Page 1 11 465 Environmental Impact Report (EIR)—A report required of general plans by the California Environmental Quality Act and which assesses all the environmental characteristics of an area and determines what effects or impacts will result if the area is altered or disturbed by a proposed action. (See "California Environmental Quality Act.") Environmental Study Area (ESA)—Relatively large, undeveloped areas containing natural habitats and may be capable of supporting sensitive biological resources. Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA)—Any area in which plant or animal life or their habitat are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and development (PRC 30107.5). Eocene—A period of geologic time spanning 54-38 million years ago. Ephemeral—Short-lived (e.g., an ephemeral stream only flows immediately after rainfall). Equilibrium Beach Width—The mean distance between the shoreline and backbeach line at which sand contributions and losses are balanced. Equivalent Sound Level (LEQ)—The sound level corresponding to a steady noise level over a given sample period with the same amount of acoustic energy as the actual time varying noise level. The energy average noise level during the sample period. Erode—The gradual wearing away and removal of land surface by various agents such as waves; opposite of accrete. Erosion—The wearing away of land by natural forces. On a beach, the carrying away of beach material by wave action, currents or the wind. Estuarine System—Deepwater tidal habitats and adjacent tidal wetlands that are usually semi - enclosed by land but have open, partly obstructed, or sporadic access to the ocean, with ocean water at least occasionally diluted by freshwater runoff from the land. The upstream and landward limit is where ocean -derived salts measure less than 0.5 parts per thousand during the period of average annual low flow. Estuary—The region near a river mouth in which the fresh water of the river mixes with the salt water of the sea. Evaluation—Process by which a project's performance is determined relative to criteria developed for this purpose. Exaction—A contribution or payment required as an authorized precondition for receiving a development permit; usually refers to mandatory dedication (or fee in lieu of dedication) requirements found in many subdivision regulations. Exclusion Area—That portion of the coastal zone within an exclusion area boundary adopted pursuant to the California Coastal Act and approved by the Coastal Commission after the effective date of the delegation of development review authority and depicted on the certified Permit and Appeal Jurisdiction Map. Development within this area is excluded from coastal development permit requirements if certain criteria identified in the adopted exclusion are met. Exclusion Areas Map—A map depicting those areas where specified development types are excluded from the coastal development permit requirements. Fast-food Restaurant—Any retail establishment intended primarily to provide short-order food Page 1 12 services for on-site dining and/or take-out, including self -serve restaurants (excluding cafeterias where food is consumed on the premises), drive-in restaurants, and formula restaurants required by contract or other arrangement to offer standardized menus, ingredients, and fast-food preparation. Fault, Active—A fault that has moved within the last 11,000 years and that is likely to move again within the next 100 years. Fault, Inactive—A fault which shows no evidence of movement in the last 11,000 years and no potential for movement in the relatively near future. Fault, Potentially Active—A fault that last moved within the Quaternary Period (the last 2,000,000 to 11,000 years) before the Holocene Epoch (11,000 years to the present); or a fault that, because it is judged to be capable of ground rupture or shaking, poses an unacceptable risk for a proposed structure. Fault A rock fracture accompanied by displacement. Feasible—Capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors. Federal Coastal Act—The federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451, et seq.), as amended. FEMA—Federal Emergency Management Agency. Page 1 13 467 Fen—A unique type of wetland characterized by a saturated substrate dominated by organic material in which acidic conditions (pH < 7) prevail. Contrast with a bog, which has a saturated substrate dominated by organic material in which basic conditions (pH > 7) prevail. FHWA—Federal Highway Administration. Fill—Earth or any other substance or material, including pilings placed for the purposes of erecting structures thereon, placed in a submerged area. Findings)—The result(s) of an investigation and the basis upon which decisions are made. Findings are used by government agents and bodies to justify action taken by the entity. Fire Flow—A rate of water flow that should be maintained to halt and reverse the spread of a fire. Fire Hazard Zone—An area where, due to slope, fuel, weather, or other five related conditions, the potential loss of life and property from a fire necessitates special fire protection measures and planning before development occurs. Fire-resistive—Able to withstand specified temperatures for a certain period of time, such as a one- hour fire wall; not fire -proof. First Public Road Paralleling the Sea—The road that is nearest the sea, as defined in this chapter, and that meets all of the following criteria: 1. The road is lawfully open and suitable for uninterrupted use by the public 2. The road is maintained by a public agency 3. The road contains an improved all-weather surface open to motor vehicle traffic in at least one direction 4. The road is not subject to any restrictions on use by the public except during an emergency or for military purposes 5. The road connects with other public roads providing a continuous access system and generally parallels and follows the shoreline of the sea so as to include all portions of the sea where the physical features such as bays, lagoons, estuaries and wetlands cause the waters of the sea to extend landward of the generally continuous coastline Fiscal Impact Analysis—A projection of the direct public costs and revenues resulting from population or employment change to the local jurisdiction(s) in which the change is taking place. Enables local governments to evaluate relative fiscal merits of general plans, specific plans, or projects. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)—Fox each community, the official map on which the Federal Insurance Administration has delineated areas of special flood hazard and the risk premium zones applicable to that community. Flood, Regulatory Base—Flood having a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year (100 -year flood). Floodplain—A lowland or relatively flat area adjoining the banks of a river or stream which is subject to a one percent or greater chance or flooding in any given year (i.e., 100 -year flood). Page 1 14 Floodway—The channel of a watercourse or river, and portions of the flood plain adjoining the channel, which are reasonably required to carry and discharge the base flood of the channel. Floor Area Ratio (FAR)—The gross floor area of all buildings on a lot divided by the lot area; usually expressed as a numerical value (e.g., a building having 5,000 square feet of gross floor area located on a lot of 10,000 square feet in area has a floor area ratio of 0.5:1). Forebeach (Wet Beach)—The sand area affected regularly by tides and wave action. Foreshore (or Beach Face)—Region of the coast extending from the berm crest (or the highest point of wave wash at high tide) to the low-water mark that is measured at low tide. Formation—A unit of rock that is distinctive and persistent over a large area. Fossiliferous—Rock units containing fossils. Frequency—The number of times per second that a sound pressure signal oscillates about the prevailing atmosphere pressure. The unit of frequency is the hertz. The abbreviation is Hz. General Plan—A legal document that takes the form of a map and accompanying text adopted by the local legislative body. The plan is a compendium of policies regarding the long-term development of a jurisdiction. The state requires the preparation of seven elements or divisions as part of the plan: land use, housing, circulation, conservation, open space, noise, and safety. Additional elements pertaining to the unique needs of an agency are permitted. Geographic Information System (GIS)—A GIS is a computer system capable of assembling, storing, manipulating, and displaying geographically referenced information. A GIS allows analysis of spatial relationships between many different types of features based on their location in the landscape. Geohazard—A risk associated with geologic processes or events. Giant Kelp—A large brown seaweed (Macrocystispyrifera) that grows primarily on rocky substrate and forms a underwater "forest" in which a diverse group of algae, invertebrates, and fishes are found. Global Positioning System (GPS)—A satellite -based navigational system. Goal—The ultimate purpose of an effort stated in a way that is general in nature and immeasurable; a broad statement of intended direction and purpose (e.g., "Achieve a balance of land use types within the city"). Grade—The degree of rise or descent of a sloping surface. Gravity Walls—Massive, self-supporting walls which resist horizontal wave forces through their sheer mass. Greenbelt—An open area that may be cultivated or maintained in a natural state surrounding development or used as a buffer between land uses or to mark the edge of an urban or developed area. Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG)—Heat-trapping gasses, including water vapor. carbon dioxide C0-1, methane (CH41. and ozone (03). The primary sources of GHG emissions contributing to climate change are the combustion of fossil fuels for energy and transnortation. Greenhouse Gas Emission (GHG) Reduction or Reducing Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Page 1 15 M Emissions—GHG emissions shall be considered to have been reduced as mandated or encouraged by a General Plan policy if the level of GHG emissions expected to be generated by a proposed project with GHG reduction measures would be less than the level of GHG emissions that would have been generated had that proposed project been constructed without such measures under standards in effect in 1990, regardless of the existing use of the subject property or area. Grid—City of Newport 2,000 x 3,000 -foot aerial reference grid Groin—A shoreline protection structure built, usually perpendicular to the shoreline, to trap nearshore sediment or retard erosion of the shore. A series of groins acting together to protect a section of beach is known as a groin system or groin field. Ground Failure—Mudslide, landslide, liquefaction (see this Glossary), or the compaction of soils due to ground shaking from an earthquake. Ground Shaking—Ground movement resulting from the transmission of seismic waves during an earthquake. Groundwater—Subsurface water occupying the zone of saturation usually found in porous rock strata and soils. Group Quarters—A dwelling that houses unrelated individuals. Growth Management—Techniques used by government to control the rate, amount, and type of development. Habitat—The physical location or type of environment in which an organism or biological population lives or occurs. Harbor Lines—All established Bulkhead, Pierhead, and Project Lines as defined within Newport Harbor by the federal, state, county and city governments. Harbor Maintenance Uses, Equipment, and Facilities—All uses, and their related equipment, vessels, docking and land storage facilities and access which provide: dredging and beach replenishment; demolition, repair and new construction of docks, piers, bulkheads and other in -and - over -water structures; mooring maintenance and repair; waterborne debris and pollution control, collection and removal. This category also includes environmental, survey or scientific vessels and related equipment based, or on assignment, in Newport Harbor: All vessels under this definition may also be referred to as "work boats." Harbor Permit Policies—City of Newport Beach City Council Policy Manual Section H-1, governing permits for structures bayward of the bulkhead line, and related parking, sanitary, utility and related support requirements Harbor Regulations—Title 17 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code governing structures, uses and activities within the Harbor. Hardscape Habitat—Hard surfaces of pilings, docks, floats, wharves, seawalls, bulkheads, jetties, and rock groins, and natural intertidal and subtidal reefs that are colonized by marine organisms Hazardous Materials—An injurious substance, including pesticides, herbicides, toxic metals and chemicals, liquefied natural gas, explosives, volatile chemicals and nuclear fuels. HCD—California Department of Housing and Community Development Page 1 16 470 HDC—Nonprofit Housing Development Corporation. Headland (Head)—A high, steep -faced projection extending into the sea, usually marking an area of fairly stable and rigid landform. Heat Island Effect—An urban area havinghigheraverage temperature than its rural surroundings due to the greater absorption, retention, and generation of heat by its buildings. _pavements, and human activities. High Occupancy Vehicle—Vehicle transporting more than one person (at least one passenger, in addition to the driver). Historic Building or Structure—See Historic Resource. Historic District—A geographic area which contains a concentration of historic buildings, structures, or sites united historically, culturally, or architecturally. Historic Preservation—The preservation of historically significant structures and neighborhoods until such time as, and in order to facilitate, restoration and rehabilitation of the building(s) to a former condition. Historic Resource—Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is historically or archeologically significant, or which is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agriculture, educational, social, political, military, or cultural history of the City of Newport Beach and/or California and/or the United States. Holocene—n geologic time, less than 11,000 years ago; also called Recent. HOME—Home Investment Partnership Act. Homeless—Persons and families who lack a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence. Includes those staying in temporary or emergency shelters or who are accommodated with friends or others with the understanding that shelter is being provided as a last resort. California Housing Element law, §65583(c)(1) requires all cities and counties to address the housing needs of the homeless. (See "Emergency Shelter" and "Transitional Housing.") Hotel—A facility in which guest rooms or suites are offered to the general public for lodging with or without meals and for compensation, and where no provisions is made for cooking in any individual guest room or suite. (See "Motel.' Household—According to the U.S. Census, a household is all persons living in a dwelling unit whether or not they are related. Both a single person living in an apartment and a family living in a house are considered households. Household Income—The total income of all the people living in a household. Households are usually described as very low income, low income, moderate income, and upper income for that household size, based on their position relative to the regional median income. Housing Affordability—Based on state and federal standards, housing is affordable when the housing costs are no more than 30 percent of household income. Housing Unit—A room or group of rooms used by one or more individuals living separately from others in the structure, with direct access to the outside or to a public hall and containing separate Page 1 17 471 toilet and kitchen facilities. HUD—U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Hydric Soil—A type of soil with characteristics resulting from prolonged saturation and chemically reducing conditions such as occurs under anaerobic conditions. Hydrology—The dynamic processes of the water within an environment including the sources, timing, amount, and direction of water movement. Hydrophytic Vegetation—Plants that have adapted to living in aquatic environments. These plants are also called hydroph}nes. In wetlands, hydrophytic species occur where at least the root zone of the plant is seasonally or continually found in saturated or submerged soil. Impact—The effect of any direct man-made actions or indirect repercussions of man-made actions on existing physical, social, or economic conditions. Implementation Measure—An action, procedure, program, or technique that carries out general plan policy. In Situ—A Latin phrase meaning "in place." Archaeologically it refers to an artifact or object being found in its original, undisturbed position. Income Categories—Four categories for classifying households according to income based on the median income for each County. The categories are as follows: Very Low (0-50% of County median); Low (50-80% of County median); Moderate (80-120% of County median); and Upper (over 120% of County median). Industrial—The manufacture, production, and processing of consumer goods. Industrial is often divided into "heavy industrial' uses, such as construction yards, quarrying, and factories; and "fight industrial' uses, such as research and development and less intensive warehousing and manufacturing. Infill Development — Building on vacant and underutilized properties within existing development patterns, t�pically but not exclusively in urban areas. Infrastructure—The physical systems and services which support development and population, such as roadways, railroads, water, sewer, natural gas, electrical generation and transmission, telephone, cable television, storm drainage, and others. Intensity—A measure of the amount or level of development often expressed as the ratio of building floor area to lot area (floor area ratio) for commercial, business, and industrial development, or units per acre of land for residential development (also called "density"). Intersection—A location where two or more roads meet or cross at grade. Intertidal—Located between the low and high tide tidal extremes. Invertebrates—Animals without backbones. Issue—A problem, constraint, or opportunity requiring community action. Jetty—On open seacoasts, a structure extending away from the shore, which is designed to prevent shoaling of a channel and to direct and confine the stream or tidal flow. Jetties are built at the mouths of rivers, harbors, or tidal inlets to help deepen and stabilize the access channel. Page 1 18 472 Jobs/Housing Balance; Jobs/Housing Ratio—The jobs/housing ratio divides the number of jobs in an area by the number of employed residents. A ratio of 1.0 indicates a balance. A ratio greater than 1.0 indicates a net in -commute of employed persons; less than 1.0 indicates a net out -commute of employed persons. Lacustrine System—Wetlands and deepwater habitats (1) situated in a topographic depression or dammed river channel; (2) lacking trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, emergent mosses, or lichens with greater than 30% area coverage; and (3) whose total area exceeds 8 hectares (20 acres); or area less than 8 hectares if the boundary is active wave -formed or bedrock or if water depth in the deepest part of the basin exceeds 2 meters (6.6 ft) at low water. Ocean -derived salinities are always less than 0.5 parts per thousand. Lagoon—A shallow body of water, such as a pond or lake, usually located near or connected to the sea. Land Use—A description of how land is occupied or used. Land Use Plan—The relevant portions of a local government's general plan, or local coastal element which are sufficiently detailed to indicate the kinds, location, and intensity of land uses, the applicable resource protection and development policies and, where necessary, a listing of implementing actions. Landslide—A general term for a falling or sliding mass of soil or rocks. Launching Facility—A generic term referring to any location, structures (ramps, docks) and equipment (cranes, Efts, hoists, etc.) where vessels may be placed into, and retrieved from the Harbor waters. LCP—See Local Coastal Program. LEED Certified— A certification program, in full Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, devised in 1994 by the U.S. Green Building Council XSGBC) to encourage sustainable practices designn and development by means of tools and criteria for performance measurement. Leeward—The direction toward which the wind is blowing. Liquefaction—A process by which water -saturated granular soils transform from a solid to a liquid state due to groundshaking. This phenomenon usually results from shaking from energy waves released in an earthquake. Littoral Cell—A region that encompasses most features affecting sediment transport. The boundaries of the cell are usually delineated by river drainage areas, promontory headlands, or submarine canyons on the periphery, the continental shelf -continental slope boundary on the seaward side and by inland ridges and river inlets on the landward side. Sediment within these cells generally travel seaward by river drainage, southward (downcoast) by longshore currents, and are eventually lost to the continental slope area or submarine canyon. Littoral Drift—The sedimentary material moved in the littoral zone under the influence of waves and currents; consisting of silt, sand, gravel, cobbles, and other beach material. Littoral Transport—The movement of sediment in the littoral zone by waves, currents, and tides. This includes movement parallel (longshore transport) and perpendicular (on -offshore transport) to the shore. Page 1 19 473 Littoral Zone—The region where waves, currents, and winds interact with the land and its sediments. This region comprises a backshore, foreshore, inshore, and offshore and is broken down into littoral cells. Littoral—Of or pertaining to a shore, especially of the sea. Liveaboard—Any person who uses a vessel as a domicile as that term is defined in Section 200 of the Elections Code of California, including permanently or on a temporary basis for a period exceeding 3 days. Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO)—A five or seven -member commission within each county that reviews and evaluates all proposals for formation of special districts, incorporation of cities, annexation to special districts or cities, consolidation of districts, and merger of districts with cities. Each county's LAFCO is empowered to approve, disapprove, or conditionally approve such proposals. Local Coastal Program—A local government's (a) land use plans, (b) zoning ordinances, (c) zoning district maps, and (d) within sensitive coastal resources areas, other implementing actions, which, when taken together, meet the requirements of, and implement the provisions and policies of, the California CoastalAct at the local level. Local Government—Any chartered or general law city, chartered or general law county, or any city and county. Local Street—A street providing direct access to properties and designed to discourage through - traffic. Longshore Current—A flow of water in the breaker zone, moving essentially parallel to the shore, usually generated by waves breaking at an angle to the shoreline. Longshore—Parallel to and near the shoreline. LOS—Level of Service, a descriptor of traffic operating conditions based on an intersection's volume -to -capacity ratio. Lot—The basic unit of land development. A designated parcel or area of land established by plat, subdivision, or as otherwise permitted by law, to be used, developed, or built upon as a unit. Major Arterial—A Major arterial highway is typically a six -lane divided roadway. A Major arterial is designed to accommodate 45,000 to 65,000 vehicles per day. Major arterials carry a large volume of regional through traffic not handled by the freeway system. Marina—A berthing facility (other than moorings or anchorage) in which five or more vessels are wet -stored (in water) and/ or dry -stored (on land/racks or on floating docks). Marine Conservation Area—A "state marine conservation area," is a non -terrestrial marine or estuarine area that is designated so the managing agency may achieve one or more of the following: 1. Protect or restore rare, threatened, or endangered native plants, animals, or habitats in marine areas 2. Protect or restore outstanding, representative, or imperiled marine species, communities, habitats, and ecosystems 3. Protect or restore diverse marine gene pools 4. Contribute to the understanding and management of marine resources and ecosystems by Page 1 20 474 providing the opportunity for scientific research in outstanding, representative, or imperiled marine habitats or ecosystems 5. Preserve outstanding or unique geological features 6. Provide for sustainable living marine resource harvest Marine Park—A "state marine park," is a nonterrestrial marine or estuarine area that is designated so the managing agency may provide opportunities for spiritual, scientific, educational, and recreational opportunities, as well as one or more of the following: 1. Protect or restore outstanding, representative, or imperiled marine species, communities, habitats, and ecosystems 2. Contribute to the understanding and management of marine resources and ecosystems by providing the opportunity for scientific research in outstanding, representative, or imperiled marine habitats or ecosystems 3. Preserve cultural objects of historical, archaeological, and scientific interest in marine areas 4. Preserve outstanding or unique geological features Marine Protected Area (MPA)—A named discrete geographic area that has been designated by law, administrative action, or voter initiative to protect or conserve marine life and habitat. Marine Reserve—A "state marine reserve," is a nonterrestrial marine or estuarine area that is designated so the managing agency may achieve one or more of the following: 1. Protect or restore rare, threatened, or endangered native plants, animals, or habitats in marine areas 2. Protect or restore outstanding, representative, or imperiled marine species, communities, habitats, and ecosystems 3. Protect or restore diverse marine gene pools 4. Contribute to the understanding and management of marine resources and ecosystems by providing the opportunity for scientific research in outstanding, representative, or imperiled marine habitats or ecosystems Marine Sales and Service Uses & Vessels—Uses and vessels, as well as related equipment, which provide repair, maintenance, new construction, parts and supplies, fueling, waste removal, cleaning, and related services to vessels berthed in, or visiting, Newport Harbor. Typical service uses include, but are not limited to, all uses and vessels described under Section 20.05.050 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. Marine System—Open ocean overlying the continental shelf and coastline exposed to waves and currents of the open ocean shoreward to (1) extreme high water of spring tides; (2) seaward limit of wetland emergents, trees, or shrubs; or (3) the seaward limit of the Estuarine System, other than vegetation. Salinities exceed 30 parts per thousand. Marine Terrace—A flat or gentle seaward sloping wave -cut bench, which is a remnant of an old coastline. Marine terraces are conspicuous along most of the California coast where uplift has occurred. Market Value—For purposes of determining "substantial improvement," the replacement cost as determined by its replacement value according to the valuation figures established by the City of Newport Beach. Maximum Credible Earthquake (MCE)—The largest possible earthquake that could reasonably occur along recognized faults or within a particular seismic source. Page 1 21 475 Mean High Water—The 19 -year average of all high water heights (if the tide is either semidiurnal or mixed) or the higher high water heights if the tide is diurnal. For diurnal tides high water and higher high water are the same. Mean Higher High Water—The 19 -year average of only the higher high water heights. Mean Low Water—The 19 -year average of all low water heights (if the tide is either semidiumal or mixed) or the lower low water heights if the tide is diurnal. For diurnal tides low water and lower low water are the same. Mean Lower Low Water—The 19 -year average of only the lower low water heights. Mean Sea Level—The 19 -year average height of the surface of the sea for all stages of the tide, usually determined from hourly height readings (see NGVD of 1929). Median Income—The annual income for each household size which is defined annually by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development. Half of the households in the region have incomes above the median and half are below. Mesa—An isolated, relatively flat geograph cal feature, often demarcated by canyons (from Spanish mesa, table). MGD—Million gallons per day. Miocene—A period of geologic time spanning 27-26 million years ago. Mitigate—To ameliorate, alleviate, or avoid to the extent reasonably feasible. Mitigation Measures—Measures imposed on a project consistent with Section 15370 of the State Guidelines for Implementation of the California EnvironmentalQuakiy Act to avoid, minimize, eliminate, or compensate for adverse impacts to the environment. Mitigation—As defined in Section 15370 of the State Guidelines for Implementation of the California EnvironmentalQualityAct, mitigation includes the following: 1. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. 2. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation. 3. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment. 4. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action. 5. Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments." Monitoring—The systematic collection of physical, biological, or economic data or a combination of these data in order to make decisions regarding project operation or to evaluate project performance. Monitoring is typically required for beach nourishment projects and habitat restoration projects. Mooring Area—An area designated for a group of moorings. Mooring—A device consisting of a floating ball, can, or other object that is secured permanently to the Harbor bottom by an anchor system for purposes of securing a vessel. MS4—Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems. MWD— Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. Page 1 22 476 MWDOC—Municipal Water District of Orange County National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)—The National Flood Insurance Program, managed by FEMA, makes Federally -backed flood insurance available in communities that agree to adopt and enforce floodplain management ordinances to reduce future flood damage. National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD)—A fixed reference for elevations, equivalent to the 1929 Mean Sea Level Datum. The geodetic datum is fixed and does not take into account the changing stands of sea level. NGVD should not be confused with mean sea level (see Mean Sea Level). National Historic Preservation Act—A 1966 federal law that establishes a National Register of Historic Places and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and that authorized grants-in-aid for preserving historic properties. National Register of Historic Places—The official list, established by the National Historic Preservation Act, of sites, districts, buildings, structures, and objects significant in the nation's history or whose artistic or architectural value is unique. Nearshore Zone—An indefinite zone extending seaward from the shoreline well beyond the breaker zone; it defines the area of nearshore currents. Newport Bay—The terms "Newport Bay" and "Newport Harbor" are often used interchangeably. However, Newport Bay is an estuary consisting of the Lower Newport Bay (south of Pacific Coast Highway) and the Upper Newport Bay (north of Pacific Coast Highway). Newport Harbor generally refers to all the water area within Lower Newport Bay and within the Upper Newport Bay, exclusive of the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. Newport Bay Tile terms "Newport Bay" ftrid "Newport llarhoi!" are often ttsed intel!ehangeably. fef_�­Vq_ #-H- 8_11 #49-p- -Al�ftfer ftreR wifilift Ine—, N-,–, 9, ftftd wi4-,in file i4t3per Newigaff e'-wittsi-ee NMFS—National Marine Fisheries Service Noise—Any undesired audible sound. Noise Attenuation—The ability of a material, substance, or medium to reduce the noise level from one place to another or between one room and another. Noise attenuation is specified in decibels Noise Exposure Contours—Lines drawn about a noise source indicating constant energy levels of noise exposure. CNEL and Ld„ are the metrics utilized to describe community noise exposure. Noise Referral Zones—Such zones are defined as the area within the contour defining a CNEL level of 60 decibels. It is the level at which either state or federal laws and standards related to land use become important and , in some cases, preempt local laws and regulations. Any proposed noise sensitive development which may be impacted by a total noise environment of 60 dB CNEL or more should be evaluated on a project specific basis. Noise Sensitive Land Use—Those specific land uses which have associated indoor and/or outdoor human activities that may be subject to stress and/or significant interference from noise produced by community sound sources. Such human activity typically occurs daily for continuous periods of 24 hours or is of such a nature that noise is significantly disruptive to activities that occur for short Page 1 23 477 periods. Specifically, noise sensitive land uses include: residences of all types, hospitals, rest homes, convalescent hospitals places of worship and schools. Non-Attainment—The condition of not achieving a desired or required level of performance. Frequently used in reference to air quality. Non -conforming Structure—A structure that was lawfully erected, but which does not conform with the property development regulations prescribed in the regulations for the district in which the structure is located by reason of adoption or amendment of this code or by reason of annexation of territory to the City. Non -conforming Use—A use of a structure or land that was lawfully established and maintained, but which does not conform with the use regulations or required conditions for the district in which it is located by reason of adoption or amendment of this code or by reason of annexation of territory to the City. Nourishment—The process of replenishing or enlarging a beach. It may be brought about naturally by longshore transport or artificially by the deposition of dredged materials. NPDES—National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. NPS—National Park Service. NPS—Nonpoint source pollution or polluted runoff. OC—Orange County. OCFCD—Orange County Flood Control District. Offer to Dedicate (OTD)—An OTD is a document, recorded against the title to a property, which is an offer of dedication to the people of California of an easement over the property or a portion of the property. Generally, an OTD allows for specific uses in of the area of the property involved (for example, allowing the public to walk across the area). The offer conveys an easement in perpetuity only upon its acceptance on behalf of the people by a public agency or by a nonprofit private entity approved by the executive director of the Coastal Commission. Offshore—Off or away from the shore. This area extends from beyond the breaker zone to the outer Emit of the littoral zone and beyond. Oil Seep—Natural springs where liquid hydrocarbons (mixtures of crude oil, tar, natural gas, and water) leak out of the ground. Onshore (Inshore)—The region between the seaward edge of the foreshore and the seaward edge of the breakers or waves. Open Coastal Waters—The area composed of submerged lands at extreme low-water of spring tide extending seaward to the boundaries of the Exclusive Economic Zone (12-200 miles). This includes navigation channels, turning basins, vessel berthing, anchorage, and mooring areas of Newport Bay. Open Space—Any parcel or area of land or water essentially unimproved and set aside, designated, dedicated, or reserved for public or private use or enjoyment. Ordinance—A law or regulation set forth and adopted by a governmental authority, usually a city or county. Overcrowding—As defined by the California Department of Housing and Community Page 1 24 :1i Development, a household with greater than one person per room, excluding bathrooms, kitchens, hallways, and porches. Overlay—A land use designation on the Land Use Map, or a zoning designation on a zoning map, that modifies the basic underlying designation in some specific manner. Palustrine System—All non -tidal wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, emergent mosses, or lichens, and all such tidal wetlands where ocean -derived salinities are below 0.5 parts per thousand. This category also includes wetlands lacking such vegetation but with all of the following characteristics: (1) area less than 8 hectares (20 acres); (2) lacking an active wave -formed or bedrock boundary; (3) water depth in the deepest part of the basin less than 2 meters (6.6 ft) at low water; and (4) ocean -derived salinities less than 0.5 parts per thousand. Para-transit—Refers to transportation services that operate vehicles, such as buses, jitneys, taxis, and vans for senior citizens, and/or mobility -impaired. Parcel—A lot or tract of land. Parking, Shared—A public or private parking area used jointly by two or more uses. Parking Area, Public—An open area, excluding a street or other public way, used for the parking of automobiles and available to the public, whether for free or for compensation. Parking Management—An evolving TDM technique designed to obtain maximum utilization from a limited number of parking spaces. Can involve pricing and preferential treatment for HOVs, non - peak period users, and short-term users. (see "High Occupancy Vehicle" and "Transportation Demand Management.'D Parking Ratio—The number of parking spaces provided per 1,000 square of floor area, e.g., 2:1 or "two per thousand." Permit and Appeal Jurisdiction Map—A map depicting those areas where the Coastal Commission retains permit and appeal jurisdiction. Permit—Any license, certificate, approval, or other entitlement for use granted or denied by any public agency. Person—Any individual, organization, partnership, limited liability company, or other business association or corporation, including any utility, and any federal, state, local government, or special district or an agency thereof. Pier, Private—A pier used for private recreational purposes by the owner(s) or occupant(s) of the abutting upland property without payment of a separate rental or lease fee, except for permit fees to City. Pier, Public—A pier used for public recreational purposes provided by a public agency. Pier—A fixed structure extending from the shore into a body of water. Pierhead Line—Harbor water area perimeter lines established in Newport Harbor by the federal government that define the permitted limit of fixed pier, floating dock and other in -water structures which may be constructed in the Harbor. Pile—A long, heavy timber or section of concrete or metal driven or drilled into the earth or seabed to serve as a support or protection. Page 1 25 479 Planned Community—A large-scale development whose essential features are a definable boundary; a consistent, but not necessarily uniform, character; overall control during the development process by a single development entity; private ownership of recreation amenities; and enforcement of covenants, conditions, and restrictions by a master community association. Planning Area—The Planning Area is the land area addressed by the General Plan. Typically, the Planning Area boundary coincides with the Sphere of Influence which encompasses land both within the City limits and potentially annexable land. Planning Commission—A group of people appointed by the city council that administer planning and land use regulations for the city and provide recommendations on a wide array of land use and land use policy issues. Pleistocene—A period of geologic time spanning 2 million - 11,000 years ago. Pliocene—A period of geologic time spanning 7-2 million years ago. Pocket Beach—A small beach formed between two points or headlands, often at the mouth of a coastal stream. Pocket beaches are common throughout the California coastline. Policy—Statements guiding action and implying clear commitment found within each element of the general plan (e.g., "Provide incentives to assist in the development of affordable housing"). The words "shall," "must," "will," "is to," "ensure" and "are to" are always mandatory. "Should," "promote," "Provide," and "encourage," are not mandatory, but is recommended, and "may" is permissive. The present tense includes the past and future tenses; and the future tense includes the present. The singular number includes the plural number, and the plural the singular, unless the common meaning of the word indicates otherwise. The words "includes" and "including' shall mean "including, but not limited to." Pollution—The presence of matter or energy whose nature, location, or quantity produces undesired environmental effects. Pollution, Non-Point—Sources for pollution that are less definable and usually cover broad areas of land, such as agricultural land with fertilizers that are carried from the land by runoff, or automobiles. Pollution, Point—In reference to water quality, a discrete source from which pollution is generated before it enters receiving waters, such as a sewer outfall, a smokestack, or an industrial waste pipe. Predominant Line of Development—The most common or representative distance from a specified group of structures to a specified point or line (e.g. topographic line or geographic feature). For example, the predominant line of development for a block of homes on a coastal bluff (a specified group of structures) could be determined by calculating the median distance (a representative distance) these structures are from the bluff edge (a specified line). Primary Arterial—Typically a four -lane divided roadway. A Primary arterial is designed to accommodate 30,000 to 40,000 VPD. A Primary arterial's function is similar to that of a Principal or Major arterial; the chief difference is capacity. Principal Arterial —Typically an eight -lane divided roadway. A Principal arterial is designed to accommodate 60,000 to 75,000 vehicles per day (VPD). Principal arterials carry a large volume of regional through traffic not handled by the freeway system. Program—A coordinated set of specific measures and actions (e.g., zoning, subdivision procedures, and capital expenditures) the local government intends to use in carrying out the policies of the Page 1 26 ME general plan Project Lines—Harbor water area channel lines of the improvements constructed by the federal government in 1935-1936, and as shown on navigation charts of Newport Harbor. Also referred to as the "Federal Channel. (see Newport Beach City Design Criteria and Standard Drawings for Harbor Construction). Public Trust Lands—Public Trust lands shall be defined as all lands subject to the Common Law Public Trust for commerce, navigation, fisheries, recreation, and other public purposes. Public Trust Lands include tidelands, submerged lands, the beds of navigable lakes and rivers, and historic tidelands and submerged lands that are presently filled or reclaimed and which were subject to the Public Trust at any time (from California Code of Regulations, Section 13577; see tidelands and submerged lands). Public View Corridors—The line of sight—as identified as to height, width, and distance—of an observer looking toward an object of significance (e.g., ocean or bay); the route that attracts the viewer's attention. Public Works - 1. All production, storage, transmission, and recovery facilities for water, sewerage, telephone, and other similar utilities owned or operated by any public agency or by any utility subject to the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission, except for energy facilities 2. All public transportation facilities, including streets, roads, highways, public parking lots and structures, ports, harbors, airports, railroads, and mass transit facilities and stations, bridges, trolley wires, and other related facilities. For purposes of this division, neither the Ports of Hueneme, Long Beach, Los Angeles, nor San Diego Unified Port District nor any of the developments within these ports shall be considered public works. 3. All publicly financed recreational facilities, all projects of the California Coastal Conservancy, and any development by a special district 4. All community college facilities Qualified Biologist A person who has earned a minimum of a Bachelor of Science degree in biology or a related field from an accredited college or university and has demonstrated field experience evaluating land use impacts on marine or wildlife species and their habitats. Biologists who conduct wetland delineations shall have completed the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' "Reg. IV" wetland delineation training, or the equivalent, and shall have the demonstrated ability to independently conduct wetland delineations. Quaternary—A period of geologic time comprising the past 2 million years; includes the Pleistocene and Holocene ages. Recreation, Active—A type of recreation or activity which requires the use of organized play areas, including, but not limited to: softball, baseball, football and soccer fields, tennis and basketball courts, and various forms of children's play equipment. Recreation, Passive—Type of recreation or activity which does not require the use of organized play areas. Redevelop—To demolish existing buildings; or to increase the overall floor area existing on a property; or both; irrespective of whether a change occurs in land use. Redevelopment—Redevelopment, under the California Community Redevelopment Law, is a Page 1 27 �I process with the authority, scope, and financing mechanisms necessary to provide stimulus to reverse current negative business trends, remedy blight, provide job development incentives, and create a new image for a community. It provides for the planning, development, redesign, clearance, reconstruction, or rehabilitation, or any combination of these, and the provision of public and private improvements as may be appropriate or necessary in the interest of the general welfare. In a more general sense, redevelopment is a process in which existing development and use of land is replaced with new development and/or use. Reflection—Redirection of a wave when it impinges on a steep beach, cliff or other barrier; Regional—Pertaining to activities or economies at a scale greater than that of a single jurisdiction, and affecting a broad homogeneous area. Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA)—The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) is based on California projections of population growth and housing unit demand and assigns a share of the region's future housing need to each jurisdiction within the SCAG (Southern California Association of Governments) region. These housing need numbers serve as the basis for the update of the Housing Element in each California city and county. Regional Housing Needs Plan—A quantification by a COG or by HCD of existing and projected housing need, by household income group, for all localities within a region. Regional Park—A park typically 150-500 acres in size focusing on activities and natural features not included in most other types of parks and often based on a specific scenic or recreational opportunity. Rehabilitation—The upgrading of a building previously in a dilapidated or substandard condition, for human habitation or use. Research and Development Use—A use engaged in study, testing, design, analysis, and experimental development of products, processes, or services. Residential—Land designated in the City or County General Plan and zoning ordinance for buildings consisting only of dwelling units. May be improved, vacant, or unimproved. (See "Dwelling Unit.") Restoration—The replication or reconstruction of a building's original architectural features, usually describing the technique of preserving historic buildings. Retaining Wall—A wall used to support or retain an earth embankment or area of fill. Revetment—A sloped retaining wall; a facing of stone, concrete, blocks, rip -rap, etc. built to protect an embankment, bluff, or development against erosion by wave action and currents. Rezoning—An amendment to the map and/or text of a zoning ordinance to effect a change in the nature, density, or intensity of uses allowed in a zoning district and/or on a designated parcel or land area. Right-of-Way—A strip of land acquired by reservation, dedication, prescription, or condemnation and intended to be occupied by a road, crosswalk, railroad, electric transmission lines, oil or gas pipeline, water line, sanitary or storm sewer, or other similar uses. Rill—The channel of a small stream or gully. Rip Current—A strong surface current flowing seaward from the shore. It usually appears as a visible band of agitated water and is the return movement of water piled up on the shore by incoming waves Page 1 28 and wind. With the seaward movement concentrated in a limited band its velocity is accentuated. Rip currents can pull inexperienced swimmers and waders into deeper water away from the shore. Since a rip current is usually quite narrow, the most effective way to get out of it is to swim perpendicular to the direction of the flow (in most cases, parallel to the beach). Rip currents can often develop adjacent to a jetty or groin. Riparian—Consists of trees, shrubs, or herbs that occur along watercourses or water bodies. The vegetation is adapted to flooding and soil saturation during at least a portion of its growing season. Riprap—A protective layer or facing of rock, concrete blocks, or quarrystone, placed to prevent erosion, scour, or sloughing of an embankment or bluff. Risk—The danger or degree of hazard or potential loss. Riverine System—All wetlands and deepwater habitats contained within a channel except those wetlands (1) dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, emergent mosses, or lichens, and (2) which have habitats with ocean -derived salinities in excess of 0.5 parts per thousand. RWQCB—California Regional Water Quality Control Board. Sand Source—Resource of sand that can be economically used for beach nourishment. The sand must meet the requirements for size distribution and cleanliness and its removal and transfer must not create unacceptable environmental effects. The source may be on land, offshore, in a nearby inlet, or in a navigational channel, a shoal, or other area in which sand accumulates. Sandstone—A rock composed predominantly of sand grains that have undergone cementation. Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board—California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. Scarp (Beach Scarp)—An almost vertical slope along the beach caused by wave erosion. It may vary in height from a few inches to several feet or more, depending on wave action and the nature and composition of the beach. SCWC—Southern California Water Company. Sea Cliff—A vertical or very steep cliff or slope produced by wave erosion, situated at the seaward edge of the coast or the landward side of the wave -cut platform, and marking the inner limit of beach erosion. Sea Level—The height of the ocean relative to land; tides, wind, atmospheric pressure changes, heating, cooling, and other factors cause sea -level changes. Sea—The Pacific Ocean and all harbors, bays, channels, estuaries, salt marshes, sloughs, and other areas subject to tidal action through any connection with the Pacific Ocean, excluding nonestuarine rivers, streams, tributaries, creeks, and flood control and drainage channels. Sea does not include the area of jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, established pursuant to Title 7.2 (commencing with Section 66600) of the Government Code, including any river, stream, tributary, creek, or flood control or drainage channel flowing directly or indirectly into such area. Seas (Waves)—Waves caused by wind at the place and time of observation. (see swell). Seawall—A structure separating land and water areas, primarily designed to prevent erosion and other damage due to wave action. It is usually a vertical wood or concrete wall as opposed to a sloped Page 1 29 am revetment. Second Units—Auxiliary residential units on a lot with an existing primary residential unit. Second units may lack full facilities, such as kitchens. Secondary Arterial—A four -lane roadway (often undivided). A Secondary arterial distributes traffic between local streets and Major or Primary arterials. Although some Secondary arterials serve as through routes, most provide more direct access to surrounding land uses than Principal, Major, or Primary arterials. Secondary arterials carry from 20,000 to 30,000 VPD. Section 8 Rental Assistance Program—A federal (HUD) rent -subsidy program that is one of the main sources of federal housing assistance for low-income households. The program operates by providing "housing assistance payments" to owners, developers, and public housing agencies to make up the difference between the "Fair Market Rent" of a unit (set by HUD) and the household's contribution toward the rent, which is calculated at 30 percent of the household's adjusted gross monthly income (GMI). "Section 8" includes programs for new construction, existing housing, and substantial or moderate housing rehabilitation. Sediment Budget—An account of the sand and sediment along a particular stretch of coast; the sources, sinks, rates of movement, or the supply and loss of sediment. Sediment—Grains of soil, sand, or rock that have been transported from one location and deposited at another. Seiche—A standing wave oscillation in an enclosed waterbody that continues (in a pendulum fashion) after the cessation of the originating force. Seiches can be caused by tidal action or an offshore seismic event. Seismic—Caused by or subject to earthquakes or earth vibrations. Sensitive Coastal Resource Areas—Those identifiable and geographically bounded land and water areas within the coastal zone of vital interest and sensitivity. Sensitive coastal resource areas include the following: 1. Special marine and land habitat areas, wetlands, lagoons, and estuaries as mapped and designated in Part 4 of the coastal plan. 2. Areas possessing significant recreational value. 3. Highly scenic areas. 4. Archaeological sites referenced in the California Coastline and Recreation Plan or as designated by the State Historic Preservation Officer. 5. Special communities or neighborhoods that are significant visitor destination areas. 6. Areas that provide existing coastal housing or recreational opportunities for low- and moderate - income persons. 7. Areas where divisions of land could substantially impair or restrict coastal access. Sensitive Species—Includes those plant and animal species considered threatened or endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or the California Department of Fish and Game according to Section 3 of the federal Endangeted Species Act. Endangered—any species in danger of extinction throughout all, or a significant portion of, its range. Threatened—a species likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all, or a portion of, its range. These species are periodically listed in the Federal Register Page 1 30 an and are, therefore, referred to as "federally listed" species Sewer—Any pipe or conduit used to collect and carry away sewage from the generating source to a treatment plant. Shore Mooring—A mooring for small boats that is located in the nearshore perimeter of the Harbor and its islands, perpendicular to the shoreline. One end of the mooring line is attached to a point on or adjacent to the perimeter bulkhead, and the other end is attached to a mooring buoy located in the water, inside the pierhead line. Shore Protection—Structures or sand placed at or on the shore to reduce or eliminate upland damage from wave action or flooding during storms. Shore—Narrow strip of land in immediate contact with the sea, including the zone between high and low water. A shore of unconsolidated material is usually called a beach. Shoreline Armoring—Protective structures such as vertical seawalls, revetments, riprap, revetments, and bulkheads built parallel to the shoreline for the purposes of protecting a structure or other upland property. Shoreline—Intersection of the ocean or sea with land; the line delineating the shoreline on National Ocean Service nautical charts and surveys approximates the mean low water line from the time the chart was prepared. Significant Effect—A beneficial or detrimental impact on the environment. May include, but is not limited to, significant changes in an area's air, water, and land resources. Single-family Dwelling, Attached—A building containing two dwelling units with each unit having its own foundation on grade. Single-family Dwelling, Detached—A building containing one dwelling unit on one lot. Site—A parcel of land used or intended for one use or a group of uses and having frontage on a public or an approved private street. A lot. Site Plan—The development plan for one or more lots on which is shown the existing and proposed conditions of the lot including: topography, vegetation, drainage, floodplains, marshes and waterways; open spaces, walkways, means of ingress and egress, utility services, landscaping, structures and signs, lighting, and screening devices; any other information that reasonably may be required in order that an informed decision can be made by the approving authority. SLC—State Lands Commission Slope—Land gradient described as the vertical rise divided by the horizontal run, and expressed in percent. Slough—To erode the uppermost layer of soil, or to crumble and fall away from the face of a cliff. Solid Waste—Unwanted or discarded material, including garbage with insufficient liquid content to be free flowing, generally disposed of in landfills or incinerated. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)—The Southern California Association of Governments is a regional planning agency which encompasses six counties: Imperial, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, Los Angeles, and Ventura. SCAG is responsible for preparation of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). Page 1 31 Special District—Any public agency, other than a local government, formed pursuant to general law or special act for the local performance of governmental or proprietary functions within limited boundaries. Special district includes, but is not limited to, a county service area, a maintenance district or area, an improvement district or improvement zone, or any other zone or area, formed for the purpose of designating an area within which a property tax rate will be levied to pay for a service or improvement benefiting that area. Special Needs Groups—Those segments of the population which have a more difficult time finding decent affordable housing due to special circumstances. Under state planning law, these special needs groups consist of the elderly, handicapped, large families, female -headed households, farmworkers and the homeless. Specific Plan—Under Article 8 of the Government Code (Section 65450 et seq.), a legal tool for detailed design and implementation of a defined portion of the area covered by a General Plan. A specific plan may include all detailed regulations, conditions, programs, and/or proposed legislation which may be necessary or convenient for the systematic implementation of any General Plan element(s). Speed, Critical—The speed that is not exceeded by 85 percent of the cars observed. Sphere of Influence (SOI)—The probable ultimate physical boundaries and service area of a local agency (city or district) as determined by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) of the County. Spit—A small, naturally formed point of land or a narrow shoal projecting into a body of water from the shore. Standards—(1) A rule or measure establishing a level of quality or quantity that must be complied with or satisfied. The California Government Code (Section 65302) requires that General Plans describe the objectives, principles, "standards," and proposals of the General Plan. Examples of standards might include the number of acres of park land per 1,000 population that the community will attempt to acquire and improve. (2) Requirements in a zoning ordinance that govern building and development as distinguished from use restrictions; for example, site -design regulations such as lot area, height limit, frontage, landscaping, and floor area ratio. Stationary Source—A non-mobile emitter of pollution. Storm Surge—A rise above normal water level on the open coast due to the action of wind stress on the water surface. Storm surge resulting from a hurricane also includes the rise in level due to atmospheric pressure reduction as well as that due to wind stress. Stream—A topographic feature that at least periodically conveys water through a bed or channel having banks. This includes watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation. Structure—Includes, but is not limited to, any building, road, pipe, flume, conduit, siphon, aqueduct, telephone line, and electrical power transmission and distribution line. Subdivision—The division of a lot, tract or parcel of land that is the subject of an application for subdivision. Subdivision Map Act—Division 2 (Sections 66410 et seq.) of the California Government Code, this act vests in local legislative bodies the regulation and control of the design and improvement of subdivisions, including the requirement for tentative and final maps. (See "Subdivision.") Page 1 32 Submarine Canyon—A steep -sided underwater valley commonly crossing the continental shelf and slope. Submerged Lands—Submerged lands shall be defined as lands which lie below the line of mean low tide (from California Code of Regulations, Section 13577; see Public Trust Lands). Subsidence—The sudden sinking or gradual downward settling and compaction of soil and other surface material with little or no horizontal motion. Subsidence may be caused by a variety of human and natural activities, including earthquakes. Subsidize—To assist by payment of a sum of money or by the granting of terms or favors that reduce the need for monetary expenditures. Housing subsidies may take the forms of mortgage interest deductions or tax credits from federal and/or state income taxes, sale, or lease at less than market value of land to be used for the construction of housing, payments to supplement a minimum affordable rent, and the like. Substantial Damage—Damage of any origin sustained by a structure whereby the cost of restoring the structure to the condition existing before damage would equal or exceed 50 percent of the market value before the damage occurred. Substantial Repair—Any repair, reconstruction, or improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure before such repair, reconstruction, or improvement. This term includes structures that have incurred "substantial damage" regardless of the actual repair work performed. For purposes of coastal development permitting, a substantial improvement to a structure qualifies the proposed development as new development. Subtidal—Marine habitat that is permanently below the extreme low tide line. Summer Season—Begins the day before the Memorial Day weekend and ends the day after the Labor Day weekend; alternatively, June 15th to September 15th. Surf Zone—Area between the outermost breaking waves and the limit of wave uprush Page 1 33 Surfgrass—A type of marine flowering plant that forms meadows on rocky shorelines and shallow rocky subtidal reefs. Sustainability --Development that meets the needs of the present without unduly affecting the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Consisting of three pillars, sustainable development seeks to achieve, in a balanced manner, economic development, social development and environmental protection SWRCB—State Water Resources Control Board. Talus—A pile of rock debris at the base of a cliff. Tectonic—Related to the earth's surface. Temporary Event—An activity or use that constitutes development as defined in this LCP but which is an activity or function which is or will be of limited duration and involves the placement of non -permanent structures; and/or involves the use of sandy beach, parkland, filled tidelands, water, streets, or parking areas which are otherwise open and available for general public use. Terrace—A gently sloping platform cut by wave action. Terrestrial—Land-related. Tidal Epoch (National Tidal Datum Epoch)—The specific 19 -year period adopted by the National Ocean Service as the official time segment over which tide observations are taken and averaged to form tidal data, such as Mean Lower Low Water. The 19 -year period includes an 18.6 year astronomical cycle that accounts for all significant variations in the moon and sun that cause slowly varying changes in the range of tides. A calendar day is 24 hours and a "tidal day" is approximately 24.84 hours. Due to the variation between calendar day and tidal day, it takes 19 years for these two time cycles to establish a repeatable pattern. Thus, if the moon is full today, then the moon will be full again on this day of the year 19 years from today. The present tidal epoch used is 1983-2001. Tidal Prism—The total amount of water that flows into a harbor or estuary or out again with movement of the tide, excluding any freshwater flow. Tidal Range—Difference between consecutive high and low (of higher high and lower low) waters. (see Tides). Tidal Wave—Wave movement of the tides. Often improperly used for tsunamis (see Tsunami). Tide—The periodic rising and falling of the water that results from gravitational attraction of the moon and sun, and other astronomical bodies, acting upon the rotating earth. The California coast has a mixed tidal occurrence, with two daily high tides of different elevations and two daily low tides, also of different elevations. Other tidal regimes are diurnal tides, with only one high and one low tide daily, and semidiurnal, with two high and two low tides daily, with comparatively little daily inequality between each high or each low tide level Tidelands—Tidelands shall be defined as lands that are located between the lines of mean high tide and mean low tide (from California Code of Regulations, Section 13577; see Public Trust Lands). Topography—Configuration of a surface, including its relief and the position of natural and man- made features. Page 1 34 Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)—The maximum amount of a pollutant that can be discharged into a water body from all sources (point and non -point) and still maintain water quality standards. Under Clean Water Act section 303(d), TMDLs must be developed for all water bodies that do not meet water quality standards after application of technology-based controls. TMDL also refers to the written, quantitative analysis and plan for attaining and maintaining water quality standards in all seasons for a specific waterbody and pollutant. Page 1 35 Traffic Model—A mathematical representation of traffic movement within an area or region based on observed relationships between the kind and intensity of development in specific areas. Many traffic models operate on the theory that trips are produced by persons living in residential areas and are attracted by various non-residential land uses. Transit—The conveyance of persons or goods from one place to another by means of a local, public transportation system. Transportation Demand Management (TDM)—A strategy for reducing demand on the road system by reducing the number of vehicles using the roadways and/or increasing the number of persons per vehicle. TDM attempts to reduce the number of persons who drive alone on the roadway during the commute period and to increase the number in carpools, vanpools, buses and trains, walking, and biking. TDM can be an element of TSM (see below). Transportation Systems Management (TSM)—Individual actions or comprehensive plans to reduce traffic congestion by increasing the efficiency of the transportation system itself. Examples would include improved traffic signal timing, coordination of multiple traffic signals, or spot improvements that increase capacity of the roadway system. Treatment Works—Has the same meaning as set forth in the federal mater Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251, at seq.) and any other federal act that amends or supplements the federal Water Pollution Control Act. Trip—A one-way journey that proceeds from an origin to a destination via a single mode of transportation; the smallest unit of movement considered in transportation studies. Each trip has one origin (often the "production end," sometimes from home, but not always), and one destination ("attraction end"). Tsunami—A long period wave, or seismic sea wave, caused by an underwater disturbance such as a volcanic eruption or earthquake. Commonly misnamed a Tidal Wave. Turbidity—A measure of the extent to which water is stirred up or disturbed, as by sediment; opaqueness due to suspended sediment. Turning Basin—An area, often designated on nautical charts, connected to a channel that is large enough to allow vessels to maneuver or tum around. Undertow—A seaward current near the bottom on a sloping inshore zone, caused by the return, under the action of gravity, of the water carried up on the shore by waves. Commonly misnamed a Rip Current. Uniform Building Code (UBC)—A standard building code which sets forth minimum standards for construction. Upcoast—In the United States usage, the coastal direction, generally trending toward the north, from which a current comes. Sediment will often deposit on the upcoast side of a jetty, groin, or headland, reducing the amount of sediment that is available for transport further downcoast. Updtift—The direction opposite that of the predominant movement of littoral materials Page 1 64 8 Urban Design—The attempt to give form, in terms of both beauty and function, to selected urban areas or to whole cities. Urban design is concerned with the location, mass, and design of various urban components and combines elements of urban planning, architecture, and landscape architecture. Urban Open Space—The absence of buildings or development, usually in well-defined volumes, within an urban environment. USACE—U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. USC—United States Code. USFWS—United States Fish and Wildlife Service (also known as FWS). Vernal Pools—Vernal pools are low depressions that typically are flooded and saturated above a hardpan or claypan for several weeks to a few months in the winter and spring. Vessel—Watercraft, such as boats, ships, small craft, barges, etc. whether motorized, sail -powered or hand -powered, which are used or capable of being used as a means of transportation, recreation, safety/rescue, service or commerce on water. This includes all vessels of any size (other than models) homeported, launched/retrieved, or visiting in Newport Harbor, arriving by water or land, and registered or unregistered under state or federal requirements. Warehousing Use—A use engaged in storage, wholesale, and distribution of manufactured products, supplies, and equipment, excluding bulk storage of materials that are flammable or explosive of that present hazards or conditions commonly recognized as offensive. Water Course—Any natural or artificial stream, river, creek, ditch, channel, canal, conduit, culvert, drain, waterway, gully, ravine or wash in which water flows in a definite channel, bed and banks, and includes any area adjacent thereto subject to inundation by reason of overflow or flood water. Water Dependent Use—Those uses that are tied to and require water, including fishing and other vessel rental and charter, water transportation, water public safety and enforcement, marinas, boatyards, yacht/sailing/boating/fishing clubs, watersports instructional and educational facilities, public and guest docking facilities, and landside support uses, dredging, marine construction, and harbor service and maintenance uses and related equipment. Water Related Use—Those uses that relate to but do not require water, including nautical museums, bait and tackle shops, boat charter, rental, sales, storage, construction and/or repair, marine -related retail sales, and marine -related industry. Water Transportation Use—This group of uses includes in -harbor and coastal/offshore ferry services, in -harbor water taxi services, docking, parking, offices, and other water and land support facilities. Water -Enhanced Use—Those waterfront or waterfront -adjacent land uses and activities, including restaurants and residential uses that derive economic, aesthetic and other amenity benefits from proximity to and views of water and water-based activities, but which do not need direct access and proximity to the water in order to accomplish their basic functional and economic operation. Watershed—The geographical area drained by a river and its connecting tributaries into a common source. A watershed may, and often does, cover a very large geographical region. Page 1 65 491 Wave Climate—The range if wave parameters (Height, period and direction) characteristic of a coastal location. Wave Height—The vertical distance from a wave trough to crest. Wave Length (Wavelength)—The horizontal distance between successive crests or between successive troughs of waves. Wave Period—The time for a wave crest to traverse a distance equal to one wavelength, which is the time for two successive wave crests to pass a fixed point. Wave Run-up—The distance or extent that water from a breaking wave will extend up a beach or structure. Wave—A ridge, deformation, or undulation of the surface of a liquid. On the ocean, most waves are generated by wind and are often referred to as wind waves. Wave -cut Platform—The near -horizontal plane cut by wave action into a bedrock formation at the shoreline. Wetland—Land which may be covered periodically or permanently with shallow water and includes saltwater marshes, freshwater marshes, open or closed brackish water marshes, mudflats, and fens. Wetlands are lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. For purposes of this classification, wetlands must have one or more of the following attributes: 1. At least periodically, the land supports predominantly hydrophytes 2. The substrate is predominantly undrained hydric soil 3. The substrate is non -soil and is saturated with water or covered by shallow water at some time during the growing season of each year Whole System—Also known as a "Whole System Design" or "WSD" is an integrated approach to sustainable engineering which aims to increase the economic and environmental performance of a designed system throughout its fife. Wildlife Corridor—The concept of habitat corridors addresses the linkage between large blocks of habitat that allow the safe movement of medium to large mammals from one habitat area to another. The definition of a corridor is varied but corridors may include such areas as greenbelts, refuge systems, underpasses, and biogeographic landbridges, for example. Windward—The direction from which the wind is blowing. Zoning—A police power measure, enacted primarily by units of local government, in which the community is divided into districts or zones within which permitted and special uses are established as are regulations governing lot size, building bulk, placement, and other development standards. Requirements vary from district to district, but they must be uniform within the same district. The zoning ordinance consists of a map and text. Zoning Code—Title 20 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, as amended. Zoning District—A geographical area of a city zoned with uniform regulations and requirements Page 1 66 492 Zoning Map—The officially adopted zoning map of the city specifying the uses permitted within certain geographic areas of the city. Zostera Marina—See eelgrass. Page 1 67 493 CHAPTER 13 Implementation Program Addendum 2014 Land Use Element Amendment Retained and modified 2014 Land Use Element Amendment policies will continue to be implemented by the programs in Chapter 13 of the General Plan. The Amendment also established new policies focusing on best planning practices addressing such topics as sustainability, climate change, and healthy communities which have emerged since adoption of the 2006 General Plan. The following implementation policies are intended to implement the new policies. 32. CLIMATE ACTION PLAN Overview A Climate Action Plan (CAP) is a commonly used tool enabling local municipalities to comply with State requirements for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) including Executive Order S-3-05; Assembly Bill 32, The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006; and Senate Bill 375. For Orange County communities, a CAP also enables local consistency with the Orange County Sustainable Communities Strategy (OCSCS). The California Air Resources Board (CARB) established regional targets for the reduction of GHG emissions in compliance with Senate Bill 375, which are addressed in the Southern California Association of Governments' (SCAG's) SCS. As a SCAG sub -region, Orange County was permitted to prepare its own SCS, which was integrated into the broader SCAG plan. The OCSCS strategies are collectively referred to as "sustainability" strategies and include both land use and transportation improvements. Those related to land use support transit -oriented development, infill housing and mixed-use development, improved jobs -housing ratios, land use patterns that encourage the use of alternatives to single -occupant vehicles, and retention and/or development of affordable housing. While SB 375 and the OCSCS do not regulate land in Newport Beach, many of their objectives and strategies are achieved in this General Plan. Examples include the Plan's designation of properties in Newport Center, the Airport Area, Mariners' Mile, and Lido Peninsula for rrxed-use development and policies for enhanced pedestrian -oriented amenities and walkability. Additionally, the adoption of the Green Building Code, revision of Title 24, Energy Action Plan (EAP), and water conservation and waste diversion requirements are significant elements of a GHG reduction strategy. Cumulatively, these contribute to Newport Beach's compliance with mandates of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which require analysis of the General Plan's GHG emissions, malting a conclusion regarding their significance, and specification of appropriate mitigation measures to reduce these impacts. A CAP, as a supplement to a general plan, provides analyses of the GHG emissions attributable to the community; estimates of how those emissions are expected to increase to 2020 and the horizon year of the General Plan; and recommended policies and actions that can reduce GHG emissions to meet regional and state targets =01 Programs Imp 32.1 Prepare a Climate Action Plan The General Plan's updated Land Use Element goals and policies were written in consideration of the State's climate change legislation and OCSCS. As described above, many of its goals and policies, coupled with recent regulatory changes, constitute local measures contributing to reduction of GHG emissions and can be incorporated in a CAP for Newport Beach. Additionally, analyses conducted for the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) can be used in describing the existing and future GHG emission inventories. A final CAP will supplement these with a description and analysis of the impacts of contributing State regulations and actions and indirect, external initiatives such as requirements for Southern California Edison for the use of alternative energy -generating systems. 33. ENERGY ACTION PLAN (EAP) Overview As discussed for the previous implementation program, the reduction of energy consumption is a major contributor to the objective of reducing GHG emissions. The Energy Action Plan (EAP) was prepared to facilitate Newport Beach's reduction of energy used in facility buildings and operations and raising the energy conservation awareness of the local community. This includes energy measures that have previously and are currently being implemented. Programs Imp 33.1 Administer the Energy Action Plan (EAP) Continue to implement the actions described in the EAP for conserving energy and reducing the carbon footprint. On development and approval of a CAP, integrate these actions and/or continue to administer independently. 34. Energy Overview Electricity in the City is provided by Southern California Edison. Gas is provided by Southern California Gas Company. In 2011, the City entered into a joint partnership with Southern California Edison (SCE) via the Orange County Cities Energy Leadership Partnership Program. The Partnership allows the City to be incentivized for electricity and natural gas saved for municipal retrofit projects and community outreach efforts and provides a performance-based opportunity for the Cita to demonstrate energy efficiency leadership in its community through energy saving actions, including retrofitting its municipal facilities as well as providing opportunities for constituents to take action in their homes and businesses. 495 Programs Imp 34.1 Maintain and Implement Energy Management Plans and Encourage Conservation Information regarding the General Plan's development capacities shall be forwarded by the City to the Southern California Edison and the Southern California Gas Company as the basis for their consideration of the adequacy of existing and planned improvements to meet the needs of existing and future populations. Required facility improvements shall be budgeted by each agency, including, where appropriate, the City's five year and annual Capital Improvement Programs. In addition, the City should encourage cooperative strategies to promote the conservation of energy. These strategies should be reviewed periodically for their effectiveness and updated in the plans to reflect best management practices. City Council Resolution No. XX EXHIBIT B ANOMALY TABLE (LU2) AND AFFECTED MAPS The anomaly table includes land use transfers conducted since adoption of the 2006 General Plan and do not require approval with this amendment. The proposed amendment is highlighted. 497 Table Anomaly Number Statistical Area Land Use Designation Development Limit (so Development Limit Other Additional Information 1 L4 MU -1-12 460,095 471 Hotel Rooms (not included in total square footage) 2 L4 MU -1-12 1,052,880 2.1 L4 MU -H2 18,810 11,544 sf restricted to general office use only (included in total square footage) 3 L4 CO -G 734,641 4 L4 MU -112 250,176 5 L4 MU -H2 32,500 6 L4 MU -H2 46,044 Congregate care use allowed with development limit of 148,000 sf if project is tdp-neutral 7 L4 MU -112 81,372 8 L4 MU -H2 442,775 9 L4 CG 120,000 164 Hotel Rooms (included in total square footage) 10 L4 MU -112 31,362 349 Hotel Rooms (not included in total square footage) 11 L4 CG 11,950 12 L4 MU -1-12 454- 463409 13 L4 CO -G 288,264 14 L4 CO-GIMU-112 860,884 15 L4 MU -1-12 228,214 16 L4 CO -G 344,231 17 L4 MU -H2 33,292 304-256 Hotel Rooms (not included in total square footage) 18 L4 CG 225,280 19 L4 CG 2530226910 21 J6 CO -G 687,000 Office: 660,000 sf; Retail: 27,000 sf CV 300 Hotel Rooms 22 J6 CO -G 70,000 Restaurant: 8000 sf, or Office: 70,000 sf 23 K2 PR 15,000 24 L3 IG 89,624 25 L3 PI 84,585 26 L3 IG 33,940 27 L3 IG 86,000 28 L3 IG 110,600 29 L3 CG 47,500 30 M6 CG 6400050 462 31 L2 PR 75,000 32 L2 PI 34,000 33 M3 PI 163,680 Administrative Office and Support Facilitates: 30,000 sf Community Mausoleum and Garden Crypts: 121,680 sf Family Mausoleums: 12,000 sf 34 L1 CO -R 484,348 35 Ll CO -R 49404550 246 35.1 Ll MU -113 322 500 Error! No text of specified stvle in document. Table Anomaly Number Statistical Area Land Use Designation Development Limit (so Development Limit Other Additional Information 35.2 L1 MU -H3 125 Hotel Rooms 36 L1 CO -R 227,797 37 IT CO -R 131,201 2,050 Theater Seats (not included in total square footage) 38 L1 CO -M 443,627 39 L1 MU -1-13 488,084697059 40 L1 MU-H3',"'T-�6-,°OA1,593,109 42295 Hotel Rooms (Included In total Square Footage) 41 L1 CO -R 327,671 42 L1 CO -R 286,166 43 L1 Cv 611-532 Hotel Rooms 44 Lt CR,636,025 �&680TheaterSeats (not included in total square footage) 45 L1 CO -G 162,364 46 Lt MU-H31PR 3,725 24-7 Tennis Courts and 27 Hotel Rooms (not included in total square Residential permitted in accordance with MU -H3. foots e 47 L1 CG 105,000 48 L1 MU -H3 39-7, 955 550 524 Dwelling Units Residential permitted in accordance with MU -1-13. 49 L1 PI 45,208 50 L1 CG 25,000 51 K1 PR 20,000 52 K1 Cv 479 Hotel Rooms 53 K1 PR 567,500 See Settlement Agreement 54 J1 CM 2,000 55 H3 PI 119,440 56 A3 PI 1,343,238 990,349 sf Upper Campus 577,889 sf Lower Campus In no event shall the total combined gross Floor area of both campuses exceed the development limit of 1,343,238 sq. ft. 57 Intentionally Blank 58 J5 PR 20,000 59 H4 MU -W1 247,402 144 Dwelling Units (included in total square footage) 60 N Cv 4460,"l 659,000 24-591 1149 Hotel Rooms (included in total square footage) 61 N Cv 125,000 62 L2 CG 2,300 63 G1 CN 6600065634 64 M3 CN 74,90072143 65 M5 CN 80,000 66 J2 CN 4-38 122986 67 D2 PI 20,000 68 0 PI 71,150 69 K2 CN 75,000 70 D2 RM -D Parking Structure for Bay Island (No Residential Units) Newport Beach General Plan ... Error! No text of specified stvle in document. Table Anomaly Statistical Land Use Development Number Area Designation Limit (so Development Limit Other Additional Information 71 L1 CO -G 11,630 72 L1 CO -G 8,000 73 A3 CO -M 350,000 74 Ll PR 56,000 City Hall, and the administrative offices 75 L1 PF of the City of Newport Beach, and related parking, pursuant to Section 425 of the City Charter. 1.0 FAR permitted, provided all four 76 H1 CO -G 0.5 FAR legal lots are consolidated into one parcel to provideunified site design 157 Hotel Rooms (included in total 77 H4 Cv 240,000 square footage) 78 B5 CM 139,840 Development limit of 19,905 sq.ft. 79 H4 CG 0310.5 permitted, provided all six legal lots are consolidated into one parcel to provide unified site design 80 Reserved 81 Reserved 82 N CN 103912 83 L4 MU_H2 545 000 329 Dwelling Units (not Included in total square footage) Regional Office: 500,000 sf CO -R, CO -M, 500 Dwelling Units (not Included in Regional Commercial: 50.000 sf 84 L1 550 000 Allowed in Statistical Area L1 in addition CR MU -H3 total square footage) to other development limits Newport Beach General Plan 500 ti N 1 16TH S1 W PRODUCTION PL RM FARAD ST PF e o 100 400 Feet 15TH ST W CN ti HOSPITAL RD HOSPITAL RD COW Map Reference 1 1526 Placentia Ave (King's Liquor) C® M HOSPITAL RD m F Zo lv I h O1 0 z3m" �YE=� V VYr City of Newport Beach GIS Division Mny 29, 2014 501 T u F h� ATF -V �Ol Csl POPS @Ay'9G FF. MU -v �y QQ" MU- MU - PF o� v y MU -v PF h pF 1944% MU- P U q`FF U- c� F °= , S \/ h °cFAlAyl 0 F �? MU -v T gq( PF CONT p F h A��FyF Q • °C FQNFRONrf ti 4 oe C.? me 4 PF e o 100 200 Feet Map Reference 2 Y VYrawwP 813 Balboa Blvd E City of Newport Beach GIS Division May 28, 2014 Maw ] 813_Balbaa_Bbd.mxd FR 09O • .� %, 902 / S� • / gTy / Sr / /• PF / • I / MARINERS% e 0 e 0 ,�,i MU -H1 fY~E Map Reference 3 i5" City of Newport Beach Westcliff Plaza GIS Division May 28, 2014 503 I[ Map Reference 4 3 Airport Area Vu' PlanningCommission Recommendations City of Newport Beach GIS June 5, 2014 June lo, 4014 504 50 a`\ 48 71 49 41 40 42 43 �-r Pf k5-0 Ij COR � U H2/PR S -IJ OS co C, COR - R® RS O krj PR P CG 0 500 1,000 Feet .. %J 0a, PF _p PF/PR OS 1 F1 UW g'Map Reference 5 Statistical Area L1 City of Newport Beach GIS Division See Table LU2 - Create Anomaly 84 May 29, 2014 Map_ 5_ Newport_Center.mzd 505 r SAN JOAQUIN HILLS RD PF P.05-111 PF Map Reference 6 Newport Coast Center IDS ■ OS V V J City of Newport Beach GIS Division May 29, 2014 506 pHJ y �aNJ Y as CV el G N-€ s -D icH Air 'loll.•�, C PR CV - os os .F os e OS 0 500 1,000 e Feet SIA Y� s� Map Reference 7 V Newport Coast Hotel City of Newport Beach GIS Division Mny 29, 2014 Map-7Newport C—tHalel—ol 507 M RM CN PF e eo Fee wD PF S9N O9O�N� i as 'frry � i RS -A TO PI tv rIA' �i Da Map Reference 9 & 12 n Harbor View Center (9)' Ciry of Newport Beach GIS Division Harbor Day School 12 Moy 29, 2014 509 os v n G 9y� fA IG D PF 25, LA FELICIDAD 0 250 SW eFeet OS \ 11SONAVE _ s H 3w � m / RM U OS,. �\ \ o W RS -D ��\ �- ,+/ PR RS -D \ O (fY� Map Reference 10 The Bluffs GI, of N.w,.It 3..ch GIS Division Mo, 28, 2014 510 TT .: CHANNEL PL 1c:, m Jy Q 2 Q G O 4u Q 9 MU-W2 �D O S/1 Rr RT ST W2 m p h /2lFL. 3 m 9GiU W 0- �9 FJ cc 2 ° �S� AOG T FINCEYAVE > i s y 00 <Q � O Oa m p CC yL �0 a0 PF O VIA MALAGA ��� �\ 9L W mO 3 O RTS� 32Np ST 32ND ST a ; NS �3 8] ® ro os ® CO -R MU-H3/PR OS OS RS -D ® \YP RS -D RS -D RS -D-, RS -1) CO OS RS -D CO -R OS OS s RS -D h l r �RSD$- RS-D RS -D OS RS -D,' as RS -D S -D i a� RS -D RS -D CO -G RS -D �a ��. r CC CG o yes F RT RM RT RT RT RS -D R -' }YE Map Reference 17 & 18 100 & 150 Newport Center Dr City of Newport Beach GIS Division May 28, 2014 Map_ 17_ I8_Newport.mxd 512 Attachment No. CC 4 LUE Committee Policy Revisions 513 514 NEWPORT BEACH LAND USE ELEMENT DRAFT POLICY REVISIONS RECOMMENDED BY THE LAND USE ELEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE & PLANNING COMMISSION For Planning Commission Consideration (Public Hearing 6/5/14) This document presents revisions of the General Plan Land Use Element's goals and policies including: • recommendations from the Land Use Element Advisory Committee (LU EAC), • revisions submitted by Commissioner Tucker and reviewed at the May 8, 2014 Study Session; • additional changes discussed by the Planning Commission at the May 8, 2014 and May 22, 2014 Study Sessions. Deletions are shown as ^'• 'its and underlines for new text. Development capacities specified in the policies are highlighted and will be revised as needed to reflect final Planning Commission recommendations. Page 11 515 516 LAND USE ELEMENT Primarily a Residential Community That Balances the Needs of Residents, Businesses and Visitors, witheC�^,se ,rtiye r.Awth StFGtegy Introduction Consistent with state law, the land use element provides guidance regarding the ultimate pattern of development for Newport Beach at build -out. As such, it is based on and correlates the policies from all elements into a set of coherent development policies, which serve as the central organizing element for the General Plan as a whole. Policies for the conservation of natural resources and protection of residents and businesses from the risks of hazards are reflected in the distribution and densities of uses. The quantity and location of uses are linked to the City's objectives for economic development, jobs generation, and fiscal balance, as well as intentions for urban from and community character. Their capacities are, in turn, correlated with the provision of adequate housing and services to meet the needs of its resident population and transportation, parking, and utility infrastructure that support residents, employees, and visitors. Implicitly, the Land Use Element serves as the final arbiter on how the City of Newport Beach shall evolve and mature over the next 20 years. Its policies are directly correlated and supported by those in all other General Plan elements. Cumulatively, the land use element's policies directly affect the establishment and maintenance of the neighborhoods, districts, corridors, and open spaces that distinguish and contribute to Newport Beach's livability, vitality, and image. Policies for the development of individual parcels are inseparable from those that address how they will fit together to create places that are valued by the City's residents—safe and attractive neighborhoods, walkable and active commercial districts, and hillsides, beaches, water, and open spaces that provide recreation and respite from an active lifestyle. As Newport Beach is almost fully developed, the land use element focuses on how population and employment growth can be accommodated and still preserve its distinguishing and valued qualities. It recognizes that most of the City will be conserved with its existing pattern of uses and establishes policies for their protection and long term maintenance. It recognizes that there are limited areas of the City that are not achieving their full potential and establishes strategies for their enhancement and revitalization. It also recognizes the evolving needs of the marketplace and considerable pressures for population growth in the region and proposes creative strategies for the re -use of land to provide opportunities for new housing that will complement and enhance Newport Beach's character and livability. These strategies are carefully considered in context of community objectives for the provision of an efficient transportation system that minimizes congestion for residents, employees, and visitors. At the same time, it recognizes the needs to balance mobility objectives with priorities of Newport Beach's residents for the character of its neighborhoods and commercial districts and corridors. Our Starting Point - Newport Beach's Existing Land Uses Newport Beach has a unique physical setting with many visual, recreational, and environmental resources that has influenced the type and form of land uses within the community. The majority of the community is fully developed with a diverse mixture of residential, institutional, commercial, industrial, and recreational and open space uses. Residential uses represent the largest portion of land uses within the City, characterized by many distinct neighborhoods. Older communities were first developed along the coast line including the Peninsula, West Newport, Page 12 517 Balboa Island, and Lido Isle. This early housing is characterized by a diversity of multi -family, single-family and mixed-use housing located within proximity of commercial and visitors serving uses. As development spread further inland and proceeded north and east, the residential pattern changed, becoming more suburban in character and characterized by single-family ranch style homes on larger lots. While single-family attached and detached homes comprise the majority of housing in the community, the City contains many multi -family homes including condominiums, apartments, duplex, triplex, and fourplex units. These are located in older neighborhoods near aleng the beaches including West Newport, Balboa Peninsula, Balboa Island, and Corona del Mar as well as in the northern portions of the community such as Bonita Canyon Village, and Newport Center. Mobile homes are found along Coast Highway in West Newport, west of Newport Dunes and near the Newport Pier. A variety of retail uses are located throughout Newport Beach including neighborhood shopping centers, commercial strips and villages and shopping centers. The largest retail center in the City is Fashion Island, a regional attraction that is framed by a mixture of office, entertainment, and residential uses. Newport Beach also has many neighborhood shopping centers that service nearby residential neighborhoods with convenience goods. Many of the older commercial villages located along the coast and harbor include specialty shops, entertainment, and marine uses that serve nearby residents and visitors. These retail villages are located within Balboa Island, Balboa Village, Cannery Village, McFadden Square, and Corona del Mar. Much of the City's office space is located in Newport Center and the Airport Area. Newport Center is an area of both high and low-rise offices surrounding the Fashion Island retail area. The Airport Area encompasses the properties abutting and east of John Wayne Airport (JWA) and is in close proximity to the Irvine Business Complex and University of California, Irvine. This area includes a mixture of low, medium, and high rise office uses as well as research and development and high technology businesses. Industrial uses are primarily located within the West Newport Mesa area east of Banning Ranch. A variety of industrial, manufacturing, and supporting retail uses are located within this area. Research and development uses are clustered in the Airport Area. Government, educational and institutional uses include the City hall, schools, libraries, museums, and religious uses. The City has approximately 270-450 acres of developed parks. Newport Beach's parklands range in size from mini - parks such as the Lower Bay Park to the 39 -acre Bonita Canyon Sports Park. Additionally, bikeways, jogging trails, pedestrian trails, recreation trails, and regional equestrian trails are also available in Newport Beach. Numerous open space areas are located within the community, including water front areas such as beaches, Newport Bay, and Newport Harbor. There are also numerous undeveloped areas supporting natural habitats and sensitive biological resources including Banning Ranch, Irvine Coast Marine Life Refuge, Coyote Canyon, Bonita Canyon Creek Watershed, Upper Newport Bay State Marine Park (formally Ecological Reserve) and Upper Newport Bay Nature Preserve. Other resources include rhes -many undeveloped canyons and hillsides located primarily in the Newport Coast area. Goals and Policies Role and Character ("Who We Are") Goal LU 1 A unique, primarily residential community with diverse coastal and upland neighborhoods, which values its colorful past, high quality of life, and community bonds, and balances the needs of residents, businesses, and visitors thFaugh Page 13 518 Policy LU 1.1 Unique Environment Maintain and enhance the beneficial and unique character of the different neighborhoods, business districts, and harbor that together identify Newport Beach. Locate and design developments to reflect Newport Beach's topography, architectural diversity, and public view sheds. (Imp 1.1 20.3) LU 1.2 Citywide Identity While recognizing the qualities that uniquely define its neighborhoods and districts, promote the identity of the entire City that differentiates it as a special place within the Southern California region. (Imp 1.1) LU 1.3 Natural Resources Protect the natural setting that contributes to the character and ident*identity of Newport Beach and the sense of place it provides for its residents and visitors. Preserve designated open space resources, beaches, harbor, bays. channels, parks, huffs, preserves, and estuaries as visual, recreational and habitat resources and promote preservation of coastal bluffs. (Imp 1.1 29.3) LU 1.4 Growth Management Implement a egasewative growth strategy that enhances the quality of life of residents and balances the needs of all constituencies with the preservation of designated open space and natural resources. (Imp 1.1, 10.2) LU 1.5 Economic Health Encourage a local economy that provides adequate commercial, office, industrial, and marine -oriented opportunities that provide employment and revenue to support high-quality community services. (Imp 1.1, 24.1) LU 1.6 Environmental Health Promote sustainable land use and development practices that minimize the use of non-renewable resources and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. (Imp 2.1. 32.1, 33.1) LU 1.7 Healthy Population Promote land use and development practices that contribute to the health and wellness of Newport Beach's residents. (Imo 2.1. 16.1) LU 4-.61.8 Public Views Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor and other water vistas from public vantage points. (Imp 1.1) LU 1.9 Compatible Land Uses Require that the scale and massing of new development provide appropriate transitions in building location, height, and bulk at their edges that are sensitive to the physical and visual character of adjoining neighborhoods and districts that have lower development intensities and building heights. (Imo 2.1) Uses to be Accommodated Goal LU 2 A living, active, and diverse environment that complements all lifestyles and enhances neighborhoods, without compromising the valued resources that make Newport Beach unique. It contains a diversity of uses that support the needs of residents, sustain and enhance the economy, provide job opportunities, serve visitors that enjoy the City's diverse recreational amenities, promote public health, and protect its important environmental setting, resources, and quality of life. Page 14 519 Policies LU 2.1 Resident -Serving Land Uses Accommodate uses that support the needs of Newport Beach's residents including housing, retail, services, employment, recreation, education, culture, entertainment, medical and health facilities, civic engagement, and social and spiritual activity that are in balance with community natural resources and designated open spaces. (Imp 1.1, 2.1, 29.3) LU 2.2 Economically Sustainable and -Complete -Community Emphasize the development of uses that enable Newport Beach to continue as an economically self-sustaining community and minimize the need for residents to travel outside of the community for retail, goods and services, and employment. (Imp 1.1, 24.1) LU 2.3 Range of Residential Choices Provide opportunities for the development of residential units that respond to community and regional needs in terms of density, size, location, and cost. Implement goals, policies, programs, and objectives identified within the City's Housing Element. (Imp 1.1, 8.1, 25.1) LU 2.4 Recreational Centers Maintain and enhance a network of recreational facilities and programs to serve all phases of life. (Imp 23.2. 29.3) LU 2.42.5 Economic Development Accommodate uses that maintain or enhance Newport Beach's fiscal health and account for market demands, while maintaining grand improving the quality of life for current and future residents. (Imp 1.1, 24.1) LU 3.52.6 Harbor and Waterfront Uses Preserve the uses of the Harbor and the waterfront that contribute to the charm and character of Newport Beach and provide needed support for recreational and commercial boaters, visitors, and residents, with appropriate regulations necessary to protect the interests of all users as well as adjoining residents. (Imp 1.1, 2.5, 5.1, 20_2 21.4, 24.1) LU 2.62.7 Visitor Serving Uses Provide uses that serve visitors to Newport Beach's ocean, harbor, open spaces, and other recreational assets, while iRtagp^"R9 %h@FR tG protecting the quality of life for neighborhoods and residents. (Imp 1.1, 2.1, 5.1, 24.1) LU 2.8 Locally -Grown Food Promote the production and distribution of locally grown food by allowing farmers markets, food cooperatives, and neighborhood or community gardens. (Imp. 8.1) LU 2.72.8 Oil and Gas Facilities Prohibit the construction of new onshore oil processing, refining, or transportation facilities, including facilities designed to transport oil from offshore tracts, with the exceptions of slant drilling from onshore oil fields or for the consolidation and more efficient production of wells should Banning Ranch be annexed to the City. (Imp 2.1, 5.1) LU 2.52.9 Adequate Infrastructure Accommodate the types, densities, and mix of land uses that can be adequately supported by transportation and utility infrastructure (water, sewer, storm drainage, energy, technology cabling and so on) and public services (schools, parks, libraries, seniors, youth, police, fire, and so on). (Imp 1.1, 10.2, 11.1, 19.1, 22.1) Organization and Form of Uses ("How Are Land Uses Distributed?") Goal LU 3 A development pattern that retains and complements the City's residential neighborhoods, commercial and industrial districts, open spaces, and natural environment. Page 15 520 Policies LU 3.1 Neighborhoods, Districts, Corridors, and Open Spaces Substantially Mmaintain Newport Beach's pattern of residential neighborhoods, business and employment districts, commercial centers, corridors, and harbor and ocean districts. (Imp 1.1) LU 3.2 Community Connectivity Promote improved connectivity between Newport Beach's key districts through well -landscaped and safe pedestrian corridors, bicycle trails, wavfinding sionage, and similar elements. (Imo 16.11, 20.11 LU 3.23_3 Growth and Change Enhance existing neighborhoods, districts, and corridors, allowing for re -use and infill with uses that are complementary in type, form, scale, and character. Changes in use and/or density/intensity should be considered only in those areas that are ^^^^^^^'call•• underperforming, are fy to accommodate Newport Beach's share of projected regional population growth, improve the relationship and reduce commuting distance between home and jobs, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption on an overall, citywide basis, facilitate walking, bicycling, and transit uses, provide places for people to congregate and interact socially, or enhance the values that distinguish Newport Beach as a special place to live and work for its residents. The scale of growth and new development shall be coordinated with the provision of adequate infrastructure and public services, including standards for acceptable traffic level of service. (Imp 1.1, 2.1, 5.1, 10.2, 16.2, 16.3, 17.1, 18.1, 19.1, 22.1, 23.1, 23.2) LU 3,33.4 Opportunities for Change Provide opportunities for improved development and enhanced environments for residents in the following districts and corridors, as specified in Polices 6.3.1 through 6.22.7: • West Newport: consolidation of retail and visitor -serving commercial uses, with remaining commercial areas developed for residential units • West Newport Mesa: re -use of underperforming or underutilized commercial and industrial properties for offices and other uses that support Hoag Hospital's medical activities, improvement of remaining industrial properties adjoining the City of Costa Mesa, accommodation of non -water dependent marine -related industries, and development of residential in proximity to jobs and services • Santa Ana Heights: use of properties consistent with the adopted Specific Plan • John Wayne Airport Area: re -use of underperforming or underutilized commercial, industrial and office properties and development of an urban mixed-use district with resident -serving uses enabling employees to live in proximity to jobs and services. • Fashion Island/Newport Center: expanded retail and office uses and hotel rooms and development of residential in proximity to jobs and services, •• h is limit ng inc men • Balboa Peninsula: more efficient patterns of use that consolidate the Peninsula's visitor -serving and mixed uses within the core commercial districts; encourage marine -related uses especially in commercial areas along the bay front; integrate residential with retail and visitor -serving uses in Lido Village, McFadden Square, Balboa Village, and along portions of the Harbor frontage; re -use interior parcels in Cannery Village for residential and limited mixed-use and live/work buildings.; and redevelop underperforming properties ,..It^:.t,. ^t the ,.•..., ^^..,..,^.^ ^i a;^t.:•.t...,i....,. the Ball a Q^. a,.yaFd ,.,...id9F fee FGRide. 4aI -Infill development shall be designed and sited to preserve the haracter of these districts. • Mariners' Mile: re -use of underperforming or underutilized properties for retail, visitor -serving, and marine - related uses, integrated with residential and expand public and private parking. • Corona del Mar: enhancement of public improvements and expand public and private parking. (Imp 1.1, 2.1, 5.1 16.10) Page 16 521 LU 3.43.5 Banning Ranch Prioritize the acquisition of Banning Ranch as an open space amenity for the community and region, consolidating oil operations, enhancing wetland and other habitats, and providing parkland amenities to serve nearby neighborhoods. If the property cannot be acquired within a time period and pursuant to terms agreed to by the City and property owner, allow for the development of a compact residential village that preserves the majority of the site as open space and restores critical habitat in accordance with Policies 657_2.1 through 6557.4.6. (Imp 1.1, 2.1, 5.1, 14.7, 14.11) LU 343.6 Coastal -Dependent and Related Businesses Design and site new development to avoid impacts to existing coastal -dependent and coastal -related developments When reviewing proposals for land use changes, give full consideration to the impact on coastal -dependent and coastal related land uses, including not only the proposed change on the subject property, but also the potential to limit existing coastal -dependent and coastal -related land uses on adjacent properties. (Imp 2.1, 5.1, 7.1) LU 3.6-3.7 Waterfront Access Use public beaches for public recreational uses and prohibit uses on beaches that interfere with public access and enjoyment of coastal resources. Encourage the expansion and improvement of access to the waterfront and water related uses that provide important links to waterfront uses such as beaches, launching facilities, public docks, and other similar public water area uses. (Imp 1.1, 5.1 20.2) LU &7-3_9 Natural Resource or Hazardous Areas Require that new development is located and designed to protect areas with high natural resource value and protect residents and visitors from hazards that pose a threats to life or property. (Imp 2.1, 6.1) LU 3.93.9 Project Entitlement Review with Airport Land Use Commission Refer the adoption or amendment of the General Plan, Zoning Code, specific plans, and Planned Community development plans for land within the John Wayne Airport planning area, as established in the JWA Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP), to the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) ofior Orange County for review, as required by Section 21676 of the California Public Utilities Code. In addition, refer all development projects that include buildings with a height greater than 200 feet above ground level to the ALUC for review. (Imp 14.3) Sustainable DeveloDment LU 4 Land use development practices that contribute to a sustained natural environment for use by future generations, economy, and well-being of Newport Beach's residents, while reducing greenhouse gas emissions and impacts on climate change. Policies LU 4.1 Regulating Sustainable Development Promote and, where appropriate, require new development and reconstruction to comply with sustainable building practices incorporating a "whole system" approach to designing and constructing buildings that consume comparatively less energy, water, and other resources, facilitate natural ventilation, use daylight effectively, and are healthy, safe, comfortable, and durable. (Imp 1.1. 32.1, 33.1. 34.1) LU 4.2 Existing Structure Reuse Encourage the retention, adaptive reuse, and renovation of existing buildings with "green" building technologies to retain the structure's embodied energy, increase energy efficiency, and limit the generation of construction waste. (imp 7.1) LU 4.3 Sustainable Sites and Land Development Promote land development practices that reduce energy and water consumption, pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and waste generation incorporating such techniques as: Page 17 522 Concentrating and designing development to promote walking, bicycling, and use of public transit as an alternative to automobile travel: Capturing and re -using stormwater runoff on-site for irrigation and/or groundwater percolation: Managing wastewater and using recycled water, including encouraging the use of grey water: Orienting buildings to maximize opportunities for solar energy use, davlighting, and ventilation: Using landscapes that conserve water and reduce green waste; Shading of surface parking, walkways, and plazas: and/or Recycling and/or salvaging for reuse of construction and demolition debris. (Imp 2.1. 7.1, 8.2) LU 4.4 Revitalization of Obsolete and Underused Properties Encourage the consolidation of small commercial, industrial, and mixed-use parcels to facilitate revitalization and redevelopment. (imp 2.1. 24.1) LU 4.5 Heat Island Effect Reduce the "heat island effect" by promoting such features as reflective roofing, green roofs, light-colored oavina. and reducing the unshaded extent of parking lots with a tree canopy. (Imp 7.1, 32.1, 33.1, 34.1) LU 4.6 Orange County Sustainable Communities Strategy Implement practices for infill and mixed use development, affordable housing, and density to achieve objectives for a comparative reduction of vehicle trips and commute distances, air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption and improvement of public health consistent with applicable policies of the Orange County Sustainable Communities Strategy _(SCS)_(imp 8.1, 32.1, 33.1, 34.1) Land Use Diagram Goal LU 45 Management of growth and change to protect and enhance the livability of neighborhoods and achieve distinct and economically vital business and employment districts, which are correlated with supporting infrastructure and public services and sustain Newport Beach's natural setting. Policies LU 4.7-5.1 Land Use Diagram Accommodate land use development consistent with the Land Use Plan. Figure LU1 depicts the general distribution of uses throughout the City and Figure LU2 through Figure LU15 depict specific use categories for each parcel within defined Statistical Areas. Table LU1 (Land Use Plan Categories) specifies the primary land use categories, types of uses, and, for certain categories, the densities/intensities to be permitted. The permitted densities/intensities or amount of development for land use categories for which this is not included in a. Identify the parcel and the applicable land use designation on the Land Use Plan, Figure LU4 through Figure LU15 b. Refer to Figure LU4 through Figure LU15 and Table LU1 to identify the permitted uses and permitted density or intensity or amount of development for the land use classification. Where densities/intensities are applicable, the maximum amount of development shall be determined by multiplying the area of the parcel by the density/intensity. c. For anomalies identified on the Land Use Map by a symbol, refer to Table LU2 to determine the precise development limits. d. For residential development in the Airport Area., refer to the policies prescribed by the Land Use Element that define how development may occur. (Imp 2.1, 5.1, 10.2) Page 18 523 LU 4.25.2 Prohibition of New Residential Subdivisions Prohibit new residential subdivisions that would result in additional dwelling units exceeding those permitted by the General Plan unless authorized by an amendment of the General Plan (GPA). Lots that have been legally merged through the Subdivision Map Act and City Subdivision Code approvals are exempt from the GPA requirements and may be redeveloped or re -subdivided to the original underlying legal lots. This policy is applicable to all Single Unit, Two Unit, and -Multiple Unit Residential and Mixed Use land use categories. (Imp 6.1) LU 4.35_3 Transfer of Development RightsAllocations Permit the transfer of development allocationsrights from a property to one or more other properties when: a. The donor and receiver sites are within the same Statistical Area. b. The reduced density/intensity on the donor site provides benefits to the City such as, but not limited to, the (1) provision of drae.a,na y pen space exceeding standard requirements, public visual corridor(s), parking or other amenities; (2) preservation of a historic building or property or natural landscapes; (3) improvement of the area's scale and development character; (4) consolidation of lots to achieve a better architectural design than could be achieved without lot consolidation; and/or (5) reduction of local vehicle trips and traffic congestion; c. The increment of growth transferred to the receiver site complements and is in scale with surrounding development, complies with community character and design policies contained in this Plan, and does not materially degrade local traffic conditions and environmental quality. d. Transfer of Development Rights -Allocations in Newport Center is governed by Policy 447.13.3 and those for the Airoort Area by Policy 7.14.6. (Imp 2.1, 5.1, 10.2 29.2) Community Character ("Maintaining the Character of Our Neighborhoods and Districts" Goals and policies provide for the maintenance and enhancement of Newport Beach's residential neighborhoods, commercial districts, employment centers, corridors, and open spaces, assuring that new development complements and reinforces these characteristics. In addition to those listed below, community design policies are defined in the section beginning -with Policy LU r• r.1 to reflect the specific community character objectives for a number of the City's districts and corridors. Residential Neighborhoods Goal LU 5.'46.1 Residential neighborhoods that are well-planned and designed contribute to the livability and quality of life of residents, respect the natural environmental setting, and sustain the qualities of place that differentiate Newport Beach as a special place in the Southern California region. Policies ALL NEIGHBORHOODS LU 5.,46.1.1 Compatible but Diverse Development Establish property development regulations for residential projects to create compatible and high-quality development that contributes to and sustains neighborhood character. (Imp 2.1) 1 244(Note: Moved to Policv LU 1.91 Page 19 524 LU 5 1 2 .1.2 Neighborhood Identification Encourage and support the identification of distinct residential neighborhoods. (Imp 1.1, 1.3) LU 5 4 46.1.3 Neighborhood Maintenance Promote the maintenance of existing residential units through code enforcement and promotion of County and local rehabilitation programs and public education. This may include providing information, guidance, and assistance where feasible. (Imp 23.3, 25.1, 26.1, 29.1) SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED AND TWO -UNIT NEIGHBORHOODS LU 5.1,5-6.1.4 Character and Quality of Single -Family Residential Dwellings Require that residential units be designed to sustain the high level of architectural design quality that characterizes Newport Beach's neighborhoods in consideration of the following principles: • Articulation and modulation of building masses and elevations to avoid the appearance of "box -like' buildings Compatibility with neighborhood development in density, scale, and street facing elevations • Architectural treatment of all elevations visible from public places • Entries and windows on street facing elevations to visually "open" the house to the neighborhood Orientation to desirable sunlight and views (Imp 2.1) LU SA,66.1.5 Character and Quality of Residential Properties Require that residential front setbacks and other areas visible from the public street be attractively landscaped, trash containers enclosed, and driveway and parking paving minimized. (Imp 2.1) LU 5.4x7 6.1.6 Renovation and Replacement of Existing Residential Units Require that residential units that are renovated and rebuilt in existing single family neighborhoods adhere to the principles for new developments, as specified by Policy 5a-56.1.4 above and avoid. Gens der the ^^^•^^F AtPAP^^ A impacted -by significant changes in building scale and character. (Imp 2.1, 8.2) LU 5.1.&6.1.7 Parking Adequacy Require that new and renovated single-family residences incorporate adequate enclosed parking in consideration of its asw-e€�sfloor area. (Imp 2.1) MULTI -FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS LU 5 4 96.1.8 Character and Quality of Multi -Family Residential Require that multi -family dwellings be designed to convey a high quality architectural character in accordance with the following principles (other than the Newport Center and Airport Area, which are guided by Goals 647.13 and 6-157.14, respectively, specific to those areas): Building Elevations • Treatment of the elevations of buildings facing public streets and pedestrian ways as the principal facades with respect to architectural treatment to achieve the highest level of urban design and neighborhood quality • Architectural treatment of building elevations and modulation of mass to convey the character of separate living units or clusters of living units, avoiding the appearance of a singular building volume • Provide street- and path -facing elevations with high-quality doors, windows, moldings, metalwork, and finishes Ground Floor Treatment • Where multi -family residential is developed on large parcels 86IGh as the A,rpai4 Area and West Alswpei t Mesa: Page 110 525 • Set ground -floor residential uses back from the sidewalk or from the right-of-way, whichever yields the greater setback to provide privacy and a sense of security and to leave room for stoops, porches and landscaping • Raise ground -floor residential uses above the sidewalk for privacy and security but not so much that pedestrians face blank walls or look into utility or parking spaces • Encourage stoops and porches for ground -floor residential units facing public streets and pedestrian ways • Where multi -family residential is developed on small parcels, such as the Balboa Peninsula, the unit may be located directly along the sidewalk frontage and entries should be setback or elevated to ensure adequate security (as shown belowl ). Roof Design • Modulate roof profiles to reduce the apparent scale of large structures and to provide visual interest and variety. Parking • Design covered and enclosed parking areas to be integral with the architecture of the residential units' architecture. Open Space and Amenity • Incorporate usable and functional private open space for each unit. • Incorporate common open space that creates a pleasant living environment with opportunities for recreation. (Imp 2.1 Imo 29.3) Commercial Districts Goal LU 5.26_2 Commercial centers and districts that are well-designed and planned, exhibit a high level of architectural and landscape quality, and are vital places for shopping and socialization. Policies LU 5.246.2.1 Architecture and Site Design Require that new development within existing commercial districts centers and corridors4#4t GGRIPleMeRt ;g dsea and exhibit a high level of architectural and site design in accordance with seas deratins Pf the following principles: • Seamless connections and transitions with existing buildings, except where developed as a free-standing building • Modulation of building masses, elevations, and rooflines to promote visual interest • Architectural treatment of all building elevations, including ancillary facilities such as storage, truck loading and unloading, and trash enclosures • Treatment of the ground floor of buildings to promote pedestrian activity by avoiding long, continuous blank walls, incorporating extensive glazing for transparency, and modulating and articulating elevations to promote visual interest • Clear identification of storefront entries • Incorporation of signage that is integrated with the buildings' architectural character ' Note: Refers to image in General Plan Page 111 526 • Architectural treatment of parking structures consistent with commercial buildings, including the incorporation of retail in the ground floors where the parking structure faces a public street or pedestrian way • Extensive on-site landscaping, including mature vegetation to provide a tree canopy to provide shade for customers Incorporation of plazas and expanded sidewalks to accommodate pedestrian, outdoor dining, and other activities • Clearly delineated pedestrian connections between business areas, parking, and to adjoining neighborhoods and districts (paving treatment, landscapinge, wayfinding signage, and so on) • Integration of building design and site planning elements that comparatively reduce the consumption of water, energy, and other nonrenewable resources (Imp 2.1) LU 54.26.2.2 Buffering Residential Areas Require that commercial uses adjoining residential neighborhoods be designed to be compatible and minimize impacts through such techniques as: • Incorporation of landscapinn e, decorative walls, enclosed trash containers, downward focused lighting fixtures, and/or comparable buffering elements; Attractive architectural treatment of elevations facing the residential neighborhood; • Location of automobile and truck access to prevent impacts on neighborhood traffic and privacy. (Imp 2.1) LU 5.2.36.2.3 Alley Design Improve and enhance the aesthetic quality of alleys without impacting service and resident access. (Imp 6.1, 8.1) Mixed -Use Districts and Neighborhoods Goal LU 5.36.3 Districts where residents and businesses are intermixed that are designed and planned to ensure compatibility among the uses, that they are highly livable for residents, and are of high quality design reflecting the traditions of Newport Beach. Policies LU 5.3.46.3.1 Mixed -Use Buildings Require that mixed-use buildings be designed to convey a high level of architectural and landscape quality and ensure compatibility among their uses in accordance with seas derat AR of he following principles: Design and incorporation of building materials and features to avoid conflicts among uses, such as noise, vibration, lighting, odors, and similar impacts • Visual and physical integration of residential and nonresidential uses • Architectural treatment of building elevations and modulation of their massing • Separate and well-defined entries for residential units and nonresidential businesses Design of parking areas and facilities for architectural consistency and integration among uses • Incorporation of extensive landscape appropriate to its location; urbanized streetscapes, for example, would require less landscape along the street frontage but integrate landscape into interior courtyards and common open spaces (Imp 2.1) Page 112 527 LU 5.3.26.3.2 Mixed -Use Building Location and Size of Nonresidential Uses Require that 100 percent of the ground floor street frontage of mixed-use buildings be occupied by retail and other compatible nonresidential uses, unless specified otherwise by policies' " 6.21.1 thiFe gh I " &'^ for a specific district or corridor. (Imp 2.1) LU 5.3.36.3.3 Parcels Integrating Residential and Nonresidential Uses Require that properties developed with a mix of residential and nonresidential uses be designed to achieve high levels of architectural quality in accordance with policies LU 5-.1-96.1.8 and LU 5-246.2.1 and planned to ensure compatibility among the uses and provide adequate circulation and parking. Residential uses should be seamlessly integrated with nonresidential uses through architecture, pedestrian walkways, and landscapiMs. They should not be completely isolated by walls or other design elements. (Imp 2.1) LU 5.3.46.3.4 Districts Integrating Residential and Nonresidential Uses Require that sufficient acreage -area be developed for an individual use located in a district containing a mix of residential and nonresidential uses to prevent fragmentation and ensure each use's viability, quality, and compatibility with adjoining uses. (Imp 2.1, 6.1) All Commercial and Mixed -Use Districts LU 5,3.56.3.5 Pedestrian -Oriented Architecture and Streetscapes Require that buildings located in pedestrian -oriented commercial and mixed-use districts (other than the Newport Center and Airport Area, which are guided by Goals 6447.13 and 6457.14, respectively, specific to those areas) be designed to define the public realm, activate sidewalks and pedestrian paths, and provide "eyes on the street" in accordance with the following principles: • Location of buildings along the street frontage sidewalk, to visually form a continuous or semi -continuous wall with buildings on adjacent parcels, • Inclusion of retail uses characterized by a high level of customer activity on the ground floor; to insure successful retail -type operations, provide for transparency, elevation of the first floor at or transitioning to the sidewalk, floor -to -floor height, depth, deliveries, and trash storage and collection; • Articulation and modulation of street -facing elevations to promote interest and character, Inclusion of outdoor seating or other amenities that extend interior uses to the sidewalk, where feasible', • Minimization of driveways that interrupt the continuity of street facing building elevations, prioritizing driveway their locations to side streets and alleys where feasible, (Imp 2.1) LU 5.3.66.3.6 Parking Adequacy and Location Require that adequate parking be provided and is conveniently located to serve tenants and customers. Set open parking lots back from public streets and pedestrian ways and screen with buildings, architectural walls, or dense landscaping. (Imp 2.1) Office and Business Parks Goal LU 5.46.4 Office and business districts that exhibit a high quality image, are attractive, and provide quality working environments for employees. Policies LU 5.4r1-6.4.1Site Planning Require that new, and to the extent feasible, renovated office And -retail evelopment projects be planned to exhibit a high-quality and cohesive "campus environment," characterized by the following: Page 113 528 • Location of buildings around common plazas, courtyards, walkways, and open spaces Incorporation of extensive on-site landscaping that emphasizes special features such as entryways • Use of landscape and open spaces to break the visual continuity of surface parking lots Common signage program for tenant identification and wayfinding • Common streetscapes and lighting to promote pedestrian activity • Readily observable site access, entrance drives and building entries and minimized conflict between service vehicles, private automobiles, and pedestrians (Imp 2.1) LU 5,4.26.4.2 Development Form and Architecture Require that new development of business park, office, and supporting buildings be designed to convey a unified and high-quality character in accordance with nnnq dPrAt onf the following principles: • Modulation of building mass, heights, and elevations and articulation of building • Avoidance of blank building walls that internalize uses with no outdoor orientation to public spaces • Minimize the mass and bulk of building facades abutting streets • Consistent architectural design vocabulary, articulation, materials, and color palette Clear identification of entries through design elements • Integration of signage with the building's architectural style and character Architectural treatment of parking structures consistent with their primary commercial or office building (Imp 2.1) Industrial Districts Goal LU 5.56.5 Districts that provide for the manufacturing of goods and research, and development that are attractive, compatible with adjoining nonindustrial uses, and well maintained. Policies LU 5.5.46.5.1 Site Planning and Building Design Require that new and renovated industrial properties and structures be designed to exhibit a high quality of design and maintenance characterized by the following: • Incorporation of extensive on-site landscaping • Incorporation of landscape, decorative walls, and other elements that visually screen areas used for outdoor storage, processing, and other industrial operations from public places • Architectural treatment of all visible building elevations Consistent and well-designed signage • Control of on-site lighting, noise, odors, vibrations, toxic materials, truck access, and other elements that may impact adjoining nonindustrial land uses. (Imp 2.1) LU 5.6,26.5.2 Property Maintenance Encourage and, where subject to redevelopment, require owners of visually unattractive or poorly maintained industrial properties to upgrade existing structures, facades, and properties to improve their visual quality. (Imp 26.1) Page 114 529 Public and Institutional Uses and Districts2 The City of Newport Beach contains a diversity of public and institutional uses including civic and government administrative facilities (City Hall), corporate yards, fire and police facilities, libraries, cultural institutions, art museum, marine science center, environmental interpretative center, senior and youth facilities, schools, and hospitals. Major public uses include the Civic Center, including City Hall, adjeiaiag-L do V',I^ge, and Police Department in Newport Center, eight fire stations distributed throughout the community, Central Library in Newport Center and three branches, OASIS Senior Center in Corona del Mar, and community facilities available at various locations for residents for recreational and meeting use. Newport Beach is served by two public and one private high school, one public and one private middle school, and eight public and four private elementary schools. Hoag Hospital is a major medical center that serves the City and region and is supported by numerous medical offices and related facilities. Goal LU 6.46_6 A diversity of governmental service, institutional, educational, cultural, social, religious, and medical facilities that are available for and enhance the quality of life for residents and are located and designed to complement Newport Beach's neighborhoods. Policies LAND USES LU 6.7,46.6.1 Adequate Community Supporting Uses Accommodate schools, government administrative and operational facilities, fire stations and police facilities, religious facilities, schools,,cultural facilities, museums, interpretative centers, and hospitals to serve the needs of Newport Beach's residents and businesses. (Imp 1.1, 2.1) LU 6.4.,26.6.2 Siting of New Development Allow for the development of new public and institutional facilities within the City provided that the use and development facilities are compatible with adjoining land uses, environmentally suitable, and can be supported by transportation and utility infrastructure. (Imp 1.1, 14.2, 22.1-23.2) DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT LU 6.4,56.6.3Architecture and Planning that Complements Adjoining Uses Ensure that the City's public buildings, sites, and infrastructure are designed to be compatible in scale, mass, character, and architecture with the district or neighborhood in which they are located, following the design and development policies for private uses specified by this Plan. Design impacts on adjoining uses shall be carefully considered in development, addressing such issues as lighting spillover, noise, hours of operation, parking, local traffic impacts, and privacy. (Imp 22.1-23.2) LU 6.7-.4-6.6.4 Compatibility of Non -City Public Uses Encourage school and utility districts and other government agencies that may be exempt from City land use control and approval to plan their properties and design buildings at a high level of visual and architectural quality that maintains the character of the neighborhood or district in which they are located and in consideration of the design and development policies for private uses specified by this Plan. (Imp 14.1, 14.15) STRATEGY LU 6.7.56.6.5 Hoag Hospital Campus Support Hoag Hospital and related medical uses in its their mission to provide adequate -sufficient facilities to meet the needs of area residents. Work with the Hospital and related medical uses to ensure that future development plans consider 4s -their relationship to and ensure compatibility with adjoining residential neighborhoods and mitigate impacts on local and regional transportation systems. (Imp 24.1) 2 NOTE: This section was incorrectly located in the General Plan and has been moved. No text changes have been made. Page 115 530 All Neighborhoods, Districts, and Corridors Goal LU "6_7 Neighborhoods, districts, and corridors containing a diversity of uses and buildings that are mutually compatible and enhance the quality of the City's environment. Policies LU 5.6.1-6.7.1Compatible Development Require that buildings and properties be designed to ensure compatibility within and as interfaces between neighborhoods, districts, and corridors. (Imp 2.1) LU 5.6.26.7.2 Form and Environment Require that new and renovated buildings and structures be designed to avoid the use of styles, colors, and materials that unusually impact the design character and quality of their location such as abrupt changes in scale, building form, architectural style, and the use of surface materials that raise local temperatures, result in glare and excessive illumination of adjoining properties and open spaces, or adversely modify wind patterns. (Imp 2.1) LU 5 6 36.7.3 Ambient Lighting Require that outdoor lighting be located and designed to prevent spillover onto adjoining properties or significantly increase the overall ambient illumination of their location. (Imp 2.1) LU 5.6,46.7.4 Conformance with the Natural Environmental Setting Require that sites be planned and buildings designed in consideration of the property's topography, landforms, drainage patterns, natural vegetation, and relationship to the Bay and coastline, maintaining the environmental character that distinguishes Newport Beach. (Imp 2.1, 8.1) LU 5,6,56.7.5 Heliport/Helistop Compatibility Require that all applicants for the construction or operation of a heliport or helistop comply with state permit procedures, file a Form 7480 (Notice of Landing Area Proposal) with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and comply with all conditions of approval imposed by the FAA, Caltrans/Division of Aeronautics and Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for Orange County. (Imp 14.9) Neighborhoods, Districts, and Corridors ("Places That Distinguish Newport Beach") Goals and policies provide for the maintenance of existing neighborhoods, districts, corridors, and public and civic uses, managing growth and change to ensure that their character, livability, and economic value are sustained. 12--blor and Ingt:a.,a: at asps; and DTstronts distr buted throughout the commun ty, Central Library n Newport Center And three branches, OASIS San or Center n Newport Beach s served by two public and one pr vate h gh school, one pub! c and one private middle school, and Bight PWbI G and four pr vats 818RIORtary schools. Hoag Hospital is a major medical G8Rt8F that rerwas th@ G ty @Rd reg on and is supported by numerous n.d'cal offices and related fn.: 't as. Goal Page 116 531 Encourage school and i'1'ty d str Mc and other noyernms CT0�4� Support Hoag Hasa tal n its m ssioR to prov do adequate residential Pa ghborhoadr and mot gate rnpaGt9 OR IGGal Residential Neighborhoods Newport Beach is a community of distinct residential communities formed by the natural landscape and the built environment. Many of the City's older communities are located near the coast, and are characterized by small lots and the close grouping of structures. Newer residential communities, located east of the bay, have been built according to specific regulations to encourage their individual characters. Residential neighborhoods first began to develop on the Peninsula, West Newport, Balboa Island, and Lido Isle. These early neighborhoods following a traditional subdivision pattern of homes on streets designed in a linear grid and are generally pedestrian -oriented and include alleyways. Some of these older residential areas are within close proximity of commercial and visitors serving uses and are impacted by limited parking, noise, and traffic generated by commercial and visitor activities. When development spread further inland and proceeded north and east, the residential pattern changed, becoming less traditional, and more suburban in character with curvilinear streets and ranch style homes on larger lots. Examples of this type of development are the Westcliff community and Cliff Haven. As residential expanded across Page 117 532 the bay and to the east, new styles such as attached town homes and gated communities were constructed. The Bluffs and Big Canyon communities illustrate this type of development. More recent residential development patterns have resulted in numerous distinct neighborhoods with a single builder constructing most or all of the homes. Many of the these communities were designed as master planned communities allowing for unique and specialized development standards, as opposed to the application of traditional, standardized zoning regulations. Examples include Bonita Canyon, Newport Ridge, and Newport Coast. There are approximately 4-2-&150 150 homeowners associations in Newport Beach. These associations govern the maintenance of common areas and the administration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CCBRs). Many of these associations are active in the City's decision-making process and may have unique development standards that are not enforced by the City. As the community has approached build -out, little vacant land remains. New development has focused on nontraditional sites such as infill and mixed-use development on smaller vacant and underutilized sites in or near commercial areas. Other residential development issues in the community include the replacement of original single family homes, duplexes, and triplexes with larger homes. Many of these homes are built to the full limit of the City's development regulations in neighborhoods where many houses are much smaller in scale. The policy framework for neighborhoods is geared toward strengthening and expanding the framework of healthy, cohesive, and identifiable neighborhoods throughout the City. Goal LU 6.27_1 Residential neighborhoods that contain a diversity of housing types and supporting uses to meet the needs of Newport Beach's residents and are designed to sustain livability and a high quality of life. Policies LU 6.2,47.1.1 Residential Supply Accommodate a diversity of residential units that meets the needs of Newport Beach's population and fair share of regional needs in accordance with the Land Use Plan's designations, applicable density standards, design and development policies, and the adopted Housing Element. (Imp 1.1, 2.1, 25.1) LU 6.2.27.1.2 Allowing Rebuilding Legal nonconforming residential structures shall be brought into conformity in an equitable, reasonable, and timely manner as rebuilding occurs. L Fnited •Renovations that improve the physical quality and character of the buildings but are limited in scope may be allowed. Rebuilding after catastrophic damage or destruction due to a natural event, an act of public enemy, or accident may be allowed in limited circumstances that do not conflict with the goals of the Land Use Element. (Imp 2.1, 7.1) LU 6.2.37.1.3 Residential Affordability Encourage the development of the types of residential units that are consistent with the Housing Element afferdable F... these a ,.i. yed n the rr:n,. (Imp 25.1) LU 6.2.47.1.4 Accessory Units Permit conditionally the construction of one granny unit (accessory age -restricted units for one or two adult persons who are sixty -fifty five years of age or older) per single family residence within single-family districts, provided that such units meet set back, height, occupancy, and other applicable regulations set forth in the Municipal Code. (Imp 2.1) LU 6.2.57.1.5 Neighborhood Supporting Uses Allow for the integration of uses within residential neighborhoods that support and are complementary to their primary function as a living environment such as schools, parks, community meeting facilities, religious facilities, and Page 118 533 comparable uses. These uses shall be designed to ensure compatibility with adjoining residential addressing such issues as noise, lighting, and parking. (Imp 2.1) LU 6.2.67.1.6 Home Occupations Allow for small scale home occupations in Newport Beach's residential neighborhoods provided that they do not adversely impact traffic, parking, noise, lighting, and other neighborhood qualities. (Imp 2.1) LU 6.2.77.1.7 Care Facilities Regulate Day Care and Residential Care facilities to the maximum extent allowed by federal and state law to minimize impacts on residential neighborhoods, and aetively p mum fedeFal and State leg 612tieR that would give G ties the ab lity to proh bit an nvPr-r;nnnPntrAtinn of recovery homes or sober living homes in res dential areas. (Imp 2.1) LU 6.2.87.1.8 Manufactured Housing Permit by right manufactured housing on individual lots in residential zones as per state law. Ensure compatibility with surrounding conventional dwelling uses by adhering to development standards within the Municipal Code. seaEiauiag (Imp 2.1) LU 6.2.97.1.9 Private Open Spaces and Recreational Facilities Require the open space and recreational facilities that are integrated into and owned by private residential development are permanently preserved as part of the development approval process and are prohibited from converting to residential or other types of land uses. (Imp 6.1, 13.1 29.3) LU 6 2.107.1.10 Gated Communities Discourage the creation of new private entry gates in existing residential neighborhoods that currently do not have a gate located at the entrance of the community. (Imp 9.1, 29.1) Districts Districts are uniquely identifiable by their common functional role, mix of uses, density/intensity, physical form and character, and/or environmental setting. Generally, they encompass large areas that often extend equally in length and breadth. They represent common gathering places for commerce, employment, entertainment, culture, and for living. While Newport Beach contains many districts, the General Plan policies in the following sections focus on those that are likely to change over the next 20 years as existing viable districts are enhanced, underperforming properties are revitalized, and opportunities are provided to accommodate the City's fair share of regional housing needs, as shown on Figure LU16. Policies are directed to the management of these changes to ensure that they complement the characteristics that are valued by Newport Beach's residents. Development in each district will adhere to policies for land use type and density/intensity (Policy LU 4.45_1, Table LU1) and community character (LU 6_159), except as amended in this section of the Plan. The goals and policies for each district are preceded by a description of its uses and characteristics in 2005 and public input from the General Plan Update Visioning Process and Public Workshops that was considered in their formulation. BANNING RANCH Located within the City's Sphere of Influence (SOI), the Banning Ranch area encompasses approximately 518 acres, of which 465 acres (includes 47 acres of water features) are under the jurisdiction of Orange County, and 53 acres within the jurisdiction of the City of Newport Beach. Banning Ranch is located in the westem-most portion of the Newport Beach Planning Area, north of Coast Highway and the Newport Shores residential community, immediately east of the Santa Ana River, and west and south of residential and industrial uses. The eastern portion of the site is higher in elevation and contains the western edge of Newport Mesa that slopes gently from east to west. Bluffs form the western edge of the mesa, and are located in the central portion of the Banning Ranch area. The western portion Page 119 534 of the site, which is lower in elevation, historically contained a tidal marsh associated with the Semeniuk Slough and Santa Ana River. Currently, the Banning Ranch area is primarily undeveloped with some historic oil extraction infrastructure located in the central and southern portions of the site that includes wells, pipelines, buildings, improved and unimproved roads, and open storage pipes and machinery. Oil extraction activities date back at least 75 years. Although the Banning Ranch site contains an assemblage of diverse habitats that have been historically disturbed, when this area is considered with the contiguous Semeniuk Slough and restored wetlands, it provides wildlife with a significantly large, diverse area for foraging, shelter, and movement. Biological studies performed for Banning Ranch indicate that, while disturbance associated with oil activities diminishes the quality of existing habitat to some extent, overall, the area should be regarded as relatively high-quality wildlife habitat due to its size, habitat diversity, and continuity with the adjacent Semeniuk Slough and federally -restored wetlands. A preliminary field evaluation of Banning Ranch was conducted by a consultant as a general indicator of the presence of habitat and species that may be subject to regulatory review. Based on this analysis, the property is estimated to contain approximately 69 acres with a habitat value rank of "1," which are primarily concentrated in the northwestern portion of the site. These areas are considered to have a high biological resource value, and are likely to require a resource permit from federal and/or state agencies prior to development. Other areas scattered throughout the site may also be of biological value but to a lesser extent. Areas with a rank of "2" (approximately 96 acres) may need a resource permit for development, where additional studies would be required to make this determination. More than likely, areas with a rank of "3" (approximately 118 acres) contain habitat and species that are not likely to require resource permitting for development. Resource permitting would likely result in the need for mitigation measures associated with development such as payment of mitigation fees, habitat restoration, or off-site habitat replacement. The actual acreage subject to environmental permitting will be determined in subsequent studies to be conducted in accordance with state and federal regulations. Additionally, Banning Ranch exhibits distinctive topography that is a physical and visual resource for the community. The property is divided into lowland and highland mesa areas. Bluff faces traverse the property generally in a north - south direction, separating these and forming an important visual backdrop from West Coast Highway. Drainage from upland areas in and adjoining the City of Costa Mesa formed a number of arroyos with riparian habitats. The bluff face geology is highly erodible and has experienced sliding over the years. Figure LU17 illustrates these constraints. During the visioning process, residents were divided in opinion regarding the future of Banning Ranch. Many residents preferred preserving Banning Ranch as open space at the beginning of the public process. However, many participants in the process later indicated their willingness to support some development of the property if it would generate revenue to help fund preservation of the majority of the property as open space. Policy Overview The General Plan prioritizes the acquisition of Banning Ranch as an open space amenity for the community and region. Oil operations would be consolidated, wetlands restored, nature education and interpretative facilities provided, and an active park developed containing playfields and other facilities to serve residents of adjoining neighborhoods. Should the property not be fully acquired as open space, the Plan provides for the development of a concentrated mixed-use residential village that retains the majority of the property as open space. This would contain a mix of housing types clustered around a "village center" of local-servingresident-serving commercial uses, small boutique hotel, active park, and possibly a school. Buildings would be located and designed and an interconnected street system provided to enhance pedestrian activity and reduce vehicular trips. Development would be concentrated to preserve the majority of the property as open space, while oil operations would be clustered and wetlands restored. An internal trail system would be developed to link uses within its neighborhoods and districts and provide access to adjoining neighborhoods. While the Plan indicates the maximum intensity of development that would be allowed on the property, this will ultimately by determined through permitting processes that are required to satisfy state and federal environmental regulatory requirements. Page 120 535 Goal LU 6.37.2 Preferably a protected open space amenity, with restored wetlands and habitat areas, as well as active community parklands to serve adjoining neighborhoods. Policies LAND USES (designated as "OS(RV]") LU 6.3.47.2.1 Primary Use Open space, including significant active community parklands that serve adjoining residential neighborhoods if the site is acquired through public funding. (Imp 2.1, 23.1, 23.5, 30.2) STRATEGY LU 6.3.97.2.2 Acquisition for Open Space Support active pursuit of the acquisition of Banning Ranch as permanent open space, which may be accomplished through the issuance of state bonds, environmental mitigation fees, private fundraising, developer dedication, and similar techniques. (Imp 9.1, 14.7, 14.11, 30.2) Goal LU 6.47.3 If acquisition for open space is not successful, a high-quality residential community with supporting uses that provides revenue to restore and protect wetlands and important habitats. Policies LAND USES LU 6.4.47.3.1 Alternative Use If not acquired for open space within a time period and pursuant to terms agreed to by the City and property owner, the site may be developed as a residential village containing a mix of housing types, limited supporting retail, visitor accommodations, school, and active community parklands, with a majority of the property preserved as open space. The property owner may pursue entitlement and permits for a residential village during the time allowed for acquisition as open space. (Imp 2.1) DEVELOPMENT DENSITY/INTENSITY AND CAPACITY Note: These represent general development capacity estimates, with the property's ultimate development footprint and capacity determined through required federal and state regulatory environmental permitting processes and a planned community development plan approved by the City of Newport Beach. LU 6.4.2-7.3.2Residential Accommodate a maximum of 1,375 residential units, which shall consist of a mix of single-family detached, attached, and multi -family units to provide a range of choices and prices for residents. (Imp 2.1) LU 6.4.37.3.3 Retail Commercial Accommodate a maximum of 75,000 square feet of retail commercial uses that shall be oriented to serve the needs of local and nearby residents. (Imp 2.1) LU 6.4.47.3.4 Overnight Accommodations Accommodate a maximum of 75 rooms in a small boutique hotel, "bed and breakfast," or other overnight accommodations. (Imp 2.1) Page 121 536 DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT LU 6 4 57.3.5 Planned Residential Village Require that Banning Ranch, if not retained as open space, be developed as a cohesive urban form that provides the sense of a complete and identifiable neighborhood. Establish a development pattern that ties together individual uses into a cohesive neighborhood addressing the location and massing of buildings, architecture, landscape, connective street grid and pedestrian walkways and trails, use of key landforms, and similar elements. (Imp 3.1, 4.1) LU 6.4.67.3.6 Approaches for a Livable Neighborhood Site and design development to enhance neighborhood quality of life by: Establishing a pattern of blocks that promotes access and neighborhood identity • Designing streets to slow traffic, while maintaining acceptable fire protection and traffic flows • Integrating a diversity of residential types within a neighborhood, while ensuring compatibility among different residential types • Orienting and designing the residential units to relate to the street frontage Locating and designing garages to minimize their visual dominance from the street • Incorporating sidewalks and parkways to foster pedestrian activity • Promoting architectural diversity (Imp 3.1, 4.1) LU 6.4.77.3.7 Neighborhood Structure and Form Establish a "village center" containing local serving commercial, community parks, community meeting facilities, hotel, and/or other amenities as the focal point. Buildings in the village center shall be designed to enhance pedestrian activity (e.g., visual transparency and fagade modulation and articulation), integrating plazas and open spaces for public events. (Imp 3.1, 4.1 21.3) LU 6.4.87.3.8 Open Space Network and Parklands Establish a framework of trails, community parklands, and natural habitats that provide the framework around which the residential village's uses are developed and interconnect residential districts, the village center, other uses, and open spaces. (Imp 3.1, 4.1) LU 6.4.87.3.9 Circulation Facilitate development of an arterial highway linking Coast Highway with Newport Boulevard to relieve congestion at Superior Avenue, if the property is developed. (Imp 3.1, 4.1, 16.1) LU 6.4.187.3.10 Sustainable Development Practices Require that any development of Banning Ranch achieve high levels of environmental sustainability that reduce pollution and consumption of energy, water, and natural resources to be accomplished through land use patterns and densities, site planning, building location and design, transportation and utility infrastructure design, and other techniques. Among the strategies that should be considered are the concentration of development, reduction of vehicle trips, use of alternative transportation modes, maximized walkability, use of recycled materials, capture and re -use of storm water on-site, water conserving fixtures and landscapes, architectural elements that reduce heat gain and loss, and preservation of wetlands and other habitats. (Imp 3.1, 4.1, 7.1, 16.8, 17.1, 19.1) STRATEGY LU 6.4.17.3.11 Comprehensive Site Planning and Design Require the preparation of a master development or specific plan for any development on the Banning Ranch specifying lands to be developed, preserved, and restored, land uses to be permitted, parcelization, roadway and infrastructure improvements, landscape and streetscape improvements, development regulations, architectural design and landscape guidelines, exterior lighting guidelines, processes for oil operations consolidation, habitat preservation and restoration plan, sustainability practices plan, financial implementation, and other appropriate elements. (Imp 3.1, 4.1) Page 122 537 Policies Pertaining to Both Land Use Options (Goals 6.37.2 and 6.47.3) PERMITTED USES LU 5.5.1-7.4.10il Operations Relocate and cluster oil operations. (Imp 3.1, 4.1) LU 6.5.2-7.4.2Active Community Park Accommodate a community park of 20 to 30 acres that contains active playfields that may be lighted and is of sufficient acreage to serve adjoining neighborhoods and residents of Banning Ranch, if developed. (Imp 3.1, 4.1) LU 6.5,37.4.3 Habitat and Wetlands Restore and enhance wetlands and wildlife habitats, in accordance with the requirements of state and federal agencies. (Imp 3.1, 4.1, 14.7, 14.11) DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT LU 6.5,47.4.4 Relationship of Development to Environmental Resources Development should be located and designed to preserve and/or mitigate for the loss of wetlands and drainage course habitat. It shall be located to be contiguous and compatible with existing and planned development along its eastern property line, preserving the connectivity of wildlife corridors, and set back from the bluff faces, along which shall be located a linear park to provide public views of the ocean, wetlands, and surrounding open spaces. Exterior lighting shall be located and designed to minimize light trespass from developed areas onto the bluffs, riparian habitat, arroyos, and lowland habitat areas. (Imp 3.1, 4.1) LU 6.5.57.4.5 Public Views of the Property Development shall be located and designed to prevent residences on the property from dominating public views of the bluff faces from Coast Highway, the ocean, wetlands, and surrounding open spaces. Landscape shall be incorporated to soften views of the site visible from publicly owned areas and public view points. (Imp 3.1, 4.1) STRATEGY LU 6.5,67.4.6 Coordination with State and Federal Agencies Work with appropriate state and federal agencies to identify wetlands and habitats to be preserved and/or restored and those on which development will be permitted. (Imp 14.7, 14.11) WEST NEWPORT MESA The West Newport Mesa area contains a mix of residential, office, retail, industrial, and public uses. It is immediately abutted by Hoag Hospital, the City of Costa Mesa to the north, and Banning Ranch to the west. Development in the area dates back to the mid -twentieth century. Hoag Hospital is a major activity center that continues to affect development in the area. It generates a strong market for the development of uses that support the hospital's medical activities such as doctors' offices, convalescent and care facilities, medical supply, pharmacy, and similar uses. Retail commercial uses serve medical purposes, as well as nearby residents. Northern portions of the area are largely developed with light manufacturing, research and development, and business park uses. In many respects, these transition with comparable patterns of development in the Westside Costa Mesa area to the north. A number of Newport Beach's marine related businesses have relocated to the area over recent decades as coastal land values have escalated. Most of the properties are developed for single business tenants and have little landscape or architectural treatment, typical of older industrial districts of Southern California. The majority of properties between the industrial uses and medical center are developed with multifamily uses, including a few mobile home parks. The latter represent ^ regnuree of affordable h^ ^ n `h^ r'4 These are interspersed with a school and other civic uses. Page 123 538 The area's considerable mix of uses is not always complementary, nor at its edges where it abuts residential neighborhoods and other uses. The 2006 General Plan Vv_isioning process participants indicated that the West Newport Mesa area would benefit from revitalization. The development of additional medical offices and other facilities supporting Hoag Hospital and additional residential units were widely endorsed. Participants were divided in their support for the retention of industrial uses. Policy Overview The General Plan provides for a mix of land uses for West Newport Mesa that include office, research, convalescent care, and retail facilities supporting Hoag Hospital, a consolidated light industrial district where non -water -dependent marine -related businesses would be encouraged to locate, enhanced housing opportunities, and supporting retail commercial services. While distinct sub -districts are defined by the Land Use Plan, the assembly and planning of multiple parcels across these districts to create a unified center that is linked by pedestrian walkways, parklands, and other amenities is encouraged. Goal LU 6.67_5 A medical district with peripheral medical services and research facilities that support the Hoag Hospital campus within a well-planned residential neighborhood, enabling residents to live close to their jobs and reducing commutes to outlying areas. Policies LAND USES (refer to Figure LU18) LU SXN4-7.5.1 Hospital Supporting Uses Integrated with Residential Neighborhoods Prioritize the accommodation of medical -related and supporting facilities on properties abutting the Hoag Hospital complex [areas designated as "CO -M (0.5)" (Figure LU18, Sub -Area A)] with opportunities for new residential units [areas designated as " RM(18/ac)'] and supporting general and neighborhood -serving retail services ["CG(0.75)" and "CN(0.3)"] respectively. (Imp 2.1) LU 5.6.27.5.2 Residential Types Promote the development of a mix of residential types and building scales within the densities permitted by the "RM" (Figure LU18, Sub -Area C) designation, which may include single-family attached, townhomes, apartments, flats, and comparable units. Residential densities may be increased on a property as a means of promoting a variety of housing types within West Newport Mesa, provided that the overall average density of 18 units per acre is not exceeded. (Imp 2.1) STRATEGY LU 6.5.37.5.3 Cohesive and Integrated Medical Campus Development ` adg w th ^•^^^t ewsprs And ^Encourage the development of a master plan for streetscape, pedestrian, signage, and other improvements that contribute to a definable district. Land use boundaries delineated on the Land Use Diagram may be modified by a specific plan to achieve cohesive districts that integrate a variety of land uses. (Imp 3.1, 4.1) LU 6.6.47.5.4Livable Residential Neighborhood ` OOk W th PFQPeFliy0WReFs ^^a ^Encourage the preparation of a master plan for the residential neighborhood defining park and streetscape improvements that provide amenity amenities for local residents and enhance the area's identity. (Imp 3.1, 4.1) Page 124 539 Goal LU 6.77.6 A general industrial district that transitions between the Hoag Hospital medical and residential community and industrial uses in the City of Costa Mesa, providing opportunities for needed uses that cannot be accommodated elsewhere in Newport Beach. Policies LAND USES [designated as "IG(0.75),"refer to Figure LU18, Sub -Area B] LU 6,7-.1-7.6.1 Primary Uses Encourage the development of small-scale incubator industries. (Imp 2.1, 24.1) LU 6.7.27.6.2 Marine Based Businesses Encourage and provide incentives for the relocation of marine -based Newport Beach businesses, including boat storage and recreational vehicles, to properties retained for industrial purposes. (Imp 2.1, 24.1) BALBOA PENINSULA The Balboa Peninsula comprises a series of districts linked by the Newport Boulevard/Balboa Boulevard commercial and residential corridor. These include Lido Village, Cannery Village, McFadden Square, Balboa Village, and surrounding residential neighborhoods. Lido Village Lido Village is primarily developed with commercial uses including grocery stores, restaurants, salons, home furnishings, apparel, and other specialty shops. It also includes Lido Marina Village, a pedestrian oriented waterfront development that includes visitor -serving commercial uses, specialty stores, and marine uses. Lido Village's southern edge contains specialty retail and restaurants, the Qk's Geategormer City Hall complex planned for redevelopment as fief a boutique hotel, and churches. Lido Marina Village has experienced a high number of building vacancies and many retail stores are underperforming. Parking is limited. Multiple property ownerships have traditionally inhibited cohesive and integrated development. Lido Village has a unique location at the turning basin in Newport Harbor. The channel is wider than in other locations, providing an opportunity for waterfront commercial uses that will not negatively impact residential uses across the channel. In 2011, the City Council appointed a Citizen Advisory Panel (CAP) to prepare architectural and landscape design guidelines for the Lido Village. After several CAP meetings, a public open house, and review by the Neighborhood Revitalization Committee, the Lido Village Design Guidelines were approved by the City Council in December 2011. The Design Guidelines establish the vision for the rebirth of Lido Village as the gateway to the Balboa Peninsula. Cannery Village Cannery Village is the historic center of the City's commercial fishing and boating industry and contains a mix of small shops, art galleries, professional offices, and service establishments. Marine -related commercial (boat sales) and marine -related industrial uses (boat repair) are also found in the area. Redevelopment of properties for residential, loft, and mixed residential and commercial uses, including live/work facilities, appears to be an emerging trend. Older developments include some single-family residential units combined with commercial uses on single lots. Although the residential component of mixed-use projects has performed well, there has been less success in attracting the commercial uses envisioned for the area particularly on the waterfront. A Specific Pian has been developed, but Page 125 540 McFadden Square McFadden Square surrounds the Newport Pier and extends between the ocean front and harbor. It was the center of the City's early shipping industry. Located adjacent to Newport Pier is the Dory Fishing Fleet. The fleet and open-air fish market have operated at this location since the fleet's founding in 1891 by Portuguese fishermen. The last remaining fleet of its type, it is a designated historical landmark. Commercial land uses are largely concentrated in the strips along Balboa and Newport Boulevards, with residential along the ocean front and marine -related uses fronting the harbor. Numerous visitor -serving uses include restaurants, beach hotels, tourist -oriented shops (t -shirt shops, bike rentals, and surf shops), as well as service operations and facilities that serve the Peninsula. There are several bars in the area with some featuring live music, especially along the ocean and Bay front. Historically, the area has been known for its marine -related industries such as shipbuilding and repair facilities and boat storage on the harbor, some of which have been in continuous operation for over fifty years. Public parking is available in three lots, which primarily serve the beach users, tourists, and the restaurant patrons. Much of the McFadden Square area is pedestrian -oriented, with storefronts facing the street, the presence of signage at a pedestrian scale, and outdoor furniture, providing a pleasant environment for visitors. However, certain areas present difficulty for pedestrian street crossing. Specifically the intersection of Newport and Balboa Boulevards, known as the "Mixmaster," is one such crossing, as the roadway configuration at this location allows traffic flow from different directions and the street is wide. Balboa Village Balboa Village is the historic center for recreational and social activities on the Peninsula. It has had a strong marine heritage, and has attracted fishermen, recreational boaters, summer residents, and beachgoers. Many of the retail uses are visitor -oriented and seasonal in nature, including a `fun zone" along Edgewater Place that contains entertainment uses. Marine -related commercial uses, including ferries to Balboa and Catalina Islands and harbor tours, are present in the area. In general, Balboa Village is pedestrian -oriented with articulated building fagades and signage that is pedestrian scale. The Balboa Village core is surrounded by residences, with isolated pockets of commercial uses scattered along Balboa Boulevard. Peninsula Park also serves the area. Balboa Village and the greater Peninsula have experienced a transition to year-round residential occupancy while the visitor uses have continued. Cumulatively, there is more commercial space than can be supported by local residents, and marginal commercial space is used by businesses that are seasonal and do not thrive throughout the year. A spec fic plan has guided development in Balboa Village ("Central Balboa") s nce 1997. The PlAn'q viginn consisted maintenance standards, park ng d strict mplementat on, and GirGulat on mprovements. Addit onally, t sought to tenants. The City has mplemented some of this v q an i.A., th a numher of pub' G mprovernents with n the 'ast few Participants in the 2006 General Plan Vv_isioning process indicated that Lido Village, Cannery Village, McFadden Square, and Balboa Village need continuing revitalization, and the City could be proactive in creating a vision for reinforcement of Lido Village and McFadden Square as primary activity nodes, with the interior of Cannery Village allocated for residential or mixed-use development. The integration of uses in these areas and the harbor and bay was emphasized. While overnight lodging was not supported in the Visioning process survey and public meetings, in the opinion of the General Plan Advisory Committee smaller bed and breakfast and boutique hotels could be designed and scaled to complement the pedestrian -oriented village character of Lido Village, McFadden Square, and Balboa Village, as well as help the City's fiscal balance through the revenue that would be contributed. In 2006 tThe public also supported the concentration of commercial uses in the core of Balboa Village, with the re- use of outlying commercial properties for housing and priority for water -oriented and visitor -serving commercial uses. Additionally, Balboa Village was identified as a suitable location for mixed-use development. The City Council aopointed a five -member Citizen Advisory Panel (CAP) in June 2011 to set a new vision and implementation strategy for the revitalization of Balboa Village. Following a several month process which included Page 126 541 input from the community, the CAP developed the Balboa Village Master Plan that includes strategies addressing narking, zoning, appearance and new commercial investment in Balboa Village. In Seotember 2012. the City Council approved the Balboa Village Master Plan, followed by the formation in September 2012 of the Balboa Village Advisory Committee to oversee implementation of the Master Plan. Policy Overview The General Plan provides for the enhancement of Lido Village, Cannery Village, McFadden Square, and Balboa Village as distinct pedestrian -oriented centers of Balboa Peninsula that would be interconnected through improved streetscapes along Newport/Balboa Boulevard, a waterfront promenade on Newport Harbor, and cross -access between the Harbor and beachfront. Lido Village, McFadden Square, and Balboa Village would contain a mix of visitor -serving, retail, small overnight accommodation facilities, and housing. In Cannery Village, commercial or mixed-use buildings would be developed at street intersections with intervening parcels developed for mixed-use or freestanding housing. Throughout the Peninsula, ;FiaFty s established fer the •^t^^"^^ of m^•'^^ F^'^tp-d ^.land use designations are arranged to provide for a mix of commercial, retail, service, marine -related and residential uses that are complimentary and compatible with one another and promote economic vitality, environmental integrity and aesthetic quality. Late night service uses should be regulated to minimize effects on neighboring residential districts and uses. Balboa Peninsula Areawide Goal LU 6.@7.7 A series of commercial, retail, restaurant, recreation and v^s�h marine -related uses, GMG, and residential neighborhoods that are vibrant throughout the year, differentiated by their historic and functional characteristics and architectural style, yet integrated by streetscape amenities. Policies LU 6.6.47.7.1 Urban Form Establish development patterns that promote the reinforcement of Balboa Peninsula's pedestrian scale and urban form as a series of distinct centers/ nodes and connecting corridors surrounded by and linked to residential neighborhoods whose scale and character are maintained. (Imp 1.1) LU 6.6.87.7.2 Component Districts Lido Village, Cannery Village, and McFadden Square should be emphasized as the primary activity centers of the northern portion of the Peninsula, linked by corridors of retail resident and visitor -serving uses along Newport Boulevard and a mix of marine -related and residential uses on the Bay frontage. These surround a residential core in the inland section of Cannery Village. Balboa Village will continue to serve as the primary center of the lower Peninsula, surrounded by residential neighborhoods along and flanking Balboa Boulevard. (Imp 1.1) LU 6.6.37.7.3 Marine -Related Businesses Protect and encourage marine -related businesses to locate and expand on the Peninsula unless present and foreseeable future demand for such facilities is already adequately provided for in the area. (Imp 2.1, 24.1) LU 6.6,47.7.4 Spared -Parking Facilities Encourage the development of shared parking facilities and management programs among private property owners that provides for adequate parking for residents, guests, and business patrons. (Imp 16.10) LU 7.7.5 Access to Parking Facilities Prohibit the use of code -required parking spaces for other purposes, except as permitted on a case-bv-case basis to accommodate temporary events or emergency operations provided that adequate parking can be assured to support the primary use. (Imo 16.10) LU 6.6.57.7.6 Quality of Place/Streetscapes Page 127 542 Develop a plan to fund and implement streetscape improvements that improve Balboa Peninsula's visual quality, image, and pedestrian character. This should include well-defined linkages among individual districts, between the ocean and Bay, and along the Bay frontage, as well as streetscape and entry improvements that differentiate the character of individual districts. (Imp 20.1) LU 6.8.67.7.7 Historic Character Preserve the historic character of Balboa Peninsula's districts by offering incentives for the preservation of historic buildings and requiring new development to be compatible with the scale, mass, and materials of existing historic structures, while allowing opportunities for architectural diversity. (Imp 2.1) LU 6.8.77.7.8 Property Improvement Provide incentives for and work with property owners to improve their properties and achieve the community's vision for the Balboa Peninsula. (Imp 24.1, 29.1) Lido Village (designated as "MU -W2," "CM(0.3)," "RM(20/ac),"and "PI(0.75)3,"refer to Figure LU19] Goal LU 5.97.8 A vibrant pedestrian -oriented village environment that reflects its waterfront location at the gateway to Newport Beach's historic Balboa Peninsula that prevldingprovides a mix of uses that-seaEesserving visitors andaesal residents. Policies M1,110II19 M LU 6.9.'47.8.1 Priority Uses Encourage uses that take advantage of Lido Village's location at the Harbor's turning basin and its vitality and pedestrian character, including visitor -serving and retail commercial, small lodging facilities (bed and breakfasts, innsboutigue hotels), and mixed-use buildings that integrate residential with retail uses [areas designated as "MU - W2", Subarea "A"]. A portion of the Harbor frontage and interior parcels (Subarea "B") may also contain multi -family residential [designated as "RM(20/ac)"], and the parcel adjoining the Lido Isle Bridge, a recreational and marine commercial use [designated as "CM(0.3)"]. (Imp 2.1, 24.1) LU 6.9.27.8.2 Discouraged Uses Discourage the development of new office uses on the ground floor of buildings that do not attract customer activity to improve the area's pedestrian character. (Imp 2.1) LU 7.8.3 Vested Uses Allow existing commercial buildings that exceed the maximum floor area and/or that do not provide the minimum number of parking spaces to be re -constructed to their pre-existing floor area provided that no less than the pre- existing number of parking spaces is provided. (Imp 2.1. 5.1, 16.10) DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT LU 7.8.4 Lido Village Design Guidelines Achieve a distinctive identity and quality for Lido Village through implementing guidelines for design and landscape specified by the Lido Village Design Guidelines. (Imp 2.1) LU 7.8.5 Multi -Modal Village Enhance Lido Village's accessibility for4y residents and visitors by providing all common modes of transportation for residents and visitors including walking, bicycling, watercraft, and vehicles. (Imp 16.11. 16.12) 3 NOTE: Former City Hall site to re -designated to accommodate proposed hotel. Page 128 543 LU 7.8.6 Gateway Create a vibrant gateway village in the heart of Newport Beach's historic Balboa Peninsula, with landscaping and streetscape. (Imo 20.1) LU 7.8.7 Character and Design Maintain a high quality of development design in Lido Village in consideration of the following design objectives, as reflected in the Lido Village Desion Guidelines: Unification: Creating a sense of place through a unifying theme for Lido Village with defined gathering spaces, increased connectivity, and improved wayfindinq; Visual Appeal: Creating a distinct identity for Lido Village by encouraging Coastal and Mediterranean architecture, creating an attractive gateway, maximizing view corridors and scenic opportunities, and incorporating art and landscaping: and Sustainability: Promoting economic and environmental sustainability by encouraging energy and water efficient practices in consideration of economic realities and viability, and celebrating California -friendly landscapes. (Imo 2.1. 7.1. 20.1, 20.31 Cannery Village Interior Parcels (designated as "MU -H4," Figure LU19, Sub -Area C] Goal LU 6.797.9 A pedestrian -oriented residential neighborhood that provides opportunities for live/work facilities and supporting retail uses. Policies LAND USES LU 610 17.9.1 Priority Uses Allow multi -family residential and mixed-use buildings that integrate residential above retail or live -work units throughout Cannery Village. Require mixed-use, live -work, or commercial buildings to be developed on corner parcels, except adjacent to Villa Way where these uses are encouraged. (Imp 2.1) DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT LU 6.19.27.9.,. Residential Character and Architecture Require that residential buildings be designed to contribute to an overall neighborhood character, locating buildings along the street frontage to form a continuous or semi -continuous building wall. (Imp 2.1) LU 6.10.3 Specific Plan 'Guidelines Speof c Plan limp 3.1-) Bayfront Parcels [designated as "MU -W2, " Figure LU19, Sub -Area E] Goal LU 6.117.10 A water -oriented district that contains uses that support and benefit from its location fronting onto the bay, as well as provides new opportunities for residential. Page 129 544 Policies LAND USES LU 6.1-1.47.10.1 Priority Uses Accommodate water -oriented commercial uses that support harbor recreation and fishing activities, and mixed-use structures with residential above ground level water -oriented uses. (Imp 2.1, 8.1, 21.2) McFadden Square, West and East of Newport Boulevard (designated as "MU -W2, " Figure LU19, Sub -Area E] Goal LU 6.427.11 A pedestrian -oriented village that reflects its location on the ocean, pier, and bay front, serving visitors and local residents. Policies LAND USES LU 6,1-2.1-7.11.1 Priority Uses Accommodate visitor- and 'B6al-resident-serving uses that take advantage of McFadden Square's waterfront setting including specialty retail, restaurants, and small scale eyesight -hotel accommodations, as well as mixed-use buildings that integrate residential with ground level retail. (Imp 2.1) DERIGAI ANrI I'1C1/CI (10MC11/T LU 6.12.2 Specific Plan Guidelines SpeG f G RaR (IRP 0 1-4 Balboa Village Goal LU 6.37.12 An economically viable pedestrian -oriented village that serves local residents and visitors and provides residential in proximity to retail uses, entertainment, and recreation. Policies PRIORITY USES (refer to Figure LU20) LU 7.12.1 Balance and Mix of Uses-Areawide Accommodate a mix of land Liz including residential, restaurants, retail shops and services that cater to both residents and visitors. (Imp 2 1. 5.1) LU 6.1-3.47.12.1 Village Core [designated as 11MU-VII Sub -Area °°B"] Encourage local- and visitor -serving retail commercial and mixed-use buildings that integrate residential with ground - level retail or office uses on properties, especially adjacent to Balboa Boulevard, Main Street. and Palm Street. (Imp 2.1) LU 612 W.12.2 Bay Frontage/Bayfront Promenade [designated as "CV(0.75)" Sub -Area A] Promote access to the baV and beach and o�I. 94fizfiza prioritize water -dependent, marine -related retail and services and visitor -serving retail such as sport fishing, boat rentals, tour boats, and excursion boats. (Imp 2.1, 24.1) Page 130 545 LU 6.13.37.12.3 Commercial Properties out of Village Core [designated as "RT" Sub. Area C] Promote re -use of isolated commercial properties on Balboa Boulevard for residential units. (Imp 2.1) LU 7.12.4 Balboa Village Fun Zone Accommodate a mix of land uses capitalizing on the area's historic identity and character and bayfront setting including restaurants, retail shops and services catering to both residents and visitors. (Imp 2.1, 5.1. 21.3. 29.2) DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT LU 6 1-3.47.12.5 Streetscapes and Visual Quality PFamate the ^^^•^'^"^^ ^f PRhRHAPFAPAtq tnEnhance the visual quality of Balboa Village's streetscapes In PAhAnn^^^ by promoting a pedestrian -oriented environment and offering incentives for owners to improve their properties. (Imp 20.1) LU 7.12.6 Balboa Village Design Guidelines. Require that development exhibits a high quality of site and buildino desion in conformance with the Balboa Village Design Guidelines. (Imp 2.1. 5.1) STRATEGY LU 6.13.5-7.12.7 Rebuilding of Nonconforming Structures Permit existing commercial buildings that exceed the permitted development intensities to be renovated, upgraded, or reconstructed to their pre-existing intensity and, at a minimum, pre-existing number of parking spaces. (Imp 2.1) LU 6.13.67.12.8 Enhancing Balboa Village's Viability and Character Provide incentives for owners to improve their properties, to develop retail uses that serve adjoining residential neighborhoods, and retain and develop marine -related uses along the harbor frontage. (Imp 24.1) 1��1� �%1�]a�d�►�i1�:7/y�F9:1(�7dIL�9��1►�I�] Newport Center/Fashion Island is a regional center of business and commerce that includes major retail, professional office, entertainment, recreation, and residential in a master planned mixed-use development. Fashion Island, a regional shopping center, forms the nucleus of Newport Center, and is framed by this mixture of office, entertainment, and residential. Newport Center Drive, a ring road that surrounds Fashion Island, connects to a number of interior roadways that provide access to the various sites within the Center and to the four major arterials that service this development. High-rise office and hotel buildings to the north of the Center form a visual background for lower rise buildings and uses to the south and west. Interspersed in the Newport Center area are two hotels, public and semi-public uses including the Newport Beach Police and Fire Departments and Orange County Museum of Art, and entertainment uses (along the perimeter of Newport Center Drive). It is also the location of a transportation center, located at San Joaquin Hills Road and MacArthur Boulevard. Multi -family residential is located east of the Police Department. Lands adjacent to Coast Highway and Jamboree Road are developed for the Newport Beach Country Club and Balbaa-Bay-The Tennis Club, with adjoining single-family attached residential uses. The Newport Beach Civic Center and Library expansion were completed in 2013, creating a major civic presence in Newport Center along MacArthur Boulevard. In addition, a new public park and dog park were added, which bring additional pedestrian -oriented opportunities to this area. While master planned, the principal districts of Newport Center/Fashion Island are separated from one another by the primary arterial corridors. Fashion Island is developed around an internal pedestrian network and surrounded by parking lots, providing little or no connectivity to adjoining office, entertainment, or residential areas. The la ,tor also Since the 2006 General Plan visioning process, the changing economy, legislative mandates to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and initiatives to promote a healthier population support the creation of more compact, denser, and mixed-use development which enable residents to walk and bicycle to local shopping and iobs. As the most intense center of economic activity in Newport Beach, Newport Center/Fashion Island offers opportunities to enhance its mix Page 131 546 of uses with infill housing, offices, and retail uses meeting these objectives. Ongoing private investment in the area runs parallel to the civic development and infrastructure improvement being led by the City of Newoort Beach, including the building of a new City Hall and Civic Center, parkland expansion, Central Library renovation and roadway circulation improvements. development of another retail Anchor RFRAP the \/:n:nni Re AFGAAM the nhnnn:nn PAARAFAY,Inninl Mien mnnnlnlnn In mnLinn AFPPR4nnnn n alth:er n n. lgti nn n nd n ant denser and mixed a de.minn.nnnt n ahlinn Fps delle n I vp nlnnn walk nd hinydp 1n Incl nhnnn:nn And inhn 4 the meet intannn nnnlnr of nnnnnmin AGt V .' In NAW04a RARGh. Nmunnrl Genter/Canhinn Inland nffem n nr6,n:tien to enhan..e an m x n1 .dth infill hgus nn nW:nen rate'I Apq meet'no theca oh'entlr Policy Overview The General Plan provides for additional retail and office opportunities at Fashion Island and hotel rooms and housing units in Newport Center. ^f'^^ deyelnnment..,n„Id hn "^^"nd `n thenPaAsian of eAstino rather then npw twildia96Emphasis is placed on the improvement of the area's pedestrian character, by improving connectivity among the "superblocks," installing streetscape amenities, and concentrating buildings along Newport Center Drive and pedestrian walkways and public spaces. Goal LU 6.147.13 A successful mixed-use district that integrates economic and commercial centers serving the needs of Newport Beach residents and the sub -region, with expanded opportunities for residents to live close to jobs, commerce, entertainment, and recreation, and is supported by a pedestrian -friendly environment. Policies LAND USES [refer to Figure LU21] LU 6 14r17.13.1 Fashion Island ["CR" designation] Provide the opportunity for andditional anchor tenant, ermm�nerant, othother retail; and/or entertainment and/or supporting uses that complement, are integrated with, and enhance the economic vitality of existing development. ' me„im„m ^°”"G' square feet of retail development GapaG ty specified by Table LU2 (Anomaly Locations) may be reallocated for other /rnnnfnr Ar nnn,.nrninn of the retail deyelnmmeM GapaGity With annrn„al by the Gity GaunGil (Imp 2.1) LU 6.14.27.13.2 Newport Center ["MU -H3," "CO -R,” "CO -M," and "RM" designations] Provide the opportunity for limited retgil residential, hotel, and office development in accordance with the limits specified by Tables LU1 and LU2. (Imp 2.1) DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT LU 6.14.37.13.3 Transfers of Development RightsAllocations Development 4ghts-allocations may be transferred within Newport Center/Fashion Island, subject to the approval of the City with the finding that the transfer is consistent with the intent of the General Plan and that the transfer will not result in any adverse traffic impacts. (Imp 2.1) Page 132 547 Two possible versions are presented for the Commission's consideration, with commentary regarding their respective implications. Version 1 (reflecting Commissioner Tucker's comments) LU6 14.47.13.4 Development Scale Reinforce the original design concept for Newport Center by concentrating the greatest building mass and height in the aectheaste4y-northern section of Newport Center, where the natural topography is highest and progressively scaling down building mass and height to follow the lower elevations toward the southwesterly edge along East Coast Highway. Allow for increased height for the development of a hotel on the eastern portion of the 100 block provided that the project exhibits distinguished and quality architectural and site design. (Imp 2.1, 3.1, 4.1) Commentary: This wording could be interpreted to infer that only buildings that exceed current height limitations would not be required to exhibit "distinguished and quality architectural and site design," and those within the current limits would not. Version 2 (alternative) LU 5.14.47.13.4 Development Scale Reinforce the original design concept for Newport Center by concentrating the greatest building mass and height in the n^rth sterly- orthern section of Newport Center, where the natural topography is highest and progressively scaling down building mass and height to follow the lower elevations toward the southwesterly edge along East Coast Highway. Allow for increased height for the development of a hotel on the eastern portion of the 100 block to enable distinguished and quality architectural and site design. (Imp 2.1, 3.1, 4.1) Commentary.' This wording infers that the purpose of allowing greater building height is for the purpose of nrhiovinn n hinhar lava/ of rlocinn narfnrmnnra thnn imnnlr! hmio nrrnrrori md.r rurront hainhf roctrirtinnc LU 6.14.57.13.5 Urban Form Encourage that some new development be located and designed to orient to the inner side of Newport Center Drive, establishing physical and visual continuity that diminishes the dominance of surface parking lots and encourages pedestrian activity. (Imp 2.1, 3.1, 4.1) LU 6-14.67.13.6 Pedestrian Connectivity and Amenity Require, where feasible, €�that pedestrian access and connections among uses within the district be improved with additional walkways and streetscape amenities concurrent with the development of expanded and new uses. (Imp 3.1, 4.1) LU 6.44.77.13.7 Fashion Island Architecture and St►eetscapes Encourage that new development in Fashion Island complement and be of equivalent or higher design quality than existing buildings. Reinforce the existing promenades by encouraging retail expansion that enhances the storefront visibility to the promenades and provides an enjoyable retail and pedestrian experience. Additionally, new buildings shall be located on axes connecting Newport Center Drive with existing buildings to provide visual and physical connectivity with adjoining uses, where practical. (Imp 3.1, 4.1) STRATEGY LU 6 14.87.13.8 Development Agreements(2006) Require the execution of Development Agreements for residential and mixed-use development projects that use the residential 450 units identified in Table L112 (Anomaly Locations). Development Agreements shall define the improvements and benefits to be contributed by the developer in exchange for the City's commitment for the number, density, and location of the housing units. (Imp 13.1) Page 133 9M. LU 7.13.9 Development Agreements (2014) Require the execution of Development Agreements for residential and mixed-use development proiects that use the 500.000 SF of office or 50.000 SF of commercial or 500 multi -family residential units identified in Table LU2 (Anomaly Locations). Development Agreements shall define the improvements and benefits to be contributed by the developer in exchange for the City's commitment for the number, density, and location of the commercial space and/or housing units. (Imp 13.1) LU 6.14.97.13.109 Fashion Island Parking Structures Require new parking structures in Fashion Island to be located and designed in a manner that is compatible with 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) to soften their visual impact. (Imp 8.2) The Airport Area encompasses the properties abutting and east of (JWA) and is in close proximity to the Irvine Business Complex and University of California, Irvine (UCI). This proximity has influenced the area's development with uses that support JWA and UCI, such as research and development, high technology industrial and visitor - serving uses, such as hotel and car rental agencies. A mix of low-, medium-, and high-rise office buildings predominate, with lesser coverage of supporting multi -tenant commercial, financial, and service uses. A number of buildings are occupied by corporate offices for industry and financial uses. Koll Center, at MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road, was developed as a master planned campus office park. Manufacturing uses occupy a small percentage of the Airport Area. Three large hotels have been developed to take advantage of their proximity to JWA, local businesses, and those in the nearby Irvine Business Complex. The area immediately abutting JWA, referred to as the "Campus Tract," contain a diverse mix of low intensity industrial, office, and airport -related uses, including a number of auto -related commercial uses including carwash, auto -detailing, rental, repair, and parts shops. In comparison to properties to the east, this area is underutilized and less attractive. Development in the Airport Area is restricted due to the noise impacts of JWA. Much of the southwestern portion of the area is located in the 65 dBA CNEL, which is unsuitable for residential and other "noise -sensitive" uses. Additionally, building heights are restricted for aviation safety. Recent development activity in the City of Irvine's Business Complex to the north has included the transfer of development rights, bringing more intense development closer to the Airport Area and resulting in the conversion of office to residential entitlement. This activity is changing the area to a mixed-use center. Through the 2006 General Plan Vv_isioning process and preparation of the General Plan, the public preferred revitalization of the Airport Area with income -generating land uses. Generally, a range of development types were acceptable as long as traffic is not adversely affected. However, a majority believed that the Airport Area is urban in character, different than other City neighborhoods. Additional density and traffic congestion were considered more acceptable here than other parts of the City. There was strong support for new hotels and broad consensus on mixed-use development with residential and revenue generating uses. Policy Overview The General Plan provides for the development of office, industrial, retail, and airport -related businesses in the Airport Area, as well as the opportunity for housing and supporting services. The latter would be developed as clusters of residential villages centering on neighborhood parks and interconnected by pedestrian walkways. These would contain a mix of housing types and buildings that integrate housing with ground -level convenience retail uses and would be developed at a sufficient scale to achieve a "complete" neighborhood. Housing and mixed-use buildings would be restricted from areas exposed to noise levels of 65 dBA CNEL and higher. Over time, commercial and industrial properties located in the Campus Tract would be revitalized including street frontage landscape and other improvements. Page 134 549 Airport Area Areawide Goal LU 5.0.57.14 A mixed-use community that provides jobs, residential, and supporting services in close proximity, with pedestrian - oriented amenities that facilitate walking and enhance livability. Policies URBAN FORM AND STRUCTURE [refer to Figure L U22] LU 5,1-5.1-7.14.1 Land Use Districts and Neighborhoods Provide for the development of distinct business park, commercial, and airport serving districts and residential neighborhoods that are integrated to ensure a quality environment and compatible land uses. (Imp 1.1, 2.1) LU 5.15.27.14.2 Underperforming Land Uses Promote the redevelopment of sites with underperforming retail uses located on parcels at the interior of large blocks for other uses, with retail clustered along major arterials (e.g., Bristol, Campus, MacArthur, Birth and Jamboree), except where intended to serve and be integrated with new residential development. (Imp 2.1, 24.1) LU 5.15.3-7.14.3 Airport Compatibility Require that all development be constructed in conformance with the height restrictions set forth by Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77, and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, and that residential development be located outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour specified by the 1985 JWA Master Plan. (Imp 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 14.3) Mixed -Use Districts [Subarea C, "MU -H2" designation] Primary Underlvina Land Uses LU 5.1547.14.4 Priority Uses Accommodate office, research and development, and similar uses that support the primary office and business park functions such as retail and financial services, as prescribed for the "CO -G•• designation, while allowing for the re -use of properties for the development of cohesive residential villages that are integrated with business park uses. (Imp 2.1) Residential Villages Land Uses LU 5.3 .5.57.14.5 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. The residential units may consist of (a) a maximum of 1.650 units that may be constructed as replacement of permitted non-residential uses provided that Resident al unitr may be davaloped only as the replacement of underly ng permitted nonresidential useq. I.A./hen a development phase includes a mix o ^FdPF;t'^' And nnniesidential eplaGe^ ex st'^^ ind sti'^' ^ 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 allocated nonresidential uses and (b). Hewevep, a maximum of 550 units may be developed as infill on surface parking lots or areas not used as -for occupiable buildings on properties within the area depicted on the "Airport Area Residential Villages Illustrative Concept Diagram" JFigure LU2321 provided that the parking is replaced on site. The residential units described in this policy do not include additional residential units listed in Table LU2 (Anomaly Locations) Anomaly Numbers 4 and 84. (Imp 2.1) Page 135 550 LU 7.14.6 Transfer of Development Allocations Permit transfer of development allocations within the Airport Area Mixed -Use districts subject to the approval of the City with the finding that the transfer is consistent with the intent of the General Plan and the transfer will not result in any adverse traffic impacts. (Imp 2.1) Minimum Size and Density LU 6-1s 67.14.7 Size of Residential Villages [refer to Figure LU23] Allow development of mixed-use residential villages, each containing a minimum of 10 acres and centered on a neighborhood park and other amenities (as conceptually illustrated in Figure LU23). The first phase of residential development in each village shall encompass at least 5 gross acres of land, exclusive of existing rights-of-way. This acreage may include multiple parcels provided that they are contiguous or face one another across an existing street. At the discretion of the City, this acreage may also include part of a contiguous property in a different land use category, if the City finds that a sufficient portion of the contiguous property is used to provide functionally proximate parking, open space, or other amenity. The area depicted in the "Airport Area Residential Villages Illustrative Concept Diagram " area shown on Figure LU232 shall be exempt from the 5 -acre minimum, but a conceptual development plan de r bed n Policy LU i c 1 a 1 1 shall be requ red. (Imp 2.1, 3.1, 4.1) LU 7.14.8 Affordable Housing Projects Permit housing proiects that include a minimum of 30 percent of the total units for affordable to lower income households and are developed at a minimum density of 30 units per acre to be constructed on parcels of 5 acres or greater as an exception from Residential Village requirements for a minimum 10 acres in lot size and phasing described in Policy LU 7.14.7 to facilitate the development of affordable housing consistent with the Housing Element. (Imo 1.2. 1.3.21.5) LU 6 15'77.14.9 Overall Density and Housing Types Require that residential units be developed at a minimum density of 30 units and maximum of 50 units per net acre averaged over the total area of each residential village. Net acreage shall be exclusive of existing and new rights-of- way, public pedestrian ways, and neighborhood parks. Within these densities, provide for the development of a mix of building types ranging from townhomes to high-rises to accommodate a variety of household types and incomes and to promote a diversity of building masses and scales. (Imp 2.1, 3.1, 4.1) LU 6-15.67.14.10 First Phase Development Density Require a residential density of 45 to 50 units per net acre, averaged over the first phase for each residential village. This shall be applied to 100 percent of properties in the first phase development area whether developed exclusively for residential or integrating service commercial horizontally on the site or vertically within a mixed-use building. On individual sites, housing development may exceed or be below this density to encourage a mix of housing types, provided that the average density for the area encompassed by the first phase is achieved. (Imp 2.1, 3.1, 4.1) LU 6 I 97.14.11 Subsequent Phase Development Location and Density Subsequent phases of residential development shall abut the first phase or shall face the first phase across a street. The minimum density of residential development (including residential mixed-use development) shall be 30 units per net acre and shall not exceed the maximum of 50 units per net acre averaged over the development phase. (Imp 2.1, 3.1, 4.1) Strategy and Process LU 6-15-147.14.12 Regulatory Plans Require the development of regulatory plan for each residential village ahiGh shall containin�c a minimum of 10 acres, developed in conformance with the Integrated Concept Development Plan (ICDP)te establishing a design theme and standards for buildings and site work (such as landscaping lighting, walls/fencing, signage and other, common areas and comparable elements): plan seerdiaaie-the location and phasing of buildings,aew parks, streets, aad-pedestrian ways, infrastructure and other facilities:; set forth a strategy to accommodate neighborhood serving commercial uses and other amenities= establish pedestrian and vehicular connections with adjoining land uses', and ensure compatibility with office, industrial, and other nonresidential uses. (Imp 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 13.1 31.1) Page 136 551 !H 6 15 11 Conceptual Development Plan AF02 Require the development of one conceptual development plan for the area depicted an F gure LU22, should cohesive integration of new housing, parking structures, open spaces, recreational amen I as, pedestr an and amen ties are proposed to sat sty Neighborhood Park requ rements, the plan shall dent4 how thp.�P. Ampnitipq w4l most the reGreat Qnal Reeds of rAs dents F=aGh res daRt al v flage On the QoAG@pt6i@1 DeveloprAaRt Plan Area shall a4&G comply with all elements required for regulatory plans def ned by Policy 6.15.10. (imp 2.1, 3.1, 4.1) LU 6.95.137.14.13 Development Agreements A -Require a Development Agreement steal be -required --for gMa4 projects that includes a% residential units. The Development Agreement shall define the improvements and public benefits to be provided by the developer in exchange for the City's commitment for the number, density, and location of the housing units. (Imp 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 13.1) Design and Development Neighborhood Parks LU 6.95.137.14.14 Standards of the comm n ty with i n a walk ng distance Of homey ' eRequire dedication and improvement of at least 8 percent of the gross land area (exclusive of existing rights-of-way) of the first phase development in each neighborhood, or 1/2 acre, whichever is greater, as a neighborhood park to provide a focus and identity for the entire neighborhood and serve the daily recreational needs of the community within easy walking distance of homes. This In every case, the neighborhood park shall be at least 8 percent of the total Residential Village Area or one acre in area, whichever is greater, and shall have a minimum dimension of 150 feet along any edge of the park site. Park acreage shall be exclusive of existing or new rights-of-way, development sites, or setback areas. A neighborhood park shall satisfy some or all of the requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance, as prescribed by the Recreation Element of the General Plan. This requirement may be waived by the City where it can be demonstrated that the development parcels are too small to feasibly accommodate the required park area or inappropriately located to serve the needs of local residents, and when an in -lieu fee is paid to the City for the acquisition and improvement of other properties as parklands to serve the Airport Area. (Imp 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 23.1, 30.2) LU 6.95.147.14.15 Location Require that each neighborhood park is clearly public in character and is accessible to all residents of the neighborhood. Each park shall be surrounded by public streets on at least two sides (preferably with on -street parking to serve the park), and shall be linked to residential uses in its respective neighborhood by streets or pedestrian ways. (Imp 2.1, 3.1, 4.1) LU 6.95.957.14.16 Aircraft Notification Require that all neighborhood parks be posted with a notification to users regarding proximity to John Wayne Airport and aircraft overflight and noise. (Imp 23.2) On -Site Recreation and Open Space LU 6.45.167.14.17 Standards Require developers of multi -family residential developments on parcels 8 acres or larger to provide on-site recreational amenities. For these developments, 44 square feet of on-site recreational amenities shall be provided for each dwelling unit in addition to the requirements under the City's Park Dedication Ordinance and in accordance with the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan. On-site recreational amenities can consist of public urban plazas or squares where there is the capability for recreation and outdoor activity. These recreational amenities may also include swimming pools, exercise facilities, tennis courts, and basketball courts. Where there is insufficient land Page 137 552 to provide on-site recreational amenities, the developer shall be required to pay cash in -lieu that would be used to develop or upgrade nearby recreation facilities to offset user demand as defined in the City's Park Dedication Fee Ordinance. The acreage of on-site open space developed with residential projects may be credited against the parkland dedication requirements where it is accessible to the public during daylight hours, visible from public rights- of-way, and is of sufficient size to accommodate recreational use by the public. However, the credit for the provision of on-site open space shall not exceed 30 percent of the parkland dedication requirements. (Imp 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 23.1 23.5 30.2) Streets and Pedestrian Ways LU 6A5.1-77.14.18 Street and Pedestrian Grid Create a pattern of streets and pedestrian ways that breaks up large blocks, improves connections between neighborhoods and community amenities, and is scaled to the predominantly residential character of the neighborhoods. (Imp 3.1, 4.1, 16.1) LU 6.15.18-7.14.19 Walkable Streets Retain the curb -to -curb dimension of existing streets, but widen sidewalks to provide park strips and generous sidewalks by means of dedications or easements. Except where traffic loads preclude fewer lanes, add parallel parking to calm traffic, buffer pedestrians, and provide short-term parking for visitors and shop customers. (Imp 3.1, 4.1, 16.1, 20.1) LU 6.15.497.14.20 Connected Streets Require dedication and improvement of new streets as shown on Figure LU23. The illustrated alignments are tentative and may change as long as the routes provide the^.,aenvvv^d reasonable connectivity. If traffic conditions allow, connect new and existing streets across MacAarthur Boulevard with signalized intersections, crosswalks, and pedestrian refuges in the median. (Imp 16.1) LU 6.15.20 7.14.21 Pedestrian Improvements Require the dedication and improvement of new pedestrian ways as conceptually shown on Figure LU23. The alignment is tentative and may change as long as the path provides the intended connectivity. For safety, the full length of pedestrian ways shall be visible from intersecting streets. TO R^^'^t^'^ RR Rt Fnate SGalp ^^F' t^ 9142& the path w th trees, pedestFian ways sheuld net be q xpd Aq f Fe 'AnP.A. PedestF an ways shall be apen to the pub! G at -a4 heucs. (Imp 16.11) Parking and Loading LU " 5 ,47.14.22 Required Spaces for Primary Uses Consider revised parking requirements that reflect the mix of uses in the neighborhoods and overall Airport Area, as well as the availability of on -street parking. (Imp 2.1) Relationship of Buildings to Street LU 6.15.237.14.23 Sustainable Development Practices Require that development includes measures that comparatively aGhieves a high level of eR" FG^'^^^t^' ^"^tRlRab I t" that -reduces pollution and consumption of energy, water, and natural resources. This may be accomplished through the mix and density of uses, building location and design, transportation modes, and other techniques. Among the strategies that should be considered are the integration of residential with jobs -generating uses, use of alternative transportation modes, maximized walkability, use of recycled materials, capture and re -use of storm water on-site, water conserving fixtures and landscapes, and/or architectural elements that reduce heat gain and loss. (Imp 3.1, 4.1, 16.11, 17.1, 19.1) Page 138 553 Campus Tract ["AO" designation Sub -Area B] LAND USES LU 6 Is 247.14.24 Primary Uses Accommodate professional office; aviation retail; automobile rental, sales, and service, ^f the Plann'ng C;a n; alien; hotels; and ancillary retail, restaurant, and service uses that are related to and support the functions of John Wayne Airport, as permitted by the "AO" designation. (Imp 2.1) STRATEGY LU 6-A-9457.14.25 Economic Viability Provide incentives for lot consolidation and the re -use and improvement of properties located in the "Campus Tract," west of Birch Street. (Imp 2.1, 24.1) LU 6.15.267.14.26 Automobile Rental and Supporting Uses Work MtttEncourage automobile rental and supporting uses to promote the consolidation and visual improvement of auto storage, service, and storage facilities. (Imp 24.1) LU f 'o.,45_11 7.14.27 Site Planning and Architecture Encourage and, when property improvements are subject to discretionary review, require property owners within the Campus Tract to upgrade the street frontages of their properties with landscapinn e, well-designed signage, and other amenities that improve the area's visual quality. (Imp 3.1, 7.1, 8.1,) Commercial Nodes ["CG" designation Sub -Area C—part] LU 6{35.257.14.28 Priority Uses Encourage the development of retail, financial services, dining, hotel, and ethAr uses that support the John Wayne Airport, the Airport Area's office uses, and, as developed, its residential neighborhoods, as well as automobile sales and supporting uses at the MacArthur Boulevard and Bristol Street node. (Imp 2.1, 24.1) Commercial Office District ["CO -G" designation Sub -Area C—part] LU 6.15.297.14.29 Priority Uses Encourage the development of administrative, professional, and office uses with limited accessory retail and service uses that provide jobs for residents and benefit adjoining mixed-use districts. (Imp 2.1, 24.1) Corridors Corridors share common characteristics of Districts by their identifiable functional role, land use mix, density/intensity, physical form and character, and/or environmental setting. They differ in their linear configuration, generally with shallow -depth parcels located along arterial streets. They are significantly impacted by traffic, often inhibiting access during peak travel periods. Their shallow depths make them unsuitable for many contemporary forms of commercial development that require large building footprints and extensive parking. While the City is crossed by a number of commercial corridors, the General Plan's policies focus on those in which change is anticipated to occur during the next 20 years. Additionally, they provide guidance for the maintenance of a number of corridors in which it is the objective to maintain existing types and levels of development. Development in each corridor will adhere to policies for land use type and density/intensity (LU 4.1, Table 1-1.11) and community character (LU 5.0), except as specified in this section of the General Plan. ° Land use designation will require modification if proposed uses of the Saunders property is affirmed by the LUEAC. Page 139 554 Goal LU 6.167.15 Development along arterial corridors that is compatible with adjoining residential neighborhoods and designated open spaces, is well designed and attractive, minimizes traffic impacts, and provides adequate parking. Policies LU C'o16 1 7.15.1 Efficient Parcel Utilization Promote the clustering of retail and hotel uses by the aggregation of individual parcels into larger development sites through incentives such as density bonuses or comparable techniques. (Imp 2.1, 24.1) LU 6.16.27.15.2 Private Property Improvements ` GFk W th ^•^^^t• ^w^^•^'^ ^Encourage the upgrade of existing commercial development including repair and/or repainting of deteriorated building surfaces, well-designed signage that is incorporated into the architectural style of the building, and expanded landscaping. (Imp 24.1) LU a 16.2 7.15.3Property Access Minimize driveways and curb cuts that interrupt the continuity of street -facing building elevations in pedestrian - oriented districts and locations of high traffic volumes, prioritizing their location on side streets and alleys, where feasible. (Imp 2.1) LU 6.16.47.15.4 Shared Parking Facilities Work w th property owners and developers ^Encourage the more efficient use of parcels for parking that can be shared by multiple businesses. (Imp 16.10) LU 6.16.57.15.5 Compatibility of Business Operations with Adjoining Residential Neighborhoods %AInrk y.,th lo^^' bus nesses to ^Ensure that retail, office, and other uses do not adversely impact adjoining residential neighborhoods. This may include strategies addressing hours of operation, congregation of employees. loitering, trash pickup, truck delivery hours, customer arrivals and departures, and other activities. (Imp 8.2) LU 6.16.67.15.6 Design Compatibility with Adjoining Residential Neighborhoods Require that building elevations facing adjoining residential units be designed to convey a high-quality character and ensure privacy of the residents, and that properties be developed to mitigate to the maximum extent feasible impacts of lighting, noise, odor, trash storage, truck deliveries, and other business activities. Building elevations shall be architecturally treated and walls, if used as buffers, shall be well-designed and landscaped to reflect the area's residential village character. (Imp 2.1) WEST NEWPORT The West Newport Coast Highway Corridor extends from Summit Street to just past 60th Street. It is a mixed commercial and residential area, with the former serving the adjoining Newport Shores residential neighborhood, the West Newport residential neighborhood south of Coast Highway, and beach visitors. Commercial uses are concentrated on the north side of Coast Highway at the Orange Street intersection and east of Cedar Street to the Semeniuk Slough. Intervening areas are developed with a mix of multi -family apartments and, west of Grant Avenue, mobile and manufactured homes. Primary commercial uses include community -related retail such as dry cleaners, liquor store, deli, and convenience stores, as well as a few visitor -serving motels, dine -in, family -style restaurants, and fast food establishments. Generally, they are developed on shallow parcels of substandard size and configuration due to past widening of West Coast Highway and contain insufficient parking. Many of the commercial buildings appear to have been constructed in the 1960s to 1980s, although some motels have been recently upgraded. A portion of the mobile homes are situated along Semeniuk Slough and the Army Corps restored wetlands, while a number of the single-family homes outside the area are also located along the Slough. A mobile home park containing older units, many of which appear to be poorly maintained, is located on the westernmost parcels and a Page 140 555 portion of the tidelands. This site serves as the "entry" to the City and as a portal to the proposed Orange Coast River Park. This area is regulated by an adopted Spec fic Plan, which was intended to promote its orderly development and pmv da sew Go GornrnerGial uses for nearby FAR dRAGOR The 2006 General Plan visioning process found that the West Newport Corridor is among those that require revitalization. Clustering of commercial uses to enhance their economic vitality and improve the appearance of the area was supported, as was the improvement of the quality of commercial development on the Highway. Redevelopment of the westernmost parcel occupied by a trailer park was a high priority for the neighborhood. In 2011, the City Council appointed a Citizen Advisory Panel (CAP) to develop a preliminary design for a Capital Improvement Proiect for beautification of West Coast Highway from the Santa Ana River to the Arches Bridge and of Balboa Boulevard from West Coast Highway to McFadden Souare. In December 2011. the City Council anoroved the landscape design concepts which are intended to wagn—upenhance the corridor and give it a more welcoming feel for residents and visitors of this part of Newoort Beach. Policy Overview The General Plan provides for the improvement of Coast Highway fronting properties in West Newport by concentrating local and visitor-serving retail in two centers at Prospect Street and Orange Street with expanded parking, enhancing existing and allowing additional housing on intervening parcels, and developing a clearly defined entry at its western edge with Huntington Beach. The latter may include improvements that would support the proposed Orange Coast River Park. Goal LU A 477.16 A corridor that includes a gateway to the City with amenities that support the Orange Coast River Park, as well as commercial clusters that serve local residents and coastal visitors at key intersections, interspersed with compatible residential development. Policies LAND USES [refer to Figure LU24] LU 6 17x1 7.16.1 Western Entry Parcel [designated as "RM(26/ac)" and "RM/OS(85du)"I `g* With ^^M^••^"•• 9FOUPS ^^•"h^ Oa Aty `^ `Facilitate the acquisition of a portion or all of the property as open space, which may be used as a staging area for Orange Coast River Park with parking, park-related uses, and an underpass to the ocean. As an alternative, accommodate multi-family residential on all or portions of the property not used for open space. (Imp 14.3, 23._2 29.1) STRATEGY LU 6A7-2-7.16.2 Improved Visual Image and Quality Implement streetscape improvements consistent with the design concepts developed by the 2011 Citizen Advisory Committee to enhance the area's character and image as a gateway to Newport Beach and develop a stronger pedestrian environment at the commercial nodes. (Imp 20.1) LU 6.47.37.16.3 Streetscape Require that upgraded and redeveloped properties incorporate landscaped setbacks along arterial streets to improve their visual quality and reduce impacts of the corridor's high traffic volumes. (Imp 2.1) OLD NEWPORT BOULEVARD Old Newport Boulevard was formerly the primary roadway leading into the city from the north, containing a diversity of highway-oriented retail and office uses. Shifting of vehicle trips to the parallel (aew}Newport Boulevard reduced the corridor's traffic volumes and economic vitality, resulting in significant changes in its land use mix. Page 141 556 The corridor is abutted by residential neighborhoods to the east and Hoag Hospital west of Newport Boulevard. Today, the area is primarily developed with commercial and professional offices. Secondary uses include personal services, restaurants, and specialty shopping such as home furnishing stores and beauty salons. Most specialty retail appears to occupy converted residential buildings. A number of auto -related businesses and service facilities are located in the corridor. Many of these are incompatible with the predominant pattern of retail service and office uses. Medical office uses have expanded considerably during recent years, due to the corridor's proximity to Hoag Hospital, which is expanding its buildings and facilities. This corridor does not exhibit a pedestrian -oriented character. While there are some walkable areas, Newport Boulevard is wide and there is a mix of uses and lot configurations that do not create a consistent walkway. In 2006 Llittle public input was received pertaining to Old Newport Boulevard during the General Plan's preparation. In general, the preservation of the status quo was supported. Although, the public supported the development of mixed-use buildings that integrate residential with ground floor retail and townhomes on the east side of Old Newport Boulevard as a transition with adjoining residential neighborhoods. Policy Overview In the Old Newport Boulevard area, the General Plan provides for the development of professional offices, retail, and other uses that support Hoag Hospital, and retail uses serving adjoining residential neighborhoods. Pedestrian walkways within and connections west to Hoag Hospital would be improved and streetscapes installed. Goal LU 6 487.17 A corridor of uses and services that support Hoag Hospital and adjoining residential neighborhoods. Policies LAND USES (designated as "CO -G(0.5)," refer to Figure LU251 LU 6.18.17.17.1 Priority Uses Accommodate uses that serve adjoining residential neighborhoods, provide professional offices, and support Hoag Hospital. (Imp 2.1) LU 6.18.2-7.17.2 Discouraged Uses Highway -oriented retail uses should be discouraged and new "heavy" retail uses, such as automobile supply and repair uses, prohibited. (Imp 2.1) DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT LU 6.18.37.17.3 Property Design Require that buildings be located and designed to orient to the Old Newport Boulevard frontage, while the rear of parcels on its west side shall incorporate landscape and design elements that are attractive when viewed from Newport Boulevard. (Imp 2.1) LU 6.48.47.17.4 Streetscape Design and Connectivity Develop a plan for streetscape improvements and improve street crossings to facilitate pedestrian access to Hoag Hospital and discourage automobile trips. (Imp 20.1) MARINERS' MILE Mariners' Mile is a heavily traveled segment of Coast Highway extending from the Arches Bridge on the west to Dover Drive on the east. It is developed with a mix of highway -oriented retail and marine -related commercial uses. The latter are primarily concentrated on bay -fronting properties and include boat sales and storage, sailing schools, Page 142 557 marinas, visitor -serving restaurants, and comparable uses. A large site is developed with the Balboa Bay Slob -and Resort, a hotel, private club, and apartments located on City tidelands. A number of properties contain non -marine commercial uses, offices, and a multi -story residential building. Inland properties are developed predominantly for highway -oriented retail, neighborhood commercial services. A number of sites contain automobile dealerships and service facilities and neighborhood serving commercial uses. The latter includes salons, restaurants, apparel, and other specialty shops ranging from wine stores to home furnishings stores. While single use free-standing buildings predominate, there are a significant number of multi - tenant buildings that combine a number of related or complementary uses in a single building or buildings that are connected physically or through design. The Mariners' Mile Strategic Vision and Design Plan provides for the area's evolution as a series of districts serving visitors and local residents. Along the northern portion of Coast Highway in the vicinity of Tustin Avenue, Riverside Avenue, and Avon Street, it provides for a pedestrian -friendly retail district. In the western and easternmost segments, the Plan provides for the infill of the auto oriented retail and visitor -serving commercial uses. Along the Harbor frontage, the Vision and Design Plan emphasizes the development of Harbor -related uses and proposes a continuous pedestrian promenade to create a vibrant public waterfront. Throughout the corridor, the Plan proposes to upgrade its visual character with new landscaping and streetscape amenities, as well as improvements in private development through standards for architecture and lighting. Plans provide for the widening of Coast Highway, reducing the depth of parcels along its length. Recent development projects have set back their buildings in anticipation of this change. Traffic along the corridor and the potential for widening also impact the ability to enhance pedestrian activity and streetscape improvements, unless overhead pedestrian crossings are considered. The 2006 General Plan Vv_isioning process participants identified Mariners' Mile as a location that needs revitalization and suggested that an overall vision be defined to meet this objective. It was also defined as a location appropriate for mixed-use development integrating residential and commercial or office space. A majority opposed hotel development in Mariners' Mile. Participants were divided on the questions of preserving opportunities for coastal - related uses in Mariners' Mile and whether the City should require or offer incentives to ensure such uses. Property owners noted that high land values and rents limit the number of marine -related uses that can be economically sustained in the area. Although the public supported the development of residential in Mariners' Mile, there was a difference of opinion regarding whether it should be located on the Harbor frontage or limited it to inland parcels. In 2011, the City Council also recognized the need to revitalize Mariners' Mile by designating it as one of six "revitalization areas."- A series of Citizen Advisory Panels were formed to focus on the other revitalization areas which included. Corona del Mar. Balboa Village, Lido Village, West Newport and Santa Ana Heights. The Council's direction indicated a multi -layered approach was required to consider the complex issues within Mariners' Mile. Policy Overview The General Plan provides for the enhanced vitality of the Mariners' Mile corridor by establishing a series of distinct retail, mixed-use, and visitor -serving centers. Harbor -fronting properties would accommodate a mix of visitor -serving retail and marine -related businesses, with portions of the properties available for housing and mixed-use structures. View and public access corridors from Coast Highway to the Harbor would be required, with a pedestrian promenade developed along the length of the Harbor frontage. Parcels on the inland side of Coast Highway, generally between Riverside Avenue and the southerly projection of Irvine Avenue, would evolve as a pedestrian oriented mixed-use "village" containing retail businesses, offices, services, and housing. Sidewalks would be improved with landscape and other amenities to foster pedestrian activity. Inland properties directly fronting onto Coast Highway and those to the east and west of the village would provide for retail, marine -related, and office uses. Streetscape amenities are proposed for the length of Mariners' Mile to improve its appearance and identity. Goal LU 6.497.18 A corridor that reflects and takes advantage of its location on the Newport Bay waterfront, supports and respects adjacent residential neighborhoods and exhibits a quality visual image for travelers on Coast Highway. Page 143 558 Policies F-91:1118101:1.1 LU 6."o .1 7.18.1 Differentiated Districts Differentiate and create cohesive land use districts for key subareas of Mariners' Mile by function, use, and urban form. These should include (a) harbor -oriented uses with limited residential along the waterfront, (b) highway -oriented commercial corridor (see Figure LU26), and (c) community/neighborhood serving "village" generally between Riverside Avenue and the southerly extension of Irvine Avenue. (Imp 1.1, 2.1. 20.1. 20.2) LAND USES (refer to Figure LU26) LU 6.1-9.27.18.2 Bay Fronting Properties [designated as "MU -W1" Sub -Area A Encourage marine -related and visitor -serving retail, restaurant, hotel, institutional4recreational, and recreational uses, and allow residential uses above the ground floor on parcels with a minimum frontage of 200 lineal feet where a minimum of 50 percent of the permitted square footage shall be devoted to nonresidential uses. No more than 50 percent of the waterfront land area between the Arches Bridge and the Boy Scout Sea Base may be developed with mixed-use structures. (Imp 2.1, 5.1, 24.1) LU 6.39.37.18.3 Marine -Related Businesses Protect and encourage facilities that serve marine -related businesses and industries unless present and foreseeable future demand for such facilities is already adequately provided for in the area. Encourage coastal -dependent industrial uses to locate or expand within existing sites and allow reasonable long term growth. (Imp 2.1, 5.1, 24.1) LU 6.19.47.18.4 Inland side of Coast Highway [designated as "MU -11-111," "CG(0.3)," and "CG(0.5)" Sub -Areas B and C] Accommodate a mix of visitor- and leeal-resident-serving retail commercial, residential, and public uses. The Coast Highway frontage shall be limited to nonresidential uses. On inland parcels, generally between Riverside Avenue and Tustin Avenue, priority should be placed on accommodating uses that serve upland residential neighborhoods such as greseq-steres-specialty retail, small service office, restaurants, coffee shops, and similar uses. (Imp 2.1, 5.1) LU 6.19.57.18.5 Parking Require adequate parking and other supporting facilities for charters, yacht sales, visitor -serving, and other waterfront uses. (Imp 2.1, 5.1) DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT Corridor LU 6 39.67.18.6 Corridor Identity and Quality Implement landscape, signage, lighting, sidewalk, pedestrian crossing, and other amenities consistent with the Mariners M i., Specific Plan District and Mariners' Mile Strategic Vision and Design Plan. (Imp 20.1) Harbor -Fronting Properties LU 6 'a 19 7 7.18.7 Architecture and Site Planning While a diversity of building styles is encouraged, the form, materials, and colors of buildings located along the harbor front should be designed to reflect the area's setting and nautical history. (Imp 8.1, 8.2) LU 6-1"7.18.8 Integrating Residential -Site Planning Principles Permit properties developed for residential to locate the units along the Harbor frontage provided that portions of this frontage are developed for (a) retail, restaurant, or other visitor -serving uses and (b) plazas and other open spaces that provide view corridors and access from Coast Highway to the Harbor. The amount of Harbor frontage allocated for each use shall be determined by the City during the Development Plan review process. (Imp 2.1, 5.1) Page 144 559 LU 8'11.97.18.9 Harbor and Bay Views and Access Require that buildings be located and sites designed to provide clear views of and access to the Harbor and Bay from the Coast Highway and Newport Boulevard rights-of-way in accordance with the following principles, as appropriate: • Clustering of buildings to provide open view and access corridors to the Harbor Modulation of building volume and masses • Variation of building heights • Inclusion of porticoes, arcades, windows, and other "see-through" elements in addition to the defined open corridor • Minimization of landscape, fencing, parked cars, and other nonstructural elements that block views and access to the Harbor Prevention of the appearance of the public right-of-way being walled off from the Harbor • Inclusion of setbacks that in combination with setbacks on adjoining parcels cumulatively form functional view corridors • Encouragement of adjoining properties to combine their view corridors that achieve a larger cumulative corridor than would have been achieved independently A site-specific analysis shall be conducted for new development to determine the appropriate size, configuration, and design of the view and access corridor that meets these objectives, which shall be subject to approval in the Development Plan review process. (Imp 2.1) LU 8,1-9.1-0-7.18.10 Waterfront Promenade Require that development on the bay frontage implement amenities that ensure access for coastal visitors. Pursue development of a pedestrian promenade along the Bayfront. (Imp 2.1, 20.2) LU 7.18.11 Guiding Development of a District Corridor Initiate a process to review and, as appropriate, revise existing development standards and the Mariners' Mile Strategic Vision and Design Framework to 0) encourage less intensity along the Bayfront in exchange for more intensity of inland parcels and (ii) ensure they adequately implement the vision for the form and quality of Mariners' Mile's coastal and inland development for such elements as viewshed and resource protection; building location, scale, mass, and heights: architectural character and design: streetscape amenities: site access and parking: traffic and connectivity to the Bayfront. (Imp 2.1, 5.1, 16.10, 20.2) Community/Neighborhood Village LU 14A47.18.12 Pedestrian -Oriented Village Require that inland properties that front onto internal streets within the Community/Neighborhood Village locate buildings along and forming a semicontinuous building wall along the sidewalk, with parking to the rear in structures or in shared facilities and be designed to promote pedestrian activity. (Imp 2.1, 16.10) LU 6_10—i27.18.13 Properties Abutting Bluff Faces Require that development projects that abut coastal bluffs locate and design buildings to maintain the visual quality and maintain the structural integrity of the bluff faces. (Imp 2.1) STRATEGY LU 6 40.19.13 7.18.14 Lot Consolidation on Inland Side of Coast Highway Permit development intensities in areas designated as "CG(0.3)" to be increased to a floor area ratio of 0.5 where parcels are consolidated to accommodate larger commercial development projects that provide sufficient parking. (Imp 2.1, 5.1 16.10) LU 5-09-..447.18.15 Parking Lot Relocation Page 145 560 Consider options for the relocation of the City parking lot on Avon Street to better support the corridor's retail uses. (Imp 16.10) 11161915 Postal rUntrihufmon Canter Ralonnfion (I FAP 44.14) ^*,,m- -r LU 6'149 467.18.16 Parking and Supporting Facilities for Waterfront Uses Explore additional options for the development and location of parking and other supporting facilities for charters, yacht sales, and other waterfront uses. (Imp 16.10) CORONA DEL MAR The Corona del Mar corridor extends along Coast Highway between Avocado Avenue and Hazel Drive. It is developed with commercial uses and specialty shops that primarily serve adjoining residential neighborhoods, with isolated uses that serve highway travelers and coastal visitors. Among the area's primary uses are restaurants, home furnishings, and miscellaneous apparel and professional offices including architectural design services. Almost half of the commercial uses are located in multitenant buildings with retail on the ground floor and professional services above. Other uses include the Sherman Library and Gardens, a research library and botanical garden open to the public, and an assisted -living residential complex. Buildings in the Corona del Mar corridor mostly front directly on and visually open to the sidewalks, with few driveways or parking lots to break the continuity of the "building wall' along the street. These, coupled with improved streetscape amenities, landscaped medians, and a limited number of signalized crosswalks, promote a high level of pedestrian activity. The Corona del Mar Vision Plan, developed by the Business Improvement District, is intended to enhance the shopping district through community improvements. These envision a linear park -like environment with extensive sidewalk landscaping, street furniture, pedestrian -oriented lighting fixtures, activated crosswalks, parking lanes, and comparable improvements. Visioning process participants expressed support for protecting Corona del Mar as an important historic commercial center that serves adjoining neighborhoods. In 2011, the City Council appointed a Citizen Advisory Panel (CAP) to develop a preliminary design of a Capital Improvement Proiect for beautification of the south side of East Coast Highway from Avocado Avenue to Dahlia Avenue. This effort also included the preparation of an Entryway Enhancement Proiect in coordination with the Corona del Mar Business Improvement District. Policy Overview The General Plan sustains Corona del Mar as a pedestrian -oriented retail village that serves surrounding neighborhoods. New development largely would occur as replacement of existing uses and developed at comparable building heights and scale. Additional parking would be provided by the re -use of parcels at the rear of commercial properties and/or in shared parking lots or structures developed G4; -near Coast Highway. Goal LU 6.287.19 A pedestrian -oriented "village" serving as the center of community commerce, culture, and social activity and providing identity for Corona del Mar. Policies LAND USES [designated as "CC," refer to Figure LU27] LU 6.2847.19.1 Primary Uses Accommodate neighborhood -serving uses that complement existing development. (Imp 2.1) Page 146 561 LU 6.29.27.19.2 Shared Parking Structures Accommodate the development of structures on public or private parcels or other publichorivate arrangement that provides additional off-street parking ea-parselsfor multiple businesses along the corridor, provided that the ground floor of the street -corridor frontage is developed for pedestrian -oriented -retail uses. (Imp 2.1, 16.10) LU 6.29.37.19.3 Expanded Parking Accommodate the redevelopment of residential parcels immediately adjoining commercial uses that front onto Coast Highway for surface parking, provided that adequate buffers are incorporated to prevent impacts on adjoining residential (see "Design and Development' below). (Imp 2.1) DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT LU 6.29.47.19.4 Pedestrian -Oriented Streetscapes Work with business associations, tenants, and property owners to implement Corona del Mar Vision Plan streetscape improvements that contribute to the corridor's pedestrian character. (Imp 20.1) STRATEGY LU 6.29,57.19.5 Complement the Scale and Form of Existing Development Permit new commercial development at a maximum intensity of 0.75 FAR, but allow existing commercial buildings that exceed this intensity to be renovated, upgraded, or reconstructed to their pre-existing intensity and, at a minimum, preexisting number of parking spaces. (Imp 2.1) LU 6.29.67.19.6 Expanded Parking Opportunities Work with local businesses and organizations to explore other methods to provide parking convenient to commercial uses, such as a parking district or relocation of the City parking lot at the old school site at 4th Avenue and Dahlia Avenue. (Imp 16.10) Page 147 562 Attachment No. CC 5 Land Use Amendment and ADT Tables 563 564 City Council Meeting 7-8-14 Proposed Land Use Amendments and Average Daily Trip Changes Table 1 Land Use Changes Location Existing Proposed Existing Use/ Average Daily Average Daily Designation Designation Development Tris ADT 1526 Placentia Ave Multi -Unit Residential (RM) General Commercial (CG) Convenience Market +251 (King's Liquor) 10,000 sq. ft. -593 Newport Coast 141,787 sq. ft. 813 East Balboa Blvd. Two -Unit Residential (RT) Mixed -Use Vertical Day Spa +65 (Legere Property) MU -V Gateway Park Corridor Commercial (CC) Park and Recreation (PR) Small City Park 167 (Newport Blvd. and Short Street Hotel Table 2 Reduced Future Development Capacity Location Current General Existing Development Proposed Reduction Remaining Capacity Average Daily Plan CapacityTrips (ADT) Westcliff Plaza 138,500 sq. ft. 112,986 sq. ft. -15,514 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. ft. -593 Newport Coast 141,787 sq. ft. 103,712 sq. ft. -37,875 sq. ft. 200 sq. ft. -1,448 Center Newport Coast 2,150 Rooms 1,104 Rooms -1,011 Rooms 45 Rooms -7,588 Hotel Bayside Center 66,000 sq. ft. 65,284 sq. ft. -366 sq. ft. 350 sq. ft. -14 Harbor View 74,000 sq. ft. 71,993 sq. ft. -1,857 sq. ft. 150 sq. ft. -71 Center The Bluffs 54,000 sq. ft. 50,312 sq. ft. -3,538 sq. ft. 150 sq. ft. -135 Newport Ridge 2,550 2,187 -356 7 du -2,371 dwelling units dwelling units dwelling units 565 City Council Meeting 7-8-14 Table 3 Increased Future Development Capacity Location Designation Current General Plan Proposed Increase Proposed Capacity Average Daily Capacity or Chane Trips (ADT) 6.3 Million sq.ft. Regional Office+500,000 sq 6.85 million sq.ft. Newport Commercial, Mixed Retail/Office; 2,730 ft .; Regional Commercial Retail/Office; Center/Fashion Use, Residential Theater Seats; +50,000 sq. ft. 2,730 Theater Seats; +8,768 Island 854 Hotel Rooms; Multi -Family +500 Units 854 Hotels Rooms; 1,280 Units 1,780 Units Regional 150 Newport Commercial Office 8,500 sq. ft. +125 Hotel Rooms 125 Hotel Rooms +623 Center Drive (CO -R) to Mixed Use -8,500 sq.ft. Commercial Horizontal MU -H3 100 Newport 100 Newport Center 0 ft. Center Drive Drive Mixed Use 17,500 sq. ft. Use Commercial d Use m 32,500 sq. ft. +352 Horizontal(MU-1­13)Mixed Harbor Day Private Institution .35 FAR +14,244 sq. ft. .40 FAR (113,952 sq. ft.) +94 School PI 99,708 sq ft. Airport Area Airport Office and Office 545,000 sq. ft. and Saunders Supporting Uses 306,923 sq. ft. Office +238,077 sq. ft. and Residential 329 dwelling +4,651 Properties (AO) to Mixed Use Residential +329 units Horizontal(MU-H2)units The Hangars General Commercial Office Retail: +11,800 sq. ft. 278,264 sq. ft. Office and +340 Office CO -G 288,264 sq. ft. Office: -10,000 sq. ft. 11,800 sq. ft. Retail Retail: +85,000 sq ft. Lyon Mixed Use Residential: +850 Retail: +85,000 sq. ft. Communities Horizontal (MU -H2) 250,176 sq. ft. Office replacement units Residential:+850 units +5,780 Hotel: +150 Rooms Hotel: +150 Rooms Office: -250,176 sq ft. UAP Companies Mixed Use: 46,044 sq. ft. 4699 Jamboree Mixed Use Mixed Use: 46,044 sq. ft. or or and 5190 Horizontal (MU -H2) 46,044 sq. ft. Office Congregate Care: 148,000 Congregate Care: 0 Campus sq. ft. 148,000 sq ft. (trip neutral Citywide Total Average Daily Trips +8,537 No Airport Alternative Average Daily Trips -2,234 Planning Commission Recommendation eliminate Lyon and Hangars) Average Daily Trips +2,417 566 Attachment No. CC 6 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1946 567 9 M.- RESOLUTION NO. 1946 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. ER2014-002 AND APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GP2013-001 TO AMEND THE LAND USE ELEMENT (PA2013-098) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. On May 28, 2013, the Newport Beach City Council initiated an amendment to the 2006 General Plan Land Use Element to review its effectiveness in achieving the community's vision, and to update it to reflect legislative changes, emerging best practices, and changing economic markets (Amendment). 2. On May 28, 2013, the Land Use Element Amendment Advisory Committee (Committee), comprised of two council members, two planning commissioners, and five at -large members, was appointed by the Newport Beach City Council to receive public input, consider options, and develop the amendment in order for the Amendment to be reviewed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. (CEQA). 3. The Amendment (Project) considered by the Committee and evaluated in the draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) includes land use changes, policy revisions and related changes to the glossary and Implementation Plan. 4. City Council Policy A-18 requires that proposed Amendment be reviewed to determine if a vote of the electorate would be required. If a project (separately or cumulatively with other projects over a 10 -year span) exceeds any one of the following thresholds, a vote of the electorate is required: if the project generates more than 100 peak hour trips (AM or PM); adds 40,000 square feet of non-residential floor area; or, adds more than 100 dwelling units in a statistical area. 5. The proposed land use changes, which are detailed in Exhibit D, exceed the thresholds that require a vote pursuant to Charter Section 423. The subject Amendment, in its entirety, shall go into effect only if the electorate approves the related land use changes. 6. Pursuant to Section 65352.3 of the California Government Code, the appropriate tribe contacts identified by the Native American Heritage Commission were provided notice of the proposed General Plan Amendment on December 5, 2013. The California Government Code requires 90 days to allow tribe contacts to respond to the request to consult unless the tribe contacts mutually agree to a shorter time period. No requests were received within the 90 days. However, Mr. Andy Salas submitted comments in regards to the draft SEIR and identified his concerns and requests regarding 569 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1946 monitoring during ground disturbing activities. No additional requests for consultation were received. 7. On May 8, 2014 and May 22, 2014, the Planning Commission held study sessions in the City Hall Council Chambers, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach to review the proposed Amendment and draft SEIR. 8. A public hearing was held on June 5, 2014, in the City Hall Council Chambers, at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of the time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was provided in accordance with CEQA and the Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC). The draft SEIR, draft Responses to Comments, draft Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program, staff report, and evidence, both written and oral, were presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the scheduled hearing. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. 1. Pursuant to the CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code of Regulations, Sections 15000 et seq.), and City Council Policy K-3, the amendment could have a significant effect on the environment, and thus warranted the preparation of a SEIR. 2. On October 22, 2013, the City, as lead agency under CEQA, prepared a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") of the SEIR and mailed that NOP to public agencies, organizations and persons likely to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed Project. 3. On November 5, 2013, the City held a public scoping meeting to present the proposed Project and to solicit input from interested individuals regarding environmental issues that should be addressed in the SEIR. 4. The City thereafter caused to be prepared a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (No. ER2014-002, SCH No. 2013101064) ("Draft SEIR") in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and City Council Policy K-3, which, taking into account the comments it received on the NOP, described the Project and discussed the environmental impacts resulting there from. 5. The Draft SEIR was prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15163 as supplemental information to the 2006 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2006011119) on the basis that: 1) the Project does not propose substantial changes; 2) no change in circumstances have occurred; and 3) and no new information of substantial importance has been identified which would require revisions to the 2006 General Plan EIR. 6. The Draft SEIR was circulated for a 45 -day comment period beginning on March 17, 2014, and ending April 30, 2014. 7. The Final SEIR identifies significant impacts to the environment which are unavoidable in the areas of Air Quality and Health Risks, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise and Vibration, Population and Housing and Transportation/Traffic. 570 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1946 8. The Final SEIR, consisting of the Draft SEIR, Responses to Comments, Corrections and Additions to the Draft SEIR, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached as Exhibit A, was considered by the Planning Commission in its review of the proposed Project. 9. The draft Findings of Fact and draft Statement of Overriding Considerations, provided as Attachment B, were considered by the Planning Commission and found adequate and satisfactory, and hereby recommends their adoption to the to the City Council. SECTION 3. FINDINGS. 1. Amendments to the General Plan are legislative acts. Neither the City nor State Planning Law set forth any required findings for either approval or denial of such amendments. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED; 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach determines that, based on all information, both oral and written, provided to date, that there has not been any new significant information, data, or changes to the Project which either result in the creation of a new significant environmental impact, or the need to adopt a new mitigation measure, or a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact, or in a finding that the draft SEIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. 2. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach, including consideration of the 2006 General Plan Environmental Impact Report, hereby recommends to the City Council certification of the General Plan Land Use Element Amendment Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No. 2014-002 (SCH No. 2013101064), attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A, based upon the draft Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Consideration attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference. 3. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby recommends to the City Council approval and adoption of General Plan Amendment No GP2013-001 which consists of a. Land use policy amendments, attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by reference. b. Land use and map revisions, attached hereto as Exhibit D and incorporated herein by reference. c. Glossary and Implementation Program revisions, attached hereto as Exhibit E and incorporated herein by reference. 571 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1946 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 5T" DAY OF JUNE, 2014. AYES: AMERI, HILLGREN, KRAMER, AND TUCKER NOES: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: BROWN AND LAWLER Q 110 572 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1946 EXHIBIT A FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ER2014-002 (SCH No. 2013101064) Consists of: 1. Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) dated March 2014 (under separate cover) 2. Appendices A through I (under separate cover) 3. Final SEIR (under separate cover) a. Introduction to Final SEIR b. Response to Comments c. Corrections and Additions to the Draft SEIR 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program The Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report is available for review at the Planning Division of Community Development Department or at www.newportbeachca.gov/cegadocuments 573 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1946 EXHIBIT B FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION FOR THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT SUPPLEMENTATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH No. 2013101064) 574 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1946 EXHIBIT C AMENDED LAND USE POLICIES The amended land use policies are shown as strike -outs (deletions) and underlined (inserts). 575 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1946 EXHIBIT D ANOMALY TABLE (LU2) AND AFFECTED MAPS The anomaly table includes land use transfers conducted since adoption of the 2006 General Plan and do not require approval with this amendment. The proposed amendment is highlighted. 576 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1946 EXHIBIT E GLOSSARY AND IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM REVISIONS 577 578 Attachment No. CC 7 Planning Commission Minutes, June 5, 2014 579 Me NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 6/5/14 VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS NO.2 AT&T MOBILITY- 000323B (PA2013-182) Site Location: 2350 Bristol Street Contractlilliginner Debbie Drasler provided a PowerPoint presentation addressing a description of the proposed project, loc ' n, maximum height of the building, existing conditions, requirement of a conditional use permit, surrounding us, specifications of the proposed facility, Including, antennas and equipment, equipment d enclosures, ans ening and compliance with the City's Zoning Code and Municipal Code. She added that the project will have no i rference with the City's public safety radio equipment and added a Condition of Approval stating, "Prior to perms suance, Planning is to review and approve the color and material of the proposed screening". Ms. Drasler p entad recommendations as stated in the report. In response to Chair Hillgren's uiry regarding the importance of two (2) feet to the function of the antennas, Ms. Drasler reported that the sm st antennas are four (4) feet and they need the clearance above. The additional two (2) feet are needed for antennas to function. Chair Hillgren opened the Public Hearing arlellnvited the applicant forward to address the Planning Commission. Tim Miller, on behalf of the applicant, AT&T MobX reported working with staff to develop a design and that the project will help to provide coverage in an existing g of services and help offload existing sites. He addressed the coverage areas, reported reading the conditions an greed to same. He commented positively on the City's new telecommunications ordinance. Jim Mosher stated that the combination of the architectural blen ' g and the placement of the support equipment inside the building is an example of excellent planning. He con ted on a proposal being considered by the City Council to put antennas in the parking lot adjacent to the Newpis 14Beach Country Club and Tennis Courts and stated this project is much better. Charlie Shoff stated opposition to the Sector B portion that extends on the si\0) enith and stated he does not oppose Sectors A and C. Chair Hillgren closed the Public Hearing. Secretary Kramer commended the applicant for their effort and work. Motion made by Secretary Kramer and seconded by Vice Chair Tucker and esolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. UP2014-016 as amended by staff. AYES: Ameri, Hillgren, Kramer, Myers, and Tucker NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: Brown and Lawler ITEM NO.3 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT Site Location: Citywide Commissioner Myers recused himself from voting on this matter as he has an interest in real property known as Upper Newport Plaza which creates a conflict of interest to some aspects of the project and departed the Chambers. Chair Hillgren noted that Vice Chair Tucker and Secretary Kramer have been active on the committee working through this process. He addressed the reason for going through the process as well as the Planning Commission's responsibility. He added that the process has been going forward for over a year on a public basis and stated the next steps. He commended staff, colleagues and the community for their work and noted it has had a good and thorough review. Chair Hillgren deferred to Vice Chair Tucker. Page 2 of 12 581 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 6/5/14 Vice Chair Tucker provided background and offered a brief summary of the process at this time. He noted that the Commission would be reviewing and discussing the following matters in the following order: (i) The proposed changes to the Land Use Maps and Anomaly Table would be reviewed first since this is the part of the Land Use Element where the proposed increases and decreases of property specific entitlements would actually be set forth; (ii) the General Plan Policies, which have already been reviewed would be reviewed one more time for any last changes and to go over prior changes; (iii) the Implementation Program which changes little from 2006 except to implement changes to laws that have happened since 2006; (iv) the Glossary, which he noted is a customized generic document where not all words that are defined are used in the General Plan; (v) further comments under CEQA and a decision whether the Supplemental EIR needed to be recirculated, as well as reviewing the Findings and the potential Statement of Overriding Considerations; (vi) the proposed form of draft Resolution set forth the Planning Commission's recommendations and (vii) a brief review of Charter Section 423, which Vice Chair Tucker noted did not relate to the review process, but rather only to whether the public would be voting on the Land Use Element Update if the Council approved the proposed Update. Chair Hillgren requested clarification regarding the objectives including "enhancing the character as a beautiful, unique residential community". Deputy Community Development Director Brenda Wisneski reported that each of the policies was developed to support that objective. The objectives were created first and the policies were developed to support them. Regarding Newport Beach being a "City of balance of jobs, housing and services", Community Development Director Kimberly Brandt reported that the City currently has more jobs than housing and that there are several goals and policies in the General Plan stating this is primarily a unique residential community. She added that the intent of the General Plan is to strike a balance and that with the additional units proposed the jobs/housing balance will improve. In terms of enhancing recreational opportunities, this is addressed through requirements to provide park space when adding residential elements. Regarding the objective of "modifying land uses, densities and intensities so that traffic generation is controlled", Ms. Brandt reported that the General Plan has very specific density allocations which are then, in turn, tied to the City's circulation element. She added that the State requires that the circulation element be correlated to the land use map contained within the land use element. It is the intention of the General Plan that the circulation element occur in concert with development within the community so that it remains in balance. Chair Hillgren referenced comments received regarding future approvals and asked regarding subsequent approvals needed before development of property. Ms. Brandt noted that the General Plan is the foundation for development within the City but noted there are other entitlement processes that a property owner would have to go through. She added that companion amendments to the Zoning Code that would allow development to occur have not been included at this time. Provided that City Council approves this General Plan amendment and that it were ratified by the voters, staff will prepare the necessary amendments to the Zoning Code as well as to the Coastal Land Use Plan. The next phase would be a site development review which will require appropriate review by the Planning Division and if necessary, by the Planning Commission or City Council. Relative to overriding considerations, Chair Hillgren requested guidance regarding how the Planning Commission should be evaluating what it does related to public benefits. Assistant City Attorney Leonie Mulvihill reported that the legal standard is that the statement of overriding consideration is supported by substantial evidence. In response to Chair Hillgren's inquiry, Ms. Brandt detailed the process going forward. Vice Chair Tucker noted that the Commission had a lot to review and would need to make decisions as it went through the material that he had earlier enumerated. He stated that since decisions were going to be made it would be appropriate to first hear from the public, so he opened public comments. Debbie Stevens, representing the Corona del Mar Residents Association, referenced a letter submitted to the Commission and expressed concerns with changes made over the last few years which seem to result in the community of Newport Beach being changed from a residential community to one that advocates for large-scale, high-density projects. She added that residents will be impacted by the traffic generated especially by the two Page 3 of 12 582 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 6/5/14 (2) office buildings proposed in the development of Newport Center. She asked that two (2) policies be retained that are currently proposed to be revised including LU -1 Goal and LU -1.4 (Growth Management). She questioned community benefits from those projects and added that development opportunity should not dictate policies. Doug Lessard, Belmont Village Senior Living, provided information on the organization and reported they are proposing to develop a senior living facility on the site of Jamboree and Campus. He requested an amendment to the anomaly table to increase the FAR to allow the size of building they would need on the site. He stressed that the increase in FAR is trip -neutral and would not generate additional traffic from what is already allowed on the site, by right. He requested that the Planning Commission consider the site separately from all other airport area sites and keep it as part of the land use element amendment. He referenced letters of support for their project submitted to the Planning Commission. He added that currently, there are limited options in the City for senior care facilities and asked for the Commission's consideration. Phil Andoniu, United American Properties, property owners of the corner on Jamboree and Campus, expressed support for the Belmont Village Senior Living facility. Barry Allen presented a letter to the Planning Commission dated April 7, 2014, and stated that it was responded to in the Supplemental EIR but did not answer his question. He noted there have been many meetings regarding this matter but that the Citizen's Committee offered no recommendations and therefore, the Planning Commission should oppose this matter. Within his letter, Mr. Allen stated he asked for a simple calculation as required by Greenlight and using the Institute of Traffic Engineers Manual Trip Generation for various uses but that instead staff offered comments, which he opined, are unintelligible. He expressed concerns with increased traffic impacts and urged the Planning Commission to vote against this item. Patrick Strader, Star Pointe Ventures, speaking on behalf of John Saunders, owner of the area known as the Ten Sushi Restaurant and London Coin Gallery and surrounding areas, spoke in support of the project. He reported that he received response to comments in the Supplemental EIR on Monday and referenced a letter he submitted today. He commented on a project alternative that eliminated all of the airport area projects and that because of it, they have been put in a position of criticizing the project. If that alternative is included, he stated opposition and noted that the letter points out flaws in the Supplemental EIR for the project alternative only. He added that the Saunders property was not properly accounted for in the record and commented on the Airport Settlement Agreement noting that the EIR has been released and it answers any remaining question relative to the Saunders property. Steve Rosansky, former Council Member and Mayor of Newport Beach and current President of the Newport Beach Chamber of Commerce, reported that the Chamber is currently in the process of conducting and educational campaign, 'The Coalition for General Plan Accountability" to educate the public on the General Plan and the current process. He noted there has been extensive outreach to the public and encouraged the Planning Commission to move this matter forward and put it to a vote of the residents. Greg Sullivan spoke in support of the UAP/Belmont Village Senior Living property and asked the Planning Commission to separate the use from the remaining airport properties. He addressed the FAR of the property and reported that this will be a Class A facility, will be a great use for the community and asked for the Planning Commission's support. Carol McDermott, representing the Koll Company, referenced Correspondence Item No. 3A relative to LU - 7.14.14. She provided a brief background on an integrated conceptual development plan that will allow two hundred and sixty (260) residential units on the Koll Company property. As part of the project, there was a park design that was conceptually approved and revised language was offered to help clarify what the dimensions of the park should be. However, she reported finding that the clarification was not consistent with the approved ICDP and it might make difficult that flexibility they need on the park design, if imposed as currently written. She provided suggested language and requested that the Planning Commission allow them to work with staff or determine that the suggested language is a reasonable modification to the proposed language. The suggested language includes, "...shall have a minimum dimension of 150 feet along any edge of the park site, except as may be approved by the Planning Commission as part of a site development permit review". She addressed the dimensions of their proposed park and asked for the Commission's favorable consideration of the language as proposed. Page 4 of 12 583 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 615/14 Jean Watt, Stop Polluting Our Newport (SPON), referenced a letter submitted to the Planning Commission asking to not recommend certification of the SEIR or approval of the land use amendment. She commented on prior traffic amendments noting that there is the exclusion of certain intersections which provide loopholes. Additionally, she commented on the connection between what cities do and what freeways accommodate and on unmitigated parts of the proposal. Jim Mosher reported that the State -required advertisement to be published in the newspaper for the present hearing was not as large as State law requires and that the notice of availability of the SEIR for public review failed to list public hearings related to this matter. He referenced a question in the comments to the SEIR by Debbie Stevens regarding whether a Supplemental EIR was sufficient, he submitted that the changes are not minor and that the SEIR is not appropriate. He added that staff felt that this was an appropriate time to update the General Plan, and not City Council. He commented on the City being "jobs rich" and questioned adding more commercial to Newport Center, thus creating more jobs which would tip the balance away from the desired direction. He recommended that the Planning Commission not approve this item. Vice Chair Tucker closed public comments. In response to an inquiry from Vice Chair Tucker as to whether the release of the John Wayne Settlement EIR would change any of the environmental analysis, Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill commented that the release of the John Wayne Airport Settlement and EIR does not change anything as far as the analysis before the Commission tonight and that all that has happened is the release of the EIR for public comment. There has been no action to certify the JWA EIR or mitigation measures adopted. The analysis recognizes the existence of the Settlement Agreement and that there is environmental review but that issue is not before the City of Newport Beach. To imagine what will occur with the JWA EIR would be speculative, at best. Staff disclosed that there was uncertainty with the John Wayne Airport Settlement Agreement EIR, as a result, issued the Notice of Preparation and completed the SEIR analysis based on information available at the time. Because the impacts of the John Wayne Airport Settlement Agreement cannot be analyzed at this time, the release of the JWA EIR does not change the analysis before the Commission at this time. Vice Chair Tucker preliminarily asked if there was a belief by Commissioners that there is new information that would require the SEIR to be recirculated. Secretary Kramer stated there is not and that the Supplemental EIR is appropriate. Vice Chair Tucker moved on to discuss the Land Use Map and the Anomaly Table. He listed the properties for which changes are proposed and reviewed details of each. Regarding Harbor Day School, it was noted that the proposed change relates to square footage of building area rather than the intensity of use (i.e. the number of students, which is covered in a use permit). Regarding 100 and 150 Newport Center Drive, discussion followed regarding the current development limits, divisions between commercial and the hotel and the vertical aspects of the project. It was noted that a hotel use would be a new anomaly and that the building height would be reviewed at the project specific application stage which would also entail a Zoning Code amendment. Height limitations would have to comply with the development standards. Regarding 150 Newport Center Drive, Secretary Kramer expressed concerns regarding the wide variety of additional uses that go along with development of a hotel. Basing the development limit just on hotel guest rooms is not necessarily the best method of providing development direction. Ms. Wisneski reported that the reason the number of rooms is important is that it is factored into the traffic model and hotels allow for ancillary uses. Ms. Brandt added that the amendment to the PC text would define that. Secretary Kramer noted there are multiple uses besides guest rooms in the structure of a hotel and stated that the development limits are not the same as was used with the Lido House. He believed that using square footage would be a better way of determining a development limit. He wondered why square footage was not considered in establishing the development limit. Page 5 of 12 K -L NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 6/5/14 Ms. W isneski reported that it is typical for this type of level of entitlement to provide a general type of density. In this case, the density is based on the number of rooms because that is what trip generation is triggered by. Regardless of the square footage of the amenity, the trip generation is the same. Development standards are created with the amendment to the PC text as well as at the project level. At this point, identifying the square footage of other amenities would be speculative. City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine added that trip generation for the Lido House was based on the number of rooms. Other uses are considered ancillary uses to the hotel. He reported consideration of ancillary uses would be determined by the proposed use and whether it will be a stand-alone use. Vice Chair Tucker referenced anomaly number 43 (Marriott) and stated the hotels in Newport Center do not look like they are limited by square footage, but rather number of rooms. Ms. Brandt indicated that the Zoning Code is the next tier in regulations where definitions and standards can be set. The Zoning Code includes the definition of hotels as part of the visitor accommodation land use portion and read same into the record. It is anticipated that there will be ancillary uses in connection with guest rooms. Discussion followed regarding the need to be consistent and considerations needed at the time of a project approval. Ms. Brandt reported that would be considered through the site development review process or the Conditional Use Permit process. That is when the City's discretion of applying the Zoning Code would come into play as guidance is provided to an applicant that may come forward with a proposed conceptual plan. Secretary Kramer commented on the interrelationship between parking, traffic, square footage and number of rooms and noted the need to be careful and cautious. Vice Chair Tucker referenced anomaly 84 in Newport Center noting it will have to go through another project - specific process. Chair Hillgren stated acceptance and noted that his questions relate to the SEIR. Vice Chair Tucker commented on traffic and noted that the Assistant City Attorney's memo that discusses the use of the 2006 Program EIR as the baseline for the analysis in the 2014 draft Supplemental EIR. He noted that there are no additional impacts in Newport Beach in addition to those noted in the 2006 Final EIR but also observed that if the projects in the update are built it will affect different parts of the City differently. He added that if there are no environmental impacts in the City, then he does not see a basis for opposing the update at the Planning Commission level. Chair Hillgren commented on the movement of development opportunities from Newport Coast to Newport Center and on the diversion of traffic to specific arterials including PCH through Corona del Mar. Mr. Brine stated that it is not traffic neutral from a daily standpoint and that consideration was given to a.m. and p.m. peak hours and noted there will be a shift in the location of traffic. Trips will be spread in the area surrounding Newport Center and will not necessarily impact one area. He added there will be different levels of trips associated with the different land uses. Chair Hillgren commented on the importance of understanding where the traffic is moving from and to Mr. Brine added that it will depend on the land use, trip generation and the model. Discussion followed regarding the traffic study and specific CECA analyses required as projects are reviewed. Ensuing discussion pertained to traffic levels of service, the study and model, comparing the 2006 General Plan with the 2014 General Plan and empirical testing done on current traffic as well as reliability of the data. Mr. Brine reported that the model used has been completely updated since 2006 and addressed validation of the model. Page 6 of 12 585 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 6/5/14 Vice Chair Tucker addressed the airport area and the series of proposals for different properties and expressed concerns that besides the UAP parcel, none of the parcels are owned by the parties proposing the changes. He commented on the proposed changes to the so-called Lyon property, the possibility of having a non -conforming use for someone that did not ask for the changes and suggested eliminating that property from the project. He inquired if the changes for the Saunders property would allow the existing uses to stay and not be inconsistent with the land use designation. He expressed concerns with creating non -conforming uses going forward with changes to zoning that was not requested by a property owner. Ms. Wisneski recalled that the car rental agencies could become non -conforming. It was noted there is not much zoning for the MU zone at present. The only project that has been approved is the Uptown Newport project which has a companion PC text. The car rental agencies would be allowed to stay as a non -conforming use. Should they want to make changes, it would need to be determined whether the use was compatible with a mixed-use designation. Discussion followed regarding the Lyon property. Ms. Wisneski reported that the City has not received an official withdrawal for the request and Secretary Kramer questioned why Vice Chair Tucker requested striking the proposal. Vice Chair Tucker reported that he met with Lyon months ago and the broker communicated to him very recently that Lyon did not close the purchase of the property for which Lyon had requested the land use change.. They may not have notified the City as they did not have any further interest in the property. Vice Chair Tucker invited a former representative of Lyon in the audience to address the Commission. Shawna Schaffner, CAA Planning, reported representing Lyon previously in this effort but has not been working with them recently and is not aware of any formal withdrawal of the request. She urged the Planning Commission to maintain the request. Discussion followed regarding options if the Commission were to act or not act on this matter tonight and the effects on the traffic model if property in the airport area were dropped from the proposed Land Use Element Update. Vice Chair Tucker noted that the airport area is not trip neutral. Ensuing discussion pertained to impacts of the alternatives and whether there is a recommendation from staff on this specific issue. Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill stated that staffs recommendation is, in light of the issues with the airport and the unknowns, to not include the airport projects. Relative to the Lyon property, Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski reported that staff has had discussions with various property owners near the property who indicated that Lyon was not going to pursue the development, but reiterated a formal withdraw has not been submitted. Ms. Mulvihill reported that this was a City Council initiated General Plan Amendment Commissioner Ameri stated that the Lyon property should be a "non -issue" as if there were still an interest, they would be represented. He did not see any reason for discussing the matter. He would prefer accepting staffs recommendations rather than attempt to make a decision for someone who is not even in attendance and had no interest in telling the Commission where they stand. Discussion followed regarding minor changes to The Hangars. Community Development Director Brandt reported she was just advised that the property interest who originally proposed the additional square footage for The Hangers is no longer interested in the proposal and is not here to support it. Page 7 of 12 EM. NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 6/5/14 There was consensus to eliminate the Lyon property and The Hangars proposals from consideration. Relative to anomaly 6, UAP Properties. Vice Chair Tucker opined that it is a very good use for the property and pointed out the unintended consequences of ballot box planning that would require such a benign use to go to the voters. He indicated his support of the item. Discussion followed regarding the Saunders property and addressing non -conforming uses within the zoning context. Ms. Brandt stated that they would need to go through a planned community text which can reflect the existing conditions and where it is appropriate for uses to continue or not continue. She confirmed that by zoning text any nonconformity that might otherwise seem to come out of a land use designation different from the structures on the ground should be able to be addressed. In response to Chair Hillgren's inquiry, Mr. Brine reported on the impacts associated with all of the airport properties noting there were six (6) freeway segments and two (2) freeway ramps impacted. In the 2006 Final EIR, there were 6 segments and one ramp impacted. Eliminating all of the airport properties, there would remain six (6) freeway segments and one (1) ramp impacted. There was a reduction of one (1) impact with no airport area properties in the update. However, the impacts were not broken down and analyzed for each individual property so it is possible that eliminating the Lyon property and the Hangars might mean that only one ramp would be impacted as was the case with the 2006 Final EIR, even if the Saunders property were included in the update. Commissioner Ameri pointed out that knowing that UAP is trip neutral, it can be said that if UAP is considered separately, it will have no effect on the traffic. Mr. Brine reported that UAP did not factor into the traffic impacts. Vice Chair Tucker suggested staff evaluate the Saunders traffic alone, prior to going to City Council, to be able to advise the Council as to whether the removal of the Lyon and Hangars projects would mean that only one ramp would remain impacted as was the case in 2006.. If that were to be the case, then there would be no impact from the update including the Saunders project. Chair Hillgren commented on the airport area being a fantastic opportunity to bring together housing and commercial in a mixed-use environment. He expressed concerns addressing this on a piece -meal basis without having a good master plan, over time. He stated that the City is missing a huge opportunity, from a long-term perspective. Secretary Kramer noted that is not the issue before the Planning Commission at this time. He added there have been many studies of the general area and commented on the UAP and Saunders properties adding that it would be short-sighted not to approve Saunders as part of the airport area. Vice Chair Tucker agreed with Secretary Kramer's comments and noted that the area is in need of a "shot in the arm". Vice Chair Tucker next addressed the policies and specifically related to the development scale language pertaining to the proposed hotel site in Newport Center. He focused on the language stating, "...to enable distinguished quality architectural and site design, and provide for increased heights for the development of a hotel in the eastern portion of the 100 block" and suggested using language that makes it clear that the only time extra height would be granted is if a project is found to have quality architecture and site design. Chair Hillgren agreed but questioned the basis for increased height and whether there is a limit of what it might be. Vice Chair Tucker stated there is no limit and commented on the way Newport Center is set up in terms of building heights. Page 8 of 12 587 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 6/5/14 Regarding policy LU 7.13.9, Chair Hillgren asked if there is a reason that hotels are not included as requiring a development agreement. Vice Chair Tucker reported that the hotel takes the place of something else that exists today and the policy relates to new entitlements. Generally a development agreement is not required where one project is substituted for another project. Vice Chair Tucker referenced and explained the ROMA plan and presented language that "requires a regulatory plan for each residential building... in conformance with the ICDP". He stated that approval was made to a plan (Uptown Newport) that was not technically in conformance with the ICDP and suggested language indicating that a project "is developed consistent with the concept of the ICDP" would be more appropriate language. Next, Vice Chair Tucker addressed the policy related to park development standards for which Ms. McDermott previously suggested language and indicated that her recommendation makes sense. Chair Hillgren agreed and suggested requiring a development agreement for use of new entitlements in the airport area. Vice Chair Tucker suggested changing language to require a development agreement if a project, "includes residential units or additional commercial entitlement" and so that would include the Saunders property. Secretary Kramer stated it seems consistent but was unsure if Saunders would agree Ms. Brandt suggested clarifying language and tying the development agreement to additional residential units in specific anomalies as well as commercial -office in specific anomalies. If the Planning Commission agrees with the language, staff can refine the language prior to presenting to City Council. The Commission was in concurrence with such an approach and asked the staff to develop the language. Vice Chair Tucker added that the same approach to development agreements can be used as was used in Newport Center. Vice Chair Tucker commented on LU 7.18.13 relative to coastal bluffs noting that the property that has a coastal bluff should maintain the visual quality and the structural integrity of the bluff face rather than the property that abuts a coastal bluff. He suggested deleting "abuts" and using the word "includes". Otherwise, it sounds like a property that does not have a coastal bluff but abuts one that does has to address the coastal bluff on someone else's property. Chair Hillgren suggested deleting references to "snowpack". Vice Chair Tucker then responded to comments from SPON and the Corona del Mar Residents Association with respect to the deletion of the phrase "conservative growth strategy." He noted that the Land Use Update Committee had discussed the use of the phrase "conservative growth strategy" on three (3) different occasions, suggested that the language should be consistent throughout the document and addressed the purpose for eliminating that language. He noted that the Land Use Maps and the Anomaly Table detail the level of entitlement that each property in the City is allowed. Adding a phrase that sounds like each property also has to reflect a conservative growth strategy sounds like the specific entitlement in the Land Use Maps and the Anomaly Table is subject to a further test based upon an undefined term or standard (i.e. "conservative'). He added development capacities allowed in the General Plan should speak for themselves. Vice Chair Tucker commented on moving the word "primarily" in terms of the City being a "unique, primarily residential, community" under Goal LU1. He noted that using one word in place of many words did not change the meaning of the phrase. Additionally, he commented on the deletion of "designated" relative to open space and read the meaning of "open space" in the General Plan. Since the "open space" is defined in the glossary, the deletion of "designated" will not change its meaning so he dropped his suggestion of inclusion of the word designated as being unnecessary. Commissioner Ameri commented on the dangers of using certain terminologies when the definitions are not stated. Page 9 of 12 M NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 6/5/14 Vice Chair Tucker commented on language in policy LU3.1 regarding "Maintain Newport Beach's pattern of residential neighborhoods, business and improvement districts, commercial centers, corridors, harbors and ocean districts", and suggested including language indicating that it would be that way "substantially". He added that the General Plan proposals before the Planning Commission actually do change the pattern of development in certain areas. So there will be changes if the update is adopted, just not much in the way of changes so saying the pattern of development would remain substantially unchanged seemed appropriate. Additionally, he commented on policy LU 4.6 in terms of deleting the word, "comparative" as well the West Newport Mesa Sub - Area narrative related to mobile home parks representing a source of affordable housing in the City. Relative to the latter, he stated that the existing language implies that mobile home parks were designated affordable housing, noting that they are not. He noted that the existing language indicates that mobile homes have been a source of affordable housing but they are not required to be.. He recommended deleting "represents" and using "has been" a source of affordable housing so the language is more precise (handwritten page 57). He then discussed why removing the words "work with" found in several polices including LU 7.5.3 and LU 7.5.4 was appropriate. Vice Chair Tucker continued responding to the comments within the SPON letter and explained the changes referenced therein. Vice Chair Tucker addressed the implementation plan and the glossary and proposed a change in the latter relative to greenhouse gas emissions. He suggested deleting the reasons for greenhouse gas emissions and simply listing what they are and adding language stating, "...contributing to global climate change". Ms. Brandt reported that the reference to "snowpack" was found within the glossary and Vice Chair Tucker stated that as it is used in the glossary it is part of the definition of "climate change" therefore, it is acceptable. Vice Chair Tucker highlighted a note in the glossary, which states that not all terms used in the glossary are used in the General Plan. In response to Chair Hillgren regarding the source of the definitions, Woodie Tescher, consultant, explained that the definition of "climate change" is used by the State Office of Planning and Research. Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill explained that the memo issued by her office was in response to comments received during the draft EIR comment period. She added there were many questions relating to the appropriateness of a SEIR and she distributed the memo to let the Commission and public know that it was an issue that was thoroughly reviewed and is an approach allowed under CEQA. She stated she would like it included in the record. In response to Chair Hillgren's inquiry, Ms. Brandt addressed the basis for growth projection and the use of same by SCAG. In response to Chair Hillgren's question regarding greenhouse gasses being less in 2014 than in 2006, JoAnn Hadfield, consultant, reported one of the benefits of the project is that the project improves the per capita greenhouse gas emissions and explained how that is done. She added that the General Plan is consistent and will meet 2020 goals and improves per capita greenhouse emissions relative to the 2006 General Plan. There was consensus that there is no additional information that would merit recirculation of the SEIR. Vice Chair Tucker addressed the findings. Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill requested that staff include a reference to the 2006 General Plan EIR in the findings and that it is incorporated throughout the SEIR. Discussion followed regarding the statement of overriding considerations relative to impacts that were significant, unavoidable, adverse environmental impacts and comparing same to the benefits of the project. Vice Chair Tucker stated another benefit of the project is that there will be development agreements that will generate a substantial amount of public benefit fees that will be available for public improvements including parks, infrastructure and environmental enhancements. The Commission concurred to add this to the reasons for the override. He commented on freeways and ramps and the unknown potential of the Settlement Agreement. Page 10 of 12 9.0 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 6/5/14 In response to an inquiry from Chair Hillgren, Ms. Mulvihill reported that the City is the decision-making agency. Chair Hillgren commented on promoting land use patterns and encouraging the use of alternatives relative to single -occupancy automobile use. Vice Chair Tucker indicated that the statement of overriding considerations is appropriate and reviewed the resolution. He stated that it was supposed to have language in it that made it clear that the policy amendments would not become effective if the General Plan amendment was not ratified by the public and stated he did not see anything in the document that indicates that was the case. Ms. Mulvihill stated that staff will add that language. Vice Chair Tucker stated it should include the implementation plan. Ms. Wisneski suggested including language that without the enactment of the land use and map changes the General Plan amendment would not be in effect. Vice Chair Tucker commented on Charter Section 423 and that that Section of the Charter does not change the manner in which the Commission reviews a project, but just adds a layer of a public vote to the approval process. He also clarified the lack of a recommendation from the committee related to a decision by the Committee not to recommend including or excluding the airport area. Secretary Kramer stated that not having a recommendation does not equal not supporting the amendments but rather is a vote of confidence of moving everything forward. Vice Chair Tucker then revisited whether material new information had been presented that would require recirculation of the draft Supplemental EIR and verified that no Commissioner felt that recirculation would be necessary. Motion made by Vice Chair Tucker and seconded by Secretary Kramer and carried (4 — 0) to adopt a resolution recommending City Council certify Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No. ER2014-002 and approve General Plan Amendment No. GP2013-001 to amend the Land Use Element with changes to the policies as discussed above. AYES: Ameri, Hillgren, Kramer, and Tucker NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: Brown and Lawler RECUSAL: Myers VIII. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS ITEM NO. 4 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - None ITEM NO. 5 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT 1. Update on the General Plan/Local Coastal Program Implementation Committee Community Development Director Brandt provided an update on a recent meeting of the General Plan/Local Coastal Implementation Committee and addressed items reviewed and discussed during that meeting. 2. Update on City Council Items Ms. Brandt provided a status update on the proposed General Plan amendment on 191 Riverside. Ms. Wisneski provided a status update on the Echo Beach appeal being considered by Council on June 10, 2014, and referenced a Planning Commission meeting schedule through the month of September as well as topics to be discussed. She reported that the Planning Commission's meeting of July 3, 2014, will be cancelled. Page 11 of 12 590 Attachment No. CC 8 ALUC Letter, June 11, 2014 591 592 AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION JRANGE COUNTY FOR ORANGE COUNTY 3160 Airway Avenue • Costa Mesa, California 92626 • 949.252.5170 fax: 949.252.5178 June 11, 2014 Brenda Wisneski, Deputy Director, Community Development City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 SUBJECT: General Plan Land Use Element Amendment - Notice of Intent to Overrule the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County Dear Ms. Wisneski: We are in receipt of the City of Newport Beach's letter dated May 14, 2014 and City Council Resolution No. 2014-40 notifying the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for Orange County of the City's intent to overrule the ALUC's Inconsistency determination on the City's proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendment. In accordance with Section 21676 of the Public Utilities Code, the ALUC submits the following comments addressing the proposed overrule findings for the above -referenced project. Background: On April 17, 2014, the ALUC for Orange County found the City's proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendment to be Inconsistent with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport (JWA) and with the AELUP for Heliports on a 3-2 vote, and based upon the third paragraph of Section 2.1.3 on page 14 of the AELUP for JWA which states: "The Commission may utilize criteria for protecting aircraft traffic patterns at individual airports which may differ from those contained in FAR Part 77, should evidence of health, welfare, or air safety surface sufficient to justify such an action." Comments on the City's Facts in Support of Finding A: Fact in Support of Finding A. 2. addresses the April 17, 2014 ALUC staff report which makes a recommendation of Consistency to the ALUC. Please be advised that although staff members make recommendations to governing bodies, it is the duty of each governing body to review all of the materials and rely on their independent judgment to make decisions. Final findings of Consistency or Inconsistency are made by the Commission based upon information presented by staff, project proponents, opponents and/or Commissioners. As stated in the JWA AELUP, the 593 General Plan Land Use Element Amendment Overrule June 10, 2014 Page 2 ALUC has the responsibility to consider the broader perspective in matters affecting the public's well being and the viability of public aviation facilities. The ALUC accomplishes these overall goals by applying its discretion to evaluate individual projects based upon a wide range of facts gathered through public testimony and Commissioners' knowledge, in addition to informative analysis provided by staff. Fact in Support of Finding A.3.a. asserts that "The proposed land use changes are consistent with the noise standards of the AELUP." As noted in the City's discussion, the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) standards are set forth in the JWA AELUP. As part of the review of the Land Use element Amendment, it was noted that a large portion of the Saunders property is within the JWA 65 CNEL noise contour, leaving only a small portion of the property outside of the 65 CNEL (but still within the 60 CNEL contour). Although the City's Noise Element requires that residential uses be located outside the 65 CNEL, because much of this property is within that noise contour, the Commission believes that the remaining portion of the property would still be highly affected by airport noise. The Commission maintains that the current land use designation for this property, "Airport Office," is the appropriate designation for an area less than 1,500 feet from JWA's main runway. The proposed Land Use Element change to a "Multi - Use" designation, which includes residential units is, in the Airport Land Use Commission's determination, an inappropriate use so close to the airport and where the 65 CNEL contour goes right across the property. The ALUC has historically not looked favorably on residential uses so close to JWA and where properties are partially within the 65 CNEL contour, and has, therefore, found such projects to be Inconsistent with the JWA AELUP. Fact in Support of Finding A.3.b. asserts that "The proposed land use changes for the Land Use Element Amendment are consistent with the safety standards of the AELUP." The City's discussion notes that, with the exception of a portion of the Saunders property, the remaining Airport Area properties are within Safety Zone 6, in which residential and most nonresidential uses are allowed. In the case of the Saunders property, however, the central portion of the property is within Safety Zone 3, which limits residential uses to very low density (if not deemed unacceptable because of noise). The southern portion of the Saunders property, not in Safety Zone 3 is within the 65 CNEL noise contour and, therefore, not developable for residential uses in accordance with the City's general plan and zoning. The remaining portion of the property at the northern end would then assumedly be the main area which could accommodate the primary residential units. Since the proposed Land Use Element Amendment proposes 329 dwelling units for this property, it is questionable how this number of dwelling units can be reasonably achieved based on Safety Zone and noise restrictions. Based on these restrictions and the proximity of this property to JWA, the ALUC does not believe that the proposed project is an appropriate or responsible land use plan for this property based upon airport noise and safety concerns. Fact in Support of Finding A.3.c. states that "The proposed land use changes are consistent with the height standards of the AELUP." Although the City's General Plan Policy LU 6.15.3 states that all development shall be required to conform with the height restrictions set forth by the FAA and Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR), it is of concern that the Land Use Element Amendment would allow for 329 residential units on the Saunders property, and that this density 594 General Plan Land Use Element Amendment Overrule June 10, 2014 Page 3 may result in a proposal for a residential structure at the north end of the property where height may be of concern. Comments on the City's Facts in Support of Finding B: The City notes in its Facts in Support of Findings B.1. and B.2., that implementation of the standards in JWA AELUP Sections 2 and 3 "[seek] to protect the public from the adverse effects of aircraft noise, to ensure that people and facilities are not concentrated in areas susceptible to aircraft accidents, and to ensure that no structures or activities adversely affect navigable airspace." The ALUC has viewed the construction of residential uses, especially higher density residential uses so close to JWA, and in an area where general aviation air traffic is operating in very close proximity, as poor land use planning. Therefore, the ALUC acted in its responsibility to consider the broader perspective in matters affecting the public's well being and to protect the public health, safety and welfare, as well as the viability of public aviation facilities, by finding the General Plan Land Use Element Amendment Inconsistent with the AELUP for JWA and AELUP.for Heliports. Comments on the City's Facts in Support of Finding C: Fact in Support of Finding C. discusses the 2006 Newport Beach General Plan and its goal of establishing the Airport Area as a mixed use community that provides jobs, residential and supporting services in close proximity to the Airport. However, the Saunders property, which is partially within the 65 CNEL contour and Safety Zone 3, was designated in the 2006 General Plan for "Airport Office" use. The proposed change to Mixed Use (including residential) does not best achieve the goal of the General Plan, nor does this proposal minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports (Article 3.5 of the State Aeronautics Act). Summary' By virtue of being clearly stated in JWA AELUP Sections 1.2 "Purpose and Scope" and 2.0 "Planning Guidelines," every Commissioner understands the complex legal charge to protect public airports from encroachment by incompatible land use development, while simultaneously protecting the health, safety and welfare of citizens who work and live in the airport's environs. To this end, and as also statutorily required, our ALUC proceedings are benefited by several members "having expertise in aviation." Based upon careful consideration of all information provided, and input from ALUC members with expertise in aviation, a majority of the ALUC found the proposed Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element Amendment to be Inconsistent with the AELUP for JWA and AELUP for Heliports. Please be advised that California Public Utilities Code Section 21678 states: "With respect to a publicly owned airport that a public agency does not operate, if the public agency pursuant to Section 21676, 21676.5, or 21677 overrules a commission's action or recommendation, the operator of the airport shall be immune from liability for damages to property or personal injury 595 General Plan Land Use Element Amendment Overrule June 10, 2014 Page 4 caused by or resulting directly or indirectly from the public agency's decision to overrule the commission's action or recommendation." Also, please be advised that California Business & Professions Code Section 11010 requires the following statement to be included on sale/lease disclosure documents for developments within an ALUC's "Airport Influence Area:" "NOTICE OF AIRPORT IN VICINITY This property is presently located in the vicinity of an airport, within what is known as an airport influence area. For that reason, the property may be subject to some of the annoyances or inconveniences associated with proximity to airport operations (For example: noise, vibration, or odors). Individual sensitivities to those annoyances can vary from person to person. You may wish to consider what airport annoyances, if any, are associated with the property before you complete your purchase and determine whether they are acceptable to you." We urge the City Council of the City of Newport Beach to take all of these comments into consideration in its deliberations prior to deciding whether to overrule the ALUC. Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. Sincerely, Gerald A. Bres h Chairman cc: Members of the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County Members of City Council Ron Bolyard, Caltrans/Division of Aeronautics 596 Attachment No. CC 9 Charter Section 423 Analysis 597 M Proposed 2014 General Plan Amendments Land Use Element Charter Section 423 Analysis Council Policy A-18 PC Recommendation - Combined Change Summary Net Sauare Feet 100% TOTALS 1 -19,282.00 Dwelling Units JAM Trips IPM Trips 467.001 2,008.371 2,767.34 599 Proposed 2014 General Plan Amendments Land Use Element Charter Section 423 Analysis Council Policy A-18 Designation Change Location Map Reference Property Area/Acreage Designation Change Floor Area AM Trip Rate PM Trip Rate AM Trips PM Trips Dwelling Dwelling AM Trip PM Trip Rate AM PM Hotel Maxim Maximu Maximum Statistical TAZ Change (Square Unit Unit Rate Trips Trips Room um m DU's Hotel Rooms Area Feet) Change Change Change Floor Allowed (Number) Area Allowe 1526 Placentia 1 .35 acres Multi -Unit Residential (RM) to General 7,524 0.003 0.004 22.572 30.096 -6 RM 0.44 0.54 -2.64 -3.24 0 7,524 None N/A A2 1439 Commercial CG 813 East 2 2,565 sq. ft. Two -Unit Residential (RT) to Mixed -Use 1,923 0.003 0.004 5.769 7.692 -2 RT 0.44 0.54 -0.88 -1.08 0 1,923 2 RM N/A D3 1459 Balboa Vertical (MU -V) 2 MU 0.51 0.62 1.02 1.24 Gateway Park 11 8,712 sq. ft. Commercial Corridor (CC) to Parks and -4,356 0.003 0.004 -13.068 -17.424 0 RM 0.51 0.62 0 0 0 N/A None N/A B4 1448 Recreation PR I// Proposed 2014 General Plan Amendments Land Use Element Charter Section 423 Analysis Council Policy A-18 Reduced Capacity No Designation Change 100% TOTALS Summary Net Square Feet Net Dwelling Units 1AM Trips 1PM Trips -1,060,150.00 -356.00 -902.29 -1,039.85 Location Map Reference Property Area/Acreage Designation Floor Area AM Trip Rate PM Trip Rate AM Trips PM Trips Dwelling Dwelling AM Trip PM Trip Rate AM PM Hotel Maximo Maximu Maximum Statistical TAZ Change (Square Unit Unit Rate Trips Trips Room m Floor m DU's Hotel Area Feet) Change Change Change Area Allowed Rooms (Number) Allowed Westcliff Plaza 3 10.88 acres Neighborhood Commercial (CN) -15,514 0.003 0.004 -46.542 -62.056 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 122,986 N/A J2 1421 Newport Coast 6 10.84 acres Neighborhood Commercial (CN) -37,875 0.003 0.004 -113.625 -151.5 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 103,712 N/A N 1536 Center Newport Coast 7 Multiple Properties Visitor Serving Commercial (CV) -1,001,000 0.000 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.56 0.61 -560.56 -610.61 -1001 N/A N/A N 1540/1555 Hotel Bayside Center 8 7.10 acres Neighborhood Commercial (CN) -366 0.003 0.004 -1.098 -1.464 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 65,634 N/A 31 1463 Harbor View 9 6.10 acres Neighborhood Commercial (CN) -1,857 0.003 0.004 -5.571 -7.428 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 72,143 N/A M3 1517 Center The Bluffs 10 8.65 acres General Commercial CG -3,538 0.003 0.004 -10.614 -14.152 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 50462 N/A M6 1523 Newport Ridge 15 Newport Ridge -Area wide Multi -Unit Residential (RM) and Single- 0 0.000 0.000 0 0 72 RS -D 0.75 1.01 54 72.72 0 N/A N/A N Multiple Residential Unit Residential Detached (RS -D) -428 MU 0.51 0.62 -218.28 -265.36 601 Proposed 2014 General Plan Amendments Land Use Element Charter Section 423 Analysis Council Policy A-18 Increased Capacity Location Map Reference Property Area/Acreage Designation Floor Area AM Trip Rate PM Trip Rate AM Trips PM Trips Dwelling Dwelling AM Trip PM Trip Rate AM PM Hotel Maximum Maximum Maximum Statistical TAZ Change (Square Unit Unit Rate Trips Trips Room Floor Area DU's Hotel Area Feet) Change Change Chang Allowed Allowed Rooms (Number) ITypel a Allowed Newport 5 Multiple Properties Multiple Designations No Change 500,000 0.003 0.004 1500 2000 500 RM 0.51 0.62 255 310 0 Various Various N/A L1 1491 Center/Fashion 50 000 0.003 0.004 150 200 150 Newport 17 1.26 acres Regional Commercial Office (CO -R) to -8,500 0.003 0.004 -25.5 -34 0 0 0.56 0.61 70 76.25 125 N/A N/A 125 L1 1492 Center Drive Mixed -Use Horizontal (MU -H3) 125,000 100 Newport 18 .61 acres Regional Commercial Office (CO -R) to 15,000 0.003 0.004 45 60 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 32,500 N/A N/A L1 1492 Center Drive Mixed -Use Horizontal MU -H3 Harbor Day 12 6.54 acres Private Institution (PI) No Change 14,244 0.0015 0,0015 21.366 21.366 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 113,952 N/A N/A M3 1517 School Saunders 4 19.45 acres Airport Office and Supporting Uses (AO) 238,077 0.003 0.004 714.231 952.308 329 MU 0.51 0.62 167.79 203.98 0 545,000 329 MU N/A L4 1377/1378 Properties to Mixed -Use Horizontal (MU -H2) UAP 4 4.13 acres Mixed -Use Horizontal (MU -H2) No 101,956 0.000 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 148,000 N/A N/A L4 1402 Companies Change 602 Post 1006 General Plan Amendments Land Use Element Section 423 Analysis Address Date Approved Project/ Project Title Property Designation Change Floor Area Change AM Trip PM Trip AM Trips PM Trips Dwelling Dwelling Unit AM Trip PM Trip AM PM Maximum Maximum Statistica Area/Acreage (Square Feet) Rate Rate Unit Chanae Rate Rate Trios Trios Floor Area DU's I Area Amendment No. Chanae Allowed Allowed Multiple 11/27/2012 PA2012-034 Emerson Island Annexation 2 acres (approx.) County Designations to 0 0.000 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 N/A 3 SFD J5 GP2012-001 RSD and RM 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 10 RM 200 30th Street 03/27/2012 PA2011-209 Beach Coin Laundry 2,371 sq ft. Two -Unit residential 1,188 0.003 0.004 3.564 4.752 -2 RT 0.44 0.54 -0.88 -1.08 1,188 sq ft. N/A B5 GP2011-010 RT to Visitor Sewing 2888 Bay 02/14/2012 PA2011-179 Presta Property Amendments 1.55 acres RM 20 du/acre to RM, 0 0.000 0.000 0 0 8 RM 0.51 0.62 4.08 4.96 N/A 39 RM H4 Shore Drive GP2011-008 39 du 2890 Bay 02/14/2012 PA2011-179 Presta Property Amendment .46 acres RM 20 du/acre to MU- 10,019 0.003 0.004 30.1 40.1 -8 RM 0.51 0.62 -4.08 -4.96 10,019 sq ft. 1 MU H4 Shore Drive GP2011-179 W2 1 du 1 1 MU 0.51 0.62 0.51 0.62 514 East 02/14/2012 PA2011-196 SCAP III, LLC Property Amendment 5,630 sq ft. RT to MU -V 4,061 0.003 0.004 12.18 16.25 -4 RT 0.44 0.54 -1.76 -2.16 4,061 sq ft. 3 MU D3 Ocean Front GP2011-009 0 3 MU 0.51 0.62 1.53 1.86 1600 East 01/24/2012 PA2008-152 Newport Beach Country Club 133 acres PR- No change 21,000 0.003 0.004 63 84 0 N/A 0.00 0.00 0 0 56,000 sq ft. N/A L1 Coast Hwy. GP2008-005 Clubhouse (approx.) 1419 Superior 12/13/2011 PA2011-138 Dr. Morgan property Amendments .31 acres RM (18 DU/Acre) to CO 6,689 0.003 0.004 20 27 -5 RM 0.44 0.54 -2 -3 6,689 sq ft. N/A A2 Ave. GP2011-007 (approx.) M 0.49 1539 Monrovia 09/13/2011 PA2011-105 Monrovia Ave 1539 Amendments 1.14 acres RM (18 DU/Acre) to IG 24,821 0.001 0.001 25 25 -20 RM 0.44 0.54 -9 -11 24,821 sq ft. N/A A2 Ave. GP2011-006 0.50 1537 Monrovia 09/13/2011 PA2011-082 Monrovia Ave 1537 Amendments .76 acres RM (18 DU/Acre) to 16,790 0.001 0.001 17 17 -13 RM 0.44 0.54 -6 -7 16,790 sq ft. N/A A2 Ave GP2011-005 IG 0.50 100-300 West 08/09/2011 PA2010-114 Mariner's Pointe .76 acres CG (No change) 3,387 0.003 0.004 10.16 13.55 0 N/A 0.00 0.00 0 0 19,905 sq ft. N/A H4 Coast Highway GP2010-009 Anomaly No. 79 105 15'" Street 08/09/2011 PA2011-061 Nero property Amendments 2,500 sq ft. RT to MU -H4 1,250 0.003 0.004 3.75 5 -2 RT 0.44 0.54 -0.88 -1.08 1,250 sq ft. 1 MU D1 GP2011-004 (approx) 1 MU 0.51 0.62 0.51 0.62 3363, 3369, 06/28/2011 PA2011-024 Via Lido Amendments 8,106 sq ft. RM to MU -V 4,053 0.003 0.004 12.159 16.212 -3 RM 0.51 0.62 -1.53 -1.86 4,053 sq ft. 4 MU B5 3377 Via Lida GP2011-003 4 MU 0.51 0.62 2.04 2.48 6480 West 05/24/2011 PA2010-190 Let it Roll 4,136 sq ft. RT to CG 2,068 0.003 0.004 6.204 8.272 -2 RT 0.44 0.54 -0.88 -1.08 2,068 sq. ft. N/A 31 Coast Hwy. GP2010-013 6904 West 05/24/2011 PA2011-014 Cat Protection Society 8,948 sq ft. RT to MU -V 6,711 0.003 0.004 20.133 26.844 -2 RT 0.44 0.54 -0.88 -1.08 4,474 sq ft. 5 MU B1 Coast Hwy GP2011-002 5 MU 0.51 0.62 2.55 3.1U 6908-6936 05/24/2011 PA2010-182 GP2011-002 Frog House 6,278 sq. ft. RT to M -V 4,708 0.003 0.004 14.124 18.832 -2 RT 0.44 0.54 -0.88 -1.08 4,708 sq. ft. 3 MU B1 West Coast Hwy. 3 MU 0.51 0.62 1.53 1.86 603 Post 1006 General Plan Amendments Land Use Element Section 423 Analysis Address Date Approved Project/ Project Title Property Designation Change Floor Area Change AM Trip PM Trip AM Trips PM Trips Dwelling Dwelling Unit AM Trip PM Trip AM PM Maximum Maximum Statistica Area/Acreage (Square Feet) Rate Rate Unit Chance Rate Rate Trios Trios Floor Area DU's I Area Amendment No. Chane Allowed Allowed 4300 Von 02/22/2011 PA2007-213 FRES Office Building 1.28 acres MU -1-42 11,544 0.003 0.004 34.63 46.17 0 N/A 0.00 0.00 0 0 18,810 sq ft. N/A L4 Karmen Ave. GP2007-009 (No Change) (Anomaly No. 2.1) 4699 Jamboree 01/11/2001 PA2008-164 WPI 1.34 acres MU -H2 11,544 0.003 0.004 34.63 46.17 0 N/A 0.00 0.00 0 0 46,044 sq ft. N/A L4 Road.and 5190 Campus Drive GP2008-007 (No Change) (Anomaly No. 6 6306 West 09/14/2010 PA2010-052 CLUP Consistency 1,875 sq ft. RT to CV (0.5) 938 0.003 0.004 2.814 3.752 -2 RT 0.44 0.54 -0.88 -1.08 938 sq ft. N/A 31 Coast Hwy. GP2010-001 6308 West 09/14/2010 PA2010-052 CLUP Consistency 2,250 sq ft. RT to CV (0.5) 1,125 0.003 0.004 3.375 4.5 -2 RT 0.44 0.54 -0.88 -1.08 1,125 sq ft. N/A B1 Coast Hwy. GP2010-001 6310 West 09/14/2010 PA2010-052 CLUP Consistency 2,250 sq ft. RT to CV (0.5) 1,125 0.003 0.004 3.375 4.5 -2 RT 0.44 0.54 -0.88 -1.08 1,125 sq ft. N/A 31 Coast Hwy. GP2010-001 1221 West 09/14/2010 PA2010-052 CLUP Consistency- Balboa Bay Club 12.65 acres IVU -W1 (Anomaly 0 0.000 0.000 0 0 0 N/A 0.00 0.00 0 0 See Table See Table H4 Coast Hwy GP2010-004 (approx.) No.59) to MU -W1 LU 1 LU 1 (Anomaly No. 59 and CV(Anomaly No 77 2300 West 09/14/2010 PA2010-052 CLUP Consistency- Holiday Inn 1.29 acres MU -H1 to CV (0.5) 0 0.000 0.000 0 0 -34 MU 0.51 0.62 -17.3 -21.1 28,314 sq ft. N/A H4 Coast Hwy GP2010-004 (approx.) 2102 West 09/14/2010 PA2010-052 CLUP Consistency- Doryman's Inn 6,713 sq ft. MU -W2 to CV (0.5) 0 0.000 0.000 0 0 -4 MU 0.51 0.62 -2.04 -2.48 3,357 sq ft. N/A 35 Ocean Front GP2010-005 2306 West 09/14/2010 PA2010-052 CLUP Consistency- Newport 3,750 sq ft. MU -W2 to CV (0.5) 0 0.000 0.000 0 0 -1 MU 0.51 0.62 -0.51 -0.62 1,875 sq ft. N/A 35 Ocean Front GP2010-005 Beachwalk Hotel 3366 Via Lido 09/14/2010 PA2010-052 CLUP Consistency 21,576 sq ft. RM to MU -W2 15,103 0.003 0.004 45.309 60.412 -9 RM 0.44 0.54 -3.96 -4.86 15,103 sq ft. 13 MU B5 GP2010-005 13 MU 0.51 0.62 6.63 8.06 Lido Peninsula 09/14/2010 PA2010-052 CLUP Consistency -Designation 24.6 acres MU -W3 to RM and CM 0 0.000 0.000 0 0 0 N/A 0.00 0.00 0 0 156,365 Sq 251 RM B5 -Multiple GP2010-005 Changes Only ft. 500 West 09/14/2010 PA2010-052 CLUP Consistency 2,113 sq ft. RT to MU -V 1,584 0.003 0.004 4.752 6.336 -2 RT 0.44 0.54 -0.88 -1.08 1,584 sq ft. 1 MU D2 Balboa Blvd. GP2010-006 1 MU 0.51 0.62 0.51 0.62 504 West 09/14/2010 PA2010-052 CLUP Consistency 4,202 sq ft. RT to MU -V 3,151 0.003 0.004 9.453 12.604 -4 RT 0.44 -1.76 -2.16 3,151 sq ft. 2 MU D2 Balboa Blvd. GP2010-006 2 MU0.51 :0.54 2 1.02 1.24 604 Post 1006 General Plan Amendments Land Use Element Section 423 Analysis Address Date Approved Project/ Project Title Property Designation Change Floor Area Change AM Trip PM Trip AM Trips PM Trips Dwelling Dwelling Unit AM Trip PM Trip AM PM Maximum Maximum Statistics Area/Acreage (Square Feet) Rate Rate Unit Chanae Rate Rate Trios Trios Floor Area DU's I Area Amendment No. 506 West 09/14/2010 PA2010-052 CLUP Consistency 2,101 sq ft. RT to MU -V 1,575 0.003 0.004 4.725 6.3 -2 RT 0.44 0.54 -0.88 -1.08 1,575 sq ft. 1 MU D2 Balboa Blvd. GP2010-006 1 MU 0.51 0.62 0.51 0.62 508 West 09/14/2010 PA2010-052 CLUP Consistency 2,101 sq ft. RT to MU -V 1,575 0.003 0.004 4.725 6.3 -2 RT 0.44 0.54 -0.88 -1.08 1,575 sq ft. 1 MU D2 Balboa Blvd. GP2010-006 1 MU 0.51 0.62 0.51 0.62 510 West 09/14/2010 PA2010-052 CLUP Consistency 2,101 sq ft. RT to MU -V 1,575 0.003 0.004 4.725 6.3 -2 RT 0.44 0.54 -0.88 -1.08 1,575 sq ft. 1 MU D2 Balboa Blvd. GP2010-006 1 MU 0.51 0.62 0.51 0.62 512 West 09/14/2010 PA2010-052 CLUP Consistency 2,101 sq ft.. RT to MU -V 1,575 0.003 0.004 4.725 6.3 -2 RT 0.44 0.54 -0.88 -1.08 1,575 sq ft. i MU D2 Balboa Blvd. GP2010-006 1 MU 0.51 0.62 0.51 0.62 514 West 09/14/2010 PA2010-052 CLUP Consistency 2,098 sq ft. RT to MU -V 1,573 0.003 0.004 4.719 6.292 -2 RT 0.44 0.54 -0.88 -1.08 1,573 sq ft. 1 MU D2 Balboa Blvd. GP2010-006 1 MU 0.51 0.62 0.51 0.62 Balboa Fun 09/14/2010 PA2010-052 CLUP Consistency- Fun Zone 33,858 sq ft. PI (1.0) to CV (1.0) 0 -0.0015 -0.0015 -50.787 -50.787 0 N/A 0.00 0.00 0 0 33,858 sq ft. N/A D3 Zone (600East GP2010-007 Designation Change Only Bay/600 0.003 0.004 101.574 135.432 Edgewater) 105 Main Street 09/14/2010 PA2010-052 CLUP Consistency- Balboa Inn 12,825 sq ft. MU -V to CV (0.75) 0 0.000 0.000 0 0 -7 MU 0.51 0.62 -3.57 -4.34 9,618 sq ft. N/A D3 GP2010-007 707 East 09/14/2010 PA2010-052 CLUP Consistency - Balboa Inn 7,532 sq ft. MU -V to CV (0.75) 0 0.000 0.000 0 0 4 MU 0.51 0.62 -2.04 -2.48 5,649 sq ft. N/A D3 Ocean Front GP2010-007 1901-1911 09/14/2010 PA2010-052 CLUP Consistency- Harbor Patrol, 4.55 acres PF to PR (Beach only) 0 0.000 0.000 0 0 0 N/A 0.00 0.00 0 0 N/A N/A Ft Bayside Drive GP2010-007 Coast Guard Beach 2000-2016 East 05/25/2010 PA2009-067 Beauchamp GPA 0.61 acres PR to RS -D 0 0.000 0.000 0 0 5 RS -D 0.75 1.01 3.75 5.05 N/A 5 RS -D D4 Balboa Blvd. GP2009-001 328,332,340 03/09/2010 PA2008-047 Shaoulian Ong GPA 0.59 acres CO -G 12.862.50 0.003 0.004 38.59 51.45 0 N/A 0.00 0.00 0 0 25,725 sq ft. N/A H1 Old Newport GP2008-001 No Change Blvd. 201-207 07/14/2009 PA2005-196 Aerie 1.4 acres RT to RM (20 du/acre) 0 0.000 0.000 0 0 1 RM 1.00 1.00 1 1 N/A 28 RM F3 Carnation, 101 GP2005-006 - 101 Bayside only 10 Big Canyon 01/27/2009 PA2007-210 Big Canyon GPA 1.84 acres PR to RS -D 0 0.000 0.000 0 0 1 RS -D 0.75 1.01 0.75 1.01 N/A 1 RS -D L2 Drive GP2007-008 Civic Center 11/25/2008 PA2008-182 Civic Center and Park Site 6.5 acres OS to PF 0 0.000 0.000 0 0 0 N/A 0.00 0.00 0 0 See Table N/A L1 Drive GP2008-009 (approx) LU2 Anomalv No. 1 Hoag Drive 04/16/2008 PA2007-073 Hoag Master Plan Update 17.57 acres PI (No Change) 0 0.000 0.000 0 0 0 N/A 0.00 0.00 0 0 See Table N/A A3 GP2007-005 (approx) LU2 Anomaly No. 1000 Bison 02/12/2008 PA2006-079 Liberty Baptist Church 9.09 acres PI (No Change) 26,114 0.0015 0.0015 39.17 39.17 0 N/A 0.00 0.00 0 0 84,585 sq ft. N/A L3 Avenue GP2006-004 (approx.) Anomaly No. 25 4450 01/09/2007 PA2006-095 Koll Center 1.49 acres MU -H2 (No Change) 24,016 0.00178 0.00172 42.7 41.3 0 N/A 0.00 0.00 0 0 See Table See MU- L4 MacArthur GP2006-003 Anomaly No. 1 LU2 H21and Blvd. Anomal No. use 605 -1• Attachment No. CC 10 Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA) 607 .O: Iry 'll - April FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT Prepared for: City of Newport Beach Prepared by: Applied Development Economics, Inc. 255 Ygnacio Valley Road, #200, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 ■ 925.934.8712 2320 Broadway, Sacramento, CA 95818 ■ 916.454.1537 99 Pacific Street, #200 J, Monterey, CA 93940 111831.324.4896 AAPPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS NJ M• 610 TABLE OF CONTENTS FiscalAnalysis......................................................................................1 ProjectDescription................................................................................2 Methodology.......................................................................................9 Appendix A: Detailed Costs and Revenues ............................................. 12 Applied Development Economics 611 612 FISCAL ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION The fiscal analysis uses the Newport Beach Fiscal Impact Model to help calculate revenue and cost impacts of the proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA). This model was initially developed in support of the General Plan Update, which was adopted in 2006.1 The model has been updated to reflect Fiscal Year 2013-2014 costs and revenues from the Newport Beach City Budget. The fiscal impact model calculates public service impacts for specific land uses that support the residential population, the employment base and the visitor population in Newport Beach. It also calculates the public revenues that each type of land use typically generates for the City, including property taxes, sales taxes and other taxes as well as a variety of user charges and fees. The fiscal impact model is designed to calculate the average cost of public services required by new development, on the assumption that new development affects City services in approximately the same way that existing development does. The model nets out certain costs that are unlikely to change with expansion of City government, such as the number of City Department Directors and Division managers, as well as the City Council and City Clerk expenditures, but otherwise assumes that City administrative support and overhead tends to increase as City government activities grow to provide services to an expanding population and employment base. Over the long term, this is clearly the dynamic that local governments experience. In the short term, development projects may have lower or higher cost impacts depending on the existing capacity of City services to accommodate more development, and the level of expenditure needed to expand services incrementally if existing capacity is not available. The fiscal analysis for the General Plan concluded that on average residential uses require more in City expenditures than they generate in City revenues. This is not unusual among California cities given the low levels of property taxes that cities receive due to Proposition 13. However, this result depends on the assessed values of the homes. In Newport Beach, higher value homes do in fact generate enough in property taxes to cover City costs, as was shown in the analysis of the Newport Coast area. Another consideration is the household retail spending that generates sales taxes for the City. In general, cities only receive sales taxes through retail businesses, not directly from households, so in the General Plan analysis sales taxes are ascribed to commercial uses rather than residential uses. However, for incremental housing development such as that associated with the currently proposed GPAs, new residential units should generate additional sales for existing retail stores. This effect has been included in the present analysis and further improves the fiscal impact of new residential development. Most non-residential land uses generate a fiscal surplus for the City, because they require fewer services than do residential uses and also because the sales tax that many commercial uses generate is such an important revenue source for the City. Office uses, however, generally have a less positive 'A technical description of the fiscal impact model may be found in: Applied Development Economics, Fiscal Impact Analysis and Model, Newport Beach General Plan Update, January 2004. Applied Development Economics I Page 1 613 fiscal impact because they tend to have high employee densities and generate a lot of traffic which increases costs for police protection and road maintenance among other services. Most businesses located in offices do not generate sales taxes and therefore do not create as much revenue as retail uses, although there can be indirect sales taxes generated from office employee expenditures on food and shopping items during lunch and after hours. Visitors to the City, including tourist and business travelers, generally have a positive fiscal impact for the City due to their retail expenditures and the transient occupancy tax from overnight stays at local hotels. There are costs for the City, particularly for the lifeguard services on the beaches and the traffic enforcement from increased visitor traffic. But the General Plan fiscal analysis calculated that visitors contributed $2.7 million more in revenues than they required in City costs per year in 2002 when the analysis was done. The results of the analyses of the currently proposed Land Use Element Amendments follow similar patterns depending on the land uses that are affected at each location. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed General Plan Amendments (GPAs) affect 18 locations in Newport Beach. The locations are listed in Table 1, along with information about the land use changes that are proposed. The fiscal analysis depicts the effect of the proposed changes, rather than the effects of the existing land uses or the remaining development potential after the changes are implemented. In order to calculate the fiscal effects of the proposed changes, it is necessary to estimate certain socio-economic characteristics of the land uses, including population and employment, assessed value and taxable sales. These factors are summarized by land use in Table 2. The household size figures reflect recent data from the US Census American Community Survey, while the assessed value figures are derived from a variety of property databases, including Dataquick transaction records, LoopNet property listings and commercial broker reports from firms such as Colliers International. As noted above, the analysis ascribes a certain amount of sales tax to the residential uses and the average figures per unit are also shown in Table 2. These figures are derived by estimating the income needed to afford the different types of housing and then using a retail demand model to calculate the portion of income normally spent on taxable retail sales. We have assumed for purposes of these calculations that households would spend two-thirds of their annual retail budget in Newport Beach, and the remaining one-third would be spent at retail centers in other cities or on out-of-town trips. FISCAL IMPACTS Taken as a whole, the GPAs would reduce future potential net City revenues by about $5.3 million per year .2 However, this overall result should be viewed in the context of the total impact of the 2006 General Plan. The General Plan increased development potential for commercial and lodging uses substantially, in addition to the new residential units it would permit. The net impact of the growth in 2 I is important to recognize that this result is only true if the sites would have otherwise developed according to the existing General Plan. If market conditions are more aligned with the proposed land use changes than with the current land use designations, then the City would never realize the net revenues implied in Table 4. Applied Development Economics I Page 2 614 land uses at buildout of the General Plan compared to existing land uses in 2006 when the plan was adopted, would result in a positive fiscal impact for the General Fund of nearly $22 million per year (Table 3). The current General Fund budget has a revenue surplus of about $4 million, so the buildout impact of the 2006 General Plan is very positive, assuming the City's current cost ratios, service standards, and contributions to the Capital Improvement Funds remain constant. The potential reduction in net revenue of $5.3 million from the currently proposed GPAs only reduces the beneficial impact of the overall General Plan by about 24 percent. Consequently, the City should still expect to experience a positive fiscal impact from further implementation of the General Plan, estimated at $16.4 million in Table 3, even if the proposed GPAs are adopted. Some of the GPAs have would have positive fiscal impacts while others would be negative (Table 4). The first group of properties would have reduced development potential, mostly in retail and hotel uses, although Newport Ridge would also reduce single family development. As mentioned above, retail and lodging uses are among the best performing in terms of generating net revenue for the City. Consequently, losing this development potential shows as a negative impact in the fiscal analysis. The loss of potential for more than 1,000 hotel rooms at Newport Coast is the single most fiscally negative action in the GPA. It should be noted that the fiscal analysis for lodging uses also estimates the added services provided to tourists in Newport Beach, such as lifeguards on the beaches. Hence, the net effect of hotel and other visitor serving uses includes a cost impact to the public sector, estimated at $846,262 per year for the Newport Coast Hotel rooms. For the Newport Ridge project, we have assumed the units would have been valued at $1.5 million each, consistent with the median home price recently in Newport Beach. With this level of assessed value, single family homes would generate more in tax revenue than they require in City service expenditures, making the loss of these units also a negative fiscal impact. The next group of properties all gain increased development potential from the GPA. However, the fiscal impact is mixed depending on how the individual land uses affect City finances. The Saunders Properties, Newport Center/Fashion Island and 100 Newport Center Drive, all include increased development of multi -family housing. Current property records for Newport Beach indicate that on average multi -family condominiums and apartments carry significantly lower market values than do single family units, as indicated in Table 2 above. With the lower property tax revenues from these units, the net effect of the GPA is a negative fiscal impact for these residential units. Several projects increase the potential for retail development, including The Hangars, Lyon Communities, and Newport Center/Fashion Island. This land use helps create positive fiscal impacts for the first two properties and helps mitigate the overall effects of the Newport Center/Fashion Island GPA. This latter project would increase the amount of office space, while the Lyon Communities would replace office development with new residential development. From a fiscal perspective, this trade-off creates a larger negative fiscal impact. The office space, at 250,176 sq.ft., would have an impact of $355,000, but the 850 additional residential units create a negative impact of $749,000. For Newport Center/Fashion Island, the addition of 500,000 sq.ft. of office space creates an annual fiscal deficit of $440,685. As noted in the Introduction, these office space impacts may be reduced slightly by employee restaurant and retail expenditures. Applied Development Economics I Page 3 615 TABLE 1: NO USE CHANGES RECOMMENDED BY THE COMMITTEE FOR ANALYSIS IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR AREAS WITH REDUCED DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY 2006 General Plan Proposed Changes Increase Map Reference Location Designation Allowable Existing Designation Reduction Remaining 3 Westcliff Plaza Neighborhood Commercial CN) 138,500 SF 112,986 SF No Change (15,514 SF) 10,000 SF 6 Newport Coast Center Neighborhood Commercial CN) 141,787 SF 103,712 SF No Change (37,875 SF) 200 SF 2,150 1,104 7 Newport Coast Hotel Visitor -Serving Commercial (CV) No Change (1,001 rooms) 45 rooms rooms rooms 8 Bayside Center Neighborhood Commercial (CN) 66,000 SF 65,284 SF No Change (366 SF) 350 SF 9 Harbor View Center Neighborhood Commercial (CN) 74,000 SF 71,993 SF No Change (1,857 SF) 150 SF 10 The Bluffs General Commercial (CG) 54,000 SF 50,312 SF No Change (3,538 SF) 150 SF 11 Gateway Park Commercial Corridor (CC) 4,356 SF 0 Parks & Recreation (PR) (4,356 SF) 0 Newport Ridge Multi -Unit Residential (RM) 15 (various locations) Single Unit Residential Detached (RS- 2,550 DUs 2,187 DUs No Change (356 DUs) 7 DUs D AREAS WITH INCREASED DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY 2006 General Plan Proposed Chances Increase/ .Location. Designation Allowable Desi nation Capacity Decrease Regional Commercial (CR), Regional Regional Office Commercial Office (CO -R), Medical Retail, 500,000 SF; 6 Newport Center/Fashion Commercial Office (CO -M), Mixed Use Various Office' No Change Varies Regional Island Horizontal (MU-H3), Visitor -Serving Residential, Commercial Commercial (CV), Multi -Unit Hotel 50,000 SF; Residential (RM) 500 apts 12 Harbor Day School(1) Private Institutional .35 FAR 99,708 SF No Change .40 FAR 14,244 SF Applied Development Economics I Page 4 616 AREAS WITH INCREASED DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY (Continued) 2006 General Plan Proposed Changes Increase/ Map = Reference Location Designation Allowable Existing Designation Capacity Decrease Airport Office and Supporting Uses 306,923 SF 306,923 SF Mixed Use 545,000 SF 238,077 SF Saunders Properties (AO) Horizontal (MU- office 329 DUs ........ .............. ........ ...... ........ ........ ..............Office .,..,..,..,.., Office ..................... H2) .,. _._ ........ .,,.,,., 329 DUs ....... ............... ...-____ 288,264 SF 288,264 SF General 278,264 SF 11,800 SF The Hangars General Commercial Office (CO -G) Commercial office retail Office Office (CG) Retail: 85K SF Retail: 85K SF 250,176 SF 250,176 SF Res: 850 Res: 850 4 Lyon Communities Mixed Use Horizontal (MU -H2) No Change replacemt DUs replacemt DUs Office Office ........ ........ ......... ...... .________. .________.......... ........................................ ........ ........... ................ Hotel: 150 rms ........ Hotel: 150 rms ........_. .............. Mixed Use: Revise Mixed Use 46,044 SF Anomaly #6 to UAP Companies Mixed Use Horizontal (MU -H2) 46,044 SF 46,044 SF Horizontal (MU- Congregate allow 2.0 FAR if Office Office H2) Care: trip neutral 148,000 SF congregate care Mixed -Use 125 hotel 125 hotel 17 150 Newport Center Drive Regional Commercial Office (CO -R) 8,500 SF 8,500 SF Horizontal rooms (24.8 K rooms 24.8 K Car Wash (MU -H3) SF SF Commercial Commercial) 17,500 Mixed -Use 18 100 Newport Center Drive Regional Commercial Office (CO -R) 17,500 SF SF Horizontal 32,500 SF 15,000 SF Museum MU -1-13 AREAS WITH CHANGE OF LAND USE DESIGNATION AND INCREASED DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY 2006 General Plan Proposed Changes Map 901 Reference Location Designation Allowable Existing Designation Density 1 1526 Placentia (King's Liquor) Multi -Unit Residential (RM) 18 DU/AC Retail: General Commercial 0.5 FAR 7,524 SF (CG) 2 813 East Balboa Boulevard Two -Unit Residential (RT) 2 units Day Spa: Mixed -Use Vertical (MU- 0.75 FAR 1,917 SF V DU = Dwelling Units FAR = Floor to land Area Ratio SF = Square Feet Applied Development Economics I Page 5 617 TABLE 2: SOCIOEcoNomic FACTORS USED IN THE FISCAL ANALYSIS Population and Assessed Taxable Employment Value Sales LAND USE: RESIDENTIAL: POP/UNIT PER UNIT PER UNIT Single family 2.39 $1,500,000 $900 Condominium 2.39 $750,000 $450 Mixed Use MFR 2.30 $575,000 $345 Other MFR 2.30 $400,000 $240 BUSINESS: Sq.FT./EMP PER SQ.FT. PER Sq.FT. Office 216 $200 $119 Retail 625 $560 $247 Industrial 730 $663 $0 Lodging 707 $224 $0 Marine 500 $3,197 $305 Service Commercial 1,000 $350 $99 Institutional 2,000 $106 $0 Source: ADE, Inc. The two sites on Newport Center Drive alternately add and subtract office space, with relatively small offsetting fiscal impacts. The Lyon Communities and 150 Newport Center Drive increase the potential for hotel development, with 150 rooms and 125 rooms, respectively. These project components would create a net benefit of about $1.4 million per year for the City. Three of the GPAs affect institutional uses, which generally have a minor negative fiscal effect on the City, mainly due to the low property values (and possible tax exempt status). The UAP Companies site would add 148,000 sq.ft. for a congregate care facility. We estimate this could add net costs of about $6,500 for City services, although this could be higher if City emergency services are used frequently to transport residents of the facility. The Harbor Day School would add 14,244 sq.ft. of school facilities, which we estimate would increase the net cost to the City by only $629 per year. Given the margin of error in the fiscal model, this could be considered a neutral impact. Finally, the GPA at 100 Newport Center Drive contemplates replacing the museum with a mixed use project. As with the Harbor Day School, the museum likely has a neutral effect on City costs but the mixed use project is estimated to result in a negative fiscal impact of about $37,280 per year. Finally, the retail and service commercial uses at the sites on Placentia and Balboa would have small positive fiscal benefits. Detailed tables showing how the land uses in each GPA affect specific City revenues and costs are provided in the Appendix. Applied Development Economics I Page 6 M TABLE 3: PROJECTED FISCAL IMPACT OF OUT GROWTH INCREMENT OF PROPOSEDEXISTING GENERAL PLAN AND Annual Revenues/Costs Net Growth to Revised General Plan Proposed General Plan Budget CategorV Buildout GPAs Buildout REVENUES GENERAL FUND III II Property Tax $29,236,769 $508,379 $29,745,148 Property Tax in lieu of Sales Tax $1,839,072 $87,742 $1,926,814 Sales Tax $5,166,458 $246,491 $5,412,949 Transient Occupancy Tax $17,761,846 ($4,048,912) $13,712,935 Franchise Fees $798,360 $79,394 $877,754 Business Licenses $695,993 $64,700 $760,693 Other Intergovernmental $379,254 $25,812 $405,066 Charges for Service $3,081,798 $238,583 $3,320,381 Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures $897,583 $73,145 $970,728 Licenses and Permits $112,591 $9,175 $121,766 Use of Property $1,872,645 $60,441 $1,933,086 Other Revenue $91,470 $7,454 $98,924 Interest Income $203,405 ($8,695) $194,710 SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND $62,137,244 ($2,656,292) $59,480,953 GAS TAX $1,229,225 $89,421 $1,318,646 MEASURE M $5,591 $49,384 $54,975 SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS $1,234,815 $138,805 $1,373,621 TOTAL REVENUE $63,372,060 2,517,486) $60,854,574 EXPENDITURES GENERAL FUND General Government $2,740,517 $206,265 $2,946,782 Police $10,761,982 $848,240 $11,610,222 Fire $8,843,972 $203,233 $9,047,205 Public Works $6,645,834 $541,577 $7,187,411 Community Development $686,421 $55,937 $742,358 Community Services $6,682,159 $605,603 $7,287,762 CIP Streets $1,254,265 $76,448 $1,330,714 Other CIP Projects $639,917 $52,148 $692,064 SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND $38,255,067 $2,589,451 $40,844,518 GAS TAX $1,652,841 $100,741 $1,753,582 MEASURE M $1,742,479 $106,204 $1,848,683 SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS $3,395,320 $206,945 $3,602,265 TOTAL EXPENDITURES AL $41,650,387 $2,796,396 $44,446,783 NET (COST)/REVENUE $21,721,672 ($5,313,882) $16,407,790 Source: ADE, Inc., based on GP growth figures provided in the 2006 General Plan EIR and the GPA descriptions in Table 1. Note: Totals may not add due to rounding. Applied Development Economics I Page 7 619 Source: ADE, Inc. Note: Totals may not add due to rounding. Applied Development Economics I Page 8 620 TABLE 4: SUMMARY OF FISCAL IMPACTS By GPA AND LAND USE Ad= General Plan Service Amendment Areas Total Residential Office Retail Lodging Commercial Institutional Public Total All Areas ($5,313,882) ($1,574,465) ($368,825) $166,934 ($4,146,796) $1,275 ($5,778) $613,772 Reduced Development Capacity 3. Westcliff Plaza ($22,400) ($22,400) 6. Newport Coast Center ($54,685) ($54,685) 7. Newport Coast Hotel ($4,871,291) (5,717,552) $846,262 S. Bayside Center ($528) ($528) 9. Harbor View Center ($2,681) ($2,681) 10. The Bluffs ($5,108) ($5,108) 11. Gateway Park ($6,289) ($6,289) 15. Newport Ridge ($802,560) ($802,560) Increased Development Capacity 4a . Saunders Prop. ($29,276) ($29,276) 4b. The Hangars $17,037 $17,037 4c. Lyon Communities $735,413 ($462,443) $345,166 $122,727 $856,776 ($126,812) 4d. UAP Properties ($5,908) ($5,908) 5. Newport Ctr/Fashion IsL ($889,679) ($272,025) ($689,845) $72,192 12. Harbor Day School ($569) ($569) 17. 150 Newport Center Dr. $644,110 $35,807 $713,980 ($105,677) 18. 100 Newport Center Dr. ($31,607) ($8,161) ($24,145) $699 Land Use Change with Increased Development Capacity 1. 1526 Placentia $10,863 $10,863 2. 813 E. Balboa Blvd. $1,275 $1,275 Source: ADE, Inc. Note: Totals may not add due to rounding. Applied Development Economics I Page 8 620 METHODOLOGY The fiscal analysis is based primarily on the current General Fund budget for the City of Newport Beach (Table 5). The analysis also includes the Gas Tax fund, which is used for street maintenance and the Measure M fund, which is also used for road improvements. The figures in the middle column of the table for revenues and expenditures are from the City budget document. The figures in the column labeled Adjustments reflect subtractions made by the fiscal model to certain costs and revenues in order to reflect annual ongoing operating conditions for City Departments, as affected by the land uses in the GPA. For example, one time building permit and planning entitlement fees and charges for service are deducted since these revenues are only paid once when projects develop and are not an ongoing fee levied on existing development. These revenues are also deducted from the Community Development budget (and others where appropriate) to reflect the fact the a portion of the staff in these Departments are devoted to activities paid for by one-time fees. In the lower portion of the table under Expenditures, we have also deducted costs for Department heads and other major management positions, as discussed in the Introduction. .•F I i REVENUES ADJUSTMENTS NET BASIS GENERALFUND Property Tax $77,560,969 $77,560,969 Property Tax in lieu of Sales Tax $7,919,248 $7,919,248 Sales Tax $22,247,340 $22,247,340 Transient Occupancy Tax $16,363,510 $16,363,510 Franchise Fees $3,539,840 3,539,840 Business Licenses $3,916,000 $3,916,000 Other Intergovernmental $1,443,521 $111,000 $1,332,521 Charges for Service $15,291,626 $2,975,187 $12,316,439 Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures $3,776,000 $3,776,000 Licenses and Permits $5,382,970 $4,909,316 $473,654 Use of Property $7,401,544 $7,401,544 Other Revenue $654,800 $270,000 $384,800 Interest Income $545,322 $545,322 General Fund Subtotal $166,042,690 $8,265,503 $157,777,187 TIDELANDS FUND Licenses, Permits, and Fees $2,038,500 $2,038,500 Charges for Service $115,000 $115,000 Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures $15,000 $15,000 Use of Money and Property $9,906,286 $9,906,286 STATE GAS TAX FUND $2,538,030 $2,538,030 MEASURE M FUND $2,791,526 $2,791,526 Subtotal Other Funds $17,404,342 $17,404,342 SUBTOTAL $183,447,032 $8,265,503 $175,181,529 Applied Development Economics I Page 9 621 Source: City of Newport Beach Fiscal Year 2013-14 Budget Detail Using the Net Basis figures in the right hand column of Table 5, the fiscal impact model calculates per capita revenues and costs reflecting the current population and employment base for the City. The latest figures available indicate that Newport Beach has a population of 86,436 (Department of Finance, 01/01/2013) and a jobs base of 70,711 (Local Employment Dynamics, 2011). In addition, the model reflects the impact of approximately 19,000 average daily visitors to Newport Beach. The total cost for General Fund services for the proposed GPAs is about $2.6 million per year plus an additional $206,945 for road maintenance services funded by the State Gas Tax and by Measure M (Table 3 above). The model employs a more refined analysis of police services, based on detailed cost of service studies conducted for the General Plan. Table 6 shows the updated allocation of police costs by land use (right hand column) based on current budget amounts for the separate police divisions and the updated population and employment figures. Based on this analysis, the model estimates a net cost of $848,240 for police services. While the land use changes in the proposed GPAs do not generate the tax revenues needed to cover all of these costs, other land use development permitted in the General Plan would generate the necessary revenues, as indicated in the right hand column of Table 3 above. Applied Development Economics I Page 10 622 EXPENDITURES ADJUSTMENTS NET BASIS GENERALFUND General Government $14,858,341 $3,149,183 $11,709,158 Police $44,615,180 $1,690,708 $42,924,472 Fire $37,028,642 $6,218,333 $30,810,309 Public Works $30,157,632 $2,199,572 $27,958,060 Community Development $9,562,160 $6,674,487 $2,887,673 Community Services $17,975,863 $787,111 $17,188,752 CIP - Streets $4,870,585 $4,870,585 Other CIP Projects $2,692,037 $2,692,037 Subtotal $161,760,440 $20,719,394 $141,041,046 PUBLIC WORKS—HARBOR $1,780,557 $1,780,557 RESOURCES TIDELANDS FUND Oil and Gas $754,147 $754,147 CIP Projects $3,301,000 $3,301,000 GAS TAX FUND $6,418,350 $6,418,350 MEASURE M FUND $6,763,976 $6,763,976 Subtotal $19,018,030 $19,018,030 Total $180,778,470 $20,719,394 $160,059,076 NET REVENUE/(COST) $2,668,562 ($12,453,891) $15,122,453 Source: City of Newport Beach Fiscal Year 2013-14 Budget Detail Using the Net Basis figures in the right hand column of Table 5, the fiscal impact model calculates per capita revenues and costs reflecting the current population and employment base for the City. The latest figures available indicate that Newport Beach has a population of 86,436 (Department of Finance, 01/01/2013) and a jobs base of 70,711 (Local Employment Dynamics, 2011). In addition, the model reflects the impact of approximately 19,000 average daily visitors to Newport Beach. The total cost for General Fund services for the proposed GPAs is about $2.6 million per year plus an additional $206,945 for road maintenance services funded by the State Gas Tax and by Measure M (Table 3 above). The model employs a more refined analysis of police services, based on detailed cost of service studies conducted for the General Plan. Table 6 shows the updated allocation of police costs by land use (right hand column) based on current budget amounts for the separate police divisions and the updated population and employment figures. Based on this analysis, the model estimates a net cost of $848,240 for police services. While the land use changes in the proposed GPAs do not generate the tax revenues needed to cover all of these costs, other land use development permitted in the General Plan would generate the necessary revenues, as indicated in the right hand column of Table 3 above. Applied Development Economics I Page 10 622 Source: ADE, Inc. Note: Totals may not add due to rounding. Applied Development Economics I Page 11 623 TABLE 6: ANALYSIS OF Traffic POLICE SERVICES Patrol COSTS Detective Population/ Employment Division Division Division Other Total Percent Police Dept. Budget $4,579,952 $19,586,838 $7,168,906 $13,279,482 $44,615,178 Total Residential Population 86,436 $2,130,868 $9,538,414 $3,285,760 $6,337,667 $21,292,710 46.6% Visitors 18,904 227,165 1,540,262 751,661 1,067,542 3,586,629 7.8% Employees Visitor Serving 6,337 204,391 1,671,630 815,737 1,140,717 3,832,475 8.4% Retail 4,337 139,888 1,514,576 739,126 1,014,358 3,407,948 7.5% Lodging 2,000 64,503 157,054 76,612 126,358 424,527 0.9% Non -Visitor Serving 64,434 2,078,085 7,345,556 2,529,791 5,065,641 17,019,073 37.2% Office 26,188 844,612 1,949,694 671,345 1,468,678 4,934,330 10.80/c Retail 9,932 320,310 3,287,926 1,132,613 2,009,083 6,749,931 14.8% Industrial 10,729 346,019 798,747 275,035 601,685 2,021,486 4.4% Service Commercial 2,323 74,920 172,945 59,551 130,278 437,694 1.0% Marine 742 23,931 55,241 19,021 41,613 139,806 0.3% Institutional 14,520 468,293 1,081,002 372,225 814,304 2,735,825 6.0% Total Employment 70,771 2,282,476 9,017,186 3,345,529 6,206,358 20,851,548 45.6% Total 1 176,111 $4,640,553 $20,095,848 $7,382,942 $13,611,577 $45,730,922 100.0% Source: ADE, Inc. Note: Totals may not add due to rounding. Applied Development Economics I Page 11 623 APPENDIX A: DETAILED COSTS AND REVENUES 1526 PLACENTIA Retail REVENUES GENERAL FUND Property Tax $8,427 Property Tax in lieu of Sales tax $4,972 Sales Tax $13,966 Transient Occupancy Tax $0 Franchise Fees $361 Business Licenses $432 Other Intergovernmental $91 Charges for Service $841 Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures $258 Licenses and Permits $32 Use of Property $258 Other Revenue $26 Interest Income $97 SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND $29,763 GAS TAX $0 MEASURE M $4,951 SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS $4,951 TOTAL REVENUE $34,.. EXPENDITURES GENERAL FUND General Government $1,161 Police $8,039 Fire $2,544 Public Works $1,910 Community Development $197 Community Services $0 CIP Streets $2,647 Other CIP Projects $184 SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND $16,682 GAS TAX $3,489 MEASURE M $3,679 SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS $7,168 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $23,850 NET $10,863 Applied Development Economics I Page 12 624 813 E. :..: Service Commercial REVENUES GENERALFUND Property Tax $1,342 Property Tax in lieu of Sales tax $198 Sales Tax $556 Transient Occupancy Tax $0 Franchise Fees $58 Business Licenses $120 Other Intergovernmental $15 Charges for Service $134 Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures $41 Licenses and Permits $5 Use of Property $41 Other Revenue $4 Interest Income $8 SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND $2,521 GAS TAX $0 MEASURE M $162 SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS $162 TOTAL REVENUE $2,683 EXPENDITURES GENERAL FUND General Government $99 Police $339 Fire $405 Public Works $304 Community Development $31 Community Services $0 CIP Streets $54 Other CIP Projects $29 SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND $1,262 GAS TAX $71 MEASURE M $75 SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS $146 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $1,409 NET (COST)/REVENUE $1,275 Applied Development Economics I Page 13 625 WESTCLIFF PLAZA REVENUES GENERALFUND Property Tax ($17,376) Property Tax in lieu of Sales tax ($10,251) Sales Tax ($28,798) Transient Occupancy Tax $0 Franchise Fees ($744) Business Licenses ($891) Other Intergovernmental ($188) Charges for Service ($1,735) Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures ($532) Licenses and Permits ($67) Use of Property ($532) Other Revenue ($54) Interest Income ($201) SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND ($61,369) GAS TAX ($0) MEASURE M ($10,209) SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS ($10,209) TOTAL REVENUE EXPENDITURES GENERALFUND General Government ($2,394) Police ($16,576) Fire ($5,246) Public Works ($3,938) Community Development ($407) Community Services $0 CIP Streets ($5,459) Other CIP Projects ($379) SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND ($34,398) GAS TAX ($7,194) MEASURE M ($7,586) SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS ($14,780) TOTAL EXPENDITURES ($49,178) NET (COST)/REVENUE ($22,400) Applied Development Economics I Page 14 626 SAUNDERS PROPERTY Residential REVENUES GENERAL FUND Property Tax $378,350 Property Tax in lieu of Sales tax $40,776 Sales Tax $114,552 Transient Occupancy Tax $263 Franchise Fees $12,396 Business Licenses $5,182 Other Intergovernmental $5,725 Charges for Service $52,920 Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures $16,224 Licenses and Permits $2,035 Use of Property $16,224 Other Revenue $1,653 Interest Income $2,123 SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND $646,425 GAS TAX $22,219 MEASURE M $101 SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS $22,320 TOTAL REVENUE EXPENDITURES GENERALFUND General Government $55,122 Police $174,967 Fire $144,534 Public Works $120,128 Community Development $12,408 Community Services $150,478 CIP Streets $8,314 Other CIP Projects $11,567 SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND $677,517 GAS TAX $10,956 MEASURE M $11,546 SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS $22,503 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $700,020 NET COST /REVENUE ($29,276) Applied Development Economics I Page 15 627 THE HANGARS REVENUES GENERALFUND Property Tax $13,216 Property Tax in lieu of Sales tax $7,797 Sales Tax $21,904 Transient Occupancy Tax $0 Franchise Fees $566 Business Licenses $678 Other Intergovernmental $143 Charges for Service $1,320 Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures $405 Licenses and Permits $51 Use of Property $405 Other Revenue $41 Interest Income $153 SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND $46,677 GAS TAX $0 MEASURE M $7,765 SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS $7,765 TOTAL REVENUE EXPENDITURES GENERALFUND General Government $1,821 Police $12,607 Fire $3,990 Public Works $2,995 Community Development $309 Community Services $0 CIP Streets $4,152 Other CIP Projects $288 SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND $26,163 GAS TAX $5,472 MEASURE M $5,770 SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS $11,242 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $37,405 NET (COST)/REVENUE $17,037 Applied Development Economics I Page 16 M.- LYON COMMUNITIES Total Residential Office Retail Lod in Public REVENUES GENERALFUND Property Tax $708,716 $680,000 ($100,070) $95,200 $33,586 $0 Property Tax in lieu of Sales tax $118,343 $73,563 ($23,426) $56,164 $12,043 $0 Sales Tax $332,459 $206,657 ($65,810) $157,781 $33,831 $0 Transient Occupancy Tax $837,449 $679 $0 $0 $836,770 $0 Franchise Fees $4,526 $32,025 ($34,764) $4,079 $3,185 $0 Business Licenses ($18,048) $13,389 ($37,211) $4,884 $890 $0 Other Intergovernmental $8,824 $14,792 ($8,765) $1,028 $803 $965 Charges for Service $81,558 $136,724 ($81,011) $9,505 $7,423 $8,917 Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures $25,004 $41,917 ($24,837) $2,914 $2,276 $2,734 Licenses and Permits $3,136 $5,258 ($3,115) $366 $285 $343 Use of Property $27,629 $41,917 ($24,837) $2,914 $2,276 $5,359 Other Revenue $2,548 $4,272 ($2,531) $297 $232 $279 Interest Income $7,002 $4,109 ($1,335) $1,101 $3,066 $61 SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND $2,139,147 $1,255,302 ($407,712) $336,234 $936,666 $18,656 GAS TAX $57,405 $57,405 $0 $0 $0 $0 MEASURE M $46,862 $261 ($19,210) $55,935 $9,875 $0 SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS $104,267 $57,666 ($19,210) $55,935 $9,875 $0 TOTAL REVENUE $2,243,413 $1,312,968 ($426,921) $392,169 $946,541 $18,656 EXPENDITURES GENERALFUND General Government $116,890 $139,634 ($53,071) $13,116 $5,308 $11,903 Police $381,691 $452,041 ($204,863) $90,816 $21,147 $22,549 Fire $302,956 $343,043 ($172,340) $28,741 $18,284 $85,228 Public works $185,135 $310,361 ($183,894) $21,576 $16,850 $20,241 Community Development $19,122 $32,056 ($18,994) $2,229 $1,740 $2,091 Community Services $388,773 $388,773 $0 $0 $0 $0 CIP Streets $25,787 $21,481 ($32,704) $29,909 $6,694 $407 Other CIP Projects $17,826 $29,884 ($17,707) $2,078 $1,622 $1,949 SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND $1,438,180 $1,717,273 ($683,573) $188,465 $71,647 $144,367 GAS TAX $33,981 $28,307 ($43,097) $39,413 $8,821 $536 MEASURE M $35,840 $29,831 ($45,417) $41,564 $9,297 $565 SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS $69,821 $58,138 ($88,514) $80,977 $18,118 $1,102 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $1,50', $1,775,411 ($772,08? $269,442 $89,765 $145,469 NET (COST)/REVENUE $735,413 ($462,443) $345,166 1 $122,727 $856,776 ($126,812) Applied Development Economics I Page 17 629 PROPERTIESUAP Institutional REVENUES GENERAL FUND Property Tax $31,515 Property Tax in lieu of Sales tax $0 Sales Tax $0 Transient Occupancy Tax $0 Franchise Fees $2,221 Business Licenses $1,662 Other Intergovernmental $560 Charges for Service $5,175 Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures $1,587 Licenses and Permits $199 Use of Property $1,587 Other Revenue $162 Interest Income $147 SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND $44,813 GAS TAX $0 MEASURE M $0 SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS $0 TOTAL REVENUE $44,813 EXPENDITURES GENERAL FUND General Government $3,625 Police $13,087 Fire $13,574 Public Works $11,748 Community Development $1,213 Community Services $0 CIP Streets $1,711 Other CIP Projects $1,131 SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND $46,090 GAS TAX $2,255 MEASURE M $2,376 SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS $4,631 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $50,721 NET (COST)/REVENUE ($5,908) Applied Development Economics I Page 18 630 NEWPORT CENTER/FASHION ISLAND Total Residential Office Retail, REVENUES GENERALFUND Property Tax $656,000 $400,000 $200,000 $56,000 Property Tax in lieu of Sales tax $123,129 $43,272 $46,819 $33,038 Sales Tax $345,904 $121,563 $131,528 $92,813 Transient Occupancy Tax $399 $399 $0 $0 Franchise Fees $90,716 $18,839 $69,479 $2,399 Business Licenses $85,118 $7,876 $74,369 $2,873 Other Intergovernmental $26,823 $8,701 $17,517 $605 Charges for Service $247,926 $80,426 $161,909 $5,591 Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures $76,010 $24,657 $49,638 $1,714 Licenses and Permits $9,534 $3,093 $6,227 $215 Use of Property $76,010 $24,657 $49,638 $1,714 Other Revenue $7,746 $2,513 $5,058 $175 Interest Income $5,732 $2,417 $2,667 $647 SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND $1,751,048 $738,413 $814,850 $197,784 GAS TAX $33,768 $33,768 $0 $0 MEASURE M $71,449 $154 $38,392 $32,903 SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS $105,217 $33,921 $38,392 $32,903 TOTAL REVENUE $1,856,264 $772,334 $853,242 $230,688 EXPENDITURES GENERALFUND General Government $195,919 $82,137 $106,067 $7,715 Police $728,766 $265,907 $409,438 $53,421 Fire $563,135 $201,790 $344,438 $16,907 Public Works $562,786 $182,565 $367,529 $12,692 Community Development $58,128 $18,856 $37,961 $1,311 Community Services $228,690 $228,690 $0 $0 CIP Streets $95,592 $12,636 $65,362 $17,594 Other CIP Projects $54,190 $17,579 $35,389 $1,222 SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND $2,487,206 $1,010,161 $1,366,184 $110,862 GAS TAX $125,969 $16,651 $86,133 $23,184 MEASURE M $132,768 $17,548 $90,771 $24,449 SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS $258,737 $34,199 $176,904 $47,634 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $2,745,943 $1,044,360 $1,543,088 $158,496 NET (COST)/REVENUE ($889,679) ($272,025) ($689,845) $72,192 Applied Development Economics I Page 19 631 Applied Development Economics I Page 20 632 Retail REVENUES GENERALFUND Property Tax ($42,420) Property Tax in lieu of Sales tax ($25,026) Sales Tax ($70,305) Transient Occupancy Tax $0 Franchise Fees ($1,817) Business Licenses ($2,176) Other Intergovernmental ($458) Charges for Service ($4,235) Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures ($1,298) Licenses and Permits ($163) Use of Property ($1,298) Other Revenue ($132) Interest Income ($490) SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND ($149,822) GAS TAX $0 MEASURE M ($24,924) SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS ($24,924) TOTAL REVENUE ($174,746) EXPENDITURES GENERAL FUND General Government ($5,844) Police ($40,467) Fire ($12,807) Public Works ($9,614) Community Development ($993) Community Services $0 CIP Streets ($13,327) Other CIP Projects ($926) SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND ($83,978) GAS TAX ($17,562) MEASURE M ($18,520) SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS ($36,083) TOTAL EXPENDITURES ($120,060) NET (COST)/REVENUE ($54,685) Applied Development Economics I Page 20 632 NEWPORT COAST HOTEL Total Lodging Public REVENUES GENERAL FUND Property Tax ($224,131) ($224,131) $0 Property Tax in lieu of Sales tax ($80,364) ($80,364) $0 Sales Tax ($225,765) ($225,765) $0 Transient Occupancy Tax ($5,584,048) ($5,584,048) $0 Franchise Fees ($21,257) ($21,257) $0 Business Licenses ($5,937) ($5,937) $0 Other Intergovernmental ($11,797) ($5,359) ($6,438) Charges for Service ($109,042) ($49,537) ($59,505) Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures ($33,430) ($15,187) ($18,243) Licenses and Permits ($4,193) ($1,905) ($2,288) Use of Property ($50,946) ($15,187) ($35,759) Other Revenue ($3,407) ($1,548) ($1,859) Interest Income ($20,869) ($20;461) ($408) SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND ($6,375,186) ($6,250,686) ($124,500) GAS TAX $0 $0 $0 MEASURE M ($65,899) ($65,899) $0 SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS ($65,899) ($65,899) $0 TOTAL REVENUE ($6,441,085) ($6,316,585) ($124,500) EXPENDITURES GENERALFUND General Government ($114,858) ($35,424) ($79,434) Police ($291,601) ($141,124) ($150,477) Fire ($690,770) ($122,018) ($568,752) Public Works ($247,522) ($112,448) ($135,074) Community Development ($25,566) ($11,614) ($13,951) Community Services $0 $0 $0 CIP Streets ($47,387) ($44,671) ($2,716) Other CIP Projects ($23,834) ($10,827) ($13,006) SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND ($1,441,537) ($478,127) ($963,410) GAS TAX ($62,447) ($58,867) ($3,579) MEASURE M ($65,811) ($62,039) ($3,772) SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS ($128,258) ($120,906) ($7,351) TOTAL EXPENDITURES ($1,569,795) ($599,033) ($970,762) NET (COST)/REVENUE ($4,871,291) ($5,717,552) $846,262 Applied Development Economics I Page 21 633 BAYSIDE CENTER Retail REVENUES GENERAL FUND Property Tax ($410) Property Tax in lieu of Sales tax ($242) Sales Tax ($679) Transient Occupancy Tax $0 Franchise Fees ($18) Business Licenses ($21) Other Intergovernmental ($4) Charges for Service ($41) Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures ($13) Licenses and Permits ($2) Use of Property ($13) Other Revenue ($I) Interest Income ($5) SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND ($1,448) GAS TAX $0 MEASURE M ($241) SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS ($241) TOTAL REVENUE EXPENDITURES GENERALFUND General Government ($56) Police ($391) Fire ($124) Public Works ($93) Community Development ($10) Community Services $0 CIP Streets ($129) Other CIP Projects ($9) SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND ($812) GAS TAX ($170) MEASURE M ($179) SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS ($349) TOTAL EXPENDITURES ($1,160) NET ($528) Applied Development Economics I Page 22 634 Applied Development Economics I Page 23 635 AL Retail 77 REVENUES GENERAL FUND Property Tax ($2,080) Property Tax in lieu of Sales tax ($1,227) Sales Tax ($3,447) Transient Occupancy Tax $0 Franchise Fees ($89) Business Licenses ($107) Other Intergovernmental ($22) Charges for Service ($208) Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures ($64) Licenses and Permits ($8) Use of Property ($64) Other Revenue ($6) Interest Income ($24) SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND ($7,346) GAS TAX $0 MEASURE M ($1,222) SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS ($1,222) TOTAL REVENUE ($8,568) EXPENDITURES GENERALFUND General Government ($287) Police ($1,984) Fire ($628) Public Works ($471) Community Development ($49) Community Services $0 CIP Streets ($653) Other CIP Projects ($45) SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND ($4,117) GAS TAX ($861) MEASURE M ($908) SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS ($1,769) TOTAL EXPENDITURES ($5,887) NET (COST)/REVENUE ($2,681) Applied Development Economics I Page 23 635 THE BLUFFS REVENUES GENERALFUND Property Tax ($3,963) Property Tax in lieu of Sales tax ($2,338) Sales Tax ($6,567) Transient Occupancy Tax $0 Franchise Fees ($170) Business Licenses ($203) Other Intergovernmental ($43) Charges for Service ($396) Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures ($121) Licenses and Permits ($15) Use of Property ($121) Other Revenue ($12) Interest Income ($46) SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND ($13,995) GAS TAX $0 MEASURE M ($2,328) SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS ($2,328) TOTAL REVENUE ($16,323) EXPENDITURES GENERALFUND General Government ($546) Police ($3,780) Fire ($1,196) Public Works ($898) Community Development ($93) Community Services $0 CIP Streets ($1,245) Other CIP Projects ($86) SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND ($7,845) GAS TAX ($1,641) MEASURE M ($1,730) SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS ($3,371) TOTAL EXPENDITURES ($11,215) NET (COST)/REVENUE ($5,108) Applied Development Economics I Page 24 636 GATEWAY PARK Retail REVENUES GENERAL FUND Property Tax ($4,879) Property Tax in lieu of Sales tax ($2,878) Sales Tax ($8,086) Transient Occupancy Tax $0 Franchise Fees ($209) Business Licenses ($250) Other Intergovernmental ($53) Charges for Service ($487) Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures ($149) Licenses and Permits ($19) Use of Property ($149) Other Revenue ($15) Interest Income ($56) SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND ($17,231) GAS TAX $0 MEASURE M ($2,867) SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS ($2,867) TOTAL REVENUE ($20,098) EXPENDITURES GENERALFUND General Government ($672) Police ($4,654) Fire ($1,473) Public Works ($1,106) Community Development ($114) Community Services $0 CIP Streets ($1,533) Other CIP Projects ($106) SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND ($9,658) GAS TAX ($2,020) MEASURE M ($2,130) SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS ($4,150) TOTAL EXPENDITURES ($13,808) NET (COST)/REVENUE ($6,289) Applied Development Economics I Page 25 637 HARBOR DAY SCHOOL nstitutional REVENUES GENERAL FUND Property Tax $3,033 Property Tax in lieu of Sales tax $0 Sales Tax $0 Transient Occupancy Tax $0 Franchise Fees $214 Business Licenses $160 Other Intergovernmental $54 Charges for Service $498 Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures $153 Licenses and Permits $19 Use of Property $153 Other Revenue $16 Interest Income $14 SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND $4,313 GAS TAX $0 MEASURE M $O SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS $o TOTAL REVENUE $4,313 EXPENDITURES GENERALFUND General Government $349 Police $1,260 Fire $1,306 Public Works $1,131 Community Development $117 Community Services $0 CIP Streets $165 Other CIP Projects $109 SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND $4,436 GAS TAX $217 MEASURE M $229 SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS $446 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $4,882 NET ($569) Applied Development Economics I Page 26 M NEWPoRT RIDGE Residential REVENUES GENERALFUND Property Tax ($1,068,000) Property Tax in lieu of Sales tax ($114,506) Sales Tax ($321,680) Transient Occupancy Tax ($295) Franchise Fees ($13,938) Business Licenses ($5,827) Other Intergovernmental ($6,438) Charges for Service ($59,504) Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures ($18,243) Licenses and Permits ($2,288) Use of Property ($18,243) Other Revenue ($1,859) Interest Income ($5,356) SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND ($1,636,178) GAS TAX ($24,983) MEASURE M ($114) SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS ($25,097) TOTAL REVENUE ($1,661,275) EXPENDITURES GENERALFUND General Government ($67,982) Police ($196,734) Fire ($228,119) Public Works ($135,073) Community Development ($13,951) Community Services ($169,199) CIP Streets ($9,349) Other CIP Projects ($13,006) SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND ($833,412) GAS TAX ($12,320) MEASURE M ($12,983) SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS ($25,303) TOTAL EXPENDITURES ($858,714) NET (COST)/REVENUE ($802,560) Applied Development Economics I Page 27 639 Applied Development Economics I Page 28 640 Total Office Lodging Public REVENUES GENERALFUND Property Tax $55,764 $27,776 $27,988 $0 Property Tax in lieu of Sales tax $26,422 $16,387 $0 $0 Sales Tax $74,227 $46,035 $28,192 $0 Transient Occupancy Tax $697,309 $0 $697,309 $0 Franchise Fees $3,845 $1,190 $2,655 $0 Business Licenses $2,166 $1,425 $741 $0 Other Intergovernmental $1,773 $300 $699 $804 Charges for Service $16,390 $2,773 $6,186 $7,431 Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures $5,025 $850 $1,896 $2,278 Licenses and Permits $630 $107 $238 $286 Use of Property $7,212 $850 $1,896 $4,465 Other Revenue $512 $87 $193 $232 Interest Income $2,927 $321 $2,555 $51 SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND $894,203 $98,101 $780,555 $15,547 GAS TAX $0 $0 $0 $0 MEASURE M $24,549 $16,320 $8,229 $0 SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS $24,549 $16,320 $8,229 $0 TOTAL REVENUE $918,752 $114,421 $788,784 $15,547 EXPENDITURES GENERALFUND General Government $18,170 $3,827 $4,424 $9,919 Police $62,911 $26,497 $17,623 $18,791 Fire $94,646 $8,386 $15,237 $71,023 Public Works $37,205 $6,295 $14,042 $16,867 Community Development $3,843 $650 $1,450 $1,742 Community Services $0 $0 $0 $0 CIP Streets $14,644 $8,726 $5,578 $339 Other CIP Projects $3,582 $606 $1,352 $1,624 SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND $235,000 $54,987 $59,706 $120,306 GAS TAX $19,298 $11,499 $7,351 $447 MEASURE M $20,345 $12,127 $7,747 $471 SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS $39,643 $23,626 $15,098 $918 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $274,642 $78,614 $74,804 $121,224 NET (COST)/REVENUE $644,110 $35,807 $713,980 ($105,677) Applied Development Economics I Page 28 640 00 NEWPORTCENTER ,. Total Residential Office Institutional REVENUES GENERALFUND Property Tax $15,274 $12,000 $7,000 ($3,726) Property Tax in lieu of Sales tax $2,937 $1,298 $1,639 Sales Tax $8,250 $3,647 $4,603 $0 Transient Occupancy Tax $12 $12 $0 $0 Franchise Fees $2,734 $565 $2,432 ($263) Business Licenses $2,643 $236 $2,603 ($196) Other Intergovernmental $808 $261 $613 ($66) Charges for Service $7,468 $2,413 $5,667 ($612) Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures $2,289 $740 $1,737 ($188) Licenses and Permits $287 $93 $218 ($24) Use of Property $2,289 $740 $1,737 ($188) Other Revenue $233 $75 $177 ($19) Interest Income $149 $73 $93 ($17) SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND $45,373 $22,152 $28,520 ($5,299) GAS TAX $1,013 $1,013 $0 $0 MEASURE M $1,348 $5 $1,344 $0 SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS $2,361 $1,018 $1,344 $0 TOTAL REVENUE $47,735 $23,170 $29,863 ($5,299) EXPENDITURES GENERALFUND General Government $5,748 $2,464 $3,712 ($429) Police $20,760 $7,977 $14,330 ($1,547) Fire $16,504 $6,054 $12,055 ($1,605) Public Works $16,951 $5,477 $12,864 ($1,389) Community Development $1,751 $566 $1,329 ($143) Community Services $6,861 $6,861 $0 $0 CIP Streets $2,464 $379 $2,288 ($202) Other CIP Projects $1,632 $527 $1,239 ($134) SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND $72,671 $30,305 $47,816 ($5,450) GAS TAX $3,248 $500 $3,015 ($267) MEASURE M $3,422 $526 $3,177 ($281) SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS $6,670 $1,026 $6,192 ($548) TOTAL EXPENDITURES $79,341 $31,331 ($5,997) NET (COST)/REVENUE ($31,607) ($8,161) ($24,145) 1 $699 Applied Development Economics I Page 29 641 642 Attachment No. CC 11 Financial Feasibility Memo (Airport Area) 643 M Memorandum DATE September 3, 2013 TO City of Newport Beach Kimberly Brandt, Community Development Director Brenda Wisneski, Deputy Community Development Director Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner FROM Woody Tescher, Project Manager Steve Gunnells, Chief Economist SUBIECT Financial Feasibility Discussion—Airport Area This memo provides an overview of financial feasibility issues associated with possible redevelopment in the airport area. This memo builds on information discussed in a separate memo regarding the financial feasibility analysis in Mariners' Mile. i Background The basic question is whether or not it is financially feasible for developers to acquire property with existing industrial, office, or retail uses and to redevelop the property with residential uses. The answer to this question may be considered as one among many factors influencing whether or not the City should plan for additional residential uses in this area. The City recently approved the Uptown Newport project. This project would demolish approximately 447,000 square feet of industrial buildings and redevelop the site with 1,244 residential units and 11,500 square feet of retail building area. One would assume that this is financially feasible if the developer is going through the process to entitle the proposed development. But what about other sites in the airport area, especially sites with office or retail uses? Would it be financially feasible to redevelop those sites? Financial Feasibility, Generally In a typical development project, the developer invests a certain amount and finances the rest of the project. The financial feasibility of the proposed project is usually measured by the internal rate of return (IRR). This is the return on the amount invested by the developer, and a typical threshold is a 15 percent IRR. For a given project and its final sales value, the more the developer can borrow, the less the developer has to invest. Because lending rates are substantially lower than 15 percent, paying for more of the development with borrowed money rather than the developer's cash investment improves the overall IRR. Typically, banks may lend about 50 percent of the cost of land acquisition and 75 to 80 percent of the cost of construction. This differential means that the cost of the land becomes the most important driver in determining financial feasibility. Because the developer pays a higher portion of the land acquisition cost than construction costs, a small change in land costs affects the IRR more than the same change in construction cost. Orange County • Northern California • Los Angeles/Downtowh - Los Angeles/West • Inlapd Empire • San Diego 3 MmAn1wr Plu<o 500 7100 i `OW. Ann CA 92707 1714.966.9720 1714,96.922.1 (F) T� '- www.planninocenter.corn 645 '•w J Memo To: City of Newport Beach Financial Feasibility Discussion—Airport Area September 3, 2013 • Page 2 Lease Rates and Land Valuation Capitalization rates are determined by dividing the annual rental income for a property by its sales value. Real estate brokers average this data over a number of sales to determine a general capitalization rate. This rate varies over time. In the last upswing in the real estate market, capitalization rates decreased to 6 percent, but a more normal rate is about 8 percent. What is different across different properties is the revenue stream that is being generated. Industrial properties tend to generate the lowest rent per square foot, and current rates are about $9 per square foot per year. Offices tend to generate more than industrial and less than retail, and current rates are about $26 per square foot per year. Retail usually brings in the highest rent, and current lease rates are about $40 per square foot per year. For a generic one -acre site built out at a 0.25 FAR (10,890 square feet of building area), the expected rents would be: Industrial $98,010; Office $283,140; and Retail $436,000. At an 8 percent capitalization rate, the property value for each use would be: Industrial, $1,225,000; Office, $3,539,000; and Retail $5,445,000. One should note, however, that offices, unlike single use industrial and retail, can be intensified on a site by adding additional stories. Thus, multistory office buildings typically generate higher rents per acre than single use retail and industrial. For the generic one -acre site example, a two-story office building would generate rents of $566,000 and the site's value would be $7,709,000. Residual Land Value for Residential Development Keeping with the generic one -acre site, a residential development of that site with 25 for -sale condos might generate a residual land value of $4.5 million. The residual land value is the amount a developer could afford to pay for the site and earn a 15 percent IRR. This development would therefore be financially feasible if the site were currently used for industrial or single -story office. It would not, however, be financially feasible if the site were currently used for retail. Also, if the site had a two-story office building, the residential redevelopment would not be feasible. If the site were developed more intensely, yielding 50 residential units with structured parking, the residual land value would increase to $7.2 million. This redevelopment would be feasible for existing one-story industrial, office, and retail sites, but would still not be feasible for sites with multistory buildings. Demand for Residential Development The other part of the equation for this issue is whether or not there is demand for more residential development in the Airport Area. An analysis of growth patterns in the airport area and the subregion within five miles of the airport area suggests that the potential multifamily market is substantial. From 2000 through 2013, Nielsen Company data indicate that the airport area in Irvine and Newport Beach accounted for over 9 percent of Orange County's household growth. And information from DataQuick shows that the airport area's multifamily home sales accounted for 17 percent of all multifamily sales and 7 percent of all home sales within five miles. An analysis of these data sources finds that over the next five years, potential market for multifamily housing in the airport area, driven by the net increase in households, could be 404 units (after development of the Uptown Newport project). Factoring the annual turnover of housing (a figure developers take into consideration), the total multifamily market potential for the airport area would be would be 3,800 units over five years (once again, after accounting for the Uptown Newport project). �J Memo To: City of Newport Beach Financial Feasibility Discussion—Airport Area September 3, 2013 • Page 3 Conclusion The analysis shows that in general terms, residential redevelopment would be financially feasible for many industrial sites and one-story office building sites. However, moderate density (25 du/acre) residential development would not be affordable on sites that are currently used for retail or multistory office buildings. More sites would be feasible for redevelopment with projects at 50 dwelling units per acre, but still, most multistory sites would not. Initial planning for the Airport Area during preparation of the General Plan considered up to 4,400 residential units, although this limit was scaled back in the adopted plan. The potential market for housing in the Airport Area could absorb 4,400 units over the life of the General Plan. Thus, if the community desired to allow more housing in this area, a limit of 4,400 units could be considered reasonable. 647 Attachment No. CC 12 Public Comments -,. 650 @Sfill Pewport Inspiring The Next Generation OFFICERS July 1, 2014 PRESIDENT Marko Popovich Rush Hill, Mayor Newport Beach City Council VICE PRESIDENT c/o Gregg Ramirez Elaine Linhoff SUBJECT: General Plan Land Use Element Amendment TREASURER Dennis Baker Dear Mayor Hill and Members of the City Council: SECRETARY Allan Beek At your July 8 hearing, we are asking you to vote against approval of the General Plan Land Use Element Amendment and certification of the Environmental Impact Report. BOARD MEMBERS What got our attention was a realization that we would be facing a very large Nancy Alston development in Newport Center with associated traffic on PCH at the same time that we Iryne Black are facing a very large development with associated traffic at Banning Ranch on the west Don Harvey side of town. Upon further research we then began to discover all of the other projects Dorothy Kraus that are approved or in the planning process in between those two locations. Donald Krotee Andrea Lingle Bobby Lovell In our effort to make the general populace aware of this Amendment, we have been Jeanne Price circulating a petition and "Do You Know' handout which says: Melinda Seely . "Tell our city leaders that Newport Beach is first and foremost a residential Jack Skinner community." Nancy Skinner "Tell our city leaders that we want to manage and balance growth, density and Jean Watt Portia Weiss traffic policies that emphasize quality of life for our residents. The current Terry welsh Amendment does not!" • "Contact City Council and tell them you DO NOT SUPPORT the proposed Land Use Element Amendment and DO SUPPORT a broad-based resident advisory committee review process." STOP POLLUTING OUR NEWPORT (SPON) is a 501.c.3 non-profit public education organization working to protect and preserve the residential and environmental qualities of Newport Beach. PO Box 102 1 Balboa Island, CA 92662 1 949.864.6616 www.SPON-NewportBeach.org I Info@SPON-NewportBeach.org Facebook SPON-Newport Beach I Twitter @SPONNewport 651 @Sfill Pewport Inspiring The Next Generation July 1, 2014 Rush Hill, Mayor Page Two We will provide the results of the petition process, and possible additional comments on the staff report, to the City Clerk for your consideration on the Monday before the July 8 Hearing. The reasons for our suggestion that this Amendment is inappropriate and that a more broad-based process and environmental disclosure should be undertaken have primarily to do with the impacts of traffic and circulation in the City, that the Circulation Element should have been addressed along with the Land Use Element AND that the reasons given for this Amendment are simply not justified. The "Foundation for the Amendment' included in a power point presentation by the consultant Woody Tescher at the May 8 Planning Commission Study Session included the need to: 1. Address changes in use and/or density in areas that are economically underperforming; 2. Reduce commuting distance between home and jobs; 3. Enhance the values distinguishing Newport Beach as a special place to live for residents. Other reasons given for the Amendment from the introduction to the LUE Policy changes included: 4. Assuring accountability with approved Citizen Advisory Panel reports/plans — e.g. Lido Village and Balboa Village; 5. Reflecting new state legislation; 6. Reflecting new best practices established since 2006. STOP POLLUTING OUR NEWPORT (SPON) is a 501.c.3 non-profit public education organization working to protect and preserve the residential and environmental qualities of Newport Beach. PO Box 102 1 Balboa Island, CA 92662 1 949.864.6616 www.SPON-NewportBeach.org I Info@SPON-NewportBeach.org Facebook SPON-Newport Beach I Twitter @SPONNewport 652 @Sfill Pewport Inspiring The Next Generation July 1, 2014 Rush Hill, Mayor Page Three SPON's responses to each of the City's six justifications are below. 1. The need to address "economically underperforming" areas of the City. Though piling more development onto certain areas of the City could, of course, potentially bring more in development fees on a one-time basis, our research tells us that, on balance, the Amendment will be a negative for the fiscal integrity of the City. In addition, if the Airport Area is the area deemed to be economically underperforming, then the area as a whole needs to be re -planned so as to achieve the new "best practices" that are purportedly a goal of this Amendment. If Uptown Newport and now these new proposed projects are supposedly providing a way for people to live, work, recreate, and shop without needing to use their car, then the Circulation Element needs to be amended at the same time so as to provide the actual methodology used in coming to this conclusion. Are there going to be bus transit opportunities to the IBC? Are there going to be specific bike trail opportunities? Certainly the Newport Center/Fashion Island area cannot be deemed to be economically underperforming and increased intensity of land use there seriously impacts roadways in Corona del Mar. Yet, in the current state of the City's policies, these impacts can be essentially shoved under the rug because changes to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance have allowed unsatisfactory levels of service on intersections along PCH. 2. Reducing commuting distance in the community. Again, this piecemeal Amendment simply reacting to requests from landowners doesn't show, through a review of the Circulation Element, how there will be a reduction in commuting distances in the community. Rather than achieving the goals set out in the 2006 General Plan, these arbitrary new scattered developments simply add to the traffic on our local roads and freeways. There is no nexus between this Land Use Element Amendment and the Circulation Element to show that people who will live in this new community will achieve the goals described. There is no nexus between the Land Use STOP POLLUTING OUR NEWPORT (SPON) is a 501.c.3 non-profit public education organization working to protect and preserve the residential and environmental qualities of Newport Beach. PO Box 102 1 Balboa Island, CA 92662 1 949.864.6616 www.SPON-NewportBeach.org I Info@SPON-NewportBeach.org Facebook SPON-Newport Beach I Twitter @SPONNewport 653 @Sfill Pewport Inspiring The Next Generation July 1, 2014 Rush Hill, Mayor Page Four Element Amendment and the Housing Element to show that people who work in the nearby hotels, restaurants and offices can afford to live in these new units. 3. Enhancing values distinguishing Newport Beach as a special place to live. We fail to see how this Amendment has anything to do with Newport Beach's distinguishing character and features. This Amendment seems to be bringing us closer to becoming a bigger city, emulating such places as Los Angeles. We believe that image would fail the test of public opinion. 4. Assure consistency with approved citizen advisory plan reports/Lido Village and Balboa Village. To the best of our knowledge, nothing proposed by the Citizens Advisory Panels that reviewed Lido Village (limited to architectural design guidelines) and Balboa Village (slightly broader mandate) in 2011-12 rose to the level of requiring a revision of the General Plan. Indeed, the 2006 Plan anticipated the possibility that new regulations and ideas consistent with it might be developed without any need for revision. By contrast, the current proposal makes several revisions to the Mariner's Mile land use policy section without benefit of any review by an advisory panel other than the LUEAAC, and without addressing the need for more specific plans for that area to mitigate the increasing traffic on PCH. 5. Reflect new state legislation. This new legislation includes AB 32 and SB 375. AB 32 means that we can no longer keep approving projects as we always have — we need to rethink how we plan our communities and the circulation systems that serve them. SB 375 means improving the efficiency and connectivity of our homes to our employment centers via our transportation networks. And there is another piece of legislation working its way through the state offices, SB 743, which is trying to change the way we measure STOP POLLUTING OUR NEWPORT (SPON) is a 501.c.3 non-profit public education organization working to protect and preserve the residential and environmental qualities of Newport Beach. PO Box 102 1 Balboa Island, CA 92662 1 949.864.6616 www.SPON-NewportBeach.org I Info@SPON-NewportBeach.org Facebook SPON-Newport Beach I Twitter @SPONNewport 654 @Sfill Pewport Inspiring The Next Generation July 1, 2014 Rush Hill, Mayor Page Five traffic. Currently, environmental review of transportation impacts focuses on the delay that vehicles experience at intersections and on roadway segments. That delay is measured using a metric known as "level of service" (LOS). Mitigation for increased delay often involves increasing capacity (i.e. the width of a roadway or size of an intersection), which may increase auto use and emissions and discourage alternative forms of transportation. To take the words in the proposed Land Use Element Policies LU4.3 such as "concentrating and designing development to promote walking, bicycling and use of public transit as an alternative to automobile travel" and convert these words into a tangible action plan, the Circulation Element would need to be amended along with the Land Use Plan. 6. Incorporating best planning practices emerging since 2006. There are emerging practices that should be seriously considered by the City even though, technically, there is no absolute requirement to do so. One case in point is the relationship of the City's General Plan to impacts on the freeway system. There are serious concerns by the state emerging about the relationship between local jurisdictions' General Plans and the state freeways, on ramps and off ramps. It is reflected in the comment letter from the Department of Transportation for this Land Use Element Amendment SEIR. Their comments include: 1) The Land Use Element should include language requiring the City to develop policies stressing coordination between the City and the Department early in the land use and transportation planning process. 4) The General Plan should acknowledge the Departments' standard of maintaining a target Level of Service (LOS) at the transition between LOS C and LOS D on State highway facilities. Any degradation of the LOS past this threshold should be mitigated to bring the facility back to the baseline/existing condition. 6) As noted in the SEIR, future projects have the potential to significantly impact SR -73 and 1-405 mainline and interchanges, ramps and intersections. Impacts of development causing operating conditions to deteriorate to deficient levels of service, or impacts adding to an existing deficient level of service condition require mitigation. STOP POLLUTING OUR NEWPORT (SPON) is a 501.c.3 non-profit public education organization working to protect and preserve the residential and environmental qualities of Newport Beach. PO Box 102 1 Balboa Island, CA 92662 1 949.864.6616 www.SPON-NewportBeach.org I Info@SPON-NewportBeach.org Facebook SPON-Newport Beach I Twitter @SPONNewport 655 @Sfill Pewport Inspiring The Next Generation July 1, 2014 Rush Hill, Mayor Page Six Finally, for all the reasons above, we believe the City Council should see the political realities and logic in using their discretion to deny this Amendment and, if changes to the 2006 General Plan are desired, go back to the drawing board and establish a more thorough and broad-based planning process incorporating other General Plan Elements especially Circulation and Housing. Thank you for consideration of our comments. /I41 W ;VaAw" President SPON STOP POLLUTING OUR NEWPORT (SPON) is a 501.c.3 non-profit public education organization working to protect and preserve the residential and environmental qualities of Newport Beach. PO Box 102 1 Balboa Island, CA 92662 1 949.864.6616 www.SPON-NewportBeach.org I Info@SPON-NewportBeach.org Facebook SPON-Newport Beach I Twitter @SPONNewport 656 Ramirez, Gre From: Denys Oberman [dho@obermanassociates.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2014 11:45 AM To: Dept -City Council; Brandt, Kim; Ramirez, Gregg Cc: Kiff, Dave; jwatt@aol.com; Icurran@me.com; Brown, Leilani; dho@obermanassociates.com Subject: General Plan Land Use Element Amendment- FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD Importance: High Sensitivity: Confidential Mayor and Members of the City Council: At your July 8th hearing, we are asking you to vote against approval of the proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendment and certification of the Environmental Impact Report; and, instead, undertake a more thoughtful review and plan update through a broad-based resident advisory committee review process. • We need to better understand the Cumulative Impact of various developments in various areas of the City—the impact of the proposal on the table is definitely NOT "net neutral" from a Traffic perspective. Newport Beach has limited thoroughfare corridors, particularly in and out and along the coastal area. • We agree with the statements that "not all areas are the same". The traffic corridors in and out, and along the coast are inherently limited and cannot tolerate unlimited increase in development or traffic Intensity. • Newport Beach will "kill the goose that laid the golden egg' if it does not protect its openness and coastal views, and creates over -intensification of traffic, from resident and visitor perspectives. (the building structure the Council permitted at Dover and PCH is a classic example of this ---- obliviated the view of the bluffs from PCH, and is positioned to create major traffic and bicycle Safety issues.) • Areas do not automatically transition from "under -performing" to "performing" by simply adding development intensity. The right mix of uses, balance of natural and built environment, and traffic flow are key ---the City can benefit by truly listening to its constituents, the stakeholders. We agree with the position taken by SPON in its July 1, 2014 correspondence and testimony to the City Council regarding this issue. Thank you for your consideration. Denys Oberman Linda Klein Kathryn Branman Residents and supporters of SPON Regards, Denys H. Oberman, CEO 657 &ranadel oWar RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION VOLUNTEERS WORKING SINCE 1967 TO PROTECT, PRESERVE AND IMPROVE OUR COMMUNITY'S QUALITY OF LIFE. BOARD OF DIRECTORS PRESIDENT RE: Land Use Element Amendment - Policy Changes Karen Thrigah VICE PRESIDENT July 1, 2014 Debbie Stevens SECRETARY City Council Elizabeth Torelh changes we have seen over the last few years which have been TREASURER City of Newport Beach Mar)arle Sawyer focus to one that advocates for large-scale, high-density projects. CdM VII L4 GE RE: Land Use Element Amendment - Policy Changes Dennis Baker- W Paul B=Iau-NW lama Cnrran-w Dear Mayor Hill and City Council Members: Bonnie Duckworth -SE P°"yGwin-NE As residential quality -of -life advocates, we are troubled by the Bryce Moa -NW Hada Rasher -SW changes we have seen over the last few years which have been Michael Toerge-SW transitioning Newport Beach from a community with a residential Elizaheth Torelh-NE focus to one that advocates for large-scale, high-density projects. IRITNE TERRACE Lal Skara These projects, many of which are approved one at a time, chisel away HARBOR VIEWHILLS at the quiet enjoyment of residential life here in our city. Ever Barry Allen increasing traffic makes getting from one end of Newport Beach to the Debbie Stevens other an arduous undertaking. CORONA HIGHLANDS Michael Pilsat Corona del Mar residents will be directly impacted by traffic SHORE CLIFFS Sandie Haskell generated from the two new office towers in Newport Center, plus the proposed expansion plans for new residential units, hotel and CAMEO HIGHLANDS Marjorie Sawyer commercial space, also in Newport Center. Traffic along the KarenTringah MacArthur and Jamboree corridors and Coast Hwy through Corona CAMEO SHORES del Mar will worsen with each and every project. Durrett. Ensign Beverly I-n"e Congestion in and around the airport area will also worsen as projects MEMBERSATLARGE like Uptown Newport become a reality. Maintaining airport passenger caps and curfews has been an ongoing challenge for AirFair, SPON and HARBOR I LEWHILLS SO Jerry King other resident groups, as well as the City. These new high-density Rabin Shelton facilities (commercial and residential) will assuredly pressure the JASMINE CREEK upper limits of hard-won safeguards. Bill Surae Bruce Beardsley Projects like Bel Mare and Back Bay Landing will put increasing BREAKERS DRIVE ASSN pressure on already busy intersections, making passage between Barbara Peters eastern and western Newport Beach a cumbersome task. THE TERRACES of CDM Roberta Kuhlmann 3334 EAST COAST HIGHWAY #179 CQ P.O. BOX 1500 fAJ CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 www.CDMRA.ORG I INFO@CDMRA.ORG 659 &ranadel oWar RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION VOLUNTEERS WORKING SINCE 1987 TO PROTECT, PRESERVE AND IMPROVE OUR COMMUNITY'S QUALITY OF LIFE. July 1, 2014 City Council City of Newport Beach Page Two We recognize that development fees from these projects are intended to improve our infrastructure and create new opportunities, like public art, for the enjoyment of all. But if residents feel constrained from moving freely within their own community, what enjoyment will these benefits actually provide? The Corona del Mar Residents Association Board of Directors specifically asks that you reject the Land Use Element Amendment, along with its policy changes, when you vote on July 8. The Corona del Mar Residents Association Board of Directors also requests that you reconvene the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC), or one like it, that provides a much more diversified cross-section of residential neighborhoods than the Land Use Element Amendment Committee (LUEAC) had. GPAC's roster fluctuated between 36-38 resident members over its 3 1/2 year tenure. LUEAC, by comparison, met over the course of nine months with nine voting members (five at -large members and four city officials), plus additional staff and consultants. Time and again (e.g.: at our April 16 Annual Town Meeting, by phone and by email), we are asked by our members and residents: "How does this Land Use change benefit the residents?" We are at a loss on how to answer that question. The current proposed changes to the Land Use Policies LU 1 and LU 1.4 certainly support our residents' concerns. Striking "conservative" as a descriptor of "growth strategy" (LU 1.4) and striking "...recognition that Newport Beach is primarily a residential community" (LU 1) have major implications to the visioning of Newport's future, and are certainly inconsistent with the work and process that GPAC undertook when tasked to vision Newport's future through 2026. 3334 EAST COAST HIGHWAY #179 CQ P.O. BOX 1500 J;Q CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 www.CDMRA.ORG I INFO@CDMRA.ORG M-8 &ranadel oWar RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION VOLUNTEERS WORKING SINCE 1967 TO PROTECT, PRESERVE AND IMPROVE OUR COMMUNITY'S QUALITY OF LIFE. July 1, 2014 City Council City of Newport Beach Page Three Development opportunities should not dictate policy. These policy changes strike right at the very heart of what the Newport Beach community is all about ... first and foremost, its residents. Projects under review now and in the future should be evaluated by how well they comply with Newport Beach land -use policies designed to protect residential life quality ... policies which were mandated by public vote, not by developers. Sincerely, 664Td 4 0&eetau Corona del Mar Residents Assocation 3334 EAST COAST HIGHWAY #179 CQ P.O. BOX 1500 J;Q CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 www.CDMRA.ORG I INFO@CDMRA.ORG 661 662 Attachment No. CC 13 Correspondence from May 22, 2014 Planning Commission Study Session 663 Correspondence Item No. O.la BURNS,MARLENE Study Session Land Use Element Amendment From: Wisneski, Brenda PA2 013 — 0 9 8 Sent. Monday, May 19, 2014 10:28 AM To: Burns, Marlene Subject: FW: SPON comments to Planning Commission on LUE policies Attachments: PCLETTER5-13.docx For distribution From: iwatt4(aaol.com [mailto:jwatt4@)aol.comj Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 10:23 AM To: Wisneski, Brenda Cc: kbrandtCalnewportbeach.ca.gov; Ramirez, Gregg; Tucker, Larry; Hillgren, Bradley; aardnerncy@aol.com; Selich, Edward; andylinale(a)gmail.com; medjkraus(a)yahoo.com; markoColuci.edu Subject: SPON comments to Planning Commission on LUE policies Attached please find comments/recommendations from SPON for the ongoing discussion of General Plan Land Use policies. Thank you for your hard work and consideration - Jean Watt 665 May 16, 2014 FROM: SPON, Stop Polluting Our Newport TO: Newport Beach Planning Commission, Bradley Hillgren, Chairman CARE OF: Brenda Wisneski, Cc: Greg Ramirez; Kim Brandt; Woodie Tescher; Nancy Gardner, Ed Selich SUBJECT: Draft Land Use Element Policies Dear Commissioners: Please consider these comments with regard to policy changes proposed by the General Plan Land Use Policy Amendment Advisory Committee, and those proposed by Commissioner Tucker at the May 8, 2014 Planning Commission Land Use Element review. We attended the May 8 meeting but were not aware of the memo from Commissioner Tucker until well into the discussion of his memo. And except for one copy given to Jim Mosher, we were not able to see the contents of the memo until after the meeting. Having accessed copies of the Tucker memo, we offer the following for your serious consideration at the May 22 and/or June 5 Planning Commission meetings. NEWPORT BEACH LAND USE ELEMENT Draft Policy Revisions The following few comments are from SPON, Stop Polluting Our Newport, and represent our ongoing concern that certain proposed changes show a trend toward increased density/intensity of commercial development without justification, and a weakening of the working relationship with residents and small property owners in the policies and planning processes. We appreciate many of the changes that Commissioner Tucker has suggested and comment on a few of those as well. Page 2: LAND USE ELEMENT — Please keep the existing language including "with a conservative growth strategy" and add Commissioner Tucker's suggestion to add "visitors": "Primarily a Residential Community That Balances the Needs of Residents, Businesses, and Visitors, with a Conservative Growth Strategy" Page 3: LAND USE ELEMENT Role and Character ("Who We Are") LU 1 - Please keep the existing language: "A unique residential community with diverse coastal and upland neighborhoods which values its colorful past, high quality of life, and community bonds, and balances ... the needs of residents, businesses, and visitors through recognition that Newport Beach is primarily a residential community." LU 1.3 Natural Resources — Please use the Commissioner Tucker version but delete "designated": "Protect the natural setting that contributes to the character and identity of Newport Beach and the sense of place it provides for its residents and visitors. Preserve designated open space resources, beaches, harbor, bays, channels, parks, preserves, and estuaries as visual, recreational and habitat resources and promote preservation of coastal bluffs." LU 1.4 Growth Management - Please keep the existing language which includes "conservative" "Implement a conservative growth strategy that enhances the quality of life of residents and balances the needs of all constituencies with the preservation of open space and natural resources. " LU 3.1 Neighborhoods, Districts, Corridors, and Open Space —please keep existing language — do not add the word "substantially" before Maintain. "Maintain Newport Beach's pattern of residential neighborhoods, business and employment districts, commercial centers, corridors, and harbor and ocean districts." LU 4.6 Orange County Sustainable Communities Strategy — please keep existing language as the word "comparative" doesn't indicate what the comparison is: "Implement practices for infill and mixed use development, affordable housing, and density to achieve objectives for reduction of vehicle trips and commute distances, air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption and improvement of public health consistent with applicable policies of the Orange County Sustainable Communities Strategy. " Page 22 WEST NEWPORT MESA — 4' paragraph — please keep existing language including "The latter represents a resources of affordable housing in the City." "The majority of properties between the industrial uses and medical center are developed with multifamily uses, including a few mobile home parks. The latter represent a resource of affordable housing in the City. These are interspersed with a school and other civic uses." LU 7.5.3 Cohesive and Integrated Medical Campus Development — please keep existing language including "Work with property owners." " Work with property owners and encourage ---- " LU 7.5.4 Livable Residential Neighborhood — please keep existing language including "Work with property owners. " 667 LU 7.7.6 Quality of Place/Streetscapes — please keep existing language including "work with property owners and businesses." "Develop a plan and work with property owners and businesses to fund --- " Page 29 NEWPORT CENTER/FASHION ISLAND Considering the fact that the revision of the Land Use Element is expected to go before the voters in November 1014, we believe it is entirely premature to be discussing and potentially voting on a change in the policies until after one of two things happens. First option: The City Council could reconvene a broad-based Advisory Committee to discuss the pros and cons of the proposed changes. Second option: Wait to enact any new policies until after the vote in November. If the Planning Commission and City Council wish to go ahead with the policies at this time, we have one comment in particular as there is no justification for allowing piecemeal increased heights in a view -shed that has long been established. LU 7.13.4 Development Scale — please keep existing language and eliminate the last sentence which allows for increased height in the lower portion of Newport Center. "Reinforce the original design concept for Newport Center by concentrating the greatest building mass and height in the northeasterly section along San Joaquin Hills Road, where the natural topography is highest and progressively scaling down building mass and height to follow the lower elevations toward the southwesterly edge along East Coast Highway." Thank you very much for consideration of these comments. For the SPON Board of Directors Jean Watt (949-673-8164) jwatt4kaol.com Dorothy Kraus (949-612-7521) medkraus@yahoo.com Andrea Lingle (949-548-7646) andylingle@gmail.com ..: Correspondence Item No. 0.1b BURNS,MARLENE Study Session Land Use Element From: Corona del Mar Residents Assn<Info@ComraorgAmendment PA2013-098 Sent. Tuesday, May 20, 2014 9:38 AM To: Hillgren, Bradley; Ameri, Fred; Myers, Jay; Kramer, Kory; Lawler, Ray; Tucker, Larry; Brown, Tim Cc: Burns, Marlene; Brandt, Kim; Wisneski, Brenda Subject: May 22 Study Session - Public Comments Attachments: PC_LUE_140515_Final.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Dear Commissioners, Attached please find a letter from the Board of Directors for the Corona del Mar Residents Association. We request that this letter be a part of the Public Comments record for this meeting. If any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us. BoanfofDirectors 949.719.9390 P/F Corona deCVar Residents Association PO Box 1 500 1 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 1 Please visit our website at: www.cdmra.ora Please add our email address to your Contacts and/or Safe List M. &ranadel oWar RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION VOLUNTEERS WORKING SINCE 1967 TO PROTECT, PRESERVE AND IMPROVE OUR COMMUNITY'S QUALITY OF LIFE. BOARD Of DIRECTORS PRESIDENT Corona del Mar residents will be directly impacted by traffic Karen Thrigah generated b the two new office towers in Newport Center, plus the g Y wp VICE PRESIDENT proposed expansion plans for new residential units, hotel and Debbie Swers May 15, 2014 SECRETARY MacArthur and Jamboree corridors and Coast Hwy through Corona Elimbeth Turelli del Mar will worsen with each and every project. TREASURER Planning Commission Maryorie sawyer City of Newport Beach CAM VILLAGE Dern sBaker-W RE: Land Use Element Amendment - Policy Changes Paul Bartlau-.NW Laura Curran -W Bonnie Duckworth -SE Dear Commissioners: Potty Gwin-NE Bryce a auie'-w As residential quality -of -life advocates, we are troubled b the Linda Ramer -SW q `J- Y Michael Toerge-SW changes we have seen over the last few years which result in EBzabeth Tore➢i-NE transitioning Newport Beach from a community with a residential IRVINE TERRACE focus to one that advocates for large-scale, high-density projects. Val Skew HARBOR VIEWHILLS These projects, many of which are approved one at a time, chisel away Barry. Allea at the quiet enjoyment of residential life here in our city. Ever Debbie Sten. increasing traffic makes getting from one end of Newport Beach to the CORONA HIGHLANDS other an arduous undertaking. Michael Pilsitz THE TERRACES of CDM Roberta Kuhlmann 3334 EAST COAST HIGHWAY #179 CQ P.O. BOX 1500 J;Q CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 www.CDMRA.ORG I INFO@CDMRA.ORG 670 Corona del Mar residents will be directly impacted by traffic SHORE CUFFS Sandie Haskell generated b the two new office towers in Newport Center, plus the g Y wp proposed expansion plans for new residential units, hotel and CAMEO HIGHLANDS commercial space, also in Newport Center. Traffic along the Marprie Saxyer Karen Tringah MacArthur and Jamboree corridors and Coast Hwy through Corona del Mar will worsen with each and every project. CAMEO SHORES Daretta Ensign Beverly White Congestion in and around the airport area will also worsen as projects like Uptown Newport become a reality. Maintaining airport passenger MEMBERSATLARGE caps and curfews has been an ongoing challenge for AirFair, SPON and HARBOR VIE W HILLS SO other resident groups, as well as the City. These new high-density Jerry King facilities (commercial and residential) will assuredly pressure the Rehm Sheltua upper limits of hard-won safeguards. JASMINE CREEK BillSieaur, Projects like Bel Mare and Back Bay Landing will put increasing Bruce Reardsley pressure on already busy intersections, making passage between BREAKERS DRIVE ASSN eastern and western Newport Beach a cumbersome task. Barbara Peters THE TERRACES of CDM Roberta Kuhlmann 3334 EAST COAST HIGHWAY #179 CQ P.O. BOX 1500 J;Q CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 www.CDMRA.ORG I INFO@CDMRA.ORG 670 &ranadel oWar RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION VOLUNTEERS WORKING SINCE 1967 TO PROTECT, PRESERVE AND IMPROVE OUR COMMUNITY'S QUALITY OF LIFE. May 15, 2014 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach Page Two We recognize that development fees from these projects are intended to improve our infrastructure and create new opportunities, like public art, for the enjoyment of all. But if residents feel constrained from moving freely within their own community, what enjoyment will these benefits actually provide? The Corona del Mar Residents Association Board of Directors specifically asks that you reject the proposed changes to the following policies: Proposed LU 1 GOAL A unique, primarily residential community with diverse coastal and upland neighborhoods, which values its colorful past, high quality of life, and community bonds, and balances the needs of residents, businesses, and visitors. 'the nit an 16M hlewpaA Bea Gh IIS pFimwily n residential n n14.. Proposed LU 1.4 Growth Management Implement a nnRseFvatat ve growth strategy that enhances the quality of life of residents and balances the needs of all constituencies with the preservation of designated open space and natural resources. and keep the existing policy language: Keep Existing LU 1 GOAL A unique residential community with diverse coastal and upland neighborhoods, which values its colorful past, high quality of life, and community bonds, and balances the needs of residents, businesses, and visitors through the recognition that Newport Beach is primarily a residential community. Keep Existing LU 1.4 Growth Management Implement a conservative growth strategy that enhances the quality of life of residents and balances the needs of all constituencies with the preservation of open space and natural resources. 3334 EAST COAST HIGHWAY #179 CQ P.O. BOX 1500 fAJ CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 www.CDMRA.ORG I INFO@CDMRA.ORG 671 &ranadel oWar RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION VOLUNTEERS WORKING SINCE 1967 TO PROTECT, PRESERVE AND IMPROVE OUR COMMUNITY'S QUALITY OF LIFE. May 15, 2014 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach Page Three Time and again (e.g.: at our April 16 Annual Town Meeting, by phone and by email), we are asked by our members and residents: "What's in this for us?" We are at a loss on how to answer that question. Development opportunities should not dictate policy. These policy changes strike right at the very heart of what the Newport Beach community is all about ... first and foremost, its residents. Projects under review now and in the future should be evaluated by how well they comply with Newport Beach land -use policies designed to protect residential life quality ... policies which were mandated by public vote, not by developers. Sincerely, 604'a 4 0&eetaw Corona del Mar Residents Assocation 3334 EAST COAST HIGHWAY #179 CQ P.O. BOX 1500 fAJ CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 www.CDMRA.ORG I INFO@CDMRA.ORG 672 Correspondence Item No. O.lc Study Session Land Use Element Amendment PA2013-098 May 22, 2014, Planning Commission Study Session Item 1 Comments on Newport Beach Planning Commission regular meeting agenda item by: Jim Mosher ( iimmosher(oo)yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229). Item No. 1. LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT (PA2013-098) General Comments I am strongly opposed to this "project," which I view as the flawed result of a deceitful process in which something like one million dollars of public money is being spent to short-circuit the public's will as expressed through the Greenlight Initiative of 2000 (now Section 423 of the City Charter) - by means of which the residents of this primarily residential City thought they had acquired the right to vote separately on each General Plan proposal that would significantly increase development in one of our neighborhoods. The City Council effectively short-circuited Greenlight once before with the 2006 General Plan Update which, at least in my view, improperly lumped amendments affecting different statistical areas into a single vote. However, that process was at least preceded by a multiyear visioning process (started essentially simultaneous with Greenlight) that reached out to residents for their input and at least partially reflected their wishes for the future of the City, and resulted in a plan that promised [per the ballot measure] "to provide for a reduction of an estimated 28,920 average daily vehicle trips, including 1,121 morning and 958 evening peak hour vehicle trips, by reducing non-residential development square footage by 449,499 square feet while concurrently increasing the number of residential dwelling units by 1,166 units." The present effort, by contrast, was initiated as a series of land use allocation table changes proposed by City staff, presented to the City Council in a 4 -minute PowerPoint on May 28, 2013, and approved for consideration after less than 1 minute of public discussion by the Council if one does not count my 2 -minute public comment, and the Council's 2 -minute response to it, questioning: (1) why taxpayers should be paying $500,000 to create new entitlements for the almost exclusive benefit of The Irvine Company? and (2) why a single person - the Mayor - should be allowed to appoint the entire body reviewing the merit of those new entitlements? A review of the approved Land Use Element Amendment Advisory Committee minutes confirms my recollection that there was no public discussion or debate of the threshold question of whether the current General Plan providing the italicized benefits listed above was in need of amendment, and if so, what sort of changes they would want to see, and whether other elements of the General Plan might also need to be modified? There certainly has been no public discussion of creating a new vision for the City. Instead, the LUEAAC was presented with a haphazard list of spot -zoning type new development requests to approve or reject based on staff analysis, of exactly the sort that would normally be (and are) advanced by the interested developers "on their own" and at their own expense (including even instances, such as the Lido House Hotel proposal, where the City is the property owner yet the developer is expected to pay all costs associated with pitching their idea). Setting aside the question of whether Greenlight allows a single vote on amendments affecting different statistical areas, in my view this packaging of a particular, and rather arbitrary, set of 673 May 22, 2014, PC Study Session Item 1 comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 4 private requests as a public project is simply wrong and should be rejected out of hand by the Planning Commission. Not only are developers not paying their costs, but the General Plan is being adjusted to make way for — and we are being asked to in effect approve — major new projects without those proposals receiving the scrutiny they would receive as standalone projects. For example, I have heard no specifics of the proposed new Irvine Company development at Newport Center/Fashion Island, nor how it would benefit existing residents. Instead, it seems to be a given that it needs to be included in any possible Land Use Element revisions. Yet, the Fiscal Impact Analysis provided as Attachment PC5 to the May 8, 2014, Planning Commission staff report suggests it would be a financial burden on the City (generating more public costs than revenue), whereas the projects it is replacing at Newport Coast would have been a net benefit. In addition to the lack, as noted above, of any effort to begin with a vision of what the overall General Plan amendment process was trying to accomplish, and why, and the lack of significant community input into the LUEAAC activities, I might note that as best I can tell there are no minutes — official or otherwise — of the final LUEAAC meeting on April 1, 2014, making it very difficult for anyone to know or verify what, if anything, was finally decided there. Finally, although I believe a holistic approach to the consideration of the need for General Plan amendments is best, I resent the implication that voter approval of increased development allocations is somehow necessitated by new state mandated programs. To the best of my knowledge, the City Council is quite free, after hearing public comment and the recommendations of the Planning Commission, to amend the General Plan goals and policies to reflect new best practices in land use development without changing the allocation tables. Regarding the specific items announced for discussion at the May 22 Study Session: Land Use Element Policy revisions from May 8th study session 1. At its May 8, 2014, Study Session the Planning Commission spent nearly two hours reviewing and incorporating changes from a document prepared by Vice Chair Tucker of whose existence the public attempting to follow his oral comments was only vaguely aware, and of which adequate copies were not available for the public to follow along. The Commissioners and staff should perhaps be reminded that California Government Code Section 54957.5 requires that such writings (prepared by staff or a Commissioner) be made available to the public at the meeting. 2. 1 also thought the purpose of a Study Session was limited to familiarization with a topic and queuing up a menu of items related to it for discussion and decision at a regular meeting. I had the impression that at the May 8 Study Session, Vice Chair Tucker was improperly seeking the concurrence of the Commission on changes that would not need to be debated at the official hearing. I hope the Commissioners will review their Rules of Procedures which state (Section VI.C) that "No official action will be taken at a study 674 May 22, 2014, PC Study Session Item 1 comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 4 session," and also review the definition of "action taken" in Government Code Section 54952.6 (which includes "a collective commitment or promise by a majority of the members of a legislative body to make a positive or a negative decision") as well as the Section 54954.3 requirement that the public be allowed to provide its comment before the actions are taken, not after. Deciding that the Commission is in agreement on an item, and does not need to discuss it further, seems to me more than familiarization with a topic. It is an action taken. 3. 1 strongly object to the changes to General Plan Goal LU 1 and Policy LU 1.4 that deemphasize the residential character of Newport Beach and eliminate reference to our conservative growth strategy. I fail to see how such changes — and many of the others proposed — are of benefit to the majority of residents. 4. As I attempted to emphasize at the LUEAAC meetings, and in my comments above, if the General Plan is in need of revision (which it may not be), I believe a more global approach is necessary. Changes to random policy details without an overall purpose seems senseless to me. 5. One symptom of that lack of a holistic approach is that I'm not sure the impact to the Land Use Element of changes made since 2006 to the Housing Element, and those about to be made to the Safety Element, have been adequately assessed. Indeed, my impression is that the Housing Element indicates less need than it did in 2006, yet the current amendment seems to assume there is a need for increase housing allocations. Likewise recommended changes to the Safety Element (or other elements) since 2006 might necessitate changes in Land Use expectations, yet that does not appear to have been part of the discussion. Draft Glossary 1. This is yet another example of the City's haphazard approach to General Plan revision: the Glossary is a complete mess, yet it was passed over very lightly at the LUEAAC meetings, and will apparently be passed over equally lightly by the Planning Commission and City Council. It "defines" numerous terms that do not appear in the General Plan, yet fails to define many terms that do. 2. In terms of changes to existing text, staff has focused on my observation that it misstates the number of people on our City Council, but to the best of my knowledge no one has systematically checked that other definitions are not equally wrong, confusing, misleading or do not read as intended. I was told it was too much of a mess to touch. 3. Even the new definitions that are proposed, do not seem to be particularly good. For example, the proposed definition of "Embodied Energy" (handwritten page 55) is nearly inscrutable and completely different from what Mr. Tescher told the Commission on May 8 that "retain the structure's embodied energy' meant in proposed policy LU 4.2, and the proposed definition of "Green House Gas Emissions," in combination with the proposed revised policies related to them, suggests that control of water vapor emissions should be a City goal. I'm not sure the latter is correct. 675 May 22, 2014, PC Study Session Item 1 comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 4 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report: Process, Topics, Impact Evaluations, Findings In my view, even if there were not substantial questions about the adequacy of the DSEIR (see comments from public and agencies), it would need to be recirculated for the following reasons: The "Notice of Completion & Availability' of the SEIR was issued in violation of the mandatory requirement in Section 15087(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines that the notice disclose "The date, time, and place of any scheduled public meetings or hearings to be held by the lead agency on the proposed project when known to the lead agency at the time of notice." The fact that the Planning Commission would be reviewing the SEIR at its May meetings was announced to the City Council at the very start of the process, on May 28, 2013 (nearly a year before the notice was prepared), and the meeting dates were reaffirmed to the Planning Commission on March 6, 2014, yet none of this "insider information" was revealed to the public in the notice as required by law. 2. The public was also not given a full 45 days to submit comments. Even if one counts March 17, 2014 — April 30, 2014 as 45 days, and even though it is laudable staff gave the public a clearly-defined deadline, the rather arbitrary choice of a 5:00 p.m. cut-off on April 30 provided less than a full business day to comment since the Planning Division where comments were to be submitted was open for business until 5:30 p.m. In addition, as a random comment on the content of the SEIR, I notice that Chapter 5.4, in keeping with the proposed definition of "Green House Gas Emissions" in our updated General Plan Glossary, identifies water vapor as a gas of concern, but does not report what impact the project is expected to have on it. Preferred Land Use Alternative In my view, the preferred land use alternative for most residents would be to leave the allocations as they are, and I encourage the Planning Commission to make that recommendation. Bottom line: Mike Henn, during his tenure as Mayor, referred to Newport Beach as "the shining city by the bay" and "a gold standard city." What the Planning Commission has before it is an arbitrary mishmash of developer requests plus a random set of policy changes, some of which have been cobbled together to support the development requests . It is not worthy of a "gold standard" city. The Commission should reject it in its entirety and recommend a more thoughtful examination of whether the 2006 General Plan is in need of revision, and if so how such revisions could benefit the residents. 676 Correspondence Item No. 0.1d Study Session Land Use Element Amendment PA2013-098 Larry Tucker Questions and Comments Land Use Element Update Draft Supplemental EIR May 22, 2014 1. San Miguel east of Avocado shows a traffic count of 24,000 cars per day. (Page 5.11-2) 2. The intersections of San Miguel at Avocado and San Miguel at MacArthur show levels of service of A or B yet those intersections along San Miguel seem more congested than LOS A or B would indicate. Please explain how LOS is calculated and why it is possible that an LOS of A or B could result at these two intersections. 3. Do you expect that a significant number of the occupants and visitors of the 520 Newport Center Drive building that is under construction will access that building via San Miguel off of MacArthur? 4. The location of the proposed addition of 500,000 s.f. of office, 500 housing units and 50,000 s.f. of retail to Newport Center has not yet been determined. Will the impacts on intersections around Newport Center due to the specific locations of the added development be analyzed at some point? 5. Table 5.11-7 shows the LOS at 94 intersections if the entitlements allowed by the 2006 general plan were built out. The 2006 general plan final EIR showed that of those intersections, 14 would be deficient. However, the 2006 FEIR indicates that if the improvements described in the 2006 general plan were implemented, only 3 intersections would remain deficient: In Newport Beach, Superior at Coast Highway at morning peak and Newport Blvd (west) at Coast Highway also at morning peak and in Irvine, Jamboree Road at Michelson at morning peak. 6. Table 5.11.8 shows the LOS at 92 intersections if the entitlements allowed by the 2006 general plan, as modified by the 2014 Land Use Element update, were built out. [Note: why are intersections 1A and 113 from Table 5.11-7 not shown in table 5.11-8?]. The Supplemental draft EIR shows that with the 2006 general plan recommended improvements, the same three intersections would continue to perform at unacceptable levels of service after buildout of the 2014 Land Use Element Update. 7. While three intersections will continue to perform at unacceptable levels of service, in order for a "significant impact" to occur due to the proposed land use changes being considered, the volume to capacity ratio would have to increase by .01 or more in Newport Beach and by .02 or more in Irvine or by .03 or more at intersections described in the City's Congestion Management Program intersections. None of these thresholds is exceeded at a studied intersection and therefore there is not a significant impact caused by the updated land use element with the recommended intersection improvements, correct? 8. While no studied intersections will be impacted after mitigating improvements are installed, freeway mainline and ramps that experienced unacceptable LOS assuming the 2006 general plan buildout will continue to experience unacceptable LOS with the Land Use Element update. These freeway related elements are outside of the City and outside of the jurisdiction of the City. 9. The status of the improvements recommended in the 2006 general plan is in the Traffic Impact Report (TIR) in the appendix to the DSEIR at pages 57-59. Why have so few been implemented to date? 10. The Newport Beach Traffic Model was updated before the TIR was prepared so that the most current, updated information was used in the TIR. Can staff explain what in the model was update and why? 11. The updated model included the future increases in airport use based upon the terms of the existing settlement agreement. But any further increases to the maximum passenger load for the airport contemplated in the pending extension of the settlement agreement apparently has not been included in the traffic model nor the TIR. Is that because that would involve conjecture as to what to include in 677 the model and TIR? If that is the case, it still seems that the information that the County is analyzing for the settlement agreement extension as described in the County's notice of preparation could have been included in the analysis. Can staff elaborate on this? 12. Some commenters pointed out that Appendix C is supposed to provide a list of general plan amendments and project approvals that have been processed since the 2006 but claim Appendix C does not have that list. Can staff elaborate on the significance of that omission? 13. The four projects in the airport area do not cause any impacts that cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance. It should be noted that even though the intersection at Von Karman at Alton in Irvine has a significant impact, apparently the funding for the improvements necessary to mitigate the impact to a level of insignificance is already held by the of City of Irvine. Can we verify that? 14. A letter from Starpointe Ventures contends that the manner in which the City analyzed the so-called environmentally superior alternative would preclude the City from choosing the alternative that excludes all of the airport area proposed projects. Since including the airport area projects would not result in a significant impact from traffic, is there any environmental related reason to exclude the proposed airport projects from the land use element update? 15. The Starpointe letter also calls into question an alternative that lumps all of the airport projects together rather than alternatives that analyzes each proposed airport project separately. How is the decision made as to what alternatives to evaluate and does the City have discretion to decide what alternatives will be analyzed? 16. What effect would including the airport area projects have on the airport settlement DER which is being prepared at the present time? 17. Why wasn't any information on road segment capacities included in the TIR? Is it because the City's protocol only looks at performance of intersections? 18. It should be noted that the DSEIR assumed that the 19`" Street Bridge would not be built and that analysis concluded that the lack of the 19`h Street Bridge would nonetheless create no significant impact, which was the same conclusion reached in the 2006 FEIR. 19. Lastly, if the City Council were to decide to certify the DSEIR, explain the impacts that would have to be included in a Statement of Overriding Considerations? [Mi Correspondence Item No. O.le Study Session Land Use Element ffm G❑VERNMEP.tT SOLUTIOt•4S May 21, 2014 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 RE: Land Use Element Amendment (PA2013-098) & EIR SCH #2013303064 UAP Companies Parcel -4699 Jamboree Road & 5190 Campus Drive Trip Neutral - Congregate Care Facility Dear Chairman Hillgren & Members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission: I am providing this letter on behalf of the owners & developers of the parcel identified in the Land Use Element Amendment & EIR as the UAP Companies. These entities are known as UAP Companies (the landowner) and Belmont Village —the senior living developer proposed for the site. The UAP parcel is located on Jamboree Road and is identified in the Environmental Impact Report on Figure 3-4 as 4D- UAP Companies 4699 Jamboree Road, 5190 Campus Drive Revise Anomaly #6 to allow 2.0 FAR if trip neutral congregate care We also note that our parcel 4 D -UAP Companies is shown as part of the Airport Area — 4 which is listed as a trip generating area -which our site is not. Our concern with the EIR is that our site, being part of the Airport Area is not given its own designation and thereby included in the EIR Alternative 7.3. Alternative 7.3 is considered a superior alternative by reducing trips as it completely eliminates all uses proposed for the Airport Area 4. Our request of the Planning Commission is that if during your deliberations on the EIR you wish to recommend to the City Council that EIR Alternative 7.3 become the "preferred alternative" that the recommendation include a modification that any proposed land use change in the Airport Area (Map Area 4) that is "traffic neutral' remain as part of the land use plan and included in the Land Use Element Amendment. Thanks for considering our request Sincerely, Coralee Newman Principal, Government Solutions, Inc. 881 Dover Drive, Suite 390 • Newport Beach, CA 92663 Mailing Address: 1048 Irvine Avenue, #618 • Newport Beach, CA 92660 949-717-7943 main • 949-717 7942 Fax • www.govsol.com 679 1. The Hangars 19, Back Bay Landing 2. Saunders 20. 813 East Balboa 3. MacArthur at Dolphin -Striker Way 21. Bayside Center 4. Newport Business Plaza Project 22. Hyatt Regency Expansion e 5. Uptown Newport 23. Beauchamp Project 6. Lyon Communities 24. Newport Beach Country Club Planned Community .� 7. Seashore Village 25. Santa Barbara Condominiums (Lennar Homes) Fa 8. Newport Banning Ranch 26. AERIE Condominium Project 9. Coastline Community College 27. 100 Newport Center Drive 10. King's Liquor 28. Newport Center/Fashion Island -no specific locations C 11. Gateway Park 29. 150 Newport Center Drive z r - 12. Lido House Hotel 30. City Center a 13. Newport Bay Marina Etco Development 31. North Newport Center San Joaquin Plaza 14. Old Newport General Plan Amendment Project 32. Harbor View Center 15. Lido Villas 33. The Bluffs 16. Old Post Offite 34. Harbor Day School 17. Mariner's Pointe 35. Newport Coast Hotel t� 18. Westcliff Plaza 36. Newport Coast Center a 37. Newport Ridge esrvo,r r r ` l6 Fwd ~ co e 1t i c r Newpo li *Ch " r • (Do� C u1(7d i Sie/!d m Buck ly Resero (D Wba W( Ove � i, (D n 3�t�Ct .orona Det Mar oc ,* a+n I he Wedge -- -B� Still Protecting (kir Wlvrwrt r Red Triangles - Increase Average Daily Trips (ART) Green Rectangles - Decrease real ADT Blue Ovals - Decrease allotted ADT (Phantom trips) Heights proportional to ADTs. Lr, ... 4 N CahKF� e w P .� o r Fa N C (D il C C rt 0 w z r - I m o o a o (D n S CO M mrt W o - t t� (D a n esrvo,r r ~ co e u,n Hills Rd m (D • (Do� m Buck ly Resero (D (D n r (D n rt 680 70000 50000 0=6f 20000 10000 0 Average Daily Trips Stili Protecting Our NevVpiftf - hepNing lletJai .fieoatiaa icrease ADT ecrease real ADT lecrease allotted ADT phantom) I. M. Attachment No. CC 14 Correspondence from June 5, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting [�] ENTITLEMENT ADVISORS LLC June 2, 2014 Mr. Brad Hillgren, Chairman Newport Beach Planning Commission Correspondence Item No. 3a General Plan Land Use Element Amendment PA2013-098 Re: LUEA Language regarding Park Dimensions in the Airport Area Dear Mr. Hillgren: On behalf of The Koll Company, owners of property known as Koll Center Newport in the Airport Area, we wish to request your consideration of language clarification of the park dimension language in the LUEA currently being considered by the Commission at the public hearing on June 5, 2014. The Koll Company received approval from the Planning Commission and City Council of an Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (ICDP) which generally located a neighborhood park in proximity to the proposed residential towers to be added into the mixed uses of Koll Center. As we have continued to refine our designs and to respond to the requests of various building owners, the integration of the park into the design has depended upon the language currently in the General Plan Land Use Element and on the approved ICDP. Existing Policy LU6.15.13 stated in part, "In every case, the neighborhood park shall be at least 8% of the total Residential Village Area or one acre in area, whichever is greater and shall have a minimum dimension of luso feet " The approved ICDP illustrated a 1 acre park with a dimension of 15o feet but not 15o feet on all frontages. The new proposed policy 7.14.14 states in part "...shall have a minimum dimension of iso feet along any edge of thepark site. Per the attached exhibit (which we have been working with Staff on and which will be processed along with our PC Amendment and EIR shortly) the proposed park becomes an amenity to both the new residential towers and also to the existing building owners and employees, but does not have a minimum dimension of 150 feet along each edge of the park site. 949.717 7n39 office 1 944.422.2303 cell 1 5000 Birch. Suite 400, Newport Reach, CA 92660 1 www en' IIIementadviscr%,6& We respectfully request that you direct the staff to work with us to create language that is both clear and consistent with the previous approval of the ICDP, possibly along the following: "...shall have a minimum dimension of Igo feet along any edge of the park site, except as mau be approved bu the Plannina Commission as part_ of a We are prepared to discuss this item during the public hearing and hope that the Commission will honor our request. Sincerely, 04v4zL�� Carol McDermott Agent cc: Scott Meserve, The Koll Company Brenda Wisneski Gregg Ramirez .:. � — — — — — — — wry v� 9L F i I — rx KOLL C E N T E P NEWPORT FIRE LANE 1 K KM K 249' 11" 1 Ol Acre- � New Par Dimensions 2013392.00 May 30, 2014 687 Additional Materials Item No. 3b Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element Amendment Statement of Overriding Considerations General Plan Land Use Element Amendment PA2 013-098 Exhibit _ Statement of Overriding Considerations Introduction The City is the Lead Agency under CEQA responsible for preparation, review, and certification of the Final EIR for the General Plan Land Use Element Amendment. As the Lead Agency, the City is also responsible for determining the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action and which of those impacts are significant, and can be mitigated through imposition of mitigation measures to avoid or minimize those impacts to a level of less than significant. CEQA then requires the Lead Agency to balance the benefits of a proposed action against its significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts in determining whether or not to approve the proposed project (Project). In making this determination, the City is guided by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 which provides as follows: CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region -wide or statewide environmental 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, including region - wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable." 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 reasons to support its action 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. 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. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091. In addition, Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) requires that where a public agency finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in an EIR and thereby leave significant unavoidable effects, the public agency must also find that overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects of the project. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) and the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City has balanced the benefits of the Project against the following unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the Project and has adopted all feasible mitigation measures with respect to these impacts. The City also has examined alternatives to the Project, none of which both meet the Project objectives and is environmentally preferable to the proposed Project for the reasons discussed in the Findings and Facts in Support of Findings. M.- Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element Amendment Statement of Overriding Considerations The City of Newport Beach City Council, the Lead Agency for this project, having reviewed the Final EIR for the General Plan Land Use Element Amendment, and reviewed all written materials within the City's public record and heard all oral testimony presented at public hearings, adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations, which has balanced the benefits of the proposed project against its significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts in reaching its decision to approve the Project. Sienificant Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts Although most potential Project impacts have been substantially avoided or mitigated, as described in the Findings and Facts in Support of Findings, there remain some Project impacts for which complete mitigation is not feasible. For some impacts, mitigation measures were identified and adopted by the Lead Agency, however, even with implementation of the measures, the City finds that the impact cannot be reduced to a level of less than significant. The impacts and alternatives are described below and were also addressed in the Findings. The SEIR identified the following unavoidable adverse impacts of the proposed Project: Greenhouse Gas Emissions EIR Impact 5.4-1: The proposed project would achieve SCAQMD's efficiency metric and would not conflict with plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Compared to the 2006 General Plan, the proposed project would result in a substantial increase in the total magnitude of GHG emissions but would decrease GHG emissions on a per capita basis (i.e., increase plan efficiency). The policies and implementation actions in the City's General Plan would ensure that GHG emissions from buildout of the proposed General Plan LUE Amendment would be minimized to the extent practicable. However, additional statewide measures would be necessary to reduce GHG emissions under the proposed project to meet the long-term GHG reduction goals under Executive Order S-03-05, which identified a goal to reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent of 1990 levels by 2050. At this time, there is no plan past 2020 that achieves the long-term GHG reduction goal established under S-03-05. As identified by the California Council on Science and Technology, the state cannot meet the 2050 goal without major advancements in technology. Since no additional statewide measures are currently available, Impact 5.4-1 would remain significant and unavoidable. Noise and Vibration EIR Impact 5.8-6: Similar to the 2006 General Plan, development in accordance with the proposed project would increase groundborne vibration related to construction activities. Grading and demolition activities typically generate the highest vibration levels during construction activities. In particular, pile driving and rock blasting can generate high levels in excess of 100 peak particle velocity at 25 feet away. Typical construction projects do not require these methods, or if necessary, can usually be mitigated with alternative methods such as nonexplosive rock breaking (instead of rock blasting) and drilled piles (instead of impact pile driving), which do not exceed the thresholds for architectural damage and do not reach levels that are considered annoying at distances greater than 200 feet. However, as discussed in the 2006 General Plan EIR, since construction equipment for subsequent projects is unknown, there would be no feasible mitigation available to eliminate potential vibration impacts to nearby receptors if pile driving/rock blasting equipment or other activities that generate high levels are necessary for future developments. Furthermore, intensification of land uses at some of the proposed project's subareas could result in greater vibration impacts than the 2006 General Plan. Therefore, impacts would be significant and unavoidable. 1 Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element Amendment Statement of Overriding Considerations Population and Housing EIR Impact 5.9-1: Buildout of the General Plan LUE Amendment would directly result in an estimated population increase of up to 3,838 persons in comparison to buildout of the 2006 General Plan (approximately 3.7 percent increase). This increase would exceed the 2035 SCAG population projections for the City by almost 18 percent, but slightly improve the jobs -housing balance. Traffic and Transportation EIR Impact 5.11-3: The County of Orange is currently preparing an EIR to analyze potential impacts associated with the proposed amendment of the John Wayne Airport Settlement Agreement. The proposed amendment for the Airport Settlement Agreement would expand the number of annual passengers and average daily departures from January 1, 2021, to December 31, 2035 which would result in a greater number of automobiles and buses providing access to JWA. The increased number of vehicles may result in traffic congestion and deterioration of level of service on the roadways and intersections surrounding JWA. The Settlement Agreement Draft EIR was not available at the time of preparation of the LUE Amendment Draft SEIR (it was released for public review on May 23, 2014 for public review). The Draft SEIR, therefore does not include a detailed analysis of the probable traffic impacts of the proposed project. Because it could not be determined at if significant impacts would occur and if mitigation measures would be feasible, impacts were concluded to be potentially significant and unavoidable. EIR Impact 5.11-5: Project -related trip generation would contribute trips to six existing and forecast deficient main line segments of the I-405, SR -73, and SR -55 freeways and contribute to deficient ramp operations at two 1-405 off -ramps. Caltrans does not have an adopted fee program that can ensure that locally contributed impact fees will be tied to improvements, and such improvements would be out of the control of the City of Newport Beach. These freeway main line and ramp impacts would be a cumulatively considerable, significant project impact. Alternatives In addition, the EIR evaluated the No Project alternative and one modified General Plan Amendment alternative (No Airport Area Alternative) and analyzed whether these alternatives could avoid or substantially lessen the unavoidable, significant environmental impacts of the proposed Project. While the No Project Alternative would lessen and avoid some of the unavoidable impacts of the proposed Project, it would not achieve a number of the project objectives. The No Airport Area Alternative would reduce environmental impacts and would eliminate the significant impact at one 405 freeway ramp but would not eliminate any of the remaining significant, unavoidable impacts of the proposed Project. As stated in Section 6 of the Facts and Findings, the No Airport Alternative was determined to be feasible and preferable to the LUE Amendment as proposed. The No Airport Alternative was determined to be preferable to the proposed project for the following reasons: • This alternative would clearly be consistent with most of the 2006 General Plan's objectives. • It would reduce environmental impacts to every topical area including each of the significant, unavoidable impacts of the proposed project. • It would eliminate the significant impact at one 405 off ramp (at MacArthur Boulevard) .•i Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element Amendment Statement of Overriding Considerations • It would substantially reduce or eliminate impacts that are directly related to the proposed land use changes within the Airport Area, including: o Cumulative impacts associated with the Airport Settlement Agreement (including the uncertainty related to changes in hazards and noise zones) o Land use compatibility with industrial uses in Airport Area (including health risk) o Cumulative traffic impacts (although detailed, cumulative analysis of Airport Settlement Agreement traffic and LUE Amendment traffic has not been conducted, it is anticipated that cumulative impacts could be expected proximate to airport and airport area land use changes) o ALUC determination of project inconsistency with AELUP (ALUC concluded in their Draft SEIR comment letter that they preferred No Airport Area project alternative) Overriding Considerations The City, after balancing the specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits including region -wide or statewide environmental benefits, of the proposed Project, has determined that the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts identified above may be considered acceptable due to the following specific considerations which outweigh the unavoidable, adverse environmental impacts of the proposed Project, in accordance with CEQA Section 21081(b) and State CEQA Guideline Section 15093. Reduction in vehicle miles travelled and associated greenhouse gas emissions by designating compact, concentrated mixed-use development in Newport CentedFashion Island and the Airport Area. Increase in use of non -motorized transportation such as walking and biking by locating land uses such as housing, essential neighborhood -serving retail, and employment together to reduce distances between destinations. 3. Consistency with the following strategies outlined in the Orange County Council of Government's 2011 Sustainability Communities Strategy: - Support mixed-use development and thereby improve walkability of communities - Improve jobs -to -housing ratio - Promote land use patterns that encourage the use of alternatives to single -occupant automobile use 4. Proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendment goals and associated policies that address citywide and neighborhood -specific sustainability and healthy communities' strategies. 5. Reflect changes in the economy and the market to benefit the overall financial health of the City 691 Additional Materials Item No. 3c General Plan Land Use Element Amendment PA2013-098 CEQA FINDINGS OF FACTS REGARDING THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT Citv of Newport Beach STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2013101064 Exhibit A INTRODUCTION The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that a number of written findings be made by the lead agency in connection with certification of an environmental impact report (EIR) prior to approval of the project pursuant to Sections 15091 and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines and Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code. The State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 provides: (a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an FIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FIR. 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can or should be adopted by such other agency. 3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final FIR. (b) The findings required by subdivision (a) shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (c) The finding in subdivision (a)(2) shall not be made if the agency making the finding has concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with identified feasible mitigation measures or alternatives. The finding in subsection (a)(3) shall describe the specific reasons for rejecting identified mitigation measures and project alternatives. (d) When making the findings required in subdivision (a)(1), the agency shall also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects. These measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. General Plan Land Use Element Amendment CEQA Findings of Fact 1 692 (e) The public agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other materials which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which its decision is based. (f) A statement made pursuant to Section 15093 does not substitute for the findings required by this section. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 further provides: (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 proposal project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable." (b) Where 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 reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. Tbis 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. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091. Having received, reviewed, and considered the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Draft SEIR) and the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Final SEIR) for the General Plan Land Use Element Amendment project, SCH No. 2013101064 (collectively, the SEIR), as well as all other information in the record of proceedings on this matter, the following Findings and Facts in Support of Findings (Findings) and Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) are hereby adopted by the City of Newport Beach (City) in its capacity as the CEQA Lead Agency. These Findings set forth the environmental basis for the discretionary actions to be undertaken by the City for the development of the project. This action includes the approval of the following for the General Plan Land Use Element Amendment: ■ Supplemental Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2013101064 A. Document Format These Findings have been organized into the following sections: 1) Section 1 provides an introduction to these Findings. 2) Section 2 provides a summary of the project, overview of the discretionan, actions required for approval of the project, and a statement of the project's objectives. General Plan Land Use Element Amendment CEQA Findings of Fact - 2 - 693 3) Section 3 provides a summary of previous environmental reviews related to the project area that took place prior to the environmental review done specifically for the project, and a summary of public participation in the environmental review for the project. 4) Section 4 sets forth findings regarding the environmental impacts that were determined to be—as a result of the Initial Study, Notice of Preparation (NOP), and consideration of comments received during the NOP comment period—either not relevant to the project or clearly not at levels that were deemed significant for consideration at the project -specific level. 5) Section 5 sets forth findings regarding significant or potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the Draft SEIR that the City has determined are either not significant or can feasibly be mitigated to a less than significant level through the imposition of Project Design Features, standard conditions, and/or mitigation measures. In order to ensure compliance and implementation, all of these measures will be included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the project and adopted as conditions of the project by the Lead Agency. Where potentially significant impacts can be reduced to less than significant levels through adherence to Project Design Features and standard conditions, these findings specify how those impacts were reduced to an acceptable level. Section 5 also includes findings regarding those significant or potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the Draft SEIR that will or may result from the project and which the City has determined cannot feasibly be mitigated to a less than significant level. 6) Section 6 sets forth findings regarding alternatives to the proposed project. B. Record of Proceedings For purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the Record of Proceedings for the proposed project consists of the following documents and other evidence, at a minimum: ■ The NOP and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the proposed project ■ The Draft SEIR for the proposed project ■ The Final SEIR for the proposed project ■ All written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public review comment period on the Draft SEIR ■ All responses to written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public review comment period on the Draft SEIR ■ All written and verbal public testimony presented during a noticed public bearing for the proposed project ■ The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ■ The reports and technical memoranda included or referenced in the Response to Comments ■ All documents, studies, EIRs, or other materials incorporated by reference in the Draft SEIR and Final SEIR General Plan Land Use Element Amendment CEQA Findings of Fact - 3 - ,.. ■ The Resolutions adopted by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the proposed project, and all documents incorporated by reference therein, including comments received after the close of the comment period and responses thereto ■ Matters of common knowledge to the City of Newport Beach, including but not limited to federal, state, and local laws and regulations ■ Any documents expressly cited in these Findings ■ Any other relevant materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code Section 21167.6(e) The documents and other material that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings are based are located at the City of Newport Beach Community Development Department. The custodian for these documents is the City of Newport Beach. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(2) and 14 California Code Regulations Section 15091(e). C. Custodian and Location Of Records The documents and other materials that constitute the administrative record for the City's actions related to the project are at the City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California 92660. The City's Community Development Department is the custodian of the administrative record for the project. Copies of these documents, which constitute the record of proceedings, are and at all relevant times have been and will be available upon request at the offices of the Community Development Department. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(2) and Guidelines Section 15091(e). II. PROJECT SUMMARY A. Project Location Located on the southwestern boundary of Orange County, the City of Newport Beach is approximately 40 miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles and 10 miles southwest of Irvine. The surrounding cities include Costa Mesa to the north, Huntington Beach to the northwest, Irvine to the northeast, and unincorporated areas of Orange County to the southeast. The Pacific Ocean abuts the City's entire southwestern boundary. Regional access to the City is provided by Interstate 405 (I-405) and State Route 55 (SR 55), which both run north to south through Orange County. SR -55 ends in the City of Costa Mesa, just north of Newport Beach. In addition, State Route 73 (SR -73) runs along the northwestern boundary of the City and connects with Interstate 5 (I-5) just south of Newport Beach in Laguna Beach. Highway 1 also provides access to the City since it runs along the entire California coast. B. Project Description The 2006 City of Newport Beach General Plan includes ten elements: Land Use, Harbor and Bay, Housing, Historical Resources, Circulation, Recreation, Arts and Cultural, Natural Resources, Safety, and Noise. The proposed project is an amendment to the Land Use Element (LUE). The amendment is intended to shape future development in the City and involves the alteration, intensification, and redistribution of land uses in certain subareas of the Cin•, including major areas such as Newport Center/Fashion Island, Newport Coast, and the Airport Area near John Wayne Airport. The General Plan Land Use Element Amendment CEQA Findings of Fact - 4 - 695 proposed land use map designation changes include increases and/or reductions in development capacity in various subareas. Specific subareas proposed for change are: ■ Airport Area • The Hangars • Saunders Properties • Lyon Communities • UAP Companies ■ Newport Coast Area • Newport Coast Hotel • Newport Ridge • Newport Coast Center ■ Newport Centex/Fashion Island Newport Center/Fashion Island 150 Newport Center Drive 100 Newport Center Drive ■ Bayside Center ■ The Bluffs ■ Gateway Park ■ Westcliff Plaza ■ 1526 Placentia Avenue (Kings Liquor) ■ 813 East Balboa Boulevard The following table provides the Citywide net land use change statistics: Table 1 2006 General Plan and Proposed Project Buildout, Statistical �o Land Use Residential 46,601 DUs 48,330 DUs 1,729 DUs' 4% Hotel 5,561 rooms 4,860 rooms (701 rooms) -13% Commercial 7,280,934 SF 7,352,044 SF 71,110 SF 10% Office 11,279,966 SF 11,773,643 SF 493,677 SF 4% Elementary/High School Students 6,511 students 6,583 students 72 students 1 % The General Plan Land Use Element Amendment will also include new and modified Land Use Element policies related to land use changes, in support of recent Neighborhood Revitalization efforts, and, as appropriate, updates/refinements to policies. Some of the policies apply City-wide and others are community specific. Subsequent amendments to the Newport Beach Coastal Land Use Plan (LUP), the Newport Coast Local Coastal Program (LCP), and Zoning Code and Map will be necessary to reflect the amendment to the General Plan. General Plan Land Use Element Amendment CEQA Findings of Fact 5 M. C. Discretionary Actions Implementation of the portion of the project within the City of Newport Beach will require several actions by the City, including Supplemental Environmental Impact Report SCH#2013101064. Certification of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) evaluating the environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended (Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.), and the State CEQA Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000 et seq.). The Final SEIR would also provide environmental information to responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and other public agencies that may be required to grant approvals and permits or coordinate with the City of Newport Beach as a part of project implementation. These agencies include, but are not limited to: Airport Land Use Commission of Orange County (ALUC). The project is within the boundaries of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP). The overseeing agency, ALUC, must review the proposed project and determine its consistency with the AELUP. The ALUC considered the project at its April 17, 2014, public meeting and voted to find the project inconsistent with the Commission's AELUP. Approval of the project would require the Newport Beach City Council to override this determination with a two- thirds vote. California Coastal Commission (CCC). The project would change land use designations in areas of the City that are within the Newport Beach Coastal Land Use Plan. Designations under the Coastal Land Use Plan take precedent over any provisions in the City's General Plan, zoning, or other ordinances. Thus, the CCC must review the proposed project and certify an amendment to the Coastal Land Use Plan in order to maintain land use designation consistency. D. Statement of Project Objectives The statement of objectives sought by the project and set forth in the Final SEIR is provided as follows: 1. Preserve and enhance Newport Beach's character as a beautiful, unique residential community. 2. Reflect a conservative growth strategy that a. Balances needs for housing, jobs and services. b. Limits land use changes to a very small amount of the City's land area. c. Directs land use changes to areas where residents have expressed a willingness to consider change and where sustainable development can occur. d. Protects natural resources, open space, and recreational opportunities. 3. Protect and enhance water quality. 4. Protect and enhance recreational opportunities and public access to open space and natural resources. 5. Modify land uses, densities, and intensities so that traffic generation is controlled. General Plan Land Use Element Amendment CEQA Findings of Fact 6 697 III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION In conformance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Newport Beach CEQA Guidelines, the City conducted an extensive environmental review of the proposed project. ■ The City of Newport Beach determined that an SEIR would be required for the proposed project and issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study on October 22, 2013. The NOP was sent to all responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and the Office of Planning Research and posted at the Orange County Clerk -Recorder's office and on the City's website on October 22, 2013.The 30 -day public review period extended from October 22, 2013, to November 21, 2013. Based upon the Initial Study and Environmental Checklist Form, the City of Newport Beach staff determined that a Draft Supplemental EIR (Draft SEIR) should be prepared for the proposed project. A scoping meeting was held during the NOP review period to solicit additional suggestions on the scope of the Draft SEIR. Attendees were provided an opportunity to identify verbally or in writing the issues they felt should be addressed in the Draft SEIR. The scoping meeting was held on Tuesday, November 5, 2013, at the Newport Beach Central Library at 1000 Avocado Avenue, Newport Beach, CA 92660. The notice of the public scoping meeting was included in the NOP. The scope of the Draft SEIR was determined based on the City's Initial Study, comments received in response to the NOP, and comments received at the scoping meeting conducted by the City on November 5, 2013. Section 2.3 of the Draft SEIR describes the issues identified for analysis in the Draft SEIR. The City of Newport Beach prepared a Draft SEIR, which was made available for a 45 -day public review period beginning March 17, 2014, and ending April 30, 2014. The Draft SEIR consists of three volumes: Volume I contains the text of the Draft SEIR and analysis of the General Plan Land Use Element Amendment project and Appendix A, Initial Study and Notice of Preparation. Volume II contains Appendices B through I. In addition, a continuation of the full appendices was provided in two separate binders, Full Appendices — Part 1 and Part 2. The Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft SEIR was sent to all interested persons, agencies and organizations. The Notice of Completion (NOC) was sent to the State Clearinghouse in Sacramento for distribution to public agencies. The NOA was posted at the Orange County Clerk -Recorder's office on March 17, 2014. Copies of the Draft SEIR were made available for public review at the City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, Newport Beach Central Library, Newport Beach Balboa Branch Library, Newport Beach Mariners Branch Library, and Newport Beach Corona del Mar Branch Library. The Draft SEIR was made available for download via the City's website: http://www.newportbeachca.gov. Two study sessions were held by the Planning Commission on May 8, 2014 and May 22, 2014 in the City Hall Council Chambers, at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California 92660. Notices of time, place, and purpose of the aforesaid meetings were provided in accordance with CEQA and the City's Municipal Code. The draft General Plan Land Use Element Amendment, findings of the Draft SEIR, project alternatives, general topics of public review comments received, staff report, and evidence, both written and oral, were presented to the Planning Commission at these study sessions. Additionally, the items appeared on the agenda for these study sessions, which was posted at City Hall and on the City's website. General Plan Land Use Element Amendment CEQA Findings of Fact - 7 - ' Preparation of the Final SEIR includes comments on the Draft SEIR, responses to those comments, clarifications/revisions to the Draft SEIR, and appended documents. The Final SEIR was released on May 30, 2014 and posted on the City's website. A Planning Commission Public Hearing was held on June 5, 2014 in the City Hall Council Chambers, at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California 92660. A notice of time, place, and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was provided in accordance with CEQA and the City's Municipal Code. The Draft and Final SEIR, staff report, and evidence, both written and oral, were presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at this hearing. 0 Government Code Section 65091 provides that, when the number of property owners to who notice would be required to be mailed is greater than 1,000 (which is the case with the proposed Land Use Element Amendment), notice may be provided by placing a one-eighth page advertisement in the local newspaper. Notice of the Planning Commission Public Hearing was a one-eighth page display ad in the May 24, 2014, Daily Pilot. Additionally, notices were mailed to over 1,500 affected property owners which included property owners, and property owners within 300 feet of properties designated for amendment; HOAs and interested parties; and subscribers to the City's Select Alert/Newsplash System. The mailing and notifications occurred at a minimum 10 days in advance of the meeting, consistent with the provisions of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. The environmental review process has also been consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act. Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. • In compliance with Section 15088(b) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (State CEQA Guidelines), the City has met its obligation to provide written Responses to Comments to public agencies at least 10 days prior to certifying the Final SEIR. • The City Council public hearing was held on July 8, 2014, in the City Hall Council Chambers, at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California 92660. A notice of the time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was provided in accordance with CEQA and the City's Municipal Code. The Final SEIR, staff report, and evidence, both written and oral, were presented to and considered by the City Council at this hearing. 0 Government Code Section 65091 provides that, when the number of property owners to who notice would be required to be mailed is greater than 1,000 (which is the case with the proposed Land Use Element Amendment), notice may be provided by placing a one-eighth page advertisement in the local newspaper. Notice of the Planning Commission Public Hearing was a one-eighth page display ad in the Daily Pilot. Additionally, notices were mailed to over 1,500 affected property owners which included property owners, and property owners within 300 feet of properties designated for amendment; HOAs and interested parties; and subscribers to the City's Select Alert/Newsplash System. The mailing and notifications occurred at a minimum 10 days in advance of the meeting, consistent with the provisions of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. The environmental review process has also been consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act. Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. General Plan Land Use Element Amendment CEQA Findings of Fact 8 ' IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES THAT WERE DETERMINED NOT TO BE POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT A. Impacts Determined To Be Less Than Significant in the Initial Study As a result of the project scoping process including the NOP circulated by the City on October 22, 2013, in connection with preparation of the Draft SEIR, the preparation of the Initial Study, and the Public Scoping meeting, the City determined, based upon the threshold criteria for significance, that the project would have no impact or a less than significant impact on the following potential environmental issues, and therefore, determined that these potential environmental issues would not be addressed in the Draft SEIR. Based upon the environmental analysis presented in the Draft SEIR, and the comments received by the public on the Draft SEIR, no substantial evidence was submitted to or identified by the City which indicated that the project would have an impact on the following environmental areas: (a) Aesthetics: The project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway, or create a new source of substantial light or glare. (b) Agriculture and Forestry Resources: The project area does not contain Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. No portion of the project area is covered by a Williamson Act Contract. Additionally, the project site does not include forest resources, including timberlands, and is not zoned for agriculture. (c) Air Quality: The project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. (d) Biological Resources: The project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any sensitive species, riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities, or federally protected wetlands. It would not interfere with the movement of native resident or migratory wildlife species, impede wildlife nursery sites, conflict with local policies protecting biological resources (e.g., tree preservation policy), or conflict with provisions of an adopted local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. (e) Cultural Resources: The project would not impact historic resources or disturb any known human remains. (f) Geology and Soils: The project would not expose people or structure to potential substantial adverse effects involving rupture of a known earthquake fault as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Zoning Map or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault, or expose people or structures to landslides. It would not have any significant impacts related to rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, seismic -related ground failure (e.g., liquefaction), landslides, soil erosion, or soil subsidence. The proposed project would not use septic systems or alternative waste water disposal systems. (g) Hazards and Hazardous Materials: The project would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment through transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, or through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions. The project also would not handle or operate hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. It would not be located near the vicinity of a private airstrip, impair implementation of an adopted emergency response/evacuation plan, or expose people to wildland fire hazards. (h) Hydrology and Water Quality: The project would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with recharge, alter existing drainage patterns causing erosion or flooding, add substantial sources of polluted runoff, or otherwise degrade water quality. The project would not place housing or structures within a 100 -year General Plan Land Use Element Amendment CEQA Findings of Fact 9 700 flood hazard area, or expose people or structures to flood hazards or inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. (i) Land Use and Planning: The project would not divide an established business community or conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. (j) Mineral Resources: The project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource or locally important mineral resource recovery site. (k) Noise and Vibration: The project traffic would not be located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. (1) Population and Housing: The project would not displace any housing or people. (m) Public Services: The project would not create significant impacts related to other public facilities aside from fire, police, schools, and parks. (n) Recreation: The project would meet the City's parkland dedication requirements, and physical impacts to recreational and park spaces would not be significant. (o) Transportation and Traffic: The project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns, substantially increase hazards due to design features or incompatible uses, or result in inadequate emergency access. (p) Utilities and Service Systems: The project would not exceed waste water treatment requirements of Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. All other topical areas of evaluation included in the Environmental Checklist were determined to require further assessment in the Draft SEIR. B. Impacts Determined To Be Less Than Significant in the Draft SEIR This section identifies impacts of the proposed project determined to be less than significant without implementation of project -specific mitigation measures. This determination, however, does assume compliance with Existing Regulations and relevant General Plan policies as detailed in each respective topical section of Chapter 5 in the Draft SEIR. (a) Aesthetics: The project would not have a substantial adverse effect on scenic vistas or degrade the existing visual character or quality of the area. (b) Air Quality: Similar to the 2006 General Plan, the project would not be consistent with the applicable air quality management plan, and would generate short-term emissions and criteria air pollutant emissions in exceedance of SCAQMD's threshold criteria. However, the incremental change associated with the project would be less than significant. (c) Cultural Resources: The project would not adversely affect archaeological or paleontological resources. (d) Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. (e) Hazards and Hazardous Materials: The project would not be located on a site included on a list of hazardous materials, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area per the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport, or expose people or structures to significant hazards from wildland fires. (f) Hydrology and Water Quality: The project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, or otherwise substantially degrade water quality. General Plan Land Use Element Amendment CEQA Findings of Fact 10 - 701 (g) Land Use and Planning: The project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. (h) Noise and Vibration: The project traffic would not expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established by the City, increase permanent or temporary ambient noise levels, or cause a substantial increase in noise levels due to proximity to the John Wayne Airport. (i) Public Services: The project would not create significant impacts related to fire protection, police protection, school, or park services. (j) Transportation and Traffic: The project would not conflict with an applicable congestion management program or conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. (k) Utilities and Service Systems: Project -generated wastewater would not exceed the capacity of existing sewer pipelines and treatment plants; the project would be adequately served by existing water supply and delivery systems; stormwater flow would be adequately served by existing drainage systems; the Frank R. Bowerman, Olinda Alpha, and Prima Deshecha landfills would have sufficient capacity to accommodate project -generated solid waste; and the project demand for electricity and natural gas would be nominal. V. FINDINGS REGARDING POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The following potentially significant environmental impacts were analyzed in the Draft SE1R, and the effects of the project were considered. Because of environmental analysis of the project and the identification of relevant General Plan policies; compliance with existing laws, codes, and statutes; and the identification of feasible mitigation measures (together referred herein as the Mitigation Program), some potentially significant impacts have been determined by the City to be reduced to a level of less than significant, and the City has found—in accordance with CEQA Section 21081(a)(1) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a) (1)— that "Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. This is referred to herein as "Finding 1:" Where the City has determined—pursuant to CEQA Section 21081(a)(2) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(2)—that "Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency," the City's finding is referred to herein as "Finding 2." Where, as a result of the environmental analysis of the project, the City has determined that either (1) even with the identification of project design features, compliance with existing laws, codes and statutes, and/or the identification of feasible mitigation measures, potentially significant impacts cannot be reduced to a level of less than significant, or (2) no feasible mitigation measures or alternatives are available to mitigate the potentially significant impact, the City has found in accordance with CEQA Section 21081(a)(3) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3) that "Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report." This is referred to herein as "Finding 3." A. Impacts Mitigated To Less Than Significant The following summary describes impacts of the proposed project that, without mitigation, would result in significant adverse impacts. Upon implementation of the mitigation measures provided in the Draft SEIR, the impacts would be considered less than significant. General Plan Land Use Element Amendment CEQA Findings of Fact 11 - 702 1. Air Quality Environmental Impact: Placement of new residents and other sensitive land uses proximate to State Route 73 and major stationary source emitters in the Airport Area would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Finding 1— Mitigation Measure AQ -1 would reduce pollutant concentration impacts to sensitive receptors. Thereby, the City makes Finding 1, and impacts are mitigated to less than significant levels. Facts in Support of Finding Mitigation measure AQ -1 would require project applicants for sensitive land uses to prepare a health risk assessment (HRA) to the City prior to future discretionary project approval. The HRA would indicate any potential health risks (e.g., cancer risks, air quality) on the project site and provide mitigation measures, which would be incorporated into the development plan as a component of the proposed project. Thus, future sensitive land use developments near State Route 73 and major stationary source emitters in the Airport Area would be protected from potential health risks. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measure was included in the Draft and Final SEIR, and is applicable to the proposed project. AQ -1 The City of Newport Beach shall evaluate new development proposals for sensitive land uses (e.g., residential, schools, day care centers) within the City for potential incompatibilities with regard to the California Air Resources Board's Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (2005). Applicants for sensitive land uses that are within the recommended buffer distances shall submit a health risk assessment (HRA) to the City of Newport Beach prior to future discretionary project approval. The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and the South Coast Air Quality Management District. The latest OEHHA guidelines shall be used for the analysis, including age sensitivity factors, breathing rates, and body weights appropriate for children age 0 to 6 years. if the HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk exceeds ten in one million (10E-06), the appropriate noncancer hazard index exceeds 1.0, or if the PMID or PM2.5 ambient air quality standard exceeds 2.5 ltg/m3, the applicant will be required to identify and demonstrate that mitigation measures are capable of reducing potential cancer, noncancer, and ambient air quality risks to an acceptable level (i.e., below ten in one million, a hazard index of 1.0, or particulate matter concentrations exceed 2.5 µg/m3), including appropriate enforcement mechanisms. Measures to reduce risk may include but are not limited to: • Air intakes away from high-volume roadways and/or truck loading zones. Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems of the buildings provided with appropriately sized maximum efficiency rating value (MERV) filters. Mitigation measures identified in the HRA shall be identified as mitigation measures in the environmental document and/or incorporated into the site development plan as a component of the proposed project. The air intake design and MERV filter requirements shall be noted and/or reflected on all building plans submitted to the City and shall be verified by the City's Planning Department. General Plan Land Use Element Amendment CEQA Findings of Fact - 12 - 703 City of NeaTort Beach Standard Conditions There are no specific City -adopted standard operating conditions of approval related to air quality that are applicable to the proposed project at this time; however, project -specific conditions of approval may be applied to the project by the City during the discretionary approval (site development review, tentative tract map, etc.), subsequent design, and/or construction process. B. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts The following summary describes the significant, unavoidable adverse impacts of the proposed project: 1. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Environmental Impact: Although compared to the 2006 General Plan, the proposed project would achieve South Coast Air Quality Management District's efficiency metric by decreasing GHG emissions on a per capita basis, similar to impacts under the 2006 General Plan FIR, the City would not achieve the long-term GHG reductions goals under Executive Order 5-03-05 if the proposed project were implemented. Finding 3 —The City hereby makes Finding 3 and determines that there are no mitigation measures to reduce this impact to less than significant levels. This impact is significant and unavoidable and would require the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Facts in Support of Finding The proposed project would result in a substantial increase in the total magnitude of GHG emissions but would decrease GHG emissions on a per capita basis (i.e., increase plan efficiency). Although the LUE Amendment incorporates planning measures and policies to minimize GHG emissions, additional statewide measures would be necessary to reduce GHG emissions under the proposed project to meet the long-term GHG reduction goals under Executive Order 5-03-05, which identified a goal to reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent of 1990 levels by 2050. At this time, there is no plan past 2020 that achieves the long-term GHG reduction goal established under Executive Order 5-03-05. As identified by the California Council on Science and Technology, the State cannot meet the 2050 goal without major advancements in technology. Since no additional statewide measures are currently available, the impact is significant and unavoidable and would require a Statement of Overriding Considerations. City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions There are no specific City -adopted standard operating conditions of approval related to greenhouse gas emissions that are applicable to the proposed project at this time. However, project -specific conditions of approval may be applied to the project by the City during the discretionary approval (site development review, tentative tract map, etc.), subsequent design, and/or construction process. 2. Noise and Vibration Environmental Impact: Construction activities as a result of higher development intensity would have the potential to result in substantial vibration impacts to uses adjacent to the sites identified for changes in land uses and intensities. General Plan Land Use Element Amendment CEQA Findings of Fact - 13 - 704 Finding 3 — The City hereby makes Finding 3 and determines that there are no mitigation measures to reduce this impact to less than significant levels. This impact is significant and unavoidable and would require the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Facts in Support of Finding New development in accordance with the proposed project would increase groundborne vibration related to construction activities. Grading and demolition activities typically generate the highest vibration levels during construction activities. In particular, pile driving and rock blasting can generate high levels in excess of 100 PPV at 25 feet away. Typical construction projects do not require these methods, or if necessary, can usually be mitigated with alternative methods such as non -explosive rock breaking (instead of rock blasting) and drilled piles (instead of impact pile driving), which do not exceed the thresholds for architectural damage, and do not reach levels that are considered annoying at distances greater than 200 feet. However, since construction equipment for subsequent projects are unknown as of now, there would be no feasible mitigation available to elimhnate potential vibration impacts if receptors are located in close proximity and pile driving/rock blasting equipment or other activities that generate high levels are necessary for future developments. Furthermore, intensification of land uses at some of the proposed project's subareas could result in vibration impacts greater than the 2006 General Plan. Therefore, this impact is significant and unavoidable and would require a Statement of Overriding Considerations. City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions There are no specific City -adopted standard operating conditions of approval related to noise and vibrations that are applicable to the proposed project at this time. However, project -specific conditions of approval may be applied to the project by the City during the discretionary approval (site development review, tentative tract map, etc.), subsequent design, and/or construction process. 3. Population and Housing Environmental Impact: Buildout of the General Plan LUE Amendment would directly result in an estimated population increase of up to 3,838 persons in comparison to buildout of the 2006 General Plan (approximately 3.7 percent increase). This increase would exceed the 2035 SCAG population projections for the City by almost 18 percent, but slightly improve the jobs -housing balance. Finding 3 — The City hereby makes Finding 3 and determines that there are no mitigation measures to reduce this impact to less than significant levels. This impact is significant and unavoidable and would require the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Facts in Support of Finding The incremental change between buildout of the 2006 General Plan and the proposed project is an additional 3,838 persons, which totals to a population of 106,197 by 2035. This exceeds the 2035 Southern California Association of Governments population projection for Newport Beach of 90,030 by 16,167 persons (approximately 18 percent). There are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce population growth. Thus, the impact would be significant and unavoidable and would require a Statement of Overriding Considerations. 4. Traffic and Transportation Environmental Impact: Vehicular traffic from the proposed project in conjunction with the amendment of the Airport Settlement Agreement could result in significant impacts at study -area intersections. General Plan Land Use Element Amendment CEQA Findings of Fact - 14 - 705 Findings 2 & 3 — This impact is determined to be potentially significant pending the results of the traffic analysis prepared for the Airport Settlement Agreement EIR. It is not possible at the time of the Final EIR to know with precision the probable cumulative impacts of the proposed project in combination of possible impacts of the Airport Settlement Agreement. The City hereby makes Finding 2 to address potential traffic impacts that could be the tesponsibilin- of another jurisdiction (e.g., cumulative impacts on intersections/roadways within Cities of Irvine, Costa Mesa, or on Caltrans facilities). The City hereby also makes Finding 3 and determines that there are no mitigation measures to reduce this impact to less than significant levels. This impact is significant and unavoidable and would require the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Facts in Support of Finding The Airport Settlement Agreement NOP was released to the public in October 2013 and the Draft FIR was released May 23, 2014 after preparation of the Draft SEIR for the LUE Amendment. The EIR analysis for the amendment of the Airport Settlement Agreement had not been released for public review. Therefore, it was not possible to identify with precision all potential cumulative environmental impacts of the proposed project and Airport Settlement Agreement as they relate to traffic. At the time of the writing of these Findings, no feasible mitigation measures can be identified to reduce significant impacts at potentially affected intersections. Environmental Impact: Vehicular traffic from the proposed project in conjunction with cumulative traffic would result in significant impacts to the following freeway main line segments: • SB 1-405, North of SR -55 Freeway • NB SR -73, North of Jamboree Road • NB SR -55, Dyer Road to MacArthur Boulevard • NB SR -55, MacArthur Boulevard to I-405 Freeway • NB SR -55,1-405 Freeway to SR -73 • NB SR -55, SR -73 Freeway to Mesa Drive And the following freeway ramps: 1-405, NB Off -Ramp at MacArthur Boulevard 1-405, SB Loop Off -Ramp at MacArthur Boulevard Finding 2 — The City hereby makes Finding 2. Changes or alterations that could mitigate this impact are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency. This impact is significant and unavoidable and would require the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Facts in Support of Finding Caltrans has not adopted a fee program that can ensure that locally contributed impact fees will be tied to improvements to freeway main lines and ramps, and only Caltrans has jurisdiction over freeway main line and ramp improvements. No feasible mitigation measures that can be implemented by the City of Newport Beach have been identified. General Plan Land Use Element Amendment CEQA Findings of Fact 15 706 City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions There are no specific Cityadoptedstandard conditions of approval related to traffic that are applicable to the proposed project at this time. However, project -specific conditions of approval may be applied to the project by the City during the discretionary approval (site development review, tentative tract map, etc.), subsequent design, and/or construction process. VI. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES A. Alternatives Considered and Rejected During the Scoping/Project Planning Process The following is a discussion of the alternatives considered during the scoping and planning process and the reasons why they were not selected for detailed analysis in the Draft SEIR. Alternative Project Location CEQA requires that the discussion of alternatives focus on alternatives to the project or its location that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project. Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[f][2][A]). An evaluation of an alternative to the project location is appropriate for a site-specific development project. This Draft Supplemental FIR is prepared for a General Plan LUE Amendment that applies to the entire City of Newport Beach. An "alternative location" to the City is not a feasible alternative. However, the land use alternative evaluated in this chapter (No Airport Area Alternative) does evaluate an alternative that eliminates development within one of the subareas of the City. B. Alternatives Selected for Further Analysis In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15163, a Supplemental EIR "need only contain the information necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the project as revised." The following alternative has been determined to represent a reasonable range of alternatives to supplement the alternatives previously considered in the 2006 General Plan EIR that could potentially attain most of the basic objectives of the project and has the potential to avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects of the project. The alternative is analyzed in detail in the following section. ■ No Airport Area Alternative Additionally, this section analyzes the No Project Alternative, as required by CEQA. An EIR must identify an "environmentally superior" alternative, and where the No Project Alternative is identified as environmentally superior, the FIR is required to identify as environmentally superior an alternative from among the others evaluated. Each alternative's environmental impacts are compared to the proposed project and determined to be environmentally superior, neutral, or inferior. However, only significant and unavoidable impacts are used in making the final determination of whether an alternative is environmentally superior or inferior to the proposed project. Only the impacts involving air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, construction noise, population growth, and traffic were found to be significant and unavoidable. Section 7.4 of the Draft SEIR identifies the environmentally superior alternative. General Plan Land Use Element Amendment CEQA Findings of Fact - 16 - 707 No Project Alternative Description: The No Project alternative is implementation of the existing 2006 General Plan. The Draft SEIR evaluates the incremental environmental impact of buildout of the 2006 General Plan in comparison to buildout of the proposed General Plan LUE Amendment. As such, the analysis throughout the Draft SEIR represents the impacts of the proposed project relative to the No Project Alternative. Environmental Effects: The No Project alternative would eliminate the significant impacts of the proposed project, including significant, unavoidable impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions, noise and vibration (construction -related vibration), population and housing (population growth), and transportation and traffic (freeway main line and ramp impacts and potentially significant cumulative impact related to Airport Settlement Agreement trip generation). The No Project alternative would also eliminate a significant air quality impact related to placing sensitive receptors (housing and congregate care) proximate to high pollutant concentrations in the Airport Area. This impact, however, would be mitigated to less than significant under the proposed project. Note that although the No Project alternative would eliminate the significant unavoidable impact of the incremental increase in GHG emissions, construction vibration, population and air quality related to health risks to proximity to sensitive resources, these impacts would also be significant for the existing 2006 General Plan (No Project). The No Project alternative would not have the benefit of the new and/or modified Land Use Element policies. The updated policies reflect State of California legislation subsequent to adoption of the 2006 General Plan and new best planning practices since 2006 addressing sustainability, climate change, and healthy communities. Ability to Achieve Project Objectives: The No Project Alternative would continue to attain the project objectives detailed in Section II(D), in particular objectives Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 5. Compliance with 2006 General Plan policies would preserve and enhance the City's character; protect and enhance water quality; protect and enhance recreational opportunities and public access to open space and natural resources; and control traffic generation. In comparison to the General Plan LUE Amendment, however, the No Project alternative would not be as effective in achieving balancing needs for housing, jobs, and services. The proposed project is in response to changing demand for housing and commercial uses; therefore, the project would add housing and slightly improve the City's jobs -housing balance (from 1.83 to 1.76). Since the City is considered to be "jobs rich," this is a benefit of the proposed project that would not be realized under the No Project alternative. The No Project alternative may also not be as responsive to Project Objective 2.c, regarding "directing land use changes to areas where residents have expressed a willingness to consider change...." The proposed project's land use changes are in response to property owners' request for change. This may or may not, however, reflect "resident" willingness. The No Project alternative would not change land uses in comparison to the proposed project and so would not generate additional vehicle trips in comparison to the proposed General Plan LUE Amendment. Therefore, it may be considered more effective in achieving Project Objective No. 5. Feasibility: The No Project Alternative would be physically feasible but would not be as economically, legally or technologically as feasible as the proposed LUE Amendment. The proposed LUE Amendment is needed to reflect to recent legislation (e.g. GHGs), the economy and market, and emerging best practices. The reasoning behind decreasing and increasing development capacity in certain subareas of Newport Beach under the proposed project is to reflect current changing demands for housing and commercial uses. Finding: In comparison to the proposed project, the No Project Alternative would reduce impacts to aesthetics, air quality, hazards and hazardous materials, public services, transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems. In addition, significant unavoidable impacts to construction vibration, air quality (sensitive receptors), population growth, and transportation and traffic (cumulative impacts to freeway main line and ramps and trip contribution to a potential, cumulative traffic impact associated with the Airport General Plan Land Use Element Amendment CEQA Findings of Fact - 17 - Settlement Agreement) would be avoided under this alternative. Further, the No Project Alternative would not require an amendment to the Coastal Land Use Plan because no changes would occur to coastal zone land use designations. Cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, hydrology and water quality, and land use and planning impacts would be similar to the proposed project. Overall, the No Project Alternative would have fewer environmental impacts than the proposed project and would eliminate significant, unavoidable impacts, making it the environmentally superior alternative. However, from a policy perspective, this alternative would maintain its existing 2006 Land Use Element policies, which would not reflect updated state legislation, best practices related to sustainability, climate change, and healthy communities, or support recent Neighborhood Revitalization efforts. Further, the No Project Alternative fails to meet the following project objectives: No. 2(a) achieving balancing needs for housing, jobs, and services, and No. 2(c) directing land use changes to areas where residents have expressed a willingness to consider change and where sustainable development can occur. Therefore, it has been rejected by the City in favor of the proposed project. No Airport Area Alternative Description: This alternative would eliminate the proposed land uses changes in the Airport Area subareas, including changes to the Saunders Properties, The Hangars, Lyon Communities, and UAP Companies. The proposed changes for these properties under the General Plan LUE Amendment are summarized in Table 3- 1, Proposed Lund Use Changer, and shown on Figure 3-4, Airport Area Proposed Changes in the Draft SEIR. It was selected for evaluation based on its potential to reduce or eliminate each of the impacts identified as significant for the General Plan LUE Amendment as proposed. As shown below in Table 2, Proposed Project vs. No Airport Area Alternative Statistical Comparison, this alternative would substantially reduce the overall intensity of land uses proposed. Therefore, it would reduce both construction -related vibration impacts, and greenhouse gas impacts. It was selected in particular for its potential to reduce impacts related to the proximity to the John Wayne Airport. Avoiding intensification of land uses within this subarea has the potential to reduce or eliminate the significant traffic impacts related to freeways proximate to this subarea as well as potential cumulative impacts associated with the Airport Settlement Agreement. And finally, although the significant air quality impact associated with placing sensitive receptors (housing and congregate care) proximate to major air pollutant sources would be mitigated to less than significant under the proposed project, this alternative would be reduced for this alternative. Table 2 Proposed Project vs. No Airport Area Alternative Statistical Comparison Increase/Decrease Com ared to 2006 GP Proposed No Airport Area Land Use Residential 1,729 DUs* 144 DUs (1,591 DUs) -92.0% Hotel (701) rooms (851) rooms (150 rooms) -21.4% Commercial 71,110 SF (25,690 SF) (96,800 SF) -136% Office 493,677 SF 255,600 SF (238,077 SF) 48.2% Elementary/High School Students 72 students 72 students 0 students 0% Source: Urban Crossroads 2013. ' The 1,729 DU buildout was calculated by adding the allowable dwelling unit developments in each subarea as proposed by the General Plan Land Use Element Amendment. This includes Newport Center (500 DUs), Saunders Properties (329 DUs), Lyon Communitles (850 DUs), Newport Ridge (-356 DUs), and other minor changes (-6 Dust Furthermore, density bonuses on Lyon Communities (297 DUs) and Saunders Properties (115 DUs) were added to the buildout to achieve 1,729 DU. General Plan Land Use Element Amendment CEQA Findings of Fact - 18 - 709 The No Airport Area Alternative would include the same changes to the General Plan LUE policies as the proposed project, with the exception of any policies specifically altered to accommodate the proposed Airport Area land uses changes under the proposed project. Such policies would not be included in this alternative (e.g., LU 6.15.5 Residential and Supporting Uses, regarding the maximum number of replacement units). Environmental Effects: A full discussion of the No Airport Area Alternative's environmental impacts compared to the proposed projects is set forth in Section 7.3 of the Draft SEIR, which is hereby incorporated by reference. In comparison to the proposed project, the No Airport Area Alternative would reduce impacts to aesthetics, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise and vibration, population and housing, public services, transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems. Cultural impacts under this alternative would be similar to the proposed project. This alternative would eliminate a significant impact at one I-405 freeway ramp but would not eliminate any other unavoidable impacts of the LUE Amendment as proposed. It would, however, reduce all of the significant, unavoidable impacts of the proposed project. It would reduce population growth, greenhouse gas emissions, and construction -vibration impacts. These impacts, however, would remain significant and unavoidable for this alternative. The alternative would substantially reduce trip generation relative to the proposed General Plan LUE Amendment by 10,771 average daily trips (ADTs). The alternative would not eliminate the number of main line freeway segments impacted, but would eliminate an impact to one of two freeway ramps (I-405, NB off - ramp at MacArthur Boulevard would no longer be impacted). This alternative would not eliminate the potentially significant impact associated with the Airport Settlement Agreement. Ability to Achieve Project Objectives: The No Airport Area alternative would be consistent with most of the proposed project's objectives, detailed in Section 7.1.2 of the Draft SEIR. The alternative would not jeopardize the potential to preserve and enhance the city's character (No. 1); protect and enhance water quality (No. 3); and protect and enhance recreational opportunities and public access to open space. This alternative would be more successful in achieving project objective No. 5, "modify land uses, densities and intensities so that traffic generation is controlled" It would not eliminate significant traffic impacts, but would reduce them relative to the proposed project. The extent to which this alternative would achieve Project Objective No. 2 is less apparent. Compared to the proposed project, it would more successfully "limit land use changes to a very small amount of the City's land area" but may be considered less successful in balancing need for housing, jobs and services. It would provide fewer housing opportunities and new jobs and slightly increase the jobs -housing balance in the City, which is already jobs -rich. Moreover, only some of the property owners have requested the Airport Area changes. Feasibility: The No Airport Area Alternative would be physically feasible but may not be as responsive to the project objectives with respect to economic, considerations as the proposed project. Some of the Airport Area property owners requested the proposed changes in the subarea to respond to current changes in demand for residential and commercial uses. Table 2 outlines the substantial reduction in allowable residential, hotel, commercial, and office use under the No Airport Area Alternative. This would result in fewer residents, visitors, and employment opportunities and associated economic benefits to the City of Newport Beach in comparison to the proposed project. Finding: The No Airport Area Alternative would reduce impacts to aesthetics, air quality, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, public services, and utilities and service systems. Cultural resource and housing impacts would be similar. Significant unavoidable impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions, population growth, transportation and traffic, construction vibration would also be reduced, but not eliminated under this alternative. More specifically, the alternative would substantially reduce trip generation relative to the proposed General Plan LUE Amendment by 10,771 ADTs and would eliminate significant impacts to one of two freeway ramps significantly impacted by the project. It would not, however, eliminate significant impacts to main line freeway segments or one freeway ramp. General Plan Land Use Element Amendment CEQA Findings of Fact 19 - 710 Further, it would not eliminate the potentially significant impact associated with the Airport Settlement Agreement. The No Airport Area Alternative would have fewer environmental impacts than the proposed project. The alternative would achieve most of the project objectives with the exception of Objective No. 2(a) since the alternative would provide fewer housing opportunities compared to jobs, increasing the jobs - housing balance in an already "jobs -rich" City. In summary, the No Airport Area Alternative would eliminate the significant impact to one of two freeway ramps significantly impacted by the project, and would reduce but not eliminate any of the other significant traffic impacts or other significant impacts (air quality, construction vibration, and population) of the project as proposed. In addition, the No Airport Area Alternative would reduce or eliminate impacts that are directly related to the proposed land use changes within the Airport Area, including: ■ Cumulative impacts associated with the Airport Settlement Agreement (including the uncertainty related to changes in hazards and noise zones) ■ Land use compatibility with industrial uses in Airport Area (including health risk) ■ Cumulative traffic impacts (although detailed, cumulative analysis of Airport Settlement Agreement traffic and LUE Amendment traffic has not been conducted, it is anticipated that cumulative impacts could be expected proximate to the John Wayne Airport and Airport Area land use changes) ■ ALUC determination of the proposed project inconsistency with AELUP (ALUC concluded in its Draft SEIR comment letter that ALUC's preferred project is the No Airport Area Alternative) Further, similar to the proposed project, it would be consistent with most of the 2006 General Plan's objectives. For these reasons, the City fords that the No Airport Area Alternative is preferred over the proposed project. General Plan Land Use Element Amendment CEQA Findings of Fact - 20 - 711 Additional Materials Item No. 3d General Plan Land Use Element From: Still Protecting Our Newport <Info@SPON-NewportBeach.oZ'013-098 gg> Sent. Tuesday, June 03, 2014 8:26 AM PA2 013 — 0 9 8 To: Hillgren, Bradley; Amen, Fred; Myers, Jay; Kramer, Kory; Lawler, Ray; Tucker, Larry; Brown, Tim Cc: Wisneski, Brenda; Brandt, Kim; Ramirez, Gregg; Burns, Marlene; Gardner, Nancy; Selich, Edward Attachments: Planning Comm-140603.pdf Chair Hillgren & Commissioners: Attached please find SPON's position letter regarding your upcoming vote on the Land Use Element Amendment. We request that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council neither certify the SEIR nor approve the LUEA for the reasons outlined in the attached. We also request that our letter be placed into the public record of this meeting. Please feel free to contact us if any questions. Thank you for considering our request. Marko Popovich President PO Box 102 1 Balboa Island, CA 92662 www.SPON-NewportBeach.org Info@SPON-NewportBeach.org Facebook STOP POLLUTING OUR NEWPORT (SPON) is a 501.c.3 non-profit public education organization working to protect and preserve the residential and environmental qualities of Newport Beach. 712 @Sfill Pewport Inspiring The Next Generation OFFICERS June 3, 2014 PRESIDENT Bradley Hillgren, Chair Marko Popovich Newport Beach Planning Commission c/o Brenda Wisneski VICE PRESIDENT Elaine Linhoff SUBJECT: Land Use Element Amendment TREASURER Dear Chair Hillgren & Planning Commissioners: Dennis Baker At your June 5 meeting, please recommend that the City Council neither certify the SEIR SECRETARY nor approve the LUEA. We offer the following reasons: Allan Beek • You do not have answers to critical questions and comments raised about the SEIR by SPON and others and having to do with serious traffic impacts on roadway circulation BOARD MEMBERS in Newport Beach and associated freeways. • This Amendment should not be considered before planning is done and/or mitigations Nancy Alston completed as anticipated in the 2006 General Plan for Mariner's Mile so that residents Iryne Black of the City can vote with full knowledge of what is to be expected at intersections and Don Harvey traffic levels along PCH. Dorothy Kraus Donald Krotee • There are intersections in CdM such as Marguerite and Goldenrod along with those on Andrea Lingle Mariner's Mile which have already been allowed to operate at unacceptable levels Bobby Lovell because there are no feasible improvements to be made. Jeanne Price Melinda Seely • The Amendment should not be considered until the outcome of Banning Ranch is Jack Skinner known, so as to allow voters full knowledge of what is to come of traffic along PCH. Nancy Skinner . It is unacceptable to arbitrarily allow as well as encourage the raising of heights in the Jean Watt lower Newport Center view -shed, specifically Block 100. Portia Weiss Terry Welsh Thank you for considering these comments, Marko Popovich, President SPON cc: Gregg Ramirez; Kim Brandt; Nancy Gardner; Ed Selich STOP POLLUTING OUR NEWPORT (SPON) is a 501.c.3 non-profit public education organization working to protect and preserve the residential and environmental qualities of Newport Beach. PO Box 102 1 Balboa Island, CA 92662 www.SPON-NewportBeach.org I Info@SPON-NewportBeach.org 713 DMP PROPERTIES June 4, 2014 ria U.S. Mail and Email Kory Kramer, Secretary City of Newport Beach Planning Commission 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Genera/ Plan Amendment Dear Commission Members: Correspondence Item No. 3e General Plan ReT state nvestmencs� roperty Management PA2013-098 Affiliates of our Company own the fee at 180 Newport Center Drive and the fee and improvements at 250 Newport Center Drive. We are aware of additional development rights property owners in the area, including The Irvine Company, are seeking for Fashion Island, including the 100 Block. While we are not necessarily opposed to such additional development at this time, we have obvious concerns about how additional office, commercial and/or residential projects near our properties, particularly the proposed hotel and commercial project at 150 Newport Center Drive (the current car wash site), would impact our properties' parking, traffic flow, views, ingress/egress, and access. We will object to any proposed project that adversely impacts our property rights. We understand that additional changes to the Zoning Code may be required to implement certain projects, and that we may have an opportunity to voice our concerns at that time, however we wanted to ensure our views were made part of the record at this time. Sincerely, DMP Properties By: ie-- Mark Perlmutter, President O(fim:949.720.8166 Fax: 949.720.8184 250 Newpon Center Drive I Suire 300 1 Newport Beach I CA 926611 rvww-DMPProperries7cp4n Correspondence Item No. 3f General Plan Land Use Element Amendment PA2013-098 Comments on June 5, 2014, Agenda Item No. 3: GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT (PA2013-098) Comments on Newport Beach Planning Commission regular meeting agenda item by: Jim Mosher ( limmosher(@yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229). Abstract I have previously submitted comments on this "project," both orally and in writing, at the May 22 Planning Commission Study Session and at the various meetings of the Land Use Element Amendment Advisory Committee which I hope may be incorporated by reference. The present comments are intended to extend and amplify those. I feel strongly that the present project is not a thoughtful revision of the City's General Plan, and that the Planning Commission would be doing a disservice to the residents of Newport Beach if it recommends passing a shoddy product on to the City Council for placement on the November election ballot. Instead of a thoughtful reevaluation of the City's vision for the future, the present project seems little more than a rather arbitrary grab-bag of private new entitlement requests -- which would normally be funded by those seeking the entitlements - as well as an effort to make an end -run around the citizen -mandated Greenlight process in which the developers seeking those entitlements would be expected to put the merits of the projects affecting specific areas of the City up for separate votes, improperly turning that into a City -sponsored and City -funded event. For the reasons I have attempted to articulate in my written and oral comments, I recommend the Planning Commission disapprove the proposed amendments to our General Plan -- which believe relieves it of the of any duty to pass judgment on the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. Inadequate Reasons for Amendment Chapter 1 of the City's current General Plan describes the fifteen month community "visioning" process and five years of preparation that produced that document. Although there might be reason to make minor revisions to the plan, City staff being approached by developers wanting a different plan - the primarily reason for change offered to City Council when the current process was initiated as Item 19 at their May 28, 2013, meeting, as well as in the Introduction to the current staff report - does not, by itself, seem sufficient reason to discard or modify the previous work product. Logically, since the current General Plan took about five years to develop and was self - described when approved by voters in 2006 as a vision intended to be valid through 2025, we should still be five or six years away from needing to start rethinking a new development pattern appropriate for 2026-2045. What bothers me most about the present process is that it started, at the first LUEAAC meeting, with the announcement of a series of proposed land use changes with little or no explanation of 715 June 5, 2014, PC Agenda Item 3 Comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 10 how they fit into the City's existing vision for the future, or if they did not fit, why that vision needed to be changed. That was followed by a series of what seemed random spot zoning type requests to the Committee from developers who became aware of the LUEAAC meetings. Meanwhile, a careful rethinking of areas identified in the original May 28 presentation -- Mariner's Mile, Lido Village and/or West Newport — was rejected not so much because it was not needed, as because there was insufficient time to do it in a thoughtful way. I also found it odd that no one ever offered any clear reason why the changes to the Newport Center plan were necessary, and whether The Irvine Company (and other property owners there) had any problems with them, or agreed with the supposedly City -initiated plan to reduce entitlement limits on other properties they owned. Subsequent explanations of why a revision of the General Plan is needed at this time do not, at least for me, square with the proposed menu of entitlement changes — nor, if a new vision is needed, show me those particular changes are the best way of achieving it. Among the reasons cited have been the work of the 2012 Neighborhood Revitalization Committee's Citizen's Advisory Panels. This seems like a convenient fiction to me. First, the CAP's were more like focus groups reviewing the work of outside consultants. But even then, three of the five CAP's work was confined to reviewing street landscaping plans which would hardly rise to the level of requiring General Plan Amendments. Of the remaining two, the Lido Village CAP considered only design guidelines, and was explicitly told changes in land use (such as new uses for the "old" City Hall site) were not within its purview. And the Balboa Village CAP's end product was the Balboa Village Master Plan adopted by the City Council on September 25, 2012. The "Planning/Zoning Recommendations" offered on page 13 of that document relate to parking and encouraging "mixed-use development pursuant to recently adopted land use designations in the City's General Plan." That is hardly a call for a revision of the Land Use Element, and none of this is even remotely related to adoption of the specific entitlement changes being proposed. Additional reasons cited have been new legislation and emerging best practices. That may be a more reasonable justification, however what this new legislation was and what the new best practices might be was not explained to the LUEAAC prior to their consideration of the new entitlement requests and did not seem to inform their decisions regarding them. To the best of my knowledge, the only request denied was one from Trumark Homes for additional residential development in West Santa Ana Heights, which was rejected because of existing airport noise limits. Although there may well be merit in adopting emerging statewide and regional sustainable communities strategies, I am unable to recall any discussion of whether the proposed basket of entitlement changes is the best way for Newport Beach to implement such new planning goals. I would think better ways would be to rethink the City's many residential areas lacking adequate walkable retail opportunities. The financial crisis of 2007-8 has also been cited has also been cited as triggering the need, in 2013-4, for a revision of the Newport Beach Land Use Element, but I have not been able to follow why. 716 June 5, 2014, PC Agenda Item 3 Comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 10 Insufficient Scope of Amendment The effort to provide the eight year old General Plan with "an oil change and a lube" by arbitrarily reviewing only the Land Use Element lacks a big picture perspective as to what the City is trying to accomplish. It also makes the new Land Use Element inconsistent with the overall Plan in ways that have not been adequately addressed by the few minor tweaks thought necessary to the Implementation Program (Chapter 13) and Glossary (Chapter 14). Although a number of changes to the Land Use allocation tables and maps in the General Plan have been similarly made since 2006 without explanation or revision to the text, the presently proposed changes are major enough that they need to be better integrated into the General Plan as a whole. In particular, Chapter 1 (Introduction) needs to be revised to describe the amendments to which the initial 2006 Plan has been subjected and what the new General Plan is intended to reflect. Otherwise the goals and policies the public finds in the Land Use Element (Chapter 3) will be inconsistent with the description of where they came from in Chapter 1. Likewise, some explanation needs to be provided of why Chapter 2 (Vision Statement) continues to call for "a conservative growth strategy that emphasizes residents' quality of life, yet the words implementing that have been struck from the Goals and Policies in Chapter 3 (Land Use Element). Equally importantly, it is not clear to me that the Land Use Element revisions have been thoughtfully examined for consistency with any of the other elements, including the recently adopted Housing Element (Chapter 5) — which seems to me to require much less housing development than the proposed new land use allocations seem intended to accommodate. One might also hope that significant changes in land use planning would be deferred until the public can see how they would fit into other City initiatives, such as the completion of its Bicycle Master Plan and its state -required new natural Hazard Mitigation Plan. Moreover, if the purpose of the present revisions is to respond to emerging best practices it is difficult to understand why at least equal attention is not being given to revising the Circulation Element (Chapter 7) so that it will coordinate with the proposed changes in our vision for land use (if we have one). As I understand it, the sustainable communities strategies, including that in Orange County, are responses to concerns about greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and focus on reducing vehicle miles traveled — which would seem to involve changes to transportation infrastructure and policy as much as land use. Role of the Planning Commission Planning Commission Vice Chair Tucker made some comments to the public at the May 22 Study Session to the effect that since the Commission is purely a "technical review" body, providing comments to it on the wisdom, or lack of wisdom, of the proposed Land Use Element Amendments was pointless. As I said in oral comment then, I think this is selling the Commission short. I am unable to find any such limitation on the Commission's role in the City Charter's description of the Planning Commission. On the contrary, since the Newport Beach General Plan is supposed to reflect the unique vision of the community for its future, I should 717 June 5, 2014, PC Agenda Item 3 Comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 10 think the City Council would be very much looking for a recommendation from seven residents with experience in planning as to whether adoption of proposed changes to the plan is wise and well thought out, or not. Vice Chair Tucker also made comments about the Planning Commission, in its evaluation of the EIR, being statutorily required to reject all but expert opinion based on substantial evidence, a comment which seemed intended to discourage public testimony. I believe the Vice Chair was expressing a personal interpretation of the State CEQA Guidelines, which I, to the contrary, believe allow the Commission to weigh evidence presented by anyone — but to reject mere opinion unless it is the opinion of experts relying on substantial evidence. But if the Planning Commission is indeed confined to making findings of technical adequacy independent of the merits of what is being proposed then I feel the Commission is compelled to defer the present hearing until it is noticed in compliance with state law (see first paragraph of following section), as well as deferring consideration of the Supplemental EIR until it has been subjected to a properly noticed public review (see comment on Response 114A-4 in second section below). Additional Procedural Concerns As noted on page 11 of the staff report, Government Code Section 65091(a)(4) allows the public notice requirements for hearings on General Plan amendments to be met "by placing a display advertisement of at least one-eighth page in at least one newspaper of general circulation within the local agency in which the proceeding is conducted at least 10 days prior to the hearing." However, the "add" noticing the present hearing (appearing in the Daily Pilot on May 24, 2014) was significantly less than one-eighth page (5.25 inches tall, when one-eighth page would have required at least 7.3 inches). Although I don't know how many people receive notice through that paper, it seems to me the current hearing was not properly noticed and holding an improperly noticed meeting seems a non -trivial matter to me. Another procedural concern that may or may not come up is that the Assistant City Attorney, in comments made at the May 22 meeting, suggested the Newport Beach Planning Commission's Rules of Procedures [sic] allow all motions, including resolutions, to be passed by a majority of whatever Commissioners happen to be present at the time of the vote. Since only five Commissioners are expected at the present hearing, it may be useful to note that regarding General Plan amendments, Government Code Section 65354 requires "A recommendation for approval shall be made by the affirmative vote of not less than a majority of the total membership of the commission' [emphasis added] that is, four members — as is the case, under the City Charter, for ordinances and resolutions of the City Council. See also the comment on Response 114A-4 in following section regarding an inadequate Notice of Availability for the Environmental Impact Report. 718 June 5, 2014, PC Agenda Item 3 Comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 10 Comments on Supplemental EIR (Exhibit A) As indicated above, I don't believe the Planning Commission is required to make environmental findings if its action is to disapprove the proposed changes. I am unable to comment comprehensively on the SEIR at this time, but with regard to the responses to comments in the proposed "Final" SEIR, I found many unresponsive as illustrated by the following analysis of the responses to the comments I submitted during the public review period, which appear starting on Page 2-199: • Response 114A-1: In my opinion, the response does not address the concern raised, which is that the SEIR was "scoped" before the project had been fully defined. I do not know how the public and outside agencies can be expected to intelligently comment on the required scope of an SEIR before the project it analyzes has been defined. • Response 114A-2: I thank the preparers for explaining how the 45 day public review period was established. I might note that in establishing the 45 day review period, for the Lido House Hotel EIR (SCH NO. 2013111022) one day more than in the present case was allowed and for the John Wayne Airport Settlement Agreement Amendment DEIR (SCH No. 2001111135), two days more were allowed. • Response 114A-3: The response does not address the concern expressed as to whether 45 days, even if legally allowed, was adequate in practice for public review under the stated circumstances. • Response 114A-4: The preparers have failed to respond to my concern that the draft SEIR the Planning Commission is being asked to review was improperly circulated because the Notice of Availability failed to comply with the mandatory requirement in the State CEQA Guidelines that the City notify the public, in the NOA, of the dates on which the City had scheduled public meetings to review the project. The preparer points to nothing in the CEQA guidelines that absolves them of the responsibility to include the dates in the NOA because they are "tentative' or "approximate." All dates are tentative until the event actually happens, and the fact that the schedule was repeatedly announced orally at public meetings makes it only more curious that they were not provided in the NOA. The public has a right to assume the lead agency will follow the law, and based on that assumption, attendance at other public meetings to hear oral announcements should not be necessary. I have submitted evidence that the expected dates of the May 8 and May 22 Planning Commission Study Sessions were known at the time of release of the NOA. I suspect plans for a June 5 Planning Commission and July 8 City Council hearing had also been made, as well as for the April 10 Public Information Meeting — the only public meeting dealing with the project that I am aware of held during the SEIR public review period, and arguably the most critical to inform the public of in the NOA. To me this seems a simple matter: dates of expected meetings known to the agency at the time of release of the NOA are required to be provided in the NOA. I strongly feel the lead agency's failure to do so invalidates the present review of the SEIR. 719 June 5, 2014, PC Agenda Item 3 Comments - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 10 • Response 114A-5: As indicated by many other public comments to a similar effect, I was not allowing in feeling that the choice of baseline did not provide the public with the information they needed to understand the impacts of the project, nor does the response allay the concern. Response 114A-6: The response fails to explain how changes in planning since 2006 outside Newport Beach have been taken into account. • Response 114A-7: I thank the preparers for clarifying where the Cultural Resources Appendix C referred to on page 5.3-5 can be found. However, my confusion arose because the document containing it is incorrectly described as the "Cultural Resources Assessment Report" when 'Report" is not part of the title as listed in the Bibliography, giving a "title not found" result when searching for it automatically. Giving either the correct title or the correct citation (Cogstone, 2014) would have avoided the comment. Response ll4A-8: I thank the preparers for correcting the proposed "final' SEIR to more accurately describe where Newport Beach is located in Orange County. Response 114A-9: I appreciate the long, discursive explanation provided, but the preparer has completely missed the point of my comment. The "(V/C > 1)" statement on page 5.11-4 is what I suspect are many errors in the SEIR. It should read "(V/C < 1)". • Response 1146-1: "Comment acknowledged" hardly seems an adequate response. The fact that the preparer reached a different conclusion than the ALUC regarding the consistency of the project with the AELUP raises questions about the adequacy of the SEIR, in particular whether the preparer correctly understands how the AELUP works. This amounts to only three out of ten cases in which a response was offered that clearly and directly addressing the concern raised, which I suspect is similar to the result for other commenters. That does not seem like an adequate SEIR to me. Other responses to comments, like much of the SEIR, are so poorly proofread it places a great burden on the public, who has to slowly guess what the preparer was trying to write. As a somewhat random example, Response 113-2 on Page 2-183 says: "The criteria for a Supplemental EIR as quoted in this comment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15163) is not related to the "additions or changes" necessary to make the previous EIR adequate. The eligibility for a project to be processed with a Supplemental EIR is not based on the scale or magnitude of the proposed changes." In this case, fortunately, the commenter provided the exact text of Section 15163, which in comparison to the comment being responded to tells me the "not' in the first sentence of the response is erroneous. So as with the text referred to in Response 114A-9, above, I have to assume the SEIR text is intended to mean the opposite of what it says. And as to the substance of the "response," I find it hard to understand how the need to add thousands of pages to make the previous EIR adequate is a minor change. The grammatically and substantively incorrect response does not give we a feeling this is an adequate SEIR. Among the responses to comments I read, one of the more amusing was that the comment by Susan Harker submitted within 7 minutes of the close of the public review period, and asking how the process, and in particular the opportunity to comment on the SEIR was advertised. Response 116-1 on Page 2-215 says, in part: "In addition, upon kick-off of the process in July 720 June 5, 2014, PC Agenda Item 3 Comments - Jim Mosher Page 7 of 10 2013, the City issued a press release which resulted in an article in the Sun Post." Some online research suggests that the Sun Post is a local supplement to the Orange County Register that is distributed in San Clemente. Although the comment letter does not give an address, I am mystified how media coverage in San Clemente is expected to be seen by residents of Newport Beach. As a somewhat random comment on the body of the SEIR, I might note that on Page 5.4-15 in the Greenhouse Gas Emissions chapter, Executive Order S-03-05 is misattributed to California Governor Brown. It should be evident to anyone reading it that the Order was actually issued by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. But more importantly, as indicated in more detail in the analysis of proposed Glossary revision 6, below, the same page reflects a persistent misunderstanding throughout the SEIR and the accompanying documents of the intent of the Order. The SEIR says Executive Order S-03-05 set "a long-term goal of reducing GHG emissions to 80 percent of 1990 levels by 2050" [emphasis added]. In fact, it set a goal of reducing GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels, which is a quite different thing (namely, "20 percent of 1990 levels by 2050). This error is repeated in the proposed draft Findings of Fact and the draft Statement of Overriding Considerations. Comments on Amended Land Use Policies (Exhibit C) This is really a revision not just to the Land Use Element's Goals and Policies, but to its entire text. As indicated in previous comments, I feel the Land Use Element from 2006 has major structural problems that continue to go unaddressed. It goes into detail about certain small areas of the City while leaving others largely omitted. I am, for example, unable to glean much from it about the City's vision for development in the Newport Coast region, or even the extent to which the City has jurisdiction over it, since the coastal planning aspects of it appear to remain with the County. I also have no way of knowing if the proposed entitlement changes for Newport Coast will create inconsistencies with its Certified Coastal Plan. While I do not have time to comprehensively comment on the proposed changes in advance of the present hearing, I would like to note that some of the proposed changes seem inconsistent with the stated reasons for revising the Land Use Element. For example, the proposed new LU 7.1.3 (Residential Affordability, formerly LU 6.2.3) deletes the previous commitment to provide units affordable to persons working in the City, which I thought was a cornerstone of sustainable communities strategies, as well as a justification for the proposed Newport Center and Airport Area land use changes. If the people who work there cannot afford to live there, they are not live -work communities. I might also note that following the "Districts" heading on handwritten page 53 of the present staff report, where changes to the introductory text in the following parts of the Land Use Element have been made, they seem inconsistent with the last paragraph under "Districts" which describes that text as a statement of conditions that existed in 2005. 721 June 5, 2014, PC Agenda Item 3 Comments - Jim Mosher Page 8 of 10 Comments on Revised Glossary (Exhibit E) As previously indicated, in my opinion the Glossary (Chapter 14) of the City's 2006 General Plan is poorly done and in need of extensive revision, however such revision does not seem to be contemplated as part of the present project. Handwritten page 108 of the staff report appears to add to the structural deficiencies by recommending insertion of a paragraph entitled "2014 Land Use Element Amendment' at or near the start of the Glossary. I certainly think some explanation of the 2014 amendment process is necessary somewhere within the amended General Plan, but this doesn't seem like the logical place to me. What would seem appropriate as a preface to the Glossary would be an explanation of its intended purpose. For example: • What legal significance are the definitions provided in the Glossary intended to have? • How are the many terms that appear in the General Plan, but are not defined in the Glossary, to be understood? Conversely, are the terms defined in the Glossary, but not elsewhere used in the General Plan, intended to have some significance for planning in Newport Beach —for example are these definitions to be used in interpreting the Zoning or Building Codes? In my view, depending on their intended use, many of the existing definitions are defective — some laughably so, such as the wrong number of Council members -- although I don't understand why a definition of "City Council" is even necessary, nor what significance it would have if it differed from the powers and duties conferred in the City Charter. The following comments are limited to the proposed changes to the Glossary, and are intended to illustrate that even those are not carefully thought out: 1. Climate Action Plan (handwritten page 113): It would seem useful to identify which year's "Senate Bill 375" is being referred to. It would also seem useful to add the new acronym "CAP" (not to be confused with "Citizens Advisory Panel" — a term used elsewhere in the amended Land Use Element) to the list of acronyms (page xviii of the overall General Plan). 2. Climate Change (handwritten page 113): This seems a highly questionable definition compared to what I understand the term to mean. Why don't summer and fall temperatures count? Why changes in the past 50 years, but not the future or more distant past? Why is drier (and less snowpack) a change but not wetter? The IPCC definition seems much better to me: "Climate change refers to a statistically significant variation in either the mean state of the climate or in its variability, persisting for an extended period (typically decades or longer)." If the intent is a more specialized definition that applies only to increases in average local temperatures that should be made clear. 722 June 5, 2014, PC Agenda Item 3 Comments - Jim Mosher Page 9 of 10 3. Compatibility (handwritten page 115): See bullet points, above. This differs from the definition of Compatibility in Section 20.70 of the NBMC. Is it good to have different definitions in such closely related legislation as the General Plan and the Zoning Code? 4. Embodied Energy (handwritten page 118): My understanding is this is a measure of energy content (or more precisely, energy required to replace) — that is, something that can be quantified in energy units (for example, joules) and can be increased or decreased through design changes. It certainly doesn'tseem to me to be "an accounting method." The proposed "definition" seems to be taken from the second paragraph of a Wikigedia article, and it seems to me to be the wrong sentence to copy. The definition is found in the start of the first paragraph: "Embodied Energy is the sum of all the energy required to produce any goods or services, considered as if that energy was incorporated or 'embodied' in the product itself." 5. Greenhouse Gas Emissions (handwritten page 122): Since the intent seems to be to use "GHG" to stand for "Greenhouse Gas" rather than ""Greenhouse Gas emissions," I assume the entry should be written as: "Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions" rather than "Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG)" (as is proposed). By the same token, if used in the amendment, "GHG" should be added to the list of acronyms on page xviii of the overall General Plan. As to the substance of the definition, it seems to be attempting a definition of anthropogenic GHG emissions, rather than GHG emissions in general (not all of which are a result of human activity). As such it might read: "The combustion of fossil fuels for energy and transportation are the primary sources of manmade GHG emission' (possibly excluding water vapor), but it would remain more of a statement than a definition. Collins English Dictionary offers "the emission into the earth's atmosphere of any of various gases, esp carbon dioxide, that contribute to the greenhouse effect" which seems better. 6. Greenhouse Gas Emission (GHG) Reduction or Reducing Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions (handwritten page 123): Again, if "GHG" stands for Greenhouse Gas, this was probably meant to read "Greenhouse Gas GHG Emission (GHG) Reduction or Reducing Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions." As to the substance, as best I can tell this is policy masquerading as "definition" and the proposed policy is that a project that emits the same GHG as a similar project built in conformance to 1990 standards will automatically be deemed to have reduced GHG emissions, and the existing use of the subject property is irrelevant. In other words, building a large trash incineration facility on a vacant lot would be deemed a reduction in GHG emission as long as it emits less GHG than a similarly sized trash incineration facility built to 1990 standards would. It is not clear to me that a General Plan definition can preempt state policy, for this completely misinterprets what the statewide goal is. As I understand it, the California goals established in 2005 were to reduce the total tonnage of CO2 equivalent GHG emissions to the 2000 tonnage by 2010, to the 1990 tonnage by 2020 and to one-fifth the 1990 tonnage (an 80% reduction) by 2050. Adding new development built to 1990 standards does nothing to achieve that goal, and unless it replaces an exceptionally high emitter will almost certainly increase the City's production of GHG emissions compared to adding new development built to modern standards. 723 June 5, 2014, PC Agenda Item 3 Comments - Jim Mosher Page 10 of 10 7. Heat Island Effect (handwritten page 123): This seems to be a definition of a Heat Island rather than a Heat Island Effect. 8. Infill Development (handwritten page 125): If the Glossary is not being comprehensively updated, it is unclear why this new definition has been added. Is it intended to change the meaning of the term as already used in the General Plan? And is it intended to distinguish "Infill Development" from "Infill"? 9. LEED Certified (handwritten page 126): It might be noted that the LEED acronym is already explained in the General Plan, although this more extensive definition is probably helpful. The acronym "USGBC" is also explained on page xxi, although one might wonder why it appears there, and in this new definition, since it does not appear to be used anywhere else in the General Plan. 10. Policy (handwritten page 133): The first part of the second added sentence seems ungrammatical. Shouldn't there be an "and" between "provide" and "encourage'? And shouldn't "is" be "are" in two places following that? But regarding all the proposed additions, it seems dangerous to me to assume all the policies appearing throughout the existing General Plan — not just in the Land Use Element — were written with these definitions in mind. I suspect a close reading is necessary, and some might need revision to conform to these standards. It seems particularly puzzling to me that in a planning document there would be no way to craft policies for the future that do not include the present. 11. Sustainability (handwritten page 141): This is clearly a definition of "Sustainable Development' rather than "Sustainability." Since "Sustainable" and "Sustainability' are used more often in both the existing and amended General Plan, it is unclear to me why a definition of a single, more specific phrase is desired. The proposed definition also seems, for unknown reasons, to gloss over or reject the core sense of a sustainable project being one that can be maintained at a steady level without depletion of resources. 12. Whole System (handwritten page 145): Since we have learned (under "Sustainability' on page 141) that "Sustainable Development' balances economic, social and environmental concerns, it is unclear why "Whole System Design" is focused on increasing "economic and environmental performance," but apparently neglects social consequences. Also, should the word "increase" be "maximize"? "Increase ... throughout' would seem to imply a constantly increasing performance level as the system ages, which would seem very difficult to achieve. "Maximize" would mean shooting for the best levels that could be attained. Finally, why is the acronym "WSD" being introduced when it is used nowhere else in the General Plan? 724 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE. BERKELEY - DAVIS- IRVINE - LOS ANGELES - MERCED- RIVERSIDE -.S.AN DIEGO - S -%N FRANCISCO Correspon dE nce Item No. 3g General Plan Land Frank M. LaFerla, PTLD. Hans and Francisco J. Ayala Dean PA2 013 — 0 9 8 Fmmisco J. Ayala School of Biological Sciences June 4, 2014 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 RE: Land Use Element Amendment (PA2013-098) & EIR SCH #2013101064 UAP Company Parcel — 4699 Jamboree Road & 5190 Campus Drive Belmont Village Senior Living - Trip Neutral — Congregate Care Facility To Members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission: SANTA BARBARA-SANTACROZ Use Element Amendment 5120 Natural Sciences Il Irvine, CA 92697-1450 (949)824-5315 laferla®uci.edu This is a letter of support for the need for more quality senior living and memory care programs in our community. UC Irvine's Institute for Memory Impairments and Neurological Disorders, UCI MIND, is one of 27 research centers in the nation funded by the NIH to find treatments or a cure for Alzheimer's disease. It is our mission to research ways to make memories last a lifetime. Until we achieve our mission, those with Alzheimer's disease and other memory disorders need to be cared for with dignity and quality care. The impact of Alzheimer's disease in the United States today is staggering and its impact will only grow as 10,000 Baby Boomers turn 65 each day. Every 67 seconds someone in the US develops Alzheimer's disease. It is the 3,d leading cause of death in the nation. With age as the highest risk factor, over the next 20 years the incidence of Alzheimer's is expected to double. Today, there are 84,000 Orange County residents affected by Alzheimer's disease, or at high risk of developing it. Few illnesses disrupt the quality of life as much as dementia. Families seek to have their loved ones cared for by highly trained professional staff at care communities near their own homes, so that they can visit and preserve close relationships with their mother, father, husband, wife or other family member. With the numbers of people who are being diagnosed increasing, the need is increasing, as well. More high quality senior living and memory care programs are needed in the Newport Beach area. I have had the opportunity to visit the Belmont Village community in Westwood which has an affiliation with UCLA. I was impressed with the richness and quality of the programs for the residents there. I urge you to support the proposed land use change at Jamboree and Campus to allow for the development of Assisted Living/Congregate Care (Trip Neutral). Sincerely, Frank M. LaFeria, PTLD. Hans and Francisco J. Ayala Dean 725 Correspondence Item No. 3h General Plan Land Use Element Amendment PA2013-098 Linda Scheck 1215 Rutland Road Newport Beach, CA 92660 June 5, 2014 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 RE: Land Use Element Amendment (PA2013-098) &amp; EIR SCH #2013101064 UAP Company Parcel - 4699 Jamboree Road &amp; 5190 Campus Drive Belmont Village Senior Living - Trip Neutral - Congregate Care Facility To Members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission: I joined the staff of the Alzheimer's Association of Orange County in 1987 and served as the executive director for the non-profit organization, which supports families and individuals coping with Alzheimer's disease, until I left in 2004. I then became the director of development and donor stewardship for the Institute for Memory Impairments and Neurological Disorders, UCI MIND at UC Irvine. I help raise funds for research to end Alzheimer's disease. It is the goal of UCI MIND to find treatments and a cure for the neurological disorders that impact memory, such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease. Research today brings hope for tomorrow. People who are at highest risk for developing dementia, those 65 and older, the baby boomers, are one of the fastest growing segments in our community. Many of them will not benefit from a possible cure or treatments to stop the disease that our researchers are diligently investigating. We are in a race against time. I have been a resident of Newport Beach since 1968. My husband and I have raised our children in this remarkable community and now, our grandchildren are growing up here. The importance of the support and care we provide for each other is very important to our family. I believe that in that way, we are like most residents of Newport Beach. I am writing this letter to share my opinion that Newport Beach needs more quality senior living and memory care communities. I am writing as a resident of Newport Beach to urge you to consider approving the development of communities that provide quality care. Care that ensures 726 dignity and honors the person who is slowly losing "self'— who they once were. Quality care provided by caring and well-trained staff in a setting here in our neighborhood. I know the impact this devastating disease has on the individual who is losing memories with each dying brain cell. I know the impact on their families and loved ones who see the person they love slowly fade away. My family, like many others has been impacted by the disease. It is an overwhelming and cruel disease. Most families want to have their loved ones live in a care community that is nearby so that they can visit often and preserve a close relationships with their mother, father, husband, wife or grandparent. I have visited the Belmont Village community in Westwood, which has an affiliation with UCLA. The depth of the programming and the services for the residents there is exceptional. I understand that there is one currently in development near UC Berkeley. The proposed location for Belmont Village in Newport Beach is easily accessible to all of Newport Beach and is near the UC Irvine campus. The potential collaboration between research and care is an important element to be considered. The need is here and growing and the opportunity is now. I urge you to support the proposed land use change at Jamboree and Campus to allow for the development of Assisted Living/Congregate Care (Trip Neutral). Sincerely, 1 " Linda Scheck 727 Correspondence Item No. 3i General Plan Land Use Element Amendment PA2013-098 BARRY L. ALLEN 1021 White Sails Way Corona del Mar, CA 92625 949-644-9264 City of Newport Beach June 5, 2014 Planning Commission City Hall Hand Delivered and Read for the Public Record The GREENLIGHT Initiative was voted on by the people of Newport Beach and it passed. The voters were fed up with rampant development that crowded our roads. New Development was invading our lovely residential city and creating or adding to gridlock on our streets. The people of Newport Beach voted against having a freeway through our town. The GREENLIGHT supporters wanted to keep our roads local and have some "say" in how the developers were using our roads as entrances and exits to their commercial and office projects; using our roads for the developers' commercial benefit. The voters felt they wanted to know how much traffic would be added to the existing roads by any proposed new development project. "GREENLIGHT" calls for a vote of the people on whether or not they favor a new development. That was the purpose of GREENLIGHT and don't let anyone tell you it was not. The developers hate GREENLIGHT. So what has happened is the friends of the developers on the City Council and City Staff have worked very hard to obscure and "explain" out of existence the traffic analysis required by GREENLIGHT. The City Staff and their consultants do a detailed analysis of everything about a project claiming to comply with GREENLIGHT, except they leave out the important traffic numbers. The developers and their friends in City government do not want to tell you in simple plain English what traffic will be generated by a new development. They want to talk about stop light synchronization, and adding a new through lane or a new turning lane at intersections. All this, they say, is done to help the voters understand the impact of the new development project, claiming to help the voters make an r`113 intelligent choice when the development comes up for a GREENLIGHT vote. The needed traffic numbers are clearly missing from the documents prepared by City staff and their consultants in support of the Irvine Company development in General Plan Amendment ---"Yes" I mean documents created by the City in "in support" of the Irvine Company development because the City staff does not oppose Irvine Company developments. If the City staff was truly neutral and fair they would do the one thing that has been asked of them by people like me. I have asked at public meetings, by letters, even in one letter to be included in the Environmental Impact Report I have asked for 2 pieces of information that are easily ascertainable as GREENLIGHT directs: (1.) Give the estimated traffic that will be generated by a 400,000 square foot office tower proposed for Newport Center in the General Plan Amendment. All that would take is a single paragraph, because they know what the information is. So why not tell the voters that? (2.) Give the estimated traffic that will be generated by the two existing office towers in Newport Center that are built but not yet occupied. (These are the PIMCO Tower and the Irvine Company headquarters tower, which the Irvine Company boasts is the tallest building in Orange County!) These traffic estimates are very easy to calculate. GREENLIGHT tells the City to use the estimates in the Institute of Traffic Engineers Manual, a manual that all traffic engineers have readily available. The reason the friends of the developers on the City Council and City staff will not give that information is because they are afraid the numbers will scare the voters because they are so high. They don't want the voters to know that these 3 towers will add 16,800 new car trips during peak hours alone to the existing traffic gridlock in and around Newport Center. (Peak hours are 7a.m. to 9 a.m. and 4p.m. to 6 p.m. every weekday.) These 3 towers will add 16,800 car trips during peak hours every Monday through Friday, 52 weeks per year. This is in addition to the existing traffic in and around Newport Center at peak hour! VAIM / t &-Vaq /r6�1 3, Correspondence Item No. 3j * General Plan Land Use Element Amendment STARPOINTE PA2013-098 VENTURES June 5, 2014 Mr. Gregg Ramirez City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Further Comments re Newport Beach SEIR Dear Mr. Ramirez: This letter shall serve as official comments on behalf of property owner John Saunders on the Draft SEIR which was released on March 17, 2014 and the Final SEIR on May 30, 2014. This letter incorporates, by reference, all continents made orally at the hearings and meetings from 2013 through 2014 and the comments made to the DSEIR. We also reserve the right to provide additional comments regarding the adequacy of the Final SEIR as the process moves through the Planning Commission and City Council hearings. To summarize this letter, notwithstanding the Response to Comments contained in the FSEIR, the FSEIR is adequate and should be certified with respect to the Project ONLY. The Project Alternative study is completely flawed and cannot be supported by the record. General Comments Based on information from the Airport Settlement Agreement EIR/Traffic Study, it appears clear that one, if not both, of the Significant and Unavoidable Impacts related to Traffic/Transportation would be eliminated. This would lead to the overall conclusion that there are no traffic impacts projected relative to the Proposed Project. A —The finding relative to cumulative impacts when considering traffic from the Airport Settlement does not appear valid based on the data in the Airport's Traffic Study. Addition of the relatively small incremental changes to ICU's in the Airport Area to the build out ICU's projected for those intersections (when considering GP Roadway Improvements) would not appear to result in any unacceptable levels of service. B — The finding regarding impacts to Caltrans mainline segments and ramps would not appear applicable to the GPA Project if the same level of significance utilized in the Airport Study was applied to the GPA Traffic Study. The significance level utilized for Caltrans facilities in the Airport Study was set at being over a two percent increase In the base traffic level ( Airport Traffic Study page 67). 19700 Faircluld Road, Suite 240, Irvine, California 92612 (949) 622-0420 * Fax (949) 622-0423 * www.staipointeventures.com rKla Consideration should be given to the definition of, "significance," relative to both the level of proposed development and to the resulting impacts ( as exemplified by Response O3A-1). For a point of reference, it is informative to note that the 10,771 ADT resulting from proposed changes in the Airport Area represents an increase of less than 10% over the ADT projected for the build out of the entire Airport Area and approximately 1 % of ADT for the entire City. More specifically, as currently projected, the ADT added by the GPA request for the Saunders Properties would represent an increase of approximately 4% of all trips at the Build out level of the Airport Area and an increase of less than 1/2% of the City's projected build out ADT. The application of trip rate 3c for calculating Project trip generation was included in Comments O3A-5 and OB -1, not only because it appeared to be the most appropriate NBTAM trip rate for apartments, but also to be consistent with the trip rates used in the GPA Study to calculate ADT for the Lyon GPA request ( see Table X in Appendix 4.1 to the GPA Traffic Study), which was also proposed to consist of three to story buildings. It is important to recognize that while NBTAM land use 3c is labeled as, "High Rise" in Table X, the related trip rates do not match the ITE trip rates for High Rise apartments, instead the NBTAM rates are more reflective of the ITE Mid -Rise apartment rates which makes its application logical and consistent). While modifications were proposed to better represent the existing uses on the Saunders Properties in Table 3-1, additional changes are still necessary and important, relative to the calculation of net new trips from the Project site. It is particularly important that the records reflect that General Commercial and Medical Office uses exist on the site. Staff Report The Staff Report is incorrect with regard to the Project Alternative in many ways. First, it states that the legislative changes since 2006 and healthy and sustainable connnunities policy amendments are being carried forward with this update. This is not true with regard to the Project Alternative. There are simply no studies in the SEIR which would support a finding that the Project Alternative meets any of the policy goals. Concentrating all of the Land Use Element intensity from various areas of the City to one central location cannot possibly be the most sustainable and environmentally superior option In fact SB 375 and GIIG reduction smart growth strategies explicitly state that the provision of additional housing opportunities near the job and transit center of JWA would be the environmentally superior alternative. City staff have tried to argue that merely having less of something is better environmentally. As has been showed time and time again with infill vs. sprawl development, often times larger, more dense development in city cores are environmentally superior to smaller, less dense development away from jobs and services. The staff report and the Response to Comments makes a logical leap with regard to the Project Alternative which cannot be supported by the FSEIR. 731 Per the Staff Report, "On the basis of the entire environmental review record, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact upon the environment." Transportation and Traffic The Staff Report says that, "because of the uncertainty of the traffic related to the JWA Settlement Agreement, the cumulative environmental effects were considered significant and unavoidable." The Draft EIR for the JWA Settlement Agreement has been published. The Newport Beach Planning Commission must take notice of the fact that the alleged "Airport Area" impacts have been analyzed in the EIR and additional mitigation measures have been added in that Project. The statements regarding the environmental record related to the Project Alternative could not be supported when they were made initially and certainly cannot be supported now. ALUC The ALUC routinely finds new projects in the JWA AELUP area to be inconsistent. City Councils in neighboring cities routinely override these decisions. This City Council has already taken the first step in overriding the ALUC decision. Approving the Project Alternative will not obviate the need to override the ALUC decision for this General Plan Update. This is a red herring. The No Airport Area Project Alternative The Staff Report and FSEIR state that the "alternative scenario was selected for study because of its potential to reduce impacts related to John Wayne Airpott, the potential to reduce traffic impacts and cumulative and unknown impacts related to the pending Airport Settlement Agreement" This statement has always been completely untrue and, now that the JWA EIR is out for review cannot be supported at all. That EIR assumed these projects as "cumulative projects" and created a new mitigation measure for JWA as well as publishing studies which eliminate the "unknown" from the statement by the City. The criticism of our previous letter is now magnified by the findings of the JWA ETR which studied the project as a whole. Overall Response to Comments The Response to Comments published in the FSEIR is cursory at best. 03A-1 As previously stated, this response is incorrect because you cannot prove the truth of something merely by proving the negative. CEQA requires a study of the impacts of a Project. The Project has been studied. The Project Alternative impacts have not been studied in any way and the FSEIR CANNOT state that the Project Alternative is superior merely by arguing that less intensity = less impacts. All comments above are re-incotpotated here by reference. Staff has had months to run the three projects which are part of the rKra Alternative still, the largest one is no longer being pursued, and one of them has no traffic impacts. The Project Alternative FSEIR is inadequate and not based upon the current knowledge of the projects being pursued in the GPA. 03A-2 Again, the FSEIR aggregates a project which is no longer being proposed AND by not studying the benefits of the Saunders properties, there is not sufficient evidence to determine whether any of the claimed benefits are true. For six months, the City has been aware of the fact that only three of the proposed Airport Area projects are being pursued and that one of them is trip neutral. To create this Project Alternative is to mislead the adjudicating body into believing that the Saunders project must be removed to avoid triggering impacts. This is not the case. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Commission could adopt the Project with the Saunders properties included based on the FSEIR. 03A-3 For both accuracy and to provide for necessary and appropriate airport support uses, it would be important to specifically include, "aviation retail, automobile rental, sales and service uses" in the list of allowed uses for the MU -H2 land use category to avoid the potential future issues identified in Response 03A-3. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Commission could adopt the Project with the Saunders properties included based on the FSEIR. 03A-4 This is, again, a mis-statement because no study was conducted. The argument made by Staff that "there would be too many iterations" is clearly false in that there are only four projects which are different between the Project and Project Alternative and two should would not require study (one because it has no trip impacts and the other because as of late last year it is no longer being pursued). Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Commission could adopt the Project with the Saunders properties included based on the FSEIR. 03A-5 The application of trip rate 3c for calculating Project trip generation because it appeared to be the most appropriate NBTAM trip rate for apartments, but also to be consistent with the trip rates used in the GPA Study to calculate ADT for the Lyon GPA request ( see Table X in Appendix 4.1 to the GPA Traffic Study), which was also proposed to consist of three to story buildings. It is important to recognize that while NBTAM land use 3c is labeled as, "High Rise" in Table X, the related trip rates do not match the ITE trip rates for High Rise apartments, instead the NBTAM rates are more WICI reflective of the ITE Mid -Rise apartment rates ( which makes its application logical and consistent). O3A-6 This response is not correct. Staff became aware late last year that one of the projects in the Airport Area is not being pursued, no comments have been made publicly by anyone affiliated with that project this year, and there was sufficient time before the DSEIR was published to remove the large proposal from the study which overstates impacts due to its inclusion. O3A-7 See responses above since these are largely restatements of prior responses to comments. O3A-8 See below. O3A-9 This is not accurate. The Project Alternative has not been studied. It is merely an estimation that lower intensity would be environmentally superior. O3A-10 See comments above. Deferring any study of this proposal to a project -specific study rather than the General Plan Amendment is totally outside of the direction of the Committee and Council. A General Plan Update is a long-term look at the path of a City's development, inter alia, and suggesting a segmentation approach is not in line with CEQA's goals, objectives, or standards. O3A-11 See responses above. Segmentation should not be encouraged. O3A-12 See responses above. Segmentation should not be encouraged. WEN 03A-13 Agreed. The City Staff HAS advocated the Project Alternative using the FSEIR as its basis. As outlined here, this cannot and should not be supported. The application of trip rate 3c for calculating Project trip generation was included in Comments 03A-5 and OB -1, not only because it appeared to be the most appropriate NBTAM trip rate for apartments, but also to be consistent with the trip rates used in the GPA Study to calculate ADT for the Lyon GPA request ( see Table X in Appendix 4.1 to the GPA Traffic Study), which was also proposed to consist of three to story buildings. It is important to recognize that while NBTAM land use 3c is labeled as, "High Rise" in Table X, the related trip rates do not match the ITE trip rates for High Rise apartments, instead the NBTAM rates are more reflective of the ITE Mid -Rise apartment rates which makes its application logical and consistent). Cdclba While modifications were proposed to better represent the existing uses on the Saunders Properties in Table 3-1, additional changes are still necessary and important, relative to the calculation of net new trips from the Project site. It is particularly important that the records reflect that General Commercial and Medical Office uses exist on the site. 0313-5 This response is insufficient. The information is available. 03B -G This response is insufficient. Please see comments above. The representation that there are infinite combinations to study is false. There are two project in the Airport area which should be studied. W1.1 Conclusion We requested to work with City Staff throughout the hearings on the SEIR, however, have seen nothing but the continued support for the flawed Project Alternative. The applicant reserves all legal rights and can and will continue to marshal legal arguments and supplement the record through the upcoming hearings. Please contact us if additional information is necessary. Very truly yours, Patrick B. Strader, Esq. CEO Starpointe Ventures cc: Mr. John Saunders WI -I Q �sW FpgT ° , ,�: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH U� Z �q�"oaN.P CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE DATE: June 5, 2014 Correspondence Item No. 3k General Plan Land Use Element Amendment PA2013-098 TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Leonie Mulvihill, Assistant City Attorney E Y r v MATTER: General Plan Land Use Element Amendment SUBJECT: Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report SCH # 2013101064 Our office has reviewed the comments received by the City during the public review period for the above -referenced Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report relating to the General Plan Land Use Element Amendment. We have prepared the attached Topical Response (Supplemental EIR and Baseline Analysis) to provide additional information as to the City's compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines. We respectfully request that this information be included in the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. [A13 -00666] -Memo to Land Use Committee 6.5.14 737 TOPICAL RESPONSE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR AND BASELINE ANALYSIS Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.), and the regulations adopted to implement CEQA (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, § 15000 et seq. (CEQA Guidelines) provide that a program EIR is the appropriate document to analyze the impacts of a general policy document, such as a General Plan. On July 25, 2006, the City certified EIR No. 2006011119 as the environmental documentation for a comprehensive update to the City's General Plan. (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15165, 15168.). Consistent with this guidance, the City's 2006 General Plan EIR is identified as a "program EIR." Pursuant to City Charter Section 423, the 2006 General Plan update was considered to be a "major amendment" and therefore 2006 General Plan update did not take effect until it was approved by the voters in a municipal election that was held on November 7, 2006. Although some time has passed, the 2006 General Plan is not so old that it is in need of a comprehensive update, and the 2006 General Plan EIR contains information that remains relevant. Therefore, the project description in the Supplemental EIR reflects the City's intent to update only the Land Use Element of the City's 2006 General Plan in reaction to changes in the economy and market, recent legislation and emerging best practices. The project is limited to the Land Use Element and focuses on modifying densities and permitted uses at specific locations in the City, and amending certain land -use policies. Any time a further discretionary approval is required for a project for which an EIR has already been certified, the City is faced with the question of what form of additional environmental review, if any, is necessary. CEQA's guidance on this issue is set forth in Public Resources Code section 21166, which provides that when an EIR has been prepared for a project, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required unless one or more of the following events occurs: (a) substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the EIR; (b) substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken which require major revisions to the EIR; or (c) new information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified as complete, becomes available. If the changes to the project are not sufficiently substantial to require a subsequent or supplemental EIR, the agency may prepare a subsequent negative declaration, an addendum, or no further documentation. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15162, subd. (b).) The City is not claiming that the proposed Land Use Element amendments are covered by, or within the scope of, the 2006 General Plan program EIR. Rather, the City is disclosing the impacts of its proposed amendments in a Supplemental EIR consistent with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The City's analysis and the conclusions in the Final Supplemental EIR reflect CEQA Guidelines section 15163(a), which provides that if only minor additions or 738 changes are necessary to make the 2006 General Plan EIR adequate, the City may prepare a supplement to the EIR. To support the conclusion that a Supplemental EIR is the appropriate document to review the project, it should be noted that the proposed amendments affect the same geographic area covered by the 2006 General Plan and the City is not amending its General Plan in a way that opens up new areas to development. It should also be noted that the City is not proposing to authorize site-specific development; rather, the City is updating its existing land -use element and the land use designations contained therein. In other words, the City is proposing to amend the plan itself, the City is not seeking to apply the plan to a specific proposal. Later, site- specific proposals will still undergo second-tier environmental review. The City received comments during the public review of the draft Supplemental EIR that the proposed amendments are significant and major modifications such that a Supplemental EIR is not appropriate. However, the City contends that supplemental review is appropriate even though there are new significant environmental impacts because, in part, the additional analysis does not require major revisions to the 2006 General Plan EIR. Under CEQA, the requirement for additional environmental review arises only if there is a need to evaluate new or more severe significant environmental impacts that will result from changes in the project, and the analysis will require major revisions of the previous EIR. (See CEQA Guidelines § 15162.) For instance, it is true that greenhouse gas emissions were not required to be evaluated in the 2006 General Plan EIR, and that the Supplemental EIR discloses these impacts. But Climate Change, and greenhouse gas emissions which contribute to climate change, is not "new information" triggering the need for additional environmental review under Public Resources Code section 21166. (See Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of San Diego (2011) 196 Cal.AppAth 515, 530 ("CREED IT') [rejecting petitioner's claim that "new information on the nexus between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change" triggered the requirement for a subsequent or supplemental EIR when the original EIR, certified in 1994, did not discuss greenhouse gas emissions], citing Massachusetts v. EPA (2007) 549 US 497, 507 [which noted that climate change had been a concern since the 1970's].) Thus, the effect of greenhouse gas emissions on climate could have been raised in 2006 when the City prepared and certified the General Plan EIR and therefore is not "new information" which was "not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence." Baseline Analysis As stated above, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15162-15163, the City determined that preparation of a Supplemental EIR to the 2006 General Plan EIR was appropriate for the Land Use Element amendments. While the general rule under CEQA is that the existing environmental setting in an EIR normally corresponds to the physical conditions at the time the agency undertakes its analysis (CEQA Guidelines, § 15125, subd. (a)), the California Supreme Court has acknowledged that supplemental review under section 21166 is an exception to this rule. (See Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist., supra, 48 CalAth at p. 326 [acknowledging the "only limited CEQA review under section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines section 15162"]; see also Fairview Neighbors v. County of Ventura (1999) 70 Cal.AppAth 238, 242-243; Benton v. Board of Supervisors (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1467,1477-1484; Committeefor a Progressive Gilroy v. 739 State Water Resources Control Bd. (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 847, 862-865].) Under these cases, the supplemental analysis need not revisit those impacts already disclosed in the original EIR; rather, the impacts disclosed in the original EIR become the "baseline" against which the impacts of the modifications to the project are measured. The focus is therefore on whether the modifications to the project give rise to new, or substantially more severe, environmental impacts. (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15162-15163; see also Latinos Unidos de Napa v. City of Napa (2013) 221 Cal.AppAth 192 [finding substantial evidence supported the City of Napa's determination that, in amending its General Plan to increase densities at certain locations throughout the city, the impacts of those amendments fell within the scope of those disclosed in the program EIR certified by the city in 1998 when it adopted its General Plan; thus, no additional environmental review was required for the amendment].) Further, it is well established that a supplemental EIR is required to evaluate only the changes in the projects, changes in circumstances, or new information that lead to the preparation of the further EIR. In other words, "the project as reviewed in the prior EIR is effectively treated as the baseline for the subsequent environmental review." (Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act § 19.54 (2d ed Cal CEB 2008).) For example, in Temecula Band of Luiseno Missions Indians v. Rancho California Water Dist., 43 Cal. App. 4th 425, 437-438 (1996), the court, applying the reasoning in Benton, upheld a water district's consideration of only the additional incremental effects of relocating a pipeline compared to the previously approved pipeline project; thus, the focus was properly on only the environmental effects not considered in the previous negative declaration prepared for the original project approval. Similarly, in Sierra Club v. City of Orange, 163 Cal, App. 4th 523, 542 (2008), the Fourth District Court of Appeal upheld a broad-based attack on an EIR prepared for a proposed specific plan and confirmed that the project impacts as reviewed in the prior EIR were properly treated as part of the environmental baseline in a supplemental EIR. Specifically, the Siena Club had argued the EIR's traffic analysis failed to account for 16,690 vehicle trips that would be generated by previously approved, but not yet built, development in the area. According to the Siena Club, this approach distorted baseline conditions, by assuming that non-existent trips were part of the existing environmental setting. The Court disagreed for several reasons, including on the basis that the EIR's approach was consistent with case law governing supplemental environmental review and, under this line of cases, in the context of supplemental review, the agency need not revisit impacts that have already undergone final CEQA review. Here, using an "existing conditions" baseline would be inconsistent with the process for supplemental environmental review, and would require the City to repeat previous environmental analysis; including, potentially giving the false impression that disapproval of the Land Use Element Update could avoid certain impacts that result from build out of the 2006 General Plan. Such analysis would provide no meaningful information to the public or decision makers. For these reasons, the project as reviewed in the 2006 General Plan EIR is effectively treated as the baseline for the subsequent environmental review. 740 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, July 8, 2014, at 7:00 p.m. or soon thereafter as the matter shall be heard, a public hearing will be conducted in the City Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach will consider the following application: General Plan Land Use Element Amendment. The project is an amendment to the City of Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element, Glossary and Implementation Plan. The amendment is intended to shape future development within the City and involves the alteration, intensification, and redistribution of land uses in certain subareas of the City, including major areas such as Newport Center/Fashion Island, Newport Coast, and the area near John Wayne Airport. The amendment will also include Land Use Element Policy revisions related to land use changes, in support of recent Neighborhood Revitalization efforts, and, as appropriate, updates/refinements to policies. Subsequent amendments the Newport Beach Coastal Land Use Plan, and Zoning Code and Map will be necessary to reflect the amendment to the General Plan. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will consider certifying the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2013101064) prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project, and adopting CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations. The draft Final Supplemental EIR has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended (Public Resources Code, §§ 21000 et seq.; 21166), and the State CEQA Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, §§ 15000 et seq.; 15162-15163). Copies of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and supporting documents, including the Environmental Impact Report certified for the 2006 General Plan, are available for public review and inspection at the Planning Division or at the City of Newport Beach website at www.newportbeachca.gov/cegadocuments. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that on June 5, 2014, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach recommended that the City Council approve the General Plan Land Use Element Amendment and certify the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that the City Council will consider adopting a resolution to overrule the Airport Land Use Commission's determination that the proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendment is inconsistent with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport and with the AELUP for Heliports. All interested parties may appear and present testimony in regard to this application. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City, at, or prior to, the public hearing. Administrative procedures for appeals are provided in the Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 20.64. The application may be continued to a specific future meeting date, and if such an action occurs, additional public notice of the continuance will not be provided. Prior to the public hearing the agenda, staff report, and documents may be reviewed at the Community Development Department Permit Center (Bay C -1st Floor), at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California, 92660 or at the City of Newport Beach website at www.newportbeachca.gov. Individuals not able to attend the meeting may contact the Planning Division or access the City's website after the meeting to review the action on this application. For questions regarding this public hearing item please contact Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner, at 949-644-3219 or gram irez(cDnewportbeachca.gov. Project File No.: PA2013-098 Activity No.: GP2013-001 and ER2014-002 Zone: Various General Plan: Various Location: Citywide Applicant: City of Newport Beach Leilani I. Brown, City Clerk City of Newport Beach PA2013-098 LUEA LABELS CREATED MAY 16, 2014 1,37f LABELS 1&3fih plfiwW6 Ae Element ' end�i Pn 4 Bend alonUp Edg@ y�l�nTPA AMMCOR AMMCOR MANAGEMENT JENNIFER FONTANA 1062 CALLE NEGOCIO F 1062 CALLE NEGOCIO F SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92673 SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92673 BPPA CARDINAL PROPERTY MGMT PO BOX 826 THERESA ESTRADA BALBOA, CA 92661 1290 N. HANCOCK STREET 103 ANAHEIM, CA 92807 GOLD COAST ENTERPRISES KEYSTONE PACIFIC MANAGEMENT 200 E KATELLA KIM HOCKINGS ORANGE, CA 92867 16845 VON KARMAN AVENUE 200 IRVINE, CA 92606 AVERY® 51600 I BHE P.O. BOX 7736 LAGUNA NIGUEL, CA 92607 ELITE PROPERTY SERVICES MIKE KUBAS 3941 BRISTOL D285 SANTA ANA, CA 92618 KEYSTONE PACIFIC MGMT JENNIFER KAMMES 16845 VON KARMAN AVENUE 200 IRVINE, CA 92606 KEYSTONE PACIFIC PROPERTY MERIT PROPERTY MGMT MESA PROPERTY MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT MISTY THOMAS KENNETH A. SHELTON JR. LISA BRANNON 1 POLARIS WAY 100 660 BAKER STREET 211A 16845 VON KARMAN AVENUE 200 ALISO VIEJO, CA 92656 COSTA MESA, CA 92626 IRVINE, CA 92606 PCM Property Management Co. RHODES DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 23726 BIRTCHER DR 1400 QUAIL ST 195 SUSAN RHODES LAKE FOREST, CA 92630 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 1401 AVOCADO 901 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 SEABREEZE MGMT CO INC TERRA VISTA MGMT/BAYSIDE VIL 39 ARGONAUT 100 NICOLE CONNER ALISO VIEJO, CA 92656 300 E COAST HWY NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 TOTAL PROPERTY MGMT INC VILLAGEWAY MANAGEMENT COMPANY MICHELLE BENSON 2 VENTURE 500 2 CORPORATE PARK 200 IRVINE, CA 92618 IRVINE, CA 92602 THE IRVINE COMPANY 100 VILAGGIO NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 Etiquettes faciles a peter ; AI . s ® ® i Sens de Repliez a la hachure afin de www.averycom Utilisez le gabarit AVERY 5160 chargement reveller le rebord Pop-upTM 1 -800 -G® -AVERY 1 P&' Aa ipp TelWgt�§'6bbment Amendmelt - Fj1eWWp& �AQ tl �� (Ify 2014 mailing) AVIERY0 5160f 892-212.94 RUNK,ROBERT J RAIL ALICE TRUST 936-520-41 050.421-42 BRENNAN,DAVID 423-083-12 Victory Outreach COLEEN H GARRETT INVESTMENT GROUP LLC PO Box 2137 Chino, Ca. 91708 420 HARBOR ISLAND DR 1020 HUNTINGTON DR 892-212.76HAVLAN,JENNIFER NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 SAN MARINO, CA 91108 937.170.21 938.01-349 423-083.11 John M Sullivan BAILEY,MARK C TRUST GARRETT INVESTMENT GROUP LLC 3140 Clay St. #6 360 E 1ST ST #898 1020 HUNTINGTON DR San Francisco, Ca. 94115 TUSTIN, CA 92780 SAN MARINO, CA 91108 937.170-42 Hamid Shirvani 939-63-717 939-84-027 524 Slate Dr. NELSON,GERALD H RANSOM,CAREY Bismarck, ND. 58503 PO BOX 11208 STEPHANIE T 431 LUGONIA ST SANTA ANA, CA 92711 442-081.07 442-231-08 WOO,SUJI NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 934.180-32 705 ACACIA AVE #5 550 NEWPORT CENTER DR Albert Liu 939.63.766 423-122.05 766 Still Breeze Way MILANO,THOMAS J TRUST LIDO GROUP RETAIL LLC Sacramento, Ca. 95831 1101 GRANVILLE DR 210 E STATE RT 4 939-63-690 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 PARAMUS, NJ 07652 934-180-26 050.421.13 442.421.09 Albert Liu AGGREGATE ENTS LTD GRANVILLE 766 Still Breeze Way HOUSE 14 93 REPULSE BAY RD COMMUNITY ASSN Sacramento, Ca. 95831 Irvine, CA. 92618 4 PARK PLZ #16 IRVINE, CA 92614 892.219-08 934-18-019 892-212.94 RUNK,ROBERT J RAIL ALICE TRUST Bigelow, John William 3 MACON 6013 W EVANS DR 294 MAYFLOWER DR IRVINE, CA 92620 GLENDALE, AZ 85306 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 892-212-92 050-383-06 892-212.76HAVLAN,JENNIFER ITSON FAMILY TRUST IRVINE CO 11770 S DRY CRE CRE EK RD 292 MAYFLOWER DR 1099 BAYSIDE DR SANDY, UT 4094 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 050.471.26 445-131-09 423-091-11 BEARDSLEE,RAND W CANOPI LLC MOCHA FAMILY LP PO BOX 2813 4440 VON KARMAN AVE #120 505 CLUBHOUSE AVE BIG BEAR LAKE, CA 92315 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 938-01.250 GILYARD,REGINALD 442-081.07 442-231-08 WOO,SUJI IRVINE CO 180 NEWPORT CENTER LLC 705 ACACIA AVE #5 550 NEWPORT CENTER DR 180 NEWPORT CENTER DR CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 939-63-674 445-141-09 939-63-690 CHIN,ALLISON BEACHWOOD PARTNERS LLC WALLACK,HARVEY I TRUST 72 VILLA POINT DR 3 MONARCH BAY PLZ #103 PO BOX 4499 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 DANA POINT, CA 92629 WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CA 91359 ttiquettes faciles a peter I ® ; + Rs A la hachure afin de + www.avery.com + Utilisez le gabarit AVERY® 51600j deepliez cha gement rev6ler le rebord Pop-up- � 1 -800 -GO -AVERY 1 ment Amendmelt (Jay 2014 mailing) AVOW,, $1600WWe aAf6 1 423-085-02 MILTENBERGER,REBECCA LOWREY PO BOX 1464 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659 423-085-04 TUSLER,EVE JACQUELINE TRUST 842 E VILLA ST #216 PASADENA, CA 91101 427-141-02 050-241-03 DAS PROPERTY HOLDINGS IRVINE CO 19782 MACARTHUR BLVD #215 550 NEWPORT CENTER Dr IRVINE, CA 92612 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 445-141-04 4750 VON KARMAN AVE NEWPORT BEACH 92660 939-63-782 LAMPROPOULOS,FRED 5497 S WALKER ESTATES HOLLADAY, UT 84117 892-100-09 1535 SUPERIOR AVE # Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 892-100-06 PIXLEY,CAROLINE 1535 SUPERIOR AVE #6 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 892-212-64 RILEY,LEO 264 MAYFLOWER DR NEWPORT BEACH 92660 939-63-770 HANSEN,KATHLEEN 205 SUSANNAH PL COSTA MESA, CA 92627 892-100-19 CHASTELER,MARIE 21440 VIA DEL CUERVO YORBA LINDA, CA 92887 892-100-39 MEYERHOFER,LAURA BETH 455 S PICKENS ST COLUMBIA, SC 29205 424-161-02 892-070-16 DRC INVESTS INC MURPHY,DAVID 1251 W REDONDO BEACH BLVD 1560 PLACENTIA AVE #137 GARDENA, CA 90247 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 423-084-10 934-04-013 TAPP,D RODNEY & SARA COLE,GREGORY G TRUST 6011/2 CLUBHOUSE AVE 617 LOIRE CT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 JACKSONVILLE, FL 32259 939-84-031 SZIGETI,JOSEF 427-121-16 703 JASMINE AVE 668 N COAST HWY #1370 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 423-085-13 423-085-03 GROTHUS,J CHALUPNIK,JAMES & REBEKKA 515 35TH ST 504 36th St. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 Etiquettes faclles a peter ARepliez a Ia hachure afin de F Utilisez ie abarit AVERY® 5160® Sens de reveler le rebord Po -u TM r 9 char ement P P 939-63-794 FUSCO,MICHAEL 1080 GRANVILLE DR Newport Beach, Ca 92660 442-182-14 CORTESE,HEIDI 218 MARIGOLD AVE CORONA DEL MAR 92625 939-63-747 KOLL,KATHLEEN 1011 S BAY NEWPORT BEACH 92660 442-271-23 MARK P ROBINSON JR 19 CORPORATE PLAZA Dr NEWPORT BEACH 92660 934-04-048 STEAKLEY,MARVIN C JR 20151 RIVERSIDE DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 892-100-11 1535 Superior Ave #11 Newport Beach, Ca 92663 892-100-15 COFFMAN,STEPHEN CRAIG 1535 SUPERIOR AVE #15 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 427-121-15 668 N COAST HWY #1370 LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 939-63-712 OAKDALE HEIGHTS SECURITY PO BOX 398282 MIAMI BEACH, FL 33239 892-070-25 EBB TIDE MOBILE HOME PARK 34700 PACIFIC COAST HWY #305 CAPISTRANO BEACH, CA 92624 1 -800 -GO -AVERY ' U3` %Z TelitjI �S%ment Amendmept - ®®�( y 2014 mailing) C&A AVERY@ 5160 A 934-04-070 FRAIZER FAMILY TRUST 154 PLAYA CIR ALISO VIEJO, CA 92656 934-04-057 TUBBS,JENNIFER 31625 3RD AVE LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 048-143-18 GROUNDSWELL INVESTMENTS 7 BODEGA BAY DR CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 048-132-12 SHAPIRO,WILLIAM 893 E BRIER DR SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408 458-071-08 GOLDING,JASON FAMILY TRUST 2706 LIGHTHOUSE LN CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 892-090-38 CORBIN FAMILY TRUST 824 W 15TH ST #38 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 442-011-52 FAINBARG III LP 129 W WILSON ST #100 COSTA MESA, CA 92627 442-161-07 T Y NEWPORT LLC 260 NEWPORT CENTER DR #3 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 048-133-01 DUFOUR-MYTON,JUDY H TRUST 78810 YELLEN DR PALM DESERT, CA 92211 458-351-06 IRVINE CO MACYS CALIFORNIA 1600 SAN MIGUEL DR #3 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 442-271-14 FITZPATRICK KATHLEEN L TAX FREE TRUST 1301 DOVE ST #860 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 050-431-17 KLUG,JEAN 1048 IRVINE AVE #306 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 445-141-26 BEACHWOOD PARTNERS LLC 22803 SEAWAY DR LAGUNA NIGUEL, CA 92677 048-141-36 MOYER,NORMAN EDWARD TRUST 904 E BALBOA BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 427-111-10 PACIFIC MEDICAL INNOVATIONS LLC 4501 BIRCH ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 445-121-18 BRE & ESA PROPERTIES LLC PO BOX 49550 CHARLOTTE, NC 28277 934-04-001 VESTERS CORP 25602 ALICIA PKWY #302 LAGUNA HILLS, CA 92653 423-097-06 HUNT,STEVEN T & SUSAN LYN 1826 E GRAY FOX DR DRAPER, UT 84020 425-032-14 ROWE,ERIN E FAMILY TRUST PO BOX 845 TRINIDAD, CA 95570 934-18-012 CAMPBELL,CARRIE A 27155 WOODBLUFF RD LAGUNA HILLS, CA 92653 t ttiquettes faciles a peter i ` s de iRepiiez #a laache�re afiln de I Utilises Pe gabarit AVERY® 5180® chargement rev6ler (e rebord Pop-up- � 934-18-013 MANSER FAMILY TRUST 212 DIAMOND AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92662 934-18-015 KOOP,JEREMY S & POLLY A 276 E 18TH ST COSTA MESA, CA 92627 934-18-027 CLARK,VICTORIA HOLMES 381 MOANA PL PACIFICA, CA 94044 939-63-761 BADER,DENNIS L & LORRAINE TRUST 1067 GRANVILLE DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 423-101-18 NEWPORT LIDO LLC PO BOX 17448 ANAHEIM, CA 92817 050-431-11 GOLDSCHMIDT,ANTHONY 155 N LA PEER DR LOS ANGELES, CA 90048 934-32-052 OLSEN,KNUD H TRUST 114 2ND AVE S #201 EDMONDS, WA 98020 937-17-035 BROWN,FRED 0 TRUST PO BOX 519 SANTA CLARA, UT 84765 934-04-004 PARKERMAROLD FAMILY TRUST 2700 COVE ST CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 050-411-03 NEWPORT BEACH CARS 445 E COAST HWY NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 www.auery mm 9 -800 -GO -AVERY 1v3 °a �a U j#ment Amendment - ®� °� IV7� 2014 mailing) A�/E�f® 59600 I se Avery Template j %YAQ, L& - C j Y g) 1 892-212-75 MENDOZA,JOSEPH J & NANCY JANE PO BOX 121205 BIG BEAR LAKE, CA 92315 425-061-02 IRVINE CO SHELL OIL CO PO BOX 2099 HOUSTON, TX 772 52 892-109-00 UITERMARK,JAMES 19361 BROOKHURST ST #173 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 939-63-642 GANOTIS,GUS GEORGE TRUST 22 JUPITER HILLS DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 939-63-650 TOSI,ADRIANO TRUST 42 VILLA POINT DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 048-143-25 BLACKBURN,LINDA B TRUST PO BOX 4 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 939-63-723 MAHON,DEBORAH LYNN & WILLIAM 2312 PORT LERWICK PL NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 934-04-061 PORTER,MARY ANN TRUST PO BOX 8121 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 939-63-676 XIAO,WEI HAO 150 N SANTA ANITA AVE #645 ARCADIA, CA 91006 ilquettes faeiles a peler Utilisez le 5?600 s A ment RepNez & to h achure afin de I gabari'tAVERY® charge reviler le rebord Pop-UpTM j 1-800-GO-AVERY�/ ra5y reel— 6aue►s ► u► Benatd loe line to i l/ Use Avery® Template 5160® PA2013-098 land L0€W nd g N**yWwd from Consultant: Ma 4'8 XAq L§ BLi1 048 133 02 048 132 14 048 143 09 EAST BAY AVENUE STEVEN A KOTTMAN WESTREM 20445 VIA BURGOS 5392 OHIO ST 1006 E BALBOA BLVD YORBA LINDA, CA 92887 YORBA LINDA, CA 92886 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 048 131 10 048 13108 048 141 35 ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION YEE-PAK CHARLES WILLIAM CLARK 10844 ELLIS AVE 234 HAZEL DR 1611 MILAN AVE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CA 92708 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 SOUTH PASADENA, CA 91030 048 135 10 048 135 11 048 143 04 JAMES W READ JR. VICTOR BROWSE SHERREITT TROY A TOLMAN PO BOX 780 400 BAY FRONT S 3214 W OCEANFRONT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92662 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 048 133 04 048 141 28 048 143 20 BALBOA MANOR LLC BALBOA VENTURES LLC KHALIL 400 MAIN ST 8 OLD COURSE DR 17221 BLUE SPRUCE LN NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 YORBA LINDA, CA 92886 048 143 19 048 132 19 048 132 09 HILDA ALVAREZ 801 BALBOA LLC BALBOA SOUTH MAIN STREET 1332 SANTIAGO DR 1020 CHESTNUT ST 320 1ST ST N #912 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 BURBANK, CA 91506 JACKSONVILLE, FL 32250 048 132 02 048 134 04 048 135 04 STEVEN W LEGERE MEL FUCHS PROPERTIES LLC MM NEWPORT INC 2884 MIGUEL LN 2128 E OCEANFRONT 703.5 E BALBOA BLVD COSTA MESA, CA 92626 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 936 520 29 936 520 28 048 141 23 ROSS J WHIPPLE OCCUPANT FRANK G ROBITAILLE 20445 VIA BURGOS 813 E BAY AVE #1 908 BALBOA BLVD E YORBA LINDA, CA 92887 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 048 143 21 048 131 05 048 143 05 EDWARD J ONEILL 807 EAST BAY AVE LLC WAYNE THOMPSON 20700 WELLS DR 2454 ALTON PKWY 2117 EL DORADO ST WOODLAND HILLS, CA 91364 IRVINE, CA 92606 LOS OSOS, CA 93402 048 134 02 048 143 10 048 131 09 DAQUILA ROGER R ROUSSET SR. JOANNA TOOKER VOGEL 1235 FOXFORD RD 920 OCEAN FRONT E 9272 TRITT CIR LA VERNE, CA 91750 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 VILLA PARK, CA 92861 048 131 01 048 133 08 048 131 07 JOSEPH MILLER WILLIAM & SHARON WESTREM KATHLEEN WALLEN 815 BAY AVE E 357 W FIR ST 55415 MEDALLIST DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 SEQUIM, WA 98382 LA QUINTA, CA 9225348 Eti uettes faciles a tiler e ® i ' q P Repliez a la hachure afln de ► www.avery.com ;. Utilisez le gabarit AVERY® 51600 + Sens de reviler le redord Po -u T^' j 1 -S00 -G® -AVERY + chargement P P j — oen® awn uneto i ® o Use Avery® Template 51600 PA2013-098 and } 10 1 nd 94 f iraed from Consultant: Ma .4f �L� BL1 048 141 27 048 135 03 048 141 32 SORBORG ENTERPRISES OCCUPANT DOUGLAS MARIO PASQUALE 916 BALBOA BLVD E 705 BALBOA BLVD E 900 BALBOA BLVD E NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 048 132 13 04814308 048 141 29 B -N12 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP GROUNDSWELL INVESTMENTS LLC NORMA J LLOYD 774 W CALIFORNIA AVE 919 BALBOA BLVD E 920 BALBOA BLVD E GLENDALE, CA 91203 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 048 143 17 048 143 02 048 131 03 JOHN L WESTREM GARY E COOK RICHARD HOEFT III 1006 BALBOA BLVD E 907 BALBOA BLVD E 902 SQUAW PEAK DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 HENDERSON, NV 89014 048 141 24 048 133 15 048 132 07 KRISTEN S MONSON KENT J MADDY 4 SAILS HOME DEVELOPERS 910 BALBOA BLVD E 450 SAN BERNARDINO AVE 1000 OCEAN FRONT W NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 048 135 09 936 520 40 936 520 41 ROY E COLLINS VICTORY 0 LAPUENTE OUTREACH LA VICTORY 421 KINGS RD 808 E OCEANFRONT PO BOX 2145 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 LA PUENTE, CA 91746 048 135 07 048 132 08 048 130 05 BALBOA INN LLC MICHAEL L & BARBARA MALAMUT BALBOA INN 105 MAIN ST 272 W STAFFORD RD 105 MAIN ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 THOUSAND OAKS, CA 91361 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 048 132 01 936 520 31 R S NELSON CRYSTAL SECHRIST 936 520 26 815 BALBOA BLVD E 806 E OCEANFRONT #A ATHENA KARSANT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 230 CASITAS AVE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94127 936 520 27 048 141 25 048 133 10 PHILIPPE & H C SIGAL OCCUPANT NADA HANNAFORD 2306 D ST 912 E BALBOA BLVD 456 SERRA DR LA VERNE, CA 91750 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 048 133 17 048 132 15 048 133 03 ALLEN C WEISS MAY S FARR PETER CRAB NORTON 205 N STEPHANIE ST #189 PO BOX 213 3409 SEASHORE DR HENDERSON, NV 89074 UPLAND, CA 91785 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 048 133 03 048 131 06 04814332 PETER CRAB NORTON SCOTT LEE WINETSKY JOSE ALTAMIRANO 3409 SEASHORE DR 304 MAIN ST 200 PARIS LN #313 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 ttiquettes faciles a peler' ® ® Se- de Repliez a la hachure afro de i vwvw.averycom Utilises le gabari%AVERY 51'6D chargemen't reveller le rebord Pop-up- � 1 -800 -GO -AVERY � 1 Sen Bion line to i Use Avery®Template5760® PA2013-098 'Land § nd@tpbj�p ptdgAtwd rom Consultant: Ma . t§ BLI 048 141 26 KATHLEEN ROSE GALLANT 15540 VALLEY VISTA BLVD ENCINO, CA 91436 048 143 27 GROUNDSWELL INVESTMENTS LLC 900 OCEAN FRONT E NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 048 143 07 ANJAN S & ROMILLA A BATRA 27 WHARTON CT IRVINE, CA 92617 ttiquettes faciles a peler ► A Utilisez le abarit AVERY® 5160® a Sens de Repliez a Ra hachure afin de i 9 j chargement r6vdler le rebord Pop-upi j 048 143 03 EMILE F SKAFF 4540 CHARMION LN ENCINO, CA 91316 w°ww avery.com 1 -800 -60 -AVERY izAPjv-vs ® P.anci ®e rnement Use AveryTemplate 5160 A enclinetA (M 4) —Bbtd a*dwli er 1 Feed Paper expose pop-up EdgeTM A AV4 5 05024103 050 241 04 050 263 02 CO IRVINE PROMONTORY PT APARTMENTS LLC JESSICA DIANE JOHNSTON PO BOX 1 550 NEWPORT CENTER DR CELESTE TR QUALIFIED NEWPORT BEACH, CA92662 NEWPORT BEACH, CA92660 1119 DOLPHIN TER CORONA DEL MAR, CA92625 050 263 19 050 263 20 050 263 21 LINDA BUCKLEY BARBARA TAPPAN JAMES & CATHERINE EMMI 1001 DOLPHIN TER 1007 DOLPHIN TER 1009 DOLPHIN TER CORONA DEL MAR, CA92625 CORONA DEL MAR, CA92625 CORONA DEL MAR, CA92625 050 263 22 050 263 23 050 263 24 CHARLES MOSMANN SALLY DAVIS KAY L LEAHY 1015 DOLPHIN TER WILLIAMS JANA 1023 DOLPHIN TER CORONA DEL MAR, CA92625 644 SHADOW RIDGE ST CORONA DEL MAR, CA92625 MESQUITE, NV89027 050 263 25 050 263 26 050 263 27 MEYER HOLDINGS LLC PAUL B LUNSFORD ANTHONY MATIJEVICH JR. 4320 VON KARMAN AVE LUNSFORD RAFFAELLA 1107 DOLPHIN TER NEWPORT BEACH, CA92660 1101 DOLPHIN TER CORONA DEL MAR, CA92625 CORONA DEL MAR, CA92625 050 263 28 050 264 01 050 26413 AMEN WARDY NEAL 0 BAKER JR. FOSTER N GARN WARDY TRACI TOLMAN 1003 BONNIE DOONE TER 1100 DOLPHIN TER 3535 E COAST HWY #363 CORONA DEL MAR, CA92625 CORONA DEL MAR, CA92625 CORONA DEL MAR, CA92625 050 383 06 050 391 12 050 431 21 CO IRVINE ECM BAYSIDE LP HOWARD DUERSON CHASTAIN SHARK ISLAND YACHT C PO BOX 7478 JR TR 1099 BAYSIDE DR INCLINE VILLAGE, NV89450 3199 AIRPORT LOOP DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA92660 COSTA MESA, CA92626 050 431 22 050 431 23 050 441 03 FRANCES J PEDLEY BRENDA J HUIE CO IRVINE 836 HARBOR ISLAND DR 842 HARBOR ISLAND DR PO BOX 7788 NEWPORT BEACH, CA92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA92658 050 441 07 050 442 05 934 320 01 CO IRVINE MESA SHOPPING MIRA CAROL E VIANI 1371 OAKLAND BLVD #200 CENTERLLC 1023 BAYSIDE CV #101 WALNUT CREEK, CA94596 PO BOX 19528 NEWPORT BEACH, CA92660 IRVINE, CA92623 934 320 02 934 320 03 934 320 04 MARI OFFENBECHER JAMES L MOORE WALTER M LYNCH 1025 BAYSIDE CV #102 1027 BAYSIDE CV #103 1029 BAYSIDE CV #104 NEWPORT BEACH, CA92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA92660 934 320 05 934 320 06 934 320 07 GREG & TERI HARDKE KARIN LYNN GODFREY LEE C SHANNON 84 OLD COURSE DR 1033 BAYSIDE CV #106 997 BAYSIDE CV #201 NEWPORT BEACH, CA92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA92660 ttiquettes faciles a paler Utilisez le gabarit AVERl(® 51600 i se de Repliea a la hachure afin de 11 reveller le rebord Pop-up- j www.averycom chargement � 1 -800 -60 -AVERY .F7.xwFq-vya►rc1P-ana use -r-iemeni Arfenamem (M - 4) 4"*16tWer i Use Avery@ Template 51600 Feed Paper c *seTWup QgeTm {� A 934 320 08 934 320 09 934 320 10 OLLIE N HILL SCOTT D GUENTHER JUNE LINKON FAMILY SURVIVOR'S TR 20291 SW CYPRESS ST 991 BAYSIDE CV #204 995 BAYSIDE CV #202 NEWPORT BEACH, CA92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA92660 934 32011 934 32012 934 32013 DENNIS FRATT BETTY HAWKINS DONNA JEAN ANDERSON 1005 BAYSIDE CV #301 BAYSIDE TRUST QPRT # 1011 BAYSIDE CV #303 NEWPORT BEACH, CA92660 1003 BAYSIDE CV #302 NEWPORT BEACH, CA92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA92660 934 32014 934 32015 934 32016 BERNICE E MILLER HELENE WINOGURA ROCHELLE COHEN 2121 CENTURY WOODS WAY 1013 BAYSIDE CV #305 COHEN LOUIS LOS ANGELES, CA90067 NEWPORT BEACH, CA92660 1048 IRVINE AVE #371 NEWPORT BEACH, CA92660 934 32017 934 32018 934 32019 PCF INVESTMENTS LLC JAMES M DENNIS DON D TOBEY 20320 SW BIRCH ST #100 716 COLLEGE RD PO BOX 765 NEWPORT BEACH, CA92660 LEBANON, IL62254 CORONA DEL MAR, CA92625 934 320 20 934 320 21 934 320 22 GIL M WAYNE JOSEPH C CIRAULO JOHN DAVID OF ROMM 555 S FLOWER ST #10TH PO BOX 1157 JOHN DAVID ROMM RES LOS ANGELES, CA90071 NEWPORT BEACH, CA92659 725 N SIERRA DR BEVERLY HILLS, CA90210 934 320 23 934 320 24 934 320 25 ROZAK ALAN L LEWIS JOHNSTON 985 BAYSIDE CV #403 983 BAYSIDE CV #404 1212 PEMBROKE LN NEWPORT BEACH, CA92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA92660 934 320 26 934 320 27 934 320 28 MYRNA S P GROVER CHARLES MARION HEERS JAMES F LESNIAK 977 BAYSIDE CV #406 1 HUGHES CENTER DR #702 975 BAYSIDE CV #408 NEWPORT BEACH, CA92660 LAS VEGAS, NV89169 NEWPORT BEACH, CA92660 934 320 29 934 320 30 934 320 31 JOHN H MERRELL STEVE THE MANLEY PATRICIA L OHARA 973 BAYSIDE CV #409 MANLEY TR SURVIVOR'S TRUST NEWPORT BEACH, CA92660 971 BAYSIDE CV #410 43 DEARBORN PL #60 NEWPORT BEACH, CA92660 GOLETA, CA93117 934 320 32 934 320 33 934 320 34 CURTIS A ELLMORE TAMARALEE JANE COX REGINALD M JACKSON 1008 BAYSIDE CV #502 1032 BAYSIDE CV #503 500 VALENZUELA RD NEWPORT BEACH, CA92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA92660 CARMEL, CA93923 934 320 35 934 320 36 934 320 37 THOMAS E DIENER DENIS I INABA THOMAS G MEEHAN 1012 BAYSIDE CV #505 1016 BAYSIDE CV #506 10580 WILSHIRE BLVD #19 NEWPORT BEACH, CA92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA92660 LOS ANGELES, CA90024 Ittiquettes faeiles a paler lltilisez le AVERY® 5160® ; sen de Repliez A 1a hachure afin do gabarit j ehargement r6v6ler le rebord Pop-upTm 1-000450- VIERY use dement Arpencimew (M 4) --0��kgli&gter i Use Avery® Template 51600 1 feed Paper expose op -up l4dgeT* 934 320 38 MICHELE L OTTING 2585 CRESTVIEW DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA92663 934 320 41 DENNIS J POTTS POTTS WENDY BELL 1026 BAYSIDE CV #511 NEWPORT BEACH, CA92660 934 320 44 WILLIAM KEITH ARNOLD 982 BAYSIDE CV #602 NEWPORT BEACH, CA92660 934 320 47 DEAN A GILLETTE 53 BALSAM CIR MILES CITY, MT59301 934 320 50 DAN BERKOFF 612 N SEPULVEDA BLVD LOS ANGELES, CA90049 934 320 53 JUDE HAMMOND 994 BAYSIDE CV #611 NEWPORT BEACH, CA92660 934 320 56 JEFFREY MCVEHIL 1030 BAYSIDE CV #702 NEWPORT BEACH, CA92660 934 320 39 PETER S &A FINE LORRAINE TR 4051 E FANFOL DR PHOENIX, AZ85028 934 320 42 JOY DUNLEVIE DUNLEVIE JOY R 79555 SAINT MARGARETS BAY BERMUDA DUNES, CA92203 934 320 45 RICHARD DE DEWITT WITT GST EXEMPT TR 9089 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD SAN DIEGO, CA92123 934 320 48 REINFORECEMENT HEADED CORP 11200 CONDOR AVE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CA92708 934 320 51 PATRICK J DIRK 1808 S BAY FRONT BALBOA ISLAND, CA92662 934 320 54 WILLIAM T WHITE III WHITE WILLIAM T III 3197 AIRPORT LOOP DR #A COSTA MESA, CA92626 934 320 57 SANDRA L KLOTZ 998 BAYSIDE CV #801 NEWPORT BEACH, CA92660 ttiquettes faciles a peter i A i Utilisezle abaritAVERY®5160� Sens de ftepflezllaleadeureaguede 9 j chargement rdv6ler le rebord Pop-up 934 320 40 ANDREW J & ROBIN R FAZEKAS 1022 BAYSIDE CV #510 NEWPORT BEACH, CA92660 934 320 43 THOMAS E ADDIS 315 W CLAYTON AVE COEUR D ALENE, ID83815 934 320 46 RICHARD B DICKSON 980 BAYSIDE CV #604 NEWPORT BEACH, CA92660 934 320 49 JOHN S PERRONE 2383 ARROYO DR RIVERSIDE, CA92506 934 320 52 OCCUPANT 972 BAYSIDE CV #610 NEWPORT BEACH, CA92660 934 320 55 MARY JANE KREBS 1028 BAYSIDE CV #701 NEWPORT BEACH, CA92660 934 320 58 ALP COMMUNICATIONS INTERACTIVE 94 BINSCARTH RD 81 Labels eX�rtAm � 1-$ O -63Q AV E" easy rcc- wuoa I !\ -� Bend aloe line to I a Use Avery@ Template 51600 PA2013-09�eettP dherd* Wdp;apt is deceived from Consu - ® � 10 F 458 152 30 458 701 23 442 042 12 CO IRVINE NEWPORT BLUFFS LLC IAC AT JAMBOREE LLC 550 NEWPORT CENTER DR 550 NEWPORT CENTER DR 550 NEWPORT CENTER DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 458 152 11 SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPO 125 PACIFICA #100 IRVINE, CA 92618 442 311 69 MASTER ASSN BELCOURT 27405 PUERTA REAL #300 MISSION VIEJO, CA 92691 458 153 64 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2501 PULLMAN ST SANTA ANA, CA 92705 442 311 72 MASTER ASSN BELCOURT PO BOX 4708 IRVINE, CA 92616 458 152 22 CITY OF IRVINE 1 CIVIC CENTER PLZ IRVINE, CA 92606 ttiquez le facilesbari a VERY&ler ® Sens de Replier a la hachure afire de; wwrar avery►-c�m I Utilisez le gabarit ►VERY 5160 chargement r6vdler le rebord Pop-upTM i 1 -800 -GO -AVERY e ...qoy Fcc.- ..awcom Use Avery® Template 51600 423 095 02 OCCUPANT 3505 FINLEY AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 423 082 09 LYNNE RIDDLE 5 DEL REY IRVINE, CA 92612 Beadalon li•ne to i ®F;Yq PA2013-098 — LPC4WAX Ar�pi¢6b,;Ijeikcejved from Consultan y2�1V �VV ®AJ 423 084 03 WILLIAM & PATRICIA ODESKY 3106 BROAD ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 939 840 24 HARVINDER SINGH RAMSINGH 602.5 36TH ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 423 122 02 OCCUPANT 3434 VIA LIDO NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 423 121 06 OCCUPANT 3636 NEWPORT BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 939 840 01 WL&JMROSS 1580 SORRENTO DR PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 939 840 02 CRAIG S WHALEY 1031 SAINT VINCENT PL SANTA ANA, CA 92705 423 096 04 CLIFFORD PAUL MICKOOL 11001 OSO AVE CHATSWORTH, CA 91311 423 083 07 DANIEL A TEITACHEID 3808 RIVER AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 Etiquettes faciles a peter Utilisez le gabarit AVERY® 5460® 423 097 02 423 102 06 WALTER C TALLEUR JR. GWEN Y HASS 3311 FINLEY AVE 400.5 CLUBHOUSE AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 423 083 03 423 101 22 JULIAN GARCIA JULIE S CHAMBERS 1621 PASEO CARMEL 500 CLUBHOUSE AVE SAN DIMAS, CA 91773 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 423 091 10 NORMAN C MANZ 939 840 23 2745 SANDPIPER DR MARK W & GISELA M GELLER COSTA MESA, CA 92626 602 36TH ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 423 095 01 423 096 07 KURT W KRAUSHAAR CHARLES H ETTENSPERGER 3507 FINLEY AVE #A 2540 S 10TH AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 ARCADIA, CA 91006 423 102 08 423 096 06 ROBERT 1 BREWER LAWSON HUGHES 404 CLUBHOUSE AVE 5316 TOPEKA DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 TARZANA, CA 91356 423 101 15 423 102 11 BELL BRUCE ROBERT BECKMAN PO BOX 85 304 HELIOTROPE AVE TRABUCO CANYON, CA 92678 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 939 840 28 423 091 05 BRUCE J VANDEMAN CARMEN ZENAIDA REYNOLDS 6085 CLUBHOUSE AVE 16291 COUNTESS DR #305 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92649 423 096 01 423 085 08 JEROME P GREUBEL GLYNNE & ANN MILLER 510 W CHAPMAN AVE 755 S EDGEVIEW CIR ORANGE, CA 92868 ANAHEIM, CA 92808 423 091 04 423 095 03 PAUL A MARSHALL VIRGINIA BRUNER 1420 KINGS RD 3503 FINLEY AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 423 101 07 423 10201 STEVEN TAGGART PORT PROPERTIES INC 504 CLUBHOUSE AVE PO BOX 485 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92652 i Se de Repliez la hachure afro de ; www.averyF corn j chargement r6v6ler le rebord Pop-up- 11 -600.60 -AVERY -y . cc0 asuc� Use Avery® Template 516010 423 122 04 PAUL HARRIGAN PRATO 2235 FARADAY AVE #0 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 423 091 01 TIM L EDGAR 516.5 35TH ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 423 085 07 FAYTHE N PARKS 512 36TH ST #A NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 PA201348 — L 'A i3�e dal i etto i ® a & n �c?� ed from Consultan' y.�Pq 423 081 09 MARILYN HUSCROFT 519 36TH ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 423 101 03 NEWPORT LIDO LLC PO BOX 17448 ANAHEIM, CA 92817 423 082 14 THOMAS G TUPMAN 609 36TH ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 423 122 03 WREC LIDO VENTURE LLC PO BOX 6187 PROVIDENCE, RI 2940 423 122 03 WREC LIDO VENTURE LLC PO BOX 6187 PROVIDENCE, RI 2940 423 091 12 ROBERT WAYNE BROWN JR. 507 CLUBHOUSE AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 423 084 06 423 096 03 423 084 09 LAWRENCE J LEIFER RICHARD L GLASIER D RODNEY & SARA C TAPP 3706 CHANNEL PL 3409 FINLEY AVE 0 CLUBHOUSE AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 423 082 07 423 096 02 DAVID KALISH WILLIAM J WINTER III 423 102 02 PO BOX 15127 1905 FULLERTON AVE KWON NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659 COSTA MESA, CA 92627 69 FRANCES CIR BUENA PARK, CA 90621 423 083 12 42310116 423 085 19 GARRETT INVESTMENT GROUP LLC PETER V RAST 626 CLUBHOUSE AVE M E KOFFORD JR. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 105 VIA ORVIETO 503 35TH ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 423 081 05 423 091 06 423 085 20 WAYNE GRAHAM HOLBROOK JANICE S SHALLIN EVELYN SHATZEN 509 36TH ST 3214 SEASHORE DR 501 35TH ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 423 097 03 423 111 01 423 082 13 ERIK BLOCK LIDO PARTNERS MIKE D ROUSE 409 CLUBHOUSE AVE 3425 VIA LIDO #250 3626 TIOGA WAY NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 LAS VEGAS, NV 89169 423 082 01 423 082 04 423 083 02 TMP ENTS LLC KENT DONNER SMITH RALPH U LAREDO 8041 OBANNON DR 607 36TH ST 7335 GAINFORD ST LAS VEGAS, NV 89117 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 DOWNEY, CA 90240 423 10209 423 085 06 423 10109 LARRY KIRSCHENBAUM GLEN MCCULLOCH PETER J & CARMEN J BOLLINGER JR. 406 CLUBHOUSE AVE 3975 HIGHLAND DR 508 CLUBHOUSE AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 Ltiquettes faciles a peter Utilisez ie gabarit AVERY® 5160® ' A ; Sens de Repiiez h la hachure afin de o r www.avery corn j reviler le rebard Po -u TM chargement P p l 1 -800 -GO -AVERT' tasy reel— kaueis Use Avery® Template 516019 423 085 10 FERN A STEIGERWALD 856 PORTER WAY FALLBROOK, CA 92028 939 840 34 KENNETH J CATANZARITE 2331 W LINCOLN AVE ANAHEIM, CA 92801 423 096 05 LINDA G MILLS 37 MURRAY ST #4A NEW YORK, NY 10007 939 840 19 MARK MELZER 19292 SIERRA INEZ RD IRVINE, CA 92603 939 840 19 MARK ME] ZER 19292 SIERRA INEZ RD IRVINE, CA 92603 939 840 21 STEVEN L MILLS 600 36TH ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 PA201348 — We igrEZ=Ame p g *-Ikc4ved from Consultan y_ l ill 423 09103 MARGARET J MARTIN 880 MORNINGSIDE DR #MI24A FULLERTON, CA 92835 423 085 18 ZACHARY ZEISLER 1100 3RD ST SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901 423 081 08 ROBERT GALE SASINE 517 36TH ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 423 097 04 GEE LAN TO-RAASIG 405 CLUBHOUSE AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 ttiquettes faciles a peler Utilisez le gabaritAVERY@ 51600 423 083 06 939 840 33 VALORA Z WILLIAMS CHRISTINE BRAATHEN 612 CLUBHOUSE AVE 512 35TH ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 939 840 25 939 840 26 TIEN-SHENG HSU SARA SCHROEDER 698 W 24TH ST 606.5 CLUBHOUSE AVE UPLAND, CA 91784 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 423 084 02 423 101 11 ADAM WAYNE MILLER FREDERICK L SMITH 604 36TH ST 512 CLUBHOUSE AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 423 101 12 423 082 11 NEPP RONALD TAYLOR 8 MALLARD PO BOX 193 IRVINE, CA 92604 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 423 101 08 423 083 10 SMITH SELMA FOR STERN 2404 CLIFF DR 540 N ALTA VISTA BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 LOS ANGELES, CA 90036 423 084 08 939 840 32 JERI BRANNON KEVIN S ARCARIS 605 CLUBHOUSE AVE 511.5 35TH ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 423 083 09 423 083 01 PLATZER H VICTOR SUCHER JR. 4205 CARNEY CT 2584 MCCORMICK BLVD RIVERSIDE, CA 92507 BULLHEAD CITY, AZ 86429 423 091 08 423 085 09 CHARLOTTE S MILLS SANDRA I FELDMAN 500 35TH ST 2800 PLAZA DEL AMO #49 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 TORRANCE, CA 90503 423 083 14 423 12206 BAILEY OCCUPANT 610 CLUBHOUSE AVE 3420 VIA LIDO NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 423 085 16 423 082 10 BETTY J DAVIDSON LARRY L CHAZAN 509 35TH ST 81319 ULRICH DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 LA QUINTA, CA 92253 p Se®de hachure afin Repiiez A la hhde www.avery.com , ° rev6ler ie rebord Po u j 1 -800 -GO -AVER` chargement P- pTM ' easy reei— 6aoeis PA2013-0 8 — L ,q Rend elan li e e i Yq Use Avery® Template 51600 �$¢-�ceved from Consultan 423 101 04 423 082 02 423 084 07 STEVEN J FLANDERS RAY ELLIS TRIGGS JACK CHESHIRE PO BOX 3593 603 36TH ST 617 CLUBHOUSE AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 423 083 08 423 085 01 423 122 07 PETER F WELLS LIECHTY DOUGLAS W DREYER 616 CLUBHOUSE AVE 20301 CARLSBAD LN 519 MARIGOLD AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 423 10105 423 082 03 423 084 04 WORLD OIL CO GREGORY A JOHNSON CKL LLC 9302 GARFIELD AVE 1127 SOMERSET PO BOX 91504 SOUTH GATE, CA 90280 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 CITY OF INDUSTRY, CA 91715 423 101 05 423 09109 423 081 06 WORLD OIL CO HELEN A CONOVER WINKELMANN 9302 GARFIELD AVE 50134TH ST 1318 SANTANELLA TER SOUTH GATE, CA 90280 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 423 097 05 423 09107 423 102 12 BELLAVIA SAVOY M SHARON L MUSGROVE SCOTT E SMITH 3313 FINLEY AVE 3995 ROBLAR AVE 410.5 CLUBHOUSE AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 SANTA YNEZ, CA 93460 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 423 101 23 423 08107 SCOTT K & SHERI M HOWARD GARY D SCHNIEPP PO BOX 1185 408 39TH ST PLEASANTON, CA 94566 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 Etiquettes faciles & paler® ® i Se de Repliez A to hachure afin de ; www.avery com Utilisez le gabarit AVERY 5160 chargement revLler le rebord Pap -ups"` � 1 -800.60 -AVERY FI tasy reel— Laoeis t ® Ben algn lute to 1 5w 1 Use Avery® Template 51600 P j2013 fQUpa ler , 6ab is Received from Co' _ at' I�Gj 427 231 24 427 121 18 427 131 10 MYERS-O HILL LTD STONEWOOD BIRCH LLC IRVINE FOUR LLC 2 UPPER NEWPORT PLAZA DR 4229 BIRCH ST #150 1600 DOVE ST #480 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 427 221 04 427 141 15 427 141 06 PALM SPRINGS VILLAGE - WF QUAIL LLC TN TOAD LLC 2922 DAIMLER ST 12 FAIR ELMS 9092 MCBRIDE RIVER AVE SANTA ANA, CA 92705 LAGUNA NIGUEL, CA 92677 FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CA 92708 427 181 03 427 231 03 427 231 25 1600 DOVE LP OCCUPANT 3636 BIRCH STREET 1600 DOVE ST #480 1701 QUAIL ST 8383 WILSHIRE BLVD #210 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90211 427 141 07 427 172 06 427 131 05 SA ABANOUB LLC MAC ARTHUR SQUARE C WEST D 7029 MARTANO PL 17631 FITCH 225 BRAE BLVD ALTA LOMA, CA 91701 IRVINE, CA 92614 PARK RIDGE, NJ 7656 427 131 13 427 131 15 427 231 01 CORP HERTZ CHIAPPERO AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF 225 BRAE BLVD 5310 KIETZKE LN #201 3333 FAIRVIEW RD #A379 PARK RIDGE, NJ 7656 RENO, NV 89511 COSTA MESA, CA 92626 427 172 05 427 332 01 427 231 17 MAC ARTHUR SQUARE III REALTY ASSOCIATES FUND MYERS - O HILL LTD 17631 FITCH 1301 DOVE ST #860 2 UPPER NEWPORT PLAZA DR IRVINE, CA 92614 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 936 790 44 427 221 16 427 231 18 JRJ INVESTMENTS LP MIREF 1500 QUAIL LLC MYERS-O HILL LTD 1835 NEWPORT BLVD #D263 425 MARKET ST #1600 3 UPPER NEWPORT PLAZA DR COSTA MESA, CA 92627 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 427 221 03 427 131 12 427 141 10 ANAHEIM INVESTORS LLC RONALD P BEARD ORANGE COUNTY BAR ASSN 2235 FARADAY AVE #O 3208 OCEAN BLVD PO BOX 6130 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 427 141 09 427 221 17 427 151 09 PACIFIC NEWPORT INVS LLC METROPOLITAN LIFE UNIVERSITY INDUSTRIAL 1801 DOVE ST 333 S HOPE ST #3650 3835 BIRCH ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 LOS ANGELES, CA 90071 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 427 131 16 427 171 03 427 131 09 BIRCH DEVELOPMENT CO BENI INVESTMENTS LLC PT PERLMUTTER 225 BRAE BLVD 17122 MARINA VIEW PL PO BOX 8414 PARK RIDGE, NJ 7656 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92649 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 kicluettes faciles a peter ; se, de Rel�llez A la bachure afro de # eye tr► Utilisez le gabaritAVERY® 51600 chargernent r6vdler le rebored pop-up- � 1-000-60AVIERY easy reel— Laueis Use Avery® Template 51600 427 231 16 MYERS O HILL LTD 1 UPPER NEWPORT PLAZA DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 427 121 27 E W SPINNEY JR. 712 HARBOR ISLAND DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 42712126 BIRCH & CAMPUS LP 636 HARBOR ISLAND DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 1 A "— Bend along line to i �/ Pi2013 fQP&p ler �fikablis Received from Co a# 01j)55 -j# 427 171 02 BEACON BAY ENTRPRS INC 1600 SUNFLOWER AVE #110 COSTA MESA, CA 92626 427 131 06 CAMPUS DRIVE PROPERTIES LLC 9881 RESEARCH DR IRVINE, CA 92618 ttiquettes faciles a peler ; A Re011ez la hachure afln de Utilisez le abarit AVERY® 5?60® Segos a reveller le rebord Pop -up - 42723102 o -u - 9 chargement p P j 427 221 01 NF DOVE LLC 4425 JAMBOREE RD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 427 231 02 18II QUAIL LLC 305 NORTH STAR LN NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 www.avery.com 1-800-60AY.ORY casy reel— Ldvenb PA2011-098 r Rareived from Consult v� yF%A1 l Use Avery® Template 51600 j Fe�e�p�rs . 1 i 458 221 25 TIMOTHY M & COURTNEY A BLACKBURN 3601 CATAMARAN DR CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 458 222 04 JOHN DOYLE 1532 KEEL DR CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 458 391 15 BRIAN V NORKAITIS NORKAITIS FAMILY TRU 1633 HARBOR CREST CIR CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 458 222 05 JAMES D STENE 1533 SEACREST DR CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 458 221 13 NANCY O'KEEFE ALTOBELLOTR 3514 CATAMARAN DR CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 458 221 16 SALLY GRUBER 3606 CATAMARAN DR CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 458 221 24 MICHAEL JOHN PIATNITZATR 3607 CATAMARAN DR CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 458 223 06 GEORGE WELLS & WELLS KIMBERLY F 1528 SEACREST DR CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 458 221 37 RALPH MACKINTOSH MACKINTOSH DENISE 3626 CATAMARAN DR CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 458 221 08 ROBERT S RAFALOVICH 3410 CATAMARAN DR CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 a kicluettes faciles A peter ; Utilisea le gabarit AVERY® 5160 458 391 33 GRUBBS GRUBBS LYNDA L 1653 REEF VIEW CIR CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 458 391 13 ESCALON FUNDING LLC 505 S ABERDEEN ST ANAHEIM, CA 92807 458 391 30 J MARK HOLLAND 1635 REEF VIEW CIR CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 458 221 11 JAMES SEVERANCE & FREDERICK TR PO BOX 9887 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 458 221 14 QUANG DINH VU & TRINH VAN 3518 CATAMARAN DR CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 458 221 17 RONALD W JAWOR 3612 CATAMARAN DR CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 458 621 04 MORTUARIES EMMERSON 1929 ALLEN PKWY HOUSTON, TX 77019 458 223 07 STEVE VREBALOVICH 1555 SANDCASTLE DR CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 458 221 06 KEVIN K BARNETT BARNETT KEVIN K/CARL 3400 CATAMARAN DR CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 458 221 09 CAMERON M SMITH JR. 3414 CATAMARAN DR CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 A Sens de Repiiez 6 fa hachure afirt de ; chargement rev6ler le rebord Pop-UpTM 458 221 22 ALICIA J VOLKOV PO BOX 74360 SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92673 458 391 14 JAMES N CONWAY 1639 HARBOR CREST CIR CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 458 391 32 OCCUPANT 1647 REEF VIEW CIR CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 458 221 12 VALINDA JEAN MARTIN 3506 CATAMARAN DR CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 4S8221 15 MARTIN A BROWER 3600 CATAMARAN DR CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 458 221 18 CHARLES C RINGWALT 3620 CATAMARAN DR CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 45822305 RICHARD HOPPE 1522 SEACREST DR CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 45822308 FRANK MICHAEL HARLEM JR. TR 1551 SANDCASTLE DR CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 458 221 07 BARRY A WHYTE 3406 CATAMARAN DR CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 458 221 38 THOMAS JAMES TRUSCOTT TRUSCOTT LUCY 3630 CATAMARAN DR CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 i www.avery.com 4 1.800 -GO -AVERY easy Peei- labels Use Avery® Template 51600 458 221 10 MARY M MCDONALD 3418 CATAMARAN DR CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 458 341 01 WARDENS RECTOR VESTRYMEN OF ST MICH 3233 PACIFIC VIEW DR CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 458 621 05 CO IRVINE 550 NEWPORT CENTER DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 PA201b-098 Received from Consul ivwjyqM"R' j aP 458 461 01 IRVINE COMPANY LLC THE 550 NEWPORT CENTER DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 458 391 12 GLENN K WOLF 2812 WAVERLY DR #4 LOS ANGELES, CA 90039 458 391 31 MOHSEN GHANEIAN 1641 REEF VIEW CIR CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 458 461 02 HARBOR DAY SCHOOL 3443 PACIFIC VIEW DR CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 Etiquettes faciles a peter i Sens de Repliez a la hachure afin de www.avery.com Utilisez le gabarit AVERY® 51600 chargement r6v6ler le rebord Pop -ups^" 1 -800 -GO -AVERY i Easy Peel"" Labels; e 1 1-ne to i } Use Avery® Template 5160®PA2013-098 — L1 d Us er ° m� from Consultant: May ) T 458 071 12 934 040 18 934 040 11 EDGAR W OGLESBY OCCUPANT STEPHEN SCHEINBERG 2606 LIGHTHOUSE LN 1 CANYON CREST DR #18 23 CREST CIR CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 CORONA DEL MAR,CA 92625 934 040 09 934 040 12 934 040 14 BRENDA J HUGHES JOSE AQUEVEQUE ROBERT E KOPICKI 19 CREST CIR 6 CREST CIR #12 10 CREST CIR CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 CORONA DEL MAR,CA 92625 934 040 36 934 040 30 934 040 05 LAWRENCE LING SALLY A FORBES CAROL L MALEK 29 CANYON CREST DR 6 CANYON LN 15338 MUTINY CT CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 CORONA DEL MAR,CA 92625 CORPUS CHRISTI,CA 78418 934 040 23 934 040 21 934 040 22 ARTESIA LLC IVAN T & BECKY J SIRIN JAMES F CASEY JR. 1661 RAILROAD ST 7 CANYON CREST DR #21 9 CANYON CREST DR CORONA,CORONA 92880 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 934 040 20 934 040 25 934 040 35 LINDA J WORKMAN WILLIAM WEI JACK M DANGELO PO BOX 6148 865 CHESTER AVE 49 AUVERGNE HILTON HEAD ISLAND, CA 29938 SAN MARINO, CA 91108 NEWPORT COAST, CA 92657 934 040 19 934 040 33 934 040 06 ALEX MANEFFA ERIC ALTFEST SULCOVA 20H 3 CANYON CREST DR 25 CANYON CREST DR 11 CREST CIR #6 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 934 040 17 934 040 24 934 040 29 ELAINE HERING SUZANNE RAE WHITECOTTON JOAN S KAYE PO BOX 8568 17 CANYON CREST DR 5 CANYON LN NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 934 040 31 934 040 07 934 040 10 GLORIA HICKMAN RY & W INVESTMENT PTSHP KATHLEEN D JENSEN 4 CANYON LN #4 767 N HILL ST #500 21 CREST CIR CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 LOS ANGELES, CA 90012 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 934 040 16 934 040 41 934 040 32 RUTH M ZEPEDA STEVENSON TRACY N MANZI 22 CREST CIR 39 CANYON CREST DR #41 2 CANYON LN CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 934 040 16 934 040 08 934 040 02 RUTH M ZEPEDA ROBERT M & SUSANNE B HALL EILEEN V SEMPLE 22 CREST CIR 17 CREST CIR #8 3 CREST CIR #2 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 Eti uettes faciles a eler ; ® i g p � Sens de ReP,IeZ � la hachure afiln de � vwwv.averycown Utilisez le gabarit AVERY® 51600 chargement rev6ler le rebord Pop -ups"' 1 1.800 -60 -AVERY � task/ reel- Labeis � ♦ �-- e�t d�,aI n line,to i J Use Avery® Template 5160eA2013-098 - La d Usg t imp bigawla i frim Consultant: May i��7fi'VTEvV' T 934 040 39 934 040 37 JOANN KENTON 934 040 28 MARY LEE VONGELDERN 31 CANYON CREST DR MICHAEL L CLAYTON 35 CANYON CREST DR CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 3 CANYON LN #28 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 934 040 03 934 040 27 934 040 40 GABRIELA SWEIDAN ROSETTE KOORAJIAN BELLE ANN WHITMAN 6 HORIZON 1 CANYON LN #27 37 CANYON CREST DR #40 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92657 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 934 040 15 934 040 34 934 040 42 SANDRA STRICK LOUIS J STAVALE BARBARA WALKER 20 CREST CIR #15 23 CANYON CREST DR 41 CANYON CREST DR CORONA DEL MAR,CA 92625 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 458 071 16 458 071 20 458 302 06 ROYA HOSSEINZADEH PHILIP LAWRENCE ARST IRVINE COMPANY LLC THE 2500 LIGHTHOUSE LN 2601 LIGHTHOUSE LN 550 NEWPORT CENTER DR CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 458 302 06 458 302 06 458 071 10 IRVINE COMPANY LLC THE IRVINE COMPANY LLC THE GREGORY A BLOOM 550 NEWPORT CENTER DR 550 NEWPORT CENTER DR 2620 LIGHTHOUSE LN NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 458 071 18 458 071 21 CORENA DUSEK WILLIAM E SCHAUPPNER 458 351 03 2507 LIGHTHOUSE LN 2609 LIGHTHOUSE LN CO IRVINE CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 550 NEWPORT CENTER DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 45830206 934 040 78 934 040 82 IRVINE COMPANY LLC THE CAROLE ANN CROWLEY MARIANNE PICK 550 NEWPORT CENTER DR 400 HARBOR WOODS PL 404 HARBOR WOODS PL NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 458 321 04 LUTHERAN PLAZA SEAVIEW 93404095 934 040 87 2800 PACIFIC VIEW DR CAROLE A CROWLEY 409 HARBOR WOODS LLC CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 507 HARBOR WOODS PL 409 HARBOR WOODS PL NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 934 040 84 934 040 80 934 040 83 FARHAD MOBASSERY MICHAEL N OKADA THOMAS P MILLER 406 HARBOR WOODS PL 43 CALVADOS 27151 PACIFIC HEIGHTS DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT COAST, CA 92657 MISSION VIEJO, CA 92692 934 040 92 LINDA C SANICOLA 93404085 934 040 91 504 HARBOR WOODS PL ROBERT I & LESLIE GORDON LAURA BONJA NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 46150 GRACE CT 503 HARBOR WOODS PL TEMECULA, CA 92592 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 ttiquettes faciles a peter Utilisez le AVERY® 5160® Sens de Repliez a is hachure afin de ; le wvvw.avery com gabarit j chargement reveller rebord Pop-upTM 1.800 -GO -AVERY Cary reel— WUUM e r Gena along iime to e ®C1CF Use Avery® Template 5160�A2013-098— Laid Useetetll,4w ftj rneR04besipf!crgi0.0fr jm Consultant: May — IE NT 934 040 97 934 040 88 934 040 94 WILLIAM J POPEJOY SAWYERS CHARLES RIKE JR. 29 CHATHAM CT 500 HARBOR WOODS PL 506 HARBOR WOODS PL NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 458 351 02 458 071 09 934 040 81 SCHOOL NEWPORT BEACH ALISSA WALD SETH SHALOM COHEN PO BOX 1368 2700 LIGHTHOUSE LN 403 HARBOR WOODS PL NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 934 040 93 934 040 86 934 040 89 NICOLE M SZAWLOWSKI LEO A CALAFI KATHRYN A FARNEY 505 HARBOR WOODS PL 6655 RED HORSE PIKE 501 HARBOR WOODS PL NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWBURGH, CA 47630 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 934 040 79 934 040 90 934 040 96 KRAUSE OF PRICE SWE-TZE CHOW SHIRLEY KENNEDY 2420 PINOT WAY 4521 CAMPUS DR 508 HARBOR WOODS PL SAINT HELENA, CA 94574 IRVINE, CA 92612 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 934 040 64 458 301 08 458 071 15 RALPH LONG ROGER'S REALTY LLC GEORGE MANE SOOHOO 17045 CHATSWORTH ST 2301 SAN JOAQUIN HILLS RD 2506 LIGHTHOUSE LN GRANADA HILLS, CA 91344 CORONA DEL MAR,CA 92625 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 458 071 25 934 040 52 DOUGLAS HANKE KINGSTON WITCHEZ 934 040 76 2715 LIGHTHOUSE LN 104 HARBOR WOODS PL STEWART CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 308 HARBOR WOODS PLNEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 458 071 37 BROADMOOR HILLS COMMUNITY PO BOX 4708 IRVINE, CA 92616 934 040 74 OCCUPANT 306 HARBOR WOODS PL #306 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 934 040 68 NATHAN K SUGIMOTO 418 E LIVE OAK AVE ARCADIA, CA 91006 934 040 49 MCMURTRAY 101 HARBOR WOODS PL #101 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 ttiquettes faciles a peter Utilisez le gabarit AVERY@ 51600 j 458 071 11 RICHARD P GRANIERI 2612 LIGHTHOUSE LN CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 934 040 69 THOMAS W WINN 301 HARBOR WOODS PL NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 934 040 55 RICHARD T MARVIN JR. 107 HARBOR WOODS PL NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 934 040 60 JANRIC REAL ESTATE LLC 921 EMERALD BAY LAGUNA BEACH,CA 92651 A Sens de Repliez a Ia hachure efin cle chargement r6v6ler le rebord Pop-upTm 934 040 71 STEVEN CRAIG YAMASAKI 303 HARBOR WOODS PL NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 934 040 56 REIKO KURAKAZU 108 HARBOR WOODS PL NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 934 040 65 LISE STJOHN 207 HARBOR WOODS PL NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 934 040 51 BRAD HELMAN 1830 PORT STIRLING PL NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 www.avery.com � 1 -800.60 -AVERY racy real— LdUL-lb i • Be d aloe line to i Use Avery® Template 5160SPA2013-098 — La9�d Usp� s mi d' ;OIJL 0 � from Consultant: May =�PyA Tj 934 040 59 934 040 77 458 071 17 HELEN RASK OCCUPANT STEPHEN J DUFFY PO BOX 9215 309 HARBOR WOODS PL #309 2501 LIGHTHOUSE LN NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 458 071 22 458 071 05 458 071 13 ROBERT & D WASHER GAFFANEY HOOD 2615 LIGHTHOUSE LN 2808 LIGHTHOUSE LN 2600 LIGHTHOUSE LN CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 934 040 58 934 040 72 934 040 73 JAMSHID FARIDNIA SAMUEL A CARLIS JAMES T MUTH II 200 HARBOR WOODS PL 304 HARBOR WOODS PL PO BOX 797 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 934 040 58 JAMSHID FARIDNIA 93404053 934 040 66 200 HARBOR WOODS PL ELLIOTT MGNT LLC MARGARET J ZAUN NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 436 RIVERA TER 208 HARBOR WOODS PL CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 934 040 53 934 040 54 ELLIOTT MGNT LLC PATRICK 1 & AURISTELA BARTOLIC 934 040 63 436 RIVERA TER 620 IRIS AVE CHRISTOPHER M PELLETIER CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 205 HARBOR WOODS PL NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 934 040 50 934 040 62 GREGORY OGILBERT HAWKINS 458 071 14 102 HARBOR WOODS PL #102 71805 SAHARA RD OCCUPANT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270 2512 LIGHTHOUSE LN CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 934 040 67 934 040 75 HOWARD RAYMOND LOWY MICHAEL G PETRUCELLO 458 071 24 209 HARBOR WOODS PL 9818 EMERADO DR DAVID B CASSIDY NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 WHITTIER, CA 90603 2707 LIGHTHOUSE LN CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 458 071 23 458 07107 KASHANCHI ASHWORTH OF JENSEN POWER & 2515 ISLAND VIEW DR APPOI CORONA DELL MAR, CA 92615 2712 LIGHTHOUSE LN CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 tiquettes ffaciies a paler ® Repliez A 1a hachure afin de wwwaveryxom Utilisez le gabarit AVERI(& 51600 chSensement rev6ler le rebord Pop-UpTM 1 -800 -60 -AVERY easy reel--- Laoeis a Bend along Jine to i v Use Avery® Template 51604D PA2013J 98—FW60a0e nt WrW1i vjRecj'eived from Consulta of WAI KIAG �r® Q 937 360 01 937 360 20 424 151 06 HOBARTS RESORTS INC MILLENBAUGH HOLDING COHEN-SCHWARTZ 1400 NEWPORT CENTER DR #100 32194 LIVE OAK DR GROUP III LP NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 TEMECULA, CA 92592 111 N SEPULVEDA BLVD #336 MANHATTAN BEACH, CA 90266 424 161 01 ASA INVESTMENTS LLC PO BOX 9994 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 424 151 05 SANDPOINTE COVE PROP LLC 606 E CHAPMAN AVE #200 ORANGE, CA 92866 937 360 13 SCOTT CRANDELL 819 W 15TH ST #13 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 892 090 42 CARRIE A CHAMBERLAIN PO BOX 16083 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659 892 090 49 MARY M MONTELEONE 824 W 15TH ST #49 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 892 090 56 ALBERTO CHAVEZ 824 W 15TH ST #56 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 892 099 06 MARK A MORA 824 W 15TH ST #36 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 424 161 10 CORP JAFAM 1013 N BEGONIA AVE ONTARIO, CA 91762 424 142 13 LOIS A HORNESS AXELSON MARY C TRUST PO BOX 2683 COSTA MESA, CA 92628 424 131 18 TOTAH PARTNERSHIP 3 COBALT DR DANA POINT, CA 92629 424 161 08 JIRAIR POLADIAN 1526 PLACENTIA AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 892 090 53 TERILSTEPHENS 824 W 15TH ST #53 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 892 099 01 CRYSTAL C NICHOLS 824 W 15TH ST #24 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 892 099 04 STEVEN A SWITZER 824 W 15TH ST #43 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 892 099 07 JEANNE STEWART-WELSH 824 W 15TH ST #4 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 424 161 09 UNIVERSAL PROPERTIES SEVEN LLC 26400 W 12 MILE RD #60 SOUTHFIELD, MI 48034 937 360 10 DAVID W WHITSELL MCUMBER-WHITSELL NOR 821 W 15TH ST #3B NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 937 360 09 OCCUPANT 821 W 15TH ST #9 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 892 090 46 MARGARITO L RIOS 824 W 15TH ST #46 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 892 090 55 BRIAN BELLEROSE 824 W 15TH ST #55 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 892 099 02 ISABELLA SWITALA 824 W 15TH ST #32 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 892 099 05 STEVEN J LANDRIGAN 824 W 15TH ST #44 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 892 099 08 DAVID WAYNE BARTHOLOMEW 824 W 15TH ST #2 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 ttiquettes facile5 a paler ; ® Repliez A la hachure afin de www.avery.com Utilisez le gabaritAVERYID 51600Sens de reviler le reb�rd Po �u T� ' chargement P P j 1.800 -GO -AVERY tasy reel— Laneis PA2013+098 — r It Berl alon ���n� tQ i �/ � Use Avery® Template 5760® 1 l ��aW � 9=vAe�+eived from Consulta a�1 � KIN JS R?ul 892 099 09 892 099 10 • 892 070 80 MARGO E BENNETT PAULA ANN DEVINE MARIA TIRADO 824 W 15TH ST #13 824 W 15TH ST #30 1560 PLACENTIA AVE #G7 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 892 070 81 892 079 02 892 079 03 DANIEL M CHAPPARRO SHIRLEY A VAN BUSKIRK CLEMENTE CARRERA 1560 PLACENTIA AVE #G8 1560 PLACENTIA AVE #F17 1560 PLACENTIA AVE #G3 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 892 079 05 892 079 06 892 079 07 RAFAEL RENTERIA ROSAS ALFONSIANA D HERNANDEZ LERRI RODOLFO LEZAMA 1560 PLACENTIA AVE #G4 1560 PLACENTIA AVE #E6 1560 PLACENTIA AVE #D2 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 892 079 08 892 079 09 892 079 10 HUNG MANN VU OSBALDO A NOEGGERATH WILLIAM NOVOTNY 1560 PLACENTIA AVE #E2 1560 PLACENTIA AVE #E3 1560 PLACENTIA AVE #A2 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 892 079 11 892 079 12 892 090 05 JOSE S TINOCO JANINE THOMAS FRANCISCO ORTEGA 1560 PLACENTIA AVE #E9 1560 PLACENTIA AVE #B9 824 W 15TH ST #5 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 892 090 09 892 090 10 MARK C ROBINSON KENNETH J CLARK 824 W 15TH ST #9 824 W 15TH ST #10 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 892 090 11 937 360 05 MARY J STEFANUK JOSEPH S OLSON 824 W 15TH ST #11 811 W 15TH ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 892 100 12 892 100 14 CELEDONIO R NEYPES JR. SIMON DALLMEIER 400 BOLERO WAY 1535 SUPERIOR AVE #14 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 892 100 17 MOLLY DAILEY 1535 SUPERIOR AVE #17 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 892 100 18 892 100 21 SHERRIE MORHAR DIANE E DOLAN 1535 SUPERIOR AVE #18 1535 SUPERIOR AVE #21 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 ttiquettes faciles a peter i sena de Repliez a is hachure afin de ; www.avery.com Utilises le gabarit AVERY® 51G00 chargement revOler le rebord Pop-gpTM j 1 -800 -GO -AVERY Easy Peel— Labeis i A Ben aloe ine to i w Use Avery® Template 5760® PA2013i098 -- p� t ��p � Re eived from Consults I j —SIC 1 -mg Up 892 100 22 892 100 23 892 100 24 WILLIAM FRAZIER GABRIEL A LALLI MALENE LEE 1535 SUPERIOR AVE #22 1535 SUPERIOR AVE #23 1535 SUPERIOR AVE #24 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 892 090 14 892 090 19 CYNTHIA J GREENWOOD PATRICK C CORY 824 W 15TH ST #14 824 W 15TH ST #19 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 892 090 23 892 090 25 BILLIE L MARTINEZ MORRIS S SPIGNER 824 W 15TH ST #23 824 W 15TH ST #25 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 892 090 28 892 090 29 892 090 34 RICHARD DEAN LEWIS ROBERT C HAMILTON DARIA YVONNE ADAME 824 W 15TH ST #28 824 W 15TH ST #SP29 824 W 15TH ST #34 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 892 090 35 DENISE A MILLER 824 W 15TH ST #35 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 892 090 40 892 090 41 892 100 03 LAUREN A ROBB JON PIERSON SMITH PAMELA J PERRY 824 W 15TH ST #40 824 W 15TH ST #41 7726 HAMPTON WILLOWS LN NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 LAS VEGAS, NV 89113 892 100 04 892 100 05 JUDY ADAMS DOUGLAS N VICKERS 1535 SUPERIOR AVE #4 1535 SUPERIOR AVE #5 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 892 100 08 892 100 10 JOHN BARE CHARLES M HIRBOUR 1535 SUPERIOR AVE #8 1148 E GRAND BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 CORONA, CA 92879 892 070 66 892 070 67 892 070 68 CASSANDRA MARTIN MARIO MEZONES TEMO TINOCO 1560 PLACENTIA AVE #F10 1560 PLACENTIA AVE #F11 1560 PLACENTIA AVE #F12 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 892 070 69 892 070 71 892 070 75 ENRIQUE S ABREGO KIMBERLLY K LAPERLE MARTIN OROZCO 1560 PLACENTIA AVE #F13 1560 PLACENTIA AVE #F15 1560 PLACENTIA AVE #G2 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 1 tiquettes facites a paler ; $e� de Repliez 6 to hachure afin de ;g www.avery.com Utilisez to gabarit AVERY 51600 j chargement rev6ler le rebord Pop-up- j 1 -800 -GO -AVERY 1 tasy reee— Laoees I A+�— Ben alon m t i i Use Avery@Template 516019 PA2013 j 98—kW¢4jjeil�t re&X 3ec$eved from Cons ulta la+ C0¢R� I 892 070 79 892 070 36 892 070 42 DAVID SZECSEI GARY P TOTAH DELIA ABREGO 1560 PLACENTIA AVE #G6 29222 RANCHO VIEJO RD #122 1560 PLACENTIA AVE #D11 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CA 92675 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 892 070 46 J TODD ARNDS 1560 PLACENTIA AVE #E4 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 892 070 04 CHRISTOPHER L PASSARELLI 1960 ANAHEIM AVE COSTA MESA, CA 92627 892 070 55 DAVID ELDER 1560 PLACENTIA AVE #E12 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 892 070 58 SCOTT ANTHONY STRADER 1560 PLACENTIA AVE #F3 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 892 070 62 ERIK COURTER 1560 PLACENTIA AVE #F6 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 892 070 07 DOMINIC C STURNIOLO 233 E HUNTINGTON DR ARCADIA, CA 91006 892 070 10 JO ANN AGUIRRE 1560 PLACENTIA AVE #B1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 892 100 28 LINDA ELLERS PO BOX 5823 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92662 892 100 33 EARLENE CONNORS 1535 SUPERIOR AVE #33 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 892 070 02 R EAKINS 2010 VIA MARIPOSA W #C LAGUNA WOODS, CA 92637 892 070 49 RIGOBERTO J CASTELLANOS 1560 PLACENTIA AVE #E7 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 892 070 56 MICHAEL J LEA 1560 PLACENTIA AVE #E13 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 892 070 60 TERESA RODRIGUEZ 1560 PLACENTIA AVE #F4 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 892 070 03 MERRY E SIMONDS 1560 PLACENTIA AVE #A4 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 892 070 50 EBB TIDE MOBILE HOME PARK 1560 PLACENTIA AVE #OFC NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 892 070 57 RICHARD MEYER 1560 PLACENTIA AVE #E14 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 892 070 61 STEPHEN J MUGAVERO 1560 PLACENTIA AVE #F5 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 892 070 65 892 070 06 MARIE B TOTAH HOPE CATHERINE LONG 34700 PACIFIC COAST HWY #303 1560 PLACENTIA AVE #A7 CAPISTRANO BEACH, CA 92624 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 892 070 08 ADRIANA BATISTA 1560 PLACENTIA AVE #A9 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 892 100 25 DAVID ZIMMERMAN 1535 SUPERIOR AVE #25 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 892 100 31 EDWARD ZIERHUT 1535 SUPERIOR AVE #31 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 89210034 OSCAR GOMEZ 1535 SUPERIOR AVE #34 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 892 070 09 JEFFREY V BEAT 1560 PLACENTIA AVE #A10 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 892 100 27 JAMES B KROESEN 1535 SUPERIOR AVE #27 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 89210032 TREVOR FLORIO 1535 SUPERIOR AVE #32 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 89210037 WILLIAM HUTCHINSON 1535 SUPERIOR AVE #37 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 1€tiquettes faciles a peter ; A Repliez A la hachure afin de ; www.avery.com Utilisez le gabarit AVERY 5160® Sens reveller le rebord Po u i 1 -800 -GO -AVERY 1 j chargement P- pT"" easy reel— La®eis PA2013-%98 — t A eceived from Consulta a Use Avery® Template 51600 1 '� a Y*w d" 892 100 40 LARRY W ROWE 5200 RIVER AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 89210902 892 070 11 892 070 13 KEITH LYNN JAMES EIFLER GUY D WOODEN 1535 SUPERIOR AVE #26 1560 PLACENTIA AVE #132 PO BOX 631 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 PORT ORCHARD, WA 98366 892 070 15 892 070 17 CHARLES O CLINE SR. JANEE J ALHART 1560 PLACENTIA AVE #B6 1560 PLACENTIA AVE #B8 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 892 070 19 892 070 23 DWIGHT M FRENCH RANDALL HAMILTON 1560 PLACENTIA AVE #B10 1560 PLACENTIA AVE #C3 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 892 070 26 892 070 27 892 070 34 RAMON PELAYO ROBERT JOSEPH BAIZA DAVID MACIEL RAMIREZ 1560 PLACENTIA AVE #C6 1560 PLACENTIA AVE #C7 1560 PLACENTIA AVE #D3 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 424 012 01 937 360 11 937 360 12 VALL 7ELEVEN LLC MICHAEL L COX OCCUPANT 16 PELICAN POINT DR 821 W 15TH ST #3C 821 W 15TH ST #12 NEWPORT COAST, CA 92657 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 937 360 02 937 360 06 937 360 14 CHRISTOPHER M HAZEN OCCUPANT JOHN W SCHILD HAZEN ALISSA 811 W 15TH ST #6 6074 N RUNNING DEER CIR 823 W 15TH ST #1 B NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 TUCSON, AZ 85750 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 937 360 15 MICHAEL A LANDRY 442 MAGNOLIA ST COSTA MESA, CA 92627 937 360 19 DAVID E HALLIDAY HALLIDAY CONNIE M 815 W 15TH ST #5C NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 937 360 08 MICHAEL JOSEPH DESILVA 811 W 15TH ST #2D NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 ttiquettes faciles a peter Utilisez le gabarit AVERYID 51600 j 937 360 16 PHILIP A HUDDLESTON 819 W 15TH ST #4A NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 937 360 21 VIJAY PAI 813 W 15TH ST #6D NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 937 360 03 OCCUPANT 823 W 15TH ST #3 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 ® Repliez a la hachure An de Sens de ne rdv6ler le rebord Pop -up - 937360 o u - ' chargemnt p- P j 937 360 17 ROBERT M TAYLOR TAYLOR KATHY M 815 W 15TH ST #5A NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 937 360 24 ROBERT YAMAKAWA 813 W 15TH ST #6A NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 937 360 18 HECTOR M HERNANDEZ 717 2ND ST HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 L wawv.avery:com { 1 -800 -GO -AVERY cagy reel— wueis � Ion t i . _ Use Avery® template 5160® PA2013j 98 — j4jF t 6�� ��� gel ived from Consulta a � I CCi )p 937 360 04 937 360 07 937 360 23 JEAN BITTOURNA JUSTIN M JAY LYNNETTE RICHARDSON 823 W 15TH ST #D-1 811 W 15TH ST #2C 813 W 15TH ST #613 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 937 360 22 ALEXANDER J YOUNG RAMSER ALLYSON E 813 W 15TH ST #6C NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 Etiquettes faciles a paler a Repliex a #a hachure afin de 1 i Sens de www.avery.com Utilisez ie gabarit AVERY 5160® l chargement rev6ler le rebord Pop-up- � 1 -800 -GO -AVERY, Ga'y �`�' - 160"2013-09 —Land Use Eler>i� int Is It � t: May 2014 LY0 I mRy&$jW6CI Use Avery®Temp ate 5160 V p%V ��t i se o a Y — DAVID A COLTON DAVID A COLTON MARY P QTIP AND TROF PRINCIP 2301 CAMPUS DR STE 200 2361 CAMPUS DR STE 280 CURTIS IRVINE, CA 92612-1466 IRVINE, CA 92612-1592 236.1 CAMPUS DR STE 280 IRVINE, CA 92612-1592 MULLROCK TOWER 17 FEE LLC ATRIUM IRVINE LLC TECOLOTE RESOURCES INC 18881 VON KARMAN AVE STE 400 18818 TELLER AVE STE 277 2465 CAMPUS DR IRVINE, CA 92612-6525 IRVINE, CA 92612-1612 IRVINE, CA 92612-1502 2495 INVESTMENTS LLC ORANGE AVENUE APARTMENTS CAMPOS VERDES LLC 2495 CAMPUS DR # 2 2415 CAMPUS DR STE 130 CAMPOS VERDES I LLC IRVINE, CA 92612-8544 IRVINE, CA 92612-8530 9110 JUDICIAL DR SAN DIEGO, CA 92122-6711 CAMPOS VERDES LLC REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITYOF CAMPOS VERDES I LLC GRE IRVINE TECH CENTER TWO 4440 VON KARMAN AVE STE 350 CALIFORNIA 9110 JUDICIAL DR 1111 FRANKLIN ST # 6 SAN DIEGO, CA 92122-6711 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660-2082 OAKLAND, CA 94607-5201 GABRIEL G COLE TAE H AND JOON B KIM TERRY W AND SCOTT A THOMPSON 8042 SCHOLARSHIP KIM JOON B & INSUN WHYTE SCOTT A & ELISE D IRVINE, CA 92612-5697 8049 SCHOLARSHIP 8063 SCHOLARSHIP IRVINE, CA 92612-5697 IRVINE, CA 92612-5697 JULIE A SCULLY WATKINS LIVING TRUST PRINCE FAMILY TRUST 8035 SCHOLARSHIP 8047 SCHOLARSHIP 8102 SCHOLARSHIP IRVINE, CA 92612-5697 IRVINE, CA 92612-5697 IRVINE, CA 92612-5698 JULIE A SCULLY BONNETT CHARLES A TRUST 10990 WARNER AVE KENNETH E ELLEGARD 8035 SCHOLARSHIP STE C 8425 W BELL RD IRVINE, CA 92612-5697 PEORIA, AZ 85382-3703 FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CA 92708-3849 MICHAEL B WALLACE JAMES DIAZ KENNETH Y SEO 28047 N 96TH PL 8141 SCHOLARSHIP 62 NEW DAWN SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85262-8450 IRVINE, CA 92612-5698 IRVINE, CA 92620-1932 TIMOTHY M AND JAMES C BRASSEUR BRASSEUR JAMES C EUN K CHOI SCOTT WELLMAN 51 COSTA BRAVA 8096 SCHOLARSHIP 8155 SCHOLARSHIP LAGUNA NIGUEL, CA 92677-9349 IRVINE, CA 92612-5697 IRVINE, CA 92612-5698 AZAR AND MAJID NOURAI NOURAI MAJID KAMAL M ADVANI ANTOINE N TALISSE PO BOX 14283 5531 VIA DIANZA 5050 SCHOLARSHIP IRVINE, CA 92623-4283 YORBA LINDA, CA 92887-2529 IRVINE, CA 92612-5695 ttlquettes faciles a paler i Se de Repliez a la hachure afin de ; www.averycom i Utilisez le gabarit AVERY® 5160® chargement rev6ler le rebord Pop-up- 1 -800 -GO -AVERY i Use Avery® Templa0e 5160— Land Use Ele fent A� W^Is Rei It � t: May 2014) — LYO I RLLYC�I"I C PATRICIA A RIZZO 41 CALLE GUIJARRO SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92673-6829 SOMCHIT AND PIYARATANA SERTTHIN SUPSAKORN PIYARATANA 5104 SCHOLARSHIP IRVINE, CA 92612-5696 ROBERT MAGHAME 20355 VIA LAS VILLAS YORBA LINDA, CA 92887-3140 CAMPUS CENTER IRVINE INC 2555 E CAMELBACK RD STE 800 PHOENIX, AZ 85016-9267 PAUL AND ERIK F MAKARECHIAN MYKLETUN ERIK F 4100 MACARTHUR BLVD. STE. 200 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660-2064 3000 PLAZA LLC 7040 SCHOLARSHIP IRVINE, CA 92612-4422 CHUNG RYU FOROUGHI,SHOHREH S FAMILY TRUST MATSU MOTO,M UTSUYA FAMILY 2165 CHANDLER DR 8031 SCHOLARSHIP TRUST TUSTIN, CA 92782-1135 IRVINE, CA 92612-5697 8038 SCHOLARSHIP IRVINE, CA 92612-5697 FRED C STOLLE PAUL AND JUDY FUJII HWANG NBNA UNIQUE PROPERTIES LLC 49370 VISTA MIRASOL 21201 CANYON OAK WAY 74000 COUNTRY CLUB DR. STE. E3 LA QUINTA, CA 92253-9209 CUPERTINO, CA 95014-6564 PALM DESERT, CA 92260-1678 MICHAEL ALLADAWI ALLEN MILBERT BARBARA YIN BETZAIDA MONTERO 8092 SCHOLARSHIP 8123 SCHOLARSHIP 8041 SCHOLARSHIP IRVINE, CA 92612-5697 IRVINE, CA 92612-5698 IRVINE, CA 92612-5697 MARYROSE SARGISS WILLIAM D HALL ELIZABETH A SELL 8048 SCHOLARSHIP DAV DAVID ID M MASONE 8049 8047 SCHOLARSHIP # 205 IRVINE, CA 92612-5697 IRVINE, CA 92612-5697 IRVINE, CA 92612-5697 CAROL AND TAMMI LINDSEY DAVID J STREMBA LEZLIE GUNN PO BOX CRISTINA FURUSHO-STREMBA 8045 SCHOLARSHIP 4 045 S BUFFALO DR STE A101 SEWARDA , A K 99664-0389 IRVINE, CA 92612-5697 LAS VEGAS, NV 89147-7480 ANDREW T HOLSTEIN ANDREW T HOLSTEIN NABIL AKKAD 8043 SCHOLARSHIP 8043 SCHOLARSHIP MAHA MAHAYNI-AKKAD IRVINE, CA 92612-5697 IRVINE, CA 92612-5697 8042 SCHOLARSHIP IRVINE, CA 92612-5697 RECORDS CAROLE M TRUST FRANCES PAUL KFUKUDA FUKUDA ALYSON AUSTIN 8050 SCHOLARSHIP 8051 SCHOLARSHIP 8058 SCHOLARSHIP IRVINE, CA 92612-5697 IRVINE, CA 92612-5697 IRVINE, CA 92612-5697 DOROTHY TEIXEIRA TAYLOR J PARK ABRAHAM AND ZARGAI BAHA 2 RUE BIARRITZ 8057 SCHOLARSHIP 27140 S RIDGE DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660-5101 IRVINE, CA 92612-5697 MISSION VIEJO, CA 92692-5008 Etiquettes faciles a paler® Utilisez Pe AVERY® 51600 Sensde Repiiez 6 4a hachure afin de e www.averycom 4 gabarit revdier le rebord Pup-upTM 1.800 -GO -AVERY r Use Avery® Template 5760— Land Use Eleni nt Ar���S"��&p s R�g�POSe;®p-UP�� Ita�t: May 2014) — LYO If�� ���iA ABRAHAM AND ZARGAI BAHA STEPHEN C AND MARIA D FOUST BA LIVING TRUST 27140 S RIDGE DR 107 GOLDEN BEAR DR 8053 SCHOLARSHIP MISSION VIEJO, CA 92692-5008 AUSTIN, TX 78738-1720 IRVINE, CA 92612-5697 JERIC MARCO SANTOS KI IN KU TAS TRUST 190 LIBERTY ST CHO HYANG LEE 5 PARK MEADOW CT TUSTIN, CA 92782-6515 8060 SCHOLARSHIP LAS VEGAS, NV 89141-6042 IRVINE, CA 92612-5697 TAS TRUST BOSSHARD FRANZ MARK LEE 5 PARK MEADOW CT 8068 SCHOLARSHIP KELLY CHUNG LAS VEGAS, NV 89141-6042 IRVINE, CA 92612-5697 400 SYMPHONY CIR APT 428 HUNT VALLEY, MD 21030-2054 LE LUCAS LIVING TRUST LE SON SEAN & LILIANNE LE ROBERT LEWIS FISHER 8067 SCHOLARSHIP 964 BLUE HERON 8065 SCHOLARSHIP IRVINE, CA _92612-5697 SEAL BEACH, CA 90740-5612 IRVINE, CA 92612-5697 LUCAS AND JEANETH BULAHAN THOMAS P KLAMMER KYUSANG LEE 21 LESSAY 8063 SCHOLARSHIP 325 S RAMSGATE DR NEWPORT COAST, CA 92657-1025 IRVINE, CA 92612-5697 ANAHEIM, CA 92807-4008 FARIBORZ AND MANIJEH VAHID UMA PERRICONE MEREDITH M BARNES 8070 SCHOLARSHIP 23539 RIDGEWAY 8078 SCHOLARSHIP # 503 IRVINE, CA 92612-5697 MISSION VIEJO, CA 92692-1881 IRVINE, CA 92612-5697 ALICE J AND MARTIN N KLEIN DESMOND Q DONNELLAN BARDIA MOHSENI 4342 REDWOOD AVE # C101 8077 SCHOLARSHIP 8076 SCHOLARSHIP MARINA DEL REY, CA 90292-6480 IRVINE, CA 92612-5697 IRVINE, CA 92612-5697 JIN SOO AND KAREN HAN JOSEPH GALLADE ARASH AMINIAN 8075 SCHOLARSHIP 8116 SCHOLARSHIP 8073 SCHOLARSHIP # 509C IRVINE, CA 92612-5697 IRVINE, CA 92612-5698 IRVINE, CA 92612-5697 CAMERON ORR CARTER MC LARAND ELISA RUTH AND RAYMOND EARL 8072 SCHOLARSHIP 8080 SCHOLARSHIP # 601 GRAINGER IRVINE, CA 92612-5697 IRVINE, CA 92612-5697 8081 SCHOLARSHIP IRVINE, CA 92612-5697 FAN YEN HUANG URS WIEDERKEHR MICHAEL CIAURI 8088 SCHOLARSHIP 8089 SCHOLARSHIP 8087 SCHOLARSHIP # 605 IRVINE, CA 92612-5697 IRVINE, CA 92612-5697 IRVINE, CA 92612-5697 ttiquettes faciles A peter i Se®de Repliez a la hachure afin de www.avery1 com Utilisez le gabaritAVERY® 51600 chargement rev6ler le rebord Pop-up- j 1.800 -GO -AVERY 1 easy reeo— La N13-0 — Land Use Element A Ppb, Is g�� Itar�t: May 2014 LYO Use Avery® Temp ate 5160 e� > � ��C ii�s' e`�o �O U� j Y ) — y&J j CI' KIJUN AND KYOUNGIL K AHN 31 CORN FLOWER ST COTO DE CAZA, CA 92679-5229 *** 100 Printed *** Etiquettes faciles a paler i Sens de Repiiez a #a hachure afin de www.avery com Utilisez to gabarit AVERY 51600 j chargement revdter ie rebord Pop-upTM j 7 -800 -GO -AVERY 1 �uuy r acv - `0"=1M$en Use Avery®Template 51600 n ' to jA20p��l EI,48ion IQ (La+�els Received from iltr��ly t ft 93030401 445 121 11 445 13102 LEDGER INVESTMENTS LLC CARLS JR RESTAURANTS LLC INC UPTOWN NEWPORT LP 5160 BIRCH ST #101 1325 N ANAHEIM BLVD 220 E 42ND ST #27TH NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 ANAHEIM, CA 92801 NEW YORK, NY 10017 445 141 10 445 141 11 445 141 12 LAMBEAU PROPERTIES LLC BEACHWOOD PARTNERS LLC LYON HOUSING I LLC 4921 BIRCH ST #1 4770 VON KARMAN AVE 4901 BIRCH ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 445 141 14 445 121 09 445 121 17 KCN LTD EDITION OWNERS ASSN NF VON KARMAN LLC CO IRVINE 5030 CAMPUS DR 4425 JAMBOREE RD #250 550 NEWPORT CENTER DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 445 141 22 445 122 11 445 13108 5000 CAMPUS MACARTHUR 4500 LLC OCRC CAPITAL CORP 5000 CAMPUS DR SUNSTONE MACARTHUR L 7 CORPORATE PLAZA DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 903 CALLE AMANECER NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92673 445 141 31 445 141 23 445 141 30 LEBATA INC BEACHWOOD PARTNERS BRIDGESTONE PROPERTIES LLC 4621 TELLER AVE #1040 4770 VON KARMAN AVE 5015 BIRCH ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 445 151 06 445 131 19 445 131 21 JUNIOR LEAGUE OF ORANGE CORNERSTONE PARTNERS IV LLC WILLIAM LYON HOMES INC COUNTY CALIFORNIA IN 18818 TELLER AVE #277 4490 VON KARMAN AVE 5140 CAMPUS DR IRVINE, CA 92612 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 445 151 03 445 141 01 445 141 03 OCCUPANT WILLIAM SHATTUCK LIMITED EDITION PTNRS 5100 CAMPUS DR CATHERINE MACLEOD 4920 CAMPUS DR NEWPORT BEACH, 92660 0 4770 VON KARMAN AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 930 304 03 445 151 02 445 151 04 DARTS BUILDING PARTNERS APEX LAND INVESTMENTS INC 5120 CAMPUS PARTNERS 5120 BIRCH ST 4700 TELLER AVE 5120 CAMPUS DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 930 304 04 445 151 07 930 304 02 CP ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL DEVELOPERS E J EGG HART 5100 BIRCH ST 5160 CAMPUS DR 5140 BIRCH ST #300 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 445 141 07 445 141 02 445 141 05 OCCUPANT BEACHWOOD PARTNERS LLC OCCUPANT 4940 CAMPUS DR 4910 CAMPUS ASSOCIAT 4740 VON KARMAN AVE #100 NEWPORT BEACH, 92660 0 4910 CAMPUS DR NEWPORT BEACH, 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 ttiquettes faciles a peter Utilisez le 51600 Repliez a is hachure afin de ; w Sens de le www.avery.com gabaritAVERYO j chargement reveler rebord Pop-upTM 1.800-GO-AVERY 1, —a y r ccs - `a vcis Use Avery® Template 51600 445 141 06 OCCUPANT 4930 CAMPUS DR NEWPORT BEACH, 92660 445 141 13 OCCUPANT 4911 BIRCH ST NEWPORT BEACH, 92660 445 141 16 OCCUPANT 5001 BIRCH ST NEWPORT BEACH, 92660 ttiquettes faciles A peler Utilisez le gabarit AVERY® 5160® 'PA20 Bend along U e to i .�`.� �3 i p3q 60t (Libels Received from It�M �1 �6LYO 445 141 13 OCCUPANT 4911 BIRCH ST NEWPORT BEACH, 92660 445 141 16 OCCUPANT 5001 BIRCH ST NEWPORT BEACH, 92660 445 151 01 COUNTY OF ORANGE 1143 E FRUIT ST SANTA ANA, CA 92701 A Sens de i chargement Reptiez A la hachure afin de i rev6ler le rebord Pop-uVmI 445 141 07 OCCUPANT 4940 CAMPUS DR NEWPORT BEACH, 92660 445 141 29 OCCUPANT 5031 BIRCH ST #1 NEWPORT BEACH, 92660 445 14128 OCCUPANT 4611 TELLER AVE NEWPORT BEACH, 92660 www.avery.com 1 -800 -GO -AVERY eto rc3z.y very@ emplo * 2 veld from Consultant: 0 ._ EPORRT lJse Avery® Template 51600 PA2013-0981 Lanc�e�jg��pl H ' 442 032 53 442 27101 442 18142 BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT GROUP BEHDAD AKBARPOUR 1 BIG CANYON DR PO BOX 3060 MIRKARIMI ELHAM NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 1 RUE CHATEAU ROYAL NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 442 261 16 442 171 54 442 182 24 CO IRVINE DARREL D ANDERSON AVRO GAON 550 NEWPORT CENTER DR GRIN BERG -AN DERSON MA GAON BOJANA NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 1 RUE SAINT CLOUD 1 RUE MARSEILLE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 442 381 08 442 181 51 442 182 10 KIM E CATANZARITE SULLIVAN ROBERT A COVENEY 1 CANYON CT DAVIS CASEY STARR 1 RUE FONTAINBLEAU NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 1 RUE MONTREUX NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 442 032 44 442 271 02 442 18143 IRVINE FOUR LLC OCRC CAPITAL CORP COLLEEN B MANCHESTER ESSEX FAIRWAYS 7 CORPORATE PLAZA DR 2 RUE CHATEAU ROYAL 925 E MEADOW DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 PALO ALTO, CA 94303 442 182 06 442 38107 442 171 53 FULTON J FISCHER JAMES TOMKINSON ANNA L JENNINGS 2 RUE MONTREUX 2 CANYON FAIRWAY DR 2 RUE SAINT CLOUD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 442 271 03 442 171 55 442 18141 PROPERTY RESERVE INC CYNTHIA S GRAFF WILLIAM R & MARY E DUGGAN III 3 CORPORATE PLAZA LP 3 RUE SAINT CLOUD 18814 WILLOWTREE LN PO BOX 511196 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 PORTER RANCH, CA 91326 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84151 442 181 50 442 182 23 442 381 09 A FREEMAN SUSAN P MUNTHE BRIAN MARTINI FREEMAN FAMILY TRUST 3 RUE MARSEILLE 3 CANYON CT 3 RUE MONTREUX NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 442 271 04 442 18144 442 182 05 DIVISION TAX OCCUPANT CHIKUSA MASAKO 4 CORPORATE PLAZA LP 4 RUE CHATEAU ROYAL 19 TRINITY 13 CORPORATE PLAZA DR #150 NEWPORT BEACH, 92660 IRVINE, CA 92612 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 442 182 08 442 381 06 442 271 05 FIFTIES CAPITAL INVS LLC JAMES J MUFFIE PROPERTY RESERVE INC 385 FLORA ST 4 CANYON FAIRWAY DR SAN DIEGO FED S & L LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 PO BOX 2609 CARLSBAD, CA 92018 442 182 12 442 182 22 442 381 10 MOORE OF GATES DUANE LOUIS KIME II RAMON ROSSI LOPEZ/LOPEZ JAMIE G 303 ARLINGTON DR PO BOX 12829 5 CANYON CT PASADENA, CA 91105 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 kiquettes taciles a peter 's Utilisez le AVERY® 5t60® sends de A .la, hachure afire de le e www.averyra coF gabarit chargement reveller rebord Pop-UpTM 1 -8,00.60 -AVERY, h casy reee— woeis e • e +a�p�ineRto i u� Use Avery® Template 5160® PA2013-098 Lan � e 9 09 c9iv j from Consultant: 0 1 i IVT 442 181 40 442 182 13 442 381 05 OCCUPANT JENE M WITTE WESLEY DEAN HACKER 5 RUE CHATEAU ROYAL 6 RUE MARSEILLE 6 CANYON FAIRWAY DR NEWPORT BEACH, 92660 0 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 442 182 21 442 271 29 442 381 11 SWAIN CORP OPB III TADASHI TED FUNAHASHI 7 RUE MARSEILLE 7 CORPORATE PLAZA DR 7 CANYON CT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 442 18146 442 182 20 442 38104 BEST GROUP LP DANIEL M & BRENDA B CLAUSS WILLIAM K RUSSELL 2925 BRISTOL ST 9 RUE MARSEILLE 8 CANYON FAIRWAY DR COSTA MESA, CA 92626 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 442 021 25 442 182 07 442 182 25 CO IRVINE DOLORES & PT JONES RALPH JOHN BOLLINGER 7 W 7TH ST 10 RUE FONTAINEBLEAU 5152 PICCADILLY CIR CINCINNATI, OH 45202 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 WESTMINSTER, CA 92683 442 381 12 442 182 07 442 182 15 SANDRA L MITCHELL DOLORES & PT JONES PATRICK T & MARLENE V TON 9 CANYON CT 10 RUE FONTAINEBLEAU 10 RUE MARSEILLE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 442 381 03 442 182 19 442 182 26 ALBERT 1 CROSSON DOROTHY M TURNBULL IRAJ TABIBZADEH 10 CANYON FAIRWAY DR 11 RUE MARSEILLE 11 RUE FONTAINEBLEAU NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 442 271 12 442 182 16 442 021 08 MITCHELL A JUNKINS ARDISTE REIS IRVINE CO OF W VA 12 CORPORATE PLAZA DR #140 12 RUE MARSEILLE 550 NEWPORT CENTER DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 442 271 13 442 182 27 442 182 17 WILLIAM W LANGE WARSAW DOROTHY SANDRA METCALF TR 13 CORPORATE PLAZA L 15 RUE FONTAINBLEAU 14 RUE MARSEILLE 13 CORPORATE PLAZA DR #150 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 442 381 01 442 181 54 442 271 15 GERALD H MCQUARRIE MOIRA ALLEN PODLISKA HERITAGE ONE LLC 1095 S 800 E #1 17 RUE FONTAINEBLEAU 4188 MARIPOSA DR OREM, UT 84097 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 SANTA BARBARA, CA 93110 442 182 18 442 18152 442 271 16 P BARRY BALDWIN DOUGLAS C COULTER NEWPORT CORP. PLAZA ASSOCS 15 RUE MARSEILLE 21 RUE FONTAINEBLEAU 1100 NEWPORT CENTER DR #150 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 ' ttiquettes faciles a paler ® Repliez a la hachure afro de p e www.a"ry.com F Sens de Utilisez le gabarit AVERY® 51600 chargement rev6ler le rebord Pop-upTm j 1-g00•60.AVERY Easy Peel- Labels i ® i PA2013-098 r- Lan EI en ( iveh from Consultant:*0AVRRw*1§QiqT1l Use Avery® Template 5160 1 �e� ap ei��i �� 1 442 271 17 442 391 05 442 181 55 17 CORPORATE PLAZA ASSOC LLC JAMES & D MYERSON MOIRA A PODLISKA 17 CORPORATE PLAZA DR 24 CANYON FAIRWAY DR 17 RUE FONTAINEBLEAU NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 442 391 08 442 271 32 442 271 24 LASZLO & VALERIA NAGY BURNHAM-NEWPORT LLC CARNELIAN BAY GROUP LP 18 CANYON FAIRWAY DR 1100 NEWPORT CENTER DR #200 300 EAGLE DANCE CIR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 PALM DESERT, CA 92211 442 391 07 442 181 25 442 391 06 LEONID & ZOYA LERNER SHARON E & ROBERT ISIDORE C MYERS 20 CANYON FAIRWAY DR G MYERS JR. 22 CANYON FAIRWAY DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 TR 30 RUE FONTAINBLEAU NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 442 271 31 442 391 01 442 271 33 IRVINE COMPANY MIE KATAYAMA 24 CORP PLAZA II LLC 550 NEWPORT CENTER DR 32 CANYON FAIRWAY DR 1100 NEWPORT CENTER DR #200 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 442 391 04 442 231 12 442 391 03 MCCLOSKEY BEACON BAY ENTERPRISES INC SEBASTIAN PAUL MUSCO 26 CANYON FAIRWAY DR 150 NEWPORT CENTER DR 28 CANYON FAIRWAY DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 442 391 02 442 161 11 442 181 24 WAH LENG LIM EASTLUND PROPERTIES LLC TODD K & YANGJA KIM 30 CANYON FAIRWAY DR PO BOX 9888 9474 NW 54TH DORAL CIRCLE LN NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 DORAL, FL 33178 442 181 26 442 161 11 442 231 13 GREGORY BERRY EASTLUND PROPERTIES LLC HAMILTON 32 RUE FONTAINEBLEAU PO BOX 9888 MARGUERITES PROPERTI NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 100 NEWPORT CENTER DR #200 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 442 161 11 442 091 12 442 161 18 EASTLUND PROPERTIES LLC TRAIL PROPERTIES LLC 270 NEWPORT CENTER DR LLC PO BOX 9888 EDWARDS THEATRES CIR 1100 NEWPORT CENTER DR #150 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 7132 REGAL LN NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 KNOXVILLE, TN 37918 442 231 09 442 161 06 442 161 12 SOUTHWEST INVESTORS DMP 250 NEWPORT CENTER LLC RONALD B SCHWARTZ PO BOX 1960 610 NEWPORT CENTER DR #660 202 NEWPORT CENTER DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 442 161 16 442 161 09 442 161 04 TRAIL PROPERTIES LLC 280 NEWPORT CTR DRIVE LLC 230 NEWPORT CENTER DR LLC EDWARDS THEATRES CIR 270 NEWPORT CENTER DR #100 1100 NEWPORT CENTER DR 4150 PO BOX 9888 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 Etiquettes faciles a paler ; Utilisez le 5160® Sens de Repiiez a is hachure afro de ie www•avery com a gabaritAVERY® j chargement rev6ler rebord Pop-upTn 1 -800 -GO -AVERY ei— easy veryO Template PA2013-098 r- Use Avery® Template 5160® 1e��g Be Lan 'e e a fn ivy from Consultant: 0 MORT1 tP�� 442 091 03 442 161 09 442 091 01 BENJAMIN KRAUT 280 NEWPORT CTR DRIVE LLC EASTLUND PROPERTIES 3921 SANDUNE LN 270 NEWPORT CENTER DR #100 PO BOX 9888 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 442 082 11 442 021 23 442 101 21 NCMB NO 1 LLC BANK AMERICAN SAVINGS 610 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE LLC 1401 AVOCADO AVE #901 PO BOX 4900 550 NEWPORT CENTER DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85261 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 442 082 13 442 091 03 442 091 04 NCMB NO 4 LLC BENJAMIN KRAUT BURNHAM 1401 AVOCADO AVE #901 3921 SANDUNE LN 1100 NEWPORT CENTER DR #1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 442 08105 442 021 13 050 291 12 AMALFI INVESTMENTS GP CO IRVINE INGA DEJOUNGE PO BOX 7099 NEIMAN-MARCUS GROUP 1600 SANTANELLA TER NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 1201 ELM ST #2800 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 DALLAS, TX 75270 050 291 11 442 101 09 459 081 07 BRIAN STAPLETON 660 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE LLC SANDRA MAE MCNEILL 642 RAMONA DR 550 NEWPORT CENTER DR 700 AVOCADO AVE CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 459 081 13 442 262 01 937 170 09 SCHULEIN LTD PACIFIC MUTUAL LIFE ALISON F SIMS PARTNERSHIP INSURANCE CO FLOOR 1 701 AVOCADO AVE 15 LINDA ISLE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 442 262 01 937 170 09 459 081 06 PACIFIC MUTUAL LIFE ALISON F SIMS WENDY L DORCHESTER INSURANCE CO FLOOR 1 701 AVOCADO AVE 702 AVOCADO AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 459 081 09 937 170 10 938 015 44 WILLIAM G AYOUB ESTELLE C ORR AZITA MESBAH AYOUB ABEER AZZAM 709 AVOCADO AVE 704 AVOCADO AVE #B 703 ACACIA AVE CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 938 015 45 938 012 49 937 170 29 GRACE M LOZINSKI JBK MARK F HAMBLY 1 VENETO 705 ACACIA AVE 5056 WESTBURY CIR NEWPORT COAST, CA 92657 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 GRANITE BAY, CA 95746 050 293 13 459 081 04 05029204 FLEETWOOD BJOINER MICHAEL D GAUMOND RICHARD D PASSAGLIA PO BOX 10296 GAUMOND JULIE K 707 MALABAR DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 706 AVOCADO AVE CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 ttiquettes faciles a peter® ® i Utilisez to gabarit AVERY 5?60 Sens de RepUex a la hachure aflnde a vwuw.averyco�s chargement reveler le rebord Pop-up- 1 -800 -G0 -AVERY gend caoy ra1cye— daupi' PA2013-0981— Lan P * "ine ajtgn O y B Use Ave ® Template 5160® 1 �e Fa �rm� ie O` 9 �g wRiv l from Consultant: n o �I �jTE 459 081 11 937 170 30 938 015 48 WILLIAM W GREEN JAY L STONE CHRISTINE GROGAN 3419 VIA LIDO #607 STONE KRISTIN T 708 AVOCADO AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 1768 HERBERT AVE CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84108 938 015 49 459 081 12 050 284 10 AZITA MESBAH MARTIN A MANGOLD GEORGE ROMERO 708.5 AVOCADO AVE 192 E RADCLIFFE DR ROMERO ALICE CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 CLAREMONT, CA 91711 711 RAMONA DR CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 937 170 12 050 293 18 MERLE R BOLTON JR. HEARN THOMAS W O' 937 170 31 490 W MARISCAL RD 712 MALABAR DR SONDRA E SCOTT PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 713 AVOCADO AVE CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 937 170 32 937 170 13 937 170 14 CHRISTINA ATTIKEN LARA DORSEY TAMI B NELSON 715 AVOCADO AVE #212 717 AVOCADO AVE 210 AMETHYST AVE CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92662 937 170 34 050 293 06 937 170 16 RYAN A GRADY ADELSON ROBERT L & B S CUNNINGHAM GRADY LARA PAIGE 724 MALABAR DR 92 FAIRLANE RD 723 AVOCADO AVE CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 LAGUNA NIGUEL, CA 92677 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 050 293 07 937 170 36 937 170 08 ROBERT FORBES PAINTER AMY SWARTZ SILKE H FRANK 730 MALABAR DR 731 AVOCADO AVE 733 AVOCADO AVE #108 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 937 170 07 937 170 05 937 170 01 JANEEN A & PETER J COCHRAN SHAN TOTTY PAMELA P TURNER 537 CANYON ACRES DR 3983 BALMORAL DR 1126 E AMELIA DR LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 YORBA LINDA, CA 92886 LONG BEACH, CA 90807 937 170 02 937 170 03 937 170 04 ADAM DODGE HOLLY M O'NEILL STEPHEN MERZ 743 AVOCADO AVE #102 745 AVOCADO AVE #103 530 TEMPLE HILLS DR CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 937 170 28 937 170 27 937 170 26 HEATHER EPSTEIN BARRY L HOEVEN STEVEN ANENBERG 751 AVOCADO AVE 17 ROCKINGHAM DR 3410 E FOOTHILL BLVD CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 PASADENA, CA 91107 937 170 25 937 170 21 937 170 22 MICHELLE ASHLEY-MCCARTER TR JOHN M SULLIVAN GRANGE & CORIE SEAN 8 RAVENNA 1417 23RD ST #5 GRANGE JOINT LIVING IRVINE, CA 92614 SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 225 20TH ST HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 i tiquettes faciles A peteri Utilisez le AVERY® 51600 ® Repiiez a la hachure afin de www.avery.com r ww,avery.a®m gabarit l chargement rev6ler le rebord Pop-upTM j 1 -800 -GO -AVERY A ca'y reel— Lauen, pA2013-098 I' Lan Benda,n� l'n to -vs Use Avery® Template 5160® 1 e�c�flaFp�r ie� �� ej from Consultant: 0 x '81M@@MT1 937 170 23 937 170 24 937 170 37 MATTHEW & BETH SANDERS ARMEN DILAN HUNTER WILSON 763 AVOCADO AVE #203 102 MOUNT AUBURN ST 112 GRAND CANAL CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 WATERTOWN, MA 2472 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92662 937 170 45 937 170 44 937 170 43 DAVID MARIO PALLADINI PATSY A METCALF AINSWORTH 769 AVOCADO AVE #308 771 AVOCADO AVE #307 249 S HIGHWAY 101 #359 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075 937 170 42 937 170 38 937 170 39 HAMID SHIRVANI KATHRYN L THUET THOMAS E CHRISTENSEN PO BOX 3089 PO BOX 364 3334 E COAST HWY #213 TURLOCK, CA 95381 SEAHURST, WA 98062 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 937 170 40 937 170 41 937 170 19 GARFI-PARTRIDGE LP INEZ CORINE SIMS MARKS 22860 SAVI RANCH PKWY 783 AVOCADO AVE 1787 CATLIN ST YORBA LINDA, CA 92887 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 FULLERTON, CA 92833 937 170 18 937 170 17 442 262 03 KRISTIN M CANO JENNY H TRAN IRVINE CO LLC 789 AVOCADO AVE 2981 PLAYER LN 550 NEWPORT CENTER DR CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 TUSTIN, CA 92782 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 442 261 05 442 262 09 442 011 69 ORANGE CO. MUSEUM OF ART IRVINE COMPANY LLC THE HHR NEWPORT BEACH LLC 850 SAN CLEMENTE DR 550 NEWPORT CENTER DR PO BOX 579 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 LOUISVILLE, TN 37777 440 251 04 442 021 11 442 421 10 PARK NEWPORT LAND LTD CO IRVINE 1000 NEWPORT CENTER LLC 201 FILBERT ST #700 5660 KATELLA AVE #100 7956 PAINTER AVE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94133 CYPRESS, CA 90630 WHITTIER, CA 90602 939 637 29 939 637 30 939 637 31 JAMES CAVANAUGH RICHARD LEE ROBERTS URSULA EASTMAN CAVANAUGH ESTHER PO BOX 701533 PO BOX 1313 554 DORSET RD TULSA, OK 74170 LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92652 DEVON, PA 19333 939 637 32 939 637 33 939 637 34 LOUIS F SABATASSO PAUL HITZELBERGER PAUL W HITZELBERGER 1009 GRANVILLE DR HITZELBERGER JANE 4760 HIGHLAND DR #604 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 4760 HIGHLAND DR #604 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84117 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84117 939 637 35 939 637 36 939 637 37 E RICHARD DORSEY JOHN C WARNER EUGENE RICHARD DORSEY 177 RIVERSIDE AVE 1017 GRANVILLE DR 177 RIVERSIDE AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 Etiquettes faciles a paler i Sens w. de Repliez a la hachure afin de ; wwaverymcoi Utilisez le gabarit AVERY@ 51600 j chargement r6v6ler le rebord Pop-upTM j 1 -600 -CO -AVERY 1 tasy reel— Laoeis i : Ommm" Berid aign i' to i w�y r� a Use Avery® Template 5160® PA2013-09 1 Lan 1041%r ie @tp 7 I1� �ivetl from Consultant: O� t11�l�f�E�NT�; 939 637 38 939 637 39 939 637 40 NEAL J & AMY Z REINER ALEX JIANAS RENE RALPH WOOLCOTT 1021 GRANVILLE DR 1023 GRANVILLE DR 3213 FIVE POINTS RD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 MARSHALL, VA 20115 939 637 42 939 637 43 939 637 44 HOBART A SMITH DRUCILLA D FINKLE FRANK EDWARD LEGRAND 1029 GRANVILLE DR 1031 GRANVILLE DR 1033 GRANVILLE DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 939 637 45 939 637 46 939 637 48 RHP ROBERT E FRENCH JOHN R & NANCY L FRENCH 2532 DUPONT DR 1037 GRANVILLE DR 1041 GRANVILLE DR IRVINE, CA 92612 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 939 637 49 939 637 50 939 637 51 DOUGLAS A NEWCOMB JAMES E MITCHELL MARK SUSSON 1043 GRANVILLE DR 1045 GRANVILLE DR 1047 GRANVILLE DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 939 637 52 939 637 54 DOROTHY M KANOWSKY 939 637 53 FRANK J MCGEOY JR. KANOWSKY SURVIVORS T JUNE KVARDA 1053 GRANVILLE DR 1049 GRANVILLE DR 1051 GRANVILLE DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 939 637 55 939 637 56 939 637 57 EDDY SCHIELEIN LLC ANNE M DIORIO 1055 GRANVILLE DR 1221 W COAST HWY #314 1059 GRANVILLE DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 939 637 96 939 637 58 939 637 59 KLINGAMAN JACK S LEIDER STEVEN N NELSON 1060 GRANVILLE DR 1061 GRANVILLE DR NELSON NANCY POPE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 1063 GRANVILLE DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 939 637 60 939 637 95 93963763 RALPH L OZORKIEWICZ ALMA CHERIAN KATHLEEN CHAPMAN 1065 GRANVILLE DR 1070 GRANVILLE DR 1071 GRANVILLE DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 939 637 64 939 637 65 442 011 24 DAVID W CROSS GORDON MEYER SCOTT BURNHAM CROSS MAUREEN GRAHAM MEYER MARJORIE M TRU 1100 NEWPORT CENTER DR #150 1073 GRANVILLE DR 49511 CANYON VIEW DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 PALM DESERT, CA 92260 939 637 93 939 637 67 93963768 DANIEL D DARROW JOHN E STONEMAN CHARLES H LOOS A 1100 GRANVILLE DR 1103 GRANVILLE DR 1105 GRANVILLE DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 tiquettes faciles a paler a Se®de Repliez a 9a hachure afin de ; e www.averycom Utilisez le gabarit AVERY® 51601Dj chargement rev6ler le rebord Pap-upTM j 1 -800 -60 -AVERY 1 Easy Peer Labels i A end aionli a to i ' Use Avery® Template 5160® PA2013-0981 Land pa5e jmiv jJ from Consultant: W^)1—EWp80RqDNI 939 637 69 939 637 92 939 637 71 OLIVIA CHAMI MICHAEL R A WADE MARION C BUIE 1107 GRANVILLE DR WADE CAROLE 1111 GRANVILLE DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 1110 GRANVILLE DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 939 637 73 939 637 75 939 637 91 PAUL G MACMILLIN BARBARA K CARR OCCUPANT MAC MILLIN SUZANNE R 100 NEWPORT CENTER DR #140 1120 GRANVILLE DR 1115 GRANVILLE DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, 92660 0 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 939 637 77 939 637 78 939 637 79 RICHARD S LERNER BARBARA J GRANT WILLIAM P FICKER 1123 GRANVILLE DR 1125 GRANVILLE DR #50 1127 GRANVILLE DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 939 637 80 939 637 90 939 637 81 ARTHUR SHAPIRO JAMES J BIRMINGHAM & COMMUNITY ASSN GRANVILLE 1129 GRANVILLE DR H BIRMINGHAM 1989 16845 VON KARMAN AVE #200 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 1801 PARK COURT PL #I IRVINE, CA 92606 SANTA ANA, CA 92701 939 637 83 939 637 84 939 637 85 ROBERT & LISA AHLKE LINDA G KROLOP SHAMIR SHETH 177 RIVERSIDE AVE #F 1137 GRANVILLE DR 1139 GRANVILLE DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 939 637 86 939 637 87 939 637 88 WILLIAM E KEENAN PAUL D CHRIST ILEANE DOOLIN 1141 GRANVILLE DR PO BOX 9757 1145 GRANVILLE DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 939 637 89 442 091 08 442 091 08 ALEEN TRAIL ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC TRAIL ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC 1147 GRANVILLE DR PO BOX 9888 PO BOX 9888 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 442 091 07 442 091 07 442 091 07 JAMES E RICH JAMES E RICH JAMES E RICH 802 BAY FRONT S 802 BAY FRONT S 802 BAY FRONT S NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92662 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92662 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92662 442 091 07 442 091 07 442 091 06 JAMES E RICH JAMES E RICH SHIRLEY G KILPATRICK 802 BAY FRONT S 802 BAY FRONT S 1367 AVOCADO AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92662 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92662 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 442 082 14 442 161 05 442 082 08 NCMB NO 2 LLC 240 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE NCMB NO 3 LLC NEWPORTCENTER MEDICA ASSOC LP 1401 AVOCADO AVE #901 1401 AVOCADO AVE #901 1100 NEWPORT CENTER DR #150 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 Eti uettes faciles a eler q � Utilisez le AVERY® 5160® i ® i t Sens de Repliez � is hachure afin de ie v�nnrw.averyecom � gabarit j chargement rev6ler rebord Pop-urm 1 -800.60 -AVERY Easy Peel1w Labels pA2013-098 i Lan 'k Bend �a)Qn, 1' to i e Use Avery®Template 5160® 4cy$0eFp�r e � +P'�Pr iverl from Consultant: oAywwwwpqi 442 011 37 050 284 09 050 284 12 DAVID M ELLIS MAC INNES SCOT BRIAN MOLLY DOONE LLC PO BOX 1006 MAC INNES DEANNE MAR 5000 BIRCH ST #410 SANTA MONICA, CA 90406 1536 SANTANELLA TER NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 442 261 10 050 284 11 442 261 02 JAA DEV LP DAVID YI TERRIBLE HERBST INC PO BOX 1290 1512 DOLPHIN TER 5195 LAS VEGAS BLVD S AGOURA HILLS, CA 91376 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 LAS VEGAS, NV 89119 050 292 01 JERRY DAMASCHINO DAMASCHINO JANE E 1600 SANTANELLA TER CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 050 292 08 FRANCIS J RHODES 1909 N LYON ST SANTA ANA, CA 92705 050 292 02 ANTON M CHIAPUZIO CHIAPUZIO KYMBERLY Q 1606 SANTANELLA TER CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 442 180 02 442 011 51 ERICKSON INDSTS INC FAINBARG 1 3861 WISTERIA ST FAINBARG TRUST 1 SEAL BEACH, CA 90740 129 W WILSON ST #100 COSTA MESA, CA 92627 442 081 11 442 081 12 1601 AVOCADO LLC NEWPORT DIAGNOSTIC CENTER INC 1605 AVOCADO AVE 1605 AVOCADO AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 050 292 07 440 361 23 GAY ARBUTHNOT MAY L LEE 1607 BONNIE DOONE TER 1610 ARCH BAY DR CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 440 361 22 050 292 03 440 361 21 STOLL PETER RAYMOND MORRIS JAMES J KIRST 937 E PALMDALE BLVD MORRIS DIANA SPECHT 1614 ARCH BAY DR PALMDALE, CA 93550 1614 SANTANELLA TER NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 050 292 06 440 361 20 440 361 19 HUGH H BRADLEY PRACHUM MALEENONT VALERIE C CHAN PAPPAS CHRISTINE ANN 1616 ARCH BAY DR 1618 ARCH BAY DR 1615 BONNIE DOONE TER NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 050 292 05 ROY W DEVAN EY JR. 1619 BONNIE DOONE TER CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 440 361 16 MAAD OKKO 1631 ARCH BAY DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 050 321 01 MICHAEL G MCMULLEN 1901 CHUBASCO DR CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 440 361 18 440 361 15 NAN N XU ANN DAVIDSON ANTHONY 8 THUNDERBIRD DR 1629 ARCH BAY DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 440 361 17 050 321 14 STARLENE M LICUDINE PERRY PHILIP L CHARLES M & TRACY P ALLEN 2002 1900 SEADRIFT DR 1633 ARCH BAY DR CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 050 321 13 P C WILLIAMSON 1906 SEADRIFT DR CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 050 321 13 P C WILLIAMSON 1906 SEADRIFT DR CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 Nquettes faciles a paler ; Se®f de Repliez A la hachure afin dee www.avery com Utilisez le gabarltAVERY® 51600 l chargement rev6ler le rebord Pop-uVm i 1 -800 -Ga -AVERY easy reei - Laoeis e A Bend along line to i QQv ����//® 551�8g0o® I Use Avery®Template 5160® PA2013-098k ersiop�etf'(QprbplEd Tpive�ifromConsultant: 00 %WPORTCENTj1 050 321 13 050 321 02 050 321 12 P C WILLIAMSON GARY A FUDGE GARY D OF BARNHILL 1906 SEADRIFT DR 1915 CHUBASCO DR RESIDENCE TRUST CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 1912 SEADRIFT DR CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 05032111 050 321 04 050 321 10 KAREN DAVIS BLOOM SANSONE 1918 SEADRIFT DR BLOOM DEVON N 2000 SEADRIFT DR CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 1919 CHUBASCO DR CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 050 32105 050 321 09 050 32106 BERNICE P NOECKER PATRICK J ROLFES RICHARD A FOR HARMON 2001 CHUBASCO DR ROLFES JENNIFER L KATHRYN B EAST TRUST CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 2006 SEADRIFT DR 2007 CHUBASCO DR CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 050 32108 050 32107 050 323 05 CHAYES-ROSS JOSEPH H CARTER II 2101 ECH LLC 2012 SEADRIFT DR 2015 CHUBASCO DR 2101 E COAST HWY #300 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 050 323 04 442 081 09 442 032 71 COAST BUSINESS CENTER LTD SAN JOAQUIN 2161 LLC PRESBYTERY OF LOS RANCHOS 1105 QUAIL ST 369 SAN MIGUEL DR #300 PO BOX 910 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 ANAHEIM, CA 92815 459 081 01 459 081 15 050 293 28 HAMID KIANIPUR RON E PRESTA CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH KIANIPUR AMETHYST B PO BOX 7099 PO BOX 1768 2201 COAST HWY E NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 442 011 68 442 011 39 442 032 25 TNHC NEWPORT LLC DAVID MICHAEL ELLIS CANYON COMMUNITY ASSN BIG 95 ENTERPRISE #325 NEWPORT HARBOR CHAMB PO BOX 7091 ALISO VIEJO, CA 92656 1470 JAMBOREE RD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 442 262 10 442 271 34 440 361 30 IRVINE APARTMENT SCOTT BORAS COVE COMMUNITY HARBOR ASSN COMMUNITIES 18 CORPORATE PLAZA DR 23726 BIRTCHER DR 550 NEWPORT CENTER DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 LAKE FOREST, CA 92630 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 442 161 17 442 171 65 442 391 13 DESIGN PLAZA OWNERS ASSN VIEW COMMUNITY CANYON ASSN FAIRWAY COMMUNITY CANYON 505 S VILLA REAL #505 PO BOX 4708 ASSOCIATION ANAHEIM, CA 92807 IRVINE, CA 92616 PO BOX 4708 IRVINE, CA 92616 442 091 15 SAN MIGUEL PLAZA OWNERS ASSN 1367 AVOCADO AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 ttiquettes faaa peter i Sens de Repiiez 6 #a hachure afin de www.avery a com i Utilisez le gabaririt AVERY® 5160® j chargement r6v6ler le rebord Pop-uo- j 1 -800 -GO -AVERY j r-aar v==I - t avaia I Am tsena along fine to I 0AAQJr�9W6ip1k*atti fte Element AiendfAORPa Z'M4�xP g�,,seftMt (enter 461 15213 RIDGE COMM ASSN NEWPORT 1 POLARIS WAY #100 ALISO VIEJO, CA 92656 461 271 10 TOM SALATA 27 LYON NEWPORT COAST, CA 92657 461 271 13 SUEHIRO WATANABE 20536 BLIND CT WALNUT, CA 91789 461 271 71 RIDGE COMMUNITY NEWPORT ASSN 25910 ACERO #2ND MISSION VIEJO, CA 92691 473 011 20 JOSEPH J UEBERROTH 626 SEAWARD RD CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 478 081 05 IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT PO BOX 57000 IRVINE, CA 92619 478101 72 SAUL J ADELSBERG 2 TESORO NEWPORT COAST, CA 92657 936 470 53 OCCUPANT 29 VIA AMANTI NEWPORT COAST, CA 92657 936 470 56 JOHN GUEOLA PROKOPETZ SHERRY LYN 2901 W COAST HWY #160 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 936 470 59 SAEED PARTOW 17 VIA AMANTI NEWPORT COAST, CA 92657 461 153 04 CALIFORNIA DIVERSIFIED LLC 550 NEWPORT CENTER DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 461 271 11 EDWARD MARK BIRN BIRN DONNA M 29 LYON NEWPORT COAST, CA 92657 461 271 14 JOHN G HARDY 38 LYON NEWPORT COAST, CA 92657 461 271 81 AT NEWPORT STLAURENT RIDGE MAINTENANCE ASSN PO BOX 7736 LAGUNA NIGUEL, CA 92607 478 011 24 SCHOOL NEWPORT MESA UNIFIED DISTRICT PO BOX 1368 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659 478 082 01 COAST COMMUNITY NEWPORT ASSN 25910 ACERO #2ND MISSION VIEJO, CA 92691 936 470 51 ROBERT J STEIN III 33 VIA AMANTI NEWPORT COAST, CA 92657 936 470 54 ROBERT F MILLER II 27 VIA AMANTI NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92657 936 470 57 LILIA E HODDINOTT 21 VIA AMANTI NEWPORT COAST, CA 92657 936 470 60 TIVA HANJAN HANJAN LEYLA SHASHAA 15 VIA AMANTI NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92657 U AVERY@ 5160® l 461 153 05 VONS COMPANIES INC 1371 OAKLAND BLVD #200 WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596 461 271 12 ANNABEL GREEN PO BOX 248 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 461 271 15 CHARLES L WEINBERG 36 LYON NEWPORT COAST, CA 92657 461 381 06 MAINTENANCE CORP VERONA 26 EXECUTIVE PARK #100 IRVINE, CA 92614 478 081 01 COAST COMMUNITY NEWPORT ASSN 1 POLARIS WAY #100 ALISO VIEJO, CA 92656 478101 29 TESORO HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION 16845 VON KARMAN AVE #200 IRVINE, CA 92606 936 470 52 JAMES C MALONE 71 PURITAN RD TRUMBULL, CT 6611 936 470 55 HUMBERTO WONG 25 VIA AMANTI NEWPORT COAST, CA 92657 936 470 58 BARRY A ONODY 19 VIA AMANTI NEWPORT COAST, CA 92657 936 470 61 DAVID M BALL 48 VIA AMANTI NEWPORT COAST, CA 92657 ttiquettes faciles a palera ® Repliez a la hachure afin de ; www.avery.com Utilisez le abarit AVERY® 5160® ' Sens de P r®viler le rebard Po u TM j 1 -800 -G® -AVERY , 9 chargemen� P 1 daay rccl - ® Bend along line to i 8s1 �Q�r �ap1�t�BdSi Se Element AjiendfmV[�t qV4 Y4 fxP 0"Pt %t denter 936 470 62 936 470 63 DAVID E & LAURA LINTON MASARU TOMIYAMA 50 VIA AMANTI 52 VIA AMANTI NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92657 NEWPORT COAST, CA 92657 936 470 65 936 470 66 XUSHENG RUAN MEREDITH J MCMACKIN 6795 EVERGLADES ST 57 VIA AMANTI CORONA, CA 92880 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92657 936 470 68 936 470 69 JIN YOUNG CHANG LAWRENCE L THOMAS J888CTRUST PO BOX 5923 2967 MICHELSON DR #G298 BALBOA ISLAND, CA 92662 IRVINE, CA 92612 936 470 71 936 470 72 ARYM B DIAMOND DIAMOND MELISSA L YUKIKO H DOWDELL 47 VIA AMANTI SN NEWPORT COAST, CA 92657 70TWILIGHT BLF SAN JOSE, CA 95120 NEWPORT COAST, CA 92657 936 470 74 936 470 75 JEAN OAKJA SIRKO JEFFREY GILL 41 VIA AMANTI 39VIA AMANTI NEWPORT COAST, CA 92657 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92657 936 470 77 936 470 78 PATRICK J ALLEN TINA VALCARENGHI 11 VIA AMANTI 4379 RAYBURN ST NEWPORT COAST, CA 92657 WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CA 91362 936 470 80 936 470 81 HOWE JAMES N VARTANIAN 25 CAPE ANDOVER 3 VIA AMANTI NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT COAST, CA 92657 936 470 83 936 470 84 FARID TAHBAZ OCCUPANT 2 VIA AMANTI 6 VIA AMANTI NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92657 NEWPORT COAST, CA 92657 936 470 86 936 470 87 OAK MEILLEUR PAYSON LE REDWOOD TRUST 12 VIA AMANTI 10 VIA AMANTI NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92657 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92657 936 470 89 936 470 90 NAULIA RON GILL TONNU NHANAI GILL BRANDI FRANSON 6692 ELWOOD RD 20 VIA AMANTI SAN JOSE, CA 95120 NEWPORT COAST, CA 92657 E'tiquettes faciles A peler Utilisez le AVERY® 51600 ® 11 Sens de Repliez a la hachure afin de le gabarit mrevbler rebord Po -u j chargeent P PT"" j V AVERY@ 5160® ; 1 936 470 64 POINT KAREN M BARACK-LA LA POINT DAVID L 54 VIA AMANTI NEWPORT COAST, CA 92657 936 470 67 KAZUHIKO KATO 1321 GRANVIA ALTAMIRA PALOS VERDES ESTATES, CA 90274 936 470 70 CHERYL A KENNARD 49 VIA AMANTI NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92657 936 470 73 DANIEL HUANG 43 VIA AMANTI NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92657 936 470 76 JOY HAUGEN SUKUT 37 VIA AMANTI NEWPORT COAST, CA 92657 936 470 79 DERMOT MANTONMANTON MARIAN 11700 MAPLE SHADE WOODWAY, TX 76712 936 470 82 LILY ANN NAMSINH SU DERIK NGOC 12642 HINTON WAY SANTA ANA, CA 92705 936 470 85 MARK & CAROLYN MORGAN 5 ANDIAMO NEWPORT COAST, CA 92657 936 470 88 RENATA L HODDINOTT 16 VIA AMANTI NEWPORT COAST, CA 92657 93647091 KAREN W PETILLO PO BOX 9293 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 www.avery.com 1 -600 -GO -AVERY xzryl;cp1a�t ddse Element Afnend 1 xp 4 aeon tineto r ® AVERY@ 5160® , 4$ w€o®ftt,;enter 93647092 JOSHUA QI CHEN HUANG YU WEI 24 VIA AMANTI NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92657 936 470 96 RANDALL HORN COOMBE TRACY D 300 PIAllA LIDO NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 936 470 93 KAREN L MCKINNEYADAMS STACEY 26 VIA AMANTI NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92657 936 470 97 TERESA MACAFEE 34 VIA AMANTI NEWPORT COAST, CA 92657 SN 936 470 94 KURT KAWCZYNSKI KAWCZYNSKI MEAGAN 28 VIA AMANTI NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92657 65 Labels B ttiquettes faciies a paler' Se de Repliez A la hachure afin de ; vvwvv.avery.com Utilisez le gabarit AVERYO 51600 j chargement reveller le rebord Pop-UpTM 1 -000 -G® -AVERY 1 Easy Peep" Labels i A Bend along line to i Use Avery® Template 51600 PA 13-0 d P LRArd AVERY@ 5160® ,Use ElexP'dPenigra^e' Received from Cons ant: May 2014) - SAUNDA 427 121 24 427 141 16 427 121 01 CATHERINE M SHATTUCK SA ABANOUB LLC DEKK ASSOCIATES 4770 VON KARMAN AVE LLC 640 N TIGERTAIL RD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 7029 MARTANO PL LOS ANGELES, CA 90049 ALTA LOMA, CA 91701 427 111 01 427 111 02 ROCKEFELLER LTD ROCKEFELLER LTD 427 111 03 PARTNERSHIP PARTNERSHIP L P APC 1600 DOVE ST #480 4525A MACARTHUR BLVD 1600 DOVE ST #480 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 42711104 427 111 05 427 111 06 APC LP APC LP APC LP 4570 CAMPUS L P 4525 MACARTHUR BLVD #A BANK CALIFORNIA FED 4525A MACARTHUR BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 4525 MACARTHUR BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 427 111 09 427 111 11 427 121 02 CORP JRSM HUU N PHAM BIRCH 4525A MACARTHUR BLVD 3 VIA BURRONE CAMPUS L P NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT COAST, CA 92657 636 HARBOR ISLAND DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 427 121 05 427 121 06 427 121 07 CHRISTINE S JOHNSON 4320-4360 L P 4320-4360 LP 4300 CAMPUS DR GITIBIN & ASSOC INC SAUNDERS JOHN R TR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 1600 DOVE ST #480 1600 DOVE ST #480 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 427 121 09 427 121 14 4400 CAMPUS LLC 4320-4360 427 121 18 2150 E TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY #9 1600 DOVE ST #480 STONEWOOD BIRCH LLC PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 4229 BIRCH ST #150 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 427 121 17 427 1 GEORGE KATCHERIAN 427 121 26 BI 4361 BIRCH KATCHERIAN TONI BIRCH & CAMPUS LP 1600 DOVE ST #480 4263 BIRCH ST 636 HARBOR ISLAND DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 427 121 27 445 122 18 E W SPINNEY JR. M4 MACARTHUR LLC 427 171 02 SPINNEY GLORIA N 100 BAYVIEW CIR #4500 BEACON BAY ENTRPRS INC 712 HARBOR ISLAND DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 1600 SUNFLOWER AVE #110 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 COSTA MESA, CA 92626 427 171 03 427 131 09 BENI INVESTMENTS LLC PT PERLMUTTER 427 11108 17122 MARINA VIEW PL PO BOX 8414 SEGELMAN HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92649 NEWPORT BEACHCA 92658 , 3893 ALDO CT SOQUEL, CA 95073 427 174 04 445 121 14 NEWPORT HOTEL HOLDING LLC 445 12209 CO IRVINE CONSOLIDATED VENTURE FERRADO NEWPORT LLC 550 NEWPORT CENTER DR 148 5 BEVERLY DR #204 20411 BIRCH ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 ' BEVFRLY HILLS, CA 90212 , NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 Eti uettes faciles a eler o Q P aRepliez Utilisez le AVERY® 51600 o Sens de 6 is hachure afro de , le vuwvv.averyc®rtt i gabarit j reviler rebord Po -u chargement P PTM j 1 -800 -G® -AVERY A 1 tasy reei— 6aaeis I A Bend along line to i at: + Use Avery®Template 5160® PA2j13-OfSQdEI se eme "J911Ri 909--g9el�eceived from ConsAVERY@ 51600 UNDER 427 141 08 WB COMMERCE PLAZA OWNER 1848 PORT MARGATE PL NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 COUNTY OF ORANGE 3160 AIRWAY AVE COSTA MESA, CA 92626-4608 *** 4 Printed *** Saunders -outside -City -County DAVID A COLTON 2361 CAMPUS DR STE 280 IRVINE, CA 92612-1592 ttiquettes faciles a peler AIRepliez a #a hachure afin de Utilisez le gabarit AVERY® 5160® a Sens ne reveller le rebord Po -a j chargement p PT"' j C M STRATPLAN INC 525 UNIVERSITY AVE PALO ALTO, CA 94301-1903 i VVW W.avEry.COril 1, 1 -800 -CO -AVERY J ,asp rcrl— Lautm, • Bend along line to IAVERY® 51604D Use Avery® TW11001954§®® Land Use Elem*it ArrF8�'rt t a e s R ®€Pdpl48ti�na4: May 2014) — SAU NIN OUTSIDE CITY—COUNTY COUNTY OF ORANGE 3160 AIRWAY AVE COSTA MESA, CA 92626-4608 C M STRATPLAN INC 525 UNIVERSITY AVE PALO ALTO, CA 94301-1903 *** 4 Printed *** Etiquettes faciies a peter ® Repliez a to hachure afin de Utilisez le gabaritAVERY® 51669 + Sens de reveler le rebord Po -u � chargement P PrM � DAVID A COLTON 2361 CAMPUS DR STE 280 IRVINE, CA 92612-1592 www.averycom 1 -600 -60 -AVERY easy Peer Laneis i A Bend along line to i X,j?�YERV@ 5160® ' Use Avery®Template 5160® PA2013-09j— Laritfld�R e�gPW44IW &ivid from Consultant:#3—SENIOR HOTI 445 151 02 APEX LAND INVESTMENTS INC 4700 TELLER AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 445 15107 ENVIRONMENTAL DEVELOPERS 5160 CAMPUS DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 445 15101 COUNTY OF ORANGE 1143 E FRUIT ST SANTA ANA, CA 92701 UNTY OF ORANGE 3160 AIRWAX.AVE COSTA MESA, CA 6-4608 458 15230 VINE 550 NE T CENTER DR NEWPORT BE CA 92660 458 15211 S QUIN HILLS TRANSPO 125 PACT F 00 IRVINE, CA 92618 311 69 MAS SSN BELCOURT 27405 PUER EAL #300 MISSION VIEJO, CA 1 445 151 04 5120 CAMPUS PARTNERS 5120 CAMPUS DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 445 151 09 WPI -CAMPUS LLC 5190 CAMPUS DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 *** 4 Printed *** Saunders -outside -City -County IDA COLTON 2361 CA DR STE 280 IRVINE, CA 9261 - The Bluffs -Mailing 701 23 NEW BLUFFS LLC 550 NEWPOR TER DR NEWPORT BEACH, C 60 45 5364 STAT CALIFORNIA 2501 PULLM T SANTA ANA, CA 92 31 AS 1 72 S ASSN BELCOURT PO BOX 4 IRVINE, CA 92616 445 151 06 JUNIOR LEAGUE OF ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA IN 5140 CAMPUS DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 445 151 03 OCCUPANT 5100 CAMPUS DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 M STRATPLAN INC 525 UTVWZ.RSITY AVE PALO ALTO, C 301-1903 44 042 12 IAC A OREE LLC 550 NEWPORT R DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92 815222 CIT IRVINE 1 CIVIC CE PLZ IRVINE, CA 92606 kilquettes faciles A peler ® Repliez & #a hachure afiin de ; www.avery.com Utilisez leabarit AVERY 5160® hns de o Sens dreveller le rebord Po _u TM 1 -800 -GO -AVERY 9 i cent Pop-U tasy reel Laoeis i A Bend along line to i W2014) A\/�RY® 5160® Use Avery® Template 5160® PA2013-09 j— Larf@ed$@PLre mc�@FIQWrf� -W(AOWeivid from Consultant: — WESTCLIFF PUS, 425 061 15 117 631 26 425 082 03 CO IRVINE HANKEY INVESTMENT CO LP JOHN B PASSMORE 550 NEWPORT CENTER DR 4751 WILSHIRE BLVD #110 1100 PEMBROKE LN NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 LOS ANGELES, CA 90010 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 425 032 06 117 631 23 425 032 05 OMC B LLC WESTCLIFF COURT LIMITED BEDFORD PLAZA APARTMENTS 1701 BEDFORD LN 27421 AVENUE 12 1152 NORTHWESTERN DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 MADERA, CA 93637 CLAREMONT, CA 91711 425 081 21 425 081 13 425 032 15 C SHAWN OSBORNE CHARLES E VANDERVORT JR. CAROL ROWE 1101 PEMBROKE LN 1147 PEMBROKE LN 2118 WILSHIRE BLVD #259 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 SANTA MONICA, CA 90403 425 082 04 936 990 15 DANA MASKIN ALBERT JOHN RASCH JR. 1106 PEMBROKE LN 2716 CANARY DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 COSTA MESA, CA 92626 936 990 17 93699018 936 990 06 STEPHEN CRISAFULLI CARIN A CARRILLO ERIC GAINEY 1706 WESTCLIFF DR #17 1708 WESTCLIFF DR 1738 WESTCLIFF DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 936 990 13 936 990 08 936 990 10 MARCO CARMELLO DROVANDI VIAS KARAOUZAS TARYN MAST 1710 WESTCLIFF DR #19 1716 WESTCLIFF DR #8 1720 WESTCLIFF DR #10 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 936 990 11 936 990 03 936 990 16 DANIEL VELASQUEZ NIELSEN ROBERTA L ABEL EDWARD ANDREW GOMEZ 1722 WESTCLIFF DR #11 1950 GALAXY DR 1092 BUCKINGHAM LN NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 936 990 09 936 990 02 936 990 04 HEIDI GATEJ GEORGE H G HALL JOSE AQUEVEQUE 1718 WESTCLIFF DR #9 5040 ORTEGA FOREST DR 6 CREST CIR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 JACKSONVILLE, FL 32210 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 93699005 936 990 07 936 990 14 SCHLECHT LTD MARCIA D MARCIAL JENNIFER DEUTSCH 2001 KINGS CT 5714 W 76TH ST 1700 WESTCLIFF DR #14 TURLOCK, CA 95382 LOS ANGELES, CA 90045 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 425 081 17 425 032 01 425 081 06 TIMOTHY MICHAEL SCANLAN L & L INVESTMENT GROUP LLC OCCUPANT 1123 PEMBROKE LN 140 NEWPORT CENTER DR #100 1170 RUTLAND RD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 ttiquettes faciles a peter ; A hRepliez a la hachure afin de ; vuvvvv.avery.com i Utilisez le abarit AVERY® 5160® o Sens de reveller le rebord Po -u TM j 1 9 j eargement 1 -800 -GO -AVERY P P casy reel- t aoees i A ® Bend along line to i AVERY® 51600 4 Use Avery® Template 51600 PA2013-09— Land@911@ineRl€4�RQ�LB@iivid from Consultant:W014) WESTCLIFF PLAJ( 935 890 02 935 890 03 935 890 06 MICHAEL S STEFAN BRIGITTE CROSSON PIA D'AURIA 1100 RUTLAND RD #2 1516 AUGUST LN 1100 RUTLAND RD #6 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 935 890 11 935 890 12 935 890 01 JASON A ATCHISON AVAG & VARTUI AGAZARYAN JUDITH J ALTSHULER 1100 RUTLAND RD #11 1058 E SANTA ANITA AVE 1100 RUTLAND RD #1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 BURBANK, CA 91501 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 935 890 04 935 890 05 935 890 07 GALA HUAN QIN XU MOISEY O FRIDMAN 2766 HILLSIDE DR 4808 RUBY AVE 1100 RUTLAND RD #7 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 HALETHORPE, MD 21227 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 935 890 08 935 890 09 935 890 10 WILLIAM M GABRIEL THERESA L PRESTON MARY ALICE COLLINS 1100 RUTLAND RD #8 1100 RUTLAND RD #9 1100 RUTLAND RD #10 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 425 061 09 425 081 16 425 031 04 MARINER SQUARE APARTMENTS LLC RICHARD WARREN SCOTT OMC A LLC 550 NEWPORT CENTER DR 1129 PEMBROKE LN 1700 BEDFORD LN NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 934 180 28 934 180 29 934 180 30 CRAIG S DOERR MAHIN ZAHEDI PATRICK FRANCIS MUNOZ 1200 RUTLAND RD #4 1200 RUTLAND RD #5 5816 E INDIGO CT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 ORANGE, CA 92869 934 180 16 934 180 22 ERIK A PETERSON JUDITH A KELLEY 1228 RUTLAND RD #4 1214 RUTLAND RD #4 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 934 180 17 DONALD C BROWN 1228 RUTLAND RD #5 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 934 180 02 934 180 05 934 180 06 VANAR VINCENT H REYES ERIN J WOODRUFF 26432 LOMBARDY RD 10328 DUNKIRK AVE 2 CAPE WOODBURY MISSION VIEJO, CA 92692 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 Etiquettes faciles a paler A® Repliez a is hachure afin de ; www.avery.com com Utilisez le gabarit AVERY® 51600 Sens de reviler le rebord Po TM s chargement P -u p , 1 -800 -GO -AVERY Ga'y rrrl- Laura I r► Bend along line to i ® go® i Use Avery@ Template 51600 PA2013-09 —Lar lk@d 2 ee Rg12 iv d from Consultant: 14 TCL FPLA 934 180 01 MARISSA GONZALES 1256 RUTLAND RD #1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 934 180 35 934 180 20 SAMMIE L & PATRICIA L STURMAN WIN FREIBOTT 17 VIA CRISTOBAL 55 CAPE ANDOVER SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92673 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 934 180 21 934 180 24 934 180 09 STEPHEN R & MARY K TULLY WOODROW JACK CHRISTENSEN ANA ROCHA 1142 PEMBROKE LN 3505 CADILLAC AVE #0206B 3139 E CHAPMAN AVE #2A NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ORANGE, CA 92869 934 180 25 934 180 34 ALLAN BEEK OCCUPANT 2007 HIGHLAND DR 1184 RUTLAND RD #34 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 934 180 18 934 180 08 934 180 11 ANDREW D KARIGAN CHAPMAN OLIVER CRARY 7 ULTIMA DR 754 HARBOR ISLAND DR 500 VIA LIDO NORD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92657 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 934 180 04 934 180 33 934 180 36 CATHLEEN WEST SANDRA KIRKPATRICK MELISSA C BURTON 12231 WOODLAWN AVE 1184 RUTLAND RD #3 1184 RUTLAND RD #6 SANTA ANA, CA 92705 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 934180 23 934 180 14 934 180 03 LOIS A NEWELL KENNETH F STSURE THOMAS P CROSSON 1214 RUTLAND RD #5 1818 COMMODORE RD 1785 BAHAMA PL NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 COSTA MESA, CA 92626 425 031 03 117 631 05 425 081 12 OMC A LLC WESTCLIFF COURT LTD JOHN L DOWNEY 1728 BEDFORD LN 27421 AVENUE 12 1201 PEMBROKE LN NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 MADERA, CA 93637 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 425 081 24 425 061 03 117 631 15 CRYSTAL ESTATES LLC CO IRVINE WESTCLIFF INVESTORS LLC 36 TIMOR SEA NCl-001-03-81 825 S BARRINGTON AVE NEWPORT COAST, CA 92657 CHARLOTTE, NC 28255 LOS ANGELES, CA 90049 425 082 06 425 081 19 425 081 23 ALEX C HOGGAN FREDERICK J CRAWFORD SALLY DUNLAP 1118 PEMBROKE LN 1111 PEMBROKE LN 817 BAYWOOD DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 i ttiquettes faciles a peter ; Sens Repliez a la hachure afin de ; www.averycom Utilisez le gabarit AVERY 51600 j chargement rev6ler le rebord Pop-upTM 1 -800 -GO -AVERY 1 c.oay v ccs wvice.a I M - tsena won one to ' � y g7 p Use Avery®Template 51600 PA2013-09i— Larrdedra eey*oan".wwwd bivid from Consultant: 1&2614— 5 ®L1FPpLLAj 425 081 03 425 082 08 425 081 05 MULTIFAMILY HOLDINGS Ml LLC THOMAS D WALL OCCUPANT PO BOX 4299 1130 PEMBROKE LN 1156 RUTLAND RD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 117 631 14 HANKEY INVESTMENT COMPANY 137 N VIRGIL AVE #101 LOS ANGELES, CA 90004 425 082 07 NANCY H BRADLEY 1124 PEMBROKE LN NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 425 081 15 THEODORE C LI 1135 PEMBROKE LN NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 425 082 05 DONALD H MCKIBBIN 1112 PEMBROKE LN NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 425 03102 ROBERT J BAMBECK 1311 BALBOA BLVD E NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 425 06108 CO IRVINE PO BOX 54143 LOS ANGELES, CA 90054 tiquettes faciles a peler ; Repliez a fa hachure afin de i Utilisez le gabarit AVERY@' 51600 o Sens de r�vesler le rebord Po -u T� e j chargement p p i 425 081 14 JAMES ALVIN HEYDORFF 1141 PEMBROKE LN NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 www.every com 1 -800 -GO -AVERY a. ..y r ccr - a.avcrs e m tieno aloft itne to -I g I Use Avery® TernpPA M50�8 —Land Use ElimentFAod el_e*pIa�9�TPRsui ant: May 2014) — W LI �L�AZAR O�UTS1 D0� Ot KARL F AND MARGARET S DETKEN BANK SECURITY PACIFIC NATIONAL ST CARL A SVEDEEN TRU 497 ABBIE WAY TRUST BLVD 8445 E HACKAMORE DR COSTA MESA, CA 92627-3162 3903 HOUSTON, R BLVD 1119 SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85255-2105 EDWARD G FRATANTARO FRATANTARO FAMILY 2011 TRUST DAVID M ANTONINI 468 NAKASA LLC 484 CABRILLO ST 490 CABRILLO ST PO BOX 241586 COSTA MESA, CA 92627-3163 COSTA MESA, CA 92627-3163 LOS ANGELES, CA 90024-9386 CARLA MARION F HARRYMAN ANTHONY J BOYD MILDRED D AND WEISS OMAR PO BOX 250486 40380 CALLE TORCIDA 498 ABBIE WAY FRANKLIN, MI 48025-0486 TEMECULA, CA 92591-1784 COSTA MESA, CA 92627-3162 SHERI Y M VALAINIS ALAN JEFFREY AND EMILY JANE CARMICHAEL D LOVELY MICHAEL 492 ABBIE WAY 491 MICHAELCABRILLO ST 485 CABRILLO ST COSTA MESA, CA 92627-3162 COSTA MESA, CA 92627-3164 COSTA MESA, CA 92627-3164 STEVEN J STAUFF TIMOTHY J DONNELLY 3RD G GROUP INC 481 CABRILLO ST 225 N STAR LN 2226 ROOT ST COSTA MESA, CA 92627-3164 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660-5715 FULLERTON, CA 92833-2107 TALLMAN,RUTH FAMILY TRUST MILDRED R FOWLIE DEBRA L BURDEN PINE,MARTHA FAMILY TRUST 1747 IRVINE AVE 480 SHADY DR 1973 VISTA CAUDAL NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660-3915 COSTA MESA, CA 92627-3223 COSTA MESA, CA 92627-3228 NE FARR JACKIE L TRUST THE B TIMOTHY FRANCIS AND CHRISTINA GGAN RUSSELL RENO DU 486 SHADY DR DUCABRILLO ST 1113 RIDGECREST CIR COSTA MESA, CA 92627-3228 499 COSTA MESA, CA 92627-3164 COSTA MESA, CA 92627-3977 NEWPORT OFFICE TOWER LLC BOYER HANSON PARTNERS 1432 SANTA FE DR 250 OGLE ST *** 23 Printed *** TUSTIN, CA 92780-6417 COSTA MESA, CA 92627-3808 ! ttiquettes faciles a peter 4 i Sens de Repliez 61a hachure afin de www.aver.y.com e. Utilisez le gabarit AVERY® 51600 j chargement reveller le rebord Pop-upTM 1 -800 -GO -AVERY tasy reee— Laoe°s ° Use Avery® Template 51600 ° State Office of Planning and Research State Clearing House 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 CNB -15 ® ® Bend along line to i°V�ixY® 516004 Feed Papgr - 8 exeq�p"F YA 1' .1endment — MAIL I T D E (May 201 South Coast Air Quality Mgmt District—Rules and Planning Southern California Association of Governments Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Ian MacMillan, Program Supervisor Jacob Lieb, Program Manager Control Board 21865 E Copley Drive 818 West Seventh Street, 12th Floor 3737 Main Street, Suite 500 Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4182 Los Angeles, CA 90017-3435 Riverside, CA 92501-3339 CNB -15 CNB -15 CNB -15 Southern California Gas Company Armando Torrez Southern California Edison Cox Communications Technical Services Supervisor 7333 Bolsa Avenue Marty A , Construction Supervisor 1919 South State College Boulevard Westminster, CA 92683 29947 Avenida de las Banderas Anaheim, CA 92806-6114 CNB -15 Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688 CNB -15 CNB -15 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Orange County Sanitation District Rebecca De Leon, Environmental Planning Team Daisy Covarrubias Orange County Clerk Recorders Office 700 N. Alameda Street, US3-230 Senior Staff Analyst 12 Civic Center Plaza Los Angeles, CA 90012 10844 Ellis Avenue Santa Ana, CA 92701 CNB -15 Fountain Valley, CA 92708-8127 CNB -15 CNB -15 Orange County Transportation Authority City of Irvine University of California, Irvine 550 S. Main Street David Law, Senior Planner Alex Marks, Senior Planner P.O. Box 14184 P. 0. Box 19575 Campus & Environmental Planning Orange, CA 92863-1584 Irvine, CA 92623-9575 750 University Tower CNB -15 CNB -15 Irvine, CA 92697-2325 CNB -15 Orange County Waste & Recycling John Arnau City of Costa Mesa California Air Resources Board CEQA Manager Development Services Department 1001 "1" Street 300 N. Flower Street, Suite 400 77 Fair Drive P.O. Box 2815 Santa Ana, 92703 Costa Mesa, CA 92628 Sacramento, CA 95812 CNB -15 CNB -15 CNB -15 Professional Native American California Cultural Resource Cultural Resource Monitors Gabrielino Tongva Tribal Council Preservation Alliance P. 0. Box 1391 Gabrielino Tongva Nation Patricia Martz, Ph.D. Temecula, CA 92593 501 Santa Monica Boulevard, #500 P.O. Box 54132 CNB -15 Santa Monica, CA 90401-2415 Irvine, CA 92619 CNB -15 CNB -15 The Irvine Company Jeff Davis, Government and Airport Land Use Comm. for Orange County John Hamilton Community Relations Kari A. Rigoni, Executive Officer 100 Newport Center Drive 550 Newport Center Drive 3160 Airway Avenue Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-4608 Newport Beach, CA 92660 ttiquettes faciles a peter CNB{I5 CNB -15 Sens de Repliez 6 la hachure afin de ; www.averycom CNB -15 Utilisez le gabarit AVERY® 516019 1 chargement rev6ler le rebord Pop-upTM j 1 -800 -GO -AVERY Easy Peel' Labels i A Bend along line to AVERY® 5160® ' Use Avery® Template 51600 1 Feed Paper _ 98 fs PMyIEkkW& Amendment — MAIL IST DSEIR (May 201 Patrick Strader Chief Executive Operator Starpointe Ventures 19700 Fairchild, Suite 240 Irvine, CA 92612 Orange County Public Library David Sankey 1501 E. St. Andrew Place Santa Ana, CA 92705 Coralee Newman Government Solutions, Inc. 1048 Irvine Avenue, #618 Newport Beach, CA 92660 California Department of Boating and Waterways 2000 Evergreen Street, Suite 100 Sacramento, CA 95815-3888 California Dept of Toxic Substances Control Environmental Review P.O. Box 806 Sacramento, CA 95812-0806 Stop Polluting Our Newport (SPON) P. 0. Box 102 Balboa Island, CA 92626 County of Orange Planning and Development 300 North Flower Street Santa Ana, CA 92705 Mr. Alfred Cruz Juaneno Band of Mission Indians P.O. Box 25628 Santa Ana, CA 92799 CNB -15 CNB -15 CNB -15 CNB -15 CNB -15 CNB -15 CNB -15 CNB -15 Santa Ana Unified School District Jessica Mears Facilities Planner 1601 E. Chestnut Avenue Santa Ana, CA 92701-6322 California Coastal Commission South Coast District Office 200 Oceangate,10th Floor Long Beach, CA 90802-4116 Lyon Communities Frank T. Suryan, Jr. 4901 Birch St. Newport Beach, CA 92660 MWDOC 10500 Ellis Avenue P.O. Box 20895 Fountain Valley, CA 92728 U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Carlsbad Office 6010 Hidden Valley Road Carlsbad, CA 92009 Mesa Consolidated Water District 1965 Placentia Avenue P.O. Box 5008 Costa Mesa, CA 92627 City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Jennifer Villasenor, Senior Planner 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Andrew Salas Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians P.O. Box 393 Covina, CA 91723 Professional Native American Cultural Resource Mr. Anthony Morales Monitors Gabrieleno/Tongva Band of Mission P. 0. Box 1391 P.O. Box 693 Temecula, CA 92593 San Gabriel, CA 91788 CNB -15 Ms. Joyce Perry Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation 4955 Paseo Segovia Irvine, CA 92612 Etlquettes faciles A peter Utilisez le gabaritAVERY® 51600 Mr. Sam Dunlap GabrielenolTongva Nation P.O. Box 86908 Los Angeles, CA 90086 Newport -Mesa Unified School District Paul H. Reed, Deputy Superintendent and Chief Business Official 2985 Bear Street CNB -15 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 CNB -15 CNB -15 CNB -15 CNB -15 CNB -15 CNB -15 CNB -15 CNB -15 CNB -15 CNBi15 CNB -15 Sens de Repliez a la hachure afin de jchargement rev6ler le rebord Pop-upTM j Susan Perry Kosmont Companies 865 S. Figueroa Street, 35th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Army Corps of Engineers 911 Wilshire Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90017 Orange County Sheriff Harbor Patrol Division 1901 Bayside Drive Corona del Mar, CA 92625 CDFW —South Coast Region Betty J. Courtney Environmental Program Manager 3883 Ruffin Road San Diego, CA 92123 Fritz Duda Company Ryan Jones Southwest Region - VP of Real Estate 3425 Via Lido, Ste. 250 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Coldwell Banker Commercial NRT James "Jim" E. Battle, CCIM Senior Associate 4 San Joaquin Plaza Suite 260 Newport Beach, CA 92660 UAP Inc. Philip Andoniu 4699 Jamboree Road Newport Beach, CA 92660 Mr. David Belardes/ Rebecca Robles Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation 32161 Avenida Los Amigos San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 Ms. Linda Candelaria Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe 1875 Century Park East Suite 1500 Los Angeles, CA 90067 www.avery.com 1 -800 -GO -AVERY CNB -15 CNB -15 CNB -15 CNB -15 CNB -15 CNB -15 CNB -15 CNB -15 CNB -151 .aay rcc- wuva Use Avery® Template 51600D Mr. Anthony Rivera Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation 31411-A La Matanza Street San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 Entitlement Advisors Carol McDermott Founder and Principal 5000 Birch, Suite 400 Newport Beach, CA 92660 City of Newport Beach Gregg Ramirez Senior Planner 100 Civic Center Newport Beach, CA 92658 WD Land Greg Sullivan Senior Land Advisor 94 Discovery Irvine, CA 92618 Dorothy Kraus 10 Wild Goose Court Newport Beach, CA 92663 OC Public Works/OC Planning Services Strategic Land Planning Division Polin Modanlou, Manager 300 North Flower Street Santa Ana, CA 92702 King Burstein Eileen Kaufman 651 Bayside Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Caltrans, District 12 Maureen EI Harake Branch Chief 3347 Michelson Drive, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92612 CNB -15 CNB -15 CNB -15 ® Bend along line to I®5160® e Feed Page _ g "rupr gn1 AA16endment — MAIL IST DSEIR (May 20141 Dennis D. O'Neil 19900 MacArthur Blvd. Suite 1050 Irvine, Ca 92612 WPI Campus LLC; UAP Jamboree LLC John Young Manager 4699 Jamboree Road Newport Beach, CA 92660 CNB -15 Meyer Properties James B. Hasty Senior Vice President 4320 Von Karman Avenue CNB -15 Newport Beach, CA 92660 CNB -15 CNB -15 Debbie Bright Stevens 1120 Sea Lane Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Philip Bettencourt 14 Corporate Plaza, Suite #120 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Native American Heritage Commission Dave Singleton Program Analyst 1550 Harbor Boulevard, Suite 100 West Sacramento, CA 95691 CNB -15 CNB -15 CNB -15 CNB -15 CNB -15 Shawna Schaffner, CEO CAA Planning 65 Enterprise, Suite 600 Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 Belmont Village Senior Living Douglas A. Lessard Acquisitions & Investment 8554 Katy Freeway, Suite 200 Houston, TX 77024 Jim Mosher 2210 Private Road Newport Beach, CA 92660 Norm Suker 14 Odyssey Court Newport Beach, CA 92663 Caltrans Division of Aeronautics Philip Crimmins, Aviation Env. Specialist 1120 N. Street, Suite 3300 PO Box 942874, MS -40 Sacramento, CA 94274 CNB -15 CNB -15 ttiquettes faciles A peler ; A Repliez a la hachure afin de ; www.avery.com Utilisez le gabarit AVERYO 5160®hSens de ° r�v�ler le rebord Po -u , 1 -800 -GO -AVERY cargement P pmc ° CNB -15 CNB -15 CNB -15 CNB -15 CNB -15 Gasy rec1- L.aajam Use Avery® Template 51600 Beacon Bay Enterprises Inc. 150 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Beachwood Partners LLC 4770 Von Karman Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92660 Bend along line to' ® 5 i A Feed Paper �98 ex00 t Y Ajnendment — MAIL IST (a16Y01'V CNB -15 CNB -15 Steven W. Legere 2884 Miguel Lane Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Lyon Housing LLC 4901 Birch Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 Lebata Inc. 4621 Teller Avenue, #1040 Newport Beach, CA 92660 CNB -15 CNB -15 4750 Von Karman LLC 5 Park Plaza, #1150 Irvine, CA 92614 CNB -15 CNB -15 KCN LTD Edition Owners Limited Edition PTNRS I2B Newport Beach LLC 5030 Campus Drive 4920 Campus Drive 1901 Newport Boulevard, #350 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Costa Mesa, CA 92627 CNB -15 CNB -15 CNB -15 Catherine M. Shattuck Kim Kao Lambeau Properties LLC 4770 Von Karman Avenue 22803 Seaway Drive 3921 Birch Street, #1 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Laguna Niguel, Ca 92677 Newport Beach, CA 92660 CNB -15 CNB -15 CNB -15 Bridgestone Properties Beachwood Partners LLC 5015 Birch Street 4910 Campus Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 CNB -15 5000 Campus Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 CNB -15 CNB -15 Dekk Associates George Katcherian 640 N. Tigertail Road 4263 Birch Street Los Angeles, CA 90049 Newport Beach, CA 92660 CNB -15 CNB -15 4321 Birch Partners LTD 4400 Campus LLC 412 N. Coast Highway, #B-370 2150 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, #9 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 Palm Springs, CA 92262 CNB -15 CNB -15 L P APC Pacific Medical Innovations LLC 1600 Dove Street, #480 1640 Newport Boulevard, #310 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Costa Mesa, CA 92627 CNB -15 CNB -15 Rockefeller LTD 4525A MacArthur Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92660 Nquettes faciles a peter Utilisez le gabarit AVERY® 51600 Rockefeller LTD 1600 Dove Street, #480 Newport Beach, CA 92660 CNB -15 CNB -15 SeA de Repliez a la hachure An de i jchargement r6v6ler le rebord Pop-upmc j Stonewood Birch LLC 4229 Birch Street, #150 Newport Beach, CA 92660 CNB -15 Christine S. Johnson 4300 Campus Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 CNB -15 Huu N. Pham 3 Via Burrone Newport Beach, CA 92657 CNB -15 Segelman 3893 Aldo Court Soquel, CA 95073 CNB -15 www.avery.com 1 -800 -G® -AVERY j casy reel- LdUCes Use Avery® Template 51600 Newport Retail Center LLC 3146 Red Hill Avenue, #200 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 E W Spinney Jr. 712 Harbor Island Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Sa Abanoub LLC 7029 Martano Place Alta Loma, CA 91701 Pacific Newport Investment LLC 1801 Dove Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 Jirair Poladian 1526 Placentia Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92660 I ® Bend along line to e ®® ®5160® " I Feed Pale - g 04A%F 3i1�1 Aiiendment — MAILII IS'T- (May 2014, CNB -15 CNB -15 CNB -15 CNB -15 CNB -15 Banning Ranch Conservancy Attn: Terry Welsch, M.D./President PO Box 16071 Newport Beach, CA 92659-6071 Bruce Bartram 2 Seaside Circle Newport Beach, CA 92663 APC LP 4525 MacArthur Boulevard, #A Newport Beach, CA 92660 WF Quail LLC 12 Fair Elms Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 CNB -15 CNB -15 JRJ Investments LP 1835 Newport Boulevard, #D263 Costa Mesa, CA 92627 CNB -15 RU Investments LLC 2350 Bristol Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 CNB -15 BIA/OC ATTN: Victor Cao 17744 Sky Park Circle, Suite 170 Irvine, CA 92614 CCRPA Attn: Patricia Martz, Ph.D\President PO Box 54132 Irvine, CA 92619-4132 Andrea Lingle 2024 Diana Lane Newport Beach, CA 92660 Birch & Campus LP 636 Harbor Island Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 TN Toad LLC 9092 McBride River Avenue Fountain Valley, CA 92708 CNB -15 CNB -15 Orange County Bar Association PO Box 6130 Newport Beach, CA 92658 CNB -15 Harbor Day School 3443 Pacific View Drive Newport Beach, CA 92625 Barry L. Allen 1021 White Sails Way Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Dwight Ryan 11 Lochmoor Lane Newport Beach, CA 92660 ttiquettes faciles A peter A Repliez a la hachure An de i www.avery.com Utilisez leabarit AVERY® 5160® s Sens de hr�v�ler le rebord Po -u me ' 1 -800 -GO -AVERY 9 j cargement p p j CNB -15 sway rccl- wucIa A Bend along line to a�� ®5160® j Use Avery® Template 51600 j Feed Paper ® expose Pop-up Edger"" j 1 Pacific Life Insurance Company Denys Oberman 700 Newport Center Drive 1210 West Oceanfront Newport Beach, CA 92660-6397 Newport Beach, CA 92661 Attn: Law Department I f k Y ` 1.1 Ittiquettes faciles a peter ; - Repliez a la hachure afin de ; vuww.averycom ; Utilisez le gabarit AVERY® 5160® ° Sens de chargement reveler le rebord Po j 1 -800 -GO -AVERY j p -u pTM ° K,O-An-gelefl PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2015.5 C.C.P.) STATE OF ILLINOIS County of Cook I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the action for which the attached notice was published. I am a principal clerk of the Newport Harbor News Press Combined With Daily Pilot, which was adjudged a newspaper of general circulation on June 19, 1952, Cases A24831 for the City of Newport Beach, County of ©range, and State of California. Attached to this Affidavit is a true and complete copy as was printed and published on the following date(s): Ju103, 2014; I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at Chicago, Illinoi on this day of lr 20 15. [sighaturej 435 N. Michigan Ave. Chicago, IL 60611 2506354 — Newport Harbor News Press Combined With Daily Pilot Page 1 of 2 ECS An-getes rime$ ME DAA GROUP Sold To: City of Newport Beach - CU00072031 100 Civic Center Dr. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Bill To: City of Newport Beach - CU00072031 100 Civic Center Dr. Newport Beach, CA 92660 0. I CM OF NEWPORT BEACH N0710E OF PUBUC HEARING K'GnM tS H BY OWN WWROA Tuas&Y, A4 8, 2044, as 7M ¢.im cr mon tme awl tea 4 - a ba in ft oro Gar4i cls, €LQ kA --9 appko— Lmd Um rean,s. S~, Okmary mid e� *i&e ae€Y Wfted i4AVPC'jd s a rsxaa:^;4ft VOY� FCuww Lmd U.& Pan and Zawq av tUp l�fiit: €S P{�Y Fat'3tiEifJ%t3#M1tE�i tP p,��,aa�w �+3 E � � �� kr -a Awd .xf f . X83 i tt€f4 to , r. "aucmwnw vqmcb {" ' i?Fe�saETi3€fa of = .. tattir�Yrxrdsttt�s+ iaF'y cat 070 SS Mr1W1&d tT'd,* G.& 46 2M etsn. lef.S.�s4Ja>f:4a`€tom-46i€t��•C,r�.t�" �. Wit'-z=.f txx:r nWs•� PIpxt ke ft 2Mt' . F%f are WaA4WO ftp 01 -kA- ne4ttaa aid ffr4vdion w I* PkgroV Vta Aw or at ft C ty d Newpw WTtCeE dS NE ST FLArrIM G€14M &ut mkgv 6, 3i4 t3st. C res E`•'t^p of hit 8--43 raCAstxr ,ftd that Itv Cay €;t: ft c�--r%raj F?.:�t +...d Cs 'er Amwa *rt:-ftt and tet* mastke rt r v L=pgd Aep at tCaMS f"3 HGF BY F€3#f7HEii' OMEN Vud tt�e CaC rcoua rad corsWera � aed tr��rt� to r ft a Akpai i-dtkaa Corm s S dMVMrMbC"to popoaodGbrwaiF%A E G`� ia,*� Laid tk:.4FWa oajs�} kr. s vvms Awpan and wift ft AMP ku Vlo4yuem. AN wtwaAd p&tnsrW Kpnv% $4Y1^FX i3 i ud I* ' g ym, clY 's r in CMM irw ''r W b4 4�n*�d to r casiy ftnh - - y u tjmd g &,. P-kf-k - yt agsa &kamd b tw ot,, 4 cz PeRr h, ft pLb&-. hOweuj arc< a 3s f Y Fa c fZ0' de ! $! Pr i S c. Gr a a- 4 20U Tire SWica6m be ozziod to a Wwk fiAx-3 mvomg ego, and t w—h an ac6a' cam' dk -4NA and dxUrwft i4my E* I£mw.?d 3144 f. D'WJ%ffXl# Depwmwq Pwr-;t C r 'f C..4Et Farr ' a IOU Carte CWAW � :. �'x a2 dW d N—Pon -h . . ,v a a 4s ~4 r s FW �•� csa+:s r� city dt'*Ap d9e,t 2506354 — Newport Harbor News Press Combined With Daily Pilot Page 2 of 2 . . . .......... . . Sold To: City of Newport Beach (Parent) — C000072031 100 Civic Center Dr. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Bill To: City of Newport Beach (Parent) — C000072031 100 Civic Center Dr. Newport Beach, CA 92660 CITY OF NE"ORT BEACH NOME is HEREBY GIVEN tkutl on Tuesday, s, 2014, at T p,m, cc soon thereafter as the matter shoal tr - Board, a pubfic heanng vA be cayhxaed are the ('Ay Cound yrs at 10 Civic ceninf :s.. Nempart lam. Tie City Ccturn-1 of the lily of Newport Beach will ccrrsddar the 'reit` lowirig appficalicc Garwrai PlanLmdUse ElarrantAm at Th%pmectsan wrendmerrttoftt�ydNewport Sesch Genspal flair Larxi Use Bernant, Gics-sary and Irpplementscon Phs-4 The amendursift is waded to shape tan developra rtwflhin City and invalves tha aterdon. 's 'mon, and mon of landuses ua owtan aubamas at the City, ine tg *s cress such sa Newport atasiFd ra Wand € eapatt Coas,4 and the area rau John '44i se Aup L The amersintart MI dao � krdfo LaW Use ESaawarit Poky rewfaa ns et ed in land use char acs, Lq support rod r -card the resale as3 f taTzatrcas a€duxta, and, M approptiads, updaIN'te5lorvarths to poling. mrd amendmerAs the NJerrgxNt Beach Coasts] Land Use Bare, and Taring Code and Map will bec�,wr- tomfk%fife re ni General! Ran. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GWENT that purstrartga & Cagomis Es cevne 1d Quality A.xt the City cmmd of drys Chfy of F r zt Rare h Va Oweidar ce-2i MG ft Supplemer Erwironmental Impact Report PCH No. 2013101dk ) prepared to aaabah the arvironmentitt impact. rsstrl from the proposed'. paw#., and and CEQA Firatiogs of Fact and Stawns of tm"„ienkft%; rasnerclscatra�s. 3"redrali final Suppferrta% EtR hash p�p=r era trr�, ysito theC�ifcrstta RwimnussrM Ousitly Art ct 19,70 4t ECW, as smanded (PubfirRssmaces cam, ff DOW el asq 2iIBM, and *aeState C.EO.AGuidelines hr GEC?h(Cslifixri� da€aNf Paficna. T99 q&, tlf 1 SM at .: 151162-1 SM, Copies d the Sapplamertrd Fs»srwmsnW Irrqcaf fkaport and supportstIg-d , mckvJrqt he Ermi)nmaMalimpm;tRaponve hedfr_rtdM 2OW Gsneral Tian, are m4fabla for public rein wd wirer at #* feu g Chin= cc at this City d Neopon Baerda wobstte at v_v�av_s.r sslfi?ead# rvte2 ae aarr rba. NOTICE i5 HEREBY FURTHER GWEN that on Jum E, 2014, the Ply Canrrmssivn d the City of Nmpc d Beach recaanr milled that the City Gotacil appr€are the Gsnersd Flare Land Use EiementAn nen€ and cerfiNthe Supple&avatarsImpactReport. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that ate CiCy Courrd xwil ccrosad'er a. awn to mernula ft Airport LwW Use Co www- 'a detarmhaiion 'apaaed General Pkm Land Use E€erretkrvsrdrr r ialrtt wu#1tffw:?Airport Emarons Land Use Pan VE€UP)kc aWaym dsywd andAft ftes AFd1JP for KeWats. At imarested parsec may appear wol pmaem to cool in regard to fis application N you challorp th3a pre{act in comet, you mq he boile+d''. to raising cribithose mess you raid at the oto hearing or in wdtt n rxcespon dame debmmd to the 011, at, or prior tae, the pubic he g_ h a s prcc€duaa for eels are prowde d s n flta Nearpett Beach Wnapal Cry Chapter MAC Tlwa aWcom nW be ecaki3a uod to a spactte luaus mooting date, and it such an acsm occurs, aiditiongpublic t celoft3assarNr,atxiawllnorbeprovidedPriortrsthsokbictaarcgthe agenda, 5L d repos?, wd doctments rnq be remmed at the CormAuty Development Dep rut p9mvt Carte Cay C -t4 Roar), r), FA t00 vinic Ce -%-.r Ea¢va, E<k db. Cardbrruia, WM or at d� ' of hFsavgrx't Elaaxlt vaathaae :� - hrdh+idttata rtc6 able to atdard its Mostng may ccatact the p1mving CDiSi im or access the City's mita aftar the me eterg to craw ihs ac6m on this appiWabon. Forr regard oll this'•s public hewng Bern phase comaat GnW Rasarssa, Sarno Plarmer: at Leiiar i t. Bumn, Cdy ch:*cityolNff pwBe ach 2506354 — Daily Pilot PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2015.5 C.C.P.) STATE OF ILLINOIS County of Cook I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the action for which the attached notice was published. I am a principal clerk of The Newport Harbor News Press Combined With Daily Pilot, which was adjudged a newspaper of general circulation on June 19, 1952, Cases - A24831 for the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, and State of California. Attached to this Affidavit is a true and complete copy as was printed and published on the following date(s): Jul 03, 2014 1 certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at Chicago, Illinois on this 2✓ i day of 6V , 20 [signature] 435 N. Michigan Ave. Chicago, IL 60611 2506354 — Daily Pilot Los Anacks PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2015.5 C.C.P.) STATE OF ILLINOIS County of Cook FD I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the action for which the attached notice was published. I am a principal clerk of the Newport Harbor News Press Combined With Daily Pilot, which was adjudged a newspaper of general circulation on June 19, 1952, Cases A24831 for the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, and State of California. Attached to this Affidavit is a true and complete copy as was printed and published on the following date(s); June 28, 2014; I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at Chicago, Illinois on this 7Ci' day of tkart k 20 ( [sign ure] 435 N. Michigan Ave. Chicago, IL 60611 2489955 — Newport Harbor News Press Combined With Daily Pilot Page i of 2 Sold To: City of Newport Beach - CU00072031 100 Civic Center Dr. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Bill To: City of Newport Beach - CU00072031 100 Civic Center Dr. Newport Beach, CA 92660 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH NOTICE Of PUSUC HEARING MyrCE 15 HEREBY OMEN t1st �e Tuesday fairy S. 204. a- 1700:sm orVW* th4w4emr as tt.* ma -w e"A& bo;,"Wapumc r�ex"q W ; oe " *,* Cly cmso: 1-1'amb'W3 at '01 Ne.oi�r %Wch � F he C"(y (:1'110�0 o"J"e Otv N'�' Poo C, -W, r, WA cons. Oet the � k%w,: { t5' P" a V" at Gen"Al MA LMW U Et4ment Amoa*n"A� thppmpd' ,.aft *#("h' aemh Gtwa MI.Lard WO G:011wy ar"dlatar-"ftn' IV* wwd"d -0 "W'tm" dtV4(VtWr'I wiNn -A* Cty and "Pmten. 3''d f414 85t'A51:1`.^1 ,f'a'W 'z ' M rXr,= V-ibmw . tneCOV, .�F 0 Newport vh4 r1ea "n 4pf-a".8 '-Vdatw t dsarh nk1'aVz;L&fd Use Pli3�l,lindz<o-vCoeeardt.4,wgbe i -'CeA"�'Ty �D �'! the pm�nlk�6m 1wh. Gff�M fto. G"Tanrl-m z4t CXlq A,rttze C<ry CoAnCl of„3 C+-*jo'?�,-Wr,,Wt 61116dh 1%14 CO .,par, '4- emfo-�' lm' I” Cre, FYTj h�s 9Yto.,d i'M ?(;'�,Q' X9 (AWt Re-sixw,*,4 Code, Q,ON et MkA C46-6; ReWOO*tS, rte 14, §41,%Molsr,q� :6245%32 PAPOr, ri pltm are fwa�au# we *4',�d W-Nw,'YMvo---�tacnw" pw NOMEIS 'he CM hazlroc'Iy Lit azetr,t en 'g NO-TICE ISHEMSY FUR7THER GjVENq-,-, rA C,yCmwrj wig S IkIff"narwn ural M. Fkll d t E 0�1 I Awllw&rwat i S i^ IY'--9 le I � f wl't wte hepcpt m,zo,,5 1, and I I m Man (AE 111 fl la -11, W. - A 0,.eAEUJP10 H�"Poe-�, A., P -T'9 W, M-4 aqDftr aw pe t3 -M1 -_"M-Wq Ka A year d-'o4ax s axor, yqa ma'; -ygq vmf 'SW'A" WL 300 v IT* Mab c or 4fRpp-O,*d io tt*X-wty'��h &k -Z -",P4 (W* -- f -A MW f;4 Ill. ccam lja'"was e. xi -W. VA(Mdea Pr to he mWe ?--ervq ww$' fftd 'Qru-m�ml maj tl3 r'M'w-j e "h4 iagy C -1 V 00 a v� Clww afh-' N1plxz se ' k C Wc+ ia' 526fif-, 01 W tro Cgof NOWPWI se*r". Wrjitd z I*t a0w Z a2-4 Vlef'—U'13 flay cekw" "tv- Par st Q44- 6441 32T4 Pro# @,4 Me N,>,t M-Nj-, 3 �Va Actk0tyNa-, G'M13 V)T 3x'd ERIty, 1,002 zw'*:V�wcms UIN ral Kan: Vs."�Us Locwtftm C�tyw4- ApcAct of Nl-ow. 8E ph 4 V ce, Ott n 2489955 — Newport Harbor News Press Combined With Daily Pilot Page 2 of 2