HomeMy WebLinkAboutAirport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development PlanCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
July 22, 2010 Meeting
Agenda Item 2
SUBJECT: Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan
(PA2007 -170 & PA2008 -063)
4311 & 4321 Jamboree Road & 4343 Von Karman Avenue
APPLICANT: The Koll Company & Conexant
CONTACT: Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner
runq((Dnewportbeachca.gov
(949) 644 -3208
PROJECT SUMMARY:
The proposed Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan is intended
to implement General Plan Land Use Policy LU 6.15.11 (Conceptual Development Plan
Area), which requires a single conceptual development plan for that portion of the
Airport Area that is generally bounded by MacArthur Blvd, Jamboree Road and Birch
Street, prior to residential development in the area. The proposed General Plan
Amendment is a minor change in policy language allowing new neighborhood parks
provided for infill residential development in the Conceptual Development Plan Area
with one public street frontage with public parking.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Conduct a public hearing;
2. Adopt Resolution No. 2010 -_ (Attachment PC 1), recommending that the City
Council approve General Plan Amendment No. GP2010 -002; and
3. Adopt Resolution No. 2010 -_ (Attachment PC 2), recommending that the City
Council approve the Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development
Plan (Development Plan Nos. DP 2007 -002 & 2008 -003).
Airport Business Area Integrated CDP
July 22, 2010
Page 2
VICINITY MAP
1
GENERAL PLAN
ZONING
Aa
•6
i
�MU
/
-112
. MU-H2
Pf
V -
LOCATION
GENERAL PLAN
ZONING
CURRENT USE
Koll Center Newport
Business & Professional; Research &
ON -SITE
Mixed Use Horizontal (MU -H2)
Planned Community
Development; Retail, Hotel; Restaurant;
PC -15
Financial
General Commercial
Office(CO- G);General
Koll Center Newport
Business & Professional; Research &
NORTH
Commercial (CG);(MU -H2);
Planned Community
Development; Retail, Restaurant;
Public Facilities PF
(PC -15)
Financial
SOUTH
Urban and Industrial (Irvine)
IBC Mixed Use (Irvine)
Irvine Business Complex (Irvine)
EAST
Institutional UCI (Irvine)
Institutional 6.1 Irvine
Vacant/Institutional (Irvine)
WEST
Airport Office & Supporting
Newport Place Planned
Business & Professional; Research &
Development; Retail; Restaurant;
Uses, MU -H2 & CG
Community (PC -11)
Financial
Airport Business Area Integrated CDP
July 22, 2010
Page 3
INTRODUCTION:
Project Setting:
The proposed Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (Plan),
as shown on Attachment PC 3, applies to a portion of the Airport Area that is generally
bounded by MacArthur Blvd, Jamboree Road, and Birch Street (Conceptual Development
Plan Area). The Airport Area generally encompasses properties abutting the western
edge of the John Wayne Airport (JWA), and is bounded by Campus Drive, Jamboree
Road and the Corona Del Mar Freeway. MacArthur Boulevard bisects the Airport Area
in a north /south direction. The Airport Area is also in close proximity to the Irvine
Business Complex (IBC) and the 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 tech" industrial, and visitor - serving uses.
In addition, there are a number of buildings occupied by corporate offices for industrial
and financial uses. The Koll Center Newport Planned Community, which covers the
area bounded by Campus Drive, MacArthur Boulevard, and Jamboree Road, was
adopted and developed in 1972 as a master planned campus to facilitate the
development of an office /light industrial park that also includes supportive retail and
visitor - serving uses. Other areas surrounding the proposed Plan are developed with a
diverse mix of low- intensity industrial, office, and airport- related uses, including a
number of auto - related commercial uses. More recently, residential development has
been introduced in the IBC area to the east of the project site.
Project Description:
To allow residential uses in the Conceptual Development Plan Area, Policy LU 6.15.11
requires the preparation of one conceptual development plan that would "demonstrate
the compatible and cohesive integration of new housing, parking structures, open
spaces, recreational amenities, pedestrian and vehicular linkages, and other
improvements with existing non - residential structures and uses." The proposed Airport
Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan has been prepared to satisfy
this requirement. The Plan is a pre- requisite for the preparation of the regulatory plans
called for in the General Plan. Once the City Council has reviewed and approved the
Conceptual Development Plan, each property owner will be responsible to
independently prepare and submit to the City a proposed regulatory plan for their
property. The regulatory plans, along with any required environmental documents, will
then be subject to a public review process.
The proposed Plan has incorporated and complies with the General Plan policies that
establish the fundamental criteria for the configuration and design of new residential
villages in the Airport Area and the Conceptual Development Plan Area in all but one
nonsubstantive respect. The neighborhood park proposed on the Koll property has
Airport Business Area Integrated CDP
July 22, 2010
Page 4
public street frontage on one side, rather than two sides as required by Policy LU
6.15.14. The Koll Company requests a modification to this policy language, which
would allow one public street frontage, which must have public parking, for infill
residential development in the Conceptual Development Plan Area.
Background:
The General Plan 2006 Update was approved by the City Council on July 25, 2006, and
the land use plan was approved by the voters on November 7, 2006. The General Plan
Land Use policies promote the introduction of residential and mixed -use development
within the Airport Area, provided that such development contributes to the creation of
viable neighborhood clusters with appropriate infrastructure, pedestrian- oriented
features and open spaces, and with a pattern of development that offers a strong sense
of community and livability.
Specifically, the General Plan allows up to a maximum of 2,200 units of housing within
the Airport Area. All but 550 of these units must replace existing development so that
there is no net gain of vehicular trips. The 550 units, known as "additive" units, may be
constructed on existing surface parking lots located east of MacArthur Boulevard. This
area is referred to in the General Plan as the Conceptual Development Plan Area,
which is identified in the Airport Area Residential Village Illustrative Concept Diagram
(Attachment PC 4).
Within the Conceptual Development Plan Area, there are two large tracts of assembled
property, owned by The Koll Company (75 acres) and Conexant (25 acres). These
property owners initially were unable to come to an agreement on a single conceptual
plan. The City then requested ROMA Design Group (who had prepared the framework
for residential development in the Airport Area as part of the General Plan update effort)
to evaluate the conceptual development plans prepared by each of the property owners,
in relation to the policies and standards of the General Plan, and to formulate an
Integrated Conceptual Development Plan for the City's consideration. The draft
conceptual development plan prepared by ROMA was reviewed by the property owners,
City staff and the General Plan /LCP Implementation Committee. The draft plan was
reviewed by the Planning Commission on November 20, 2008, and recommended to
the City Council for approval. Prior to the City Council meeting, questions on the
environmental determination were raised, and the matter was tabled. The property
owners and staff have refined and revised the Plan since the Planning Commission's
last review.
Airport Business Area Integrated CDP
July 22, 2010
Page 5
DISCUSSION:
Analysis:
Integrated Conceptual Development Plan
Prior to any residential development within the Airport Area, the General Plan requires
the preparation of a Conceptual Development Plan to:
"Demonstrate the compatible and cohesive integration of new housing, parking
structures, open spaces, recreational amenities, pedestrian and vehicular
linkages, and other improvements with existing non - residential structures and
uses. "
The Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (Plan), provides for
the redevelopment of the 25 -acre Conexant site, and for the redevelopment of a 16.08 -
acre portion of the 75 -acre Koll Center office park between Birch Street and Von
Karman Avenue with new residential development and open space, integrated with the
existing office buildings and parking structures (Figure 1 - Illustrative Plan). The Plan is
aimed at fulfilling the policies of the General Plan, ensuring cohesive and livable
neighborhoods oriented to parks and pedestrian ways, and a finer- grained network of
pedestrian - friendly streets. The Plan would result in a total of up to 1,504 new
residential units; 1,244 of which are planned on the Conexant site and the remaining
260 on the Koll property. All 260 of the new residential units on the Koll site would be
"additive" units since no existing office or industrial uses would be removed. On the
Conexant site, 632 units would replace the existing industrial and office uses which are
to be demolished, and 290 units would be additive. The remaining 322 units would be
density bonus units, and would be allowed only if affordable housing is provided at a
level to qualify for the density bonus, as provided in State law and the Newport Beach
Draft Zoning Code. Together, the two properties would use all 550 of the additive units
allocated to the Conceptual Development Plan Area by the General Plan, remain under
the Airport Area cap of 2,200 dwelling units.
Koll —The plan for this property includes three residential buildings with parking,
one new neighborhood park, enhanced access to the existing parks with frontage
on both sides of Von Karman, pedestrian access into the Conexant portion of the
ICDP and around the existing office buildings, and revisions to the vehicular
access. (Figure 4: Koll Site Illustrative Development Program and Figure 7: Koll
Site Framework Plan).
Building 1 (a "Wrap" product of rental units) contains 88 units on 3.1 acres for a
density of 28.4 DU /AC with 4 levels of residential wrapping 5 levels of above-
ground parking structure. Also, there is one level of below -grade parking solely
for office use which has no direct vehicular access to the above -grade portion of
the structure. Included in the at -grade portion of this site are 13 two -story town
Airport Business Area Integrated CDP
July 22, 2010
Page 6
homes which front on the 1 -acre park and 10 one -story flats. The residential
height ranges from approximately 48' on the Von Karman side to 54' on the
interior'Main Street' as to mask the 5 story structure.
Building 2 contains 82 units on 1.46 acres for a density of 56.2 DU/AC with an
approximate height of 70'. It is one level parking below - grade, one level parking
/lobby at -grade and 4 levels of residential plus mezzanine elements above.
Building 3 contains 90 units on 1.7 acres for a density of 52.9 DU /AC, Building
height is approximately 90'. The building is one level below grade parking, one
level of parking/ retail /lobby at -grade and six levels of residential above.
Conexant — The proposed project would result in the demolition and replacement
of 441,127 square feet of existing industrial and office uses contained within two
buildings, with a residential and mixed -use development, referred to as the
Uptown Newport Village or the Village. The plan for the Conexant site represents
a complete redevelopment of the property from an industrial /office complex to a
residential village. The Plan calls for the 25 -acre site to be configured with a
pattern of streets and blocks that provide a pedestrian - friendly environment, with
strong connectivity to adjacent commercial /office areas. (Figure 2: Conexant Site
Illustrative Plan). Several principles guide the organization of the Conexant
mixed -use village, building on the policies of the General Plan:
• Establish a grid of pedestrian - scaled streets that break up the large
superblocks of the area and provide connectivity with the existing street
system and adjoining commercial properties.
• Create a neighborhood park as the principal focal point of the village, with
additional pocket parks that provide community identity and amenity.
• Buildings should be massed to provide strong spatial definition along
streets, and stepped down to promote a pedestrian - scaled character.
• Create ground level uses that promote active and engaging street fronts.
Parking should be either be encapsulated or below grade.
• Establish a diversity of housing types, including row houses, podium mid -
rise and high -rise apartments.
The Plan for the Conexant site provides a net developable residential land area
of 18.45 acres, which would allow for a maximum program of 922 dwelling units
(18.44 x 50 du /ac), of which 290 would be additive units and up to 632 would be
replacement units (Figure 3: Conexant Site Framework Plan). This density is
consistent with General Plan policies. The precise number of replacement units
Airport Business Area Integrated CDP
July 22, 2010
Page 7
will be finalized in the regulatory plan for development of the Conexant property,
based on traffic analysis to comply with General Plan Policy LU 6.15.5.
In addition to its residential program, the Conexant Village will allow up to 11,600
square feet of ground level retail and commercial uses located along A Street,
and adjacent to the central neighborhood park.
To meet the City's inclusionary housing requirements and Housing Element
goals, the Conexant portion of the Plan also proposes the addition of up to a
maximum of 322 density bonus units. These units are in addition to the 922
residential units, and may be developed only to the extent that they meet the
standards of state density bonus law and density bonus provisions of the NBMC.
The proposed Plan establishes the direction for each of the property owners to
separately prepare and submit for review by the City a regulatory plan for their holdings.
Regulatory plans must be in substantial compliance with the Plan, particularly in terms
of the number and density of residential units (except for any additional density bonuses
for affordable units), the general location and configuration of residential development,
the total amount and general location of open space, the general location of parking
facilities, and the network of streets and pedestrian ways. Substantial deviations, or
additions to the number of residential units, will require an amendment to the Plan.
Lastly, the City has an interest in timely implementation of the Plan to ensure
implementation of its Housing Element and to provide unused development
opportunities to property owners who have the interest and capacity to implement the
City's plans. If, after a reasonable period of time as determined by the City Council,
owners of property within the area of this Plan do not submit and prosecute Regulatory
Plans and Development Agreements, the City may initiate and adopt an amendment to
this Plan to reallocate additive units.
General Plan Consistency
The General Plan contains several policies that provide for the orderly evolution of the
Airport Area, from a single - purpose business park, to a mixed -use district with cohesive
residential villages integrated within the existing fabric of office, industrial, retail, and
airport- related businesses. Residential opportunities "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.
The General Plan establishes several fundamental criteria for the configuration and
design of new residential villages in the Airport Area in general, and in the Conceptual
Development Plan Area in particular. An extensive discussion of each of the policies is
contained in the text of the Conceptual Development Plan. Outlined below is a synopsis
Airport Business Area Integrated CDP
July 22, 2010
Page 8
of these policies along with a discussion on each of the development areas General
Plan consistency.
• Neighborhood Size (LU6.15.6, LU6.15.10 and LU6 15.11): Each residential
village shall be at least 10 acres in size at build -out, and be organized around a
neighborhood park and other similar amenities. The first phase of residential
development in each village shall be at least five gross acres, exclusive of
existing rights -of -way. Although the General Plan exempts the "Conceptual
Development Plan Area" from this minimum first phase requirement, it does
require that residential villages within this sub -area be able to be built out to a
minimum area of 10 acres. At the discretion of the City, the acreage can include
part of a property in a different land use category, if the City finds that a sufficient
portion of the contiguous property is contributing to the village fabric of open
space, parking, or other amenities.
Koll - The mixed -use village is approximately 24.22 gross acres in
size, which exceeds the 10 -acre minimum requirement.
Conexant — The residential village is approximately 25 gross acres
in size, which exceeds the 10 -acre minimum requirement.
• Neighborhood Densities (LU6.15.7, LU6.15.8 and LU6.15.9): In addition to
providing a minimum land area for residential development, the General Plan
also establishes minimum densities to ensure that a sufficient critical mass of at
least 300 units is created within each 10 -acre village. As such, the overall
minimum density for each village at build -out is 30 dwelling units per net acre,
exclusive of existing and future rights -of -way, open spaces and pedestrian ways;
a maximum net density of 50 units /acre is also established.
Koll - The Plan provides for 6.26 net acres of new residential land,
which could allow the development of 188 to 313 units based on
the minimum and maximum allowable densities in the General
Plan. The Plan includes a total of 260 residential units, and
complies with the General Plan policy.
Conexant - The Plan provides a net developable residential land
area of 18.45 acres, which could allow for a maximum program of
922 dwelling units (18.45 x 50 du /ac). The Plan provides for a total
of 1,244 units, 922 of which are base units, whose density is
consistent with General Plan policies and 322 of which are density
bonus units that are not included in General Plan density limits.
The density bonus units could be developed only if the developer
provides 11% of the base units (101 units) for very low- income
households, 20% of the base units (184 units) for low- income
households, or 40% of the base units (369 units) for moderate-
Airport Business Area Integrated CDP
July 22, 2010
Page 9
income households. The precise number of replacement units will
be finalized in the regulatory plan for development of the Conexant
property, based on traffic analysis to comply with General Plan
Policy LU 6.15.5.
• Diversity of Housing (LU6.15.7): Within the density envelope (30 to 50 du /ac),
the General Plan promotes a diversity of building types, including row houses,
and podium mid -rise and high -rise buildings to accommodate a range of
household types and incomes and to promote a variety of building masses and
scales.
Koll - Housing types contemplated in the plan are two story town
homes, one story flats and podium mid -rise apartment/
condominiums.
Conexant - Housing types contemplated in the plan include ground -
level townhouse units, podium mid -rise and high -rise
apartment/condominiums.
• Neighborhood Parks (LU6.15.13 and LU6.15.14): The General Plan calls for
residential villages to be centered on neighborhood parks to provide structure
and a sense of community and identity. The General Plan requires that each
park be a minimum of one -acre in size, or at least eight percent of the total land
area of the residential village, whichever is greater. In order to promote useable
and cohesive open space, the General Plan also requires that each
neighborhood park have a minimum dimension of no less than 150 feet.
Neighborhood parks are required to be public in nature (rather than internalized
open space), and to this end must have public streets on at least two sides and
be connected with adjacent residential development by pedestrian ways and
streets.
Koll - The Plan provides for the creation of a central neighborhood
park of approximately one acre, and for an additional 0.3 acres of
open space areas on land that was previously used for surface
parking. Although the neighborhood park falls short of the single
open space requirement of 1.29 acres (i.e., 8 percent of 15 acres),
the plan achieves the total amount of open space required by the
General Plan by utilizing and designating the existing lake park
amenity as public open space, which is contemplated in Policy
LU6.15.11. This is accomplished by interconnecting the existing
open space amenities and the proposed one acre park through
pedestrian linkages and promenades for a total park area of 2.64
acres. In addition, since the minimum park dedication requirement
is not met, payment of an in lieu fee to satisfy the requirements of
the Park Dedication Ordinance, as provided in Policy LU6.15.13,
Airport Business Area Integrated CDP
July 22, 2010
Page 10
will be required. Staff believes that the park dedication
requirements of these General Plan policies are being met.
However, the Plan as proposed does not fully meet the provisions
of General Plan Policy LU6.15.14., which require neighborhood
parks "be surrounded by public streets on at least two sides
(preferably with on- street parking to serve the park),..." The new
neighborhood park shown the in Plan maintains public street
access on one side and provides an "urban plaza" /public walkway
on a second side. In addition, the existing lake park has a long
frontage on Von Karman Avenue. Koll is requesting an amendment
to the language of this policy that would apply to infill development
in the Conceptual Development Plan Area only. The proposed
language would require public street access on one side of the
park, with public parking required on that street, rather than merely
preferred. The Koll proposal would comply with the revised policy
language.
Conexant — The Plan provides a total of 2.01 acres of parks and
open space, exceeding the General Plan requirement of 2.0 acres
or 8 percent of the land area of the residential village (i.e., 8 percent
of 25 acres = 2.0 acres). A 1.49 -acre neighborhood park is located
at the center of the community; it is highly public in nature,
surrounded on all sides by public streets and by active ground -level
uses. An additional 0.52 acres is provided in two smaller pocket
parks within the village. The Plan meets the General Plan
requirements for public open space.
General Plan Amendment
As mentioned, the Koll Plan as proposed does not fully meet the public street frontage
provisions of General Plan Policy LU6.15.14. As such, a General Plan Amendment is
being requested in conjunction with the ICDP to add the following language to the
policy:
LU 6.15.14 Location
Require that each neighborhood park is clearly public in character
and is accessible to all residents of the neighborhood. Each park
shall be surrounded by public streets on at least two sides
(preferably with on- street parking to serve the park), and shall be
linked to residential uses in its respective neighborhood by streets
or pedestrian ways. For infill residential development in the
Conceptual Development Plan Area park frontage on only one
public street may be permitted. On- street parking shall be provided
Airport Business Area Integrated CDP
July 22, 2010
Page 11
along the street frontage of new parks, and is encouraged where an
existing amenity is used to meet the neighborhood park
requirement.
The intent of this policy is to provide parks that are visible and accessible to all residents
of the neighborhood, as well as to the general public, promoting the General Plan's
concept of residential villages. The policy seeks to avoid a development pattern that
provides private open space that is accessible only to residents of the adjacent
residential project.
By applying only to infill development in the Conceptual Development Plan Area, the
proposed policy language is consistent with other General Plan policies for the Airport
Area (e.g., 6.15.5, 6.15.6 and 6.15.11), which recognize that infill development in this
area will occur differently than redevelopment that completely replaces non - residential
uses, including in the provision of park amenities. Staff believes that a park with one
public street frontage that provides public parking will be accessible to all residents of
the neighborhood and maintain the original policy's intent to provide parks that are
visible and accessible to the general public.
This General Plan Amendment does not require voter approval pursuant to Charter
Section 423 because it would not increase the number of residential units or the amount
of non - residential floor area allowed by the General Plan, nor the number of peak hour
trips generated by allowed development.
Environmental Review
The consideration of the Integrated Conceptual Development Plan and General Plan
amendment is exempt from environmental review under Public Resources Code
Section 21094. The Plan implements the General Plan's requirement for a conceptual
development plan to be adopted prior to any residential development being permitted
within the Conceptual Development Plan Area, and is consistent with General Plan
policies, in particular the policies pertaining to development in the Airport Area and the
Conceptual Development Plan Area. Staff has prepared an Initial Study (Attachment
PC 5) and determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole
record, that the residential development included in the [CDP is consistent with that
evaluated in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR, SCH No.
2006011119), certified on July 25, 2006.
The General Plan Amendment is a minor change in policy language. The amendment
does not make a change to the amount of parkland required, and meets the intent of the
original policy to provide parks that are visible and accessible to residents of the new
residential development and the general public. This change does not affect any of the
environmental impacts analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
Airport Business Area Integrated CDP
July 22, 2010
Page 12
No additional environmental review is required pursuant to Public Resources Code
Section 21166 because no substantial changes to the General Plan are proposed which
would require revisions to the General Plan EIR; no substantial changes have occurred
with respect to the circumstances under with the project is being undertaken which
would require revisions to the General Plan EIR; and no new information, which was not
known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan EIR was certified,
has become available.
Public Notice
Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within
300 feet of the property and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this
hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared upon the
agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website.
Prepared by:
erald S. Gilbert, Contract Planner
ATTACHMENTS
Submitted by:
Sharon Wood, Special Projects Consultant
PC 1. Draft Resolution for General Plan Amendment
PC 2. Draft Resolution for ICDP
PC 3. Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan Dated
June 2010
PC 4. Airport Area Residential Village Illustrative Concept Diagram
PC 5. Initial Study
F: \USERS \PLN \Shared \PA's \PAs - 2008 \PA2008 - 063\2010 -07 -22 PC\Koll- Conexant July 22nd 2010 PC
Staff Report (Corrected 7- 14- 10).doc
Attachment No. PC 1
Draft Resolution for General Plan
Amendment
RESOLUTION NO. ## ##
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO
THE CITY COUNCIL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO.
GP2010 -002
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS.
1. The Koll Company has filed applications with respect to their property located within a
portion of the Airport Area that is generally bounded by MacArthur Blvd, Jamboree
Road and Birch Street.
2. The applications include a General Plan Amendment to add language to General Plan
Policy LU6.15.14 as follows:
LU 6.15.14 Location
Require that each neighborhood park is clearly public in character and is
accessible to all residents of the neighborhood. Each park shall be
surrounded by public streets on at least two sides (preferably with on-
street parking to serve the park), and shall be linked to residential uses in
its respective neighborhood by streets or pedestrian ways. For infill
residential development in the Conceptual Development Plan Area, park
frontage on only one public street may be permitted. On- street parking
shall be provided alonq the street frontage of new parks, and is
encouraged where an existing amenity is used to meet the neighborhood
park requirement.
3. 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.
4. The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information in the full
administrative record, including the General Plan, before taking any action
recommending approval of the General Plan Amendment
5. A public hearing was held on July 22, 2010 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300
Newport Boulevard, 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 Planning
Commission at this meeting.
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Pac1e 2 of 3
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION.
1. The General Plan amendment is exempt from environmental review under Public
Resources Code Section 21094. The amendment is a minor change in policy
language, which does not make a change to the amount of parkland required, and
meets the intent of the original policy to provide parks that are visible and accessible to
residents of the new residential development and the general public. This change
does not affect any of the environmental impacts analyzed in the General Plan
Environmental Impact Report (EIR, SCH No. 2006011119), certified on July 25,
2006General Plan EIR.
No additional environmental review is required pursuant to Public Resources Code
Section 21166 because no substantial changes to the General Plan are proposed
which would require revisions to the General Plan EIR; no substantial changes have
occurred with respect to the circumstances under with the project is being undertaken
which would require revisions to the General Plan EIR; and no new information, which
was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan EIR was
certified, has become available.
2. The Planning Commission finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA
determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In
addition, project opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges.
As project applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate
that such applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial
challenge, and bear the responsibility for any costs, attorneys' fees, and damages
which may be awarded to a successful challenger.
SECTION 3. DECISION.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby recommends that the City
Council of the City of Newport Beach approve General Plan Amendment No. GP2010-
002 and revise Policy LU6.15.14 to read as follows:
LU 6.15.14 Location
Require that each neighborhood park is clearly public in character and is
accessible to all residents of the neighborhood. Each park shall be
surrounded by public streets on at least two sides (preferably with on-
street parking to serve the park), and shall be linked to residential uses in
its respective neighborhood by streets or pedestrian ways. For infil!
residential development in the Conceptual Development Plan Area, park
frontage on only one public street may be permitted. On- street parking
shall be provided along the street frontage of new parks, and is
Tmplt: 04/14/10
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Page 3 of 3
encouraged where an existing amenity is used to meet the neighborhood
park requirement.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2010.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
BY:
Robert Hawkins, Chairman
FEW
Charles Unsworth, Secretary
Tmplt: 04114710
Attachment No. PC 2
Draft Resolution for ICDP
RESOLUTION NO. ## ##
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
THE AIRPORT BUSINESS AREA INTEGRATED CONCEPTUAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO THE CITY COUNCIL (PA2007 -170 &
PA2008 -063)
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS.
The Koll Company and Conexant have filed applications with respect to their properties
located within a portion of the Airport Area that is generally bounded by MacArthur Blvd,
Jamboree Road and Birch Street.
2. The applications seek approval of an Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (Plan) for
the Airport Area that will implement certain General Plan Land Use policies.
3. A public hearing was held on July 22, 2010 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300
Newport Boulevard, 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 Planning
Commission at this meeting.
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION.
The Integrated Conceptual Development Plan is exempt from environmental review
under Public Resources Code Section 21094. The Plan implements the General
Plan's requirement for a conceptual development plan to be adopted prior to any
residential development being permitted within the Conceptual Development Plan
Area, and is consistent with General Plan policies, in particular the policies pertaining
to development in the Airport Area and the Conceptual Development Plan Area. The
residential development included in the ICDP is consistent with that evaluated in the
General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR, SCH No. 2006011119), certified on
July 25, 2006.
No additional environmental review is required pursuant to Public Resources Code
Section 21166 because no substantial changes to the General Plan are proposed
which would require revisions to the General Plan EIR; no substantial changes have
occurred with respect to the circumstances under with the project is being undertaken
which would require revisions to the General Plan EIR; and no new information, which
was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan EIR was
certified, has become available.
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Paqe 2 of 3
2. The Planning Commission finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA
determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In
addition, project opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges.
As project applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate
that such applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial
challenge, and bear the responsibility for any costs, attorneys' fees, and damages
which may be awarded to a successful challenger.
SECTION 3. FINDINGS.
The Planning Commission finds that:
1. The Plan will ensure compatible and cohesive integration of new housing, parking
structures, open spaces, recreational amenities, pedestrian and vehicular linkages,
and other improvements with the existing non - residential structures and uses.
2. The Plan is consistent with the General Plan, specifically Policy LU6.15.11, which
requires the preparation of a Conceptual Development Plan prior to developing
residential uses in the Conceptual Development Plan Area of the Airport Area.
3. Upon approval of General Plan Amendment GP2010 -002, the Plan is consistent with
all other General Plan policies applicable to residential and mixed use development in
the Airport Area and the Conceptual Development Plan Area in particular.
SECTION 4. DECISION.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby recommends that the City
Council of the City of Newport Beach approve the Airport Business Area Integrated
Conceptual Development Plan is consistent with the General Plan policies and recommends
approval of the Plan, which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and by reference made a part
hereof.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2010.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN
ABSENT:
BY:
Tmplt: 04/14/10
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Paqe 3 of 3
M
Robert Hawkins, Chairman
Charles Unsworth, Secretary
Tmpit: 04/14/10
Attachment No. PC 3
Airport Business Area Integrated
Conceptual Development Plan Dated June
2010
.f
'
L oe !
i- ,
_ t l T, r
TIA
't�.� . ^ro1,'r✓ �' a .i }. J_!- . i! 'll 4 9 \` '12. f7.� `ti'.
I i�
I k
��; o s
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DBPARTMBNT
' _ �.l� t[ . ►�1 t,y JUL 161010
�
bL4M.
MY OF NEWPORT BEACH
4r
j r �f +r ,l
it .[�•
(l 1
� r
AIRPORT BUSINESS AREA
RECOMMENDED INTEGRATED CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR KOLL AND CONEXANT PROPERTIES
NNE 2010
04B`�',nlg
"-
K{�'
I /fVl.uQ J..T,f
i
N
it .[�•
(l 1
� r
AIRPORT BUSINESS AREA
RECOMMENDED INTEGRATED CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR KOLL AND CONEXANT PROPERTIES
NNE 2010
AIRPORT BUSINESS AREA
RECOMMENDED INTEGRATED
CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR KOLL AND CONEXANT
PROPERTIES
Introduction
In 2006 the City of Newport Beach adopted a compre-
hensive update to its General Plan, which includes a
plan for infill development within the Airport Busi-
ness Area, immediately east of John Wayne Airport,
bounded by Jamboree Road, Campus Drive and
Bristol Street. The policies promote the introduc-
tion of residential and mixed -use development within
this industrial and commercial district, provided that
such development contributes to the creation of viable
neighborhood clusters with appropriate infrastructure,
pedestrian - oriented features and open spaces, and with
a pattern of development that offers a strong sense of
community and livability.
Tie General Plan policies allow for a maximum of
2,200 units of housing within the Airport Business
Area. All but 550 of these units must replace existing
development so that there is no net gain of vehicular
trips; the 550 "additive" units may be constructed on
existing surface parking lots located east of MacArthur
Boulevard. 7liisarea, referred to in the General Plan
as the Conceptual Development Plan Area, has strong
potential for the introduction of new residential devel-
opment, as it includes two large tracts of assembled
property, including the 75 -acre Koll property, and
the 25 -acre Conexant site. The General Plan requires
the property owners in this area to collaborate in the
preparation of a single Conceptual Development Plan
to "demonstrate the compatible and cohesive integra-
tion of new housing, parking structures, open spaces,
recreational amenities, pedestrian and vehicular link-
ages, and other improvements with existing non -resi-
dential structures and uses."
Each of the principal property owners has prepared a
Conceptual Development Plan for their properties for
City review, but these plans did not resolve the alloca-
tion of the 550 "additive" units. The City has evalu-
ated the Conceptual Development Plans prepared by
each of the property owners, in relation to the policies
and standards of the General Plan, and to formulate
a recommended Integrated Conceptual Development
Plan for the Airport Area.
General Plan Policies
The General Plan provides policies for the orderly
evolution of the Airport Business Area, from a single -
purposed business park, to a mixed -use district with
cohesive residential villages integrated within the
existing fabric of office, industrial, retail, and airport -
related businesses. The goal of the Plan is to create
livable neighborhoods with a strong sense of place and
community — "residential villages centering on neigh-
borhood parks and interconnected by pedestrian walk-
ways (with) a mix ofhousing types and buildings... at
a sufficient scale to achieve a complete neighborhood."
In formulating the General Plan policies, there was
concern chat residential development not occur on a
"piecemeal' basis, and that there be sufficient critical
mass to enable each new increment of liousing to stand
alone as a viable and livable neighborhood. This was
felt to be particularly important in the Airport Business
Area where there has been no residential development,
and where the predominant land use pattern has been
commercial and industrial.
2 AIRPORT BUSINESS AREA: KOLL AND CONEX.ANT PROPERTIES
The General Plan establishes several fundamental
criteria for the configuration and design of new residen-
tial villages in the Airport Business Area in general, and
in the Conceptual Development Plan Area in particular:
• Neighborhood Size: Each residential village shall
be at least 10 -acres in size at build -out, and be
organized around a neighborhood park and other
similar amenities. The first phase of residential
development in each village shall be at least five
gross acres, exclusive ofexisring rights -of -way.
Although the General Plan exempts the "Concep-
tual Development Plan Area" from this minimum
first phase requirement, it does require residential
villages within this sub -area be able to be built
out to a minimum area of 10 acres (LU6.15.6,
LU6.15.10 and LU6 15.11). At the discretion of
the City, the acreage can include part of a property
in a different land use category, if the City finds
chat a sufficient portion of the contiguous property
is contributing to the village fabric of open space,
parking, or other amenities.
• Neighborhood Densities: In addition to
providing a minimum land area for residential
development, the General Plan also establishes
minimum densities to ensure that a sufficient
critical mass of at least 300 units is created within
each 10 -acre village. As such, the overall minimum
density for each village at build -out is 30 dwelling
units per net acre, exclusive of existing and future
rights-of-way, open spaces and pedestrian ways;
a maximum net density of 50 units /acre is also
established. The General Plan also establishes a
minimum density of 45 units per acre for each five -
acre first phase increment of residential develop-
ment (225 dwelling units); although the Concep-
teal Development Plan Area is exempt from this
specific numerical requirement, any
first phase increment of residential development
should demonstrate an appropriate critical mass
(LU6.15.7, LU6.15.8 and LU6.15.9).
• Diversity of Housing: Within the density enve-
lope (30 to 50 du /ac), the General Plan promotes
a diversity of building types, including row houses,
and podium mid -rise and high rise buildings to
accommodate a range of household types and
incomes and to promote a variety of building
masses and scales. (LU6.15.7).
Neighborhood Parks: The General Plan calls for
residential villages to be centered on neighborhood
parks to provide structure and a sense of comnml-
nity and identity. The General Plan requires that
each park be a minimum of one -acre in size, or
at least eight percent of the total land area of the
residential village, whichever is greater. In order
to promote useable and cohesive open space, the
General Plan also requires chat each neighborhood
park have a minimum dimension, no less than 150
feet, and 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. For infill residential development in the
Conceptual Development Plan Area, park frontage
on only one public street may be permitted.
On- street parking shall be provided along the street
frontage of new parks, and is encouraged where an
existing amenity is used to meet the neighborhood
park requirement. (LU6.15.13 and LU6.15.14).
implementation: 11ie General Plan requires that
an integrated Conceptual Development Plan be
prepared for the Conexant and Koll properties.
On the basis of the approved Conceptual Devel-
opment Plan, each property owner, electing to
pursue residential infill development, is required
to prepare a Regulatory Plan "which shall contain
a minimum of 10 acres, to coordinate the loca-
tion of new parks, streets, and pedestrian ways, set
forth a strategy to accommodate neighborhood -
serving commercial uses and other amenities,
establish pedestrian and vehicular connections
with adjoining land uses, and assure compatibility
with office, industrial, and other nonresidential
uses. "(LU6.15.10 and LU6.15.11).
In addition, adevelopment agreement between
the property owner and the City is required
for all projects that include residential units, to
"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" (LU6.15.12).
Integrated Conceptual
Development Plan
The Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (here-
after referred to as the Plan), provides for the redevel-
opment of the 25 -acre Conexant site, and for the rede-
velopment of a 24.22 -acre portion of the Koll Center
office park between Birch Street and Von Karman
Avenue with new residential development and open
space, carefully integrated with existing office build-
ings and parking structures which will remain (Figure
1: Illustrative Plan). The Plan is aimed at fulfilling the
policies of the General Plan, ensuring cohesive and
livable neighborhoods oriented to parks and pedestrian
ways, and a finer - grained network of structures which
will remain (Figure 1: Illustrative Plan).
The Plan would result in a total of up to 1,504 new
residential units; 1,244 of which are planned and
could be developed on the Conexant site and the
remaining 260 on the Koll property. All 260 of the
new residential units on the Koll site would be "addi-
tive" units since no existing office or industrial uses
would be removed. On the Conexant site, up to 632
units would replace existing industrial and office uses
that are planned to be demolished. The remaining 290
units would be additive. The Conexant plan includes
the ability to construct Up to 322 density bonus units
onsite to provide affordable housing in addition to
that needed to satisfy the City's indusionaryhousing
requirements. Together, the two properties would use
all of the 550 additive units prescribed for the Concep-
tual Development Plan area by the General Plan.
Conexant
The plan for the Conexant site represents a complete
redevelopment of the property from an industrial/
office complex to a residential village. The Plan calls
for the 25 -acre site to be configured with a pattern of
streets and blocks that provide a pedestrian - friendly
environment, with strong connectivity to adjacent
commercial /office areas. (Figure 2: Conexant Site
Illustrative Plan). Several principles guide the organi-
zation of the Conexant mixed -use village, building on
the policies of the General Plan:
° Establish a grid of pedestrian- scaled streets that
break up the large superblocks of the area and
provide connectivity with the existing street system
and adjoining commercial properties.
Create a neighborhood park as the principal focal
point of the village, with additional pocket parks
that provide community identity and amenity.
Buildings should be massed to provide strong
spatial definition along streets, and stepped clown
to promote a pedestrian- scaled character.
Create ground level uses that promote active and
engaging street fronts. Parking should be either be
encapsulated or below grade.
• Establish a diversity of housing types, including
row houses, podiUal mid -rise and high -rise
apartments.,
The Plan for the Conexant site provides a net develop-
able residential land area of 18.45 acres, which would
allow for a maximum program of 922 dwelling units
(18.44 x 50 du /ac), of which 290 would be addi-
tive units and up to 632 would be replacement units
(Figure 3: Conexant Site Framework Plan). This
density is consistent with General Plan policies. The
precise number of replacement units will be finalized in
the regulatory plan for development of the Conexant
property, based on traffic analysis to comply with
General Plan Policy LU 6.15.5.
CONEXANT SITE ILLUSTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Parcel
Area
(Acres)
Residential
(Dwelling
Units)
Commercial
(Gross Sq. Ft.)
Parcel 1
3.94
197
Pat-cc]
arce
Density Bonus Units
Total(s)
18.45
1,244
11,600
Park
Par
Park
Total Park Area
2.01
Notes:
1. Program may be reallocated between parcels, provided that the total number of additive units does
not exceed 290 and the number of replacement units and the commercial square footage complies
with General Plan Policy LU 6.15.5
RECOMMENDED INTEGRATED CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN: JUNE 2010
3
In addition to its residential program, the Conexant
Village will allow up to 11,600 square feet of ground
level retail and commercial uses located along A Street,
and adjacent to the central neighborhood park.
To meet the City's inclusionary housing requirements
and Housing Element goals, the Conexant portion
of the Plan also proposes the addition of op to a
maximum of 322 density bonus units. These units
are in addition to the 922 residential units, and may
be developed only to the extent that they meet the
standards of state density bonus lahv and density bonus
provisions of the NBMC.
The Conexant proposal provides a total of 2 acres of
parks and open space, which meets the General Plan
requirement of 2.0 acres or 8 percent of the land area
of the residential village (i.e., 8% of 25 acres = 2.0
acres). A 1.49 acre neighborhood park is located at
the center of the conununity; it is highly public in
nature, surrounded on all sides by public streets and
by active ground level uses. An additional 0.51 acres
is provided in two smaller pocket parks within the
village.
Koll
For the Koll properties the Plan is based on the
premise, set forth in the General Plan, that, subject
to the City's discretion, non - residential uses can be
included in a mixed -use village to meet the minimum
10 -acre requirement. The Plan demonstrates how non-
residential uses can be integrated with residential uses
along with open space, parking and other amenities
to create a livable and attractive neighborhood (Figure
4: Koll Site Illustrative Plan). In seeking to meet the
intention of the General Plan policies for a nhixed -use
village on the Koll Property, the Plan has established
and followed the following principles:
Spatially organize new residential uses with
existing office development in a way that creates
an engaging neighborhood fabric of useable and
defined open spaces, and pedestrian - friendly
streets and promenades.
• Balance the amount of surface parking with
publicly accessible open spaces and streets, so
that an appropriate residential environment is
created, and the feeling of living in a parking lot
is avoided. Provide replacement office parking for
displaced surface parking in new structures that
are encapsulated or substantially below grade.
• Create a network of pedestrian- fitiendly streets
and walkways that connect to existing and future
activities within the area, and that give structure
and organization to the village.
• Create ground level uses that promote active and
engaging street fronts.
• Create a neighborhood park as a focal point of
village and extend the lush landscape treatment
of the lake park along Von Karman into the new
village to provide continuity and connectivity.
The mixed -use village shown on the Integrated Plan
for the Koll Company property exceeds the 10 -acre
minimum requirement and can be considered to
encompass approximately 24.22 gross acres of land
north of Von Karman Avenue and south of Birch
Street. Tie village area would include several existing
office buildings and would provide for the conversion
of parking lots into residential development parcels
along with the creation of new open space amenities
and the connection of these to existing open spaces.
4 AIRPORT BUSINESS AREA: KOLL AND CONEXANT PROPERTIES
It also calls for the modification of surface parking
areas to create a better balance of buildings and open
spaces, link existing and future open space amenities
and to create a network of pedestrian friendly streets.
'Ilhe implementation of the Koll plan will utilize land
that is currently used for surface parking, which is still
required to serve the office uses that will remain.
The Plan provides for 6.26 net acres of new residential
land, and as such will allow for the development of 260
units based on the minimum and maximum allowable
densities in the General Plan. Tliree buldings /parcels
comprise the 6.26 acres of residential land and provide
for a diversity of unit types as called for in the General
Plan (Figure 5: Koll Site Framework Plan). The Plan's
260 residential units are contained in three building
configurations which are generally described in the
table below. The overall project density is 41.5 du /ac.
The Plan also provides for the creation of a central
neighborhood park of approximately one acre, as well
as utilizing the existing 1.64 acre lake park. Although
the dedicated neighborhood park falls short of the
single open space requirement of 1.29 acres (i.e., 8
percent of 16.08 acres), the plan achieves the total
amount of open space required by the General Plan by
utilizing
KOLL SITE ILLUSTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Parcel
(Buildings)
Area
(Acres)
Residential
(Dwelling
Units)
Commercial
(Gross Sq. Ft.)
Parcel/Building 1
88
Parcel/Building 2
1.46
82
Parcel/Buddhig 3
90
39400
Total Residential
6.26
260
3,400
Park
Existing Lake Park
Total Pat-kArea
2.64
Notes:
I. Program may be reallocated between parcels, provided that the total . number of additive units
does not exceed 260 and the number of replacement units and the commercial square footage
complies with General Plan Policy LU 6.15.5
2. On -site parking to support residential and commercial uses must comply with Newport Beach
Zoning Code.
and designating the existing lake park amenity as
public open space. Tltis is accomplished by intercon-
necting the existing open space amenities and the
proposed I acre park through pedestrian linkages
and promenades, for a coral park area of 2.64 acres.
Because rile total 1.29 acre minimum park
dedication requirement is not met, (General Plan
Policy LU6.15.13) payment of an in -lieu fee to satisfy
the requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance
will be required.
General Plan policies require neighborhood parks be
public in nature and must have public sheets on at east
two sides as well as be connected with adjacent residen-
tial development by pedestrian ways and streets
However, for infill residential development in the
Conceptual Development Plan Area, park frontage on
only one public street may be permitted. On- street
parking shall be provided along the street frontage of
new parks, and is encouraged where an existing
amenity is used to meet the neighborhood park
requirement. (LU6.15.13 and LU6.15.14). The plan
as proposed meets this land use policy.
The Plan also provides for enhanced access to existing
parks with frontage on both sides of Von Karman,
pedestrian access into the Conexant portion of the
ICDP and around the existing office buildings, as well
as revisions to the site's vehicular access.
Implementation
The approval of an Integrated Conceptual Development
Plan by the City Council is a pre - requisite for the prep-
aration of the entitlement documents, called for in the
General Plan. "Iltese documents include a Regulatory
Plan and a Development Agreement. Once Council
has reviewed and approved the Integrated Conceptual
Development Plan, each property owner will be respon-
sible to independently prepare and submit to the City,
the proposed Regulatory Plan for their property. The
Regulatory Plaits, along with any required environ-
mental clearance documents, will then be the subject of
a public review process as established by the City and
the basis for action by the City Council.
The Regulatory Plan will, in substantial compliance
with the Integrated Conceptual Development Plan,
describe more fully the proposed design of build-
ings, parking, streets, pedestrian ways, parks and open
spaces, and how infrastructure required to support the
proposed development will be provided. The Regula-
cory Plan will thus provide a description of the loca-
tion, intensity and density of allowable and conditional
uses; the height and massing of buildings; required
setbacks and stepbacks; the location, configuration
and treatment of ground level uses; design standards
and guidelines for streets, pedestrian ways and open
spaces, including requirements for lighting and land-
scaping; standards and guidelines for the location of
driveways, service and trash areas; a description of how
commercial uses that enhance the residential uses will
be incorporated; and how required parking is to be
provided and treated so chat it does nor detract from
the livability of the neighborhood and the quality
of the pedestrian environment. It will also describe
the proposed phasing of development and linkage of
open space, street and infrastructure improvements in
relation to development. Any use of the City's density
bonus provisions for affordable housing, or for the
ransfer of development rights from other properties,
will also be addressed in the Regulatory Plan.
Regulatory Plans must be in substantial compliance
with the intent of the Integrated Conceptual Develop-
ment Plan, particularly in terms of the number of addi-
tive residential units (except for any density bonuses.
for affordable units), and the connectivity between the
Koll and Conexant residential villages. In addition, a
Development Agreement is called for in the General
Plan, (between the property owner and the City) for
all projects that include residential units, to "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'(LU6.15.12). The Development Agreement will
include performance provisions to ensure conformance
with the commitments that have been made. It will
also establish a time frame for meeting the performance
provisions, as well as the phasing and linkage require-
ments of open space and infrastructure improvements.
the City of Newport Beach has an interest in timely
implementation of this Integrated Conceptual Devel-
opment Plan to ensure implementation of its Housing
Elemcnt and to provide unused development oppor-
tunities to property owners who have the interest and
capacity to implement the City's plans. If, after a
reasonable period of rime as determined by the City
Council, owners of property within the area of this
Integrated Conceptual Development Plan do not
submit and prosecute Regulatory Plans and Develop-
ment Agreements, the City may initiate and adopt an
amendment to this Plan to reallocate additive units.
RECOMMENDED INTEGRATED CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN: JUNE. 2010
I
i
I
I
r�
1
/i
O
FIGURE 1: INTEGRATED CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN: ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN
(7 \ZA:UZ ;r77i:I:17wall 1•]miilii
('
ta
.1 '\ 5 �2 • t. i l.'..
C �
Nk'`
. Ar�
:
.J
r i
FIGURE 2: CONEXANT SITE ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN
RECOMMENDED INTEGRATED CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN: JUNE 2010 7
tk ♦ �♦
j \
♦
Von Kerman Avenue
♦
i
6GUR� 3�\CONEXANT.SITE FRAMEWORK
8 AIRPORT BUSINESS AREA- KOLL AND CONEXANT PROPERTIES
Ve 1p
s %Q,
/�
O
♦
l j --NE)
_2W 4W
/� r,�1 L v \ `.\
�•� SITE BOUNDARY
-•- PARCEL BOUNDARY
- --- EASEMENT
- PASEO
I
v�
IT
FIGURE 4: KOLL SITE ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN
F--- _ --
n1AC71 S7WrhT - -- - ----
rF RESIDENTIAL
BLDG 3
•• 1, i
•' I -i
•
PACK
• Ihi AL
•
•
1 �
L
I� "I
•
l�
• i
CONCEPTUAL SITE
PLAN AND USES
OFFICE (EXISTING)
I RETAIL(NEW)
LOBBIES I COMMT'Y RMS
TOWN HOME UNITS
RESIDENTIAL FLATS
GREEN SPACES
URBAN PLAZA (NEW . EX)
EXISTING LAKE
PARK FRONTAGE ON
PUBLIC STREET
C• • • PEDESTRIAN PATH
RECOMMENDED INTEGRATED CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN: JUNE 2010 9
- 1
\. // /'t / r / '
/'.� VIIiMN• 1 / �rl fY i -'(bn/ I� {I
�.
/ r
Zx
,r`;
KOLL CENTER NEWPORT SITE AREA ♦ •._ ' I
r
y' 24.22 OVERALL SITE AREA \�
j� I
PHASE I AREA CALCULATION /
\ �•�
18,0E AC BUILDABLE AREA' PHISEI \
1 ,
1
8.14 AC EASTING LIN AND � PROP ER TY OWNER SHIP , 1
,
,
NE ACRE
NEW PARK t
1 J
i0 -
I
I
I
Al
. � I
-L �
11 ` -� Mika. •l � � ;
-
/
1.64AQ E /
TIN
SME
PROJECT DENSITY CALCULATIONS
DUTAC \� �\ i
PARK REQUIREEIEHT CALCULATION \�•�
(PER SECTION LU NP jR
6.15.13) \� \
1 _ I
1.20 ACRES REWIRED AC ACZ8% / \ - -
2.64 ACRES PROVIDED (I AC NEW PMK� I I I
BLOG 1: 88 UNITS 13.10 AC =28.4 •• _
2:82 `-. - -- "'
BLDG UNITS 11.46 AC= S61'DUTAO 1
•` r -
BLD03: 6D UNITS/ 1.70 AC = S2.9 DUTAC / \.\ 11•�loi
- -
1.84 AC EMSTING PARK AMENITY) 1 - �
�ro 1
PROJECTAVG: 260UNIISl6.26AC= 41.9DUTAC O- '� 100 3v0 �0°
1 1
FIGURE 5: KOLL SITE FRAMEWORK PLAN
10 AIRPORT BUSINESS AREA: KOLL AND CONEXANT PROPERTIES
Attachment No. PC 4
Airport Area Residential Village
Illustrative Concept Diagram
LU23
. .91" _
I
E
I
II
I
I
I
�y
CITY of NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN
Figure LU23
AIRPORT AREA RESIDENTIAL
VILLAGES ILLUSTRATIVE
CONCEPT DIAGRAM
Legend
OPPORR^NSIIES
41 PROPOSEDOPEN SPACES
AN MPPOVEDRESIDENRALSTREEd
= PROPOSEDRESIOENRAL STREETS
11111 PROPOSED PEDESIRAN WAY'S
-•• OSCNELNOrECOMOUR•
CONCEMUAL PLAN REGUl9ED
The6 CNELNOrs CPm n Munn •ci
I -U S:.'dOYE C�mPaeS ONy
11
S ,- RW Dza f-,
fRWECTN ER IM790
OH m1w
_I: F 11'
Attachment No. PC 5
Initial Study
2.
3.
H
5.
a
Project Title:
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
Airport Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (ICDP)
Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Newport Beach
Planning Department
3300 Newport Boulevard,
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Contact Person and Phone Number:
Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner,
runq@newportbeachca.gov
949.644.3208
Project Location:
4311 & 4321 Jamboree Road & 4343 Von Karman Avenue, Newport Beach, California
(also refer to Figure 2 [Project Site Location])
Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Conexant Systems, Inc.
4000 MacArthur Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92660
General Plan Designation:
MU -H2, Mixed -Use Horizontal -2
Zoning:
PC - Planned Community
Description of Project:
The Koll Company
17755 Sky Park Circle East
Irvine, CA 92614
In 2006 the City of Newport Beach adopted a comprehensive update to its
General Plan, which includes a plan for infill development within the
Airport Business Area, immediately east of John Wayne Airport, bounded
by Jamboree Road, Campus Drive and Bristol Street. The General Plan
policies promote the introduction of residential and mixed -use
development within this industrial and commercial district, provided that
Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP)
1
such development contributes to the creation of viable neighborhood
clusters with appropriate infrastructure, pedestrian- oriented features and
open spaces, and with a pattern of development that offers a strong sense
of community and livability.
The General Plan policies allow for a maximum of 2,200 units of housing
within the Airport Business Area. All but 550 of these units must replace
existing development so that there is no net gain of vehicular trips; the 550
"additive" units may be constructed on existing surface parking lots
located east of MacArthur Boulevard. This area, referred to in the General
Plan as the Conceptual Development Plan Area, has strong potential for
the introduction of new residential development, as it includes two large
tracts of assembled property, including the 75 -acre Koll property, and the
25 -acre Conexant site. The General Plan requires the property owners in
this area to collaborate in the preparation of a single Conceptual
Development Plan to "demonstrate the compatible and cohesive
integration of new housing, parking structures, open spaces, recreational
amenities, pedestrian and vehicular linkages, and other improvements
with existing non - residential structures and uses."
The Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (hereafter referred to as the
"Plan "), provides for the redevelopment of the 25 -acre Conexant site, and
for the redevelopment of a 24.22 -acre portion of the Koll Center office park
between Birch Street and Von Karman Avenue with new residential
development and open space, carefully integrated with existing office
buildings and parking structures which will remain. The Plan is aimed at
fulfilling the policies of the General Plan, ensuring cohesive and livable
neighbor hoods oriented to parks and pedestrian ways, and a finer -
grained network of pedestrian - friendly streets. The Plan would result in a
total of up to 1,504 new residential units; 1,244 of which are planned and
could be developed on the Conexant site and the remaining 260 on the
Koll property. All 260 of the new residential units on the Koll site would be
"additive" units since no existing office or industrial uses would be
removed. On the Conexant site, up to 632 units would replace existing
industrial and office uses that are planned to be demolished. The
remaining 290 units would be additive. The Conexant plan includes the
ability to construct up to 322 density bonus units onsite to provide
affordable housing in addition to that needed to satisfy the City's
inclusionary housing requirements. Together, the two properties would
use all of the 550 additive units prescribed for the Conceptual
Development Plan area by the General Plan. The total number of units
allowed by the Plan, 1,504, is within the limit of 2,200 units that the
General Plan allows in the Airport Area.
The Integrated Conceptual Development Plan is a pre- requisite for the
preparation of regulatory plans for each property. The regulatory plans
will then be the subject of a public review process, including
environmental review, by the City.
Airport Area Integrated Development Plan QCDP)
2
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.)
Current
Development:
To the north:
Campus Office Park development within the Kell Center consisting of clusters of office buildings
ranging in height from 1 to 4 stories and up to 15 stories are located to the north of the project site
and set back by large surface parking Iots.Three fast food restaurants are located at the corner of
Jamboree Road and Birch Street. Refer to Figure 2.
To the east:
Across Jamboree Rd to the east is an expanse of undeveloped open space owned by the University
of California, Irvine (UCI) referred to as the North Campus Area of the UCI campus. The North
Campus area, at its eastern border, is located 150 feet outside of the San Joaquin Freshwater Marsh
(SJFM) Reserve study area. Refer to Figure 2.
To the south:
Campus office park development within the Kell Center which consists of two high -rise office
buildings approximately 20 stories in height surrounded by expansive surface parking lots is located
just south of the project site. A Taco Bell restaurant is located along Jamboree Road. The Irvine
Business Complex located across Jamboree Road consists of several mixed -use buildings ranging in
height from 9 to 15 stories. Refer to Figure 2.
To the west:
Campus Office Park development within the Kell Center is located to the west of the project site on
both sides of Von Karmen Avenue and range in height from 1 to 4 stories. Two lakes surrounded by
office buildings on either side of Von Karmen Avenue and some open space features are also
located to the west of the project site. Refer to Figure 2.
Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP)
3
Integrated Conceptual Development Plan
4�--) s
Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP)
4
Conexant
Illustrative Plan
Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP)
5
- -------- --- -
._BLDG 2
............
i;af
>1
. EJ.
... .. .......
Qli e.
Jj
tT 111 FF
�e �Isv
19HILLH
Koll
Conceptual Site Plan
. ... ......
,ONCEPWALSffE
PLAN AND USES
B5 atupanl
;1 EaaPStavunraw
14
F3 M=TS
R IWPAM
IOU
W 0
Z
W
LLI
_j
_j
0 <
Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP)
6
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)
Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC)
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact' as indicated by the checklist on the following
pages.
❑ Aesthetics
❑ Biological Resources
❑ Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
❑ Land Use & Planning
❑ Population & Housing
❑ Agriculture & Forest
Resources
❑ Cultural Resources
❑ Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
❑ Mineral Resources
❑ Public Services
❑ Air Quality
❑ Geology & Soils
❑ Hydrology & Water
Quality
❑ Noise
❑ Recreation
❑ Transportation/ ❑ Utilities & Service ❑ Mandatory Findings of
Circulation Systems Significance
DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency.)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
❑ 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will
be prepared.
Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP)
7
❑ 1 find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
❑ 1 find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant
impact' or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
Q 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects
have been analyzed adequately in an earlier General Plan EIR (SCH No. 2006011119)
certified on July 25, 2006 pursuant to applicable standards and have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project.
Submitted by: Signature Date
Planning Department
Prepared by:
Gerald S. Gilbert, Project Planner
Signature Date
F:Wsers \PLN\Shared \Forms \New Forms \CEMInitial Study.doc
Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP)
8
Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP)
9
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
I. AESTHETICS
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect
on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not limited
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state
scenic highway?
C) Substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of the site
and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST
RESOURCES
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown
on the maps prepared pursuant to
the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to
non - agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
C) Conflict with existing zoning for, or
cause rezoning of, forest land (as
defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220(g)), timberland (as
defined by Public Resources Code
section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined
by Government Code section
51104(g))?
Less Than Less than No
Significantwith Significant Impact
Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
❑
❑
❑
o
❑
❑
❑
I3
❑
❑
❑
o
❑
❑
❑
I3
❑ ❑ ❑ IZ
❑
❑
❑
o
Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP)
10
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non -
forest use
e) Involve other changes in the
existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could result
in conversion of Farmland, to non-
agricultural use or conversion of
forest land to non - forest use?
III. AIR QUALITY
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or
contribute to an existing or
projected air quality violation?
C) Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non - attainment
under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions
which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting
a substantial number of people?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive,
or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or
regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Potentially
Less Than
Lesstnan No
Significant
Significantwith
Significant Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
❑
Incorporated
0
❑
❑
❑ 0
❑ ❑ ❑ 0
❑
❑
❑
0
❑
❑
❑
0
❑
❑
❑
0
❑
❑
❑
0
❑
❑
❑
0
❑ ❑ ❑ 0
Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP)
11
Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP)
12
Potentially
LOSS Tnan
Less tnan
No
Significant
Significantwith
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
b)
Have a substantial adverse effect
❑
❑
❑
Q
on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c)
Have a substantial adverse effect on
❑
❑
❑
Q
federally protected wetlands as
defined by Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (including, but not limited
to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other
means?
d)
Interfere substantially with the
❑
❑
❑
Q
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or
impeded the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
e)
Conflict with any local policies or
❑
❑
❑
Q
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f)
Conflict with the provisions of an
❑
❑
❑
Q
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
V.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would
the project:
a)
Cause a substantial adverse
❑
❑
❑
Q
change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in
§15064.5?
b)
Cause a substantial adverse
❑
❑
❑
Q
change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
C)
Directly or indirectly destroy a
❑
❑
❑
Q
unique paleontological resource or
site or unique geologic feature?
Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP)
12
d) Disturb any human remains,
including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to
potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist- Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist
for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known
fault? Refer to Division of Mines
and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic - related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or
the loss of topsoil?
C) Be located on a geologic unit or soil
that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the
project and potentially result in on-
or off -site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18- 1 -B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or
property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal
systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste
water?
Potentially
Less Than
Less than NO
Significant
Signiticantwith
Significant Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
❑
Incorporated
Q
❑
❑
❑
❑ ❑ ❑ Q
❑ ❑ ❑ Q
❑
❑
❑
Q
❑
❑
❑
Q
❑
❑
❑
Q
❑
❑
❑
Q
❑
❑
❑
Q
❑ ❑ ❑ Q
❑ ❑ ❑ Q
Airport Area Integrated Development Plan QCDP)
13
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the
environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan,
policy or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions
of greenhouse gases?
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into
the environment?
C) Emit hazardous emissions or
handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances,
or waste within one - quarter mile of
an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is
included on a list of hazardous
materials sites which complied
pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard
to the public or the environment?
e) For a project within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles
of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
Potentially Less Than Less than No
Significant Significant with Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
❑ ❑ ❑ Q
❑ ❑ ❑ Q
❑ ❑ ❑ Q
❑ ❑ ❑ Q
❑ ❑ ❑ Q
❑ ❑ ❑ Q
❑ ❑ ❑ Q
Airport Area Integrated Development Plan QCDP)
14
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project
area?
g) Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards
or waste discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such
that there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (e.g.,
the production rate of pre- existing
nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing
land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)?
C) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, in a
manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on-
or off -site?
d) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of a
course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in
flooding on or off -site?
onudur
voa ,nau
❑
nificant
Significant with
Significant
npact
Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
❑
❑
❑
❑ ❑ ❑
01
0
LN
J
01
u
n
rvo
Impact
D
0
n
Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP)
15
❑
D
n
Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP)
15
Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP)
16
Potentially
Less Than
Less than
No
Significant
Significantwith
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
e)
Create or contribute runoff water
❑
❑
❑
Q
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
f)
Otherwise substantially degrade
❑
❑
❑
Q
water quality?
g)
Place housing within a 100 -year
❑
❑
❑
Q
flood hazard area as mapped on a
federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other
flood hazard delineation map?
h)
Place within a 100 -year flood
❑
❑
❑
Q
hazard area structures which would
impede or redirect flood flows?
i)
Expose people or structures to a
❑
❑
❑
Q
significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of
a levee or dam?
j)
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or
❑
❑
❑
Q
mudflow?
X.
LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the proposal:
a)
Physically divide an established
❑
❑
❑
Q
community?
b)
Conflict with any applicable land
❑
❑
❑
Q
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?
C)
Conflict with any applicable habitat
❑
p
❑
Q
conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan?
Xl.
MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP)
16
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP)
17
votenttany
Significant
Lessinan
Significant with
Lesstnan
Significant
no
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
a)
Result in the loss of availability of a
❑
❑
❑
Q
known mineral resource that would
be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b)
Result in the loss of availability of a
❑
❑
❑
Q
locally- important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other
land use plan?
XII.
NOISE
Would the project result in:
a)
Exposure of persons to or
❑
❑
❑
Q
generation of noise levels in excess
of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other
agencies?
b)
Exposure of persons to or
❑
❑
❑
Q
generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
C)
A substantial permanent increase in
❑
❑
❑
Q
ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without
the project?
d)
A substantial temporary or periodic
❑
❑
❑
Q
increase in ambient noise levels in
the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
e)
For a project located within an
❑
❑
❑
Q
airport land use land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would
the project expose people residing
or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
f)
For a project within the vicinity of a
❑
❑
❑
Q
private airstrip, would the project
expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive
noise levels?
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP)
17
a) Induce substantial population
growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes
and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of
existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
C) Displace substantial numbers of
people, necessitating the
construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project:
a) Would the project result in
substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically
altered government facilities, need
for new or physically altered
government facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for
any of the public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Other public facilities?
XV. RECREATION
Would the project:
a) Would the project increase the use
of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility
would occur or be accelerated?
Potenuany
LOSS Inan
LesStnan
Significant
Significant with
Significant
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
❑
❑
❑
C
0
0
Al
C
J
X
NO
Impact
LJ
❑
Q
❑
Q
ICI
L
Q
Q
Q
An-port Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP)
18
Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
ordinance or policy establishing
measures of effectiveness for the
performance of the circulation
system, taking into account all
modes of transportation including
mass transit and non - motorized
travel and relevant components of
the circulation system, including but
not limited to intersections, streets,
highways and freeways, pedestrian
and bicycle paths, and mass
transit?
b)
rocenuany
t_ess i nan
Lesn titan nu
❑
Significant
Significantwith
Significant Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
including, but not limited to level of
Incorporated
b) Does the project include
❑
❑
❑ ❑
recreational facilities or require the
construction of or expansion of
measures, or other standards
recreational facilities which might
established by the county
have an adverse physical effect on
the environment? opportunities?
congestion management agency for
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
designated roads or highways?
Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
ordinance or policy establishing
measures of effectiveness for the
performance of the circulation
system, taking into account all
modes of transportation including
mass transit and non - motorized
travel and relevant components of
the circulation system, including but
not limited to intersections, streets,
highways and freeways, pedestrian
and bicycle paths, and mass
transit?
b)
Conflict with an applicable
❑
❑
❑
0
congestion management program,
including, but not limited to level of
service standard and travel demand
measures, or other standards
established by the county
congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
C)
Result in a change in air traffic
❑
❑
❑
0
patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change
in location that results in substantial
safety risks?
d)
Substantially increase hazards due
❑
❑
❑
0
to a design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections)
or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
e)
Result in inadequate emergency
❑
❑
❑
D
access.
f)
Conflict with adopted policies,
❑
❑
❑
0
plans, or programs regarding public
transit, bicycle, or pedestrian
facilities?
Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP)
19
XVII. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
b) Require or result in the construction
of new water or wastewater
treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant
environmental effects?
C) Require or result in the construction
of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant
environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources,
or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider,
which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity
to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's
existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate
the project's solid waste disposal
needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and
local statutes and regulation related
to solid waste?
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE.
Potentially Less Than Lessthan No
Significant Significantwith Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
❑ ❑ ❑ 0
❑ ❑ ❑ 0
❑ ❑ ❑ 0
❑ ❑ ❑ D
❑ ❑ ❑ 0
❑ ❑ ❑ 0
❑ ❑ ❑ 0
Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP)
20
a) Does the project have the potential
to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self -
sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the
major period of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that
are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable?
( "Cumulatively considerable" means
that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the
effects of past projects, the effects
of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects.)
C) Does the project have
environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
gnificant Significantwith Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
❑ ❑ ❑
C
0
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Earlier Analyses
X
E
0
9
Impact
J
J
J
The 2006 General Plan, including the land use plan for the Airport Area and the Conceptual
Development Plan Area, was analyzed in the General Plan EIR (SCH No. 2006011119) certified on
July 25, 2006. The Plan does not propose any substantial changes to the General Plan's provisions
and policies for the Airport Area and the Conceptual Development Plan Area, and does not deviate
from the number and density of residential units allowed or the amount of parkland required by the
General Plan. The General Plan Amendment is a minor change in policy language, which meets the
intent of the original policy to provide parks that are visible and accessible to residents of the new
residential development and the general public. The Plan and amendment do not affect any of the
environmental impacts analyzed in the General Plan EIR, as discussed below.
EIR(s) will be prepared on regulatory plans for development in the ICDP area, when additional detail
is available to allow for full environmental review.
Airport Area Integrated Development Plan ([CDP)
21
Aesthetics
The General Plan EIR found that there would be less than significant impacts in the areas of
obstruction of scenic vistas and change in the visual character of portions of the City, and no
mitigation measures were required. The only area in which significant unavoidable impacts due to
new sources of light and glare could occur was Banning Ranch, not the Airport Area. The Plan
makes no changes to the amount or intensity of development allowed in the General Plan and
evaluated in the General Plan EIR, and there are no effects that were not analyzed in the General
Plan EIR.
Agriculture Resources
Agriculture resources were not evaluated in the General Plan EIR because the Initial Study for that
project found that there was no potential for environmental impacts in this area. The Conceptual
Development Plan Area is currently developed with urban uses and there are no agricultural
resources on the site. The Plan makes no changes to the amount or intensity of development
allowed in the General Plan and evaluated in the General Plan EIR, and there are no effects that
were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
Air Quality
The General Plan EIR found that there would be significant unavoidable impacts in the areas of
conflict with the Air Quality Management Plan, construction emissions that would contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation, and cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria
pollutants for which the region is in nonattainment under a national or State standard. All feasible
mitigation measures were included in the General Plan EIR, and would be required for development
to implement the Plan. The General Plan EIR found impacts to be less than significant in the areas of
exposing sensitive receptors to substantial CO concentrations and creating objectionable odors. The
Plan does not increase the amount or intensity of development allowed in the General Plan, and there
are no effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
Biological Resources
The General Plan EIR found that there would be less than significant impacts to candidate, sensitive
or special status plant and wildlife species; less than significant impacts on riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural communities; interference with the movement of native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or corridors. No mitigation measures were required. The Conceptual Development
Plan Area has been developed with urban uses for over thirty years, and has no natural habitat areas
or areas identified on a Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan. The
Plan makes no changes to the amount or intensity of development allowed in the General Plan, or the
areas in which development may occur, and and there are no effects that were not analyzed in the
General Plan EIR.
Cultural Resources
The General Plan EIR found that impacts to cultural resources would be less than significant and no
mitigation measures were required. However, significant unavoidable impacts were identified with
regard to the potential for the demolition of historic structures. None of the eleven properties
identified in the General Plan EIR as being or potentially being historically significant is in the Airport
Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP)
22
Area or the Conceptual Development Plan Area. Therefore, the Plan does not have the potential to
impact these resources. There are no effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
Geology and Soils
The General Plan EIR found that geology and soils impacts would be less than significant, and no
mitigation measures were required. The amount and location of development allowed by the Plan is
no different than that included in the General Plan and the General Plan EIR's analysis, and there are
no effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Plan proposes no change in the amount and intensity of development from that allowed in the
General Plan, and no further analysis or revisions to the General Plan EIR are required.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The General Plan EIR found that hazards and hazardous materials impacts would be less than
significant, and no mitigation measures were required. Potential impact areas analyzed in the
General Plan EIR included oil and gas seeps from oil fields in the Newport Oil Field and West
Newport Oil field, both of which are approximately five miles from the ICDP site. Another potential
impact was the location of existing hazardous materials sites within one - quarter mile of existing or
proposed schools. The two existing sites identified were Hixson Metal Finishing in West Newport,
approximately five miles from the ICDP site, and Big Canyon Reservoir, approximately 3.5 miles from
the ICDP site. There are no existing or proposed schools within one - quarter mile of the ICDP site.
The General Plan EIR identified both the Conexant and Koll sites as EPA - registered large quantity
generator facilities. General Plan Policy S7.1, which requires proponents of projects in known areas
of contamination to perform comprehensive soil and groundwater contamination assessments and, if
necessary, to undertake remediation procedures under the supervision of the appropriate agency,
was identified in the EIR as reducing impact in this area to a less than significant level. Development
within the Conceptual Development Plan Area will be subject to this policy.
The Conceptual Development Plan Area is within the John Wayne Airport land use plan area and
within two miles of the airport. The General Plan EIR found that the development of new residential
neighborhoods in this area would not result in a significant impact because all development would be
required to comply with the JWA "Airport Environs Land Use Plan" (AELUP) and be referred to the
Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for review. In addition, the ALUC reviewed and certified the
General Plan as being in conformance with the AELUP, and regulatory plans for the Conexant and
Koll properties will be reviewed by the ALUC. Finally, General Plan policies in the Safety Element
were cited as reducing impacts a less than significant level. Development in the Plan would be
required to comply with these policies, and no change to the amount or location of development is
proposed in the Plan. There are no effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
Hydrology and Water Quailty
The General Plan EIR found that hydrology and water quality impacts would be less than significant,
and no mitigation measures were required. The amount and location of development allowed by the
Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP)
23
Plan is the same as contemplated in the General Plan and the General Plan EIR's analysis, and there
are no effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
Land Use and Planning
The General Plan EIR's analysis of the Airport Area noted that the introduction of residential
neighborhoods could create incompatibilities with adjacent land uses. However, the Land Use
Element policies calling for the creation of residential villages designed to ensure compatibility with
existing uses and the requirement for the preparation of a plan for the Conceptual Development Plan
Area would ensure that development is designed to be compatible with non - residential development.
Therefore, this impact was considered less than significant. The Plan implements and is consistent
these General Plan policies, as discussed below.
• Neighborhood Size (LU6.15.6, LU6.15.10 and LU6 15.11): Each residential village shall beat
least 10 acres in size at build -out, and be organized around a neighborhood park and other
similar amenities. The first phase of residential development in each village shall be at least
five gross acres, exclusive of existing rights -of -way. Although the General Plan exempts the
"Conceptual Development Plan Area" from this minimum first phase requirement, it does
require that residential villages within this sub -area be able to be built out to a minimum area of
10 acres. At the discretion of the City, the acreage can include part of a property in a different
land use category, if the City finds that a sufficient portion of the contiguous property is
contributing to the village fabric of open space, parking, or other amenities.
Koll - The mixed -use village is approximately 24.22 gross acres in size, which
exceeds the 10 -acre minimum requirement.
Conexant — The residential village is approximately 25 gross acres in size, which
exceeds the 10 -acre minimum requirement.
• Neighborhood Densities (LU6.15.7, LU6.15.8 and LU6.15.9): In addition to providing a
minimum land area for residential development, the General Plan also establishes minimum
densities to ensure that a sufficient critical mass of at least 300 units is created within each 10-
acre village. As such, the overall minimum density for each village at build -out is 30 dwelling
units per net acre, exclusive of existing and future rights -of -way, open spaces and pedestrian
ways; a maximum net density of 50 units /acre is also established.
Koll - The Plan provides for 6.26 net acres of new residential land, which could
allow the development of 188 to 313 units based on the minimum and maximum
allowable densities in the General Plan. The Plan includes a total of 260
residential units, and complies with the General Plan policy.
Conexant - The Plan provides a net developable residential land area of 18.45
acres, which could allow for a maximum program of 922 dwelling units (18.45 x
50 du /ac). The Plan provides for a total of 1,244 units, 922 of which are base
units, whose density is consistent with General Plan policies and 322 of which
are density bonus units that are not included in General Plan density limits. The
density bonus units could be developed only if the developer provides 11% of the
base units (101 units) for very low- income households, 20% of the base units
(184 units) for low- income households, or 40% of the base units (369 units) for
Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP)
24
moderate - income households. The precise number of replacement units will be
finalized in the regulatory plan for development of the Conexant property, based
on traffic analysis to comply with General Plan Policy LU 6.15.5.
• Diversify of Housing (LU6.15.7): Within the density envelope (30 to 50 du /ac), the General
Plan promotes a diversity of building types, including row houses, and podium mid -rise and
high -rise buildings to accommodate a range of household types and incomes and to promote a
variety of building masses and scales.
Koll - Housing types contemplated in the plan are two story town homes, one
story flats and podium mid -rise apartment/ condominiums.
Conexant - Housing types contemplated in the plan include ground- level
townhouse units, podium mid -rise and high -rise apartment/condominiums.
• Neighborhood Parks (LU6.15.13 and LU6.15.14): The General Plan calls for residential
villages to be centered on neighborhood parks to provide structure and a sense of community
and identity. The General Plan requires that each park be a minimum of one -acre in size, or at
least eight percent of the total land area of the residential village, whichever is greater. In
order to promote useable and cohesive open space, the General Plan also requires that each
neighborhood park have a minimum dimension of no less than 150 feet. Neighborhood parks
are required to be public in nature (rather than internalized open space), and to this end must
have public streets on at least two sides and be connected with adjacent residential
development by pedestrian ways and streets.
Koll - The Plan provides for the creation of a central neighborhood park of
approximately one acre, and for an additional 0.3 acres of open space areas on
land that was previously used for surface parking. Although the neighborhood
park falls short of the single open space requirement of 1.29 acres (i.e., 8 percent
of 15 acres), the plan achieves the total amount of open space required by the
General Plan by utilizing and designating the existing lake park amenity as public
open space, which is contemplated in Policy LU6.15.11. This is accomplished by
interconnecting the existing open space amenities and the proposed one acre
park through pedestrian linkages and promenades for a total park area of 2.64
acres. In addition, since the minimum park dedication requirement is not met,
payment of an in lieu fee to satisfy the requirements of the Park Dedication
Ordinance, as provided in Policy LU6.15.13, will be required. Staff believes that
the park dedication requirements of these General Plan policies are being met.
However, the Plan as proposed does not fully meet the provisions of General
Plan Policy LU6.15.14., which requires neighborhood parks "be surrounded by
public streets on at least two sides (preferably with on- street parking to serve the
park),..." The new neighborhood park shown the in Plan maintains public street
access on one side and provides an "urban plaza" /public walkway on a second
side. In addition, the existing lake park has a long frontage on Von Karman
Avenue. Koll is requesting an amendment to the language of this policy that
would apply to infill development in the Conceptual Development Plan Area only.
The proposed language would require public street access on one side of the
park, with public parking required on that street, rather than merely preferred.
Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP)
25
The intent of Policy LU6.15.14 is to provide parks that are visible and accessible
to all residents of the neighborhood, as well as to the general public, promoting
the General Plan's concept of residential villages. The policy seeks to avoid a
development pattern that provides private open space that is accessible only to
residents of the adjacent residential project.
By applying only to infill development in the Conceptual Development Plan Area,
the proposed policy language is consistent with other General Plan policies for
the Airport Area (e.g., 6.15.5, 6.15.6 and 6.15.11), which recognize that infill
development in this area will occur differently than redevelopment that
completely replaces non - residential uses, including in the provision of park
amenities. A park with one public street frontage that provides public parking will
be accessible to all residents of the neighborhood and maintain the original
policy's intent to provide parks that are visible and accessible to the general
public.
Conexant — The Plan provides a total of 2.01 acres of parks and open space,
exceeding the General Plan requirement of 2.0 acres or 8 percent of the land
area of the residential village (i.e., 8 percent of 25 acres = 2.0 acres). A 1.49 -
acre neighborhood park is located at the center of the community; it is highly
public in nature, surrounded on all sides by public streets and by active ground -
level uses. An additional 0.52 acres is provided in two smaller pocket parks
within the village. The Plan meets the General Plan requirements for public open
space.
The General Plan limits the number of residential units in the Airport Area to 2,200. The total number
of units allowed by the Plan, 1,504, is within this limit.
Lastly, the General Plan EIR found that there would be less than significant impact in the area of
physically dividing an existing community. The Plan implements the General Plan's policies
regarding residential development in the Airport Area and the Conceptual Development Plan Area,
and does not propose any changes in the amount, intensity or location of new residential
development.
Because the Plan implements and is consistent with the General Plan and its policies for
development in the Airport Area and Conceptual Development Plan Area, there are no effects that
were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
Mineral Resources
The Plan proposes no change in the amount and intensity of development from that allowed in the
General Plan, and no further analysis or revisions to the General Plan EIR are required.
Noise
The General Plan EIR found that there would be less than significant impact in the area of exposure
of persons to substantial temporary or periodic ambient noise increases, and no mitigation measures
were required. Significant unavoidable impacts were found in the areas of exposing persons to
Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (IMP)
26
ambient noise levels in excess of standards, exposing persons to vibration levels generated during
construction activities, substantial permanent increases in traffic - related ambient noise levels, and
exposure of sensitive receptors in proximity to the John Wayne Airport to excessive noise levels.
Among the roadway segments that would have a significant increase in traffic - related noise are Birch
Street and Jamboree Road, which are adjacent to the Conceptual Development Plan Area. General
Plan Noise Element policies require the use of interior noise insulation, double paned windows or
other noise mitigation measures, and these policies would apply to development pursuant to the Plan.
The Conceptual Development Plan Area is outside the 65 CNEL contour, but within the 60 CNEL
contour, for John Wayne Airport, and residential land use is considered a "conditionally consistent:
land use in the AELUP. Policy N3.2 in the General Plan Noise Element requires that any residential
use in this area maintain an interior noise level of 45 dBA.
The Plan proposes no change in land use, or location or intensity of development, from that which
was analyzed in the General Plan EIR, and all General Plan noise policies will apply to development
pursuant to the Plan. There are no effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
Population and Housing
The General Plan EIR found that the increase in residential units and associated population increase
in population allowed by the General Plan would exceed projections by the Southern California
Association of Governments, which would be a significant unavoidable impact. The development of
1,504 new residential units allowed in the Plan was included in the General Plan EIR's analysis.
These units, in particular the affordable and density bonus units, would assist the City in meeting its
Regional Housing Needs Assessment Goals. There are no existing residential units in the
Conceptual Development Plan Area, and the Plan would not result in the displacement of existing
housing or people. The Plan proposes no changes to the amount of residential development allowed
in the General Plan and analyzed in the General Plan EIR, and there are no effects that were not
analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
Public Services
The General Plan EIR found that public services impacts would be less than significant, and no
mitigation measures were required. The amount and location of development allowed by the Plan is
no different than that included in the General Plan and the General Plan EIR's analysis, and there are
no effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
Recreation
The General Plan EIR found that there would be less than significant impacts resulting from the
increased use of existing parks and recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration
of the facilities would occur or be accelerated, including as a result of residential development in the
Airport Area. Policy LU6.15.13 requires residential developers in the Airport Area to dedicate and
develop neighborhood parks. As discussed in the Land Use and Planning section of this Initial Study,
the Plan complies with this policy. Residential development pursuant to the Plan will also be subject
to the City's Park Dedication Fee Ordinance, and contribute funds for the maintenance and
preservation of existing park and recreation facilities.
Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP)
27
Also as discussed in the Land Use and Planning section of this Initial Study, the proposed
amendment to the language of Policy 6.15.14, which would allow parks that are part of infill
development in the Conceptual Development Plan Area to have frontage on one public street with
parking required (as opposed to frontage on two public streets with parking preferred), is consistent
with the original intent of the policy. The proposed language will continue to require that parks be
accessible and visible to all residents of the residential development they serve, which will encourage
their use by residents and prevent deterioration of existing parks.
The amount of residential development allowed, and the amount of park dedication required, by the
Plan is the same as that analyzed in the General Plan EIR, and there are no effects that were not
analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
Transportation/Traffic
The General Plan EIR found that there would be a significant unavoidable impact from a substantial
increase in deficient freeway segments and ramps. All other transportation and traffic impacts were
considered less than significant, and no mitigation measures were required. The Plan incorporates
the same level of development as analyzed in the General Plan EIR, and no further analysis or
revisions to the General Plan EIR are required.
The proposed amendment to Policy LU6.15.14 does not have the potential to result in a significant
impact due to inadequate parking for neighborhood parks. Although the required public street
frontage is reduced from two sides to one side of the park, public parking is required to be provided
on the one public street frontage, whereas, the existing policy language states that public parking is
only preferred. In addition, the neighborhood parks in the Plan are designed for convenient
pedestrian access by occupants of the new residential development as well as the office uses to
remain on the Koll property. The Plan includes enhanced pedestrian connections within the
Conceptual Development Plan Area. there are no effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan
EIR.
Utilities and Service Systems
The General Plan EIR found that utilities and service systems impacts would be less than significant,
and no mitigation measures were required. The amount and location of development allowed by the
Plan is the same as that included in the General Plan and the General Plan EIR's analysis, and there
are no effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
Mandatory Findings of Significance
No substantial changes to the development intensity contemplated by the General Plan would occur
as a result of the Integrated Conceptual Development Plan, and there are no effects that were not
analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
Summary
The Integrated Conceptual Development Plan and General Plan amendment are exempt from
environmental review under Public Resources Code Section 21094. The Plan implements the
General Plan's requirement for a conceptual development plan to be adopted prior to any residential
development being permitted within the Conceptual Development Plan Area, and is consistent with
Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP)
28
General Plan policies, in particular the policies pertaining to development in the Airport Area and the
Conceptual Development Plan Area. The residential development included in the ICDP is consistent
with that evaluated in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR, SCH No. 2006011119),
certified on July 25, 2006. The General Plan Amendment is a minor change in policy language; it
does not make a change to the amount of parkland required, and meets the intent of the original
policy to provide parks that are visible and accessible to the general public, not just residents of the
new residential development. This change does not affect any of the environmental impacts
analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
No additional environmental review is required pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166
because no substantial changes to the General Plan are proposed which would require revisions to
the General Plan EIR; no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under
with the project is being undertaken which would require revisions to the General Plan EIR; and no
new information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan
EIR was certified, has become available.
SOURCE LIST
The following enumerated documents are available at the offices of the City of Newport Beach, Planning Department,
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92660.
1. Final Program EIR — City of Newport Beach General Plan
2. General Plan, including all its elements, City of Newport Beach.
3. Specific Plan, District #8, Central Balboa.
4. Title 20, Zoning Code of the Newport Beach Municipal Code,
5. City Excavation and Grading Code, Newport Beach Municipal Code.
6. Chapter 10.28, Community Noise Ordinance of the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
7. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan 1997.
8. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan EIR, 1997,
Airport Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP)
29