Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0.1 - Study Session No. 2 - Land Use Element Amendment - PA2013-098Memorandum CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 (949) 644 -3297 To: Planning Commissioners From: Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner Date: May 22, 2014 Re: Study Session No. 2 - Land Use Element Amendment (PA2013 -098) The Planning Commission held the first of two scheduled study sessions on May 8, 2014. At that meeting, the Commission directed staff to make revisions to several land use element polices and discussed the proposed land use designation and development capacity amendments. Discussion topics for this meeting include: • Land Use Element Policy and Glossary revisions from May 8th study session (Attachment No. 2) • Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report: Process, Topics, Impact Evaluations, Findings • Preferred Land Use Alternative • Review Draft SEIR Comments Received (Attachment No. 3) The Draft SEIR for the General Plan Land Use Element Amendment was previously distributed to the Planning Commission and can found on the City website at htti)://www.newi)ortbeachca.gov/index.asi)x?i)aqe=l 347 : Attachments: PC1 — Draft Revisions of Land Use Goals and Policies PC2 — Memo Stating Policy and Glossary Revisions from May 8, 2014 PC3 — Draft SEIR Comments Received 1 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE Attachment No. PC 1 Draft Revisions of Land Use Goals and Policies 3 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE 4 NEWPORT BEACH LAND USE ELEMENT DRAFT POLICY REVISIONS 1: 7x010 1MIMi1:4►1a]A0l:Y&I:I:9A_110110XIM I4AMA IA01 W11BILTA1Ki1:M(K4lLIFAIMA ll1l:4 :1 For Planning Commission Consideration (5114114) This document presents revisions of the General Plan Land Use Element's goals and policies as recommended by the Land Use Element Advisory Committee ( LUEAC). Deletions are shown as strikeeuts and underlines for new text. Development capacities specified in the policies will be revised as needed to reflect final Planning Commission recommendations. These include revisions to: a. Reflect and assure consistency with approved Citizen Advisory Panel reports /plan (e.g., Lido Village and Balboa Village); b. State of California legislation enacted since the Plan's adoption in 2006 including the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 31), the Sustainable Communities Act (Senate Bill 375), and 2007 amendments to the California Environmental Quality Act (Senate Bill 97); c. Best planning practices emerging since 2006 addressing such topics as sustainability, climate change, and healthy communities. d. Revisions suggested by LUEAC members supported by City staff; and e. Revisions suggested by City Planning Department staff based on their experience in implementing existing Plan goals and policies. Page 11 0 LAND USE ELEMENT Primarily a Residential Community That Balances the Needs of Residents, Businesses and Visitors, wit"„ --e Q—A- Ase ^, ^tive QP,,,.,th te Introduction Consistent with state law, the land use element provides guidance regarding the ultimate pattern of development for Newport Beach at build -out. As such, it is based on and correlates the policies from all elements into a set of coherent development policies, which serve as the central organizing element for the General Plan as a whole. Policies for the conservation of natural resources and protection of residents and businesses from the risks of hazards are reflected in the distribution and densities of uses. The quantity and location of uses are linked to the City's objectives for economic development, jobs generation, and fiscal balance, as well as intentions for urban from and community character. Their capacities are, in turn, correlated with the provision of adequate housing and services to meet the needs of its resident population and transportation, parking, and utility infrastructure that support residents, employees, and visitors. Implicitly, the Land Use Element serves as the final arbiter on how the City of Newport Beach shall evolve and mature over the next 20 years. Its policies are directly correlated and supported by those in all other General Plan elements. Cumulatively, the land use element's policies directly affect the establishment and maintenance of the neighborhoods, districts, corridors, and open spaces that distinguish and contribute to Newport Beach's livability, vitality, and image. Policies for the development of individual parcels are inseparable from those that address how they will fit together to create places that are valued by the City's residents —safe and attractive neighborhoods, walkable and active commercial districts, and hillsides, beaches, water, and open spaces that provide recreation and respite from an active lifestyle. As Newport Beach is almost fully developed, the land use element focuses on how population and employment growth can be accommodated and still preserve its distinguishing and valued qualities. It recognizes that most of the City will be conserved with its existing pattern of uses and establishes policies for their protection and long term maintenance. It recognizes that there are limited areas of the City that are not achieving their full potential and establishes strategies for their enhancement and revitalization. It also recognizes the evolving needs of the marketplace and considerable pressures for population growth in the region and proposes creative strategies for the re -use of land to provide opportunities for new housing that will complement and enhance Newport Beach's character and livability. These strategies are carefully considered in context of community objectives for the provision of an efficient transportation system that minimizes congestion for residents, employees, and visitors. At the same time, it recognizes the needs to balance mobility objectives with priorities of Newport Beach's residents for the character of its neighborhoods and commercial districts and corridors. Our Starting Point - Newport Beach's Existing Land Uses Newport Beach has a unique physical setting with many visual, recreational, and environmental resources that has influenced the type and form of land uses within the community. The majority of the community is fully developed with a diverse mixture of residential, institutional, commercial, industrial, and recreational and open space uses. Residential uses represent the largest portion of land uses within the City, characterized by many distinct neighborhoods. Older communities were first developed along the coast line including the Peninsula, West Newport, Page 12 0 Balboa Island, and Lido Isle. This early housing is characterized by a diversity of multi - family, single - family and mixed -use housing located within proximity of commercial and visitors serving uses. As development spread further inland and proceeded north and east, the residential pattern changed, becoming more suburban in character and characterized by single - family ranch style homes on larger lots. While single - family attached and detached homes comprise the majority of housing in the community, the City contains many multi - family homes including condominiums, apartments, duplex, triplex, and fourplex units. These are located in older neighborhoods near aleag the beaches including West Newport, Balboa Peninsula, Balboa Island, and Corona del Mar as well as in the northern portions of the community such as Bonita Canyon Village, and Newport Center. Mobile homes are found along Coast Highway in West Newport, west of Newport Dunes and near the Newport Pier. A variety of retail uses are located throughout Newport Beach including neighborhood shopping centers, commercial strips and villages and shopping centers. The largest retail center in the City is Fashion Island, a regional attraction that is framed by a mixture of office, entertainment, and residential uses. Newport Beach also has many neighborhood shopping centers that service nearby residential neighborhoods with convenience goods. Many of the older commercial villages located along the coast and harbor include specialty shops, entertainment, and marine uses that serve nearby residents and visitors. These retail villages are located within Balboa Island, Balboa Village, Cannery Village, McFadden Square, and Corona del Mar. Much of the City's office space is located in Newport Center and the Airport Area. Newport Center is an area of both high and low -rise offices surrounding the Fashion Island retail area. The Airport Area encompasses the properties abutting and east of John Wayne Airport (JWA) and is in close proximity to the Irvine Business Complex and University of California, Irvine. This area includes a mixture of low, medium, and high rise office uses as well as research and development and high technology businesses. Industrial uses are primarily located within the West Newport Mesa area east of Banning Ranch. A variety of industrial, manufacturing, and supporting retail uses are located within this area. Research and development uses are clustered in the Airport Area. Government, educational and institutional uses include the City hall, schools, libraries, museums, and religious uses. The City has approximately 276-450 acres of developed parks. Newport Beach's parklands range in size from mini - parks such as the Lower Bay Park to the 39 -acre Bonita Canyon Sports Park. Additionally, bikeways, jogging trails, pedestrian trails, recreation trails, and regional equestrian trails are also available in Newport Beach. Numerous open space areas are located within the community, including water front areas such as beaches, Newport Bay, and Newport Harbor. There are also numerous undeveloped areas supporting natural habitats and sensitive biological resources including Banning Ranch, Irvine Coast Marine Life Refuge, Coyote Canyon, Bonita Canyon Creek Watershed, Upper Newport Bay State Marine Park (formally Ecological Reserve) and Upper Newport Bay Nature Preserve. Other resources include rhos -many undeveloped canyons and hillsides located primarily in the Newport Coast area. Goals and Policies Role and Character ( "Who We Are ") Goal LU 1 A unique primarily residential community with diverse coastal and upland neighborhoods, which values its colorful past, high quality of life, and community bonds, and balances the needs of residents, businesses, and visitors thFeugb Page 13 rW, Policy LU 1.1 Unique Environment Maintain and enhance the beneficial and unique character of the different neighborhoods, business districts, and harbor that together identify Newport Beach. Locate and design developments to reflect Newport Beach's topography, architectural diversity, and public view sheds. (Imp 1.1 20.3) LU 1.2 Citywide Identity While recognizing the qualities that uniquely define its neighborhoods and districts, promote the identity of the entire City that differentiates it as a special place within the Southern California region. (Imp 1.1) LU 1.3 Natural Resources Protect the natural setting that contributes to the character and k4niify-identity of Newport Beach and the sense of place it provides for its residents and visitors. Preserve designated open space resources, beaches, harbor, bays. channels, parks, bluifr,preserves, and estuaries as visual, recreational and habitat resources and promote preservation of coastal bluffs. (Imp 1.1 29.3) LU 1.4 Growth Management Implement a sensewatiys growth strategy that enhances the quality of life of residents and balances the needs of all constituencies with the preservation of designated open space and natural resources. (Imp 1.1, 10.2) LU 1.5 Economic Health Encourage a local economy that provides adequate commercial, office, industrial, and marine - oriented opportunities that provide employment and revenue to support high - quality community services. (Imp 1.1, 24.1) LU 1.6 Environmental Health Promote sustainable land use and development practices that minimize the use of non - renewable resources and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. (Imp 2.1. 32.1, 33.11 LU 1.7 Healthy Population Promote land use and development practices that contribute to the health and wellness of Newport Beach's residents. (Imo 2.1. 16.11 LU 9-.61.8 Public Views Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor and other water vistas from public vantage points. (Imp 1.1) LU 1.9 Compatible Land Uses Require that the scale and massing of new development provide appropriate transitions in building location, height, and bulk at their edges that are sensitive to the physical and visual character of adjoining neighborhoods and districts that have lower development intensities and building heights. (Imp 2.1) Uses to be Accommodated Goal LU 2 A living, active, and diverse environment that complements all lifestyles and enhances neighborhoods, without compromising the valued resources that make Newport Beach unique. It contains a diversity of uses that support the needs of residents, sustain and enhance the economy, provide job opportunities, serve visitors that enjoy the City's diverse recreational amenities, promote public health, and protect its important environmental setting, resources, and quality of life. Page 14 IN Policies LU 2.1 Resident - Serving Land Uses Accommodate uses that support the needs of Newport Beach's residents including housing, retail, services, employment, recreation, education, culture, entertainment, medical and health facilities, civic engagement, and social and spiritual activity that are in balance with community natural resources and designated open spaces. (Imp 1.1, 2.1, 29.3) LU 2.2 Economically Sustainable and - Complete- Community Emphasize the development of uses that enable Newport Beach to continue as an economically self - sustaining community and minimize the need for residents to travel outside of the community for retail, goods and services, and employment. (Imp 1.1, 24.1) LU 2.3 Range of Residential Choices Provide opportunities for the development of residential units that respond to community and regional needs in terms of density, size, location, and cost. Implement goals, policies, programs, and objectives identified within the City's Housing Element. (Imp 1.1, 8.1, 25.1) LU 2.4 Recreational Centers Maintain and enhance a network of recreational facilities and programs to serve all phases of life. (Imp 23.2. 29.3) LU 2.42_5 Economic Development Accommodate uses that maintain or enhance Newport Beach's fiscal health and account for market demands, while maintaining oraPA improving the quality of life for current and future residents. (Imp 1.1, 24.1) LU 3.52.6 Harbor and Waterfront Uses Preserve the uses of the Harbor and the waterfront that contribute to the charm and character of Newport Beach and provide needed support for recreational and commercial boaters, visitors, and residents, with appropriate regulations necessary to protect the interests of all users as well as adjoining residents. (Imp 1.1, 2.5, 5.1, 20_2 21.4, 24.1) LU 2.62.7 Visitor Serving Uses Provide uses that serve visitors to Newport Beach's ocean, harbor, open spaces, and other recreational assets, while !Rtaqpat R9 them protecting the quality of life for neighborhoods and residents. (Imp 1.1, 2.1, 5.1, 24.1) LU 2.8 Locally -Grown Food Promote the production and distribution of locally grown food by allowing farmers markets, food cooperatives, and neighborhood or community gardens. (Imp. 8.1) LU 2.72.8 Oil and Gas Facilities Prohibit the construction of new onshore oil processing, refining, or transportation facilities, including facilities designed to transport oil from offshore tracts, with the exceptions of slant drilling from onshore oil fields or for the consolidation and more efficient production of wells should Banning Ranch be annexed to the City. (Imp 2.1, 5.1) LU 2.82.9 Adequate Infrastructure Accommodate the types, densities, and mix of land uses that can be adequately supported by transportation and utility infrastructure (water, sewer, storm drainage, energy, technology cabling and so on) and public services (schools, parks, libraries, seniors, youth, police, fire, and so on). (Imp 1.1, 10.2, 11.1 19.1, 22.1) Organization and Form of Uses (0°How Are Land Uses Distributed ? ") Goal LU 3 A development pattern that retains and complements the City's residential neighborhoods, commercial and industrial districts, open spaces, and natural environment. Page 15 Policies LU 3.1 Neighborhoods, Districts, Corridors, and Open Spaces Substantially Mmaintain Newport Beach's pattern of residential neighborhoods, business and employment districts, commercial centers, corridors, and harbor and ocean districts. (Imp 1.1) LU 3.2 Community Connectivity Promote improved connectivity between Newport Beach's key districts through well - landscaped and safe pedestrian corridors, bicycle trails, wayfindino signage, and similar elements. (Imp 16.11. 20.1) LU 3.23_3 Growth and Change Enhance existing neighborhoods, districts, and corridors, allowing for re -use and infill with uses that are complementary in type, form, scale, and character. Changes in use and /or density /intensity should be considered only in those areas that are ^^^^^^,'call•• underperforming, are neGessary-to accommodate Newport Beach's share of projected regional population growth, improve the relationship and reduce commuting distance between home and jobs, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption on an overall, citywide basis, facilitate walking, bicycling, and transit uses, provide places for people to congregate and interact socially, or enhance the values that distinguish Newport Beach as a special place to live and work for its residents. The scale of growth and new development shall be coordinated with the provision of adequate infrastructure and public services, including standards for acceptable traffic level of service. (Imp 1.1, 2.1, 5.1, 10.2, 16.2, 16.3, 17.1, 18.1, 19.1, 22.1, 23.1, 23.2) LU 3.33.4 Opportunities for Change Provide opportunities for improved development and enhanced environments for residents in the following districts and corridors, as specified in Polices 6.3.1 through 6.22.7: • West Newport: consolidation of retail and visitor - serving commercial uses, with remaining commercial areas developed for residential units • West Newport Mesa: re -use of underperforming or underutilized commercial and industrial properties for offices and other uses that support Hoag Hospital's medical activities, improvement of remaining industrial properties adjoining the City of Costa Mesa, accommodation of non -water dependent marine - related industries, and development of residential in proximity to jobs and services • Santa Ana Heights: use of properties consistent with the adopted Specific Plan • John Wayne Airport Area: re -use of underperforming or underutilized commercial, industrial and office properties and development of an urban mixed -use district with resident - serving uses enabling emolovees to live sAhasive FesidaRVal RsighbeFheeds in proximity to jobs and services. • Fashion Island /Newport Center: expanded retail and office uses and hotel rooms and development of residential in proximity to jobs and services, •° Nish'^^' ng inc mpnt • Balboa Peninsula: more efficient patterns of use that consolidate the Peninsula's visitor - serving and mixed uses within the core commercial districts; encourage marine - related uses especially in commercial areas along the bay front; integrate residential with retail and visitor - serving uses in Lido Village, McFadden Square, Balboa Village, and along portions of the Harbor frontage; re -use interior parcels in Cannery Village for residential and limited mixed -use and live /work buildings.; and Yedeyelop underperforming properties -Infill development shall be designed and sited to preserve the haracter of these districts. • Mariners' Mile: re -use of underperforming or underutilized properties for retail, visitor - serving, and marine- related uses, integrated with residential and expand public and private parking. • Corona del Mar: enhancement of public improvements and expand public and private parking. (Imp 1.1, 2.1, 5.1 16.10) Page 16 10 LU 3.43.5 Banning Ranch Prioritize the acquisition of Banning Ranch as an open space amenity for the community and region, consolidating oil operations, enhancing wetland and other habitats, and providing parkland amenities to serve nearby neighborhoods. If the property cannot be acquired within a time period and pursuant to terms agreed to by the City and property owner, allow for the development of a compact residential village that preserves the majority of the site as open space and restores critical habitat in accordance with Policies 657_2.1 through 65.57.4.6. (Imp 1.1, 2.1, 5.1, 14.7, 14.11) LU 3.53.6 Coastal- Dependent and Related Businesses Design and site new development to avoid impacts to existing coastal- dependent and coastal - related developments When reviewing proposals for land use changes, give full consideration to the impact on coastal- dependent and coastal related land uses, including not only the proposed change on the subject property, but also the potential to limit existing coastal- dependent and coastal - related land uses on adjacent properties. (Imp 2.1, 5.1, 7.1) LU 3.6 -3.7 Waterfront Access Use public beaches for public recreational uses and prohibit uses on beaches that interfere with public access and enjoyment of coastal resources. Encourage the expansion and improvement of access to the waterfront and water - related uses that provide important links to waterfront uses such as beaches, launching facilities, public docks, and other similar public water area uses. (Imp 1.1, 5.1 20.2) LU 3.7 -3_8 Natural Resource or Hazardous Areas Require that new development is located and designed to protect areas with high natural resource value and protect residents and visitors from hazards that pose a threats to life or property. (Imp 2.1, 6.1) LU 3.83.9 Project Entitlement Review with Airport Land Use Commission Refer the adoption or amendment of the General Plan, Zoning Code, specific plans, and Planned Community development plans for land within the John Wayne Airport planning area, as established in the JWA Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP), to the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) ofior Orange County for review, as required by Section 21676 of the California Public Utilities Code. In addition, refer all development projects that include buildings with a height greater than 200 feet above ground level to the ALUC for review. (Imp 14.3) Sustainable DeveloDment ;r7 Fi LU 4 Land use development practices that contribute to a sustained natural environment for use by future generations, economy, and well -being of Newport Beach's residents, while reducing greenhouse gas emissions and impacts on climate change. Policies LU 4.1 Regulating Sustainable Development Promote and, where appropriate, require new development and reconstruction to comply with sustainable building practices incorporating a "whole system" approach to designing and constructing buildings that consume comparatively less enerav, water, and other resources, facilitate natural ventilation, use daylight effectively, and are healthy, safe, comfortable, and durable. (Imp 1.1. 32.1, 33.1. 34.1) LU 4.2 Existinq Structure Reuse Encourage the retention, adaptive reuse, and renovation of existing buildings with "green" building technologies to retain the structure's embodied energy, increase energy efficiency, and limit the generation of construction waste. (imp 7.1) LU 4.3 Sustainable Sites and Land Development Promote land development practices that reduce energy and water consumption, pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and waste generation incorporating such techniques as: Page 17 11 Concentrating and designing development to promote walking, bicycling, and use of public transit as an alternative to automobile travel: Capturing and re -using stormwater runoff on -site for irrigation and /or groundwater percolation: Managing wastewater and using recycled water, including encouraging the use of grey water: Orienting buildings to maximize opportunities for solar energy use, davlighting, and ventilation: Using landscapes that conserve water and reduce green waste; Shading of surface parking, walkways, and plazas: and /or Recycling and /or salvaging for reuse of construction and demolition debris. (Imp 2.1. 7.1. 8.2) LU 4.4 Revitalization of Obsolete and Underused Properties Encourage the consolidation of small commercial, industrial, and mixed -use parcels to facilitate revitalization and redevelopment. (Imp 2.1. 24.1) LU 4.5 Heat Island Effect Reduce the "heat island effect" by promoting such features as reflective roofing, green roofs, light- colored paving, and reducing the unshaded extent of parking lots with a tree canopy. (Imp 7.1, 32.1, 33.1, 34.1) LU 4.6 Orange County Sustainable Communities Strategy Implement practices for infll and mixed use development, affordable housing, and density to achieve objectives for a comparative reduction of vehicle trips and commute distances, air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption and improvement of public health consistent with applicable policies of the Orange County Sustainable Communities Strategy_(SCS). (Imp 8.1. 32.1, 33.1, 34.1) Land Use Diagram Goal LU 45 Management of growth and change to protect and enhance the livability of neighborhoods and achieve distinct and economically vital business and employment districts, which are correlated with supporting infrastructure and public services and sustain Newport Beach's natural setting. Policies LU 4A-5.1 Land Use Diagram Accommodate land use development consistent with the Land Use Plan. Figure LU1 depicts the general distribution of uses throughout the City and Figure LU2 through Figure LU15 depict specific use categories for each parcel within defined Statistical Areas. Table LU1 (Land Use Plan Categories) specifies the primary land use categories, types of uses, and, for certain categories, the densities /intensities to be permitted. The permitted densities /intensities or amount of development for land use categories for which this is not included in a. Identify the parcel and the applicable land use designation on the Land Use Plan, Figure LU4 through Figure LU15 b. Refer to Figure LU4 through Figure LU15 and Table LU1 to identify the permitted uses and permitted density or intensity or amount of development for the land use classification. Where densities /intensities are applicable, the maximum amount of development shall be determined by multiplying the area of the parcel by the density /intensity. c. For anomalies identified on the Land Use Map by a symbol, refer to Table LU2 to determine the precise development limits. d. For residential development in the Airport Area., refer to the policies prescribed by the Land Use Element that define how development may occur. (Imp 2.1, 5.1, 10.2) Page 18 12 LU 4.25.2 Prohibition of New Residential Subdivisions Prohibit new residential subdivisions that would result in additional dwelling units exceeding those permitted by the General Plan unless authorized by an amendment of the General Plan (GPA). Lots that have been legally merged through the Subdivision Map Act and City Subdivision Code approvals are exempt from the GPA requirements and may be redeveloped or re- subdivided to the original underlying legal lots. This policy is applicable to all Single Unit, Two Unit, and - Multiple Unit Residential and Mixed Use land use categories. (Imp 6.1) LU 4.35_3 Transfer of Development RightsAllocations Permit the transfer of development allocationsfights from a property to one or more other properties when: a. The donor and receiver sites are within the same Statistical Area. b. The reduced density /intensity on the donor site provides benefits to the City such as, but not limited to, the (1) provision of e)draeFd :aFy pen space exceeding standard requirements, public visual corridor(s), parking or other amenities; (2) preservation of a historic building or property or natural landscapes; (3) improvement of the area's scale and development character; (4) consolidation of lots to achieve a better architectural design than could be achieved without lot consolidation; and /or (5) reduction of local vehicle trips and traffic congestion; c. The increment of growth transferred to the receiver site complements and is in scale with surrounding development, complies with community character and design policies contained in this Plan, and does not materially degrade local traffic conditions and environmental quality. d. Transfer of Development Rights,-Allocations in Newport Center is governed by Policy 6-747.13.3 and those for the Airoort Area by Policy 7.14.6. (Imp 2.1, 5.1, 10.2 29.2) Community Character ( "Maintaining the Character of Our Neighborhoods and Districts ") Goals and policies provide for the maintenance and enhancement of Newport Beach's residential neighborhoods, commercial districts, employment centers, corridors, and open spaces, assuring that new development complements and reinforces these characteristics. In addition to those listed below, community design policies are defined in the section beginning -with Policy LU 64-7_1 to reflect the specific community character objectives for a number of the City's districts and corridors. Residential Neighborhoods Goal LU 5.46.1 Residential neighborhoods that are well - planned and designed contribute to the livability and quality of life of residents, respect the natural environmental setting, and sustain the qualities of place that differentiate Newport Beach as a special place in the Southern California region. Policies ALL NEIGHBORHOODS LU 5.1.15.1.1 Compatible but Diverse Development Establish property development regulations for residential projects to create compatible and high - quality development that contributes to and sustains neighborhood character. (Imp 2.1) 244 tNote: Moved to Policv LU 1.9 Page 19 2_2� LU 5'1.36.1.2 Neighborhood Identification Encourage and support the identification of distinct residential neighborhoods. (Imp 1.1, 1.3) LU 5.1.46.1.3 Neighborhood Maintenance Promote the maintenance of existing residential units through code enforcement and promotion of County and local rehabilitation programs and public education. This may include providing information, guidance, and assistance where feasible. (Imp 23.3, 25.1, 26.1, 29.1) SINGLE- FAMILY DETACHED AND TWO -UNIT NEIGHBORHOODS LU 5.1,5 -6.1.4 Character and Quality of Single - Family Residential Dwellings Require that residential units be designed to sustain the high level of architectural design quality that characterizes Newport Beach's neighborhoods in consideration of the following principles: • Articulation and modulation of building masses and elevations to avoid the appearance of "box -like' buildings Compatibility with neighborhood development in density, scale, and street facing elevations • Architectural treatment of all elevations visible from public places • Entries and windows on street facing elevations to visually "open" the house to the neighborhood Orientation to desirable sunlight and views (Imp 2.1) LU 5 4 66.1.5 Character and Quality of Residential Properties Require that residential front setbacks and other areas visible from the public street be attractively landscaped, trash containers enclosed, and driveway and parking paving minimized. (Imp 2.1) LU 5r1r7 6.1.6 Renovation and Replacement of Existing Residential Units Require that residential units that are renovated and rebuilt in existing single family neighborhoods adhere to the principles for new developments, as specified by Policy 5:4- 56.1.4 above and avoid. Gansi• e^ the appFopF Atan^^^ n impaeted -b significant changes in building scale and character. (Imp 2.1, 8.2) LU 5A,8 -6.1.7 Parking Adequacy Require that new and renovated single - family residences incorporate adequate enclosed parking in consideration of its adm4 ff-ef- �floor area. (Imp 2.1) MULTI- FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS LU 5.196.1.8 Character and Quality of Multi - Family Residential Require that multi - family dwellings be designed to convey a high quality architectural character in accordance with the following principles (other than the Newport Center and Airport Area, which are guided by Goals 6.14 and 6.15, respectively, specific to those areas): Building Elevations • Treatment of the elevations of buildings facing public streets and pedestrian ways as the principal facades with respect to architectural treatment to achieve the highest level of urban design and neighborhood quality • Architectural treatment of building elevations and modulation of mass to convey the character of separate living units or clusters of living units, avoiding the appearance of a singular building volume • Provide street- and path- facing elevations with high - quality doors, windows, moldings, metalwork, and finishes Ground Floor Treatment • Where multi - family residential is developed on large parcels such as the A;rpoi4 Area and West Newport Mesa: Page 110 14 • Set ground -floor residential uses back from the sidewalk or from the right -of -way, whichever yields the greater setback to provide privacy and a sense of security and to leave room for stoops, porches and landscaping • Raise ground -floor residential uses above the sidewalk for privacy and security but not so much that pedestrians face blank walls or look into utility or parking spaces • Encourage stoops and porches for ground -floor residential units facing public streets and pedestrian ways • Where multi - family residential is developed on small parcels, such as the Balboa Peninsula, the unit may be located directly along the sidewalk frontage and entries should be setback or elevated to ensure adequate security (as shown below1). Roof Design • Modulate roof profiles to reduce the apparent scale of large structures and to provide visual interest and variety. Parking • Design covered and enclosed parking areas to be integral with the architecture of the residential units' architecture. Open Space and Amenity • Incorporate usable and functional private open space for each unit. • Incorporate common open space that creates a pleasant living environment with opportunities for recreation. (Imp 2.1 Imp 29.3) Commercial Districts Goal LU 3,26_2 Commercial centers and districts that are well- designed and planned, exhibit a high level of architectural and landscape quality, and are vital places for shopping and socialization. Policies LU 3,2.16.2.1 Architecture and Site Design Require that new development within existing commercial districts centers and corridors4hat Gam uses and exhibit a high level of architectural and site design in accordance with seas deratinR of the following principles: • Seamless connections and transitions with existing buildings, except where developed as a free - standing building • Modulation of building masses, elevations, and rooflines to promote visual interest • Architectural treatment of all building elevations, including ancillary facilities such as storage, truck loading and unloading, and trash enclosures • Treatment of the ground floor of buildings to promote pedestrian activity by avoiding long, continuous blank walls, incorporating extensive glazing for transparency, and modulating and articulating elevations to promote visual interest • Clear identification of storefront entries • Incorporation of signage that is integrated with the buildings' architectural character ' Note: Refers to image in General Plan Page 111 15 • Architectural treatment of parking structures consistent with commercial buildings, including the incorporation of retail in the ground floors where the parking structure faces a public street or pedestrian way • Extensive on -site landscaping, including mature vegetation to provide a tree canopy to provide shade for customers Incorporation of plazas and expanded sidewalks to accommodate pedestrian, outdoor dining, and other activities • Clearly delineated pedestrian connections between business areas, parking, and to adjoining neighborhoods and districts (paving treatment, landscapings, wayrinding signage, and so on) • Integration of building design and site planning elements that comoartively reduce the consumption of water, energy, and other nonrenewable resources (Imp 2.1) LU 5 2 26.2.2 Buffering Residential Areas Require that commercial uses adjoining residential neighborhoods be designed to be compatible and minimize impacts through such techniques as: • Incorporation of landscapinge, decorative walls, enclosed trash containers, downward focused lighting fixtures, and /or comparable buffering elements; Attractive architectural treatment of elevations facing the residential neighborhood; • Location of automobile and truck access to prevent impacts on neighborhood traffic and privacy. (Imp 2.1) LU 5.2.36.2.3 Alley Design Improve and enhance the aesthetic quality of alleys without impacting service and resident access. (Imp 6.1, 8.1) Mixed -Use Districts and Neighborhoods Goal LU 5.36.3 Districts where residents and businesses are intermixed that are designed and planned to ensure compatibility among the uses, that they are highly livable for residents, and are of high quality design reflecting the traditions of Newport Beach. Policies LU 5.3416.3.1 Mixed -Use Buildings Require that mixed -use buildings be designed to convey a high level of architectural and landscape quality and ensure compatibility among their uses in accordance with seas deratiOR of he following principles: Design and incorporation of building materials and features to avoid conflicts among uses, such as noise, vibration, lighting, odors, and similar impacts • Visual and physical integration of residential and nonresidential uses • Architectural treatment of building elevations and modulation of their massing • Separate and well - defined entries for residential units and nonresidential businesses Design of parking areas and facilities for architectural consistency and integration among uses • Incorporation of extensive landscape appropriate to its location; urbanized streetscapes, for example, would require less landscape along the street frontage but integrate landscape into interior courtyards and common open spaces (Imp 2.1) Page 112 10 LU 5.3.26.3.2 Mixed -Use Building Location and Size of Nonresidential Uses Require that 100 percent of the ground floor street frontage of mixed -use buildings be occupied by retail and other compatible nonresidential uses, unless specified otherwise by policies' " 621 1 thFe gh I " &49-.6-for a soecific district or corridor. (Imp 2.1) LU 5.3,36.3.3 Parcels Integrating Residential and Nonresidential Uses Require that properties developed with a mix of residential and nonresidential uses be designed to achieve high levels of architectural quality in accordance with policies LU 54- 96.1.5 and LU 5.2:16.2.1 and planned to ensure compatibility among the uses and provide adequate circulation and parking. Residential uses should be seamlessly integrated with nonresidential uses through architecture, pedestrian walkways, and landscapinc e. They should not be completely isolated by walls or other design elements. (Imp 2.1) LU 5.3.46.3.4 Districts Integrating Residential and Nonresidential Uses Require that sufficient acreage -area be developed for an individual use located in a district containing a mix of residential and nonresidential uses to prevent fragmentation and ensure each use's viability, quality, and compatibility with adjoining uses. (Imp 2.1, 6.1) All Commercial and Mixed -Use Districts LU 5,3.56.3.5 Pedestrian - Oriented Architecture and Streetscapes Require that buildings located in pedestrian- oriented commercial and mixed -use districts (other than the Newport Center and Airport Area, which are guided by Goals 6447.13 and 6-157.14, respectively, specific to those areas) be designed to define the public realm, activate sidewalks and pedestrian paths, and provide "eyes on the street" in accordance with the following principles: • Location of buildings along the street frontage sidewalk, to visually form a continuous or semi - continuous wall with buildings on adjacent parcels, • Inclusion of retail uses characterized by a high level of customer activity on the ground floor; to insure successful retail -type operations, provide for transparency, elevation of the first floor at or transitioning to the sidewalk, floor -to -floor height, depth, deliveries, and trash storage and collection, • Articulation and modulation of street - facing elevations to promote interest and character, Inclusion of outdoor seating or other amenities that extend interior uses to the sidewalk, where feasible', and • Minimization of driveways that interrupt the continuity of street facing building elevations, prioritizing driveway the* locations to side streets and alleys where feasible, (Imp 2.1) LU 5.3.66.3.6 Parking Adequacy and Location Require that adequate parking be provided and is conveniently located to serve tenants and customers. Set open parking lots back from public streets and pedestrian ways and screen with buildings, architectural walls, or dense landscaping. (Imp 2.1) Office and Business Parks Goal LU 5A6.4 Office and business districts that exhibit a high quality image, are attractive, and provide quality working environments for employees. Policies LU 5 4 1 6.4.1 Site Planning Require that new, and to the extent feasible, renovated office And Fe'-" development projects be planned to exhibit a high - quality and cohesive "campus environment," characterized by the following: Page 113 z7 • Location of buildings around common plazas, courtyards, walkways, and open spaces Incorporation of extensive on -site landscaping that emphasizes special features such as entryways • Use of landscape and open spaces to break the visual continuity of surface parking lots Common signage program for tenant identification and wayfinding • Common streetscapes and lighting to promote pedestrian activity • Readily observable site access, entrance drives and building entries and minimized conflict between service vehicles, private automobiles, and pedestrians (Imp 2.1) LU 5.4.26.4.2 Development Form and Architecture Require that new development of business park, office, and supporting buildings be designed to convey a unified and high - quality character in accordance with cons dPrAt on f the following principles: • Modulation of building mass, heights, and elevations and articulation of building • Avoidance of blank building walls that internalize uses with no outdoor orientation to public spaces • Minimize the mass and bulk of building facades abutting streets • Consistent architectural design vocabulary, articulation, materials, and color palette Clear identification of entries through design elements • Integration of signage with the building's architectural style and character Architectural treatment of parking structures consistent with their primary commercial or office building (Imp 2.1) Industrial Districts Goal LU 5.56.5 Districts that provide for the manufacturing of goods and research, and development that are attractive, compatible with adjoining nonindustrial uses, and well maintained. Policies LU it 5{76.5.1 Site Planning and Building Design Require that new and renovated industrial properties and structures be designed to exhibit a high quality of design and maintenance characterized by the following: • Incorporation of extensive on -site landscaping • Incorporation of landscape, decorative walls, and other elements that visually screen areas used for outdoor storage, processing, and other industrial operations from public places • Architectural treatment of all visible building elevations Consistent and well- designed signage • Control of on -site lighting, noise, odors, vibrations, toxic materials, truck access, and other elements that may impact adjoining nonindustrial land uses. (Imp 2.1) LU 5.5,26.5.2 Property Maintenance Encourage and, where subject to redevelopment, require owners of visually unattractive or poorly maintained industrial properties to upgrade existing structures, facades, and properties to improve their visual quality. (Imp 26.1) Page 114 t•� 1 Public and Institutional Uses and Districts2 The City of Newport Beach contains a diversity of public and institutional uses including civic and government administrative facilities (City Hall), corporate yards, fire and police facilities, libraries, cultural institutions, art museum, marine science center, environmental interpretative center, senior and youth facilities, schools, and hospitals. Major public uses include the Civic Center, including City Hall, acljoin P9 L do V flage, and Police Department in Newport Center, eight fire stations distributed throughout the community, Central Library in Newport Center and three branches, OASIS Senior Center in Corona del Mar, and community facilities available at various locations for residents for recreational and meeting use. Newport Beach is served by two public and one private high school, one public and one private middle school, and eight public and four private elementary schools. Hoag Hospital is a major medical center that serves the City and region and is supported by numerous medical offices and related facilities. Goal LU 6.16_6 A diversity of governmental service, institutional, educational, cultural, social, religious, and medical facilities that are available for and enhance the quality of life for residents and are located and designed to complement Newport Beach's neighborhoods. Policies LAND USES LU 6.1.16.6.7 Adequate Community Supporting Uses Accommodate schools, government administrative and operational facilities, fire stations and police facilities, religious facilities, scheets- cultural facilities, museums, interpretative centers, and hospitals to serve the needs of Newport Beach's residents and businesses. (Imp 1.1, 2.1) LU 6.9,26.6.2 Siting of New Development Allow for the development of new public and institutional facilities within the City provided that the use and development facilities are compatible with adjoining land uses, environmentally suitable, and can be supported by transportation and utility infrastructure. (Imp 1.1, 14.2, 22.1 -23.2) DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT LU 6.4.V6.6.3Architecture and Planning that Complements Adjoining Uses Ensure that the City's public buildings, sites, and infrastructure are designed to be compatible in scale, mass, character, and architecture with the district or neighborhood in which they are located, following the design and development policies for private uses specified by this Plan. Design impacts on adjoining uses shall be carefully considered in development, addressing such issues as lighting spillover, noise, hours of operation, parking, local traffic impacts, and privacy. (Imp 22.1 -23.2) LU 6.1,46.6.4 Compatibility of Non -City Public Uses Encourage school and utility districts and other government agencies that may be exempt from City land use control and approval to plan their properties and design buildings at a high level of visual and architectural quality that maintains the character of the neighborhood or district in which they are located and in consideration of the design and development policies for private uses specified by this Plan. (Imp 14.1, 14.15) STRATEGY LU 6.9,56.6.5 Hoag Hospital Campus Support Hoag Hospital and related medical uses in its -their mission to provide adequate - sufficient facilities to meet the needs of area residents. Work with the Hospital and related medical uses to ensure that future development plans consider its -their relationship to and ensure compatibility with adjoining residential neighborhoods and mitigate impacts on local and regional transportation systems. (Imp 24.1) 2 NOTE: This section was incorrectly located in the General Plan and has been moved. No text changes have been made. Page 115 19 All Neighborhoods, Districts, and Corridors Goal LU 566.7 Neighborhoods, districts, and corridors containing a diversity of uses and buildings that are mutually compatible and enhance the quality of the City's environment. Policies LU 5.6.1 -6.7.1 Compatible Development Require that buildings and properties be designed to ensure compatibility within and as interfaces between neighborhoods, districts, and corridors. (Imp 2.1) LU 5.6.26.7.2 Form and Environment Require that new and renovated buildings and structures be designed to avoid the use of styles, colors, and materials that unusually impact the design character and quality of their location such as abrupt changes in scale, building form, architectural style, and the use of surface materials that raise local temperatures, result in glare and excessive illumination of adjoining properties and open spaces, or adversely modify wind patterns. (Imp 2.1) LU 5 6,36.7.3 Ambient Lighting Require that outdoor lighting be located and designed to prevent spillover onto adjoining properties or significantly increase the overall ambient illumination of their location. (Imp 2.1) LU 5.6,46.7.4 Conformance with the Natural Environmental Setting Require that sites be planned and buildings designed in consideration of the property's topography, landforms, drainage patterns, natural vegetation, and relationship to the Bay and coastline, maintaining the environmental character that distinguishes Newport Beach. (Imp 2.1, 8.1) LU 5 6,56.7.5 Heliport/Helistop Compatibility Require that all applicants for the construction or operation of a heliport or helistop comply with state permit procedures, file a Form 7480 (Notice of Landing Area Proposal) with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and comply with all conditions of approval imposed by the FAA, Caltrans /Division of Aeronautics and Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for Orange County. (Imp 14.9) Neighborhoods, Districts, and Corridors ( "Places That Distinguish Newport Beach ") Goals and policies provide for the maintenance of existing neighborhoods, districts, corridors, and public and civic uses, managing growth and change to ensure that their character, livability, and economic value are sustained. P,-hl*c and ingt:a..a: al ttses�^a r1ustronts a;AF F;p �n pnnp npntpF, eFivipanmental interpretative GenteF, sen or and yauth faGil ties, SGhGGIS, and hasp tals. Maier distr buted throughout the commun ty, Central Library n Newport Center And three branches, OASIS Senior Center in GE)FGRa del Mar, and GeFRFRURityfaG Mies aVRilablP at -@F 9119 IBA2tieRS fGF FPR &RtS far PeeFeatieRal and FneetiRg use. Newport Beach is sewed by two public; and one private h gh school, one pub! c and one private m ddle school, an4d 8ight PWIDI G and four pr vats slamentary sGhools. Hoag Hospital Or a major msdiGal Genter that servas the G ty and reg on nfl it supported by numerous ..d Gal offT rag and related fa.: as. ^__1 LU-&4 Page 116 20 Encourage school and ut 1 ty d str cts and other government agenc es that may be exempt from C ty land use contro4 and development pall ies for private , spaG fied by this Plan, n..,.. 14 .1, 14.15) CC TG�T FOSOGIORtial Asighborhoods and FAit 9@tS FRPaGt6 OR IGGal and rag opal traAsportatieR systems. (imp 24.1) Residential Neighborhoods Newport Beach is a community of distinct residential communities formed by the natural landscape and the built environment. Many of the City's older communities are located near the coast, and are characterized by small lots and the close grouping of structures. Newer residential communities, located east of the bay, have been built according to specific regulations to encourage their individual characters. Residential neighborhoods first began to develop on the Peninsula, West Newport, Balboa Island, and Lido Isle. These early neighborhoods following a traditional subdivision pattern of homes on streets designed in a linear grid and are generally pedestrian- oriented and include alleyways. Some of these older residential areas are within close proximity of commercial and visitors serving uses and are impacted by limited parking, noise, and traffic generated by commercial and visitor activities. When development spread further inland and proceeded north and east, the residential pattern changed, becoming less traditional, and more suburban in character with curvilinear streets and ranch style homes on larger lots. Examples of this type of development are the Westcliff community and Cliff Haven. As residential expanded across Page 117 21 the bay and to the east, new styles such as attached town homes and gated communities were constructed. The Bluffs and Big Canyon communities illustrate this type of development. More recent residential development patterns have resulted in numerous distinct neighborhoods with a single builder constructing most or all of the homes. Many of the these communities were designed as master planned communities allowing for unique and specialized development standards, as opposed to the application of traditional, standardized zoning regulations. Examples include Bonita Canyon, Newport Ridge, and Newport Coast. There are approximately 4-2-5-150 homeowners associations in Newport Beach. These associations govern the maintenance of common areas and the administration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CCBRs). Many of these associations are active in the City's decision - making process and may have unique development standards that are not enforced by the City. As the community has approached build -out, little vacant land remains. New development has focused on nontraditional sites such as infill and mixed -use development on smaller vacant and underutilized sites in or near commercial areas. Other residential development issues in the community include the replacement of original single family homes, duplexes, and triplexes with larger homes. Many of these homes are built to the full limit of the City's development regulations in neighborhoods where many houses are much smaller in scale. The policy framework for neighborhoods is geared toward strengthening and expanding the framework of healthy, cohesive, and identifiable neighborhoods throughout the City. Goal LU 6.27_1 Residential neighborhoods that contain a diversity of housing types and supporting uses to meet the needs of Newport Beach's residents and are designed to sustain livability and a high quality of life. Policies LU G-2-4-7.1.1 Residential Supply Accommodate a diversity of residential units that meets the needs of Newport Beach's population and fair share of regional needs in accordance with the Land Use Plan's designations, applicable density standards, design and development policies, and the adopted Housing Element. (Imp 1.1, 2.1, 25.1) LU 6.2.27.1.2 Allowing Rebuilding Legal nonconforming residential structures shall be brought into conformity in an equitable, reasonable, and timely manner as rebuilding occurs. ,_ -, i'RF^'tsel •Renovations that improve the physical quality and character of the buildings but are limited in scope may be allowed. Rebuilding after catastrophic damage or destruction due to a natural event, an act of public enemy, or accident may be allowed in limited circumstances that do not conflict with the goals of the Land Use Element. (Imp 2.1, 7.1) LU 6.2.37.1.3 Residential Affordability Encourage the development of the types of residential units that are consistent with the Housing Elementafferdakte F... these a ..i, yed .. the rib,. (Imp 25.1) LU 6.2.47.1.4 Accessory Units Permit conditionally the construction of one granny unit (accessory age- restricted units for one or two adult persons who are sixffty five years of age or older) per single family residence within single - family districts, provided that such units meet set back, height, occupancy, and other applicable regulations set forth in the Municipal Code. (Imp 2.1) LU 6.2.67.1.5 Neighborhood Supporting Uses Allow for the integration of uses within residential neighborhoods that support and are complementary to their primary function as a living environment such as schools, parks, community meeting facilities, religious facilities, and Page 118 22 comparable uses. These uses shall be designed to ensure compatibility with adjoining residential addressing such issues as noise, lighting, and parking. (Imp 2.1) LU 6.2.67.1.6 Home Occupations Allow for small scale home occupations in Newport Beach's residential neighborhoods provided that they do not adversely impact traffic, parking, noise, lighting, and other neighborhood qualities. (Imp 2.1) LU 6.2.77.1.7 Care Facilities Regulate Day Care and Residential Care facilities to the maximum extent allowed by federal and state law to minimize impacts on residential neighborhoods, ^ ^a aGtively puFswe f ^a^•^' and state leg slatiOR that would ^^V^ Gities the ab lity to prohibit an nvPr-cnncPntrAtinn of recovery homes or sober living homes in residential areas. (Imp 2.1) LU 6,2.87.1.8 Manufactured Housing Permit by right manufactured housing on individual lots in residential zones as per state law. Ensure compatibility with surrounding conventional dwelling uses by adhering to development standards within the Municipal Code. seatiauiag (Imp 2.1) LU 6.2,97.1.9 Private Open Spaces and Recreational Facilities Require the open space and recreational facilities that are integrated into and owned by private residential development are permanently preserved as part of the development approval process and are prohibited from converting to residential or other types of land uses. (Imp 6.1, 13.1 29.3) LU 6 2.197.1.10 Gated Communities Discourage the creation of new private entry gates in existing residential neighborhoods that currently do not have a gate located at the entrance of the community. (Imp 9.1, 29.1) Districts Districts are uniquely identifiable by their common functional role, mix of uses, density /intensity, physical form and character, and /or environmental setting. Generally, they encompass large areas that often extend equally in length and breadth. They represent common gathering places for commerce, employment, entertainment, culture, and for living. While Newport Beach contains many districts, the General Plan policies in the following sections focus on those that are likely to change over the next 20 years as existing viable districts are enhanced, underperforming properties are revitalized, and opportunities are provided to accommodate the City's fair share of regional housing needs, as shown on Figure LU16. Policies are directed to the management of these changes to ensure that they complement the characteristics that are valued by Newport Beach's residents. Development in each district will adhere to policies for land use type and density /intensity (Policy LU 45_1, Table LU1) and community character (LU 5.0), except as amended in this section of the Plan. The goals and policies for each district are preceded by a description of its uses and characteristics in 2005 and public input from the General Plan Update Visioning Process and Public Workshops that was considered in their formulation. BANNING RANCH Located within the City's Sphere of Influence (SOI), the Banning Ranch area encompasses approximately 518 acres, of which 465 acres (includes 47 acres of water features) are under the jurisdiction of Orange County, and 53 acres within the jurisdiction of the City of Newport Beach. Banning Ranch is located in the westem -most portion of the Newport Beach Planning Area, north of Coast Highway and the Newport Shores residential community, immediately east of the Santa Ana River, and west and south of residential and industrial uses. The eastern portion of the site is higher in elevation and contains the western edge of Newport Mesa that slopes gently from east to west. Bluffs form the western edge of the mesa, and are located in the central portion of the Banning Ranch area. The western portion Page 119 23 of the site, which is lower in elevation, historically contained a tidal marsh associated with the Semeniuk Slough and Santa Ana River. Currently, the Banning Ranch area is primarily undeveloped with some historic oil extraction infrastructure located in the central and southern portions of the site that includes wells, pipelines, buildings, improved and unimproved roads, and open storage pipes and machinery. Oil extraction activities date back at least 75 years. Although the Banning Ranch site contains an assemblage of diverse habitats that have been historically disturbed, when this area is considered with the contiguous Semeniuk Slough and restored wetlands, it provides wildlife with a significantly large, diverse area for foraging, shelter, and movement. Biological studies performed for Banning Ranch indicate that, while disturbance associated with oil activities diminishes the quality of existing habitat to some extent, overall, the area should be regarded as relatively high - quality wildlife habitat due to its size, habitat diversity, and continuity with the adjacent Semeniuk Slough and federally- restored wetlands. A preliminary field evaluation of Banning Ranch was conducted by a consultant as a general indicator of the presence of habitat and species that may be subject to regulatory review. Based on this analysis, the property is estimated to contain approximately 69 acres with a habitat value rank of "1," which are primarily concentrated in the northwestern portion of the site. These areas are considered to have a high biological resource value, and are likely to require a resource permit from federal and /or state agencies prior to development. Other areas scattered throughout the site may also be of biological value but to a lesser extent. Areas with a rank of "2" (approximately 96 acres) may need a resource permit for development, where additional studies would be required to make this determination. More than likely, areas with a rank of "3" (approximately 118 acres) contain habitat and species that are not likely to require resource permitting for development. Resource permitting would likely result in the need for mitigation measures associated with development such as payment of mitigation fees, habitat restoration, or off -site habitat replacement. The actual acreage subject to environmental permitting will be determined in subsequent studies to be conducted in accordance with state and federal regulations. Additionally, Banning Ranch exhibits distinctive topography that is a physical and visual resource for the community. The property is divided into lowland and highland mesa areas. Bluff faces traverse the property generally in a north - south direction, separating these and forming an important visual backdrop from West Coast Highway. Drainage from upland areas in and adjoining the City of Costa Mesa formed a number of arroyos with riparian habitats. The bluff face geology is highly erodible and has experienced sliding over the years. Figure LU17 illustrates these constraints. During the visioning process, residents were divided in opinion regarding the future of Banning Ranch. Many residents preferred preserving Banning Ranch as open space at the beginning of the public process. However, many participants in the process later indicated their willingness to support some development of the property if it would generate revenue to help fund preservation of the majority of the property as open space. Policy Overview The General Plan prioritizes the acquisition of Banning Ranch as an open space amenity for the community and region. Oil operations would be consolidated, wetlands restored, nature education and interpretative facilities provided, and an active park developed containing playfields and other facilities to serve residents of adjoining neighborhoods. Should the property not be fully acquired as open space, the Plan provides for the development of a concentrated mixed -use residential village that retains the majority of the property as open space. This would contain a mix of housing types clustered around a "village center" of'^^°!,000l se . vingresident- serving commercial uses, small boutique hotel, active park, and possibly a school. Buildings would be located and designed and an interconnected street system provided to enhance pedestrian activity and reduce vehicular trips. Development would be concentrated to preserve the majority of the property as open space, while oil operations would be clustered and wetlands restored. An internal trail system would be developed to link uses within its neighborhoods and districts and provide access to adjoining neighborhoods. While the Plan indicates the maximum intensity of development that would be allowed on the property, this will ultimately by determined through permitting processes that are required to satisfy state and federal environmental regulatory requirements. Page 120 24 Goal LU 6.37.2 Preferably a protected open space amenity, with restored wetlands and habitat areas, as well as active community parklands to serve adjoining neighborhoods. Policies LAND USES (designated as "OS(RV] ") LU 6.3.17.2.1 Primary Use Open space, including significant active community parklands that serve adjoining residential neighborhoods if the site is acquired through public funding. (Imp 2.1, 23.1, 23.5, 30.2) STRATEGY LU 6.3.27.2.2 Acquisition for Open Space Support active pursuit of the acquisition of Banning Ranch as permanent open space, which may be accomplished through the issuance of state bonds, environmental mitigation fees, private fundraising, developer dedication, and similar techniques. (Imp 9.1, 14.7, 14.11, 30.2) Goal LU 6.47.3 If acquisition for open space is not successful, a high - quality residential community with supporting uses that provides revenue to restore and protect wetlands and important habitats. Policies LAND USES LU 6 4.47.3.1 Alternative Use If not acquired for open space within a time period and pursuant to terms agreed to by the City and property owner, the site may be developed as a residential village containing a mix of housing types, limited supporting retail, visitor accommodations, school, and active community parklands, with a majority of the property preserved as open space. The property owner may pursue entitlement and permits for a residential village during the time allowed for acquisition as open space. (Imp 2.1) DEVELOPMENT DENSITY /INTENSITY AND CAPACITY Note: These represent general development capacity estimates, with the property's ultimate development footprint and capacity determined through required federal and state regulatory environmental permitting processes and a planned community development plan approved by the City of Newport Beach. LU 6.4.2- 7.3.2Residential Accommodate a maximum of 1,375 residential units, which shall consist of a mix of single - family detached, attached, and multi - family units to provide a range of choices and prices for residents. (Imp 2.1) LU 6.4.37.3.3 Retail Commercial Accommodate a maximum of 75,000 square feet of retail commercial uses that shall be oriented to serve the needs of local and nearby residents. (Imp 2.1) LU 6.4.47.3.4 Overnight Accommodations Accommodate a maximum of 75 rooms in a small boutique hotel, "bed and breakfast," or other overnight accommodations. (Imp 2.1) Page 121 25 DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT LU 6447.3.5 Planned Residential Village Require that Banning Ranch, if not retained as open space, be developed as a cohesive urban form that provides the sense of a complete and identifiable neighborhood. Establish a development pattern that ties together individual uses into a cohesive neighborhood addressing the location and massing of buildings, architecture, landscape, connective street grid and pedestrian walkways and trails, use of key landforms, and similar elements. (Imp 3.1, 4.1) LU 6.4.67.3.6 Approaches for a Livable Neighborhood Site and design development to enhance neighborhood quality of life by: Establishing a pattern of blocks that promotes access and neighborhood identity • Designing streets to slow traffic, while maintaining acceptable fire protection and traffic flows • Integrating a diversity of residential types within a neighborhood, while ensuring compatibility among different residential types • Orienting and designing the residential units to relate to the street frontage Locating and designing garages to minimize their visual dominance from the street • Incorporating sidewalks and parkways to foster pedestrian activity • Promoting architectural diversity (Imp 3.1, 4.1) LU 6.4.77.3.7 Neighborhood Structure and Form Establish a "village center" containing local serving commercial, community parks, community meeting facilities, hotel, and /or other amenities as the focal point. Buildings in the village center shall be designed to enhance pedestrian activity (e.g., visual transparency and fagade modulation and articulation), integrating plazas and open spaces for public events. (Imp 3.1, 4.1 21.3) LU 6.4.87.3.8 Open Space Network and Parklands Establish a framework of trails, community parklands, and natural habitats that provide the framework around which the residential village's uses are developed and interconnect residential districts, the village center, other uses, and open spaces. (Imp 3.1, 4.1) LU 6.4,87.3.9 Circulation Facilitate development of an arterial highway linking Coast Highway with Newport Boulevard to relieve congestion at Superior Avenue, if the property is developed. (Imp 3.1, 4.1, 16.1) LU 6.4.197.3.10 Sustainable Development Practices Require that any development of Banning Ranch achieve high levels of environmental sustainability that reduce pollution and consumption of energy, water, and natural resources to be accomplished through land use patterns and densities, site planning, building location and design, transportation and utility infrastructure design, and other techniques. Among the strategies that should be considered are the concentration of development, reduction of vehicle trips, use of alternative transportation modes, maximized walkability, use of recycled materials, capture and re -use of storm water on -site, water conserving fixtures and landscapes, architectural elements that reduce heat gain and loss, and preservation of wetlands and other habitats. (Imp 3.1, 4.1, 7.1, 16.8, 17.1, 19.1) LIr: -1114HA LU 6.4.147.3.11 Comprehensive Site Planning and Design Require the preparation of a master development or specific plan for any development on the Banning Ranch specifying lands to be developed, preserved, and restored, land uses to be permitted, parcelization, roadway and infrastructure improvements, landscape and streetscape improvements, development regulations, architectural design and landscape guidelines, exterior lighting guidelines, processes for oil operations consolidation, habitat preservation and restoration plan, sustainability practices plan, financial implementation, and other appropriate elements. (Imp 3.1, 4.1) Page 122 20 Policies Pertaining to Both Land Use Options (Goals 6_37.2 and 6-47.3) PERMITTED USES LU 6.5.1 7.4.10il Operations Relocate and cluster oil operations. (Imp 3.1, 4.1) LU 6.5.2- 7.4.2Active Community Park Accommodate a community park of 20 to 30 acres that contains active playfields that may be lighted and is of sufficient acreage to serve adjoining neighborhoods and residents of Banning Ranch, if developed. (Imp 3.1, 4.1) LU 6,5.37.4.3 Habitat and Wetlands Restore and enhance wetlands and wildlife habitats, in accordance with the requirements of state and federal agencies. (Imp 3.1, 4.1, 14.7, 14.11) DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT LU 6.5,47.4.4 Relationship of Development to Environmental Resources Development should be located and designed to preserve and /or mitigate for the loss of wetlands and drainage course habitat. It shall be located to be contiguous and compatible with existing and planned development along its eastern property line, preserving the connectivity of wildlife corridors, and set back from the bluff faces, along which shall be located a linear park to provide public views of the ocean, wetlands, and surrounding open spaces. Exterior lighting shall be located and designed to minimize light trespass from developed areas onto the bluffs, riparian habitat, arroyos, and lowland habitat areas. (Imp 3.1, 4.1) LU 6,5,57.4.5 Public Views of the Property Development shall be located and designed to prevent residences on the property from dominating public views of the bluff faces from Coast Highway, the ocean, wetlands, and surrounding open spaces. Landscape shall be incorporated to soften views of the site visible from publicly owned areas and public view points. (Imp 3.1, 4.1) STRATEGY LU 6.5.67.4.6 Coordination with State and Federal Agencies Work with appropriate state and federal agencies to identify wetlands and habitats to be preserved and /or restored and those on which development will be permitted. (Imp 14.7, 14.11) WEST NEWPORT MESA The West Newport Mesa area contains a mix of residential, office, retail, industrial, and public uses. It is immediately abutted by Hoag Hospital, the City of Costa Mesa to the north, and Banning Ranch to the west. Development in the area dates back to the mid - twentieth century. Hoag Hospital is a major activity center that continues to affect development in the area. It generates a strong market for the development of uses that support the hospital's medical activities such as doctors' offices, convalescent and care facilities, medical supply, pharmacy, and similar uses. Retail commercial uses serve medical purposes, as well as nearby residents. Northern portions of the area are largely developed with light manufacturing, research and development, and business park uses. In many respects, these transition with comparable patterns of development in the Westside Costa Mesa area to the north. A number of Newport Beach's marine related businesses have relocated to the area over recent decades as coastal land values have escalated. Most of the properties are developed for single business tenants and have little landscape or architectural treatment, typical of older industrial districts of Southern California. The majority of properties between the industrial uses and medical center are developed with multifamily uses, including a few mobile home parks. The latter represent ^ resource of affordable "^ ^ in�• These are interspersed with a school and other civic uses. Page 123 27 The area's considerable mix of uses is not always complementary, nor at its edges where it abuts residential neighborhoods and other uses. The 2006 General Plan Vv_isioning process participants indicated that the West Newport Mesa area would benefit from revitalization. The development of additional medical offices and other facilities supporting Hoag Hospital and additional residential units were widely endorsed. Participants were divided in their support for the retention of industrial uses. Policy Overview The General Plan provides for a mix of land uses for West Newport Mesa that include office, research, convalescent care, and retail facilities supporting Hoag Hospital, a consolidated light industrial district where non - water - dependent marine - related businesses would be encouraged to locate, enhanced housing opportunities, and supporting retail commercial services. While distinct sub - districts are defined by the Land Use Plan, the assembly and planning of multiple parcels across these districts to create a unified center that is linked by pedestrian walkways, parklands, and other amenities is encouraged. Goal LU 6.67_5 A medical district with peripheral medical services and research facilities that support the Hoag Hospital campus within a well - planned residential neighborhood, enabling residents to live close to their jobs and reducing commutes to outlying areas. Policies LAND USES (refer to Figure LU18) LU 6X6-1 -7.5.1 Hospital Supporting Uses Integrated with Residential Neighborhoods Prioritize the accommodation of medical - related and supporting facilities on properties abutting the Hoag Hospital complex [areas designated as "CO -M (0.5)" (Figure LU18, Sub -Area A)] with opportunities for new residential units [areas designated as " RM(18 /ac)'] and supporting general and neighborhood- serving retail services [ "CG(0.75)" and "CN(0.3) "] respectively. (Imp 2.1) LU 64.27.5.2 Residential Types Promote the development of a mix of residential types and building scales within the densities permitted by the "RM" (Figure LU18, Sub -Area C) designation, which may include single - family attached, townhomes, apartments, flats, and comparable units. Residential densities may be increased on a property as a means of promoting a variety of housing types within West Newport Mesa, provided that the overall average density of 18 units per acre is not exceeded. (Imp 2.1) STRATEGY LU 6.6,37.5.3 Cohesive and Integrated Medical Campus Development We* w th ^•^^^t• ^°•^^F^ And ^Encourage the development of a master plan for streetscape, pedestrian, signage, and other improvements that contribute to a definable district. Land use boundaries delineated on the Land Use Diagram may be modified by a specific plan to achieve cohesive districts that integrate a variety of land uses. (Imp 3.1, 4.1) LU 6.6.47.5.4Livable Residential Neighborhood ` OFk W th PF8PeFtyGWReFs and ^Encourage the preparation of a master plan for the residential neighborhood defining park and streetscape improvements that provide amenity amenities for local residents and enhance the area's identity. (Imp 3.1, 4.1) Page 124 22 Goal LU 6.77.6 A general industrial district that transitions between the Hoag Hospital medical and residential community and industrial uses in the City of Costa Mesa, providing opportunities for needed uses that cannot be accommodated elsewhere in Newport Beach. Policies LAND USES [designated as "IG(0.75), "refer to Figure LU18, Sub -Area B] LU 6.7.1 7.6.1Primary Uses Encourage the development of small -scale incubator industries. (Imp 2.1, 24.1) LU 6.7.27.6.2 Marine Based Businesses Encourage and provide incentives for the relocation of marine -based Newport Beach businesses, including boat storage and recreational vehicles, to properties retained for industrial purposes. (Imp 2.1, 24.1) BALBOA PENINSULA The Balboa Peninsula comprises a series of districts linked by the Newport Boulevard /Balboa Boulevard commercial and residential corridor. These include Lido Village, Cannery Village, McFadden Square, Balboa Village, and surrounding residential neighborhoods. Lido Village Lido Village is primarily developed with commercial uses including grocery stores, restaurants, salons, home furnishings, apparel, and other specialty shops. It also includes Lido Marina Village, a pedestrian oriented waterfront development that includes visitor - serving commercial uses, specialty stores, and marine uses. Lido Village's southern edge contains specialty retail and restaurants, the Sims Ceate4ormer City Hall complex planned for redevelopment as fief a boutique hotel, and churches. Lido Marina Village has experienced a high number of building vacancies and many retail stores are underperforming. Parking is limited. Multiple property ownerships have traditionally inhibited cohesive and integrated development. Lido Village has a unique location at the turning basin in Newport Harbor. The channel is wider than in other locations, providing an opportunity for waterfront commercial uses that will not negatively impact residential uses across the channel. In 2011, the City Council appointed a Citizen Advisory Panel (CAP) to prepare architectural and landscape design guidelines for the Lido Village. After several CAP meetings, a public open house, and review by the Neighborhood Revitalization Committee, the Lido Village Design Guidelines were approved by the City Council in December 2011. The Design Guidelines establish the vision for the rebirth of Lido Village as the gateway to the Balboa Peninsula. Cannery Village Cannery Village is the historic center of the City's commercial fishing and boating industry and contains a mix of small shops, art galleries, professional offices, and service establishments. Marine - related commercial (boat sales) and marine - related industrial uses (boat repair) are also found in the area. Redevelopment of properties for residential, loft, and mixed residential and commercial uses, including live /work facilities, appears to be an emerging trend. Older developments include some single - family residential units combined with commercial uses on single lots. Although the residential component of mixed -use projects has performed well, there has been less success in attracting the commercial uses envisioned for the area particularly on the waterfront. o Specific Plan has been developed but multiple property ownersh ps have h Rdered (30herivs and integrated davelappnept. Page 125 �9 McFadden Square McFadden Square surrounds the Newport Pier and extends between the ocean front and harbor. It was the center of the City's early shipping industry. Located adjacent to Newport Pier is the Dory Fishing Fleet. The fleet and open -air fish market have operated at this location since the fleet's founding in 1891 by Portuguese fishermen. The last remaining fleet of its type, it is a designated historical landmark. Commercial land uses are largely concentrated in the strips along Balboa and Newport Boulevards, with residential along the ocean front and marine - related uses fronting the harbor. Numerous visitor - serving uses include restaurants, beach hotels, tourist - oriented shops (t -shirt shops, bike rentals, and surf shops), as well as service operations and facilities that serve the Peninsula. There are several bars in the area with some featuring live music, especially along the ocean and Bay front. Historically, the area has been known for its marine - related industries such as shipbuilding and repair facilities and boat storage on the harbor, some of which have been in continuous operation for over fifty years. Public parking is available in three lots, which primarily serve the beach users, tourists, and the restaurant patrons. Much of the McFadden Square area is pedestrian- oriented, with storefronts facing the street, the presence of signage at a pedestrian scale, and outdoor furniture, providing a pleasant environment for visitors. However, certain areas present difficulty for pedestrian street crossing. Specifically the intersection of Newport and Balboa Boulevards, known as the "Mixmaster," is one such crossing, as the roadway configuration at this location allows traffic flow from different directions and the street is wide. Balboa Village Balboa Village is the historic center for recreational and social activities on the Peninsula. It has had a strong marine heritage, and has attracted fishermen, recreational boaters, summer residents, and beachgoers. Many of the retail uses are visitor - oriented and seasonal in nature, including a `fun zone" along Edgewater Place that contains entertainment uses. Marine - related commercial uses, including ferries to Balboa and Catalina Islands and harbor tours, are present in the area. In general, Balboa Village is pedestrian- oriented with articulated building fagades and signage that is pedestrian scale. The Balboa Village core is surrounded by residences, with isolated pockets of commercial uses scattered along Balboa Boulevard. Peninsula Park also serves the area. Balboa Village and the greater Peninsula have experienced a transition to year -round residential occupancy while the visitor uses have continued. Cumulatively, there is more commercial space than can be supported by local residents, and marginal commercial space is used by businesses that are seasonal and do not thrive throughout the year. A spec fic plan has guided development in Balboa Village ("Central Balboa") a nce 1997. The P'An'q vision nnnqqtpd maintenance standards, park ng district mplementat on, and Girculat on rnprovements. Addit onally, it sought to tenants. The City has mplemented some of this v q on Ao th a numher of pub! G mprovernents w th n the last few Participants in the 2006 General Plan Vv_isioning process indicated that Lido Village, Cannery Village, McFadden Square, and Balboa Village need continuing revitalization, and the City could be proactive in creating a vision for reinforcement of Lido Village and McFadden Square as primary activity nodes, with the interior of Cannery Village allocated for residential or mixed -use development. The integration of uses in these areas and the harbor and bay was emphasized. While overnight lodging was not supported in the Visioning process survey and public meetings, in the opinion of the General Plan Advisory Committee smaller bed and breakfast and boutique hotels could be designed and scaled to complement the pedestrian- oriented village character of Lido Village, McFadden Square, and Balboa Village, as well as help the City's fiscal balance through the revenue that would be contributed. In 2006 tThe public also supported the concentration of commercial uses in the core of Balboa Village, with the re- use of outlying commercial properties for housing and priority for water - oriented and visitor - serving commercial uses. Additionally, Balboa Village was identified as a suitable location for mixed -use development. The City Council appointed a five- member Citizen Advisory Panel (CAP) in June 2011 to set a new vision and implementation strategy for the revitalization of Balboa Village. Following a several month process which included Page 126 30 input from the community, the CAP developed the Balboa Village Master Plan that includes strategies addressing oarkino, zonina, appearance and new commercial investment in Balboa Village. In Seotember 2012. the City Council approved the Balboa Village Master Plan, followed by the formation in September 2012 of the Balboa Village Advisory Committee to oversee implementation of the Master Plan. Policy Overview The General Plan provides for the enhancement of Lido Village, Cannery Village, McFadden Square, and Balboa Village as distinct pedestrian- oriented centers of Balboa Peninsula that would be interconnected through improved streetscapes along Newport/Balboa Boulevard, a waterfront promenade on Newport Harbor, and cross - access between the Harbor and beachfront. Lido Village, McFadden Square, and Balboa Village would contain a mix of visitor - serving, retail, small overnight accommodation facilities, and housing. In Cannery Village, commercial or mixed -use buildings would be developed at street intersections with intervening parcels developed for mixed -use or freestanding housing. Throughout the Peninsula, ppiaFty s established f^• the • ^t^ ^"^^ ^f m^•'^^ r^' ^ted ^.land use designations are arranged to provide for a mix of commercial, retail, service, marine - related and residential uses that are complimentary and compatible with one another and promote economic vitality, environmental integrity and aesthetic quality. Late night service uses should be regulated to minimize effects on neighboring residential districts and uses. Balboa Peninsula Areawide Goal LU 6.67.7 A series of commercial, retail, restaurant, recreation and „ ��'e°�h marine- related uses, civic- and residential neighborhoods that are vibrant throughout the year, differentiated by their historic and functional characteristics and architectural style, yet integrated by streetscape amenities. Policies LU 6.6.47.7.1 Urban Form Establish development patterns that promote the reinforcement of Balboa Peninsula's pedestrian scale and urban form as a series of distinct centers/ nodes and connecting corridors surrounded by and linked to residential neighborhoods whose scale and character are maintained. (Imp 1.1) LU 641.27.7.2 Component Districts Lido Villages Cannery Village, and McFadden Square should be emphasized as the primary activity centers of the northern portion of the Peninsula, linked by corridors of retail resident and visitor - serving uses along Newport Boulevard and a mix of marine - related and residential uses on the Bay frontage. These surround a residential core in the inland section of Cannery Village. Balboa Village will continue to serve as the primary center of the lower Peninsula, surrounded by residential neighborhoods along and flanking Balboa Boulevard. (Imp 1.1) LU 6.6,37.7.3 Marine - Related Businesses Protect and encourage marine - related businesses to locate and expand on the Peninsula unless present and foreseeable future demand for such facilities is already adequately provided for in the area. (Imp 2.1, 24.1) LU 6.6.47.7.4 Spared - Parking Facilities Encourage the development of shared parking facilities and management programs among private property owners that provides for adequate parking for residents, guests, and business patrons. (Imp 16.10) LU 7.7.5 Access to Parking Facilities Prohibit the use of code - required parking spaces for other purposes, except as permitted on a case -by -case basis to accommodate temporary events or emergency operations provided that adequate parking can be assured to support the crimary use. (Imo 16.10) LU 64.57.7.6 Quality of Place /Streetscapes Page 127 31 Develop a plan and work with property owAers and b, - to fund and implement streetscape improvements that improve Balboa Peninsula's visual quality, image, and pedestrian character. This should include well- defined linkages among individual districts, between the ocean and Bay, and along the Bay frontage, as well as streetscape and entry improvements that differentiate the character of individual districts. (Imp 20.1) LU 6.8.67.7.7 Historic Character Preserve the historic character of Balboa Peninsula's districts by offering incentives for the preservation of historic buildings and requiring new development to be compatible with the scale, mass, and materials of existing historic structures, while allowing opportunities for architectural diversity. (Imp 2.1) LU 64.77.7.8 Property Improvement Provide incentives for and work with property owners to improve their properties and achieve the community's vision for the Balboa Peninsula. (Imp 24.1, 29.1) Lido Village (designated as "MU -W2," "CM(0.3)," "RM(20 1ac), "and "PI(0.75)3, "refer to Figure LU19] Goal LU 6.97.8 A vibrant pedestrian- oriented village environment that reflects its waterfront location at the gateway to Newport Beach's historic Balboa Peninsula that ffrevidiagprovides a mix of uses tkat- sewes-serying visitors andaesal residents. Policies LAND USES LU 6.8.37.8.1 Priority Uses Encourage uses that take advantage of Lido Village's location at the Harbor's turning basin and its vitality and pedestrian character, including visitor- serving and retail commercial, small lodging facilities (bed and breakfasts, inasboutioue hotels), and mixed -use buildings that integrate residential with retail uses [areas designated as "MU- W2", Subarea "A"]. A portion of the Harbor frontage and interior parcels (Subarea "B ") may also contain multi - family residential [designated as "RM(20 /ac) "], and the parcel adjoining the Lido Isle Bridge, a recreational and marine commercial use [designated as "CM(0.3) "]. (Imp 2.1, 24.1) LU 6.9,27.8.2 Discouraged Uses Discourage the development of new office uses on the ground floor of buildings that do not attract customer activity to improve the area's pedestrian character. (Imp 2.1) LU 7.8.3 Vested Uses Allow existing commercial buildings that exceed the maximum floor area and /or that do not provide the minimum number of parking spaces to be re- constructed to their pre - existing floor area provided that no less than the pre- existing number of parking spaces is provided. (Imp 2.1. 5.1, 16.10) DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT LU 7.8.4 Lido Village Design Guidelines Achieve a distinctive identity and quality for Lido Village through implementing guidelines for design and landscape specified by the Lido Village Design Guidelines. (Imp 2.1) LU 7.8.5 Multi -Modal Village Enhance Lido Village's accessibility forty residents and visitors by providing all common modes of transportation for residents and visitors including walking, bicycling, watercraft, and vehicles. (Imp 16.11. 16.12) 3 NOTE: Former City Hall site to re- designated to accommodate proposed hotel. Page 128 S2 LU 7.8.6 Gateway Create a vibrant gateway village in the heart of Newport Beach's historic Balboa Peninsula, with landscaping and streetscape. (Imp 20.1) LU 7.8.7 Character and Design Maintain a high quality of development design in Lido Village in consideration of the following design objectives, as reflected in the Lido Villaae Desian Guidelines: Unification: Creating a sense of place through a unifying theme for Lido Village with defined gathering spaces, increased connectivity, and improved wayfinding: Visual Appeal: Creating a distinct identity for Lido Village by encouraging Coastal and Mediterranean architecture, creating an attractive gateway, maximizing view corridors and scenic opportunities, and incorporating art and landscaping: and Sustainability: Promoting economic and environmental sustainability by encouraoinq energy and water efficient practices in consideration of economic realities and viability, and celebrating California - friendly landscapes. (Imp 2.1. 7.1. 20.1, 20.3) Cannery Village Interior Parcels (designated as "MU-H4," Figure LU19, Sub -Area C] Goal LU 6_187.9 A pedestrian- oriented residential neighborhood that provides opportunities for live /work facilities and supporting retail uses. Policies LAND USES LU 6.10,17.9.1 Priority Uses Allow multi - family residential and mixed -use buildings that integrate residential above retail or live -work units throughout Cannery Village. Require mixed -use, live -work, or commercial buildings to be developed on corner parcels, except adjacent to Villa Way where these uses are encouraged. (Imp 2.1) DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT LU 6_18.27.9.2 Residential Character and Architecture Require that residential buildings be designed to contribute to an overall neighborhood character, locating buildings along the street frontage to form a continuous or semi - continuous building wall. (Imp 2.1) LU 6.10.3 Specific Plan Guidelines Spec; fc Plan. (Imp 1 1) Bayfront Parcels [designated as "MU-W2," Figure LU19, Sub -Area E] Goal LUG 1117.10 A water- oriented district that contains uses that support and benefit from its location fronting onto the bay, as well as provides new opportunities for residential. Page 129 33 Policies LAND USES LU 6,1 -1- .17.10.1 Priority Uses Accommodate water- oriented commercial uses that support harbor recreation and fishing activities, and mixed -use structures with residential above ground level water - oriented uses. (Imp 2.1, 8.1, 21.2) McFadden Square, West and East of Newport Boulevard (designated as "MU-W2, " Figure LU19, Sub -Area E] Goal LU G.1 -27.11 A pedestrian- oriented village that reflects its location on the ocean, pier, and bay front, serving visitors and local residents. Policies LAND USES LU 6.1- 2.17.11.1 Priority Uses Accommodate visitor- and legal resident- serving uses that take advantage of McFadden Square's waterfront setting including specialty retail, restaurants, and small scale evewkjht -hotel accommodations, as well as mixed -use buildings that integrate residential with ground level retail. (Imp 2.1) LU G A9 7 Cperific Plan Guidelines Balboa Village Goal LU 6.137.12 An economically viable pedestrian- oriented village that serves local residents and visitors and provides residential in proximity to retail uses, entertainment, and recreation. Policies PRIORITY USES (refer to Figure LU20) LU 7.12.1 Balance and Mix of Uses - Areawide Accommodate a mix of land uses including residential, restaurants, retail shops and services that cater to both residents and visitors. (Imp 2.1. 5.1) LU 6.13.17.12.1 Village Core [designated as 11MU -V11 Sub -Area 111311] Encourage local- and visitor- serving retail commercial and mixed -use buildings that integrate residential with ground- level retail or office uses on properties, especially adjacent to Balboa Boulevard, Main Street, and Palm Street. (Imp 2.1) LU 613.27.12.2 Bay FrontagelBayfront Promenade [designated as "CV(0.75)" Sub -Area A] Promote access to the bay and beach and R4G4.ize prioritize water- dependent, marine - related retail and services and visitor - serving retail such as sport fishing, boat rentals, tour boats, and excursion boats. (Imp 2.1, 24.1) Page 130 3T LU 6.13.37.12.3 Commercial Properties out of Village Core [designated as "RT" Sub - Area C] Promote re -use of isolated commercial properties on Balboa Boulevard for residential units. (Imp 2.1) LU 7.12.4 Balboa Village Fun Zone Accommodate a mix of land uses capitalizing on the area's historic identity and character and bayfront setting including restaurants, retail shops and services catering to both residents and visitors. (Imp 2.1. 5.1. 21.3. 29.2) DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT LU 6.13.47.12.5 Streetscapes and Visual Quality PFGFHGte the GGrnpl^"^^ of enhaRGe ents taEnhance the visual quality of Balboa Village's streetscapes tp.e -n^ by promoting a pedestrian- oriented environment and offering incentives for owners to improve their properties. (Imp 20.1) LU 7.12.6 Balboa Village Design Guidelines. Reauire that development exhibits a hiah auality of site and building design in conformance with the Balboa Village Design Guidelines. (Imp 2.1. 5.1) STRATEGY LU 5. 13.5 7.12.7 Rebuilding of Nonconforming Structures Permit existing commercial buildings that exceed the permitted development intensities to be renovated, upgraded, or reconstructed to their pre- existing intensity and, at a minimum, pre- existing number of parking spaces. (Imp 2.1) LU 6.13.67.12.8 Enhancing Balboa Village's Viability and Character Provide incentives for owners to improve their properties, to develop retail uses that serve adjoining residential neighborhoods, and retain and develop marine - related uses along the harbor frontage. (Imp 24.1) 1��1� �% 1�] a�d� ►�i1�:7 /y�F9:1(�7dIL�9��1►�I�] Newport Center /Fashion Island is a regional center of business and commerce that includes major retail, professional office, entertainment, recreation, and residential in a master planned mixed -use development. Fashion Island, a regional shopping center, forms the nucleus of Newport Center, and is framed by this mixture of office, entertainment, and residential. Newport Center Drive, a ring road that surrounds Fashion Island, connects to a number of interior roadways that provide access to the various sites within the Center and to the four major arterials that service this development. High -rise office and hotel buildings to the north of the Center form a visual background for lower rise buildings and uses to the south and west. Interspersed in the Newport Center area are two hotels, public and semi - public uses including the Newport Beach Police and Fire Departments and Orange County Museum of Art, and entertainment uses (along the perimeter of Newport Center Drive). It is also the location of a transportation center, located at San Joaquin Hills Road and MacArthur Boulevard. Multi- family residential is located east of the Police Department. Lands adjacent to Coast Highway and Jamboree Road are developed for the Newport Beach Country Club and galbea-Bay -The Tennis Club, with adjoining single - family attached residential uses. The Newport Beach Civic Center and Library expansion were completed in 2013, creating a me or civic presence in Newport Center along MacArthur Boulevard. In addition, a new public park and dog park were added, which bring additional pedestrian- oriented opportunities to this area. While master planned, the principal districts of Newport Center /Fashion Island are separated from one another by the primary arterial corridors. Fashion Island is developed around an internal pedestrian network and surrounded by parking lots, providing little or no connectivity to adjoining office, entertainment, or residential areas. The later also GQAt2iA iAt@rAal 138GIORtF aA GiFG-lation nobverks surrounded by park nq and are disGerm@Gtad from adj9 Piing distric�. Since the 2006 General Plan visioning process, the changing economy, legislative mandates to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and initiatives to promote a healthier population support the creation of more compact, denser, and mixed -use development which enable residents to walk and bicycle to local shopping and mobs. As the most intense center of economic activity in Newport Beach, Newport Center /Fashion Island offers opportunities to enhance its mix Page 131 2�5 of uses with infill housing, offices, and retail uses meeting these objectives. Ongoing private investment in the area runs parallel to the civic development and infrastructure improvement being led by the City of Newport Beach, including the building of a new City Hall and Civic Center, parkland expansion, Central Library renovation and roadway circulation improvements. GenteF, e)(Gept faF new hotels. HeweyeF, same supperted gFewth fep ex sting sampan as, expans an af ex sting stares, development of another retail .Anchor R;HAP the ViAiAninry AR99AM the nhnn^:nry PAMRAFAY, Inrv:nln"6.n m Rd AtPn fn red. -Ann F;I n..nn ry nithlnr n . lAti nn r nrt n aPt dnnnnr end m .,Ad URA dAVnlnnp,nnt n AW RO FAR dente n I vp nlnnn .AIL nd higynln fn Innnl nhnnn:nn And inhn An the n4agt ptemp nnnfnr Af nnnnAmin Ant y W in Nn..mn nh Aln..,nnd CARIon'FanhiAR Inland nffws n nr6 Palen to nnhnnnn Ys FA X of ARAR .bth i4ll hniisi nn nfflnnn rate 'I meet no these oh'ect\. Policy Overview The General Plan provides for additional retail and office opportunities at Fashion Island and hotel rooms and housing units in Newport Center. ^ffiAe develepment ,.,n.,Id hn °^^' "ed "n then PansiaA of existing rather than Aew buildings— Emphasis is placed on the improvement of the area's pedestrian character, by improving connectivity among the "superblocks," installing streetscape amenities, and concentrating buildings along Newport Center Drive and pedestrian walkways and public spaces. Goal LU 5347.13 A successful mixed -use district that integrates economic and commercial centers serving the needs of Newport Beach residents and the sub - region, with expanded opportunities for residents to live close to jobs, commerce, entertainment, and recreation, and is supported by a pedestrian - friendly environment. Policies LAND USES [refer to Figure LU21] LU 6r44r47.13.1 Fashion Island ["CR" designation] Provide the opportunity for an- additional anchor tenant, other ^th ^r retail; and/or entertainment and /or supporting uses that complement, are integrated with, and enhance the economic vitality of existing development. A f "_' square feet of retail development GapaG ty specified by Table LU2 (Anomaly Locations) may be reallocated for other trnnnfnr AF Annunrnlon of the retail de.,elepmeAt AapaGity with appre „al by the Gity raunAll (Imp 2.1) LU a.14.27.13.2 Newport Center [ "MU -H3," "CO -R,” "CO -M," and "RM" designations] Provide the opportunity for limited retail residential, hotel, and office development in accordance with the limits specified by Tables LU1 and LU2. (Imp 2.1) DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT LU 6.14.37.13.3 Transfers of Development RijhtsAllocations Development 4ghts-allocations may be transferred within Newport Center /Fashion Island, subject to the approval of the City with the finding that the transfer is consistent with the intent of the General Plan and that the transfer will not result in any adverse traffic impacts. (Imp 2.1) Page 132 so LU 6.0.4.47.13.4 Development Scale Reinforce the original design concept for Newport Center by concentrating the greatest building mass and height in the ^o .,^...,eaa a ^ " ^•y -northern section of Newport Center, where the natural topography is highest and progressively scaling down building mass and height to follow the lower elevations toward the southwesterly edge along East Coast Highway. Enable distinguished and quality architectural and site design to allow for increased height for the development of a hotel on the eastern portion of the 100 block. (Imp 2.1, 3.1, 4.1) LU 6.14.57.13.5 Urban Form Encourage that some new development be located and designed to orient to the inner side of Newport Center Drive, establishing physical and visual continuity that diminishes the dominance of surface parking lots and encourages pedestrian activity. (Imp 2.1, 3.1, 4.1) LU 6.14.67.13.6 Pedestrian Connectivity and Amenity Require, where feasible. €asegrage-that pedestrian access and connections among uses within the district be improved with additional walkways and streetscape amenities concurrent with the development of expanded and new uses. (Imp 3.1, 4.1) LU 6 44x77.13.7 Fashion Island Architecture and Streetscapes Encourage that new development in Fashion Island complement and be of equivalent or higher design quality than existing buildings. Reinforce the existing promenades by encouraging retail expansion that enhances the storefront visibility to the promenades and provides an enjoyable retail and pedestrian experience. Additionally, new buildings shall be located on axes connecting Newport Center Drive with existing buildings to provide visual and physical connectivity with adjoining uses, where practical. (Imp 3.1, 4.1) STRATEGY LU 6.44.87.13.8 Development Agreements Require the execution of Development Agreements for residential and mixed -use development projects that use the residential 450 units identified in Table LU2 (Anomaly Locations). Development Agreements shall define the improvements and benefits to be contributed by the developer in exchange for the City's commitment for the number, density, and location of the housing units. (Imp 13.1) LU 7.13.X Development Agreements Require the execution of Development Agreements for residential and mixed -use development projects that use the 500.000 SF or retail. 50.000 SF or office and 500 unities identified in Table LU2 (Anomaly Locations). Development Agreements shall define the improvements and benefits to be contributed by the developer in exchange for the City's commitment for the number, density, and location of the housing units.. (Imp 13.1) LU 6.44.97.13.9 Fashion Island Parking Structures Require new parking structures in Fashion Island to be located and designed in a manner that is compatible with the existing pedestrian scale and open feeling of Newport Center Drive. The design of new parking structures in Fashion Island shall incorporate elements (including landscaping) to soften their visual impact. (Imp 8.2) AIRPORT AREA The Airport Area encompasses the properties abutting and east of (JWA) and is in close proximity to the Irvine Business Complex and University of California, Irvine (UCI). This proximity has influenced the area's development with uses that support JWA and UCI, such as research and development, high technology industrial and visitor - serving uses, such as hotel and car rental agencies. A mix of low -, medium -, and high -rise office buildings predominate, with lesser coverage of supporting multi- tenant commercial, financial, and service uses. A number of buildings are occupied by corporate offices for industry and financial uses. Koll Center, at MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road, was developed as a master planned campus office park. Manufacturing uses occupy a small percentage of the Airport Area. Three large hotels have been developed to take advantage of their proximity to JWA, local businesses, and those in the nearby Irvine Business Complex. Page 133 S7 The area immediately abutting JWA, referred to as the "Campus Tract," contain a diverse mix of low intensity industrial, office, and airport- related uses, including a number of auto - related commercial uses including carwash, auto - detailing, rental, repair, and parts shops. In comparison to properties to the east, this area is underutilized and less attractive. Development in the Airport Area is restricted due to the noise impacts of JWA. Much of the southwestern portion of the area is located in the 65 dBA CNEL, which is unsuitable for residential and other "noise- sensitive' uses. Additionally, building heights are restricted for aviation safety. Recent development activity in the City of Irvine's Business Complex to the north has included the transfer of development rights, bringing more intense development closer to the Airport Area and resulting in the conversion of office to residential entitlement. This activity is changing the area to a mixed -use center. Through the 2006 General Plan Vv_isioning process and preparation of the General Plan, the public preferred revitalization of the Airport Area with income - generating land uses. Generally, a range of development types were acceptable as long as traffic is not adversely affected. However, a majority believed that the Airport Area is urban in character, different than other City neighborhoods. Additional density and traffic congestion were considered more acceptable here than other parts of the City. There was strong support for new hotels and broad consensus on mixed -use development with residential and revenue generating uses. Policy Overview The General Plan provides for the development of office, industrial, retail, and airport- related businesses in the Airport Area, as well as the opportunity for housing and supporting services. The latter would be developed as clusters of residential villages centering on neighborhood parks and interconnected by pedestrian walkways. These would contain a mix of housing types and buildings that integrate housing with ground -level convenience retail uses and would be developed at a sufficient scale to achieve a "complete" neighborhood. Housing and mixed -use buildings would be restricted from areas exposed to noise levels of 65 dBA CNEL and higher. Over time, commercial and industrial properties located in the Campus Tract would be revitalized including street frontage landscape and other improvements. Airport Area Areawide Goal LU 5. 1-57.14 A mixed -use community that provides jobs, residential, and supporting services in close proximity, with pedestrian - oriented amenities that facilitate walking and enhance livability. Policies URBAN FORM AND STRUCTURE [refer to Figure LU22] LU 615.1 - 7.14.1 Land Use Districts and Neighborhoods Provide for the development of distinct business park, commercial, and airport serving districts and residential neighborhoods that are integrated to ensure a quality environment and compatible land uses. (Imp 1.1, 2.1) LU 645.27.14.2 Underperforming Land Uses Promote the redevelopment of sites with underperforming retail uses located on parcels at the interior of large blocks for other uses, with retail clustered along major arterials (e.g., Bristol, Campus, MacArthur, Birch and Jamboree), except where intended to serve and be integrated with new residential development. (Imp 2.1, 24.1) LU 615.37.14.3 Airport Compatibility Require that all development be constructed in conformance with the height restrictions set forth by Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77, and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, and that residential development be located outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour specified by the 1985 JWA Master Plan. (Imp 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 14.3) Page 134 W Mixed -Use Districts [Subarea C, "MU -H2" designation] Primary Underlying Land Uses LU 6.15.47.14.4 Priority Uses Accommodate office, research and development, and similar uses that support the primary office and business park functions such as retail and financial services, as prescribed for the "CO -G" designation, while allowing for the re -use of properties for the development of cohesive residential villages that are integrated with business park uses. (Imp 2.1) Residential Villages Land Uses LU 6.15.57.14.5 Residential and Supporting Uses Accommodate the development of a maximum of 2,200 "- multi- family residential units, including work force housing, and mixed -use buildings that integrate residential with ground level office or retail uses, along with supporting retail, grocery stores, and parklands. The residential units may consist of (a) a maximum of units that may be constructed as replacement of permitted non - residential uses provided that the number of peak hour trips generated by cumulative development of the site shall not exceed the number of trips that would result from development of the underlying permitted allocated nonresidential uses and N. HaweyeF, a maximum of 550 units may be developed as infill on surface parking lots or areas not used as-for occupiable buildings on properties within the area depicted on the "Airport Area Residential Villages Illustrative Concept Diagram" GOReeptual QeYeI^^^R^^« O1^^ A•ea depicted OR jFigure LU2321 provided that the parking is replaced on site. (Imp 2.1) LU 7.14.6 Transfer of Development Allocations Permit transfer of development allocations within the Airoort Area Mixed -Use districts subject to the approval of the City with the finding that the transfer is consistent with the intent of the General Plan and the transfer will not result in any adverse traffic impacts. (Imp 2.1) Minimum Size and Density LU 6.15.67.14.7 Size of Residential Villages [refer to Figure LU23] Allow development of mixed -use residential villages, each containing a minimum of 10 acres and centered on a neighborhood park and other amenities (as conceptually illustrated in Figure LU23). The first phase of residential development in each village shall encompass at least 5 gross acres of land, exclusive of existing rights -of -way. This acreage may include multiple parcels provided that they are contiguous or face one another across an existing street. At the discretion of the City, this acreage may also include part of a contiguous property in a different land use category, if the City finds that a sufficient portion of the contiguous property is used to provide functionally proximate parking, open space, or other amenity. The area depicted in the "Airport Area Residential Villages Illustrative Concept Diagram concept a neve[,.pme� a "area shown on Figure LU232 shall be exempt from the 5 -acre minimum, but a GORGeptual ,,,...,.I,,.....,.Rt plaR GleS,..,«.ed ,., o,.r..y I I J 6.16.11 shall «....eg6l!Fed. (Imp 2.1, 3.1, 4.1) LU 7.14.8 Affordable Housing Projects Permit housing projects that include a minimum of 30 percent of the total units for affordable to lower income households and are developed at a minimum density of 30 units per acre to be constructed on parcels of 5 acres or greater as an exception from Residential Village requirements for a minimum 10 acres in lot size and phasing described in Policy LU 7.14.7 to facilitate the development of affordable housing consistent with the Housing Element. (Imp 1.2. 1.3, 21.51 LU 6.Is 77.14.9 Overall Density and Housing Types Require that residential units be developed at a minimum density of 30 units and maximum of 50 units per net acre averaged over the total area of each residential village. Net acreage shall be exclusive of existing and new rights -of- way, public pedestrian ways, and neighborhood parks. Within these densities, provide for the development of a mix of Housing capacity to be confirmed based on final LUEAC recommendations. Page 135 39 building types ranging from townhomes to high -rises to accommodate a variety of household types and incomes and to promote a diversity of building masses and scales. (Imp 2.1, 3.1, 4.1) LU 6.115.67.14.10 First Phase Development Density Require a residential density of 45 to 50 units per net acre, averaged over the first phase for each residential village. This shall be applied to 100 percent of properties in the first phase development area whether developed exclusively for residential or integrating service commercial horizontally on the site or vertically within a mixed -use building. On individual sites, housing development may exceed or be below this density to encourage a mix of housing types, provided that the average density for the area encompassed by the first phase is achieved. (Imp 2.1, 3.1, 4.1) LU 6.15.97.14.11 Subsequent Phase Development Location and Density Subsequent phases of residential development shall abut the first phase or shall face the first phase across a street. The minimum density of residential development (including residential mixed -use development) shall be 30 units per net acre and shall not exceed the maximum of 50 units per net acre averaged over the development phase. (Imp 2.1, 3.1, 4.1) Strategy and Process LU 6_15497.14.12 Regulatory Plans Require the days epFaeat eia regulatory plan for each residential village stall containing a minimum of 10 acres, developed in conformance with the Integrated Concept Development Plan (ICDP)te establishing a design theme and standards for buildings and site work (such as landscaping lighting, walls /fencing, sionaae and other, common areas and comparable elements): plan seerdinate -the location and phasing of bugdhgs.aew parks, streets, aad- pedestrian ways, infrastructure and other facilities:= set forth a strategy to accommodate neighborhood serving commercial uses and other amenities; establish pedestrian and vehicular connections with adjoining land uses; ; and ensure compatibility with office, industrial, and other nonresidential uses. (Imp 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 13.1 31.1) LU 6.15.127.14.13 Development Agreements A- Reguire a Development Agreement °"^" � for My_a6 projects that includes iPM residential units. The Development Agreement shall define the improvements and public benefits to be provided by the developer in exchange for the City's commitment for the number, density, and location of the housing units. (Imp 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 13.1) Design and Development Neighborhood Parks LU 6.15.137.14.14 Standards To prov de a focus and dent ty for the entire ne ghborhood and to serve the daily recreat onni And nwrimprn RI needs Of the ^^^, ^„ •R t)' With :R easy walk R9 distaR^^ of heFRes •^^4 iFe Require dedication and improvement of at least 8 percent of the gross land area (exclusive of existing rights -of -way) of the first phase development in each neighborhood, or %, acre, whichever is greater, as a neighborhood park to provide a focus and identity for the entire neighborhood and serve the dailv recreational needs of the communitv within easv walkina distance of homes. This In every case, the neighborhood park shall be at least 8 percent of the total Residential Village Area or one acre in Page 136 40 area, whichever is greater, and shall have a minimum dimension of 150 feet along any edge of the park site. Park acreage shall be exclusive of existing or new rights -of -way, development sites, or setback areas. A neighborhood park shall satisfy some or all of the requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance, as prescribed by the Recreation Element of the General Plan. This requirement may be waived by the City where it can be demonstrated that the development parcels are too small to feasibly accommodate the required park area or inappropriately located to serve the needs of local residents, and when an in -lieu fee is paid to the City for the acquisition and improvement of other properties as parklands to serve the Airport Area. (Imp 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 23.1, 30.2) LU 6ASA47.14.15 Location Require that each neighborhood park is clearly public in character and is accessible to all residents of the neighborhood. Each park shall be surrounded by public streets on at least two sides (preferably with on- street parking to serve the park), and shall be linked to residential uses in its respective neighborhood by streets or pedestrian ways. (Imp 2.1, 3.1, 4.1) LU 6-15A67.14.16 Aircraft Notification Require that all neighborhood parks be posted with a notification to users regarding proximity to John Wayne Airport and aircraft overflight and noise. (Imp 23.2) On -Site Recreation and Open Space LU 6-15.167.14.17 Standards Require developers of multi - family residential developments on parcels 8 acres or larger to provide on -site recreational amenities. For these developments, 44 square feet of on -site recreational amenities shall be provided for each dwelling unit in addition to the requirements under the City's Park Dedication Ordinance and in accordance with the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan. On -site recreational amenities can consist of public urban plazas or squares where there is the capability for recreation and outdoor activity. These recreational amenities may also include swimming pools, exercise facilities, tennis courts, and basketball courts. Where there is insufficient land to provide on -site recreational amenities, the developer shall be required to pay cash in -lieu that would be used to develop or upgrade nearby recreation facilities to offset user demand as defined in the City's Park Dedication Fee Ordinance. The acreage of on -site open space developed with residential projects may be credited against the parkland dedication requirements where it is accessible to the public during daylight hours, visible from public rights - of -way, and is of sufficient size to accommodate recreational use by the public. However, the credit for the provision of on -site open space shall not exceed 30 percent of the parkland dedication requirements. (Imp 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 23.1 23._5 30.2) Streets and Pedestrian Ways LU 6 ".-.S -1 7.14.18 Street and Pedestrian Grid Create a pattern of streets and pedestrian ways that breaks up large blocks, improves connections between neighborhoods and community amenities, and is scaled to the predominantly residential character of the neighborhoods. (Imp 3.1, 4.1, 16.1) LU 6-15-16 7.14.19 Walkable Streets Retain the curb -to -curb dimension of existing streets, but widen sidewalks to provide park strips and generous sidewalks by means of dedications or easements. Except where traffic loads preclude fewer lanes, add parallel parking to calm traffic, buffer pedestrians, and provide short-term parking for visitors and shop customers. (Imp 3.1, 4.1, 16.1, 20.1) LU 6.1— x%"7.14.20 Connected Streets Require dedication and improvement of new streets as shown on Figure LU23. The illustrated alignments are tentative and may change as long as the routes provide the intended reasonable connectivity. If traffic conditions allow, connect new and existing streets across MacAarthur Boulevard with signalized intersections, crosswalks, and pedestrian refuges in the median. (Imp 16.1) LU 6-15.20- 7.14.21 Pedestrian Improvements Page 137 41 Require the dedication and improvement of new pedestrian ways as conceptually shown on Figure LU23. The alignment is tentative and may change as long as the path provides the intended connectivity. For safety, the full length of pedestrian ways shall be visible from intersecting streets. To maim^'^ ^^'^"Mate °^^'° and to shade; the pedeGtF;aR ways shGuld Rat be 9 Zed AR f `9 IRRA& Pedestr aR ways shall i GP9R W the P611)1 G 4a4 hem. (Imp 16,11) Parking and Loading LU 6,15.247.14.22 Required Spaces for Primary Uses Consider revised parking requirements that reflect the mix of uses in the neighborhoods and overall Airport Area, as well as the availability of on- street parking. (Imp 2.1) Relationship of Buildings to Street 111 fi1522 R-AlloUng Massing Require that high r se qtr oti was he surrounded vVith low and mid rise structures fronting pub! c streets and padimistr ap ways or other maaAr to prornote a more pedestr @A sGale. (!Fnp 3.1, 4. 1) LU 614.23 Sustainable Development Practices Require that development includes measures that comparatively aGhieves ^ high level ^f ^^••'-^^^•^ ^'^' ^ ^'^'^^b 1 ty that reduces pollution and consumption of energy, water, and natural resources. This may be accomplished through the mix and density of uses, building location and design, transportation modes, and other techniques. Among the strategies that should be considered are the integration of residential with jobs - generating uses, use of alternative transportation modes, maximized walkability, use of recycled materials, capture and re -use of storm water on -site, water conserving fixtures and landscapes, and /or architectural elements that reduce heat gain and loss. (Imp 3.1, 4.1, 16.11, 17.1, 19.1) Campus Tract ( "AO" designation Sub -Area Elf LAND USES LU 6.45.247.14.24 Primary Uses Accommodate professional office; aviation retail; automobile rental, sales, and service, ^• bjeGt t^ •"^^F ^t'^^^ ^• ^••'^ ^f the oi^^^ ^^ Gea:im s6i9 hotels; and ancillary retail, restaurant, and service uses that are related to and support the functions of John Wayne Airport, as permitted by the "AO" designation. (Imp 2.1) LU 6.14.257.14.25 Economic Viability Provide incentives for lot consolidation and the re -use and improvement of properties located in the "Campus Tract," west of Birch Street. (Imp 2.1, 24.1) LU 6,15467.14.26 Automobile Rental and Supporting Uses %At^t.e.k-.....�•�"�Encourage automobile rental and supporting uses to promote the consolidation and visual improvement of auto storage, service, and storage facilities. (Imp 24.1) LUG IS 27 7.14.27 Site Planning and Architecture Encourage and, when property improvements are subject to discretionary review, require property owners within the Campus Tract to upgrade the street frontages of their properties with landscapL e, well- designed signage, and other amenities that improve the area's visual quality. (Imp 3.1, 7.1, 8.1,) Commercial Nodes ["CG" designation Sub -Area C —part] LU 645.287.14.28 Priority Uses s Land use designation will require modification if proposed uses of the Saunders property is affirmed by the LUEAC. Page 138 42 Encourage the development of retail, financial services, dining, hotel, and other uses that support the John Wayne Airport, the Airport Area's office uses, and, as developed, its residential neighborhoods, as well as automobile sales and supporting uses at the MacArthur Boulevard and Bristol Street node. (Imp 2.1, 24.1) Commercial Office District ( "CO -G" designation Sub -Area C—part] LU 6-15497.14.29 Priority Uses Encourage the development of administrative, professional, and office uses with limited accessory retail and service uses that provide jobs for residents and benefit adjoining mixed -use districts. (Imp 2.1, 24.1) Corridors Corridors share common characteristics of Districts by their identifiable functional role, land use mix, density /intensity, physical form and character, and /or environmental setting. They differ in their linear configuration, generally with shallow -depth parcels located along arterial streets. They are significantly impacted by traffic, often inhibiting access during peak travel periods. Their shallow depths make them unsuitable for many contemporary forms of commercial development that require large building footprints and extensive parking. While the City is crossed by a number of commercial corridors, the General Plan's policies focus on those in which change is anticipated to occur during the next 20 years. Additionally, they provide guidance for the maintenance of a number of corridors in which it is the objective to maintain existing types and levels of development. Development in each corridor will adhere to policies for land use type and density /intensity (LU 4.1, Table LU1) and community character (LU 5.0), except as specified in this section of the General Plan. Goal LU 6.157.15 Development along arterial corridors that is compatible with adjoining residential neighborhoods and designated open spaces, is well designed and attractive, minimizes traffic impacts, and provides adequate parking. Policies LU 6 16 1 7.15.1 Efficient Parcel Utilization Promote the clustering of retail and hotel uses by the aggregation of individual parcels into larger development sites through incentives such as density bonuses or comparable techniques. (Imp 2.1, 24.1) LU 6 16.27.15.2 Private Property Improvements ` ad^ w th ^F^^^Fty ewnprs to ^Encourage the upgrade of existing commercial development including repair and /or repainting of deteriorated building surfaces, well- designed signage that is incorporated into the architectural style of the building, and expanded landscaping. (Imp 24.1) LU 6-16.37.15.3Property Access Minimize driveways and curb cuts that interrupt the continuity of street - facing building elevations in pedestrian - oriented districts and locations of high traffic volumes, prioritizing their location on side streets and alleys, where feasible. (Imp 2.1) LU 6 46.47.15.4 Shared Parking Facilities Work wth property owners and developers elopers tG ^Encourage the more efficient use of parcels for parking that can be shared by multiple businesses. (Imp 16.10) LU 6-16.57.15.5 Compatibility of Business Operations with Adjoining Residential Neighborhoods Work th local bug nesses to ^Ensure that retail, office, and other uses do not adversely impact adjoining residential neighborhoods. This may include strategies addressing hours of operation, congregation of employees. loitering, trash pickup, truck delivery hours, customer arrivals and departures, and other activities. (Imp 8.2) LU 6.16.67.15.6 Design Compatibility with Adjoining Residential Neighborhoods Page 139 43 Require that building elevations facing adjoining residential units be designed to convey a high - quality character and ensure privacy of the residents, and that properties be developed to mitigate to the maximum extent feasible impacts of lighting, noise, odor, trash storage, truck deliveries, and other business activities. Building elevations shall be architecturally treated and walls, if used as buffers, shall be well- designed and landscaped to reflect the area's residential village character. (Imp 2.1) WEST NEWPORT The West Newport Coast Highway Corridor extends from Summit Street to just past 60th Street. It is a mixed commercial and residential area, with the former serving the adjoining Newport Shores residential neighborhood, the West Newport residential neighborhood south of Coast Highway, and beach visitors. Commercial uses are concentrated on the north side of Coast Highway at the Orange Street intersection and east of Cedar Street to the Semeniuk Slough. Intervening areas are developed with a mix of multi - family apartments and, west of Grant Avenue, mobile and manufactured homes. Primary commercial uses include community- related retail such as dry cleaners, liquor store, deli, and convenience stores, as well as a few visitor - serving motels, dine -in, family -style restaurants, and fast food establishments. Generally, they are developed on shallow parcels of substandard size and configuration due to past widening of West Coast Highway and contain insufficient parking. Many of the commercial buildings appear to have been constructed in the 1960s to 1980s, although some motels have been recently upgraded. A portion of the mobile homes are situated along Semeniuk Slough and the Army Corps restored wetlands, while a number of the single - family homes outside the area are also located along the Slough. A mobile home park containing older units, many of which appear to be poorly maintained, is located on the westernmost parcels and a portion of the tidelands. This site serves as the "entry" to the City and as a portal to the proposed Orange Coast River Park. This apea is Fegulated by an adapted SpeG fiG Plan, whiGh was intended te ;F�amete its GFderly develaisment and The 2006 General Plan visioning process found that the West Newport Corridor is among those that require revitalization. Clustering of commercial uses to enhance their economic vitality and improve the appearance of the area was supported, as was the improvement of the quality of commercial development on the Highway. Redevelopment of the westernmost parcel occupied by a trailer park was a high priority for the neighborhood. In 2011, the City Council appointed a Citizen Advisory Panel (CAP) to develop a preliminary design for a Capital Improvement Proiect for beautification of West Coast Highway from the Santa Ana River to the Arches Bridge and of Balboa Boulevard from West Coast Highway to McFadden Square. In December 2011. the City Council approved the landscape design concepts which are intended to wara+aaenhance the corridor and give it a more welcoming feel for residents and visitors of this part of Newport Beach. Policy Overview The General Plan provides for the improvement of Coast Highway fronting properties in West Newport by concentrating local and visitor - serving retail in two centers at Prospect Street and Orange Street with expanded parking, enhancing existing and allowing additional housing on intervening parcels, and developing a clearly defined entry at its western edge with Huntington Beach. The latter may include improvements that would support the proposed Orange Coast River Park. Goal LU 6.477.16 A corridor that includes a gateway to the City with amenities that support the Orange Coast River Park, as well as commercial clusters that serve local residents and coastal visitors at key intersections, interspersed with compatible residential development. Page 140 44 Policies LAND USES [refer to Figure LU24] LU 6.17.1 7.16.1 Western Entry Parcel (designated as °RM(26 /ac)01 and °RM /0S(85du) °] ` 9Fk W th GGFRFRUR y OFeUPS ..... the 109 Rty4G °Facilitate the acquisition of a portion or all of the property as open space, which may be used as a staging area for Orange Coast River Park with parking, park - related uses, and an underpass to the ocean. As an alternative, accommodate multi - family residential on all or portions of the property not used for open space. (Imp 14.3, 23._2 29.1) STRATEGY LU 6-17-7-7.16.2 Improved Visual Image and Quality Implement streetscape improvements consistent with the design concepts developed by the 2011 Citizen Adviso Committee to enhance the area's character and image as a gateway to Newport Beach and develop a stronger pedestrian environment at the commercial nodes. (Imp 20.1) LU 6.1- 7-.37.16.3 Streetscape Require that upgraded and redeveloped properties incorporate landscaped setbacks along arterial streets to improve their visual quality and reduce impacts of the corridor's high traffic volumes. (Imp 2.1) OLD NEWPORT BOULEVARD Old Newport Boulevard was formerly the primary roadway leading into the city from the north, containing a diversity of highway- oriented retail and office uses. Shifting of vehicle trips to the parallel (aew}Newport Boulevard reduced the corridor's traffic volumes and economic vitality, resulting in significant changes in its land use mix. The corridor is abutted by residential neighborhoods to the east and Hoag Hospital west of Newport Boulevard. Today, the area is primarily developed with commercial and professional offices. Secondary uses include personal services, restaurants, and specialty shopping such as home furnishing stores and beauty salons. Most specialty retail appears to occupy converted residential buildings. A number of auto - related businesses and service facilities are located in the corridor. Many of these are incompatible with the predominant pattern of retail service and office uses. Medical office uses have expanded considerably during recent years, due to the corridor's proximity to Hoag Hospital, which is expanding its buildings and facilities. This corridor does not exhibit a pedestrian- oriented character. While there are some walkable areas, Newport Boulevard is wide and there is a mix of uses and lot configurations that do not create a consistent walkway. In 2006 Llittle public input was received pertaining to Old Newport Boulevard during the General Plan's preparation. In general, the preservation of the status quo was supported. Although, the public supported the development of mixed -use buildings that integrate residential with ground floor retail and townhomes on the east side of Old Newport Boulevard as a transition with adjoining residential neighborhoods. Policy Overview In the Old Newport Boulevard area, the General Plan provides for the development of professional offices, retail, and other uses that support Hoag Hospital, and retail uses serving adjoining residential neighborhoods. Pedestrian walkways within and connections west to Hoag Hospital would be improved and streetscapes installed. Goal LU 6.387.17 A corridor of uses and services that support Hoag Hospital and adjoining residential neighborhoods. Page 141 45 Policies LAND USES (designated as "CO- G(0.5), "refer to Figure LU251 LU 6.15.17.17.1 Priority Uses Accommodate uses that serve adjoining residential neighborhoods, provide professional offices, and support Hoag Hospital. (Imp 2.1) LU 6.1A 2- 7.17.2 Discouraged Uses Highway- oriented retail uses should be discouraged and new "heavy" retail uses, such as automobile supply and repair uses, prohibited. (Imp 2.1) DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT LU 6.15.37.17.3 Property Design Require that buildings be located and designed to orient to the Old Newport Boulevard frontage, while the rear of parcels on its west side shall incorporate landscape and design elements that are attractive when viewed from Newport Boulevard. (Imp 2.1) LU 6.15.47.17.4 Streetscape Design and Connectivity Develop a plan for streetscape improvements and improve street crossings to facilitate pedestrian access to Hoag Hospital and discourage automobile trips. (Imp 20.1) MARINERS' MILE Mariners' Mile is a heavily traveled segment of Coast Highway extending from the Arches Bridge on the west to Dover Drive on the east. It is developed with a mix of highway- oriented retail and marine - related commercial uses. The latter are primarily concentrated on bay- fronting properties and include boat sales and storage, sailing schools, marinas, visitor - serving restaurants, and comparable uses. A large site is developed with the Balboa Bay SIu6 -aad Resort, a hotel, private club, and apartments located on City tidelands. A number of properties contain non -marine commercial uses, offices, and a multi -story residential building. Inland properties are developed predominantly for highway- oriented retail, neighborhood commercial services. A number of sites contain automobile dealerships and service facilities and neighborhood serving commercial uses. The latter includes salons, restaurants, apparel, and other specialty shops ranging from wine stores to home furnishings stores. While single use free - standing buildings predominate, there are a significant number of multi - tenant buildings that combine a number of related or complementary uses in a single building or buildings that are connected physically or through design. The Mariners' Mile Strategic Vision and Design Plan provides for the area's evolution as a series of districts serving visitors and local residents. Along the northern portion of Coast Highway in the vicinity of Tustin Avenue, Riverside Avenue, and Avon Street, it provides for a pedestrian - friendly retail district. In the western and easternmost segments, the Plan provides for the infill of the auto oriented retail and visitor- serving commercial uses. Along the Harbor frontage, the Vision and Design Plan emphasizes the development of Harbor - related uses and proposes a continuous pedestrian promenade to create a vibrant public waterfront. Throughout the corridor, the Plan proposes to upgrade its visual character with new landscaping and streetscape amenities, as well as improvements in private development through standards for architecture and lighting. Plans provide for the widening of Coast Highway, reducing the depth of parcels along its length. Recent development projects have set back their buildings in anticipation of this change. Traffic along the corridor and the potential for widening also impact the ability to enhance pedestrian activity and streetscape improvements, unless overhead pedestrian crossings are considered. The 2006 General Plan Vv_isioning process participants identified Mariners' Mile as a location that needs revitalization and suggested that an overall vision be defined to meet this objective. It was also defined as a location appropriate for mixed -use development integrating residential and commercial or office space. A majority opposed hotel development in Mariners' Mile. Participants were divided on the questions of preserving opportunities for coastal- Page 142 40 related uses in Mariners' Mile and whether the City should require or offer incentives to ensure such uses. Property owners noted that high land values and rents limit the number of marine - related uses that can be economically sustained in the area. Although the public supported the development of residential in Mariners' Mile, there was a difference of opinion regarding whether it should be located on the Harbor frontage or limited it to inland parcels. In 2011. the City Council also recoanized the need to revitalize Mariners' Mile by desianatino it as one of six "revitalization areas. "-. A series of Citizen Advisory Panels were formed to focus on the other revitalization areas which included. Corona del Mar. Balboa Villaae, Lido Villaae, West Newoort and Santa Ana Heights. The Council's direction indicated a multi - layered approach was required to consider the complex issues within Mariners' Mile. Policy Overview The General Plan provides for the enhanced vitality of the Mariners' Mile corridor by establishing a series of distinct retail, mixed -use, and visitor - serving centers. Harbor - fronting properties would accommodate a mix of visitor - serving retail and marine - related businesses, with portions of the properties available for housing and mixed -use structures. View and public access corridors from Coast Highway to the Harbor would be required, with a pedestrian promenade developed along the length of the Harbor frontage. Parcels on the inland side of Coast Highway, generally between Riverside Avenue and the southerly projection of Irvine Avenue, would evolve as a pedestrian oriented mixed -use "village" containing retail businesses, offices, services, and housing. Sidewalks would be improved with landscape and other amenities to foster pedestrian activity. Inland properties directly fronting onto Coast Highway and those to the east and west of the village would provide for retail, marine - related, and office uses. Streetscape amenities are proposed for the length of Mariners' Mile to improve its appearance and identity. Goal LU &,4 -97.18 A corridor that reflects and takes advantage of its location on the Newport Bay waterfront, supports and respects adjacent residential neighborhoods and exhibits a quality visual image for travelers on Coast Highway. Policies STRUCTURE LU & 1-9,7.18.1 Differentiated Districts Differentiate and create cohesive land use districts for key subareas of Mariners' Mile by function, use, and urban form. These should include (a) harbor - oriented uses with limited residential along the waterfront, (b) highway- oriented commercial corridor (see Figure LU26), and (c) community /neighborhood serving "village" generally between Riverside Avenue and the southerly extension of Irvine Avenue. (Imp 1.1, 2.1, 20.1, 20.2) LAND USES (refer to Figure LU26) LU &.19.27.18.2 Bay Fronting Properties [designated as "MU -W1" Sub -Area A] Encourage marine - related and visitor - serving retail, restaurant, hotel, institutional- {fecreational, and recreational uses, and allow residential uses above the ground floor on parcels with a minimum frontage of 200 lineal feet where a minimum of 50 percent of the permitted square footage shall be devoted to nonresidential uses. No more than 50 percent of the waterfront land area between the Arches Bridge and the Boy Scout Sea Base may be developed with mixed -use structures. (Imp 2.1, 5.1, 24.1) LU 5.1- 9.37.18.3 Marine - Related Businesses Protect and encourage facilities that serve marine - related businesses and industries unless present and foreseeable future demand for such facilities is already adequately provided for in the area. Encourage coastal- dependent industrial uses to locate or expand within existing sites and allow reasonable long term growth. (Imp 2.1, 5.1, 24.1) Page 143 47 LU 6.19.47.18.4 Inland side of Coast Highway [designated as "MU -1­11," "CG(0.3)," and "CG(0.5)" Sub -Areas B and C] Accommodate a mix of visitor- and fecal- resident- serving retail commercial, residential, and public uses. The Coast Highway frontage shall be limited to nonresidential uses. On inland parcels, generally between Riverside Avenue and Tustin Avenue, priority should be placed on accommodating uses that serve upland residential neighborhoods such as grweFyst9FeT specialty retail, small service office, restaurants, coffee shops, and similar uses. (Imp 2.1, 5.1) LU 6.19.57.18.5 Parking Require adequate parking and other supporting facilities for charters, yacht sales, visitor - serving, and other waterfront uses. (Imp 2.1, 5.1) DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT Corridor LU 6- 1"7.18.6 Corridor Identity and Quality Implement landscape, signage, lighting, sidewalk, pedestrian crossing, and other amenities consistent with the MaPi.,erg' M 18 c..e,.,e,. oi.,., DistriGt and Mariners' Mile Strategic Vision and Design Plan. (Imp 20.1) Harbor - Fronting Properties LU 619'7 7.18.7 Architecture and Site Planning While a diversity of building styles is encouraged, the form, materials, and colors of buildings located along the harbor front should be designed to reflect the area's setting and nautical history. (Imp 8.1, 8.2) LU 6.1. 9.87.18.8 Integrating Residential -Site Planning Principles Permit properties developed for residential to locate the units along the Harbor frontage provided that portions of this frontage are developed for (a) retail, restaurant, or other visitor- serving uses and (b) plazas and other open spaces that provide view corridors and access from Coast Highway to the Harbor. The amount of Harbor frontage allocated for each use shall be determined by the City during the Development Plan review process. (Imp 2.1, 5.1) LU 6.19.97.18.9 Harbor and Bay Views and Access Require that buildings be located and sites designed to provide clear views of and access to the Harbor and Bay from the Coast Highway and Newport Boulevard rights -of -way in accordance with the following principles, as appropriate: • Clustering of buildings to provide open view and access corridors to the Harbor • Modulation of building volume and masses • Variation of building heights • Inclusion of porticoes, arcades, windows, and other "see- through" elements in addition to the defined open corridor • Minimization of landscape, fencing, parked cars, and other nonstructural elements that block views and access to the Harbor • Prevention of the appearance of the public right -of -way being walled off from the Harbor • Inclusion of setbacks that in combination with setbacks on adjoining parcels cumulatively form functional view corridors • Encouragement of adjoining properties to combine their view corridors that achieve a larger cumulative corridor than would have been achieved independently A site - specific analysis shall be conducted for new development to determine the appropriate size, configuration, and design of the view and access corridor that meets these objectives, which shall be subject to approval in the Development Plan review process. (Imp 2.1) Page 144 IOWA alliffl LU 6'19.10- 7.18.10 Waterfront Promenade Require that development on the bay frontage implement amenities that ensure access for coastal visitors. Pursue development of a pedestrian promenade along the Bayfront. (Imp 2.1, 20.2) LU 7.18.11 Guiding Development of a District Corridor Initiate a process to review and, as appropriate, revise existing development standards and the Mariners' Mile Strategic Vision and Desion Framework to 6) encourage less intensity along the Bayfront in exchange for more intensity of inland parcels and (ii) ensure they adequately implement the vision for the form and quality of Mariners' Mile's coastal and inland develooment for such elements as viewshed and resource protection: buildina location, scale, mass, and heights: architectural character and design; streetscape amenities; site access and parking; traffic and connectivity to the Bayfront. (Imp 2.1, 5.1, 16.10, 20.2) Community /Neighborhood Village LU 6 IOA47.18.12 Pedestrian- Oriented Village Require that inland properties that front onto internal streets within the Community /Neighborhood Village locate buildings along and forming a semicontinuous building wall along the sidewalk, with parking to the rear in structures or in shared facilities and be designed to promote pedestrian activity. (Imp 2.1, 16.10) LU 6_19-37.18.13 Properties Abutting Bluff Faces Require that development projects that abut designated coastal bluffs locate and design buildings to maintain the visual quality and maintain the structural integrity of the bluff faces. (Imp 2.1) STRATEGY LU 6.14L44-7.18.14 Lot Consolidation on Inland Side of Coast Highway Permit development intensities in areas designated as "CG(0.3)" to be increased to a floor area ratio of 0.5 where parcels are consolidated to accommodate larger commercial development projects that provide sufficient parking. (Imp 2.1, 5.1 16.10) LU 6r14.A47.18.15 Parking Lot Relocation Consider options for the relocation of the City parking lot on Avon Street to better support the corridor's retail uses. (Imp 16.10) LU 6,19.167.18.16 Parking and Supporting Facilities for Waterfront Uses Explore additional options for the development and location of parking and other supporting facilities for charters, yacht sales, and other waterfront uses. (Imp 16.10) CORONA DEL MAR The Corona del Mar corridor extends along Coast Highway between Avocado Avenue and Hazel Drive. It is developed with commercial uses and specialty shops that primarily serve adjoining residential neighborhoods, with isolated uses that serve highway travelers and coastal visitors. Among the area's primary uses are restaurants, home furnishings, and miscellaneous apparel and professional offices including architectural design services. Almost half of the commercial uses are located in multitenant buildings with retail on the ground floor and professional services above. Other uses include the Sherman Library and Gardens, a research library and botanical garden open to the public, and an assisted - living residential complex. Buildings in the Corona del Mar corridor mostly front directly on and visually open to the sidewalks, with few driveways or parking lots to break the continuity of the "building wall" along the street. These, coupled with improved streetscape amenities, landscaped medians, and a limited number of signalized crosswalks, promote a high level of pedestrian activity. Page 145 `T9 The Corona del Mar Vision Plan, developed by the Business Improvement District, is intended to enhance the shopping district through community improvements. These envision a linear park -like environment with extensive sidewalk landscaping, street furniture, pedestrian - oriented lighting fixtures, activated crosswalks, parking lanes, and comparable improvements. Visioning process participants expressed support for protecting Corona del Mar as an important historic commercial center that serves adjoining neighborhoods. In 2011. the City Council appointed a Citizen Advisory Panel (CAP) to develop a preliminary design of a Capital Improvement Proiect for beautification of the south side of East Coast Highway from Avocado Avenue to Dahlia Avenue. This effort also included the preparation of an Entryway Enhancement Project in coordination with the Corona del Mar Business Improvement District. Policy Overview The General Plan sustains Corona del Mar as a pedestrian- oriented retail village that serves surrounding neighborhoods. New development largely would occur as replacement of existing uses and developed at comparable building heights and scale. Additional parking would be provided by the re -use of parcels at the rear of commercial properties and /or in shared parking lots or structures developed er}near Coast Highway. Goal LU 6.297.19 A pedestrian- oriented "village' serving as the center of community commerce, culture, and social activity and providing identity for Corona del Mar. Policies LAND USES [designated as "CC," refer to Figure LU27] LU 6.29.'47.19.1 Primary Uses Accommodate neighborhood- serving uses that complement existing development. (Imp 2.1) LU 6 29.27.19.2 Shared Parking Structures Accommodate the development of structures on public or private parcels or other public/private arrangement that provides additional off - street parking on & for multiple businesses along the corridor, provided that the ground floor of the street- corridor frontage is developed for pedestrian - oriented - retail uses. (Imp 2.1, 16.10) LU 6.28.37.19.3 Expanded Parking Accommodate the redevelopment of residential parcels immediately adjoining commercial uses that front onto Coast Highway for surface parking, provided that adequate buffers are incorporated to prevent impacts on adjoining residential (see "Design and Development' below). (Imp 2.1) DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT LU 6.28.47.19.4 Pedestrian - Oriented Streetscapes Work with business associations, tenants, and property owners to implement Corona del Mar Vision Plan streetscape improvements that contribute to the corridor's pedestrian character. (Imp 20.1) STRATEGY LU 6.29.57.19.5 Complement the Scale and Form of Existing Development Permit new commercial development at a maximum intensity of 0.75 FAR, but allow existing commercial buildings that exceed this intensity to be renovated, upgraded, or reconstructed to their pre- existing intensity and, at a minimum, preexisting number of parking spaces. (Imp 2.1) Page 146 50 LU 6.20.67.79.6 Expanded Parking Opportunities Work with local businesses and organizations to explore other methods to provide parking convenient to commercial uses, such as a parking district or relocation of the City parking lot at the old school site at 4th Avenue and Dahlia Avenue. (Imp 16.10) Page 147 151- INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE 152 Attachment No. PC 2 Memo Stating Policy and Glossary Revisions from May 8, 2014 53 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE 154 Memorandum CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 (949) 644 -3200 To: Planning Commission From: Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner and Land Use Element Project Team Date: May 22, 2014 Re: May 8'h Planning Commission Recommendations Summary The following recommendations were made by the Planning Commission at the May 8, 2014 Study Session. These changes are reflected in Attachment PC1, but are listed here for ease of review. Planning Commission Recommendation Summary Text Changes • Page 3 – The City currently has 450 acres of parks. • Throughout – Add additional clarification to 2006 General Plan vision process references. • Throughout -- Incorporate additional edits provided by Commissioner Tucker. Additional Definitions • Policy LU 4.1 – Add "whole system" to the glossary • Policy LU 4.2 – Add "embodied energy" to the glossary • Policy LU 4.5 – Add "heat island effect' to the glossary Embodied Energy —An accounting method which aims to find the sum total of the energy necessary for an entire product life- cycle. Heat Island Effect —An urban area having higher average temperature than its rural surroundings due to the greater absorption, retention, and generation of heat by its buildings, pavements, and human activities. 155 Whole System —Also known as a Whole System Desig n to sustainable engineering which aims to increase performance of a designed system throughout its life. Goal /Policy Changes LU 1.3 Natural Resources or WSD is an integrated approach the economic and environmental Protect the natural setting that contributes to the character and identity of Newport Beach and the sense of place it provides for its residents and visitors. Preserve designated open space resources, beaches, harbor, bays, channels, parks, bluffs, preserves, and estuaries as visual, recreational and habitat resources and promote preservation of coastal bluffs. (Imp 1.1, 29.3) LU 6.5.2 Property Maintenance Encourage and, where subject to redevelopment, require owners of visually unattractive or poorly maintained industrial properties to upgrade existing structures, facades and properties to improve their visual quality. (Imp 26.1) LU 6.6.5 Hoag Hospital Campus Support Hoag Hospital and related medical uses in their mission to provide adequate sufficient facilities to meet the needs of area residents. Work with the Hospital and related medical uses to ensure that future development plans consider their relationship to and ensure compatibility with adjoining residential neighborhoods and mitigate impacts on local and regional transportation systems. (Imp 24.1) LU 7.8.7 Character and Design Maintain a high quality of development design in Lido Village in consideration of the following design objectives, as reflected in the Lido Village Design Guidelines: • Unification: Creating a sense of place through a unifying theme for Lido Village with defined gathering spaces, increased connectivity, and improved wayfinding; Visual Appeal: Creating a distinct identity for Lido Village by encouraging Coastal and Mediterranean architecture, creating an attractive gateway, maximizing view corridors and scenic opportunities, and incorporating art and landscaping; and Sustainability: Promoting economic and environmental sustainability by encouraging energy and water efficient practices in consideration of economic realities and viability, and celebrating California - friendly landscapes. (Imp 2.1, 7.1, 20.1, 20.3) LU 7.13.4 Development Scale Reinforce the original design concept for Newport Center by concentrating the greatest building mass and height in the northern section of Newport Center, where the natural topography is highest and progressively scaling down building mass and height to follow the lower elevations toward the southwesterly edge along East Coast Highway. Enable distinguished and quality architectural and site design to allow increased height for the development of a hotel on the eastern portion of the 100 block to eRable distinguished and quality aFE;hiteGt FaI and site design. (Imp 2.1, 3.1, 4.1) 50 LU 7.13.6 Pedestrian Connectivity and Amenity Encourage Require, where feasible, that pedestrian access and connections among uses within the district be improved with additional walkways and streetscape amenities concurrent with the development of expanded and new uses. (Imp 3.1, 4.1) LU 7.13.X Development Agreements Require the execution of Development Agreements for residential and mixed -use development projects that use the 500,000 SF of retail, 50,000 SF of office and 500 units identified in Table LU2 (Anomaly Locations). Development Agreements shall define the improvements and benefits to be contributed by the developer in exchange for the City's commitment for the number, density, and location of the housing units. (Imp 13.1) LU 7.14.13 Development Agreements Require a Development Agreement for any aA projects that includes inftl residential units. The Development Agreement shall define the improvements and public benefits to be provided by the developer in exchange for the City's commitment for the number, density, and location of the housing units. (Imp 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 13.1) LU 7.14.14 Standards Require dedication and improvement of at least 8 percent of the gross land area (exclusive of existing rights -of -way) of the first phase development in each neighborhood, or' /z acre, whichever is greater, as a neighborhood park to provide a focus and identity for the entire neighborhood and serve the daily recreational needs of the community within easy walking distance of homes. In every case, the neighborhood park shall be at least 8 percent of the total Residential Village Area or one acre in area, whichever is greater, and shall have a minimum dimension of 150 feet along any edge of the park site. Park acreage shall be exclusive of existing or new rights -of -way, development sites, or setback areas. A neighborhood park shall satisfy some or all of the requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance, as prescribed by the Recreation Element of the General Plan. This requirement may be waived by the City where it can be demonstrated that the development parcels are too small to feasibly accommodate the required park area or inappropriately located to serve the needs of local residents, and when an in -lieu fee is paid to the City for the acquisition and improvement of other properties as parklands to serve the Airport Area. (Imp 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 23.1, 30.2) LU 7.18.13 Properties Abutting Bluff Faces Require that development projects that abut designated coastal bluffs locate and design buildings to maintain the visual quality and maintain the structural integrity of the bluff faces. (Imp 2.1) W INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE MRS Attachment No. PC 3 Draft SEIR Comments Received 59 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE 00 -4 pFlQL April 23, 2014 Mr. Gregg Ramirez Senior Planner City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Via: USPS and email 11 P;IIN11,1� „,,i Subject: Review of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2013101064) for the Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element Amendment Dear Mr. Ramirez: City of Irvine staff has received and reviewed the information for the referenced project and offers the following comments: 1. Comparing the average daily volumes (ADTs) between the 2006 General Plan (Figure 3A of the traffic study) and the Proposed Project (Figure 4A of the traffic study), it is unclear how the net additional 933 AM trips, 994 PM trips and 10,771 Al -1 ADT in the Airport Area are distributed throughout the network. Please add a figure to the traffic study that identifies the project trip distribution. 2. In Section 2.6 of the traffic study, the build -out "General Plan Improvements” located within the City of Irvine are consistent with build -out assumptions currently in the City of Irvine Transportation Analysis Model (ITAM). Please note that these assumptions are subject to change based on evolving build -out conditions. Particularly noteworthy are those improvements for which a funding source is not identified. Al -2 3. The Recreation Section indicates there are parks nearby that would serve future residential development in the Airport Area. Please identify the name and A1-3 distance of these parks from the center of the Airport Area. 01 Mr. Gregg Ramirez April 23, 2014 Page 2 Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed project. We would appreciate the opportunity to review any further information regarding this project as the planning process proceeds. If you have any questions, please contact David Law, Senior Planner, at 949 - 724 -6314 or by email at dlaw(a)cityofirvine.org. Sincerely, F"' M_���� Eric M. Tolles Director of Community Development cc: Barry Curtis, Manager of Planning Services Bill Jacobs, Principal Planner (via email) David Law, Senior Planner (via email) Sun -Sun Murillo, Supervising Transportation Analyst (via email) 02 STATE OF CALIFORNIA -- CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY EDMUND G BROWN Jr,, Govemor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 12 3347 MICHELSON DRIVE, SUITE 100 IRVINE, CA 92612 -8894 PL-IONE (949) 724-2000 FAX (949) 724 -2019 TTY 711 www.dot.ca.gov April 24, 2014 Gregg Ramirez City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Mr. Ramirez, ��CFIVED 6y COMMUNITY APR 2 8 2044 q,-DEVELOPMENT' 6� OP NEWPOI0 ti- -_ J Serious drought. Help save water! File: IGRJCEQA SCH #: 2013101064 Log #: 1678D SR 1; SR 73, SR 55, And 1 -405 . Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Supplement /Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SSEIR) for the Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Intro Element Amendment (Project). The project is an amendment to the City of Newport Beach General Plain Land Use Element and is intended to shape future development within the City and involves the alteration, intensification, and redistribution of land uses throughout the city. The nearest State Routes to the project area are SR 1, SR 73, SR 55, and I -405. The California Department of Transportation (Department), District 12 is a commenting agency on this project and has the following comments: 1. The Land Use Element should include language requiring the City to develop policies stressing coordination between the City and the Department early in the land use and A2 -1 transportation planning process. 2. Although this particular project does not propose any new development the Department would like to emphasize that it supports General Plans (or Specific Plans) that foster a more efficient land use pattern that (a) supports improved mobility and reduced dependency on single- occupant vehicle trips, (b) accommodates an supply of housing for all incomes, (c) reduces impacts on valuable habitat, productive farmland, and air quality, (d) increases resource use efficiency, and (e) results in safe and vibrant neighborhoods. The Department recognizes that non - motorized travel is a vital element of A2 -3 the transportation system and therefore, encourages communities make pedestrian and bicycle activity possible, thus expanding transportation options, and creating a streetscape that better serves a range of users — pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and automobiles. Provide a srfe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhanci California's econonry and livability " 03 Mr. Gregg Ramirez 4/24/2014 Page 2 3. The traffic study in the report did not utilize the latest version of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). The Department's Traffic Operations Branch requests all traffic analysis be based on the method outlined in the latest version of HCM when analyzing traffic impacts on State Transportation Facilities including but not limited to freeway segments, highway segments, intersections, on or off ramps (weaving, queuing, merging and diverging. The use of HCM is preferred by the Department because it is an operational analysis as opposed to the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method, which is a planning analysis. In the case of projects that have direct impacts on State Facilities, the Department recommends that the traffic impact analysis be based on HCM method. Should the project require an encroaclunent permit, Traffic Operations may find the Traffic Impact Study based on ICU methodology inadequate resulting in possible delay or denial of a permit by the Department. All input sheets, assuunptions and volumes on State Facilities including ramps and intersection analysis should be submitted to the Department for review and approval. All environmental documents should include appropriate mitigation measures to offset any potential impacts. The traffic impact on the state transportation system should be evaluated based on the Department's Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies which is available at: littu: / /,�vww dot c1 gov /hq /traffoys /developsery /operationalsystem§ /reports /tis ug ide pdf. 4. The General Plan should acknowledge the Departments' standard of maintaining a target Level of Service (LOS) at the transition between LOS C and LOS D on State highway facilities. Any degradation of the LOS. past this threshold should be mitigated to bring the facility back to the baseline /existing condition. For future projects that may impact State facilities, we recommend that early coordination be done between the Department and the City to fully address level of significance thresholds (transition between LOS C and D) and appropriate methods for analyzing impacts (LOS vs. Hours of Delay). As new development is proposed in the future, the Department has interest in working cooperatively to establish a Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) program to mitigate impacts to State Transportation Facilities on a "fair share" basis. Local development project applicants would pay their "fair share" to an established fund for future transportation improvements on the state highway system. If there is an existing TIF program, it can be amended to include mitigation for the State Highway System or a new TIF program may be considered. The Department requests the opportunity to participate in the TIF for State Highway improvements development process. 6. As noted in the SSEIR, future projects have the potential to significantly impact SR -73 and I -405 mainline and interchanges, .ramps and intersections. Impacts of development causing operating conditions to deteriorate to deficient levels of service, or impacts adding to an existing deficient level of service condition require mitigation. "Callrans improves mohilily across California" 04 A2 -3 cont'd A2 -4 A2 -5 eval Mr. Gregg Ramirez 4/24/2014 Page 3 7. The Department requests to participate in the establishment and implementation of "fair share" mitigation for the project impacts. The Department has an established methodology standard used to properly calculate equitable project share contribution. This can be found A2 -6 in Appendix B of the Department's Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies cont'd which is available at: littl):H",ww dot cn 2 ov/ hq/ ti-affoi)s/ developsei-v /operationalsystenis /reports /tisguide pdf. 8. For CEQA purposes, the Department does not consider the Congestion Management Plan (CMP) significance threshold of an increase in v/c more than 1% ramps or 3% for A2-7 mainline appropriate. For analysis of intersections connecting to State facilities, ramps and freeway mainline, we recommend early coordination occur to discuss level of significance thresholds related to traffic and circulation. Please continue to keep us informed of this project and any future developments. If you have any questions or need to contact us, please do not hesitate to call Damon Davis at (949) 440 -3487. Sincerely. / Maureen EI HarakVich hief Local Development /Intergovernmental Review C: Scott Morgan.. Office of Planning and Research Saied Hashemi, Traffic Operations North "Ca6rans impro"es nrohiliry across California" 05 April 29, 2014 Greg Ramirez City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 CITY OF COSTA MESA P.O. BOX 1200 • 77 FAIR DRIVE • CALIFORNIA 92628 -1200 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Subject: Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for Land Use Element Dear Mr. Ramirez: Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Draft Supplemental EIR related to updating of the City's General Plan Land Use Element. The following comments are related to land use, Intro parkland and traffic sections of the DEIR. Land Use: West Newport Mesa The draft land use area directly abutting the City of Costa Mesa is referred to as "West Newport Mesa." As you are aware the area to the north within City of Costa Mesa limits is in an overlay district named "Mesa West Bluffs Urban Plan" that allows mixed use, live /work and residential development. A3.1 The underlying zoning is Light Industrial (MG) and light industrial uses are permitted by zoning. On Page 4.8 -10 of the Environmental Analysis, there is reference to compatibility of development and industrial uses as follows: ".......where new residential uses are developed in the City or in adjacent Costa Mesa, requ would need to be placed on the new residential uses to minimize land use conflicts with industrial designations and uses." The Westside urban plans include large separation requirements from major industrial uses, however there is no specific setback requirement from light industrial or manufacturing uses or other use: typically located in light industrial zoning (auto repair, etc.). During site plan review, we consider the best alternatives for the site layout and building design that would minimize any potential conflict: between residences and adjacent industries. In addition, as a condition of approval, the future buyers are required to be notified for any potential noise, odor, and fumes that may be present in vicinity o the site as a result of that area's general industrial uses. We believe that there should not be any reference to additional requirements in the Supplemental EIR with respect to development in Costa Mesa. Building Division (714) 754 -5273 • Code Enforcement (714) 754 -5623 • Planning Division (714) 754 -5245 00 FAX (714) 7544856 • TDD (714) 754 -5244 • w .costamesaca.gov John Wayne Airport The DEIR refers to the addition of 1,179 units (not including potential density bonus units) in the airport area. There is a concern that the proposed number of units may have an impact on nearby parks in Costa Mesa (i.e., Tewinkle Park), since existing parks will not be within walking distance and mostly accessible by cars. In addition, the DEIR refers to the requirement of parkland dedication and /or an in -lieu fee to address park impacts. Per the City of Newport Beach's subdivision ordinance parkland dedication and in -lieu fees are applicable to only subdivision projects. There is a concern that rental apartments / non - subdivided projects will not be subject to park fees and could impose additional impacts on parks in both cities. Traffic: A3 -2 o Provide additional information on the trip distribution within Costa Mesa and analysis of any intersection that would experience an increase of 50 peak hour trips. A3 -3 We look forward to participating in any additional reviews before completion of the final Supplemental EIR and thank you for considering the City's comments. Sincerely, Ga�Y Zt`��7 , Director of Economic & Development / Deputy CEO cc: City Council CEO Jerry Guarracino Raja Sethuraman 07 GRANGE COUNTY April 30, 2014 AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION FOR ORANGE COUNTY 3160 Airway Avenue • Costa Mesa, California 92626 • 949.252.5170 fax: 949.252.5178 Gregg B. Ramirez, Senior Planner Planning Department, Community and Economic Development City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject: City of Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element Amendment Dear Mr. Ramirez: Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) for the City of Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element Amendment in the context of the Airport Land Use Commission's Airport Environs La. Use Plan for John Wayne Airport (JWA AELUP). We wish to offer the following comments and respectfully request consideration of these comments as you proceed to finalize your DSEIR. The proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendment involves the alteration, intensification, and redistribution of land uses in certain areas of the City, including major areas such as Newport Center /Fashion Island and the Airport Area near John Wayne Airport. The proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendment raises potentially significant land use compatibility impact concerns centered around one of the Planning Areas in the City's proposal - designated Area 4 "Airport Area" in the Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element Amendment. In light of this area's close proximity to John Wayne Airport, Orange County (SNA) ( "JWA "), and its location which is directly under a general aviation, low- altitude, primary flight corridor, the DSEIR should specifically address the impacts of development of new residential neighborhoods in terms of compatibility with the AEL UP for JWA. The Commission does not find residential uses appropriate in this area because of aircraft noise impacts, significant overflight of general aviation aircraft and safety zone issues. Intro A4 -1 The proposed land use changes to the Airport Area are located within the 65 CNEL and/ or the 60 CNEL contours for JWA. The Saunders Property discussed in the DSEIR is I A4 -2 located in both the 60 and 65 CNEL noise contours and is proposing residential in the 60 WIN ALUC Comments Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element Amendment 430.14 Page 2 CNEL portion of the property. The DSEIR should address impacts related to incompatible development within the 65 dB and 60 dB CNEL contours and address A4-2 cont'd ALUC polices contained in the JWA AELUP. With the proposed increase in residential and mixed use land uses it is important that the DSEIR address the portions of the proposed project area that are within the Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 Imaginary Surfaces aeronautical obstruction area and those portions located on the AELUP Height Restriction Zone Map for JWA. The environmental document should address these height restrictions relative to both the notification and imaginary surfaces for JWA. Because the height restrictions provided are only estimates, ALUC staff recommends that policies be established ensuring that the maximum allowable building heights for projects located within the JWA Planning Area do not penetrate the FAA Part 77 Obstruction surfaces for JWA and we recommend editing Land Use Element Goal LU 6.15.3 Airport Compatibility to include reference to height restrictions set forth by ALUC. See proposed edits to Land Use Element Goal LU 6.15.3 below: Require that all development be constructed in conformance with the height restrictions set forth by Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77, aad-Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, and by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for Orange County; that residential development be located outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour specified by the 1985 JWA Master Plan; and that development will be in compliance with safety zone restrictions as defined in the AELUP for JWA Land uses located in the City of Newport Beach Airport Area fall within the Safety Zones for JWA. All the subareas within the Airport Area fall in Safety Zone 6 except one portion of the Saunders Properties which also falls in Safety Zone 3, Safety Zone 6 allows for residential uses, most nonresidential uses; prohibits outdoor stadiums and similar uses with very high intensities and must avoid children's schools, large day care centers, hospitals, and nursing homes. As mentioned above, the Saunders Properties are partly in Safety Zone 6 and partly in Safety Zone 3. Safety Zone 3 limits residential uses to very low densities (if not deemed unacceptable because of noise), and advises to avoid nonresidential uses having moderate or higher usage intensities (e.g., major shopping centers, fast food restaurants, theaters, meeting halls, buildings with more than three above ground habitable floors are generally unacceptable). The proposed land use designation for the Saunders Properties is Mixed Use Horizontal (MU -H2). Under the existing Airport Office and Supporting Uses (AO) designation, the permitted (and existing use) is 302,923 square feet office. The redesignation would permit up to 545,000 square feet of office use (an increase of 238,077 square feet of office) and an addition of 329 residential units. A4 -3 09 ALUC Comments Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element Amendment 4.30. I4 Page 3 Because the Newport Beach General Plan prohibits residential units within the 65 CNEL noise contour for JWA, the Saunders Properties would only be allowed to develop office uses within that 65 CNEL portion of the property. The remaining portion of the property falls within the 60 CNEL noise contour where residential uses would be permitted. However, the placement of high density housing is not consistent with the land use compatibility standards for Safety Zone 3. For consistency with the AELUP safety zones, the residential units would have to be within the Safety Zone 6 portion of this property and outside of the 65 CNEL JWA Master Plan contour. At this time, no specific land use plan is being proposed, however, it is important to note the safety zone compatibility standards. To address this issue, see the suggested edits above to Land Use Element Goal LU 6.15.3 Given that the proposed general plan amendment provides for new residential development patterns in the John Wayne Airport Area, the DSEIR should discuss the incompatibility of residential land uses within close proximity to JWA. General Plan policies and environmental mitigation measures should be included restricting residential uses within areas of the General Plan- designated "John Wayne Airport Area" that experience significant overflight by aircraft and aircraft noise. Future zoning level development standards related to residential development surrounding JWA should be considered. A4 -4 cont'd The DSEIR also addresses an alternative which would not change existing land use designations. This alternative would be preferable from an ALUC perspective, rather than increasing residential and mixed use designations as proposed with this Land Use A4 -5 Element Amendment. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this DSEIR. Please contact Lea Choum at (949) 252 -5123 or via email at lchoum(iiocaincom should you require additional information. Sincerely, Kari A. Rigom Executive Officer 70 Apr -30 -14 02:28pm From-California Coastal CALIFORNIA COASTAL South Coast Area Office 200 Cceangate, Suite 1000 Long Deitch, CA 90802.4302 (552) 5905071 +6026905034 T -847 P.002/003 F -043 ON a April 30, 2014 Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach Planri ft Division 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Plan Element Amendment Draft Supplemental 1= 6vironmental Impact Report ($CHO 2013101064) Dear Mr, Ramirez, Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Newport BeachlGeneral Plan Land Use Plan Element Amendment for certain areas of the City, including areas such as Newport Center /Fashion Island and the Airport Area near John Wayne Airport in the City of Newport Beach. According to the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, the proposed amendment is intended to shape future development within the City and involves the alteration, intensification, and redistribution of land uses in certain areas of the City. The amendment also includes revisions to the Land Use Element goals and policies as the relate to land use changes, in support of recent Neighborhood Revitalization efforts, and, as appropriate, updates /refinements to policies, Subsequent amendments to the Newport Beach Coastal Land Ose Plan (CLUP), and Zoning Code and Map will be necessary to reflect the amendment s to the General Plan, The General Plan Amendment will subsequently require an amendment to the City's certified Coastal Land Use Plan and any associated future development located within the Coastal Zone in the City ct, Newport Beach will require a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) from the California Coastal Commission (COO). The following comments addrass the issue of the proposed Site's consistency with the Chapter 3 policies of the California Coastal Act of 1976. The comments contained herein are preliminary and those of Coastal Commission staff only and should not be construed as representing the opinion of the Coastal Commission itself. As described below, the site raises issues rolated to land use. The following are comments by Commission staff on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report A5 -1 j -1 Apr -30 -14 02:26pm From - California Coastal +6626006084 T -047 P. 003/003 F -043 Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Plan Element Amendment Page 2 of 2 LAND USE The General Plan Land Use Element Amendment proposes to decrease development capacity at the Newport Coast Hotel location, which is located within the Newport Coast LCP Plan Area. The amendment would decrease the amount of allowable hotel rooms by 1,001 hotel rooms. The loss of visitor - serving uses is a concern. Would the loss of visitor - serving uses here be offset by allowing an increos� of development capacity of visitor - serving uses at another location within the Coastal Zone? The General Plan Land! Use Element Amendment also proposes revisions to the General Plan Land Use Elements goals and polices, including changes to those relating to the Banning Ranch property. Given the scope and complexity of the Banning Ranch property, Commission staff recommends that any project for that site should be considered in the context of a Local Coastal Program review, submitted by the City. This would allow for consideration of significant threshold issues at the planning Iovel, such as the kind, location and intensity of development that would be appropriate for the site given the priorities established under the Coastal Act and the constraints present on the site (e.g. biological resources, geologic haiards, etc.). Additionally, preservation of the site for open space for habitat and public recreational purposes is a high priority under the Coastal Act. Thus, every effort should be made to implement this preferred land use option. Thank you for the opportunity o comment on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Newportl Beach General Plan Land Use Plan Element Amendment. Commission staff request notification of any future activity associated with this site or related sites. Pleasie note, the comments provided herein are preliminary in nature. Additional and more specific comments may be appropriate as it develops into final form and when an application is submitted for a Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment and Coastal Development Permit. Please feel free to contact me at 562- 590 -5071 with any questions. . Sy 0 Program Analyst II Cc: State Clearinghouse A5 -2 A5 -3 A5-4 BARRY L. ALLEN 1 021 WHITE SAILS WAY CORONA DEL MARS CA 92625 Re: Comment on the Draft EIR for General Plan Amendment Gentlepersons: The traffic analysis is deficient and needs to address several specific items in detail. To determine the cumulative effect of the General Plan Amendment (GPA) proposal to add 500,000 square feet of new "Regional Office" development, the EIR should clearly address the increase to existing traffic in and around Newport Center, which result from the 2 new office towers (almost 500,000 square feet each) that are currently under construction and soon to be occupied in Newport Center.. These towers have been referred to as the "Pimco Tower" and the "Irvine Company Headquarters Tower: ". These 2 towers are located in and around the 500 Block of Newport Center and will clearly have major traffic impacts, particularly at peak hours, on the immediately. a1ia ,ent roa'waAez7. Sma jor,-qu n Hills Road,. Mae Arthar Blvd., Jamboree Road, Avocado Ave., Pacific Coast Highway; especially through, .Corona del Mar. In addition; the EIR should address the cumulative impact of these' office towers on the already overcrowded intersections of San Miguel- MacArthur - Avocado and probably many others. Traffic from this nearly 1 million square feet of office commercial development should be estimated using standard traffic engineering manuals. This information should be presented clearly using simple, straightforward language . and format so it can be understood by ordinary citizens because City ordinances, particularly "Green Light' require citizen approval of the GPA proposal to add an additional 500,000 square feet of development in this same area, using the same streets and intersections. 11 -1 �3 ��CDb1VEp Ay April 7, 2014 COMMUNITY City of Newport Beach APR 0 9 1014 Atm.: Mr. Greg Ramirez Senior Planner DEVELOPMENT ;�"' 100 Civic Center Dr.o� Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Comment on the Draft EIR for General Plan Amendment Gentlepersons: The traffic analysis is deficient and needs to address several specific items in detail. To determine the cumulative effect of the General Plan Amendment (GPA) proposal to add 500,000 square feet of new "Regional Office" development, the EIR should clearly address the increase to existing traffic in and around Newport Center, which result from the 2 new office towers (almost 500,000 square feet each) that are currently under construction and soon to be occupied in Newport Center.. These towers have been referred to as the "Pimco Tower" and the "Irvine Company Headquarters Tower: ". These 2 towers are located in and around the 500 Block of Newport Center and will clearly have major traffic impacts, particularly at peak hours, on the immediately. a1ia ,ent roa'waAez7. Sma jor,-qu n Hills Road,. Mae Arthar Blvd., Jamboree Road, Avocado Ave., Pacific Coast Highway; especially through, .Corona del Mar. In addition; the EIR should address the cumulative impact of these' office towers on the already overcrowded intersections of San Miguel- MacArthur - Avocado and probably many others. Traffic from this nearly 1 million square feet of office commercial development should be estimated using standard traffic engineering manuals. This information should be presented clearly using simple, straightforward language . and format so it can be understood by ordinary citizens because City ordinances, particularly "Green Light' require citizen approval of the GPA proposal to add an additional 500,000 square feet of development in this same area, using the same streets and intersections. 11 -1 �3 Finally, the EIR should clearly and succinctly address the impact on traffic, air quality, green house gasses, aesthesis and other factors, that will result from the increased 11 -2 densities of the entire GPA proposal in Newport Center which include the hotel project, retail and residential development. As you know, if approved by the City Council, this GPA will be placed on the November 2014 ballot for a vote of the Citizens of Newport Beach. It is therefore critically important that the true impact of the traffic generated by the existing but unoccupied development be identified, and the cumulative effects of the GPA proposal in its totality and especially with regard to an additional "Regional Office" development of "500,000 square feet" be clearly identified. Very Truly Yours, BARRY L. ALLEN Cc: Mayor Hill and Members of the Newport Beach City Council 11 -3 2 74 b-,4 �U QL� Q 715 12 -1 From: Karen Clark [mailto:karen -cark @cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 11:37 AM To: Ramirez, Gregg Subject: comment on Draft SUIR I am curious as to why the only alternative considered in the SEIR was to eliminate the new airport area development, and no alternative eliminating the Newport Center development was considered. Can someone explain? For those of us convinced that TIC actually controls the City Council, this fact fits in perfectly with our world view— it's TIC who wants these changes, so of course the development it is seeking would not be eliminated, even theoretically. Certainly no one in Newport really wants more traffic, more pollution and more population that would result from the General Plan Amendment, other than The Irvine Company. Karen H. Clark 2701 Ebbtide Rd. Corona del Mar 70 13 -1 From: Wisneski, Brenda [ mailto :BWisneski @newportbeachca.gov] Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 3:09 PM To: Johann Hadfield Subject: FW: City of Newport Beach -Land Use Element Advisory Committee (April 1, 2014) Looks like an EIR comment to me. From: Greg Sullivan fmailtomsullivanOwdland.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 3:01 PM To: WisnesIl Brenda Subject: FW: City of Newport Beach -Land Use Element Advisory Committee (April 1, 2014) Brenda, Please make certain below is included in the public record. Thanks. Sincerely, Greg Sullivan Senior Land Advisor WD LAND 94 Discovery Irvine, CA 1 92618 949.789.4555 x 63 � fax. 949.789.4556 1 www.wdland.com 212!1887 connect with me: O®a The "f nn atton opntprwd In MI. amen rtNaaoge 11 nunMd onry for Me personal and CCnnsenual Ide of tM designated rKiaent It lM reader of and Mani is no,an mtenOq iecmMnt pu are nereoy notified that any review use maaemuuuon forwarding of warning of mrs message is ameuy prGeltilted nearby honor ua lmmedmtaly N Irish, ematl or Ier6 pane am dead the onglnai message and as aaeW mesh nom your eptem IDper no„ From: Greg Sullivan Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 2:50 PM To: 'GRamirez @newportbeachca.gov' Cc: 'EdSelich @roadrunner.com'; 'RHill @NewportBeachCa.gov' Subject: City of Newport Beach -Land Use Element Advisory Committee (April 1, 2014) RE: NOP - General Plan Land Use Element Amendment (PA2013 -098) 1.7 acre parcel at 4699 Jamboree Road & Campus Drive, Newport Beach ( "Property") To Whom It May Concern: 146 -1 Respectfully, we again would like to go on the public record to express frustration and concern relating to our above referenced project's treatment in the EIR for the General Plan Update. We have repeatedly asked that the Subject 0 Property be considered on its own merits and separately from other properties that have been lumped together in Area 4 (Airport Area), with ours being a "Trip Neutral" Assisted Living /Congregate Care project. At the Public Seeping meeting on November 5, 2013, 1 publicly expressed my concerns regarding the Map Reference Areas (as outlined below) at which time I was assured that "our Property was in Area 4 for ease of mapping purposes only and we should not be concerned... each project would be considered on its own merits ". At the April 1, 2014 LUEAAC meeting, this was clearly not the case with motions to completely eliminate Area 4 from consideration in the Environmental Report. We again object to this treatment and request that each project within the EIR be considered as to its individual impacts and merits. This is clearly being done on the non - Irvine Company properties at 150 Newport Center Drive and 100 Newport Center Drive that have been segregated from the Irvine Company owned properties in nearby Area 5 and also for every other project within the EIR. Why 18 other projects /areas can be considered individually and not the 4 property owners In the Airport Area is incomprehensible. We request that our property be treated individually in a similar manner, as the right way to proceed. It is simply categorically unfair to lump our project in with others that have significantly different impacts to traffic and the environment. Moreover, providing a facility for an aging population in this location could significantly reduce drive times and pollution for Newport Beach area residents that wish their parents to be cared for in a quality project nearby. This use would provide a badly needed service to the community. Additionally, it would redevelop a tired office building and furnish a statement entrance into Newport's Airport Area business corridor in conforming appearance to other projects on Jamboree (again without significant traffic or environmental impacts). Thank you in advance for your consideration and I look forward to hearing back from you on this important issue. Sincerely, Greg Sullivan (Lifetime Resident) 1900 Beryl Lane Newport Beach, CA 92660 Sincerely, Greg Sullivan Senior Land Advisor WD LAND 94 Discovery Irvine, CA 1 92618 949.789.4555 x 63 fax. 949.789.4556 1 www.wdland.com connect with me: O®0 1M m!O/maFOn h.n,by n m we emaa , rl,. a mq l o" for tM pe�ypryl r C ng of thil wa or Ne C id,MyiV r bnad y 11 iM reaeer pTn mnea(a n not an mmMw rec,pent d are In. v nn* n ss. any renra Uee n.n%$ f Nn lI'lenn(or copy,n`OI Nn maaeap is a4ittly gOnlbnb PNae M4fy Ue immM4Wy W repry eme�l or lel> prom aM Eebb iM anLnal meMa(a and an MtMmenn from your frilem iNmF you From: Greg Sullivan Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 5:46 PM To: GRamirezCalnewportbeachca.gov Subject: Comment Card: November 5, 6:00pm - Newport Beach LUE Amendment Sopping Meeting Dear Mr. Ramirez, Per my comments at the last Seeping Meeting, I want to go onto public record to address my concerns that the Programmed EIR is lumping "trip neutral" and trade -off opportunities with projects that significantly impact traffic. While personally I am not against projects that would provide smart development in Newport Beach and increase traffic, I realize that I am in the minority and feel that an overly broad EIR significantly increases the possibility of a Greenlight vote. Therefore, I am requesting that the individual projects that are considered traffic neutral be sectioned separately from those that cause significant impacts in your studies. In particular, it appears as though all projects in the Map Reference area 4 have been lumped together vs. Map Reference 5, 17 & 18 all being addressed separately even though a 1413-1 cont'd EM 14A -1 they are all in Newport Center /Fashion Island. Staff reassured me that this was simply for "mapping purposes', but this explanation falls short when compared to Newport Center. Additionally, as this is a programmed EIR, we respectfully 14A -1 request that Trip Neutral congregate care uses be addressed separately as a zoning issue and not related back to a cont'd particular property. Newport's current ordinance is too narrowly written and does not adequately accommodate for good development of this badly needed type of project for our aging population. I Greg Sullivan 1900 Beryl Lane Newport Beach, CA 92660 Sincerely, Greg Sullivan Senior Land Advisor WD LAND 94 Discovery Irvine, CA 1 92618 949.789.4555 x 63 1 fax. 949.789.4556 1 www.wdland.com connect with me: fink ilia mlormanon mnmroG �n 1Na pnall Irb310(e b mtsnaC onM ru ms pereoWl em Nnndenpal we or rM deslyated reclWans It iM reaar of inn mnsa(a la not an mtendhic, receeenl you are MrebynoVem that any nubs use dllM hyppn or Nn meesa(t is strlctry gMlp�teE Pbne mpry us lmmeduleyMregy small or le> prang am debt. in. onynal musa(e and all attammentt nom your yptem Lean' ypW From: Andy Lingle [mailto:andylingle @gmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 25, 2014 3:32 PM To: Ramirez, Gregg Subject: Comment on the General Plan Land Use Element To: Gregg Ramirez, Hello again. I hope this is the appropriate place for my comment on the Land Use Element. If not, would you kindly send me the proper address? I've read the pamphlet about the coming General Plan Amendment that was sent to all residents about a month ago. I sent my questions to you and you answered them thoroughly and promptly. Thanks for that. My comment: After studying the pamphlet and looking at the draft EIR 1 am left with one big unanswered question: I can certainly see how all the proposed Land Use Element changes to the General Plan will be a great benefit to developers, contractors, hotel owners, road builders, and airlines. But, how in the world will it benefit the families in my neighborhood? Thanks, Andrea Lingle :I 15A -1 Apri130`hI 2014 To Gregg Ramirez: Dear Gregg. Thank you for your prompt reply to my earlier letter asking some questions that were prompted by the grey mailer describing the General Plan Amendments. There remain some issues about our water supply that I would like to see addressed. Please distribute my comments below and enter them into the administrative record for the General Plan Amendment SEIR: I have been studying the Hydrology section of the SEIR and so far I have found nothing that addresses whether or not there will be adequate drinking water to supply all the planned new dwelling units, hotels, and businesses during a drought. Note that we have already been asked to cut our water use by 20 %. There is a paragraph about using reclaimed water for irrigation and that's a good thing. There is some information about ground water replenishment and storage, and how we are addressing the issue of sea water intrusion resulting from a dropping water table. But I notice that there is little mention about the adequacy of our drinking water supply. Most importantly, as I sit here on this hot, dry, and windy day in the midst of the worst drought in California's recorded history, there is seemingly no emergency plan in place to address an acute water shortage. Do we have such a plan? Shouldn't it be addressed as part of our General Plan? Should we continue to build without one? Thank you, Andrea Lingle 2024 Diana Lane Newport Beach, CA 92660 IBRSi Kim Brandt, Community Development Director Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach, Planning Division, Community Development 100 Civic Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Gregg and Kim, April 26, 2014 gECEIVED BY COMMUNITY APR 2 9 2014 DEVELOPMENT V-2' OF NEWPOO i Thank you very much for your presentation of the proposed General Plan Amendments to the Big Canyon Community Association at our annual meeting March 13th. We appreciated your insights. I'm sure you observed a very large and vocal group of homeowners. Their concerns are accentuated by the recent construction of two office towers very visible from our neighborhoods. We now understand that there will be conversion of low rise offices to condominiums or rentals near Jamboree and San Joaquin Hills Road. Even before occupancy of these projects we see increases in traffic on both MacArthur and on Jamboree, as well as San Joaquin Hills Road. Therefore, further expansion in Newport Center is expected to add to congestion and parking problems. To that end, we were pleased to receive the requested traffic study for the proposed General Plan expansion in Newport Center. However, those studies assume three separate areas of new construction. If the plan is approved, it would seem there is an option for still another office tower, within the total space cap, that could be constructed on San Joaquin Hills Road near MacArthur Boulevard. If that is true, this will add to traffic (and parking) congestion. In addition to the 1000 residents of Big Canyon, there are another 1500 husband /wives who regularly use the Big Canyon Country Club. They will all be impacted by additional building near San Joaquin Hills Road and its intersections at both MacArthur and Jamboree. Clarifying that construction of another office tower near San Joaquin Hills Road will not be in the Proposed General Plan will substantially alleviate these concerns. Thank you for your consideration. Dwight Ryan 11 Lochmoor Lane Newport Beach, CA 92660 Intro 16 -1 R2 COMMENTS IN RE. DRAFT SEIR( ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT) for PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT(GPLUE) -April 29,2014 Please distribute these comments and enter into the Public Record. Firstly, we appreciate the efforts of the Advisory Committee and City staff, as well as members of the public, that have participated in the formation of policy and proposed Plan amendments. Based on review of the draft SEIR, and our knowledge of City demographics and sites, we have the following comments. It is unclear what is driving the proposed Amendments to the GPLUE. The policy recitals appear to focus on Economic Growth, while largely ignoring the Objectives and Policy of the City's General Plan. While economic growth is a meaningful objective for the City, it does not obviate the equally important objectives of preserving the integrity of neighborhoods and environmental quality that makes Newport Beach vital and attractive. Intro 17A -1 2. We believe that it is questionable and flawed logic to suggest that the relocation of thousands of Average Daily Vehicle Trips from one site to another is inherently 17A-2 of "neutral' impact. Every site is different: in characteristics, already existing surrounding land uses , and the ability of infrastructure to support additional intensification of use. A relocation of the magnitude proposed is definitely NOT neutral, and needs to be carefully evaluated. 3. On p. 30, Section 5.7, the document states that "Land use and planning..and land use designations ... are consistent with those of Local Coastal Plan ". The Local Coastal Plans were supposed to have been updated, but we do not find evidence of such a process. Furthermore, there are currently no Specific Plans to address areas with unique natural resource and aesthetic coastal characteristics which the public wishes to preserve - - -in particular Mariners Mile and Lido Village. Other Specific Plans for the coastal zones need updating, to assure that there is not over - intensification which the infrastructure cannot accommodate, and which will create irrevocable, adverse impact on the quality of our open space and surroundings. 17A -3 4. On p. 33, the document identifies but does not address mitigation for adverse impacts associated with additional need for Police protection, Schools, Fire, or 17A -4 other public services( impacts cited 5/10/2, 5/10/3) 5. In section 5/11/1, which addresses Transportation and traffic, the report states that the Project would not impact levels of service for the study area intersection. 17A -5 We are concerned that the maqnitude of traffic proposed in the Project will create W significant congestion and public safety hazards in areas which have already become increasingly congested, and contribute well beyond the immediate Project site. The City has over the past 3 -4 years adopted a pattern of practice which has approved numerous one -off Project developments through multiple "Amendments to the General Plan ", all without thoughtful projection of desired mix of land uses, and a Comprehensive Evaluation of Transportation and traffic impacts . What is the true Cumulative Impact of both the currently proposed, and other planned ,pending or approved projects on the City's overall Transportation and traffic? 6. In Section 2.3.2, the report identifies "potentially significant areas of adverse impact" : - Aesthetics - Air quality - Cultural resources - Water quality - Land use and planning - Water quality - Noise /vibration - Population and Housing - Public Services - Transportation and traffic - Utility infrastructure Where are the proposed impacts characterized, and where are the Mitigation measures proposed? 7. On p. 444, the report identifies areas of "Unavoidable, significant adverse impact" associated with the proposed Project - Greenhouse gas emissions - Noise Population and housing Transportation and traffic Where are the Mitigation Measures -- the City has a duty to characterize and address such impacts. We appreciate that the City has grown significantly since the 2006 General Plan, and also since the development of coastal Specific Plans. The City's population growth has ,per the report, exceeded SCAG population projections for the City by 18 %. Growth in not only residential population, but also visitor and commercial base, all has contributed to significant change. If we have already Outgrown our 2006 General Plan, would it not be worthwhile to consider a bona fide Plan Update process - -- -one carefuilly crafted, that M 17A -5 cont'd 17A -6 17A -7 hm addresses our current community characteristics and needs, rather than force through al process which has not adequately considered and balanced economic, residential 17A -8 neighborhood, environmental quality and infrastructure considerations? cont'd Thank you . Denys H. Oberman Resident Cc: Concerned Citizens of Newport Beach, SPON Ma COMMENTS IN RE. DRAFT SEIR FOR GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 4 -29 -14 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Please enter into the Public Record The report acknowledges that it is appropriate to consider areas which can accommodate increased intensity, and those where Decreased Intensity is appropriate. The City's coastal zones are areas which require careful land use planning so as to prevent Over- Intensification of Use which: • Is detrimental to the aesthetics, openness and access to our coastal natural resources • Creates excess volume of transiency and traffic, incompatible uses compromising our family - oriented, dense coastal residential neighborhoods *The (Transportation and power /utility ) infrastructure cannot support 'Creates public safety hazards Such areas include: Mariners Mile, B anning Ranch, Balboa Penninsula /Lido Isle,Corona del Mar on coastal side, and neighborhoods surrounding the Bay and bluffs. These areas are connected by an arterial corridor, Pacific Coast Highway, that is at capacity. Thank you. Denys Oberman Cc: Concerned Citizens of Newport Beach, SPON SAM irr15i Comments on Proposed 2014 General Plan Amendment, Newport Beach 1. Context: The 2006 Plan focused on the needs and interests of residents; the 2014 proposed Plan emphasizes Economic Development. However, no compelling case is made in the EIR for updating the Plan to focus on Economic Development. These items call into question the validity of the proposed 2014 Plan and the EIR's purpose. A. The potential economic benefits are not presented. No analysis is provided on: a. Business Revenue $ from the plan b. Potential new residential and visitor serving uses c. Tax revenue B. The Plan states that 'economic development' is the primary driver. In contrast, the 2006 Plan was focused on activities of interest to residents. Though residents will benefit from some of the sustainability initiatives and livable communities programs, overall the plan lacks a serious consideration of the impact on the residential fabric of the community. C. The proposed switch of Development Rights from Newport Coast to Fashion Island will benefit The Irvine Company primarily. However, this is not discussed or analyzed. The EIR purports to compare the impact of the new Development under the 2006 Plan vs. under an updated 2014 Plan, but the information provided in inadequate. 2. Table 3 -1 Proposed Land Use Changes — P. 58 The Proposed Changes at Fashion Island will have the biggest impact on new Trip Generation (8,000+ Trips Daily), Parking (6,000+ spaces swapped from Newport Coast) and Square Footage (500K /50K/500 Multi - Family Units). However, the Table on Proposed Land Use Changes DOES NOT detail A. the allowable Square Feet for the Existing uses B. Proposed Capacity in Square Feet for the Proposed Uses. This information provided for all of the other locations. Why is it missing for Fashion Island? 3. The stated impacts of proposed Changes in Parking spaces and buildable square feet from Newport Coast to Fashion Island are misleading. Moving spaces and projects which may never be built from Newport Coast to Fashion Island creates a false equivalency. All Parking Spaces and Retail Units are not created equal. Adding the new Square Footage, Trips, and Parking to Fashion Island will have a significant impact. However, the EIR brushes these off as insignificant and does not adequately address the potential impacts. What consideration is The Irvine Company providing to support this change? 4. 5.11 -3 - Traffic Analysis The Traffic Analysis identifies Multiple intersections currently at level D, E or F, with conditions expected to worsen, as shown on 5.11 -8. More disturbing is the potential hazard from Freeway onramps, such as the SR -73 Macarthur Exit going South. It is already a challenging offramp to navigate, with a short segment to transition to the offramp and competition from cross traffic attempting to merge onto the SR -73. With additional traffic this off ramp will likely continue to worsen. 4. Table 5.7-4 SCAG 2012 -2035 RTP /SCS Goals Consistency Analysis - Page 273 "Additional development in these areas would facilitate restricting growth in other areas and provide a growing tax base to support the City's services and other community priorities." A. The City Services in question and related revenue need to be specified. a. Would the Plan support existing services, or additional services? b. How much revenue will the proposed 2014 Plan generate for services, compared to the 2006 Plan? c. Are these services dependent on proposed 2014 revenue? d. How are proposed revenues to support Services structured? IM ff-W 1[M M i. Fees ii. Taxes iii. Assessments iv. Other 4. The Public Outreach has been weak. The 2014 Effort has been minimal by comparison. The GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT Committee has only 5 Resident members. The City Website lists only 1 Public Information Meeting, on 09/09/2013, and 1 meeting on April 10, 2014. These meetings have not been widely publicized via newspaper, signage, or email blast to City subscribers. In contrast, in 2006, Nancy Gardner led an outreach process which facilitated discussion and solicited input across the City, through meetings led by qualified planning and outreach consultants. Residents from across the City participated. 18 -5 cont'd UP W From: Richard Sungaila [mailto:sungaila @earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 11:12 AM To: Ramirez, Gregg Subject: Comments on proposed changes to the Newport Beach General Plan The Plan appears to be leading us to retrenchment, a stagnant economy, and to be subservient to the concepts of global warming /climate change. There is no scientific consensus or actual data to confirm the reality of global warming/climate change. For the past sixteen years there has been no global warming even though the amount of atmospheric carbon - dioxide, (the errant greenhouse gas claimed to be the gas causing global warming), has increased by 8% over this period. It is noteworthy that the head of the United Nations International Panel on Climate Control (IPCC) agrees that there has been NO GLOBAL WARMING for the past sixteen years. For an analysis of the latest pronouncements of the United Nations IPCC, click on the link below: Forbes: Latest IPCC Report Deliberately Excludes, Misrepresents Important Climate Science Americans were the first to land on the moon and successfully return because we were innovative and not afraid of our own shadows. We need to have a General Plan which encourages responsible private innovation and investment consistent with the freedom and intent of our Founding Fathers and the Constitution of the United States of America. Oppressive regulations based upon unfounded theories will stifle the American spirit. 5 IN 19 -1 From: Bruce Bartram [mailto:b.bartram @verizon.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 12:12 PM To: Ramirez, Gregg Cc: blush 1996 @aol.com; medjkraus @yahoo.com; carlrcassidy @att.net Subject: General Plan Land Use Element Amendment Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Division 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: General Plan Land Use Element Amendment Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Dear Mr. Ramirez: On Pg. 1 -1 of the Executive Summary of the General Plan Land Use Element Amendment draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) it is stated in pertinent that: "This Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) addresses the environmental effects associated with the implementation of the City of Newport Beach's proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendment (proposed project). The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that local government agencies, prior to taking action on projects over which they have discretionary approval authority, consider the environmental consequences of such projects.... An EIR is a public document designed to provide the public and local and state governmental agency decision makers with an analysis of potential environmental consequences to support informed decision making." The underlying purpose of the City's General Plan Land Use Element Amendment is hinted at on Pg. 3 -8 of the SEIR Project Description in the Overview /Purpose Section 3.3.2.1. It states in pertinent part: "In conjunction with the General Plan LUE Amendment Advisory Committee, City staff and their consultants considered potential amendments to 1) increase /decrease development capacity in specific areas of the City and 2) modify land use policies to better reflect land use changes and to support recent Neighborhood Revitalization efforts. In some subareas of the ilding intensity and/or residential units." 110A -1 By "reallocation" the City means to utilize unbuilt building intensity /capacity and unbuilt residential units /capacity from areas where it would not have been use to areas where the City/developers want to use it. Thus, since the unbuilt capacity would not have been used where it was this Amendment in practical terms allows for significantly more new development in comparison with what is actually now "built." That is, in existence for purposes of environmental review. However, because of "reallocation" the total increase doesn't appear significant. On Pg. 3 -29 of the Project Description is Table 3 -2 which is comparison of the 2006 General Plan Buildout Quantity with that proposed under the Amendment. For example, for Office Space the 2006 Buildout Quantity is 11,279,966 SF. With the Amendment the new capacity is 11,773,643 SF an increase of 10 percent. However, that amount does not disclose the amount of capacity that is not being utilized under the 2006 General Plan limits. In reality, that unutilized amount of capacity should be added to the amount of increase since it reflects development which would not occur. The entire Table 3 -2 should be reviewed with this in mind. Thus, the supposed reduction of 701 Hotel Rooms for an overall " -13% change" is likewise deceptive because that amount does not reflect that actual Hotel Rooms that really exist for purposes of environmental review.. Under CEQA, lead agencies must identify the existing physical environment — i.e., the baseline set of environmental conditions — against which to compare a project's expected impacts, in order to determine whether project impacts are "significant." (Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Bd. Of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal.AppAth 99, 119.) CEQA Guidelines section 15125 generally defines the baseline as the physical conditions then in existence when the Notice of Preparation ( "NOP ") is published at the inception of the environmental review. Here, according to Pg. 1 -10 of the Executive Summary the Notice of Preparation regarding the SEIR was distributed for comment between October 22, 2013 and November 5, 2013. It is the actual development, i.e, office space, hotel rooms. et al, in existence in this NOP timeframe that should been used in the SEIR's environmental review and analysis of Amendment's impact. Thus, for example, the Project Description and, in particular, Table 3 -2 are inaccurate, deceptive and deliberately understate the Amendment's environmental impacts. The EIR is "the heart of CEQA." (Guidelines, § 15003(a); County oflnyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795, 810). As such, it is the primary means of achieving the legislative declaration that the policy of this state is to "take all action necessary to protect, rehabilitate, and enhance the environmental quality of the state." (Public Resources § 21001(a).) It is also an "environmental 'alarm bell' whose purpose it is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological points of no return." County oflnyo v. Yor, . supra, 32 Cal.App.3d 795, 810.) In particular, an accurate project description" is the "sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR." (City of Santee v. County of San Diego (1989) 214 Cal. App. 3d 1438; County oflnw v. CitLofLos Angeles (1977)71 Cal.App.3d 185, 192 -193.) Given the inaccurate Project Description as demonstrated by Table 3 -2 this SEIR is neither informative and/or legally sufficient. Id. Finally, on Pgs. 3 -30 -33 of the SEIR are proposed changes to Land Use Element Goals. The current Goal LU 1 is: "Goal LU 1 A unique residential community with diverse coastal and upland neighborhoods, which values its colorful past, high quality of life, and community bonds, and balances the 91 11 OA -1 cont'd 110A -2 11 OA -3 needs of residents, businesses, and visitors through the recognition that Newport beach is primarily a residential community." Under the Amendment, LU I is changed as follows: "Goal LU 1 A unique, primarily residential community with diverse coastal and upland neighborhoods, which values its colorful past, high quality of life, and community bonds, and balances the needs of residents, businesses, and visitors" Notice the "de- emphasis" on Newport Beach being a unique residential community to a unique, primarily residential community. Obviously, the City is attempting to change the land use character of the City of Newport Beach to allow more nonresidential development. As shown above, it is attempting to do this without proper environmental review and without an informed public alerted to the environmental consequences should the City succeed in doing so. Bruce Bartram 2 Seaside Circle Newport Beach, CA 92663 �l� 110A -3 cont'd From: Bruce Bartram [mailto:b.bartram @verizon.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 3:45 PM To: Ramirez, Gregg Cc: blush 1996 @aol.com; medjkraus @yahoo.com Subject: Re: General Plan Land Use Element Amendment Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report - Comment II Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Division 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: General Plan Land Use Element Amendment Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report - Comment 11 Dear Mr. Ramirez: This email is in follow up to the SEIR comment below. On Pg. 3 -1 of the Project Objectives the "Statement of Objectives" is listed as follows: "The City of Newport Beach Planning Comrr= - -:on and City Council approved the following objectives for the 2006 General Plan: § Preserve and enhance Newport Beach's character as a beautiful, unique residential community. § Reflect a conservative growth strategy that 1 Balances needs for housing, jobs and services. 1 Limits land use changes to a very small amount of the City's land area. 1 Directs land use changes to areas where residents have expressed a willingness to consider change and where sustainable development can occur. 1 Protects natural resources, open space, and recreational opportunities. § Protect and enhance water quality. § Protect and enhance recreational opportunities and public access to open space and natural resources. § Modify land uses, densities, and intensities so that traffic generation is controlled. These objectives remain consistent with the General Plan LUE Amendment and will aid decision makers in their review of this project and its associated environmental impacts." In fact, in the 2006 General Plan Chapter 1 Introduction on Pgs. 1 -2 & 1 -3 it is stated regarding the General Plan's objectives in pertinent part as follows: 1106 -1 9 -2� 1106 -2 "This General Plan is the first comprehensive revision of the City's General Plan in more than thirty years and is the result of more than four years of work by thirty-eight residents representing all segments of this community. These residents— members of the General Plan Advisory Committee, or GPAC— developed this plan after thorough study of input from thousands of their neighbors that was received during the most extensive public outreach in the City's history. After receiving community input, GPAC developed a "Vision Statement " —a description of the City that residents want Newport Beach to be now and in 2025 to serve as a blueprint for this General Plan Update. GPAC, with the assistance of planning professionals and using the Vision Statement as a guide, then developed this General Plan to ensure that the City achieves the vision by, among many other things, doing the following: ..� ` 1 �. WE I =1 II "11 IF11111t. • Supporting efforts to acquire Banning Ranch for permanent open space • Creating and implementing a long term strategy to control John Wayne Airport impacts • Taking strong action to prevent or reduce water pollution in the bay and ocean • Enhancing natural resources such as Upper Newport Bay • Improving circulation by synchronizing traffic lights and making road improvements that respect our community character • Creating guidelines that preserve the charm and beauty of our residential neighborhoods • Preserving public views of the ocean, harbor and bay • Continuing to provide first -class service to seniors • Continuing to offer education and recreation programs such as Junior Lifeguards • Maintaining a world -class public library system with branches convenient to residents • Promoting revitalization of older commercial areas like West Newport and Balboa Village • Fostering artistic and cultural activities and venues in the community The General Plan for the City of Newport Beach presents a vision for the City's future and a st, rateg� to make that vision a reality. The Plan is the result of thousands of hours of research and technical studies, the collective efforts of the diversity of elected decision - makers, individuals, and agencies who cumulatively guide and shape land use development and natural resource conservation and the engagement of numerous individuals throughout the community who have articulated their hopes and expectations for the City's future" (Emphasis added) The GPAC Vision Statement objectives are obviously very different from the SEIR's Project Objectives the Amendment is supposedly consistent with. Please explain how the Amendment is consistent with the following Vision Statement Objectives: • Reducing traffic citywide by 28,920 trips each day over the life of the plan • Reducing potential new commercial, office, and industrial space by 1.45 million square feet • Supporting efforts to acquire Banning Ranch for permanent open space • Creating and implementing a long term strategy to control John Wayne Airport impacts • Taking strong action to prevent or reduce water pollution in the bay and ocean • Enhancing natural resources such as Upper Newport Bay • Improving circulation by synchronizing traffic lights and making road improvements that respect our community character 94 I1 OB -2 cont'd ■ Creating guidelines that preserve the charm and beauty of our residential neighborhoods It should be noted that on Pg. 1 -3 the General Plan Introduction states as follows: "The General Plan recognizes that Newport Beach is rip manly a residential community, with diverse coastal and upland neighborhoods. As Newport Beach is almost fully developed, the Plan focuses on conserving the existing pattern of land uses and establishes policies for their protection and long term maintenance." (Emphasis added) Please explain how the Amendment is consistent with the General Plan characterization of Newport Beach above. Also, how is the Amendment consistent with "conserving the ex' stine pattern of land uses and establishes policies for their protection and long term maintenance." Lastly, please explain how the proposed amendment to Land Use Goal LU -1 is consistent with the above Vision Statement. Once again, that proposed amendment is as follows: The current Goal LU 1 is: "Goal LU I A unique residential community with diverse coastal and upland neighborhoods, which values its colorful past, high quality of life, and community bonds, and balances the needs of residents, businesses, and visitors through the recognition that Newport beach is primarily a residential community." Under the Amendment, LU I is changed as follows: "Goal LU 1 A unique, primarily residential community with diverse coastal and upland neighborhoods, which values its colorful past, high quality of life, and community bonds, and balances the needs of residents, businesses, and visitors" Once again, the EIR is "the heart of CEQA." (Guidelines, § 15003(a); County of Inyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795, 810). As such, it is the primary means of achieving the legislative declaration that the policy of this state is to "take all action necessary to protect, rehabilitate, and enhance the environmental quality of the state." (Public Resources § 21001(a).) It is also an "environmental 'alarm bell' whose purpose it is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological points of no return." ( County of Invo v. Yortti, supra, 32 Cal.App.3d 795, 810.) In conclusion, how are the deliberate misstatements regarding the 2006 General Plan's objectives contained in the SEIR listed above consistent with the SEIR fulfilling its duty under CEQA to inform the public of the Amendment's environmental changes "before they have reached ecological points of no return?" Bruce Bartram 2 Seaside Circle Newport Beach, CA 92663 110B -2 cont'd 11111 -M From: Bruce Bar-tram 1108 Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 12:12 PM To: GRamirez(anewportbeachca.aov Cc: blush1996()aol.com ; medikrausOayahoo.com ; carlrcassidyaatt.net Subject: General Plan Land Use Element Amendment Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 95 Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Division 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: General Plan Land Use Element Amendment Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Dear Mr. Ramirez: On Pg. 1 -1 of the Executive Summary of the General Plan Land Use Element Amendment draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) it is stated in pertinent that: "This Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) addresses the environmental effects associated with the implementation of the City of Newport Beach's proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendment (proposed project). The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that local government agencies, prior to taking action on projects over which they have discretionary approval authority, consider the environmental consequences of such projects.... An FIR is a public document designed to provide the public and local and state governmental agency decision makers with an analysis of potential environmental consequences to support informed decision making." The underlying purpose of the City's General Plan Land Use Element Amendment is hinted at on Pg. 3 -8 of the SEIR Project Description in the Overview /Purpose Section 3.3.2.1. It states in pertinent part: "In conjunction with the General Plan LUE Amendment Advisory Committee, City staff and their consultants considered potential amendments to 1) increase /decrease development capacity in specific areas of the City and 2) modify land use policies to better reflect land use changes and to support recent Neighborhood Revitalization efforts. In some subareas of the City, amendments to land use designations are proposed to reflect development that will not occur. and other areas have been identified that can benefit from a reallocation of unbuilt building intensity and /or residential units." By "reallocation" the City means to utilize unbuilt building intensity/capacity and unbuilt residential units /capacity from areas where it would not have been use to areas where the City /developers want to use it. Thus, since the unbuilt capacity would not have been used where it was this Amendment in practical terms allows for significantly more new development in comparison with what is actually now "built." That is, in existence for purposes of environmental review. However, because of "reallocation" the total increase doesn't appear significant. On Pg. 3 -29 of the Project Description is Table 3 -2 which is comparison of the 2006 General Plan Buildout Quantity with that proposed under the Amendment. For example, for Office Space the 2006 Buildout Quantity is 11,279,966 SF. With the Amendment the new capacity is 11,773,643 SF an increase of 10 percent. However, that amount does not disclose the amount of capacity that is not being utilized under the 2006 General Plan limits. In reality, that unutilized amount of capacity should be added to the amount of increase since it reflects development which would not occur. The entire Table 3 -2 should be reviewed with this in mind. Thus, the supposed reduction of 701 Hotel Rooms for an overall " -13% change" is likewise deceptive because that amount does not reflect that actual Hotel Rooms that really exist for purposes of environmental review.. Under CEQA, lead agencies must identify the existing physical environment — i.e., the baseline set of environmental conditions — against which to compare a project's expected impacts, in order to determine whether project impacts are "significant." (Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Bd. Of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 119.) CEQA Guidelines section 15125 generally defines the baseline as the physical conditions then in existence when the Notice of Preparation ( "NOP ") is published at the inception of the environmental review. Here, according to Pg. 1 -10 of the Executive Summary the Notice of Preparation regarding the SEIR was distributed for comment between October 22, 2013 and November 5, 2013. It is the actual development i.e office space hotel rooms et al in existence in this NOP timeframe that should been used in the SEIR's environmental review and analysis of Amendment's impact. Thus, for example, the Project Description and, in particular, Table 3 -2 are inaccurate, deceptive and deliberately understate the Amendment's environmental impacts. The EIR is "the heart of CEQA." (Guidelines, § 15003(a); County of Inyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795, 810). As such, it is the primary means of achieving the legislative declaration that the policy of this state is to "take all action necessary to protect, rehabilitate, and enhance the environmental quality of the state." (Public Resources § 21001(a).) It is also an "environmental 'alarm bell' whose purpose it is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological points of no return." County oflnyo v. Yor., supra. 32 pp.3d 795, 810.) In particular, an accurate project description" is the "sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR." (City of Santee v. County of San Diego (1989) 214 Cal. App. 3d 1438; County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles 11977)71 Cal.A,pp.3d 185,192 -193.) Given the inaccurate Project Description as demonstrated by Table 3 -2 this SEIR is neither informative and /or legally sufficient. Id. Finally, on Pgs. 3 -30 -33 of the SEIR are proposed changes to Land Use Element Goals. The current Goal LU 1 is: "Goal LU 1 A unique residential community with diverse coastal and upland neighborhoods, which values its colorful past, high quality of life, and community bonds, and balances the needs of residents, businesses, and visitors through the recognition that Newport beach is primarily a residential community." Under the Amendment, LU I is changed as follows: "Goal LU I A unique, primarily residential community with diverse coastal and upland neighborhoods, which values its colorful past, high quality of life, and community bonds, and balances the needs of residents, businesses, and visitors" Notice the "de- emphasis" on Newport Beach being a unique residential community to a unique, primarily residential community. Obviously, the City is attempting to change the land use character of the City of Newport Beach to allow more nonresidential development. As shown above, it is attempting to do this without proper environmental review and without 97 an informed public alerted to the environmental consequences should the City succeed in doing so. Bruce Bartram 2 Seaside Circle Newport Beach, CA 92663 4/30/14 Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Division 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 gramirez @newportbeachca.gov Re: Public Comment on General Plan Land Use Element Amendment Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Dear Mr. Ramirez: Thank you for your dedicated service to the City of Newport Beach and efforts for the immensely complicated and extensive Amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element within the eye of the needle window for inclusion on the November ballot. Because the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report is so extensive for the humungeous changes to the General Plan Land Use Element, the efforts of the City Staff are to be appreciated. The residents of the City of Newport Beach should be amazed that the specially selected Committee for Amending the Land Use Element and City Staff completed with immense effort such extensive revisions to the General Plan that generates a Supplemental (imagine if it was an original report) Environmental Impact Report in excess of 1100 pages. The report is so overwhelming and General Plan Land Use Element changes so immensely extensive with far reaching long term impacts upon the City that the Committee and City Staff should be credited aggressively determining future course of the City. To get so much into a revised document for crucial changes to the General Plan Land Use Element, even with a reasonable timeline for proper committee review, environmental study, and public review is an amazing committed effort by all involved. 1) Given the enormity of the changes taken as a whole, (proposed three new large scale hotels added for example) the amount of time provided and opportunities to review and comment, has the public through the regular city public participation process been given ample reasonable opportunity to consider the SEIR and the underlying land use element changes? 171A -1 For example the specifics provide on Pg. 3 -10 of the Project Description stating that the Amendment will allow a new 125 room hotel at 150 Newport Center Drive in Fashion Island/Newport Center Planning Area Above that it is stated in Fashion Island the Amendment will allow 500,000 square feet of new office space; 50,000 square feet of new commercial space; and 500 new multi - family units. 15,000 square feet of additional "mixed use" space is allowed at 100 Newport Center Drive. 2) Have the various committees and commissions all been provided an opportunity to review and I 111A_2 comment (Harbor Commission, Bicyle Safety, Parks and Recreation, Water Quality, ......) upon the extensive revisions to the future of the City? 3) How does the process for making such extensive speicific individual changes proposed in amending the land use element to the General Plan compare to the process employed by other cities in California for 11A -3 making a rewriting of the future of the City and the FIR or need for supplemental FIR with regard to the specificity of defined development vs. a wholistic approach left to the will of the voting public? 4) Has the voting public been provided an opportunity to review the environmental impact upon the Ci of Newport Beach neighbors and other agency interests (Costa Mesa, Huntington Beach, California Coastal nin -a Commission, Santa Ana River, ....) or is the SEIR separately reported to NB without consideration for interests of all impacted, taken as a whole? G 5) Where does the SEIR report consider the fiscal impact to the city (increased litigation costs, imminent water rate charges, and other city costs) for the immense wholistic change to the City Land use element not each 111A -5 individual specific supplemental change including reallocations from the prior general plan approved by the public? 6) Is a supplemental EIR sufficient for protecting the interests of all involved when there the amount of changes, enormity of fiscal impact, immense number of revisions for traffic, safety, water quality (including imminent impact upon availablility and costs to residents) are soextensive. For example Pg. 3 -8 of the Project Description in the Overview /Purpose Section 3.3.2.1. states in pertinent part: (Bold and underline emphasis added by this author) "In conjunction with the General Plan LUE Amendment Advisory Committee, City staff and their consultants considered potential amendments to 1) increase /decrease development capacity in specific areas of the City and 2) modify land use policies to better reflect land use changes and to support recent Neighborhood Revitalization efforts. In some subareas of the City, amendments to land use designations are proposed to reflect development that will not occur, and other areas have been identified that can benefit from a reallocation of unbuilt building intensity and/or residential units." Does this mean that by "reallocation" the City means to utilize unbuilt building intensity /capacity and unbuilt residential units /capacity from areas where it would not have been use to areas where the City/developers want to use it. Thus, since the unbuilt capacity would not have been used where it was this Amendment in practical terms allows for significantly more new development. However because of "reallocation" the total increase doesn't appear significant. The Pg. 3 -29 Table 3 -2 provides a comparison of the 2006 General Plan Buildout Quantity with that proposed under the Amendment. The Office Space the 2006 Buildout Quantity is 11,279,966 SF. With the Amendment the new capacity is 11,773,643 SF an increase of 10 percent. However, that amount does not disclose the amount of capacity that was not being utilized under the 2006 General Plan limits. In reality, that unutilized amount of capacity should be added to the amount of increase since it reflects development which would not occur. 11A-6 6) Given the changes to the voter approved general plan including reallocations, existing litigation, lacking any amended changes in land use element for bringing general plan into compliance with court decision regarding the general plan language conflicts, and enormity of amended changes, in your expert opinion as a 111A -7 city planner is a supplemental EIR, rather an entirely new EIR that considers the reallocations, missing court directed language, and the land use element taken as a whole not a more reasonable inquiry for the evaluation of the proposed amendment to the land use element. Carl Cassidy carlrcassidy@att.net 100 5/1/14 Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Division 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 gramirez @newportbeachca.gov Re: Timely 5 -1 -14 Public Comment on General Plan Land Use Element Amendment Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Dear Mr. Ramirez: As expressed in my prior written public comment, we the residents of Newport Beach appreciate dedicated service to the City of Newport Beach and efforts for the immensely complicated and extensive Amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element. It has come to my attention that because the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report with extennsive and enormous number of cumulative long term changes to the General Plan Land Use Element, that I had miscalculated the number of days from the 45 -day public review period for the SEIR set forth in the "Notice of Completion & Availability" (March 17, 2014 — April 30, 2014) is inconsistent to me with how other public lead agencies in California calculate and the first from the count of days during which an announcement or document is available for review. Under generally accepted documented filings pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15087 45 -day public review period initiated on March 17 should run through the end of business on (March 18 + 45 days =) May 1. March 14 days, April 30 days, with an additional day for all public comment on May 1. Because of this misunderstanding or should the City not respond to my timely filed public comment the City will be operating outside the law and more importantly not providing all voting residents an equal opportunity for public comment and equal protection under the law. It is my understanding that when any of the following conditions occur the lead agency (City of Newport Beach) shall find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment which will require a Mandatory Finding of Significance. Such a finding shall require an EIR to be prepared (CEQA Guidelines Section 15065): • When a project has the potential to substantially 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 an endangered, rare or threatened species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory; • When a project has the potential to achieve short-term goals to the disadvantage of long -term environmental goals; • When a project has possible environmental effects which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable; • When the environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. 101 Because the public comment period was not in legal compliance with the statutes and regulation without any additional review of additional non - compliance for filing requirement, the entire SEIR must be poperly viewed as tainted subject to additional review and scrutiny by the public. In addition, I have not been able to locate specific findings within the SEIR that conclusively resolve and state emphatically that each of the above requirements under CEQA Guidelines Section 15065 have been addressed and the public given proper notice and opportunity to offer public comment. As I stated in my prior public comment, I have been involved on the Water Quality Committee for the better part of the last two years. I am humbled and amazed by the intellect, experience, and specific dedicated knowledge of the committee members, the committed expertise of the Chairman, the regular attendees, and the speaking presenters on water quality issues. When I walk in the room the IQ of the room decreases by 20 per cent. There is almost a century of dedicated public service to various water quality issues to different public agencies. The fact that this immense resource with dedicated service and extensive specific knowledge, expertise, and successful water quality problem resolution as it pertains specifically to Newport Beach that was not considered by the SEIR or by the advisory committee in drafting the proposed general plan amendment is an immense disservice to the residents of Newport Beach. I welcome the opportunity to provide extensive detailed future facts to the public and the planning department regarding the gross deficiency of the SEIR on the matter of water quality. One can only wonder if the public comment period includes a severe restriction upon public comment outside the law and the water quality resource information has been neglectfully omitted from the General Plan Land Use Element Amendment Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report what additional committees and commissions were disregarded in developing the immense changes to the General Plan. Carl Cassidy carlrcassidy @att.net 102 April 30, 2014 Dear Gregg, Thank you and the other members of the General Plan Land Use Advisory Amendment Committee for the effort put forth for the proposed General Plan update. Please distribute my comments below and Intro enter into the administrative record for this project. Executive Summary, Section 1.1.2, Approach /Definition of Baseline, page 1 -S to 1 -6 states: 'Impacts are assessed for the net land use changes under the proposed amendment, as described in Chapter 3, Project Description. Where a comparison of 2006 General Plan versus General Plan LUE Amendment statistics are required to quantify impacts (i.e., air quality, GHG, population and housing, public services, and utilities and service system impacts), the projected buildout data used is based on the land use information used for the traffic modeling in order to maintain consistency throughout the analysis of the Draft SEIR. Traffic impacts associated with proposed General Plan LUE Amendment are determined by comparing the future scenarios of the adopted 2006 General Plan with the future scenario of the General Plan if the Land Use Element is amended as proposed. The modeling has been conducted for both scenarios independently. The land use input for both scenarios' models incorporal land use changes that have been approved subsequent to the certification of the 2006 General Plan EIR. (My highlight for emphasis) Therefore, the modeling reflects existing traffic conditions and accurately compares buildout to build( of the two scenarios, thereby assessing the impact of the incremental project changes. Appendix C provides a list of General Plan Amendments and project approvals that have been processed subsequent to certification of the 2006 General Plan EIR and are incorporated into the modeling for both the 2006 General Plan buildout and General Plan LUE Amendment buildout scenarios.' (My highlight for emphasis) Comment: Appendix C does not contain 'a list of contain of General Plan Amendments and project approvals that have been processed subsequent to certification of the 2006 General Plan EIR'. Appendix C contains the Land Use Element Policy Revisions. Nowhere in the SEIR is there a 'list of General Plan Amendments and project approvals that have been processed subsequent to certification of the 2006 General Plan EIR'. The absence of this information makes it impossible for the community and public to fully understand the underlying data used to establish the baseline. This is a serious omission and the City is obligated to its residents and public to revise the SEIR to include this critical backbone informatioi and recirculate the SEIR for review and comment. Comment: Furthermore, it is unacceptable and highly suspect that General Plan Amendments and project approvals that have been processed subsequent to certification of the 2006 General Plan EIR (which the public has no visibility to in this SEIR) 'are incorporated into the modeling for both the 2006 General Plan buildout and General Plan LUEAmendment buildout scenarios'. There is no justification for the absence of this critical component for public review. The attributes of each General Plan amendment and approved project since the 2006 General Plan (e.g., land use type, Zos 112 -1 112 -2 square footage, # of dwelling units etc.) are available in City records. Compilation of an'independent scenario' for this critical piece of the baseline could have been easily developed, and presented for public review in this SEIR CEQA document. Instead this data is buried within the 2006 General Plan buildout scenario and the General Plan LUE Amendment buildout scenario. 112 -2 Please explain why modeling was not conducted for this scenario independent of the 2006 General Plan cont'd buildout scenario and the General Plan LUE Amendment buildout scenario. To ensure full transparency to the underlying data and analysis performed to create the baseline, I request that the SEIR be revised to provide the traffic model of a third scenario, 'General Plan Amendments and approved projects since certification of the 2006 General Plan EIR' independent of th 2006 General Plan buildout scenario and the General Plan LUE Amendment buildout scenario, and then recirculate the revised SEIR for public review and comment. Transportation and Traffic: General Continent Why isn't Construction related traffic included in the Transportation and Traffic section of the SEIR? Construction related noise and air quality impacts are addressed in these sections of the SEIR. Construction traffic is an integral component of an environmental impact analysis. This is a gross omission which should be addressed. I request that the SEIR be revised to include an analysis of Construction traffic impacts and that the SEIR be recirculated for public comment. Executive Summary, Section 1.6, pages 1.9 —1.10 Issues to be Resolved states: 'Section 15123(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR contain issues to be resolved including the choice among alternatives and whether or how to mitigate significant impacts. With regard to the proposed project, the major issues to be resolved include decisions by the lead agency as to the following: 1. Whether this Draft SEIR adequately analyzes the environmental impacts of the proposed project, as compared to the approved 2006 General Plan; 2. Whether the benefits of the proposed project override its environmental impacts, which cannot be feasibly avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance; 3. Whether the proposed land use changes are compatible with the character of the existing area; 4. Whether the identified mitigation measures should be adopted and /or modified; 5. Whether there are other mitigation measures that should be adopted for the proposed project in addition to the mitigation measures recommended in the Draft SEIR; 6. Whether there are any alternatives to the proposed project that would reduce or avoid any of its significant impacts and achieve most of its basic project objectives.' Comment: Regarding issue #3 above: The proposed land use changes are not compatible with the character of the existing areas. Newport Beach is a unique residential community and the proposed increased development will degrade the quality of life of Corona del Mar residents (at a minimum). 104 112 -3 Ifil l Traffic will cut - through this residential community in order to avoid getting caught in traffic. This proposed amendment is transforming Newport Beach into a commercial center and is contrary to the 2006 General Plan vision and goals. Regarding Issue #5: Nowhere are 'other mitigation measures' suggested for adoption in the SEIR. With all the 'significant and unavoidable impacts' identified throughout the SEIR there is a conspicuous absence of mitigation plans. Please provide an explanation as to why the SEIR lacks mitigation plans in light of all the 'significant and unavoidable' impacts identified. 112 -4 cont'd Transportation and Traffic, Section 5.11 and Appendices I: Comment: The Newport Banning Ranch certified FEIR states that projected average daily traffic is 14,989 112 -5 trips. Where in the SEIR, and what specific streets and intersections in tables, figures, and /or text factor in the Newport Banning Ranch ADTs? Transportation and Traffic, Section 5.11, Figure 5.11 -4a — Existing Study Area Intersections, Turn Lanes and Intersection Controls: Comment: 1A, Bluff Road & Coast Highway and 113, 15th Street & Coast Highway are depicted as 'future intersections'. Please provide the source document that identifies the intersection presented as 113, 151h Street & Coast Highway in this figure. Traffic and Transportation, Section 5.11.1, Environmental Setting Comment: There are inconsistencies and missing information in Section 5.11.1, Environmental Setting with respect to the conclusions made below and Figure 5.11 -3. The first paragraph on page 5.11 -4 reads as follows: The resulting ADT V/C ratios for existing conditions on the arterial roadway system in the study area are illustrated on Figure 5.11 -3, Existing Conditions V/C Ratios. Based on the ADT V/C level of service performance criteria, arterials in the study area generally appear to have volume less than theoretical planning level capacity (V /C>1.0) with the exception of the following locations: • Newport Boulevard north of Coast Highway • Coast Highway between Newport Boulevard and Dover Drive • Coast Highway between MacArthur Boulevard and Marguerite Avenue • 17th Street east of SR -55 Freeway • MacArthur Boulevard between Bison Avenue and San Joaquin Hills Road' Looking at Figure 5.11 -3, , Existing Conditions V/C Ratios, and the 'exceptions' noted in the above paragraph I am unable to cross - reference all of the locations to the V/C references on the Figure 5.11 -3. I took a stab at connecting the exceptions above to the V/C ratios as follows: • Newport Boulevard north of Coast Highway is V/C 1.02 • Coast Highway between Newport Boulevard and Dover Drive — Although Dover Drive is not shown on the map I assume V/C 1.29 105 112 -6 112 -7 • Coast Highway between MacArthur Boulevard and Marguerite Avenue — although neither MacArthur Blvd. or Marguerite Avenue are named streets on this map I assume V/C is 1.5 • 17th Street east of SR -55 Freeway -1 cannot find a V/C on the map for this location. • MacArthur Boulevard between Bison Avenue and San Joaquin Hills Road — Although MacArthur Blvd. is not named on this map we assume V/C 1.35. Additionally, on Figure 5.11 -3 there is a V/C 1.16 noted in the vicinity of Ruth Lane and the SR -55 Freeway which is not listed as an 'exception' in the above paragraph. Furthermore, there is one other location in the vicinity of San Joaquin Hills Road and San Miguel Drive (maybe this is MacArthur) with a V/C of 1.2 which is not on the list above. Please provide an explanation for the inconsistencies identified in this comment. Traffic and Transportation, Page 5.11 -1, Environmental Setting, Existing Roadway Network states: 112 -7 cont'd 'Figure 5.11 -1, Existing Through Lanes, identifies the existing circulation system in the study area together with existing midblock lanes on arterial roadways. Existing study area intersections analysis 112 -8 locations are shown on Figure 5.11 -2. Of the 90 existing intersection analysis locations, 64 are in the Cit of Newport Beach, and 26 are in the City of Irvine. A few are on City boundaries with Tustin and Costa Mesa. The following analyzes the existing roadway network and conditions in the study area.' Comment: There is no explanation of how'study area intersection analysis locations' were selected. What was the selection criteria used for choosing these study area intersections? Traffic and Transportation, Page 5.11 -4, Environmental Analysis, 1� paragraph states: 'Daily roadway segment analysis requires calculating the daily traffic volume divided by the roadway 112 -9 segment capacity'. Comment: Where in the SEIR Traffic and Transportation section of the SEIR is there a table, figure, definition and /or text reference that defines 'roadway segment capacity.' Furthermore, please define /explain what'daily roadway segment analysis' is? What figures, tables, text show results of'dai roadway segment analysis'. Appendix I — Traffic Report 3_12_2014, pdf page 53, Table 2 -1, City of Newport Beach, Roadway Segment Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Counts. Comment: What is the difference between Table 2 -1 in the Appendix and Table 5.11 -1 Roadway Average Daily Traffic Volumes, Existing Conditions, in Section 5.11, Transportation and Traffic? If they're the same why were they not presented the same in both the appendix and section 5.11? If they're different, please explain the difference and how this data was used in both presentations. Appendix I — Traffic Report 3_12_2014, 3.3 Peak Hour Intersection Operations, pdf page 92, first paragraph states: 'For the intersections of Superior Avenue at Coast Highway and Newport Boulevard at Coast Highway, there were no recommended improvements included in the 2006 General Plan. However, an extended 100 112 -10 Ifi'ifil ICU analysis was performed (Section 6.2.1) using alternative geometric improvements in order to potentially bring the deficient intersections back to acceptable LOS.' (my added emphasis) Comment: Section 6.2.1 addresses the City of Irvine intersections and there is no discussion of 'extended ICU analysis' for Superior Avenue and Coast Highway or Newport Blvd. and Coast Highway. Please provide the extended ICU analysis performed for these intersections that is supposed to be in Section 6.2.1. Appendix I — Traffic Report, 3/12/2014, pdf page 97, 4.1 Land Use Changes. First paragraph of 4.1 Land Use Changes states: 'Table 4 -1 provides a citywide summary of land use statistics, with the changes to land use types and intensities in various areas throughout the City of Newport Beach which are currently being evaluated. In general, land use changes occur in residential, commercial, and office categories, hotel, and an elementary / private school, as further described below. As compared to the 2006 General Plan scenario, the General Plan LUE Amendment (proposed project) comprises an additional 2,098 dwelling units.' Comment: The use of term `citywide' in this paragraph is misleading. The scope of the land use statistics is confined to land use area changes proposed in the amendment and not 'citywide' . Appendix I — Traffic Report, 3/12/2014, pdf page 97, Table 4 -1, City of Newport Beach, General Plan Buildout Land Use Comparison. Comment: What is the origin of 'Land Use Code'? Where are the Description, Units (of measure), Quantity (of units), and Change ( + / -) for the General Plan Amendments and projects approved subsequent to the 2006 General Plan? Also, please specify which of the Land Use Codes and Descriptions contain the proposed Newport Banning Ranch development land use information. Appendix I — Traffic Report, 3/12/2014, pdf page 103, Exhibit 4.A, General Plan LUE Amendment (Proposed Project) Average Daily Traffic (ADT). Comment: Are the locations on the Exhibit 4.A far 'vehicles per day' the same locations as depicted on Figure 5.11 -2, Study Area Intersections in the `Transportation and Traffic' section of the SEIR? If the locations are not the same, please explain. Traffic and Transportation, Page 5.11 -55, second to last paragraph states: 'Recent analysis completed for OCTA to evaluate potential elimination of the 19th Street Bridge indicated that impacts in Newport Beach were limited to the intersection of Superior Avenue at Coast Highway. This intersection is deficient for General Plan conditions with and without the General Plan LUE Amendment Project. Because the General Plan LUE Amendment proposes only reduced development and minor changes in land use designations in the West Newport area, it is likely that there would be no change in the traffic findings if an analysis is completed without the 19th Street Bridge.' Comment: It is my understanding that more than just the Superior Avenue at Coast Highway intersection would be impacted by the removal of the 19th Street bridge from the OC Master Plan of 2�� 112 -11 cont'd 112 -12 112 -13 112 -14 112 -15 Arterial Highways. Please provide the 'recent analysis completed for OCTA' that supports this claim that only Superior at Coast Highway is impacted. I was unable to locate any reference in the Bibliography. 112 -15 cont'd Appendix I — Traffic Report, 3/12/2014, pdf page 104, Exhibit 4.11 and Exhibit 4.C, General Plan LUE Amendment (Proposed Project) AM and PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes. 1 112 -16 Comment: What is the source of intersection volume data used for intersection 1A, Bluff Road & Coast Highway and 1B, 15�1 Street & Coast Highway for AM and PM exhibits? Thank you. Sincerely, Dorothy Kraus 10 Wild Goose Court Newport Beach, CA 92663 /: Debbie Stevens 1120 Sea Lane Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 April 30, 2014 Mr. Gregg Ramirez Senior Planner City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 SUBJECT: Comments on NOP for Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element Amendment Draft EIR Dear Mr. Ramirez: I have reviewed the Draft Supplemental EIR (SEIR) for the Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Elcment (LUE) Amendment. As a resident that lives near Newport Center /Fashion Island, I'm concerned about the concentration of additional development in this portion of the City. Better land use planning would include a more equitable distribution of development tlnoughout the City, especially the newer areas such as Newport Coast which were recently developed to handle the expected increase in residents and businesses, rather than continuing to concentrate additional development in areas with numerous existing commercial /retail areas. My comments on the Draft SEIR are summarized below. GENERAL COMMENTS THAT APPLY TO THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT 1. In conmients that I provided on the NOP /IS for this project, I recommend that a stand- alone EIR be prepared rather than a supplemental EIR, as it would be less confusing to review and understand the tine impacts of the proposed amendments (existing baseline versus the proposed buildout year). Instead a supplemental EIR was prepared. In order to be adequate, the 2006 EIR would need to be updated to today's (2013) environmental setting and then the impacts of the project need to be evaluated and compared to a 2013 baseline. The use of the supplemental EIR has made it very difficult for the general public to understand the project impacts (e.g., traffic impacts — see specific comments below). 2. The use of a supplemental EIR was inappropriate for a number of reasons. CEQA Guidelines §15163 states that a supplement to an EIR is appropriate if "Only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation." Minor is not defined in the CEQA Guidelines but is defined by the Merriam- Webster Dictionary as "not very important or valuable, small in number, quantity or extent." The changes envisioned by the LUE Amendment are not unimportant, or small in number, quantity or extent. The Draft SEIR also states that "no I zog Intro 113 -1 113 -2 changes with respect to circumstances have required major revisions to the 2006 General Plan EIR." As explained below, the changes to the General Plan LUE are significant and major modifications, such that an supplement EIR is not appropriate. • The proposed project includes 18 areas where land use is proposed to be changed (SEIR, Figure 3 -3) and is described on seven different maps. • The changes in land use in Newport Center /Fashion Island would include over 580,000 square feet of additional office /commercial uses than what would be allowed under the 2006 General Plan. The changes in land use near the airport would allow over 330,000 square feet of additional office /commercial use than what would be allowed under the 2006 General Plan. An increase in over 900,000 square feet of office /commercial land use in areas where there is aheady substantial development and construction is not minor. • The proposed project includes 30 new land use element policies /goals. • The SEIR was required to include a greenhouse gas (GHG) analysis which was not included in the 2006 General Plan EIR and this was a major change to the document. The GHG impacts are considered significant so the changes to the SEIR cannot be considered minor. • The SEIR is over 1,000 pages of text and appendices indicating the significance of the changes. Minor changes to the LUE would not require such detailed analyses. It would have been more appropriate for the City to prepare a subsequent EIR, rather than a supplemental EIR. A subsequent EIR is appropriate when there are substantial changes to the project which require major revisions to the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. As discussed above, new significant impacts were identified in the SEIR which included significant GHG impacts. Also, additional traffic impacts associated with the proposed project would 'increase the severity of previously identified significant traffic impacts (see below for further details). For all of the above reasons, a supplemental EIR was not the appropriate CEQA document for the proposed project. 3. The 2006 General Plan EIR served as "baseline" conditions for the proposed project and the impacts of the proposed Land Use Amendment were considered to be the incremental differences between conditions analyzed in the 2006 General Plan .EIR and the proposed amendments. (SEIR, page 1 -5). The 2006 General Plan EIR would be appropriate as the No Project Alternative; however, it is not appropriate as the baseline, and the baseline should be the environmental conditions as they existing today (i.e., 2013). Note that the baseline used in the 2006 General Plan EIR was 2002, which is over 12 years ago and would not represent the existing environment. As stated in the CEQA Guidelines ( §15125), an "EIR must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published . . . This environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a Lead Agency determines whether 2 110 113 -2 cont'd 113 -3 an impact is significant." Numerous court cases have confirmed that this is the appropriate baseline. "Paper plans" cannot serve as baseline. In EPIC v. County of El Dorado (1982, 131 Cal. App. 0' 273) the court held that the existing physical conditions should be baseline, not an existing plan. The court stated that "(t)he dispositive issue on this appeal is whether the requirements of CEQA are satisfied when the EIRs prepared for use in considering amendments to the county general plan compare the environmental impacts of the proposed amendments to the existing plan rather than to the existing enviromnent. We hold that the EIRs must report on the impact of the proposed plans on the existing environment." Therefore, the use of the 2006 General Plan EIR is not an appropriate baseline. A number of other court cases have supported the requirement that the appropriate environmental baseline is the existing environmental conditions at the time that environmental review begins such as CBE vs. SCAQMD, et al (March 15, 2010, 48 Cal. 4'h 310) which stated that the environmental setting should not be based on hypothetical future conditions (e.g., development that has not occurred yet) but should be based on actual conditions. This concept is also supported in Kenneth F. Fat v. County of Sacramento (2002, 97 Cal. App. 411' 1270) and Riverwatch v. County of San Diego (1999, 76 Cal. 4 °i 1428). This is particularly important as additional development is proposed to be concentrated in Fashion Island. New development has occurred in the Fashion Island area that was not included in the 2006 General Plan, e.g., the new city hall. In order to accurately analyze the impacts of this additional development, an accurate and appropriate baseline is essential, which must be the environment as it exists today (2013) and not 2006 (or 2002). SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SEIR Project Description 113 -3 cont'd 4. The SEIR claims that "a Supplemental EIR is not mandated to include an evaluation of project alternatives." An EIR is required to identify ways to mitigate or avoid the 113 -4 significant effects that a project may have on the enviromnent (Public Resources Code §21002.1). Therefore, an alternatives analysis was required as significant impacts were identified (GHG emissions, population and housing, and traffic). 5. SEIR, Page 4 -12. The Draft SEIR states that the cumulative analysis used the projections contained in the adopted General Plan. The EIR needs to discuss how the cumulative impacts where considered for projects that were not included in the 2006 General Plan but have been constructed since that time, e.g., City Hall. Without this information, the EIR is inadequate as it has not considered all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects per CEQA requirements. e 121 113 -5 Aesthetics 6. SEIR Figures 5.1 -2 and 5.1 -3. The units for the measurement should be included on this 113 -6 figure, e.g., does "18" refer to 18 feet? The applicable planned community text should be included in the EIR as it is impossible to tell from the EIR what the height limitations would be in Fashion Island. 7. SEIR page 5.1 -12, 5.1 -13, and 5.1 -15. What are the height limitations for 150 and 100 Newport Center Drive properties? The EIR states that the "specific parcel location for development in Newport Center /Fashion Island is unknown at this time, therefore PC standards may or may not apply to the sites selected for development." Development of buildings could block views from MacArthur Boulevard and Newport Center Dr. as height restrictions "may or may not" apply. The PIM.CO Building at 650 Newport Center Drive is 398,846 square feet of floor area and is 20- stories tall (295 feet high). Therefore, the building height associated with a 500,000 square foot building could exceed 20- stories. These aesthetic impacts should be considered significant as Newport Center Drive and MacArthur Boulevard are both designated as coastal view roads. Further, mitigation measures are required to limit development height in Newport Center/Fashion Island. Air Quality 8. SEIR page 5.2 -12, Table 5.2 -4. The table contains data on existing emissions but does not include emissions from industrial sources, beach bonfires, and use of pleasure crafts in the harbor. These emissions may not be associated directly with land use, but they are real emission sources to which persons are exposed and must be included in the total daily emissions in order to provide an accurate representation of total baseline emissions within the City. 9. SEIR Page 5.2 -16, localized air quality impact. The logic used to eliminate the need to evaluate CO hotspots from evaluation in the EIR is not correct. The fact that the Basin is in attaimnent for CO does not mean that potential air quality impacts should be ignored. The SCAQMD requires analysis of all criteria pollutants whether the Basin is in attaimnent or not, in part so that projects will not cause an increase in pollutants that could lead the Basin out of compliance. The SCAQMD requires that CO hotspots be evaluated where significant traffic impacts are identified (LOS E or F). Significant traffic impacts or LOS impacts of E or F were identified at several intersections including Irvine Avenue/University Drive, Von Karman Ave /Alton Parkway, and MacArthur Boulevard Ford Drive. Traffic impacts could result in localized impacts at areas adjacent to these intersections and a CO hotspots analysis at the intersections with significant traffic impacts is required as part of the EIR, especially since residents are located adjacent to these intersections. 113 -7 113 -8 113 -9 10. SEIR Page 5.2 -18, last paragraph. The EIR states that "because the incremental increase in criteria air pollutants from operation of the proposed project would not exceed 113 -10 SCAQMD's regional significance criteria, impacts associated with the General Plan LUE 17 112 Amendment are less than significant." However, no emission calculations have been provided to back up this statement. Table 5.2 -8 recognizes that there would be an increase in VMT of 56,599, yet the EIR assumes there would be no significant increase in emissions, which is not correct or credible. CALEEMOD for a 500,000 square -foot commercial building was completed and indicated that operational emissions for that one building alone would be as follows: 23 lbs /day of ROG, 21.7 lbs /day of NOx, 106 lbs /day of CO, 0.5 lb /day of SOx, 38.2 lbs /day of PM10 and 10.6 lbs /day of PM2.5 (see Attachment A). Assuming the full increase in commercial /office buildings of 910,000 square feet would result in an estimated 69.5 lbs /day of PM10 (compared to a significance threshold of 150 lbs /day) and 39.4 Ibs /day of NOx (compared to a significance threshold of 55 lbs /day). While these commercial buildings would be less than significance the addition of 500 residential units and 170 hotel rooms would generate NOx and PM10/PM2.5 emissions that, combined with the office building, would exceed the air quality regional significance thresholds. 11. The SEIR concludes that construction emissions will be below significance thresholds for all criteria pollutants during Project construction. However, the SEIR has not completed a Localized Significance Threshold (LST) analysis. The SCAQMD developed an LST Methodology to be used by public agencies to determine whether a project may result in significant adverse localized impacts.' The LSTs represent maximum emissions from a project that will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. LSTs are derived on the location of the activity (i.e., source /receptor area); the emission rate of the applicable criteria pollutant; and the distance to the nearest exposed individual. The SEIR must also analyze the localized air quality impacts associated with construction activities. The LUE amendment would move development from other portions of the City and concentrate them in Fashion Island as well as near the airport. The areas adjacent to these construction activities would be impacted by emissions associated with construction equipment. An LST analysis for the proposed project must be provided in the EIR. Alternatively, construction emissions are deemed significant and mitigation measures would be required. 12. SEIR Page 5.2 -26 and 5.2 -27, Sensitive Receptors. The mitigation measure requires an 11RA be prepared and suggests mitigation measures such as appropriate location for air intakes, and that heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems be provided with MERV filters. Such mitigation measures do not mitigate outdoor exposures and would not be sufficient to protect sensitive receptors from exposure. For this reason, Impact 5.2 -4 would remain significant after mitigation. Greenhouse Gas Impacts 113 -10 cont'd 113 -11 113 -12 13. SEIR Page 5.4 -4 and Table 5.4 -2, Potential Climate Change Impact for California. One of the impacts from climate change and global wanning would be an increase in sea level 113 -13 rise and increased coastal flooding. If this is the case as the EIR suggests, portions of 1 See SCAQMD, Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (June 2003, Revised July 2008). 5 11-71 Newport Beach would be significantly impacted including areas adjacent to the coast. Many coastal jurisdictions have begun the planning process for such activities which is 113 -3 something that should be included in this EIR. Areas of potential water inundation cont'd should be developed so that the City can begin planning for the impacts of global warming which are substantial, in a City with extensive properties along the coast. 14. Page 5.4 -13. The SEIR has used inappropriate significance thresholds and has misrepresented the SCAQMD's significance threshold. I was part of SCAQMD's GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group and I arrr familiar with the SCAQMD's GHG thresholds. The SCAQMD approved a Tiered approach to determining GHG significance thresholds on December 5, 2008. The only "bright- line" significance threshold that was approved by the SCAQMD was 10;000 MTCO2eq for project under their jurisdiction. (see http: / /www.agmd.gov /hb /2008 /December /081231a.htm on December 5, 2008.) The SCAQMD has not proposed a threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e for all land use types or any other threshold and did not recorrunend any specific GHG significance thresholds for residential /commercial sectors and has placed the discussion of these thresholds on hold. The SCAQMD has also not proposed an efficiency target of 6.6 MTCO2e /year /SP for 2020 as indicated in the SEIR. This information is incorrect and can be verified on the SCAQMD's web page identified above. The only agency that has proposed this efficiency target is the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). On June 2, 2010, the BAAQMD adopted thresholds of significance to assist in the review of projects under the CEQA. The efficiency target of 6.6 MTCO2e /year /SP was included in the BAAQMD's significance thresholds. These thresholds were designed to establish the level at which the BAAQMD believed air pollution emissions would cause significant environmental impacts under CEQA and were posted on the BAAQMD's website and included in the BAAQMD's updated CEQA Guidelines (updated May 2012). On March 5, 2012 the Alameda County Superior Court issued a judgment finding that the BAAQMD had failed to comply with CEQA when it adopted the CEQA thresholds. The court did not determine whether the thresholds were valid on the merits, but found that the adoption of the thresholds was a project under CEQA. The court issued a writ of mandate ordering the BAAQMD to set aside the CEQA thresholds and cease dissemination of them until the BAAQMD had complied with CEQA. The BAAQMD has appealed the Alameda County Superior Court's decision. The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, reversed the trial court's decision. The Court of Appeal's decision was appealed to the California Supreme Court, which granted limited review, and the matter is currently pending before the Supreme Court. In view of the trial court's order which remains in place pending final resolution of the case, the BAAQMD is no longer recommending that the CEQA thresholds (including the 6.6 N4TCO2e /year /SP) be used as a generally applicable measure of a project's significant air quality impacts. The BAAQMD has been ordered to set aside the CEQA thresholds and is no longer recommending that these thresholds be used as a general measure of project's significant air quality impacts. Based on the fact that the GHG Z See http: / /www,agmd.gov /hb /2008 /December /081231a.htm on December 5, 2008. ;7 11 4 113 -14 threshold used in the SEIR is being reviewed by the Supreme Court, it is inappropriate to use them in the LUE Amendment SEIR and a new revised analysis must be prepared. The SEIR should instead use the SCAQMD approved threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e or provide justification for the use of an alternative threshold for the proposed project. As shown in Table 5.4 -5 of the SEIR, the proposed project would generate 1,236,171 MTCO2e and these GHG emissions are clearly significant. Note that it would also be significant if it was compared to the GHG emission changes from the 2006 General Plan. The SEIR needs to be revised and recirculated to include an appropriate significance threshold and accurate discussion of GHG impacts. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 15. SEIR Page 5.5 -1.7. The SEIR acknowledges that construction activities associated with implementation of the proposed project could result in the release of hazardous materials as construction activities could take place at sites that are potentially contaminated. There is evidence that workers will be exposed to contamination during construction activities. Construction workers involved in foundation work and trenching may be exposed to hazardous chemicals (e.g., gasoline and diesel contaminants) through dermal contact and inhalation of vapors which is potentially a significant impact. Gasoline and diesel contamination is common from gasoline stations and contain benzene, a well - known human carcinogen. The EIR fails to disclose the potential for construction workers to be exposed to contaminants through dermal contact and how exposure would be minimized. 113 -14 cont'd 113 -15 16. SEIR Page 5.5 -41. The level of signs irance before mitigation must include an discussion of worker exposure. 113 -16 Traffic and 'Transportation 17. SEIR Page 5.11 -1 indicates that the General Plan Land Use Element Amendment Traffic Impact Analysis is included as Appendix J. According to the Table of Contents, there is 113 -17 no Appendix J in the SEIR and none was provided online. IS. The potential impacts of traffic have been one of the biggest concerns to the local residents as evidenced in recent public workshops and forums. This is one of the most difficult sections to understand the assumptions used to develop the baseline conditions 113 -18 and determine the potential impacts in the SEIR. This is largely because many o:f the assumptions and data used in the traffic analyses are not included in the SEIR. 19. The SEIR should have compared the existing traffic conditions (2013) to the proposed project conditions to provide the public with a clear view of the proposed project impacts. This would have avoided many of the confusions and concerns expressed during public workshops and forums. For example, nowhere in the SEIR does it discuss traffic from projects that were not considered in the 2006 General Plan but have been constructed since that time, e.g., City IIall or the new PIMCO building. Therefore, the conclusion is 7 22,5 113 -19 that the cumulative traffic impacts have been ignored and not all. past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects have been included in the traffic analysis as required by CEQA Guidelines §15130. While projections from a General Plan are an acceptable way to evaluate cumulative projects, those projections must be accurate. Without the inclusion of projects that were developed and built outside of the General Plan, the cumulative impacts are not adequate. 20. SEIR Table 5.1 -6, page 5.11 -25. The trips generation rates used for each land use nmst be included in the SEIR for full public disclosure of the project's impact. Based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (1TE) Trip Generation. Manual, a General Office Building would generate an average of 1.55 trips per 1,000 square feet of floor during the am peak hour (a total of about 775 trips for a 500,000 square -foot building) and about 1.49 trips per 1,000 square feet of floor during the pin peak hour (a total of about 745 for a 500,000 square -foot building). Table 5.11 -6 reports for Newport Center that the proposed project would result in an increase of a total of 496 trips in bound during the morning peak hour for all new land uses including office buildings, residential units, and hotels (not just the 500,000 square feet of additional office space). Table 5.11 -6 also reports for Newport Center that the proposed project would result in an increase of a total of 449 trips out bound during the evening peak hour for all new land uses (not just the 500,000 square feet of additional office space). The average daily trip ends for a 500,000 square -foot office building would be about 5,500 ADTs alone (not including additional residential or hotel uses). Therefore, the trip generation rates used in the SEIR have been underreported. The SEIR should be revised to include appropriate trip generation rates for all land uses and those trip generation rates and related assumptions should be included in the SEIR. 21. SEIR ]'able 5.11 -6, page 5.11 -25. The numbers in the table should be identified as peak one -hour trips. This table implies that there will be a decrease in peak ADT at certain locations in the City. It should be noted that in many cases these trips are future trips and have not occurred. So to imply that there will be a decrease in traffic that has never occurred is misrepresenting the project impacts, (i.e., some of the negative numbers in Table 5.1 -6 never happened in the first place, and the ADT increases in some areas (Fashion Island/Newport Center) are much higher than represented). Again, this table should include a comparison of existing 2013 traffic with the proposed project's total generated traffic. 113 -19 cont'd 11193F R 113 -21 22. SEIR Table 5.11 -9, Table 5.11 -10 and Table 5.11 -11. This table should compare existing 113 -22 2013 baseline to the proposed project to accurately evaluate true project impacts. 23. SEIR Table 5.11 -6 indicates that the total ADT for the proposed project is 8,211. Table 5.2 -8 indicates that the difference between the 2006 General Plan and LUE Amendment 113 -23 is 56,559 ADT. These numbers conflict with each other and there's a huge discrepancy between the two. This type of information makes it difficult for the public to determine which are correct without the appropriate back up data. K 110 The SEIR needs to be revised and recirculated to respond to the deficiencies outlined above. Thank you for your consideration. " "U i'pw� Debbie Bright Stevens 117 112 U ■ e I ■11�iFEWI i_1 11.9 120 G" N 1 d 0 N m N V 76 0 m 0 00 rn m a N N M O N 0 0 W W m U 0 .N a 0 W w m U O O) ,d. LQ U a rn a m (0 N Q �E N r S ;� o N U c ;a I Q N z° I I� ego U3 r "., mo Z (V I N I I I 1 N a v o I e �p c to F O o I.- m O U o I� z m 0 oo io �0 0 6 in I I I Im m 10 df °mo imo 0 1� I � "N DIM 1 LLa I 1 crA °pg i °og I� og jog �° - °o I °o loa IOO imo mop 'm°p d n I 1 LLa. i i O.. I I I I m o ro o io m m N I� O- U_ o to ' o Ip I 0 I I og og v I> M 'm u h O rc I 1 O 0 M ;M r a m •a a 'm o l o iu to log qv O O) ,d. LQ U a rn a m (0 N Q �E N r 121 N O N Z I I I 1 I I v 0 O U - oo to Ig m oo io �0 0 I I I Im m O U a o 0 0 U o' m N'.5 "~ - °o I °o loa IOO imo op °mo d o I I� I I I I I I u h I 1 o l o iu to log m °pV p I �a °o a � I I 1 I I to 0 O N _ I l0 ____ I i____i ____ 0 I 0 0 O O l0 I l0 - --- 4 ---- 4____ L 0 0 d x I d e ----4 4 m I Ip E:1- v� 121 7 N N m N O r- a> (0 a N N M N 0 O W W (0 U C O 0 cO G W W U N A (LO Z G1 fd C J L (Q d W y N C ui �I V A � M O.. vco Nm O M m p N N O m o b m 0 d i U N a O 0 n O _ T _ N a a O n vNi ON Q QNb A yN OJ N O' f _ n n N U` m N N O U 0 N O a0< b 0 a~ o m O d m AN lV N IJ > N O B O O n O n mo, 0 0 Lb O O >P m m cg LL Q o - a 0 LLa_ N n m n m N p O N m m Z N N n m O OU � 0 m N 0 0 O M O N y � Z _ o O ], O9 C a r J m N �I V A N L 11 i a U1 d 7 N f0 d L O Y H m m O C10 Rb U N N O 0 O 0 U T _ N a a O n n ON Q QNb A yN OJ N f n n N O U m N Z N O U b 'm lV > N rn� Ila O O O O m m cg a o - a vo _ LLa_ N b N O M O N n m n m OU o ^ N 0 m N x O Z O � o � N m Z O 0 A J Cm � N L 11 i a U1 d 7 N f0 d L O Y I an N r V O N rn N 7 .0. (0 0 m o° m v °O O N N M O N a O W W m U c O N N a O W W m U N °o 0 m Q 0 n m m m M 0 a 0 :. m m m c W U 0 t/1 M d C W d 3 N R d C O m O) w ■ j o m o am •a to U _ O= c O_ d 1c 1 m 1m O � U' M O q a'- 1 N m Vm ;yNm N a Q F - N N M O N a O W W m U c O N N a O W W m U N °o 0 m Q 0 n m m m M 0 a 0 :. m m m c W U 0 t/1 M d C W d 3 N R d C O m O) w ■ 123 m m H p - am •a to U _ ;Lq m I O_ d 1c 1 m 1m a: U' 0 10 q a'- 1 N Vm ;yNm N Q F N IN Ir -r N N IN N m _ 1 -1 O. U b m • 1 1 r IA N — �F O 10 s c 10 1 fV 1 L� O 10 �a � d Ic 1 N (V LLa 1 1 m Irn �F o 10 ¢ 0 I Op 1 NO m 1m ^ In to o io _ a m a o 10 i 1 1 a. 1 1 LL 1 1 I . IM1 I h 1 0 1m U a io Ir 1 m ,m Z ry IN 1v 1 1 n 1r O 1 0 10 N 'N a a @ , B E Z� ;Z� 123 f N cq v 0 N M N d N (U m 0 d N N Ch Q N 0 0 w w M U 0 O 0 O 2 w w (U U N Q a O n w N N a m n c C 0 a N N n a� U L > a N m m a (0 d d M 0 CD 0 R C 0 M Gl CL I� v .0 0 a N d 7 N R d c R 0I a c O m E 0 W C R E E 3 N a E= N 4 c 0 R E 0 c v CL F a H M V N O pN SON m 'm O N i ' Z ' I I 0 0 o to Z U o Io L N N m 14 NO U 1c ion F M IM on ;on a m M M N U b m • 1pO N O ah- c N o ;o 1 N 1 I aN a Iy N 1N O O LLd O ;O 1In A O 10 M �m a o to m �o am LLd tr�J 'M 1 1 rn in I m o to I N 110 1� U 1 o to Z ' N ;N 1� 1� u 14 o •� Z o m c O m E 0 W C R E E 3 N a E= N 4 c 0 R E 0 c v CL F a H M V 2r 0 O ° c f d NN °o ,_ ! N Z. d N m N s a ° N_ (6 O F N U m` 0 .2 o ° m 0' N� 2 N m Uo ° p O 'm YI. N N O ° •- �N J O N =.a o 0 Nr m`a LLa c O � G1 L m (o a Wig= �,a °o o >O i m ' GI I OJ o � 0 a LL - •� CJ- N y1 I y > N o N M U c 0 O z N v c I I O J O L Z. o O w W O O; y d `m .D Q..• i j U o p� c °- °o ° c O m .L E. m i O 0 w v w = a G O u o W w U �° va a� O U N CO > > M U 2r � > 2 y _ N ✓S N m 0) a ° U m` m 3 0' N� m Q .W •- �N J O 1 0 L i m ' GI I OJ � 0 a •� CJ- N y1 I y > bra O z I 1 v c I I J O L I I O O O; d `m .D Q..• i j o C i r o E. I I c R > > � I I O ~ TI o E E 7 O c oZ z m > o. O O I 1 N O .. Q i W:- G b ' I O ' m W O v mo I 1❑ F-a O m oz a o o it v C -• o l 1p la - � c O 4! jp co x IL m N c C IL w 0 aNi in c? ° 'v - o m ° o m •�: 0 E _Z Ew C7 C7 a m W 0 N N N 'O O cc oc o c H _. ° -9--L �M N CN r d 0 N m N d N t0 61 O M 41 Q) CL CL N N M O N cO G w w w U c N v 0 2 w w N U (Q c O i 0) CL O m !U C O N LV O v r lV c v '.. • m ' m m O ,�i O r �p ,NI° ,ON ,M 1 I M m O IN I N 10 I 0 I I _ Op IN 10 M o IN 10 h i 9 N i0 I r---- M 0 U� m00 to io O � 9 G I I n N I�m IocNi �o 1 p N Im a O U IV IOm I10 I m is H o0 O IM F._ III n N eni m N C) p IN Im p U N E rno In jmm joM d -- mmO M a { m u IO Ipa in I° I 0 1 I (�pN � Im I� Op Iq IN N cq m 10 I° I mlV I IN N° F IN c I 10 O� 10 �N I I N ° 'N C4 G N 0 0 N m 1 i i0 I Im v Irn in m n ____I ____i____ d,F i v po m M I IM I o M 0 I I I I I I� M u.a O In Im I Im O IOMO I� a Q N n O O in0 iN N M r 10 C; II` l0 0 m Irn I O I I� j IM M IOMO Im 12 n o O in0 iN N m I� 10 J 0 V 1I IIN N In l0 C7. m I n I cal M 10 M m rn I� M I� 1° N n IW to U O �Q Ivi b o 0 i.- l0 % u Irn to Op In I c 0 `w O 7 M u - 'm rn imp O r �p ,NI° ,ON C] I I M m U jm I 0 I° I I I Im Icon o IN 10 h Z _ °O M 0 U� m00 to io 9 G I I n N O N O. O INm IAN N IV IOm I10 I ON .00 O O IM F._ III n N eni m N C) p IN Im p U rno In jmm joM d -- mmO M 6' m Im I� yN mo V H COL F IN c O� 10 �N N° N ° 'N C4 G N 0 0 LLd i i0 O v Irn in m d,F i °m° Ip im I IM m M I I I I _ "uo O In Im b a O omo �o �umi n O r 10 I p0 m lia j IM M IOMO Im O o O in0 iN N m N o 0 In l0 m rn I� O n IW to U O �Q Ivi b o 0 i.- l0 % u Irn to Op In I m M P I^ IN N I 1 m In IN O e`n 0 S O I M i0' i0 M C'1 N I I � 0 o N M N O U °o c N W t6 W K:' -- O- °o Z- O O o o N N C m > O c 0 N � N W @ W U O t.2 o9 °K N N N 0 N Q- O 0 O W O N N m (0 a O O 0 0 0 127 0 N M O N O U °o c W t6 W K:' -- O- °o E U E z' o o N C � > O c 0 N � N W @ W U O t.2 o9 °K N 127 N .N- V O N m N d' N (6 01 O N O) m a N N M O N 0 O W W c6 U c O N 0 O w w w (0 U G1 m C C 7 C m 0 O V U tr- m rn O o` N U N W U lL0 s U V d a M v . °L 30 .N Z o �< o � N � E w } Z N N 'O �U N � . N r �'y c � � 0 � U o • w U .O a . Vl 0 0 N O N- o 0 E o 01 C c m a a LL d T > C O jp Y �N N C O C � d t n 53 Q a 01 02 N o o a` o zc °o O N • Q w c U c ° N N W o O ttL O N y ° N Y v . °L 30 .N Z o �< o � N � E w } Z N N 'O �U N � . N r �'y c � � 0 � U o • w U .O a . Vl c O O N O N- o E � 01 C a a c mt U N ` N ° E N o 3 c O xn U c O N L ' o c d Q w c U c ° O � � c U N W o O ttL U y Y W N m d o `C Y m � U c W c D t c t � m 5 ao fn m d m C. Q ° w (7 d ° � N � r r U n UG v . °L 30 .N Z o �< o � N � E w } Z N N 'O �U N � . N r �'y c � � 0 � U o • w U .O a . Vl c O 01 C O U c ` N E N o c O O L ' o c d Q w c U m C 0 2 O � � c U N W o O ttL v . °L 30 .N Z o �< o � N � E w } Z N N 'O �U N � . N r �'y c � � 0 � U o • w U .O a . Vl 7 LO N N d O N N 7 m O O N rn m a N N M N O O 2 W W m U C 0 .N N D 0 ui W W U O rn v f0 U m m a d r N t6 I L � d O L Gl R G1 N l0 d L 0 M rn d N CD ao w N (0 `1 m m C 0 ca a M O O R O i1 N M O 0 of C O 4) 0 0 e-_ I - O •O r r I I O I I z I I I I I I I. I I d u U, I Ic° m° -. N N D III II -I -r 0 O o to Im m F r 4 0 U I I I le I Im e Z` U a m wry 1 1° �;F 0, O 1 ISO Wo I I I I u'ja I I u1� I I -� O I O I ^+ c °o i°o I- m° o Io Ioe O I° IOp °e °e .a.. m s o to Im I 1 I I m jO I I LL ---- Ir ---- 4 I I IO ° o o. w 1 10 1 1 1 I OU Io o 0 0 I I° I I Z o°e oe I Iv v O ° I IV I I Z iC 3 TN Do W � y W ry D O d O L Gl R G1 N l0 d L 0 M rn d N CD ao w N (0 `1 m m C 0 ca a M O O R O i1 N M O 0 of C O 4) 0 0 e-_ I ISO Land Use Element Amendment Supplemental EIR (SEIR) The following comments on the "Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2013101064) for the Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element Amendment" are submitted on April 30, 2014, by: Jim Mosher ( limmosher(@yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949- 548 -6229) I find it problematic that the Public Scoping Meeting for this SEIR was held on November 5, 2013, when the proposed changes to the General Plan's Land Use Goals and Policies, which are presumably part of the project that was being scoped for analysis, had only been opened for discussion at the Land Use Element Amendment Advisory Committee's meeting the previous hour, and were not finalized until its February 4, 2014, meeting, long after work on the SEIR was underway. It also bothers me that most have been relegated to an appendix. 2. The 45 -day public review period for the SEIR set forth in the "Notice of Completion & Availability' (March 17, 2014 — April 30, 2014) seems inconsistent to me with the normal rule in California that the first day is excluded from the count of days during which an announcement or document is available for review. Under that rule, I should think a 45 -day public review period initiated on March 17 should run through the end of business on (March 17 + 45 days =) May 1. 3. Whatever the legal requirement for counting days for CEQA documents, I feel a considerably longer review period would have been highly beneficial to the impacted public, especially given the City's forgoing its normal mechanisms of having the project EIR reviewed by its appointed Environmental Quality Affairs Committee and /or introducing the project and EIR at a formal study session before the Planning Commission while the public comment period was still open. Instead, the review of a complex document was left entirely in the hands of untrained citizens. It might also be noted that in this case, since the "applicant" is the City, a longer review period provided by the City to its citizens would not have inconvenienced an outside party expecting "steamlining." Speaking for myself, within the City's present self- imposed "45 -day" time limit for submitting comments to which written replies will be prepared, and considering the many other unrelated City activities scheduled within that same 45 -day time period, I have not had time to review more than a handful of the 2,983 pages of the SEIR (including appendices), let alone the supporting documents that are claimed to be available for review. 4. The "Notice of Completion & Availability' of the SEIR also appears to me to have been issued in violation of the mandatory requirement in Section 15087(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines that the notice disclose "The date, time, and place of any scheduled public meetings or hearings to be held by the lead agency on the proposed project when known to the lead agency at the time of notice." Given City staffs longstanding knowledge, frequently articulated in public, of the critical and hurried timing needed to get the project approved by the City Council in time for a measure to be placed on the November, 2014, ballot, it is difficult to believe that the lead agency (the City of Newport Beach) did not have at least a 131 114A -1 Ifi[!_d: 114A -3 IfiClGSI Land Use Element Amendment - SEIR comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 3 tentative schedule of planned public meetings or hearings on the project, whose dates, times and places should have been disclosed in the Notice (even they were subsequently rescheduled). In particular, I strongly suspect the approximate date, time, and place of the April 10, 2014, "Public Information Meeting" at the Newport Beach Civic Center Community Room, as announced in the City's April, 2014, newsletter ) was at least tentatively planned at the time of publication of the "Notice of Completion & Availability" (the document contains an internal March 24 timestamp) and should have been disclosed. c. More definitively, the attached tentative schedule ( htti):Hnewi)ortbeachi)ublic. novusagenda.com /AttachmentViewer .ashx ?AttachmentID = 1919 &ltemlD =2051 ) distributed to the Planning Commission at its March 6, 2014, meeting, and dated February 25, 2014 — three weeks before the "Notice of Completion & Availability'— announces the planned (and I believe still current) schedule of hearings on the project before the Planning Commission, with a Study Session on May 8 and a Public Hearing on May 22. 1 believe that for the public's benefit, the lead agency was obligated to disclose these known, or at least planned, dates in the "Notice of Completion & Availability," but did not. Indeed, the long - anticipated May 8 Planning Commission Study Session date was not even disclosed in the subsequent mailed Newsletter announcing the April 10 Public Information Meeting. 5. Whether it is required in a Supplemental EIR or not, it would seem to me the decision makers in this case (both City Council and voters) need to know the impact the project will have relative to today's existing conditions (a more proper "baseline ") and not just relative to buildout of the current General Plan (the so- called "no project" alternative), particularly since a major premise of the current project is that existing entitlements are not likely to ever be fully utilized (for example in Newport Coast). In other words, based on statements made by lead agency staff to the Land Use Element Amendment Advisory Committee, buildout of the current General Plan does not seem to be a reasonable "no project" alternative. The reasonably foreseeable "no project" alternative is something less than that. And the most reasonable baseline is what we have today. As a Supplemental EIR, careful attention has to be given to changes that have occurred since the previous EIR in both the Newport Beach General Plan and in neighboring cities. As to changes within Newport Beach, the Executive Summary on page 1 -6 of the draft SEIR says that "Appendix C provides a list of General Plan Amendments and project approvals that have been processed subsequent to certification of the 2006 General Plan EIR." However, the referenced appendix appears to have been omitted from the draft released for public review, making it impossible for the public to know, let alone verify, what assumptions went into the analysis. 1`t 114A -4 cont'd 114A -5 Land Use Element Amendment - SEIR comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 3 b. As to changes outside Newport Beach, other than oblique references to a possible new Airport Settlement Agreement, the Executive Summary does make at all clear d ' cont how changes since 2006 to land use development and planning outside the City's cont jurisdiction have been factored into the analysis. 7. As a further example of the haste and sloppiness with which this document seems to have been prematurely released for public review, in computer- searching the whole SEIR for the preceding "Appendix C," it was noticed that in Cultural Resources page 5.3 -5, lines 6 and 7 from bottom, asks readers to take cognizance of "Appendix C of the Cultural Resource Assessment Report," but I am unable to find a "Cultural Resource Assessment Report' nor any listing of how to find such a document in the Bibliography. 114A -7 8. In the Project Description (page 3 -1), 1 found the description of the City as lying "on the western boundary of Orange County in Southern California abutting the Pacific Ocean on it west end' to be factually incorrect and confusing. I would think of Seal Beach or Cypress a 114A -8 being on the western boundary of the County. Newport Beach is as much south as west, or more accurately on the County's southwest border, and the Pacific Ocean is likewise more generally to the south than the west. 9. In Transportation and Traffic, I am mystified by why the analysis seems to be confined to impact on intersections. Page 5.11 -4 emphasizes the importance of volume /capacity (V /C) ratios on City roads, but the remainder of the report seems to ignore them -- even when the anticipated volume of traffic exceeds the design capacity. In fact, based on the last line of 114A -9 the paragraph following Table 5.11 -2 (also on page 5.11 -4), whoever wrote the report seems to think that "V /C >1.0" is a good thing, representing volume less than theoretical planning level capacity. I think the opposite is true, and V /C >1.0 is a bad thing, representin an anticipated volume exceeding a road's capacity . Or is this just another indication of the sloppiness and unreliability of the SEIR? 133 - CM / 2 ] § \ ±3$ {k !2 e - ) z )) z z 0C @ @ k z 0 22) ¥¥ )/ ) = a � / \ \ { \ \ � m ) E dƒ 3 _ E E 2 ]] e]( ƒ / =\)7 7 \2 __ _ \Q \ \7 « 2)§ ƒ _ § §)§ 2) §)I 2)ƒ $ /ƒ Ew 0E 0.2 ] /- / K2j §o §.2 8.2 3 ) ƒ J 1 0) 4) Q) .0 co \ E \ �k \ / ±] z E D { ° - - - {\\ ) _ ` -- � �' B [ k \ ] \ } )_/ k / § \)c ] ( (D \ ) \ Q � « 7 s kit\ f ° § J : ƒ :a , T) a a )ee f § w § 2 , CD k - \ k °t - - - - �z - 2f\ R m�� k ) k fR/ }(� 0 | 2 \j\ °* �` ` {§ e _ _ ) _ _ ) cl § \ 2m2 S)§ A $ § \\\ \ § §\ \§ = k k ƒ co m LL \ \ /I < ) w / ) § \ t t § $ 4) |( s » 2t 7 )) = { 7 ¥ 0 2 h §�) » ( % ! $ �! ) z 2 - / ] / ) §{7g/ a ) / ƒ )/ » ) / &) / § / \ -j< (D w - - - u, o 0 §�_ IL \ ) } \ K. #g Eo� \ \ \ m \ /- ^ _ ] ] 2 / I m ] j \ \ / k z ±3$ Comment from Jim Mosher No.2 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Jim Mosher [mailto:jimmosherCalyahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 4:14 PM To: Ramirez, Gregg Subject: An additional written comment on the GP Land Use Element Amendment Draft SEIR Gregg, In addition to the previously submitted written comments on the General Plan Land Use Element Amendment Draft SEIR released for public review on March 17, if no one has submitted an official comment on their behalf, I would like to note for the record that at its April 17 meeting, by a 3:2 vote, the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission, in considering the project as they understood it, differed from the "AELUP Consistency Conclusion" presented on page 5.7 -19 of the draft SEIR. As the lead agency knows, the Airport Land Use Commission found the project INCONSISTENT with the AELUP, or at least denied the City's requested finding of consistency. Yours sincerely, Jim Mosher 2210 Private Road Newport Beach, CA 92660 13� 1146 - 1 From: Portia Weiss [mailto:portiaweiss @gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 4:51 PM To: Ramirez, Gregg Subject: Subject: General Plan Amendment (November 2014 Public Vote) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 Dear Mr. Greg Ramirez, Please provide copies of this letter to Members of the City Council and the Planning Commission. This letter addresses residential concerns associated with commercial development abutting residential designated properties and proposes changes to the General Plan Amendment (November -2014 Public Vote) to minimize the residential concerns for : Intro A. Limiting all vehicular access (ingress and egress) to the completed commercial sites to the commercial street side and not from shared commercial /residential alleys. B. Noise and safety concerns from commercial deliveries /trash pickup, C. Parking on residential streets instead of utilization of assigned commercial parking D. Increased traffic volume on residential streets and shared commercial /residential alleys, with associated safety concerns. E. Health and noise associated with employees smoking and conducting personal /commercial business on cell phones in common shared street or residential alley. F. Noise, safety and health intrusions associated with site installed mechanical equipment (such as Heating Ventilating and Air Conditioning HVAC, pumps, ventilation from enclosed parking, etc.) It is requested that the following be incorporated into 1 115 -1 2so the General Plan Amendment (November -2014 Public Vote) N4.3 — New Commercial Developments ( defined as new initial development of a previousl undeveloped sites or redevelopment of a previous developed site }_(NCD) require that new commercial development abutting residential designated properties be designed to minimize __ _5s and egress from the street and not shared alleys ) and impacts to health safety and noise generated by loading areas, parking lots, trash enclosures, mechanical equipment, and any other noise generating features specific to the development to the extent feasible. 1) Development /redevelopment for these NCD sites shall be limited to the historical usag( Example : If the type of business conducted at the sites has been from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PIN with minimal or no business on weekends (and no Sunday business), then these sites shall be limited to the historical usage. 2) During NCD development /redevelopment construction , all deliveries /pickups (materials, construction trash, etc.) to the site shall be restricted to the commercial street side of the site and prohibited from any alley shared by the commercial site and the residences and limited to 8:OOam to S:OOpm. 3) No vehicular access to the completed NCD site (ingress and egress) from the alley adjacent to the residential area shall be permitted. No vehicular parking on the alley adjacent to the residential area shall be permitted. All vehicular access to the completed NCD site shall occur from the commercial street side of the NCD. 4) Trash pickup from the completed NCD site shall be restricted to the commercial street side of the site and prohibited from any alley shared by the commercial site and the residences. Additionally, all deliveries /pickups (business, laboratory specimens, supplies, etc.) shall be restricted to commercial street side of the site and prohibited from any alley shared by the commercial site and the residences. Hours shall be limited to 8:OOam to S:OOpm. 5) No on- street parking credit shall be granted for NCD's abutting residences. 6) Employee Parking Spaces shall be required and designated with posted signage stating "Employee Parking Only" . 115 -1 cont'd 137 7) The storage of vehicles /trailers on decorative paving, defined landscape areas or parking spaces shall be prohibited. 8) Parking shall be prohibited on any area specified as decorative paving or landscape area by signage. 9) An on -site employee area for smoking and conducting personal business on cell phones shall be established away from the commonly shared street or residential alley. 10) Lighting impacts and privacy concerns of adjacent residential properties for NCD sites shall be minimized (such as automated internal shades set to close in the evening and an internal lighting system that auto -dims after standard working hours, leaving limited task lights illuminated for janitorial activities). 11) Noise, safety and health intrusions associated with installed site mechanical equipn (such as Heating Ventilating and Air Conditioning - -HVAC, pumps, ventilation from enclosed parking, etc) shall be minimized (such as installed with a timing device that will deactivate the equipment during the hours of 05:00PM to 08:OOAM). ISR 115 -1 cont'd From: Susan Harker [mailto:susanharker @sbcglobal.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 4:53 PM To: Ramirez, Gregg Cc: susanharker @sbcglobal.net Subject: Public Comment on General Plan Land Use Amendment draft SEIR 4/30/14 To: Gregg Ramirez - Planning, City of Newport Beach gramire _;ne3Uortbeachca.gov Subject: Public Comment on General Plan Land Use Amendment draft SEIR I did not hear until a few days ago that the a special committee and Newport Beach staff have proposed amending the land use by revisions to the General Plan along with a 116 -1 supplemental Environmental Impact Report. Would you let me know how the opportunity for public comment was advertised? Are all committees, commisions, groups and departments aware of the extensive changes? Secondly, how can Newport Beach support the increased water usage with the indicated 116 -2 construction, building and maintenance of the hotels, residental and business property? Thank you for letting me write to you. Sincerely, Susan Harker susanharker ssbcglobal.net 139 From: Blush1996 @aol.com [mailto: Blush 1996 @aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 3:07 PM To: Ramirez, Gregg Cc: blush 1996 @aol.com Subject: Public Comment - General Plan LUE Amend SEIR Date: April 30, 2014, 3:05 PM To: Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner, City of Newport Beach From: Suzanne Forster RE: Public Comment on General Plan LUE Amendment SEIR Dear Gregg, I'm submitting these comments as a 30 -year resident of Newport Beach who, after Intro reviewing the SEIR's Traffic Report, has concerns about the adverse impacts of the proposed Amendment on local and regional traffic, congestion and air quality. In Section 6 of the General Plan LUE Amendment SEIR, the following are considered to be Significant Adverse Unavoidable Impacts (emphasis mine). "Transportation & Traffic Impact 5.11 -3. The County of Orange is currently preparing an EIR to analyze the potential impacts associated with the development of the John Wayne Airport Settlement Agreement. The proposed amendment for the Airport Settlement Agreeme would expand the number of annual passengers and average daily departures from January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2035, which would result in a great number of automobiles and buses providing access to JWA. The increased number of vehicles may result in traffic congestion and deterioration of level of service on the 117 -1 roadways surrounding JWA, including at intersections that would already be substantially impacted by the General Plan Land Use Amendment, such as Von Karman at Alton Parkway. Until the EIR for the amendment of the Airport Settlement Agreement it is not possible to analyze with precision the probable traffic impacts of the proposed amendment. Because it cannot be determined at this point if significant impacts would occur and if mitigation measures would be feasible, impacts would be significant and unavoidable." Von Karman at Alton Parkway is listed as an example of a Newport Beach intersection that will be substantially impacted by the General Plan Land Use Amendment. What 140 other intersections will be substantially impacted? And what mitigation measures are 117 -1 planned to lower the level of impacts to insignificance? I cont'd Is OCTA's EIR complete and available to the public? If not, when will it be available? The November election is just six months away and the public is faced with a great deal to learn in order to make a significant decision about an amendment that could 117-2 dramatically affect the ongoing quality of their lives as Newport Beach residents. Will the 19th Street Bridge and Bluff Road be used to mitigate the impacts in the city's traffic report? What other roads that exist only on paper and may never exist in reality will be used to mitigate traffic impacts of the proposed Amendment? My understanding is that even though the 19th Street Bridge has been removed from Orange County's MPAH, it still exists on CNB's MPAH and is being used in analyses for traffic mitigation. Further, I understand that even if 19th Street Bridge is removed from City's MPAH, it will still be part of the City's traffic management program. Is tl true? If so, how can any traffic study based on even one major road that doesn't and will likely never exist be considered to accurately reflect traffic? According to a December 2013 L.A. Times article ( "Orange County Construction Job Growth Third Highest in U.S. "), construction in Orange County is growing precipitously. O.C. is currently 3rd in the entire nation for construction job growth. If O.C. and L.A. County were combined, they would be #1 nationally. Driving the main streets confirms that a housing boom is already apparent in Newport Beach, Huntington Beach and Costa Mesa. This will have significant adverse impacts on our already congested beach, airport and street traffic. httn: / /newportbeach.patch. com /groups/ business - news /p /orange- county- construction -j QL growth -third-hi ghest-in -us -newportbeach A related article in the Daily Pilot discusses traffic congestion in Orange County: "Study: Southern California takes the cake in freeway congestion Sections of the 405, 55, 73 and 5 regularly cost drivers hundreds of thousands of hours and millions ofgallons ofgas, Texas institute says. A new university study released this week confirms what many here already know: Orange County has some of the most congested freeways in the nation." hltp:// artic les.dailypilot.com /2011 -11 -16 /news /tn- dpt- 1117 - freeway- 20111116_1 _freeway - macarthur- boulevard - congestion There have been many warnings about the health and safety hazards of excessive development in an already heavily developed area, impacted daily by traffic, congestion and air pollution. It's time to take these warnings seriously. Newport Beach doesn't exist in a vacuum, even though we're often accused of acting as if we do. The proposed amendment analyzes Newport traffic. Does it also take the 141 117 -3 117 -4 117 -5 ongoing and proposed development in adjoining communities and the regional traffic 117 -5 impacts into consideration? I cont'd What studies have been done that substantiate the current and ongoing need for more residential housing in Newport Beach? Who performed the studies? Have any independent studies been done, and if so, by whom? How much current and ongoing 117 -6 housing will be provided by the proposed amendment? Another Impact in Section 6 addresses impacted freeways: Impact 5.11 -5 "Project- related trip generation would contribute to six existing and forecast deficient main line segments of the I -405, SR 73 and SR 55 freeways and contribute to deficient ramp operations at two I -405 off ramps. Caltrans does not have an adopted fee program that can ensure that locally contributed impact fees would be tied to improvement, and such improvements would be out of control of the City of Newport Beach. These freeway ramp impacts would be a cumulatively considerable, significant project impact." What reasoning was used to go forward with a proposed amendment that would create more impacts to six already deficient main line segments and two deficient ramp operations? Why would we want to make significantly worse something that's already broken, especially if we have no control over the outcome? Air Quality As we know from the Banning Ranch EIR, that project alone will create significant traffic and air pollution impacts at buildout and beyond, and it is just one of many projects lined up for future development. How is it that so many of these projects were left out of the studies analyzing the proposed amendment's impacts? In some cases, the other project's impacts have already been studied in EIRs, as is true of Banning Ranch, but why weren't those impacts added to the cumulative impacts so that we could have a full picture of the effects of all the proposed, current and ongoing development in Newport Beach'? The Council showed great concern about the air quality impacts of the fire rings on the health and well being of some of its residents. I would hope that all of its residents could expect at least that level of concern regarding what appears to be a precipitous increase in proposed development and its inevitable adverse effects. Certain elements of the Newport Beach business community undoubtedly prefer rapid growth and expansion, but the residents of Newport Beach have historically and overwhelmingly by their votes and their voices shown that they prefer slow growth for the city. Newport is too rare and beautiful an area to foul with the unmitigatible traffic, congestion and pollution that we can almost certainly look forward to if the proposed amendment passes. In the past, the Council has worked with resident groups to make decisions in favor of slow growth and protection of our coastline and natural resources. Sadly, with 117 -7 117 -8 142 this amendment and other recent decisions, it's becoming the norm for this Council to H 7 -8 work against the needs and wants of the majority of their constituency. cont'd Thank you for the good work you do, and of course, for your consideration of my comments. Suzanne Forster Newport Beach Resident 14 3 From: TOMLU BAKER [mailto:tomlubaker @hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 4:12 PM To: Ramirez, Gregg Cc: Tom & Lu Anne Baker Subject: General Plan Amendment (November 2014 Public Vote) Dear Mr. Greg Ramirez, Please provide copies of this letter to Members of the City Council and the Planning Commission. <! -- .ExternalClass .ecxhmmessage P { padding:Opx; ] .ExternalClass body.ecxhmmessage { font- size:12pt; font- family:Calibri; } - -> This letter addresses residential concerns associated with commercial development abutting residential designated properties and proposes changes to the General Plan Amendment (November -2014 Public Vote) to minimize the residential concerns for : A. Limiting all vehicular access (ingress and egress) to the completed commercial sites to the commercial street side and not from shared commercial /residential alleys. B. Noise and safety concerns from commercial deliveries /trash pickup, C. Parking on residential streets instead of utilization of assigned commercial parking D. Increased traffic volume on residential streets and shared commercial /residential alleys, with associated safety concerns. E. Health and noise associated with employees smoking and conducting personal /commercial business on cell phones in common shared street or residential alley. F. Noise, safety and health intrusions associated with site installed mechanical equipment (such as Heating Ventilating and Air Conditioning HVAC, pumps, ventilation from enclosed parking, etc.) 144 Intro It is requested that the following be incorporated into the General Plan Amendment (November -2014 Public Vote) : N4.3 — New Commercial Developments ( undeveloped sites or redevelopment of a previous developed site } (NCD) require that new commercial development abutting residential designated properties be designed to minimiz limited vehicular access (ingress and egress from the street and not shared alleys and impacts to health, safety and noise generated by loading areas, parking lots, trash enclosures, mechanical equipment, and any other noise generating features specific to the development to the extent feasible. 1) Development /redevelopment for these NCD sites shall be limited to the historical usagE Example : If the type of business conducted at the sites has been from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PN with minimal or no business on weekends (and no Sunday business), then these sites shall be limited to the historical usage. 2) During NCD development /redevelopment construction , all deliveries /pickups (materials, construction trash, etc.) to the site shall be restricted to the commercial street side of the site and prohibited from any alley shared by the commercial site and the residences and limited to 8:00am to 5:00pm. 3) No vehicular access to the completed NCD site (ingress and egress) from the alley adjacent to the residential area shall be permitted. No vehicular parking on the alley adjacent to the residential area shall be permitted. All vehicular access to the completed NCD site shall occur from the commercial street side of the NCD. 4) Trash pickup from the completed NCD site shall be restricted to the commercial street side of the site and prohibited from any alley shared by the commercial site and the residences. Additionally, all deliveries /pickups (business, laboratory specimens, supplies, etc.) shall be restricted to commercial street side of the site and prohibited from any alley shared by the commercial site and the residences. Hours shall be limited to 8:00am to 5:00pm. 5) No on- street parking credit shall be granted for NCD's abutting residences. It -III 145 118 -1 cont'd 6) Employee Parking Spaces shall be required and designated with posted signage stating "Employee Parking Only" . 7) The storage of vehicles /trailers on decorative paving, defined landscape areas or parking spaces shall be prohibited. 8) Parking shall be prohibited on any area specified as decorative paving or landscape area by signage. 9) An on -site employee area for smoking and conducting personal business on cell phones shall be established away from the commonly shared street or residential alley. 10) Lighting impacts and privacy concerns of adjacent residential properties for NCD sites shall be minimized (such as automated internal shades set to close in the evening and an internal lighting system that auto -dims after standard working hours, leaving limited task lights illuminated for janitorial activities). 11) Noise, safety and health intrusions associated with installed site mechanical equipment (such as Heating Ventilating and Air Conditioning - -HVAC, pumps, ventilation from enclosed parking, etc) shall be minimized (such as installed with a timing device that will deactivate the equipment during the hours of 05:OOPM to 08:OOAM). 140 118 -1 cont'd From: Sanders _Eric [ mailto :Sanders_Eric @Allergan.com] Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 4:24 PM To: Ramirez, Gregg Cc: Sanders—Eric; Joy Sanders; sanders.jeff41 @gmail.com; katie sanders; sanders.jeff41 @gmail.com; eric.sanders @sbcglobal.net; Ramirez, Gregg Subject: General Plan Amendment Request Importance: High Dear Mr. Greg Ramirez, First and foremost, I wish to thank you and the city organization of Newport Beach for accepting input on matters related to citizen concerns about changes or exceptions to the General Plan. Intro Though I will list a somewhat exhaustive list of many recommendations /worries /concerns, I would highlight a few areas of greatest concern for me and for my neighbors. 1. Ensuring commercial enterprises who are adjacent to residential properties (shared alley, etc.) are restricted in scope of operations to traditional business 119 -1 days and hours (Monday — Friday, Sam to 5pm). 2. Ensuring that such businesses do not use the alley side of said properties for deliveries, customer parking, employee parking, exhaust fume distribution, or any 119 -2 other purpose which is disruptive to the adjoining homes / residential units which share the said alley. 3. Ensuring that all such commercial enterprises are barred from allowing, encouraging or planning for the use of residential parking areas as overflow parking for their employees or customers. This third and final item of my "top three concerns" is indeed the most disturbing in my opinion. The safety for all parties is at risk when very specific commercial parking and resident parking designated areas are not strictly identified and enforced. A comprehensive list of all items which are of concern to me is as follows: IWO This letter addresses residential concerns associated with commercial development abutting 119 -4 residential designated properties and proposes changes to the General Plan Amendment z47 (November -2014 Public Vote) to minimize the residential concerns for : A. Limiting all vehicular access (ingress and egress) to the completed commercial sites to the commercial street side and not from shared commercial /residential alleys. B. Noise and safety concerns from commercial deliveries /trash pickup, C. Parking on residential streets instead of utilization of assigned commercial parking D. Increased traffic volume on residential streets and shared commercial /residential alleys, with associated safety concerns. E. Health and noise associated with employees smoking and conducting personal /commercial business on cell phones in common shared street or residential alley. F. Noise, safety and health intrusions associated with site installed mechanical equipment (such as Heating Ventilating and Air Conditioning HVAC, pumps, ventilation from enclosed parking, etc.) It is requested that the following be incorporated into the General Plan Amendment (November -2014 Public Vote N4.3 — New Commercial Developments { defined as new initial development of a previously undeveloped sites or redevelopment of a previous developed site } (NCD) require that new commercial development abutting residential designated properties be designed to minimize limited vehicular access (ingress and egress from the street and not shared alleys ) and impacts to health, safety and noise generated by loading areas, parking lots, trash enclosures, mechanical equipment, and any other noise generating features specific to the development to the extent feasible. Development /redevelopment for these NCD sites shall be limited to the historical usage. Example : If the type of business conducted at the sites has been from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM with minimal or no business on weekends (and no Sunday business), then these sites shall be limited to the historical usage. IL During NCD development /redevelopment construction , all deliveries /pickups (materials, construction trash, etc.) to the site shall be restricted to the commercial street side of the site and prohibited from any alley shared by the commercial site and the residences and limited to 8:00am to 5:00pm. III. No vehicular access to the completed NCD site (ingress and egress) from the alley adjacent to the residential area shall be permitted. No vehicular parking on the alley adjacent to the residential area shall be permitted. All vehicular access to the completed NCD site shall occur from the commercial street side of the NCD. 14 2 119 -4 cont'd IV. Trash pickup from the completed NCD site shall be restricted to the commercial street side of the site and prohibited from any alley shared by the commercial site and the residences. Additionally, all deliveries /pickups (business, laboratory specimens, supplies, etc.) shall be restricted to commercial street side of the site and prohibited from any alley shared by the commercial site and the residences. Hours shall be limited to 8:OOam to S:OOpm. V. No on- street parking credit shall be granted for NCD's abutting residences. VI. Employee Parking Spaces shall be required and designated with posted signage stating "Employee Parking Only" . VII. The storage of vehicles /trailers on decorative paving, defined landscape areas or parking spaces shall be prohibited. VIII. Parking shall be prohibited on any area specified as decorative paving or landscape area by signage. IX. An on -site employee area for smoking and conducting personal business on cell phones shall be established away from the commonly shared street or residential alley. X. Lighting impacts and privacy concerns of adjacent residential properties for NCD sites shall be minimized (such as automated internal shades set to close in the evening and an internal lighting system that auto -dims after standard working hours, leaving limited task lights illuminated for janitorial activities). XI. Noise, safety and health intrusions associated with installed site mechanical equipment (such as Heating Ventilating and Air Conditioning - -HVAC, pumps, ventilation from enclosed parking, etc.) shall be minimized (such as installed with a timing device that will deactivate the equipment during the hours of 05:OOPM to 08:OOAM). Again, I wish to thank you for the acceptance of input from myself and other city residents. Sincerely, Eric Edward Sanders Joy Stringham Sanders Kathryn Sanders Jefferson Edward Stringham Sanders i-� 119-4 cont'd Jackson Stringham Sanders 400 Holmwood Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 949 - 466 -5502 This e-mail, including any attachments, is meant only for the intended recipient and may be a confidential communication or a communication privileged by law. If you received this e-mail in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender immediately of the error by return e-mail and please delete this message from your system. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. 150 From: Marge Chapman (mailto:mchapman417 @gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 6:28 PM To: Ramirez, Gregg Cc: Marge Chapman Subject: General Plan Amendment (November 2014 Public Vote) Dear Mr. Greg Ramirez, I have been a resident of NB for 65 years and have seen the growth and development of the city. It is imperative that we properly control the development and redevelopment to maintain our beautiful NB. I have specific concerns associated with commercial developmei abutting residential designated properties. Please incorporate into the General Plan Amendment (November -2014 Public Vote) all items specified below. Please provide copies of this letter to Members of the City Council and the Planning Commission. Margaret Chapman This letter addresses residential concerns associated with commercial development abutting residential designated properties and proposes changes to the General Plan Amendment (November -2014 Public Vote) to minimize the residential concerns for : A. Limiting all vehicular access (ingress and egress) to the completed commercial sites to the commercial street side and not from shared commercial /residential alleys. B. Noise and safety concerns from commercial deliveries /trash pickup, C. Parking on residential streets instead of utilization of assigned commercial parking D. Increased traffic volume on residential streets and shared commercial /residential alleys, with associated safety concerns. E. Health and noise associated with employees smoking and conducting personal /commercial business on cell phones in common shared street or residential alley. F. Noise, safety and health intrusions associated with site installed mechanical equipment (such as Heating Ventilating and Air Conditioning HVAC, pumps, ventilation from enclosed parking, etc.) 1151 Intro 120 -1 It is requested that the following be incorporated into the General Plan Amendment (November -2014 Public Vote) : N4.3 —New Commercial Developments { defined as new initial development of a nrevic undeveloped sites or redevelopment of a previous developed site �(NCD) require that new commercial development abutting residential designated properties be designed to minimize limited vehicular access (ingress and egress from the street and not shared alleys ) and impacts to health, safety and noise venerated by loading areas, parking lots, trash enclosures, mechanical equipment, and any other noise generating features specific to the development t( the extent feasible. 1) Development/redevelopment for these NCD sites shall be limited to the historical usage. Example : If the type of business conducted at the sites has been from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM with minimal or no business on weekends (and no Sunday business), then these sites shall be limited to the historical usage. 2) During NCD development/redevelopment construction , all deliveries /pickups (materials, construction trash, etc.) to the site shall be restricted to the commercial street side of the site and prohibited from any alley shared by the commercial site and the residences and limited to 8:00am to 5:00pm. 120 -1 3) No vehicular access to the completed NCD site (ingress and egress) from the alley adjacent to the residential area shall be permitted. No vehicular parking on the alley adja to the residential area shall be permitted. All vehicular access to the completed NCD site shall occur from the commercial street side of the NCD. 4) Trash pickup from the completed NCD site shall be restricted to the commercial street side of the site and prohibited from any alley shared by the commercial site and the residences. Additionally, all deliveries /pickups (business, laboratory specimens, supplies, etc.) shall be restricted to commercial street side of the site and prohibited from any alley shared by the commercial site and the residences. Hours shall be limited to 8:00am to S:00pm. 5) No on- street parking credit shall be granted for NCD's abutting residences. 6) Employee Parking Spaces shall be required and designated with posted signage stating "Employee Parking Only" . 7) The storage of vehicles /trailers on decorative paving, defined landscape areas or parking spaces shall be prohibited. 2152 8) Parking shall be prohibited on any area specified as decorative paving or landscape area by signage. 9) An on -site employee area for smoking and conducting personal business on cell phones shall be established away from the commonly shared street or residential alley. 10) Lighting impacts and privacy concerns of adjacent residential properties for NCD sites shall be minimized (such as automated internal shades set to close in the evening and an internal lighting system that auto -dims after standard working hours, leaving limited task lights illuminated for janitorial activities). 11) Noise, safety and health intrusions associated with installed site mechanical equipn (such as Heating Ventilating and Air Conditioning - -HVAC, pumps, ventilation from enclosed parking, etc) shall be minimized (such as installed with a timing device that will deactivate the equipment during the hours of 05:OOPM to 08:OOAM). 120 -1 153 From: Andy [mailto :gabrielenoindians @yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 9:13 PM To: Ramirez, Gregg; Christina Swildall Subject: Notice of completion and availability of the Draft supplemental environmental impact report SCH 2013101064) for the New Port Beach General Plan land use element amendment Dear Gregg Ramirez Senior Planner This email is in response to your letter dated March 17, 2014 in regards to the above subject project . The proposed project is within a highly culturally sensitive area and in order to protect our resources we're requesting one of our experienced & certified Native American monitors to be on site during all ground disturbances. In all cases, when the NAHC states there are "no records of sacred sites" in the subject area; they always refer the contractors back to the Native American Tribes whose tribal territory the project area is in. This is due to the fact, that the NAHC is only aware of general information on each California NA Tribe they are NOT the "experts" on our Tribe. Our Elder Committee & Tribal Historians are the experts and is the reason why the NAHC will always refer contractors to the local tribes. Please contact our office regarding this project to coordinate a NA monitor to be present. Thank You Sincerely, Andy Salas Chairman Of Gabrieleno Band Of Mission Indians/Kizh Nation Of the Los Angeles Basin, Orange county and the Channel islands. 01 -1 01-2 154 The Gas Company A Sernpra Energy utility - April 25, 2014 City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 Attn: Gregg Ramirez DECEIVED aY COMMUNITY !:1 0 1 2014 h DEVELOPMENT -Z- OP NEWPORT 1919 S. State College Blvd. Anaheim, CA 92806 -6114 Subject: Environmental Impact Report for Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element Amendment (PA2013 -098); Newport Beach; SCH# 2013101064 Thank you for providing the opportunity to respond to this E.I.R. Document. We are pleased to inform you that Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the area where the aforementioned project is proposed. Gas service to the project can be provided from an existing gas main located . in various locations. The service will be in accordance with the Company's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission when the contractual arrangements are made. This letter is not a contractual commitment to serve the proposed project but is only provided as an informational service. The availability of natural gas service is based upon conditions of gas supply and regulatory agencies. As a Public Utility, Southern California Gas Company is under thejurisdiction of tile California Public Utilities Commission. Our ability to serve can also be affected by actions of federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action, which affect gas supply or the conditions under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with the revised conditions. This letter is also provided without considering any conditions or non - utility laws and regulations (such as environmental regulations); which could affect construction of a main and /or service line extension (i.e., if hazardous wastes were encountered in the process of installing the line). The regulations can only be determined around the time contractual arrangements are made and construction has begun. Estimates of gas usage for residential and non - residential projects are developed on an individual basis and are obtained from the Commercial- Industrial /Residential Market Services Staff by calling (800) 427 -2000 (Commercial /Industrial Customers) (800) 427 -2200 (Residential Customers). We have developed several programs, which are available upon request to provide assistance in selecting the most energy efficient appliances or systems for a particular project. If you desire further information on any of our energy conservation programs, please contact this office for assistance. Sincerely; -1:4� Armando Torrez Technical Services Supervisor Orange Coast Region - Anaheim AT /, Ent.doc 02 -1 11515 STARPOINTE VENTURES April 28, 2014 Mr. Gregg Ramirez City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Comments re Newport Beach Draft SEIR Dear Mr. Ramirez: This letter shall serve the official comments on behalf of property owner John Saunders on the Draft SEIR which was released on March 17, 2014. This letter incorporates, by reference, all comments made orally at the hearings and meetings from 2013 through 2014. We also reserve the right to provide additional comments regarding the adequacy of the Draft SEIR as the process moves through the Planning Commission and City Council hearings. Intro To summarize this letter, the DSEIR is adequate and should be certified with respect to the Project ONLY. The Project Alternative impacts are nearly the same and is not truly a 03A -1 studied alternative. The Project Alternative cannot be supported by the record. Procedural Background In May 2013, the City initiated an amendment to the Land Use Element "to review its effectiveness in achieving the community's vision and update it to reflect legislation, emerging best practices, and changing economic markets since the General Plan was adopted." (April 2014 Progress Report). With oversight of the Land Use Element Amendment Advisory Committee ( LUEAAC) beginning in July 2013, a "limited number of targeted and strategic changes have been recommended." These policy, land use, and development capacity amendments were recommended by the LUEAAC to be studied in the environmental document for the Project. From July 2013 through February 2014, the LUEAAC held 11 meetings. At each of these meetings, our team provided testimony in support of the increase of intensity at the project known in the DSEIR as the "Saunders Properties." 19700 Fairchild Road, Suite 240, Irvine, California 92612 (949) 622 -0420 * Fax (949) 622 -0423 * www.starpointeventures.com 03A -2 150 The final recommendation of the Committee to the City Council in August 2013 was to include the Saunders project in the DSEIR. Several other wholly unrelated projects were also recommended for inclusion in the Study. In September of 2013, at the City Council Study Session, the Council directed Staff to study the Saunders project. The DSEIR did indeed study the Saunders project, among others, and found no significant unavoidable impacts with the project included attributable to the Saunders project. This fact alone allows the Planning Commission and the City Council to certify the DSEIR with the Saunders project included, whether other airport area projects are included or not. Current Entitlement The "Saunders Properties" consist of approximately 16 acres of land between Campus Drive, MacArthur Blvd., and an imaginary extension of Corinthian Way between those two streets. The parcels are currently designated as Airport Office and Supporting Uses (AO). The current buildings on the site are approximately 40 years old and represent an important opportunity for the City of Newport Beach to create a "gateway" to the City by creating a mixed -use project which will take benefits from all of the cutting edge development and planning concepts. The proposed change being studied in the General Plan Update is an increase of 238,077 square feet of office as well as the addition of 329 dwelling units of apartments of 3 -5 stories. The designation would be amended to Mixed Use Horizontal (MU -H2) with a total capacity of 545,000 square feet of office and 329 dwelling units. Note* the current uses include auto rental lots which are currently allowed under AO, but not enumerated under MU -112. Should this General Plan Amendment proceed, the existing uses should be allowed to continue under the mixed -use zoning. The DSEIR 03A -2 cont'd 03A -3 Most important to the analysis of the DSEIR is the fact that the DSEIR WITH THE SAUNDERS PROPERTIES INCLUDED CREATES NO SIGNIFICANT 03A-4 UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS CAUSED BY THE SAUNDERS PROJECT. On this basis alone, the Planning Commission and City Council should certify the SEIR WITH THE SAUNDERS PROPERTIES included. Flawed Trip Analysis. The DSEIR studied the Saunders Properties as 1 -2story apartments. The proposal for the Saunders Properties has always been for multifamily over 2- stories, this falling in the "Apartment (High - Rise)" category and driving a lower generation rate in the traffic study. This error must be fixed prior to certification of the DSEIR and the findings relative to the Project Alternative should be clearly stated to be OVERSTATED A) by nearly 25% for the residential uses or B) by approximately 9% for the total additional uses with regard to the Saunders Properties. The Planning Commission and City Council must be advised of this error. 03A -5 157 Flawed Project List. Additionally, some of the proposed projects studied in the DSEIR are not moving forward at this time. It is erroneous in both the Project and Project Alternative Analysis to include proposals which are no longer pending as they create the appearance of an impact which does not exist. City Staff was aware of the withdrawal of at least one of these projects and SHOULD have run an analysis without it included in both the Project and Project Alternative analysis. The argument that there was not enough time to run the project alone is without merit since CEQA sufficiency is not judged based upon an arbitrary timeline to complete a study; a study is either sufficient or not. Further, under CEQA, the full project analysis including the Saunders project is sufficient, therefore, the City Council can elect to approve ANY lesser Project variation, including the full Project, or the Project with the removal of other airport projects. The Planning Commission and City Council must be advised of the status of each of the proposals. The Project Alternative The Project Alternative is the approval of the Base Project without the "Airport Area" proposals. This has carelessly and erroneously been deemed the Environmentally Superior Alternative. This is erroneous for many reasons: 1. No sensitivity analysis has been run on the various Airport proposals to analyze whether any one of them could in fact be environmentally superior. 2. The analysis fails to study the beneficial effects of compact development, smart growth, live -work, greenhouse gas reduction, improvement of the jobs /housing balance, trip capture, trip reductions, etc., which the Saunders Properties would provide. 3. It is arbitrary and capricious to select the airport area projects for exclusion in a City -wide General Plan Update. The City did not run a sensitivity analysis on a proportionate reduction of all of the proposed projects, therefore, cannot argue that this is an environmentally superior alternative. Common sense dictates that a proportionate reduction across the City would cause better traffic disbursement and reduce impacts across the City. Consequently, any support for the Project Alternative is flawed and cannot be supported by the evidence, therefore making the DSEIR inadequate as to the Project Alternative ONLY. Technical Memo NRkE: 03A -7 Attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein, please find an additional letter from RBF Consulting regarding the DSEIR. I 03A -8 Missing Analysis In addition to the technical issues presented herein, there is an overall inconsistency between the 2006 General Plan and the DSEIR's Project Alternative which cannot be solved. The only way to certify the DSEIR is by approving the Project with the Saunders Properties included. In the 2006 General Plan, there was a goal set forth of creating urban villages in the Airport Area on appropriate parcels. The Saunders Properties represent one of the few areas of the airport area with a common owner and size sufficient to create a true mixed -use 03A -9 WN project. For the Project Alternative to call for the removal of the Saunders Properties without studying the negative impacts of doing so on the stated goals and objectives and the 03A -9 feasibility of other sites providing housing near employment centers is flawed and coned insufficient. There was no analysis of trip capture or trip reduction for the Saunders Properties. Certification of the Project is thus supported, however, certification of the Project 03A -10 Alternative is not because there is insufficient study in the record to support the presumption that it is environmentally superior. In the 2006 General Plan Update, there were approximately 260 additional additive units studied in the airport area. There were also approximately 1,1018 "replacement" units. At a minimum, the DSEIR Project Alternative should have studied the placement of the 260 additive units on the Saunders Properties. This project has been proposed, the LUEAAC directed the analysis of the addition of this project (not as part of multiple projects) and the City Council also directed the study of this project. The DSEIR Project Alternative failed to study this project, it merely removed this project, among others, therefore, does not comply with the direction given by the Committee or Council, namely, to study this project. The 2006 General Plan EIR contains different and much higher intensities than are being requested today for these properties. The DSEIR Project Alternative is insufficient in that the numbers studied for the baseline as well as the proposed project are totally inconsistent with the 2006 EIR. The only environmentally supportable position is to certify the EIR for the Project with the Saunder's Properties included. The current traffic study and appendices has no land use data included to compare. Conclusion We look forward to working with City Staff throughout the hearings on the DSEIR and hope that Staff will support the Project and recognize that the erroneous advice to approve the Project Alternative is not supported by the record. The applicant reserves all legal rights and can and will continue to marshal legal arguments and supplement the record through the upcoming hearings. Please contact us if additional information is necessary. Very holy yours, Patrick B. Strader, Esq. CEO Starpointe Ventures Enclosures (3) cc: Mr. John Saunders 03A -11 03A -12 03A -13 1�9 FBF 14725 Alton Parkway Irvine, CA 92618 -2027 949.472.3505 949.472.8373 Fax CONSULTING www,rbf.com A Company www.mbakercorp.com April 30, 2014 Mr. Patrick Strader Starpointe Ventures 19700 Fairchild, Suite 240 Irvine, CA 92612 Subject: Newport Beach GPA Subject: Review of the Transportation Section of the Newport Beach GPA EIR and the Associated Traffic Study This letter is submitted to comment on the Transportation - related aspects of the General Plan Land Use Element Amendment EIR and its supporting Traffic Study with a particular emphasis on how it relates to Intro the Saunders Properties and the associated request for revised land uses on the subject properties. Comment 1: The trip generation rate used for the apartments on the Saunders Properties site (per Appendix 4.1 and as reflected in the trip generation projections shown in Table 5 -1 of the Traffic Study and Table 7 -2 of the EIR) should be changed to use trip generation rate 3c to better reflect the type of apartments proposed for the subject properties. As indicated in Table 3 -1 of the EIR, the proposed change in development capacity for the Saunders Properties would be to allow an additional 238,077 square feet (SF) of Office uses and 329 units (DU's) of apartments. The proposed apartments 203A -2 med to be the higher density design (3 to 4 stories) that is typical of products implemented in the Airport Area over the last decade. This is a particularly important factor that affects selection of the trip generation rates used to calculate the trip generation for each increment of the proposed GPA, as presented in Table 4 -2 of the GPA Traffic Study. Calculation of the trip generation for the proposed additional development on the Saunders Properties is shown on Page 4.1 -13 of Appendix 4.1 to the GPA Traffic Study (Attachment 1) and, it is important to note that the Land Use Code applied to the Apartments is not consistent with the type planned for this site. The trip generation rates for apartments (3b) is typically associated with lower density apartment projects (one to two stories) as opposed to the rates for category 3c, which are typically applied to the higher density projects (as was done in calculating the trip generation for the proposed Lyon Communities GPA request on Page 4.1 -15 in this Appendix). Application of the more appropriate trip generation rates is reflected in a revised calculation (Attachment 2) and results in 386 less daily trips from the proposed GPA for the Saunders Properties, than is reflected in the EIR and Traffic Study. This revision should be considered during finalizing the GPA's project description, particularly relative to consideration of the trip neutrality criteria. 100 03B -1 Mr. Patrick Strader, Starpointe Ventures April 30, 2014 Page 2 Comment 2: Information regarding the "Existing" conditions for the Saunders Properties (as shown in Table 3.1 of the EIR and elsewhere in the EIR and supporting studies) needs to be 0313-2 corrected, both relative to the amount of square feet and the type of uses that exist on the subject site. Comment 3: It would seem that Table 3 -1 should also include information regarding both the amount and type of development allowed under the current General Plan, since that information is the basis of determining additional development /traffic added as a result of the proposed land use changes. Such a column was included in earlier versions of this Table that appeared in the Notice of Preparation and at the Scoping Meeting. 0313-3 Comment 4: It would seem that either an additional column should be added to Table 3 -1, or that the last column should be divided in order to present both: 1) the amount of change from existing conditions and 2) the amount of change from allowable development 03134 under the current General Plan. While these amounts may be the same for some of the locations listed in Table 3 -1, they would certainly be different in the case of the Saunders Properties. Comment 5: It appears that the projected traffic operational characteristics for all intersections within the study area are compatible with the capacity criteria and thresholds of significance established by the Cities and County. A very significant conclusion regarding the Transportation Analysis of the proposed General Plan Amendment is not evident in the way that both the Executive Summary of the EIR and the Transportation Section are structured. That is that no significant impacts are projected at the study intersections as a result of the proposed Project. This is a very significant conclusion, particularly with inclusion of all proposed projects in the Airport Area. It is particularly important to recognize that at the one intersection projected to experience the most congestion (Jamboree at Michelson); the proposed Project was found to have no measureable negative impact on the intersection's operations. It also seems important to understand that the conclusion that, "it is assumed that impacts at study area intersections would be significant and unavoidable "relative to Impact 5.11 -3 regarding the Airport Settlement Agreement is quite conservative. While it is true that no specific information is available regarding potential traffic impacts associated with the Airport Settlement, examination of the GPA's buildout ICU's (with planned improvements) show all but one intersection (Jamboree at Michelson) to be more than 0.03 ICU "points" from the established maximum acceptable operational criteria and, most of those locations are relatively distant from the airport. That is to say, it would require the Airport Settlement Agreement to result in a significant increase in the PM Peak traffic volumes along certain key roadway links for an unacceptable ICU to occur. Therefore, it would seem doubtful that any such significant impact would occur. H: \pdata\ 140306\ Admin\ Correspndnc \P_Strader - Starpointe Ventures -DRAFT B Review of the Transportation Section Newport Beach GPA EIR Associated Traffic Study_04.30.2014.docx 1101 0313-5 Mr. Patrick Strader, Starpointe Ventures April 30, 2014 Page 3 Comment 6: Since, as indicated in Table 7 -2 of the EIR, the Project Alternative is projected generate 2,550 daily trips less than the current General Plan, then additio development on the Saunders Properties, as long as the program resulted in less tl 2,550 ADT, could be added to the Proposed Alternative land use program wl maintaining trip neutrality. As indicated in Table 7 -2 of the EIR, the Project Alternative (where all GPA project requests in the Airport Area were eliminated) is projected to generate 2,550 daily trips less than for land uses in the current General Plan. Therefore, under the definition for trip neutrality that has been established by the City for the GPA process, additional land O3B -6 uses generating up to 2,550 daily trips could be added to those land uses in the Project Alternative while still maintaining trip neutrality. On that basis, three alternate land uses proposals for additional land use on the Saunders Properties have been identified (see Attachment 3). The three potential additional increments of land use were established to demonstrate: 1) a mixture of residential and apartment uses, 2) the maximum amount of residential that could be added and 3) the maximum amount of office uses that could be added (based purely on the basis of maintaining trip neutrality). Please contact me with any questions regarding this information, of if there is a need for additional information. Very truly you'rk� Mike Erickson Senior Associate H: \pdata \140306 \Admin \Correspndnc \P Strader- Starpointe Ventures -DRAFT B Review of the Transportation Section Newport Beach GPA EIR Associated Traffic Study 04.30.2014.docx 102 Table X Model Trip Generation NBTM Land Use Code NBTM Land Use Description Quantity Units Trips AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Daily 1a Res- Low (SFD)- Balboa 0 DU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1b Res -Low (SFD) 0 DU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2a Res - Medium (SFA)-Balboa 0 DU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2b Res - Medium (SFA) 0 DU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3a Apartment-Balboa 0 DU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3b Apartment 329 DU 39 158 197 1 118 66 184 2013 3c Apartment (High -Rise) 0 DU 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3d Apartment (Res- over - Retail) 0 DU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3e Apartment Mid -Rise Newport Center 0 DU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Elderly Residential 0 DU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5a Mobile Home - Balboa 0 DU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5b I Mobile Home 0 DU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 Motel 0 ROOM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 Hotel 0 ROOM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 Regional Commercial 0 TSF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10a General Commercial 0 TSF 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 10b Comm (Res- over - Retail) 0 TSF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 Comm. /Recreation 0 ACRE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 Restaurant 0 TSF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 Fast Food Restaurant 0 TSF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 Auto Dealer /Sales 0 TSF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 Yacht Club 0 TSF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 Health Club 0 TSF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 Tennis Club 0 CRT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 Marina 0 SLIP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 Theater 0 SEAT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 Newport Dunes 0 ACRE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23a General Office 238.077 TSF 1 200 62 262 93 155 248 2638 23b Office (?300K block Newport Center) 0 TSF 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 24 Medical /Government Office 0 TSF 0 0 0 0 o 0 D 25 R&D 0 TSF 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 26 Industrial 0 TSF 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 27 Mini- Storage/Warehouse 0 TSF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 Pre - School /Day Care 0 TSF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 Elementary/Private School 0 STU 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 30 Junior /High School 0 STU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 Cultural /Learning Center 0 TSF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 Library 0 TSF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 Post Office 0 TSF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 Hospital 0 BEDS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 Nursing /Conv. Home 0 BEDS 0 Er-0 0 0 0 0 36 Church 0 TSF 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 37 Youth Ctr /Service 0 TSF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 Park 0 ACRE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 Regional Park 0 ACRE 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 40 Golf Course 0 ACRE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 Resort Golf Course 0 ACRE 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Total 239 220 , 459 211 221 432 4651 u: wcaoos� _08100- 085uu\_o84umo8433� i ripGen% I G -talc - rev 80613 - SaundersFinal2013.xlsx]TG 4.1 -13 103 DRAFT ATTACHMENT 2 Corrected Trip Generation For The Requested Saunders Properties Project (April 24, 2014) 7MEW 0.10 0.38 0.48 0.29 0.16 0.45 4.90 33 125 158 96 53 149 1,613 0.84 0.26 1.10 0.39 0.65 1.04 H: \pdata \140306 \Admin \Tables \Draft Attachment 2 Corrected Trip Generation_04.24.2014.docx 104 14725 Alton Parkway VBF Irvine, CA 92618 -2027 949.472.3505 949.472.8373 Fax CONSULTING www.rbf.com A �- Company www.mbakercorp.com DRAFT ATTACHMENT 2 Corrected Trip Generation For The Requested Saunders Properties Project (April 24, 2014) 7MEW 0.10 0.38 0.48 0.29 0.16 0.45 4.90 33 125 158 96 53 149 1,613 0.84 0.26 1.10 0.39 0.65 1.04 H: \pdata \140306 \Admin \Tables \Draft Attachment 2 Corrected Trip Generation_04.24.2014.docx 104 Officers: Terry Welsh,M.D. President Suzanne Forster Vice - President Deborah Koken Secretary Jennifer Frutig, Ph.D. Treasurer Steve Ray Executive Director Board Members: Mark Tabbert Diane Silvers, Ed.D. Jan Vandersloot, M.D. In Memoriam Mailing Address: P. 0. Box 16071 Newport Beach, CA 92659 -6071 (310) 961 -7610 i - �, Banning Ranch Conservancy 4/30/14 To Gregg Ramirez: Subject: Comments on General Plan Land Use Amendments draft EIR The 400 -acre Banning Ranch, located at the mouth of the Santa Ana River, is the largest parcel of unprotected coastal open space remaining in Orange County. The Banning Ranch Conservancy is a non - profit conservation group with the mission: "The preservation, acquisition, conservation, and management of the entire Banning Ranch Intro as a permanent public open space, park, and coastal nature preserve." We are writing you today to provide comments on draft EIR for the General Plan Land Use Amendents. 191h Street Bridge As noted in the section on traffic, OCTA has recently removed the 19th St. Bridge from the MPAH and the same bridge will likely be removed from the City's General Plan Circulation Element. Bluff Road /W. Coast Highway The City plans for an intersection to be constructed at W. Coast Highway and the proposed Bluff Road. The City should not plan for such an intersection. In all likelihood, the entire Banning Ranch will be presered as open space and Bluff Road will not be constructed. In the unlikely event that there is some development at Banning Ranch, the development will probably be accessed from the existing 17th Street entrance or from the existing W. Coast Highway entrance near the City's oil fields (near Cappy's). Caltrans has previously raised questions about the wisdom of placing a new signalized intersection on W. Coast Highway so close to existing signalized intersection at Superio and W. Coast Highway. In addition, the area proposed for the southernmost extension of Bluff road (the area just north of the planned intersection of W. Coast Highway and the proposed Bluff Road) is federally - declared critical habitat for the listed California Gnatcatcher and has been exstensively documented as heavily -used during nesting season. In short, it is highly unlikely that State and Federal agencies would approve the planned intersection at W. Coast Highway and the proposed Bluff Road and the City would be better served not planning on the construction of this intersection. www.banningranchconservancy.org 105 04 -1 • A In conclusion, the City should not plan for the construction of neither the 19th Street Bridge, nor the intersection at W. Coast Highway and the proposed Bluff Road, when 04 -3 making traffic predictions. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Sincerely, Terry Welsh, M.D. President, Banning Ranch Conservancy www.banningranchconservancy.org 100 C c R1 A California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance, Inc. P.O. Box 54132 An alliance of American Indian and scientific communities working for Irvine, CA 92619 -4132 the preservation of archaeological sites and other cultural resources. April 30, 2014 Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Division Re: Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2013101064 for the Newport Beach Land Use Element Amendment Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above mentioned DSEIR. Archaeological consultants, Cogstone, Inc., have identified a number of prehistoric and historic properties within the project area that have been recorded. Newport Beach was densely occupied prior to European contact and has a high potential for buried cultural resources. Therefore, we consider any area of ground that has not been disturbed to be culturally sensitive. This includes the ground beneath structures that were constructed prior to 1970 when the California Environmental Quality Act was implemented. We trust that in these cases, the appropriate archaeological investigations would be implemented. The mitigation measures do not give enough attention to preservation of significant archaeological properties. Site evaluations and mitigation measures should take into consideration the cumulative impacts upon and /or destruction of archaeological sites, Native American traditional cultural sites, and traditional cultural landscapes with associated traditional Native American values. State and Federal guidelines, including CEQA, provide that with respect to archaeological sites, preservation thorough avoidance is the preferred treatment. Archaeology is a destructive process and mitigation through data recovery excavations not only result in the destruction of an important part of the Juaneno /Acjachemen and Gabrielino /Tongva cultural patrimony and Orange County history, but it is also labor intensive and expensive. Most importantly, site evaluations and mitigation measures do not take into consideration the destruction of Native American traditional cultural sites and landscapes. We are also concerned that the discovery of archaeological deposits is left up to construction contractors. This may be appropriate in certain circumstances, but the potential for the presence of buried cultural deposits and the need for an archaeological monitor should be identified prior to any ground disturbance by a qualified archaeologist. We request that you continue to keep us informed about the DSEIR. We look forward to the results of any archaeological and cultural investigations and to further participation in the environmental review process. To that end, we reserve our right to comment further in the future. Sincerely, Patricia Martz, Ph.D. President ZO7 05 -1 05 -2 Still Protecting Our Newport 19191111111431 PRESIDENT Marko Popovich 30 April 2014 VICE PRESIDENT Elaine Linhoff Gregg Ramirez Dorothy Kraus Senior Planner TREASURER Dennis Baker City of Newport Beach SECRETARY Dear Mr. Ramirez and LUE Committee, Allan Beek BOARD MEMBERS Inspiring The Next Generation Following are SPON's comments on the Draft Supplemental EIR for the City's proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendment. Nancy Alston Thanks in advance for your consideration Iryne Black Don Harvey Dorothy Kraus Sincerely, Donald Krotee Andrea Lingle Bobby Lovell Marko Popovich Jeanne Price SPON President Melinda Seely Jack Skinner Nancy Skinner Submitted by Email Jean Watt Portia Weiss Terry Welsh STOP POLLUTING OUR NEWPORT (SPON) is a 501.c.3 non - profit public education organization working to protect and preserve the residential and environmental qualities of Newport Beach. PO Box 102 1 Balboa Island, CA 92662 www.SPON- NewportBeach.org I Info @SPON- NewportBeach.org Intro "M Still Protecting Our Newport Inspiring The Next Generation The proposed project is the amendment of the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. Land use designations for two sites would be changed. An additional seventeen sites would experience changes in permitted levels of development; permitted development on up to eight sites would be reduced, while permitted development on up to nine sites would be increased. The amendments would result in a net increase of 1,729 dwelling units, 493,677 square feet of office space, 71,110 square feet of general commercial space, an increase in seventy -two students in a private school and a decrease in 701 hotel rooms. The EIR must include analyses based on existing physical conditions. As stated in the DSEIR (p. 2 -2): The 2006 General Plan is the "baseline" for the analysis in this Draft SEIR and was used in preparing the Initial Study to evaluate the potential incremental impacts of the proposed project. In accordance with Section 15125 (a) of the Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)), "An EIR must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced, from both a local and regional perspective. This environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency determines whether an impact is significant." As stated in Section 15125(e): Where a proposed project is compared with an adopted plan, the analysis shall examine the existing physical conditions at the time the notice of preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced as well as the potential future conditions discussed in the plan. STOP POLLUTING OUR NEWPORT (SPON) is a 501.c.3 non - profit public education organization working to protect and preserve the residential and environmental qualities of Newport Beach. PO Box 102 1 Balboa Island, CA 92662 www.SPON- NewportBeach.org I Info @SPON- NewportBeach.org log Intro cont'd 06 -1 Still Protecting Our Newport Inspiring The Next Generation In Environmental Planning And Information Council of Western El Dorado County, Inc v.County of El Dorado (3rd Dist. 1982; 131 Cal.App.3d 350, 182 Cal.Rptr. 317), the court held that a comparison of development permitted under the amended general plan to development permitted under the pre- existing general plan was inappropriate and that a baseline of existing physical conditions was appropriate. The court stated "The comparisons utilized in the EIRs can only mislead the public as to the reality of the impacts and subvert full consideration of the actual environmental impacts which would result." Similarly Christward Ministry v.Superior Court ( 4th Dist. 1986184 Cal.App.3d 180) states: In assessing the impact of the amendment, the local agency must examine the potential impact of the amendment on the existing physical environment; a comparison between the proposed amendment and the existing general plan is insufficient. The California Supreme Court has held that there is some leeway in selection of a baseline for environmental analysis and "an agency preparing an EIR does have discretion to omit an analysis of the project's significant impacts on existing environmental conditions and substitute a baseline consisting of environmental conditions projected to exist in the future, the agency must justify its decision by showing an existing conditions analysis would be misleading or without informational value." (Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority; 2013, 57 Cal. 4th 439; 304 P.3d 499; 160 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1) The court noted that under unusual conditions "an agency may forego analysis of a project's impacts on existing environmental conditions if such an analysis would be uninformative or misleading to decision makers and the public" (Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority; 2013, 57 Cal. 4th 439; 304 P.3d 499; 160 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1). The court cited as an example a case where an existing factory would be emitting certain pollutants versus a new, larger factory also emitting pollutants in the future would neglect the anticipated reduction in pollutants from the existing factory due to the enforcement of new regulations already adopted. To compare a larger future factory operating under future rules to an existing factory operating under existing rules would be misleading to those evaluating the potentially expanded facility. The Supreme Court concluded that in most cases, however, use of a baseline consisting of existing physical conditions is most informative, stating: STOP POLLUTING OUR NEWPORT (SPON) is a 501.c.3 non - profit public education organization working to protect and preserve the residential and environmental qualities of Newport Beach. PO Box 102 1 Balboa Island, CA 92662 www.SPON- NewportBeach.org I Info @SPON- NewportBeach.org 170 06 -1 cont'd Still Protecting Our Newport Inspiring The Next Generation ...use of existing conditions as a baseline makes the analysis more accessible to decision makers and especially to members of the public, who may be familiar with the existing environment but not technically equipped to assess a projection into the distant future. As an amicus curiae observes, "[a]nyone can review an EIR's discussion of current environmental conditions and determine whether [it] comports with that person's knowledge and experience of the world." But "[i]n a hypothetical future world, the environment is what the statisticians say it is." ... an agency must not create unwarranted barriers to public understanding of the EIR by unnecessarily substituting a baseline of projected future conditions for one based on actual existing conditions. (Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority; 2013, 57 Cal. 4th 439; 304 P.3d 499; 160 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1) As stated in the DSEIR (p. 2 -2): The 2006 General Plan is the "baseline" for the analysis in this Draft SEIR and was used in preparing the Initial Study to evaluate the potential incremental impacts of the proposed project. The document is a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines provide that: (a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental STOP POLLUTING OUR NEWPORT (SPON) is a 501.c.3 non - profit public education organization working to protect and preserve the residential and environmental qualities of Newport Beach. PO Box 102 1 Balboa Island, CA 92662 www.SPON- NewportBeach.org I Info @SPON- NewportBeach.org Z�� 06 -1 cont'd 06 -2 Still Protecting Our Newport Inspiring The Next Generation effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: (A) The project will have or ore significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative decl'aiauuii, (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. (b) If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available after adoption of a negative declaration, the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent EIR if required under subdivision (a). Otherwise the lead agency shall determine whether to prepare a subsequent negative declaration, an addendum, or no further documentation. A subsequent EIR is typically a stand -alone document examining a proposed project in the light of existing physical conditions. As provided under Section 15163 (a) The lead or responsible agency may choose to prepare a supplement to an EIR rather than a subsequent EIR if: (1) Any of the conditions described in Section 15162 would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR, and (2) Only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation. STOP POLLUTING OUR NEWPORT (SPON) is a 501.c.3 non - profit public education organization working to protect and preserve the residential and environmental qualities of Newport Beach. PO Box 102 1 Balboa Island, CA 92662 www.SPON- NewportBeach.org I Info @SPON- NewportBeach.org 272 06 -2 cont'd Still Protecting Our Newport Inspiring The Next Generation (b) The supplement to the EIR need contain only the information necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the project as revised. By preparing a supplemental EIR, the City asserts that requirements established by the statue and judicial history are of no effect. The City asserts that it may provide a plan to plan analysis which avoids discussion of the proposed projects in light of existing physical conditions. This is for a collection of projects which would add 1,719 dwelling units and over half a million square feet of commercial /space over that permitted under the existing General Plan at various locations. The DSEIR does not indicate how great a change that is from existing physical conditions. The plan -to -plan comparison tends to minimize perception of the magnitude of impacts due to the proposed project. The DSEIR is somehow attempting to perpetrate the charade that the general plan amendment is merely a tweaking of a previously approved project, and thus in need of only a "supplemental" analysis. Several of the changes on individual sites are substantive enough that they would likely have required individual EMS if considered as individual projects, for example 238,077 square feet of office commercial space and 329 dwelling units at Site 4A, and 500,000 square feet of regional office space, 50,000 square feet of regional commercial and 500 dwelling units at Site 5. EMS for projects on each of these sites would have been required to examine existing physical conditions. Carried to its logical extreme, one would have millions of square feet of development approved over the course of decades under a series of mere "supplements" with any baseline reflecting existing physical conditions forgotten in the mists of time. The DSEIR discusses not only increases in previously identified impacts, but includes entirely new areas of investigation. For example, the 2006 EIR did not examine greenhouse gases, while the current document includes this analysis. Thus, the changes are not merely "minor ". For the most part, the only baseline of existing physical conditions is included in an eight - year -old EIR which was itself based on data collected still earlier. The reviewer is deprived of an evaluation of how existing physical conditions would be changed due to the development proposals addressed in the DSEIR, with the exception of traffic for which existing levels of service based on recent trip counts are provided. STOP POLLUTING OUR NEWPORT (SPON) is a 501.c.3 non - profit public education organization working to protect and preserve the residential and environmental qualities of Newport Beach. PO Box 102 1 Balboa Island, CA 92662 www.SPON- NewportBeach.org I Info @SPON- NewportBeach.org 2�� 06 -2 cont'd 06 -3 reM. Still Protecting Our Newport Inspiring The Next Generation The analysis of greenhouse gases does provide a summary of existing greenhouse gas emissions. Ironically, however, the analysis suffers from the very flaw discussed in Neighbors for Smart Rail, comparing emissions due to existing development to emissions from a built- out general plan without noting the change in emissions factors to be applied in the future, creating the misleading impression that general plan build out will cause a reduction in emissions. This becomes obvious when one sees that the DSEIR shows a reduction in greenhouse gases associated with transportation under general plan build out despite an increase in vehicle miles travelled. Greenhouse gases for existing development must be compared using the same emissions factors as greenhouse gases for the additional growth permitted under general plan build out. The use of a plan -to -plan comparison is especially pernicious because the specific, major development which would be permitted for locations such as Sites 4A and 5 could potentially proceed with little or no additional environmental review. If additional review were to occur, it could be limited to such issues as project specific aesthetic impacts with little or no examination of such quality of life issues as traffic, air pollution, and noise. The Proiect Description lacks important information. The DSEIR does not identify a project objective. Presumably the objective would be the objective included in the 2006 EIR, but it is not clear how the proposed changes would better fulfill that objective, if at all. The DSEIR includes a list of sites which would be subject to changes under the proposed amendment. For some sites total development is shown while floor area ratio is shown for others. One has no idea what floor area ratio or density will exist on some sites not what total development will occur on other. For example Site 1 will have a floor area ratio of 0.5 but because no information is provided regarding the area of the site, one has no idea whether that will result in 5,000 square feet of development or 5,000,000. Table 3 -1 is confusing and inconsistent. Page 3 -9 clearly shows square feet of each type of development permitted under the 2006 general plan, existing development, and the proposed change in allowable development under the proposed GPA. Page 3 -10 lists general land use designation but does not quantify development in terms of square feet, dwelling units or other factors except for the proposed difference under the proposed changes for Site S. Thus, the STOP POLLUTING OUR NEWPORT (SPON) is a 501.c.3 non - profit public education organization working to protect and preserve the residential and environmental qualities of Newport Beach. PO Box 102 1 Balboa Island, CA 92662 www.SPON- NewportBeach.org I Info @SPON- NewportBeach.org 174 06 -4 confd 06 -5 Still Protecting Our Newport Inspiring The Next Generation magnitude of the change is not clear, whether the proposal represents a ten percent increase or possibly a doubling of development for this area. Page 3 -11, though still part of Table 3 -1 has 06 -5 different column headings and presents identical data for "Existing" and "Proposed Changes ". cont'd The project description includes a list of all general plan goals, including goals that will remain the same. However, important changes in policies are buried in the appendix. Some of these could result in positive effects on the environment, such as new policies regarding sustainable development. However, other policy changes could result in environmental impacts. These include: LU 1.3 Natural Resources. Protect the natural setting that contributes to the character and ideRtmfy identity of Newport Beach and the sense of place it provides for its residents and visitors. Preserve designated open space resources, beaches, harbor, bays, channels, parks, bluffs, preserves, and estuaries as visual, recreational and habitat resources. This would limit protection to pre- designated areas. Valuable resources not located in those pre - designated areas could be lost. LU 1.4 Growth Management. Implement a :e growth strategy that enhances the quality of life of residents and balances the needs of all constituencies with the preservation of designated open space and natural resources. This represents a significant departure from the past conservative approach. LU 3.3 Opportunities for Change .Provide opportunities for improved development and enhanced environments for residents in the following districts and corridors, as specified in Polices 6.3.1 through 6.22.7: • John Wayne Airport Area: re -use of underperforming or underutilized commercial, industrial and office properties and development of an urban mixed -use district with resident - serving uses enabling employees to live rghp, ;mvp F^ ^idPRtial Reig ,b...r.eed-5 in proximity to jobs and services. Fashion Island /Newport Center: expanded retail and office uses and hotel rooms and development of residential in proximity to jobs and services, whole IiMiti ft'�^ „cro^„ d.,.,,.i,...... eAt STOP POLLUTING OUR NEWPORT (SPON) is a 501.c.3 non - profit public education organization working to protect and preserve the residential and environmental qualities of Newport Beach. PO Box 102 1 Balboa Island, CA 92662 www.SPON- NewportBeach.org I Info @SPON- NewportBeach.org 1-75 re M. Still Protecting Our Newport Inspiring The Next Generation Apparently cohesive neighborhoods are no longer a goal for residential development in the airport area while the emphasis on residential uses for new development at Newport Center is being abandoned. No rationale or analysis of these changes is provided in the DSEIR. Transfers of development rights would be facilitated under proposed Policy 4.3. Open space to 06 -6 be provided as a result of the transfer need no longer be extraordinary, merely some unquantified, cont'd potentially minimal amount in excess of basic requirements. Policy LU 6.2.3 would no longer seek to provide housing affordable to those employed in the city but just to meet Housing Element goals, whether or not those goals include housing affordable for the local work force. Policy LU 6.2.7 no longer calls for the City to seek legislative changes regarding recovery homes. The policy overview on Page C -24 eliminates preservation of marine uses on the Peninsula as a priority. Instead, the overview calls for a mix of uses and economic vitality. Policy U 6.14.4 continues to call for taller structures to be concentrated in the northerly portion of Newport Center, but also calls for increased height in the 100 block to accommodate a hotel. It is not clear how this would relate to the traditional limits which existed under the Harbor View Sight Plane. These are just a few of the many policy changes that could result in impacts on the community such as view impacts, loss of marine uses and the marine ambience of the peninsula, and a generally more urbanized community. These impacts must be addressed as discussed below. Aesthetics U6 -7' STOP POLLUTING OUR NEWPORT (SPON) is a 501.c.3 non - profit public education organization working to protect and preserve the residential and environmental qualities of Newport Beach. PO Box 102 1 Balboa Island, CA 92662 www.SPON- NewportBeach.org I Info @SPON- NewportBeach.org 170 Still Protecting Our Newport Inspiring The Next Generation The discussion of the Airport Area does not indicate whether or not significant aesthetic impacts would occur. While it is recognized that the lack of specific building plans preclude detailed aesthetic analyses, proposed changes in the 100 block of Newport Center must be examined in light of past limitations in height for view preservation purposes. What is the maximum height proposed? How will this affect views from residential areas east of Macarthur? Air Quality Table 5.2 -8 shows a reduction in vehicle miles travelled per person under the proposed GPA as opposed to the existing general plan. The EIR must present the reasons the specific amount of reduction was selected. Though reductions could occur in a few mixed use areas, any calculated reduction in vehicle miles travelled per person must be limited to areas where mixed uses will actually occur and must be applied even handedly. For example areas already developed or planned for mixed use should not be calculated to include an additional reduction in the future simply because designations for another area have been amended. This is critical inasmuch as even a small increase in VMT per person could increase VOC sufficiently to cause the emissions of VOC under the proposed GPA versus the existing GPS to increase by a significant level, in addition to having a significant impact as considered against existing environmental conditions. Greenhouse Gases Conclusions presented in this section are misleading. Tables 5.4 -4and 5.4 -5 show greenhouse gas emissions due to transportation as decreasir^ ,'­ kuild out of either the 2006 plan or the proposed GPA as compared to existing development. However, a review of air quality analyses included in the appendices to the DSEIR clearly show an increase in total vehicle miles travelled under either the 2006 plan or proposed GPA. The reduction in emissions occurs only because the build out scenarios utilize 2035 emissions factors which assume lower emissions per mile travelled than currently occurs. The EIR must provide an accurate, less misleading comparison of emissions STOP POLLUTING OUR NEWPORT (SPON) is a 501.c.3 non - profit public education organization working to protect and preserve the residential and environmental qualities of Newport Beach. PO Box 102 1 Balboa Island, CA 92662 www.SPON- NewportBeach.org I Info @SPON- NewportBeach.org 1�� 06 -7 cont'd III - e Still Protecting Our Newport Inspiring The Next Generation under exiting development conditions versus build out conditions based on the same emission 06 -9 factors instead of comparing apples and oranges. I cont'd Hazards While the proposed congregate care facility would not provide medical care, residents of such facilities would typically have physical limitations. It is disingenuous to claim that the facility would 06 -10 have no safety issues and would not include a concentration of residents who would experience difficulty in emergency evacuation. The provision of such a facility in Safety Zone 6 should not be permitted. Land Use This section must identify specific policy changes, with changes listed together, not requiring decision makers and the general public to sift through an exhaustive list of policies in the 06 -11 appendices in search of changes. Where changes in land use designations or intensities are proposed, the EIR must present the land area, in acres or square feet, affected by each change, the existing and proposed floor area ratio, and the existing and proposed square footage of development. Noise While changes in the roadway noise under the proposed versus existing general plan are not significant, there will clearly be a significant cumulative increase in noise over existing conditions. 06 -12 This must be mitigated. STOP POLLUTING OUR NEWPORT (SPON) is a 501.c.3 non - profit public education organization working to protect and preserve the residential and environmental qualities of Newport Beach. PO Box 102 1 Balboa Island, CA 92662 www.SPON- NewportBeach.org I Info @SPON- NewportBeach.org :L72 Still Protecting Our Newport Inspiring The Next Generation Proposed residential development in the airport area could potentially experience unacceptable 06 -12 levels of noise. Does the City truly wish to encourage airport operations by requiring an avigation cont'd easement for such areas (N3.3)? Public Services The proposed GPA would result in increased numbers of residents in the airport area. How does the City proposed to meet the recreational needs of those residents? The DSEIR states that park dedication or payment of fees is required of all development under Chapter 19.52 of the Municipal Code. However, the code appears to apply only to residential subdivisions. How will projects that do not involve a subdivision map mitigate impacts on recreation? Increased development will lead to increased traffic congestion. The effect of increased traffic on emergency response must be examined. Transportation While this section presents information for existing levels of service and anticipated LOS, it is difficult to easily assess changes. A table comparing existing conditions with conditions under the proposed GPA should be provided. In any case, a comparison of conditions shown in the various tables shows many more intersection operating at unacceptable levels. The EIR must clearly identify those intersection which will experience a significant cumulative increase in traffic due to changes in existing conditions due to build out under the 2006 plan combined with the proposed GPA. STOP POLLUTING OUR NEWPORT (SPON) is a 501.c.3 non - profit public education organization working to protect and preserve the residential and environmental qualities of Newport Beach. PO Box 102 1 Balboa Island, CA 92662 www.SPON- NewportBeach.org I Info @SPON- NewportBeach.org i�/ EeD5Ki 06 -14 Correspondence Item No. O.la BURNS,MARLENE Study Session Land Use Element Amendment From: Wisneski, Brenda PA2 013 — 0 9 8 Sent. Monday, May 19, 2014 10:28 AM To: Burns, Marlene Subject: FW: SPON comments to Planning Commission on LUE policies Attachments: PCLETTER5- 13.docx For distribution From: iwatt4(aaol.com [mailto:jwatt4@)aol.comj Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 10:23 AM To: Wisneski, Brenda Cc: kbrandtCalnewportbeach.ca.gov; Ramirez, Gregg; Tucker, Larry; Hillgren, Bradley; gardnerncy @aol.com; Selich, Edward; andylinale(a)gmail.com; medjkraus(a)yahoo.com; markoColuci.edu Subject: SPON comments to Planning Commission on LUE policies Attached please find comments /recommendations from SPON for the ongoing discussion of General Plan Land Use policies. Thank you for your hard work and consideration - Jean Watt May 16, 2014 FROM: SPON, Stop Polluting Our Newport TO: Newport Beach Planning Commission, Bradley Hillgren, Chairman CARE OF: Brenda Wisneski, Cc: Greg Ramirez; Kim Brandt; Woodie Tescher; Nancy Gardner, Ed Selich SUBJECT: Draft Land Use Element Policies Dear Commissioners: Please consider these comments with regard to policy changes proposed by the General Plan Land Use Policy Amendment Advisory Committee, and those proposed by Commissioner Tucker at the May 8, 2014 Planning Commission Land Use Element review. We attended the May 8 meeting but were not aware of the memo from Commissioner Tucker until well into the discussion of his memo. And except for one copy given to Jim Mosher, we were not able to see the contents of the memo until after the meeting. Having accessed copies of the Tucker memo, we offer the following for your serious consideration at the May 22 and/or June 5 Planning Commission meetings. NEWPORT BEACH LAND USE ELEMENT Draft Policy Revisions The following few comments are from SPON, Stop Polluting Our Newport, and represent our ongoing concern that certain proposed changes show a trend toward increased density /intensity of commercial development without justification, and a weakening of the working relationship with residents and small property owners in the policies and planning processes. We appreciate many of the changes that Commissioner Tucker has suggested and comment on a few of those as well. Page 2: LAND USE ELEMENT — Please keep the existing language including "with a conservative growth strategy" and add Commissioner Tucker's suggestion to add "visitors ": "Primarily a Residential Community That Balances the Needs of Residents, Businesses, and Visitors, with a Conservative Growth Strategy" Page 3: LAND USE ELEMENT Role and Character ( "Who We Are ") LU 1 - Please keep the existing language: "A unique residential community with diverse coastal and upland neighborhoods which values its colorful past, high quality of life, and community bonds, and balances the needs of residents, businesses, and visitors through recognition that Newport Beach is primarily a residential community." LU 1.3 Natural Resources — Please use the Commissioner Tucker version but delete "designated ": "Protect the natural setting that contributes to the character and identity of Newport Beach and the sense of place it provides for its residents and visitors. Preserve designated open space resources, beaches, harbor, bays, channels, parks, preserves, and estuaries as visual, recreational and habitat resources and promote preservation of coastal bluffs." LU 1.4 Growth Management - Please keep the existing language which includes "conservative" "Implement a conservative growth strategy that enhances the quality of life of residents and balances the needs of all constituencies with the preservation of open space and natural resources. " LU 3.1 Neighborhoods, Districts, Corridors, and Open Space —please keep existing language — do not add the word "substantially" before Maintain. "Maintain Newport Beach's pattern of residential neighborhoods, business and employment districts, commercial centers, corridors, and harbor and ocean districts." LU 4.6 Orange County Sustainable Communities Strategy — please keep existing language as the word "comparative" doesn't indicate what the comparison is: "Implement practices for infill and mixed use development, affordable housing, and density to achieve objectives for reduction of vehicle trips and commute distances, air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption and improvement of public health consistent with applicable policies of the Orange County Sustainable Communities Strategy. " Page 22 WEST NEWPORT MESA — 4' paragraph — please keep existing language including "The latter represents a resources of affordable housing in the City." "The majority of properties between the industrial uses and medical center are developed with multifamily uses, including a few mobile home parks. The latter represent a resource of affordable housing in the City. These are interspersed with a school and other civic uses." LU 7.5.3 Cohesive and Integrated Medical Campus Development — please keep existing language including "Work with property owners." " Work with property owners and encourage - - -- " LU 7.5.4 Livable Residential Neighborhood — please keep existing language including "Work with property owners. " LU 7.7.6 Quality of Place /Streetscapes — please keep existing language including "work with property owners and businesses." "Develop a plan and work with property owners and businesses to fund - -- " Page 29 NEWPORT CENTER/FASHION ISLAND Considering the fact that the revision of the Land Use Element is expected to go before the voters in November 1014, we believe it is entirely premature to be discussing and potentially voting on a change in the policies until after one of two things happens. First option: The City Council could reconvene a broad -based Advisory Committee to discuss the pros and cons of the proposed changes. Second option: Wait to enact any new policies until after the vote in November. If the Planning Commission and City Council wish to go ahead with the policies at this time, we have one comment in particular as there is no justification for allowing piecemeal increased heights in a view -shed that has long been established. LU 7.13.4 Development Scale — please keep existing language and eliminate the last sentence which allows for increased height in the lower portion of Newport Center. "Reinforce the original design concept for Newport Center by concentrating the greatest building mass and height in the northeasterly section along San Joaquin Hills Road, where the natural topography is highest and progressively scaling down building mass and height to follow the lower elevations toward the southwesterly edge along East Coast Highway." Thank you very much for consideration of these comments. For the SPON Board of Directors Jean Watt (949- 673 -8164) jwatt4kaol.com Dorothy Kraus (949- 612 -7521) medkraus @yahoo.com Andrea Lingle ( 949 - 548 -7646) andylingle @gmail.com Correspondence Item No. 0.1b BURNS,MARLENE Study Session Land Use Element From: Corona del Mar Residents Assn<Info @ComraorgAmendment PA2013 -098 Sent. Tuesday, May 20, 2014 9:38 AM To: Hillgren, Bradley; Ameri, Fred; Myers, Jay; Kramer, Kory; Lawler, Ray; Tucker, Larry; Brown, Tim Cc: Burns, Marlene; Brandt, Kim; Wisneski, Brenda Subject. May 22 Study Session - Public Comments Attachments: PC_LUE_140515_Final.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Dear Commissioners, Attached please find a letter from the Board of Directors for the Corona del Mar Residents Association. We request that this letter be a part of the Public Comments record for this meeting. If any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us. BoanfofDirectors 949.719.9390 P/F Corona deCVar Residents Association PO Box 1 500 1 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 1 Please visit our website at: www.cdmra.ora Please add our email address to your Contacts and /or Safe List aC�VI C, nlnadel oWar RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION VOLUNTEERS WORKING SINCE 1967 TO PROTECT, PRESERVE AND IMPROVE OUR COMMUNITY'S QUALITY OF LIFE. BOARD OF DIRECTORS PRESIDENT Corona del Mar residents will be directly impacted by traffic Karen Tringah Y generated b the two new office towers in Newport Center, plus the VICE PRESIDENT proposed expansion plans for new residential units, hotel and Debbie Stevens May 15, 2014 SECRETARY MacArthur and Jamboree corridors and Coast Hwy through Corona Elizabeth Torelli del Mar will worsen with each and every project. TREASURER Planning Commission ALarlorie sawyer City of Newport Beach CdM VILLAGE Dennis Baker -w RE: Land Use Element Amendment - Policy Changes Paul Bartlau -.NW Laura Curran -W Bonnie Dwkwo th -SE Dear Commissioners: Patty Gwin -NE Bryae .et - w As residential quality-of-life advocates, we are troubled b the Linda xamer -sW q tY- Y MichaelToerge -Sw changes we have seen over the last few years which result in Elizabeth Tarelh -NE transitioning Newport Beach from a community with a residential IRVINE TERRACE focus to one that advocates for large- scale, high- density projects. Val Skew HARBOR VIEIVHILIS These projects, many of which are approved one at a time, chisel away Earry Allen at the quiet enjoyment of residential life here in our city. Ever Debbie Stevens increasing traffic makes getting from one end of Newport Beach to the CORONA HIGHLANDS other an arduous undertaking. Michael Pikitz THE TERRACES fCDM Roberta Kuhlmann 3334 EAST COAST HIGHWAY #179 CQ P.O. BOX 1500 J;Q CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 www.CDMRA.ORG I INFO @CDMRA.ORG Corona del Mar residents will be directly impacted by traffic SHORE k lI Sandie Haa skell Y generated b the two new office towers in Newport Center, plus the proposed expansion plans for new residential units, hotel and CLUED HIGHLANDS commercial space, also in Newport Center. Traffic along the Marjorie Saxyer Karen Triagali MacArthur and Jamboree corridors and Coast Hwy through Corona del Mar will worsen with each and every project. CAMEO SHORES Doretta Ensign Beverly wh,te Congestion in and around the airport area will also worsen as projects like Uptown Newport become a reality. Maintaining airport passenger MEMBERSATLIRGE caps and curfews has been an ongoing challenge for AirFair, SPON and HARBOR VIEW HILLS SO other resident groups, as well as the City. These new high- density Jerry King facilities (commercial and residential) will assuredly pressure the Robert Shelton upper limits of hard -won safeguards. JASMINE CREEK Bill Simans Projects like Bel Mare and Back Bay Landing will put increasing Brune Beardsley pressure on already busy intersections, making passage between BREAKERS DRIVE ASSN eastern and western Newport Beach a cumbersome task. Barbara Peters THE TERRACES fCDM Roberta Kuhlmann 3334 EAST COAST HIGHWAY #179 CQ P.O. BOX 1500 J;Q CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 www.CDMRA.ORG I INFO @CDMRA.ORG aC�VI C, nlnadel oWar RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION VOLUNTEERS WORKING SINCE 1967 TO PROTECT, PRESERVE AND IMPROVE OUR COMMUNITY'S QUALM OF LIFE. May 15, 2014 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach Page Two We recognize that development fees from these projects are intended to improve our infrastructure and create new opportunities, like public art, for the enjoyment of all. But if residents feel constrained from moving freely within their own community, what enjoyment will these benefits actually provide? The Corona del Mar Residents Association Board of Directors specifically asks that you reject the proposed changes to the following policies: Proposed LU 1 GOAL A unique, primarily residential community with diverse coastal and upland neighborhoods, which values its colorful past, high quality of life, and community bonds, and balances the needs of residents, businesses, and visitors. 'the nit an that lhlewpnW Bea Gh In pFimwily n residential n n14.. Proposed LU 1.4 Growth Management Implement a GeRsewn..ve growth strategy that enhances the quality of life of residents and balances the needs of all constituencies with the preservation of designated open space and natural resources. and keep the existing policy language: Keep Existing LU 1 GOAL A unique residential community with diverse coastal and upland neighborhoods, which values its colorful past, high quality of life, and community bonds, and balances the needs of residents, businesses, and visitors through the recognition that Newport Beach is primarily a residential community. Keep Existing LU 1.4 Growth Management Implement a conservative growth strategy that enhances the quality of life of residents and balances the needs of all constituencies with the preservation of open space and natural resources. 3334 EAST COAST HIGHWAY #179 CQ P.O. BOX 1500 fAJ CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 www.CDMRA.ORG I INFO @CDMRA.ORG aC�VI C, nlnadel oWar RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION VOLUNTEERS WORKING SINCE 1967 TO PROTECT, PRESERVE AND IMPROVE OUR COMMUNITY'S QUALITY OF LIFE. May 15, 2014 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach Page Three Time and again (e.g.: at our April 16 Annual Town Meeting, by phone and by email), we are asked by our members and residents: "What's in this for us ?" We are at a loss on how to answer that question. Development opportunities should not dictate policy. These policy changes strike right at the very heart of what the Newport Beach community is all about ... first and foremost, its residents. Projects under review now and in the future should be evaluated by how well they comply with Newport Beach land -use policies designed to protect residential life quality ... policies which were mandated by public vote, not by developers. Sincerely, b'oand 4 0&eetaw Corona del Mar Residents Assocation 3334 EAST COAST HIGHWAY #179 CQ P.O. BOX 1500 fAJ CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 www.CDMRA.ORG I INFO @CDMRA.ORG Correspondence Item No. O.lc Study Session Land Use Element Amendment PA2013 -098 May 22, 2014, Planning Commission Study Session Item 1 Comments on Newport Beach Planning Commission regular meeting agenda item by: Jim Mosher ( iimmosher(oo)yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949- 548 - 6229). Item No. 1. LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT (PA2013 -098) General Comments I am strongly opposed to this "project," which I view as the flawed result of a deceitful process in which something like one million dollars of public money is being spent to short- circuit the public's will as expressed through the Greenlight Initiative of 2000 (now Section 423 of the City Charter) - by means of which the residents of this primarily residential City thought they had acquired the right to vote separately on each General Plan proposal that would significantly increase development in one of our neighborhoods. The City Council effectively short- circuited Greenlight once before with the 2006 General Plan Update which, at least in my view, improperly lumped amendments affecting different statistical areas into a single vote. However, that process was at least preceded by a multiyear visioning process (started essentially simultaneous with Greenlight) that reached out to residents for their input and at least partially reflected their wishes for the future of the City, and resulted in a plan that promised [per the ballot measure] "to provide for a reduction of an estimated 28,920 average daily vehicle trips, including 1,121 morning and 958 evening peak hour vehicle trips, by reducing non - residential development square footage by 449,499 square feet while concurrently increasing the number of residential dwelling units by 1,166 units." The present effort, by contrast, was initiated as a series of land use allocation table changes proposed by City staff, presented to the City Council in a 4- minute PowerPoint on May 28, 2013, and approved for consideration after less than 1 minute of public discussion by the Council if one does not count my 2- minute public comment, and the Council's 2- minute response to it, questioning: (1) why taxpayers should be paying $500,000 to create new entitlements for the almost exclusive benefit of The Irvine Company? and (2) why a single person - the Mayor - should be allowed to appoint the entire body reviewing the merit of those new entitlements? A review of the approved Land Use Element Amendment Advisory Committee minutes confirms my recollection that there was no public discussion or debate of the threshold question of whether the current General Plan providing the italicized benefits listed above was in need of amendment, and if so, what sort of changes they would want to see, and whether other elements of the General Plan might also need to be modified? There certainly has been no public discussion of creating a new vision for the City. Instead, the LUEAAC was presented with a haphazard list of spot- zoning type new development requests to approve or reject based on staff analysis, of exactly the sort that would normally be (and are) advanced by the interested developers "on their own" and at their own expense (including even instances, such as the Lido House Hotel proposal, where the City is the property owner yet the developer is expected to pay all costs associated with pitching their idea). Setting aside the question of whether Greenlight allows a single vote on amendments affecting different statistical areas, in my view this packaging of a particular, and rather arbitrary, set of May 22, 2014, PC Study Session Item 1 comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 4 private requests as a public project is simply wrong and should be rejected out of hand by the Planning Commission. Not only are developers not paying their costs, but the General Plan is being adjusted to make way for — and we are being asked to in effect approve — major new projects without those proposals receiving the scrutiny they would receive as standalone projects. For example, I have heard no specifics of the proposed new Irvine Company development at Newport Center /Fashion Island, nor how it would benefit existing residents. Instead, it seems to be a given that it needs to be included in any possible Land Use Element revisions. Yet, the Fiscal Impact Analysis provided as Attachment PC5 to the May 8, 2014, Planning Commission staff report suggests it would be a financial burden on the City (generating more public costs than revenue), whereas the projects it is replacing at Newport Coast would have been a net benefit. In addition to the lack, as noted above, of any effort to begin with a vision of what the overall General Plan amendment process was trying to accomplish, and why, and the lack of significant community input into the LUEAAC activities, I might note that as best I can tell there are no minutes — official or otherwise — of the final LUEAAC meeting on April 1, 2014, making it very difficult for anyone to know or verify what, if anything, was finally decided there. Finally, although I believe a holistic approach to the consideration of the need for General Plan amendments is best, I resent the implication that voter approval of increased development allocations is somehow necessitated by new state mandated programs. To the best of my knowledge, the City Council is quite free, after hearing public comment and the recommendations of the Planning Commission, to amend the General Plan goals and policies to reflect new best practices in land use development without changing the allocation tables. Regarding the specific items announced for discussion at the May 22 Study Session: Land Use Element Policy revisions from May 8th study session 1. At its May 8, 2014, Study Session the Planning Commission spent nearly two hours reviewing and incorporating changes from a document prepared by Vice Chair Tucker of whose existence the public attempting to follow his oral comments was only vaguely aware, and of which adequate copies were not available for the public to follow along. The Commissioners and staff should perhaps be reminded that California Government Code Section 54957.5 requires that such writings (prepared by staff or a Commissioner) be made available to the public at the meeting. 2. 1 also thought the purpose of a Study Session was limited to familiarization with a topic and queuing up a menu of items related to it for discussion and decision at a regular meeting. I had the impression that at the May 8 Study Session, Vice Chair Tucker was improperly seeking the concurrence of the Commission on changes that would not need to be debated at the official hearing. I hope the Commissioners will review their Rules of Procedures which state (Section VI.C) that "No official action will be taken at a study May 22, 2014, PC Study Session Item 1 comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 4 session," and also review the definition of "action taken" in Government Code Section 54952.6 (which includes "a collective commitment or promise by a majority of the members of a legislative body to make a positive or a negative decision ") as well as the Section 54954.3 requirement that the public be allowed to provide its comment before the actions are taken, not after. Deciding that the Commission is in agreement on an item, and does not need to discuss it further, seems to me more than familiarization with a topic. It is an action taken. 3. 1 strongly object to the changes to General Plan Goal LU 1 and Policy LU 1.4 that deemphasize the residential character of Newport Beach and eliminate reference to our conservative growth strategy. I fail to see how such changes — and many of the others proposed — are of benefit to the majority of residents. 4. As I attempted to emphasize at the LUEAAC meetings, and in my comments above, if the General Plan is in need of revision (which it may not be), I believe a more global approach is necessary. Changes to random policy details without an overall purpose seems senseless to me. 5. One symptom of that lack of a holistic approach is that I'm not sure the impact to the Land Use Element of changes made since 2006 to the Housing Element, and those about to be made to the Safety Element, have been adequately assessed. Indeed, my impression is that the Housing Element indicates less need than it did in 2006, yet the current amendment seems to assume there is a need for increase housing allocations. Likewise recommended changes to the Safety Element (or other elements) since 2006 might necessitate changes in Land Use expectations, yet that does not appear to have been part of the discussion. Draft Glossary 1. This is yet another example of the City's haphazard approach to General Plan revision: the Glossary is a complete mess, yet it was passed over very lightly at the LUEAAC meetings, and will apparently be passed over equally lightly by the Planning Commission and City Council. It "defines" numerous terms that do not appear in the General Plan, yet fails to define many terms that do. 2. In terms of changes to existing text, staff has focused on my observation that it misstates the number of people on our City Council, but to the best of my knowledge no one has systematically checked that other definitions are not equally wrong, confusing, misleading or do not read as intended. I was told it was too much of a mess to touch. 3. Even the new definitions that are proposed, do not seem to be particularly good. For example, the proposed definition of "Embodied Energy" (handwritten page 55) is nearly inscrutable and completely different from what Mr. Tescher told the Commission on May 8 that "retain the structure's embodied energy' meant in proposed policy LU 4.2, and the proposed definition of "Green House Gas Emissions," in combination with the proposed revised policies related to them, suggests that control of water vapor emissions should be a City goal. I'm not sure the latter is correct. May 22, 2014, PC Study Session Item 1 comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 4 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report: Process, Topics, Impact Evaluations, Findings In my view, even if there were not substantial questions about the adequacy of the DSEIR (see comments from public and agencies), it would need to be recirculated for the following reasons: The "Notice of Completion & Availability' of the SEIR was issued in violation of the mandatory requirement in Section 15087(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines that the notice disclose "The date, time, and place of any scheduled public meetings or hearings to be held by the lead agency on the proposed project when known to the lead agency at the time of notice." The fact that the Planning Commission would be reviewing the SEIR at its May meetings was announced to the City Council at the very start of the process, on May 28, 2013 (nearly a year before the notice was prepared), and the meeting dates were reaffirmed to the Planning Commission on March 6, 2014, yet none of this "insider information" was revealed to the public in the notice as required by law. 2. The public was also not given a full 45 days to submit comments. Even if one counts March 17, 2014 — April 30, 2014 as 45 days, and even though it is laudable staff gave the public a clearly- defined deadline, the rather arbitrary choice of a 5:00 p.m. cut -off on April 30 provided less than a full business day to comment since the Planning Division where comments were to be submitted was open for business until 5:30 p.m. In addition, as a random comment on the content of the SEIR, I notice that Chapter 5.4, in keeping with the proposed definition of "Green House Gas Emissions" in our updated General Plan Glossary, identifies water vapor as a gas of concern, but does not report what impact the project is expected to have on it. Preferred Land Use Alternative In my view, the preferred land use alternative for most residents would be to leave the allocations as they are, and I encourage the Planning Commission to make that recommendation. Bottom line: Mike Henn, during his tenure as Mayor, referred to Newport Beach as "the shining city by the bay" and "a gold standard city." What the Planning Commission has before it is an arbitrary mishmash of developer requests plus a random set of policy changes, some of which have been cobbled together to support the development requests . It is not worthy of a "gold standard" city. The Commission should reject it in its entirety and recommend a more thoughtful examination of whether the 2006 General Plan is in need of revision, and if so how such revisions could benefit the residents. Correspondence Item No. 0.1d Study Session Land Use Element Amendment PA2013 -098 Larry Tucker Questions and Comments Land Use Element Update Draft Supplemental EIR May 22, 2014 1. San Miguel east of Avocado shows a traffic count of 24,000 cars per day. (Page 5.11 -2) 2. The intersections of San Miguel at Avocado and San Miguel at MacArthur show levels of service of A or B yet those intersections along San Miguel seem more congested than LOS A or B would indicate. Please explain how LOS is calculated and why it is possible that an LOS of A or B could result at these two intersections. 3. Do you expect that a significant number of the occupants and visitors of the 520 Newport Center Drive building that is under construction will access that building via San Miguel off of MacArthur? 4. The location of the proposed addition of 500,000 s.f. of office, 500 housing units and 50,000 s.f. of retail to Newport Center has not yet been determined. Will the impacts on intersections around Newport Center due to the specific locations of the added development be analyzed at some point? 5. Table 5.11 -7 shows the LOS at 94 intersections if the entitlements allowed by the 2006 general plan were built out. The 2006 general plan final EIR showed that of those intersections, 14 would be deficient. However, the 2006 FEIR indicates that if the improvements described in the 2006 general plan were implemented, only 3 intersections would remain deficient: In Newport Beach, Superior at Coast Highway at morning peak and Newport Blvd (west) at Coast Highway also at morning peak and in Irvine, Jamboree Road at Michelson at morning peak. 6. Table 5.11.8 shows the LOS at 92 intersections if the entitlements allowed by the 2006 general plan, as modified by the 2014 Land Use Element update, were built out. [Note: why are intersections 1A and 113 from Table 5.11 -7 not shown in table 5.11 -8 ?]. The Supplemental draft EIR shows that with the 2006 general plan recommended improvements, the same three intersections would continue to perform at unacceptable levels of service after buildout of the 2014 Land Use Element Update. 7. While three intersections will continue to perform at unacceptable levels of service, in order for a "significant impact" to occur due to the proposed land use changes being considered, the volume to capacity ratio would have to increase by .01 or more in Newport Beach and by .02 or more in Irvine or by .03 or more at intersections described in the City's Congestion Management Program intersections. None of these thresholds is exceeded at a studied intersection and therefore there is not a significant impact caused by the updated land use element with the recommended intersection improvements, correct? 8. While no studied intersections will be impacted after mitigating improvements are installed, freeway mainline and ramps that experienced unacceptable LOS assuming the 2006 general plan buildout will continue to experience unacceptable LOS with the Land Use Element update. These freeway related elements are outside of the City and outside of the jurisdiction of the City. 9. The status of the improvements recommended in the 2006 general plan is in the Traffic Impact Report (TIR) in the appendix to the DSEIR at pages 57 -59. Why have so few been implemented to date? 10. The Newport Beach Traffic Model was updated before the TIR was prepared so that the most current, updated information was used in the TIR. Can staff explain what in the model was update and why? 11. The updated model included the future increases in airport use based upon the terms of the existing settlement agreement. But any further increases to the maximum passenger load for the airport contemplated in the pending extension of the settlement agreement apparently has not been included in the traffic model nor the TIR. Is that because that would involve conjecture as to what to include in the model and TIR? If that is the case, it still seems that the information that the County is analyzing for the settlement agreement extension as described in the County's notice of preparation could have been included in the analysis. Can staff elaborate on this? 12. Some commenters pointed out that Appendix C is supposed to provide a list of general plan amendments and project approvals that have been processed since the 2006 but claim Appendix C does not have that list. Can staff elaborate on the significance of that omission? 13. The four projects in the airport area do not cause any impacts that cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance. It should be noted that even though the intersection at Von Karman at Alton in Irvine has a significant impact, apparently the funding for the improvements necessary to mitigate the impact to a level of insignificance is already held by the of City of Irvine. Can we verify that? 14. A letter from Starpointe Ventures contends that the manner in which the City analyzed the so- called environmentally superior alternative would preclude the City from choosing the alternative that excludes all of the airport area proposed projects. Since including the airport area projects would not result in a significant impact from traffic, is there any environmental related reason to exclude the proposed airport projects from the land use element update? 15. The Starpointe letter also calls into question an alternative that lumps all of the airport projects together rather than alternatives that analyzes each proposed airport project separately. How is the decision made as to what alternatives to evaluate and does the City have discretion to decide what alternatives will be analyzed? 16. What effect would including the airport area projects have on the airport settlement DER which is being prepared at the present time? 17. Why wasn't any information on road segment capacities included in the TIR? Is it because the City's protocol only looks at performance of intersections? 18. It should be noted that the DSEIR assumed that the 19`" Street Bridge would not be built and that analysis concluded that the lack of the 19`h Street Bridge would nonetheless create no significant impact, which was the same conclusion reached in the 2006 FEIR. 19. Lastly, if the City Council were to decide to certify the DSEIR, explain the impacts that would have to be included in a Statement of Overriding Considerations? GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS �� May 21, 2014 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Correspondence Item No. O.le Study Session Land Use Element RE: Land Use Element Amendment (PA2013 -098) & EIR SCH #2013101064 UAP Companies Parcel -4699 Jamboree Road & 5190 Campus Drive Trip Neutral - Congregate Care Facility Dear Chairman Hillgren & Members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission: I am providing this letter on behalf of the owners & developers of the parcel identified in the Land Use Element Amendment & EIR as the UAP Companies. These entities are known as UAP Companies (the landowner) and Belmont Village —the senior living developer proposed for the site. The UAP parcel is located on Jamboree Road and is identified in the Environmental Impact Report on Figure 3 -4 as 4D- UAP Companies 4699 Jamboree Road, 5190 Campus Drive Revise Anomaly #6 to allow 2.0 FAR if trip neutral congregate care We also note that our parcel 4 D -UAP Companies is shown as part of the Airport Area — 4 which is listed as a trip generating area -which our site is not. Our concern with the EIR is that our site, being part of the Airport Area is not given its own designation and thereby included in the EIR Alternative 7.3. Alternative 7.3 is considered a superior alternative by reducing trips as it completely eliminates all uses proposed for the Airport Area 4. Our request of the Planning Commission is that if during your deliberations on the EIR you wish to recommend to the City Council that EIR Alternative 7.3 become the "preferred alternative" that the recommendation include a modification that any proposed land use change in the Airport Area (Map Area 4) that is "traffic neutral' remain as part of the land use plan and included in the Land Use Element Amendment. Thanks for considering our request Sincerely, Coralee Newman Principal, Government Solutions, Inc. 881 Dover Drive, Suite 390 • Newport Beach, CA 92663 Mailing Address: 1048 Irvine Avenue, #618 • Newport Beach, CA 92660 949 - 717 -7943 main • 949 - 717 -7942 Fax • www.govsol.com � ~ m a M N E O c a 0 C O M o o m Q a o M a ?? p a Q Q cu L-W V (U M N t O CL U' D m A M= t � 1 '^ E cu .2 O O iL m ZI WI 3I 0l of vI of MI -ACMP Additional Materials Recelfved Ttem No. O.lf y u x M V _ C C C O C O "YO Study Session Land Use ElerLVnt Amendment PA2013 -098 o v d � Z 5 O�vi� S Bi CQ r ac � a�S -Now � I -0 O r -a U > C v m \ d � C > �Eao w X d U C LL C �' O O w w . O •C w� N U C O M U __J f/ / G p O` L U U y U t' U U vYi H y = I el � 16 E a `m o E o m 1< c c � m W w Eco c aU a v 3 v n N U U m w L o m u° w o v v z >> 0 0 0 U M > m m c o o o a y M 000 m= m Z v� Q° Z u Z S H= Z Z Z �m ci O N N . M . R V . l . I . . 0 . . N M . . . . . N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M h\ ' `- •0 C 0 r c c i U E E E I C '• 3 vE w w m E I - a CL « M L O O H N N U U W d I C -� _ O N L• .Y N C_ O W N N 01 ! � C G V. N C. E' Y 0 2 U C N a N (0 N -� = C L L x i- N- .• `m 3 m' Z E> m U= a N m a 0° a X o a CL S u s a„ 3 x a Z> a c U W c U 33: a o m y M c '01'' 0 3-0 O-0 ro v F- VI C Z J V Z U Y U'' J Z O= O 3: U N N M V Vl lD n W Ol O N N H .4-1 'Ni N N06 �y n N1N T '4� Q, N'm 0 0 0 0 88 to LOn [I' M N e l kA Q. lao�L L a) Q H D a � D � a � � o Qi N N Q N f0 f0 ++ L L 0 0 0 0 88 to LOn [I' M N e l kA Q. lao�L L a) Q CHAPTER 3 Land Use Element May 22, 2014 Planning Commission Schedule May 22: Study Session • Policy and Glossary Revisions from 5/8 Session • Implementation Programs • Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report: Process, Topics, Impact Evaluations, Findings • Preferred Land Use Alternative ■ Review Comments Received Planning Commission Schedule June 5: Public Hearing and Recommendations to the City Council • Certification of the Supplemental EIR • Approval of Revised Land Use Plan Diagram and Development Capacities • Approval of Revised Implementation Programs • Approval of Revised Glossary Background ■ May 2013— City Council initiates an amendment to the Land Use Element. ■ July 2013 — 1St meeting of the Land Use Element Amendment Committee ■ July 2013 to April 2014 —Thirteen Committee meetings ■ March 17, 2014 - Draft EIR Released ■ April 10, 2014 — Public Information Meeting Planning Commission Policy Recommendations ■ Memorandum Detailing Planning Commission Recommendations from May 8t" Study Session ■ Updated Land Use Element Amendment Draft Glossary and Implementation Programs ■ GLOSSARY: Ten New Terms, Two Amended ■ Climate Action Plan, Climate Change, Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG), Greenhouse Gas Emission (GHG) Reduction, Infill, LEED Certified, Sustainability ■ Whole System, Embodied Energy and Heat Island Effect (Added 5/8) ■ Compatibility, Policy ■ IMPLEMENTATION: Three New Programs • Prepare a Climate Action Plan, • Administer the Energy Action Plan, ■ Maintain and Implement Energy Management Plans and Encourage Conservation Environmental Overview Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR): • Process • Initial Study— Scoping • SEIR Approach • SEIR Topics • Significance Findings • Traffic • Alternatives • Public Review Comments Environmental Process ■ Oct. 22, 2013 — Nov. 21, 2013: Notice of Preparation scoping period (30 days) ■ Nov. 5, 2013: Public Scoping Meeting ■ Mar. 17, 2014 —Apr. 30, 2014: — Draft SEIR public review period (45 days) ■ Public Information Meeting: April 10, 2014 ■ Close of public review period: April 3011, 2014 ■ Preparation of Final EIR —in progress ■ Facts & Findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations Environmental Process Prepare Initial Study 1 Prepare /Distribute Notice of Preparation (30 days) Oct 22nd, 2013 to Nov 21st, 2013 Scoping Meeting November 5, 2013 Prepare Draft EIR Public and Agency Review of Draft EIR (45 days) March 17th to April 30th, 2014 Prepare Final EIR including Response to Comments Planning Commission Hearing Tentatively June 5, 2014 City Council Hearing Tentatively July 8th, 2014 Issue Notice of Determination _ Public Input Opportunities Initial Study & Scoping Potential impacts to the following topics were determined to be less than significant in the Initial Study: • Agriculture and Forestry Resources • Biological Resources • Geology and Soils • Mineral Resources ■ Recreation Approach to Supplemental EIR "The SUPPLEMENT to the EIR need contain only the information necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the project as revised" (CEQA Guidelines Section 15163). ■ 2006 General Plan buildout as baseline for analysis ■ Environmental impacts consist of the difference between original EIR (2006) and proposed LUE Amendment SEIR— Environmental Topics Following impacts were analyzed as potentially significont in the Draft SEIR: ■ Aesthetics ■ Air Quality'-` ■ Cultural Resources'' ■ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ■ Hazards and Hazardous Materials ■ Hydrology and Water Quality ■ Land Use and Planning ■ Noise and Vibration' "" • Population and Housing • Public Services • Transportation /Traffic } • Utilities and Service Systems Technical study prepared Significance Findings Air Quality and Health Risks ■ 2006 General Plan EIR did not evaluate health risk ■ LUE Amendment EIR addresses potential health risk per California Air Resource Board (CARB) recommendations ■ Project would place residential uses close to State Route 73 and industrial sources in Airport Area ■ New Mitigation measure (AQ -1) would health risk assessments per CARB guidelines and appropriate mitigation. ■ With mitigation this impact would be less than significant Significance Findings Unavoidable Impacts ■ GHG —City would not achieve long -term GHG reduction goals (would also be significant for 2006 GP) ■ Noise & Vibration - new construction would result in temporary, high vibration levels (also significant for 2006 GP — increment also significant) ■ Population & Housing — increase in population beyond SCAG projection (also significant for 2006 GP — increment also significant) ■ Transportation & Traffic — cumulative traffic and Caltrans facilities (also significant for 2006 GP — increment also significant) Unavoidable Significant Impacts Greenhouse Gas Emissions ■ 2006 General Plan EIR did not evaluate GHG ■ Neither 2006 General Plan or Proposed LUE Amendment would achieve State's GHG reduction goals past 2020 (per Executive Order, 80% of 1990 levels). ■ Per capita GHG emissions would be reduced in comparison to 2006 GP ■ At this time, there is no plan past 2020 that achieves long -term State goals for 2050 reductions Unavoidable Significant Impacts Noise and Vibration ■ Intensification of some land uses would result in greater vibration impacts than 2006 General Plan ■ Specific construction equipment for future projects is unknown ■ No feasible mitigation available to eliminate potential vibration impacts A Unavoidable Significant Impacts Population and Housing ■ Buildout of LUE Amendment would result in 3,838 more persons than 2006 General Plan (approximately 3.7 percent increase). ■ Increase would exceed 2035 SCAG population projections for the City (by almost 18 percent) ■ LUE Amendment would slightly improve the jobs- housing balance. Unavoidable Significant Impacts Transportation and Traffic ■ Airport Settlement Agreement Project traffic with increased traffic from Airport Settlement Agreement could impact intersection levels of service. EIR analysis of the JWA Airport Settlement Agreement has not been completed — Significance cannot be determined as this time ■ Project trip generation would worsen operations at freeway mainlines and ramps operating at unacceptable levels of service. i Traffic Impact Analysis Background Current regional and local background conditions ■ Study uses updated Newport Beach Traffic Model version 3.4 — computer model used to project long -range future volumes and distribution of traffic ■ Incorporates current traffic and development data from Orange County Transportation Authority and surrounding Cities ■ Evaluates intersections and roads using 2013 traffic count data 90 Study Intersections ■ 64 in Newport Beach ■ 26 in Irvine TIA Analysis Scenarios ■ Existing Conditions ■ 2006 General Plan with Existing Lanes ■ 2006 General Plan with Recommended Improvements ■ General Plan LUE (Proposed Project) with Existing Lanes ■ General Plan LUE (Proposed Project) with Recommended Improvements ■ General Plan LUE (Project Alternative), limited study Traffic Impact Threshold Intersections ■ For most intersections in Newport Beach, LOS = D is acceptable ■ LOS = E is acceptable at the following Newport Beach intersections: — Airport Area intersections shared with City of Irvine — Coast Highway intersections at Dover, Marguerite, and Goldenrod ■ For most intersections in Irvine in the study area, LOS = E is acceptable When does Project Traffic cause Impact in Newport Beach? ■ If Project trips will cause or make worse an unsatisfactory level of service at an intersection, this is an impact. 1. If current LOS = D and project traffic causes change to LOS = E or; 2. If current LOS = E and project traffic causes .01 change in capacity Levels of Service TRAVEL SPEED AS A PERCENTAGE i. 'SOURCE: HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL (HCM) DECEMBER 4010. AM Intersection Levels of Service (1 of 3) AM Peak Hour LOS These exhibits show the intersections with 2006 Planned GP lane improvements included. Purple (LOS = F) is unacceptable for all intersections. For the following intersections in Newport Beach, orange (LOS = E) is acceptable: • Any intersection in the Airport Shared with Irvine • Coast Highway at Dover, Marguerite, and Goldenrod LEGER Q = LOS "A" ©= LOS "B" 1006 GENE RAL ®= LOS "C'• EXISTING PLAN = LOS "D" Q =LOT "E" I PROPOSED PROJECT / =LOS "F" Q fl i .ti i--� AM Intersection Levels of Service (2 of 3) AM Peak Hour LOS These exhibits show the intersections with 2006 Planned GP lane improvements included. Purple (LOS = F) is unacceptable for all intersections. For the following intersections in Newport Beach, orange (LOS = E) is acceptable: • Any intersection in the Airport Shared with Irvine • Coast Highway at Dover, Marguerite, and Goldenrod LEGEND: ®= LOS "A.. ©= LOS "0„ 3006 GENENAL © =LOS "C" EXISTING PLAN Q = LOS "o" ® =LOS "E" I PROPOSED PROJECT , �= LOS "F' n AM Intersection Levels of Service (3 of 3) AM Peak Hour LOS These exhibits show the intersections with 2006 Planned GP lane improvements included. Purple (LOS = F) is unacceptable for all intersections. For the following intersections in Newport Beach, orange (LOS = E) is acceptable: • Any intersection in the Airport Shared with Irvine • Coast Highway at Dover, Marguerite, and Goldenrod LEGEND- LOS "A- PM Intersection Levels of Service (1 of 3) PM Peak Hour LOS These exhibits show the intersections with 2006 Planned GP lane improvements included. Purple (LOS = F) is unacceptable for all intersections. For the following intersections in Newport Beach, orange (LOS = E) is acceptable: • Any intersection in the Airport Shared with Irvine • Coast Highway at Dover, Marguerite, and Goldenrod LEGEND: �= LOS "A" Q =LOS "B" 2006 GENERAL = LOS "C" EXISTING PLAN = LOS "D" Q =LOS "E" IO PPROJECT Q = LOS "F" n I 6 P, T 4por ysr E PM Intersection Levels of Service (2 of 3) PM Peak Hour LOS These exhibits show the intersections with 2006 Planned GP lane improvements included. Purple (LOS = F) is unacceptable for all intersections. For the following intersections in Newport Beach, orange (LOS = E) is acceptable: • Any intersection in the Airport Shared with Irvine • Coast Highway at Dover, Marguerite, and Goldenrod LEGEND: m= LOS "A" 2006 Q =LOS "B" GENERAL Q = LOS "C" EXISTING p� Q = LOS "D" Q - LOS "E" I PROPOSED PROJECT Q =LOS "P PM Intersection Levels of Service (3 of 3) PM Peak Hour LOS These exhibits show the intersections with 2006 Planned GP lane improvements included. Purple (LOS = F) is unacceptable for all intersections. For the following intersections in Newport Beach, orange (LOS = E) is acceptable: • Any intersection in the Airport Shared with Irvine • Coast Highway at Dover, Marguerite, and Goldenrod LEGER e= LOS "A" Q =LOS "B" 1006 GENERAL © = LOS "C" EXISTING PLAN Q = LOS "D" =LOS "E" I PROPOSED PRO ECT , = LOS "F" Intersection Impact Summary Impacted* Intersections — With Existing Lane Geometrics Intersection Level of Service (LOS) Impact? 2006 GP GP LUE Amendment AM PM AM PM AM PM Irvine Av. / University Dr. MacArthur BI. / Ford Dr, Von Karman Av. / Alton Pkwy. C C D E E E C C E E E IF Yes Yes Yes *Change in LOS from E to F or .01 increase Note: No intersection impacts with 2006 General Plan Recommended Improvements Existing Lane Geometrics For Impacted Intersections with Existing Lane Geometrics: ■ With 2006 General Plan Recommended Lane Improvements completed, there would be no significant impacts at study area intersections. ■ For Von Karman Ave. @ Alton Parkway = when ATMS is implemented, the intersection operates at an acceptable LOS. ■ ATMS = Advanced Transportation Management Systems = a fee intended to fund future improvements at a later date to provide additional capacity. Traffic Impacts — Freeway System Impacted Caltrans Freeway Mainline Segments: ■ SB 1 -405, North of SR -55 Freeway • NB SR -73, North of Jamboree Road • NB SR -55, Dyer Road to MacArthur Boulevard • NB SR -55, MacArthur Boulevard to 1 -405 Freeway • NB SR -55, 1 -405 Freeway to SR -73 • NB SR -55, SR -73 Freeway to Mesa Drive Impacted Freeway Ramps: ■ 1 -405, SB Loop Off -Ramp at MacArthur Boulevard ■ 1 -405, NB Off -Ramp at MacArthur Boulevard Volume Change on Freeways (1 of 3) PM 24 nM 55 65 LEGEND: C y 10 = 2006 GENERAL PLAN & PROPOSED PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME DIFFERENCE 10 = IMPACTED PEAK HOUR FREEWAY SEGMENT ' Q�• Note: Freeway impact occurs when deficient operations and an increase in traffic volume. 1 -405 Volume Change (GP LUE — 2006 GP) % as Volume Change on Freeways (2 of 3) Note: Freeway impact occurs when deficient operations and an increase in traffic volume. LEGEND: 10 = 2006 GENERAL PLAN & PROPOSED PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME DIFFERENCE 10 = IMPACTED PEAK HOUR FREEWAY SEGMENT B49 SR -73 Volume Change (GP LUE — 2006 GP) B /SOA, AV. .81 .10/ .1 fORD RD 00NliA 39VN. OR O V0 m off' AM � PM p +! A V l Q WAY N NE Q� g10.P00.I �9 D ?� MICHELSON DR. COOP ? 2pJ. L 0� P9 Ile � pJp Ir4 Oq ?Q Oro i fgsrry 90. UNIVER5ISV pis Oq LEGEND: 10 = 2006 GENERAL PLAN & PROPOSED PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME DIFFERENCE 10 = IMPACTED PEAK HOUR FREEWAY SEGMENT B49 SR -73 Volume Change (GP LUE — 2006 GP) B /SOA, AV. .81 .10/ .1 fORD RD 00NliA 39VN. OR O V0 m off' AM � PM Volume Change on Freeways (3 of 3) Note: Freeway impact occurs when deficient operations and an increase in traffic volume. U 10 = 3006 GENERAL PLAN & PROPOSED PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME DIFFERENCE to = IMPACTED PEAK HOUR SR -55 Volume Change (GP LUE — 2006 GP) FREEWAY SEGMENT Project Alternatives CEQA Requirements ■ Supplemental EIR not mandated to include an evaluation of project alternatives ■ City has elected to review project alternatives in light of GP LUE Amendment impacts. ■ CEQA requirements focus on alternatives that can: — Avoid or substantially lessen any significant effect of the project — Attain the basic objectives of the project Project Alternatives Defined for SEIR No Project Alternative ■ CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(c)(A): "When the project is the revision of an existing land use or regulatory plan, policy or ongoing operation, the "no project" alternative will be the continuation of the existing plan, policy or operation into the future." ■ Existing 2006 General Plan No Airport Area Land Use Changes ■ Eliminates proposed land use changes to the Airport Area subarea Project Alternatives Findings No Airport Area Land Use Changes ■ Eliminates proposed land use changes to the Airport Area subarea ■ Reduces development intensity by: ■ 1,591 DUs ■ 150 hotel rooms ■ 96,800 SF commercial ■ 238,077 SF office Project Alternatives Findings No Project Alternative ■ Eliminates significant impacts associated with the proposed project ■ Meets most project objectives No Airport Area Alternative • Environmentally Superior Alternative • Lessens impacts for all environmental impacts including significant impacts (GHG, construction vibration, traffic, population) • Meets most project objectives • Would not eliminate any significant unavoidable impacts under the proposed project Public Review Comments Draft SEIR 45 -day public review period: ■ March 17 —April 30, 2014 Total of 31 Comment Letters /Emails Received: ■ 5 Agencies ■ 6 Organizations ■ 20 Individuals Public Review Comments Agency Letters: ■ City of Irvine ■ Caltrans ■ City of Costa Mesa ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ California Coastal Commission Public Review Comments 6 Commenting Organizations and 20 Individuals, including ■ Airport Area property owners /representatives ■ Cultural Resources Representatives (tribal) ■ SPON & Banning Ranch Conservancy ■ Newport Beach residents Public Review Comments Key and Recurring Issues: ■ Supplemental EIR Approach (re: Existing Conditions) ■ Traffic ■ Land Use Compatibility (airport) ■ Methodology and Specificity (project vs. aggregate) ■ Alternative Selection ■ Project Description and Evolution Public Review Comments Key and Recurring Issues: Traffic ■ Questions about study area & trip distribution ■ Planned Circulation - 19th Street Bridge ■ Coordination w /Caltrans • Project- specific traffic considerations — mixed -use, jobs /housing balance, peak directionality • Cumulative Projects: Banning Ranch, Airport Settlement Agreement ■ Current construction - Newport Center Remaining Environmental Processin Complete Final EIR — Response to Comments (provide agency responses 10 days prior to project approval) — Revisions /Supplemental Info to Draft SEIR Facts & Findings Statement of Overriding Considerations Mitigation Monitoring Program Notice of Determination Next Steps ■ City Planning Commission — June 5 (Hearing and Recommendation to the City Council) ■ City Council — July 8 (Public Hearing) ■ Citywide Vote November Questions & Answers CHAPTER 3 Land Use Element /A[ I IU 1 I U I I I V i I L