No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 - October 12 Zoning Code Staff ReportCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT 16 Agenda Item No. October 12. 2010 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Planning Department James Campbell, Acting Planning Director (949) 644 -3210, iampbell newportbeachca.gov Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner (949) 644 -3219, oramirez(aDnewportbeachca.gov SUBJECT: Zoning Code Update — (PA2009 -034) • Code Amendment No. 2009 -001 • Negative Declaration No. 2010 -005 ISSUE The draft Zoning Code Update was prepared to implement the City's Land Use Element and other polices affecting land use and development contained in the 2006 General Plan. The Zoning Code Update has received extensive public input and should be adopted. RECOMMENDATION 1. Adopt Resolution No. - 2010 adopting Negative Declaration No. ND2010- 005. 2. Introduce and pass to second reading October 26, 2010, Ordinance No. 2010- which replaces in its entirety Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. DISCUSSION The Newport Beach General Plan, approved by voters in 2006, reflects the community's vision for Newport Beach and provides policies for realizing the vision. The City's Zoning Code is the primary tool for implementing the overall land use policy embodied within the General Plan. The Zoning Code Update is intended to be consistent with applicable the policies of the General Plan that it implements. Those policies not implemented by the Zoning Code will be implemented in a variety of ways such as other Municipal Code sections, City Council polices or through direct application of the policy itself through the development review process. Zoning Code Update October 12, 2010 Page 2 The Zoning Code Update is a comprehensive re -write of the current code. It is the product of a collective effort by staff and consultants under the guidance and leadership of the General Plan /Local Coastal Program Committee. It includes community input, Planning Commission review and City Council direction. A more complete discussion of the overall process is provided below. Zoning districts in the updated zoning code reflect changes in land use designations that were a result of the 2006 General Plan. New use classifications have been added, definitions have been completely revamped, development standards have been fine - tuned, and administrative procedures have been simplified. The Planning Director will continue to have the primary responsibility for administering the Zoning Code. The Director will be responsible for making interpretations and ministerial determinations of compliance. The role of the Planning Director within the framework of the Zoning Code Update is not modified. The Zoning Administrator (ZA) will have review authority over minor use permits, modification permits and other minor discretionary and administrative applications. The ZA is an experienced staff member appointed by the Planning Director. The role of the ZA is not modified by the Zoning Code Update. The Planning Commission will continue to have review authority over larger projects, conditional use permits, tract maps and variances. The Planning Commission is the reviewing hearing body for appeals of actions of the Planning Director and Zoning Administrator. The Planning Commission will continue to provide the City Council recommendations on legislative actions (e.g. General Plan Amendments and Zoning Ordinance Amendments) and Development Agreements. The City Council will remain the final review authority for General Plan Amendments and Zoning Code Amendments, and will serve as the hearing body for appeals of Planning Commission actions. Summary of Change Staff has prepared a summary of substantive changes included in the Zoning Code Update (Attachment CC 3) and those changes are listed below. However, the update is a comprehensive organizational update, the list below and the attached summary is not intended to be an all- inclusive listing of all the changes. • Mixed -Use Districts consistent with the General Plan — New and Revised • Mariners Mile • Cannery Village • Lido marina Village • Balboa Village • Dover/Westcliff Drive Zoning Code Update October 12, 2010 Page 3 • All Specific Plans, except Santa Ana Heights, have been eliminated and these areas will be regulated with the various zoning districts • The Bluff Overlay District - New o Implements General Plan polices related to bluff development • Measurement of Height- Revised • Maintains base height limits • Replaces mid -point measurement with a requirement that roofs over 24 fee have an minimum slope of 3:12 • Determination of Grade - Revised o Establishes an average grade for most lots • Non - Conforming Structures - Revised o Replaces complicated regulatory scheme by allowing additions equal to 50% of the existing floor area by right over a 10 year period. • Setback Regulations and Exceptions — Revised o Updated to allow a broader range of minor encroachments (e.g. detached bar -b -ques, required pool protection fencing, decorative caps on compliant walls, etc. • Residential Development Standards — Revised • Retain existing the Floor Area Limits • No limit on subterranean basement floor area • Three car garages required for homes that are 4,000 sq. ft. or larger • New Open volume provisions replace existing open space provisions to provide for building modulation • Retain existing design criteria for single family and duplex development • Density Bonus Provisions - New • Implements housing element polices • Consistent with State law • Eating and Drinking Establishments - Revised • Regularity framework revised to categorize restaurants and bars by hours of operation • Establishments of any kind open past 11:00 PM are reviewed for compliance against an additional list of criteria • Modification Permits - Revised o Many deviations (e.g. setback encroachments, additional wall height) are limited to a maximum of 10% of the code standard. • Planned Development Permits - New o Allows for flexibility from base zoning standards o Site must be a minimum of one acre • Site Development Review - Revised c Ensures compliance with the zoning code and General Plan polices including site design criteria • Definitions and Use Descriptions - Revised o All reviewed and revised as necessary in accordance with best planning principals Zoning Code Update October 12, 2010 Page 4 • Districting Maps - Replaced • Setback maps are new and have been updated for clarity and ease of use • No changes to required setbacks • Revised zoning map that clearly indicates allowed density and intensity of development consistent with the General Plan Zoning Code Update Process General Plan /Local Coastal Program Implementation Committee The General Plan /Local Coastal Program Implementation Committee ( "GP /LCP Committee ") was charged by the City Council with guiding the Zoning Code Update. The Committee consisted of three Councilpersons (Daigle, Selich, Webb), three Planning Commissioners (Eaton, Hawkins, Toerge) and an advisory group of local architects and developers. The Committee reviewed three complete draft codes and held over 45 publicly noticed meetings where the code update project and code regulations were discussed. The result is hundreds of revised and new code provisions. Again, noteworthy changes are discussed in the Summary of Change (Attachment CC 3) The draft code has also been thoroughly reviewed by Planning Department staff. Additionally, valuable input was obtained from the City Mangers Office, Code and Water Quality Enforcement, the Building Department, Police Department, and Public Works Department. The City Attorney's office has also assisted planning staff throughout the preparation of the Zoning Code Update. Public Outreach Following the completion of the GP /LCP Committee's review of the draft codes, staff met with several community organizations, held three public outreach meetings and presented the draft zoning code to several City commissions and committees. Staff received valuable feedback during these meetings, especially in relation to the residential development standards. The following is a list of those groups. • Community Groups • Corona Del Mar Residents Association • CNB Restaurant Association • Chamber of Commerce (Government Affairs Committee) • Mariners Mile Business Association • Speak Up Newport • Public Outreach • One meeting focusing on residential standards for Corona del Mar • One meeting focusing on standards for West Newport and the Peninsula • One meeting with owners of property within the new Bluff Overlay district Zoning Code Update October 12, 2010 Page 5 • City Commissions and Committee • Planning Commission • Harbor Commission • Economic Development Committee Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) Recommendations The draft Zoning Code Update was reviewed by the ALUC for consistency with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport and the AELUP for Heliports as required by State law. At their meeting of August 19, 2010, the ALUC found the draft Zoning Code Update consistent with the AELUP contingent on the inclusion of several changes. The changes clarify when projects, including heliports, are subject to FAA and ALUC review. Additionally the changes re- iterate code and General Plan requirements and polices related to restrictions on residential uses within the 65 dBA noise contour near John Wane Airport, the possible dedication of avigation easements for noise sensitive uses and aircraft over - flight and noise notification for some new parks. Planning staff worked very closely with ALUC staff on the revisions and have included all changes requested within the final draft zoning code recommended for approval. ALUC correspondence reflecting their consistency determination is provided. as Attachment CC 6. Planning Commission Review and Recommendation The Planning Commission held a study session and six public hearings on the draft zoning code. On July 29, 2010, the Planning Commission voted 4 -3 to recommended approval of the draft code and 6 -1 to recommend adoption of the Negative Declaration to the City Council. The Planning Commission included 44 revisions in their recommendation. All of the Commission's recommendations, with the exception of those related to residential development standards, have been included in the final draft zoning code attached to the recommended City Council Ordinance. The Planning Commission resolutions and staff reports are provided as Attachments CC4 and CC5. City Council Study Session — Residential Development Standards On September 14, 2010, the City Council held a Study Session to review the proposed changes to the residential development standards. During the committee meetings, Planning Commission hearings, and public outreach meetings, differences of opinion arose about whether to keep the floor area limit or whether it should be replaced by an "open volume" standard. In addition to limiting the size and bulk of buildings the standards need to be consistent with General Plan design polices that require building articulation and modulation. At the study session, the Council reviewed several options and directed staff include standards that that achieve the following: Retain existing floor are limits (FAL) from the existing zoning code, as recommended by the Planning Commission. 5 Zoning Code Update October 12, 2010 Page 6 • Include the open volume provisions as recommended by the GP /LCP Committee with an adjustment of the minimum required percentage from 50% and 20% to a uniform 15 %. • Include the third story floor area limits as recommended by the GP /LCP Committee except to revise as necessary to ensure the 2.0 FAL can be achieved. • Include the 15 -foot front and rear step -back for third floors and all portions of the structure above 24 feet, as recommended by the GP /LCP Committee. • Exclude the floor area of subterranean basements from the floor area limit (FAL) calculation, as recommended by the GP /LCP Committee. • Eliminate the required front facade open volume standard and 45 degree setback plane, as recommended by the Planning Commission. • Retain design criteria Nos. 1 -5 adopted in 2007 as a safeguard to implement design policies of the Land Use Element and to apply them Citywide. Final Changes Bluff Overly District Change — Irvine Terrace Based on feedback received from property owners and the Irvine Terrace Home Owners Association ( ITHOA), Council Member Selich asked staff to add an additional setback provision to the Irvine Terrace bluff overlay standards. A new provision was added to the Zoning Code Update that maintains a 10 -foot bluff -edge setback for principal structures, including basements that daylight onto the bluff. These standards can be found beginning on page 2 -63 in Part 2 of the draft code. This setback is presently enforced thorough the ITHOA architectural review process, which results in a fairly consistent horizontal line of development. Staff has received an e-mail message from the president of the ITHOA indicating their support of this added provision. Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan Unlike the other Specific Plans, the Santa Ana Heights specific plan has not been incorporated with the various new zoning districts. Staff believes that uniqueness of the Specific Plan and overall regulatory scheme dictates that it remains separate and intact. The Specific Plan will remain within Title 20, and will be located within Part 9 of the code. No changes to existing land use designations, use regulations or development standards were made and the Specific Plan was simply re- numbered. All code references were corrected to reflect the Zoning Code Update codification scheme and administrative procedures were changed to reflect the new procedures within the Zoning Code Update (i.e. use permits by the Planning Director became minor use permits by the Zoning Administrator). i Zoning Code Update October 12, 2010 Page 7 Effective Date of the Code and Proiects in the "Pipeline" An amendment to the zoning code becomes effective 30 days following the second reading of the ordinance. Discretionary projects that were previously approved by the City or projects currently under review and projects already designed and planned to be submitted for review the near term could be impacted by the updated codes if these projects were required to be redesigned to comply with the updated codes. In order to avoid costly delays due to redesigning, staff recommends including provisions within the adopting ordinance to allow projects the following list of project in the pipeline to proceed if found consistent with prior City or Coastal Commission approvals, existing codes and the General Plan. 1. All discretionary applications and Approval in Concept's (AIC's) submitted and deemed complete prior to effective date of the Zoning Code Update. This would allow discretionary applications (e.g. use permits and variances) and AIC's to proceed using the same set of standards that were in -effect when a particular application was deemed complete. Staff has reviewed the case log and believes that most projects could be processed under the provisions of the new code without any detriment to the applicant; however, allowing these projects to proceed under the prior Zoning Code recommended ensuring a smooth transition. None of pending projects could authorize a use inconsistent with the General Plan, so there is no significant detriment to allowing these projects to proceed under the prior Zoning Code. 2. All ministerial (building permits) applications submitted prior to January 1, 2011. This exception would primarily benefit residential projects that are currently in plan check and those that are presently being designed, but not yet submitted. The design and engineering of these projects have been made and redesigning would delay and add significant costs to these projects. Staff believes that allowing these projects to proceed consistent with the current regulatory framework will not be detrimental to the community or to the implementation of the General Plan. 3. Applications for ministerial permits associated with previously approved and unexpired discretionary permits. Technically these projects do not have a vested right to proceed if they have not begun physical construction, but as with the class of projects discussed with the previous item, significant investments have been made and redesigning projects after discretionary approvals would cause unnecessary hardships. 7 Zoning Code Update October 12, 2010 Page 8 4. Projects under construction with a valid building permit. Projects with valid building permits that are under construction have a vested right to proceed and should be allowed to continue without complying with the Zoning Code Update. Environmental Review Based upon an initial study prepared for the Zoning Code Update pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Zoning Code Update is within the scope of activities and impacts identified within the General Plan 2006 Update program EIR with the exception of forest resources and greenhouse gasses. The initial study does not identify any new information of substantial importance of any new significant environmental impact not previously identified in the General Plan 2006 Update program EIR. Additionally, the initial study does not identify any new information of substantial importance to support a conclusion that the Zoning Code Update would substantially increase the severity of impacts previously identified in the General Plan 2006 Update program EIR. The initial study also does not conclude that infeasible mitigation measures or alternatives identified previously in the General Plan 2006 Update program EIR as being feasible. With respect to forest resources, the initial study found that the Zoning Code Update will have no impact to forest resources given that there are no forest resources within the City of Newport Beach. With respect to greenhouse gas emissions, the initial study concluded that there would be a less than significant impact relative to greenhouse gas emissions. A Negative Declaration (ND) is proposed relative to forest resources and greenhouse gas emissions. The ND was completed and circulated for a mandatory 30- day public- review period that began on June 20, 2010, and concluded on July 21, 2010. No comments have been received as of the writing of this staff report. Public Notice Government Code Section 65091 provides that, when the number of property owners to who notice would be required to be mailed is greater than 1,000 (which is the case with a comprehensive Zoning Code update), notice may be provided by placing a one - eighth page advertisement in the local newspaper. Notice of the City Council hearing was provided as a 1/8 page display add in the October 2, 2010, Daily Pilot. Notice was also provided on the City's website and to a zoning code update interest list. S Funding Availability Not Applicable Prepared by: Gregg R i ez, Se for Planner Attachments: CC 1 CC 2 CC 3 CC 4 CC 5 CC 6 CC 7 Zoning Code Update October 12, 2010 Page 9 Submitted by: �g es Campbell, Acting Planning Director Resolution adopting the Negative Declaration /IS Ordinance adopting the Zoning Code Update Summary of Change Planning Commission Resolutions Planning Commission Staff Reports ALUC Correspondence Correspondence Received I. E Attachment No. CC 1 Negative Declaration /IS and Resolution g�. 0 h s RESOLUTION NO. 2010- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. ND2010 -005 FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE OF THE NEWPORT BEACH ZONING CODE (PA2009 -034) WHEREAS, The Newport Beach City Council adopted Resolution No. 2006 -76 on July 25, 2006, approving a comprehensive update to the Newport Beach General Plan ( "General Plan "). WHEREAS, Pursuant to City Charter Section 423 and the Measure S Guidelines, the General Plan Update was considered to be a "major amendment" due to the resulting increases in density, intensity and traffic. Consistent with City Charter Section 423, the General Plan was placed on the ballot for the November 7, 2007, General Election. The electorate approved the increases associated with the General Plan Update. WHEREAS, Chapter 13 of the General Plan contains the City's implementation program to carry out the goals and policies of the General Plan. Implementation Program 2.1 calls for a review and amendment of the City's Zoning Code for consistency with the General Plan. WHEREAS, City staff has prepared a comprehensive amendment of the Zoning Code, which includes new zoning districts, new use classifications, updated and revised definitions, new and amended development standards, upd ated Zoning Maps, and modified administrative procedures ( "Zoning Code Update "). The Zoning Code Update is a complete re -write of the City's current zoning regulations. The Zoning Code Update and the proposed zoning districts and regulations reflect the land use designations and policies established by the Land Use Element included in the General Plan Update. WHEREAS, An Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2006011119, General Plan 2006 Update) was prepared for the General Plan Update. The General Plan Update Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was certified by the City Council on July 25, 2006, as being prepared in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3. The General Plan Update EIR is a program EIR pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15168. WHEREAS, The City prepared an Initial Study for the Zoning Code Update in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3 for the purpose of determining if the potential effects of Zoning Code Update were adequately examined within the General Plan Update Program EIR. WHEREAS, Based upon the Initial Study prepared for the Zoning Code Update and consistent with State CEQA Guidelines and Sections 15168 and 15162 of said guidelines, the proposed Zoning Code Update is within the scope of activities and impacts identified within the General Plan 2006 Update program EIR with the exception of forest resources and greenhouse gasses. The initial study does not identify any new information of substantial importance of any new significant environmental impact not previously identified in the General Plan 2006 Update program EIR. Additionally, the initial study does not identify any new information of substantial importance to support a conclusion that the Zoning Code Update would substantially increase the severity of impacts previously identified in the General Plan 2006 Update program EIR. The initial study also does not conclude that infeasible mitigation measures or alternatives identified previously in the General Plan 2006 Update program EIR as being feasible. WHEREAS, Forest Resources and greenhouse gas emissions were not examined within the General Plan 2006 Update program EIR because these issues were not mandated to be evaluated and these topic areas were added to the CEQA guidelines subsequent to the certification of the General Plan 2006 Update program EIR. These issues were examined within the Initial Study prepared for the Zoning Code Update. With respect to greenhouse gas emissions, the Initial Study concluded that there would be a less than significant impact relative to greenhouse gas emissions. Based upon the Initial Study, the adoption of the Zoning Code Update will have no impact to forest resources given that there are no forest resources within the City of Newport Beach. The City has prepared a draft Negative Declaration in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3. WHEREAS, A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration was filed with the County Clerk- Recorder on June 18, 2010. WHEREAS, The draft Negative Declaration was available for a 30 -day comment period that began on June, 21, 2010, and ended on July 20, 2010. WHEREAS, The Planning Commission considered the proposed Zoning Code Update including the Initial Study and Negative Declaration and received public testimony during a series of public hearings held on June 3, 2010, June 15, 2010, June 17, 2010, June 24, 2010, July 15, 2010, and July 29, 2010, that were duly noticed as required by California Government Code Section 65091. WHEREAS, On July 29, 2010, The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1814 recommending adoption of Negative Declaration No. ND2010 -005 based upon the analysis contained within the Initial Study and the Commission adopted Resolution No. 1815 recommending adoption of the Zoning Code Update. WHEREAS, The City Council considered the proposed Zoning Code Update including the Initial Study and Negative Declaration prepared for the Zoning Code Update and received public testimony during a series public hearing held on October 12, 2010, that were duly noticed as required by the California Government Code. 19 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: SECTION 1. Adoption of Negative Declaration. Based on its review and consideration of the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, all written communications and oral testimony regarding the Project which have been submitted to and received by the City Council, the City Council hereby adopts Negative Declaration No. ND2010 -005 attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. Location and Custodian of the Record of Proceedings. The Initial Study and Negative Declaration are attached as Exhibit "A ". The document and all supporting materials, which constitute the record upon which this decision was based, are on file with the Planning Department, City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. SECTION 3. Notice of Determination. The Planning Director is hereby directed to file a notice of determination with the County Clerk of the County of Orange within five working days of this approval. SECTION 4. Certification. Posting and Filing. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, and the City Clerk shall certify to the vote adopting this resolution and shall cause a certified copy of this resolution to be filed in the records of the City Clerk. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 12th day of October 2010. MAYOR Keith D. Curry ATTEST: Leilani Brown, City Clerk 05 EXHIBIT A CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard o = P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92668 -8916 (949) 644 -3200 Negative Declaration To: From: E-1 Office of Planning and Research City of Newport Beach, Planning Department State Clearinghouse 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 P.O. BOX 3044 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Sacramento, CA 95812 -3044 County Clerk, County of Orange ® Date: June 21, 2010 Public Services Division Santa Ana, CA 92702 Public Review Period: 30 days - June 21, 2010 to July 20, 2010 Project Name: Zoning Code Update Project Location: Citywide Project Description: Comprehensive revisions to Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (Planning and Zoning) and the Zoning Map, in order to bring them into compliance with the Newport Beach General Plan, which was comprehensively updated in July 2006. In accordance with CEQA, this Negative Declaration tiers from the Certified General Plan FIR SCH #2006011119 . Finding: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council K -3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the City of Newport Beach has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study containing the analysis supporting this finding is ❑X attached ❑ on file at the Planning Department. This document will be considered by the decision - maker(s) prior to final action on the proposed project. If a public hearing will be held to consider this project, a notice of the time and location is attached. Additional plans, studies and /or exhibits relating to the proposed project may be available for public review. If you would like to examine these materials, you are invited to contact the undersigned. If you wish to appeal the appropriateness or adequacy of this document, your comments should be submitted in writing prior to the close of the public review period. Your comments should specifically identify what environmental impacts you believe would result from the project, why they are significant, and what changes or mitigation measures you believe should be adopted to eliminate or reduce these impacts. There is no fee for this appeal. If a public hearing will be held, you are also invited to attend and testify as to the appropriateness of this document. If you have any questions or would like further information, please contact the undersigned. Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner Phone: Email: 1 Date: 949 644 -3219 gramirez@newportbeachca-gov June 21, 2010 j INITIAL STUDYMEGATIVE DECLARATION City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Update City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Contacts: Mr. James Campbell 949.644.3210 Mr. Gregg Ramirez 949.644.3219 ��l FOR i PREPARED BY: RBF Consulting 14725 Alton Parkway Irvine, California 92618 Contact: Mr. Glenn Lajoie, AICP Ms. Rita Garcia 949.472.3505 June 18, 2010 JN 10- 105583 4A 1 ` F This page intentionally left blank TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 11 1.1 STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND REQUIREMENTS.... ................................................... 1 1.2 PURPOSE ........................................................................................ ..............................3 1.3 TIERING .......................... ............................... ............................... ..............................3 1.4 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE. ............................................................................ 3 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................ ............................... 5 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ............. ............................... 5 2.2 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS ..................................................... ............................... 9 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY ................................................................ .............................17 3.1 BACKGROUND ............................................................................... .............................17 3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ......... ............................... 18 3.3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS .......................... ............................... 18 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS .... ............................... 4.1 AESTHETICS ............................. ............................... 4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES.......... 4.3 AIR QUALITY ............................. ............................... 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ...... ............................... 4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES ......... ............................... 4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS .............. ............................... 4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ............................ 4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS .............. 4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ...................... 4.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING ....... ............................... 4.11 MINERAL RESOURCES ............. ............................... 4.12 NOISE ......................................... ............................... 4.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING .... ............................... 4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES ..................... ............................... 4.15 RECREATION ............................. ............................... 4.16 TRANSPORTATION/ TRAFFIC .... ............................... 4.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ........................ 4.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE........... 4.19 REFERENCES ............................ ............................... 4.20 REPORT PREPARATION PERSONNEL ................... 5.0 CONSULTANT RECOMMENDATION ...... 6.0 7.0 8.0 LEAD AGENCY DETERMINATION ... ............................... 21 ...... ............................... 21 ...... .I ............................. 25 ...... ............................... 27 11 .............. ............................... 115 .....117 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES .............................. ....................... Included with Final IS /ND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM........... Included with Final IS /ND .f This page intentionally left blank A �NEW�RT O m t D J �S �94FOa��P 1.0 INTRODUCTION Initial of Newport Beach ning Code Update gative Declaration The City of Newport Beach (City) encompasses approximately 20 square miles located at the western edge of Orange County, California, adjacent to the Pacific Ocean. In order to implement the City's 2006 comprehensive update of its General Plan, and in accordance with State law, the City proposes a complete update of the City of Newport Beach Zoning Code (Zoning Code), as codified in Title 20 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, Planning and Zoning. The Zoning Code is intended to implement many policies of the General Plan, to promote the orderly development of the City, to promote and protect the public health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare. The Zoning Code establishes zoning districts, as illustrated on the Zoning Map consistent with the 2006 comprehensive update of its General Plan and provides land use regulations and development standards to implement the General Plan. Following preliminary review of the proposed City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Update (Project), the City has determined that the Project is subject to the guidelines and regulations of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This Initial Study addresses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects associated with the Project, as proposed. 1.1 STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND REQUIREMENTS In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Section 21000 - 21177) and pursuant to Section 15063 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), the City of Newport Beach, acting in the capacity of Lead Agency, is required to undertake the preparation of an Initial Study to determine if the proposed Project would have a significant environmental impact. If, as a result of the Initial Study, the Lead Agency finds that there is evidence that any aspect of the project may cause a significant environmental effect, the Lead Agency shall further find that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is warranted to analyze project- related and cumulative environmental impacts. Alternatively, if the Lead Agency finds that there is no evidence that the project, either as proposed or as modified to include the mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study, may cause a significant effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall find that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment and shall prepare a Negative Declaration for that project. Such determination can be made only if "there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Lead Agency" that such impacts may occur (Section 21080(c), Public Resources Code). The environmental documentation, which is ultimately selected by the City of Newport Beach in accordance with CEQA, is intended as an informational document undertaken to provide an environmental basis for subsequent discretionary actions upon the project. The resulting documentation is not, however, a policy document and its approval and /or certification neither presupposes nor mandates any actions on the part of those agencies from whom permits and other discretionary approvals would be required. The environmental documentation and supporting analysis is subject to a public review period. During this review, public agency comments on the document relative to environmental issues should be addressed to the City of Newport Beach. Following review of any comments received, the City of Newport Beach will consider these comments as a part of the project's JN 10- 106583 1 Initial Study /Negative Declaration ova City Newport Beach e Zoning Code Update a Initial Study /Negative Declaration environmental review and include them with the Initial Study documentation for consideration by the City of Newport Beach. JN 10. 105583 2 Initial Study/Negative Declaration F aEW'Oa' o � i= u 1.2 PURPOSE City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Update Initial Study /Negative Declaration The purposes of the Initial Study /Environmental Checklist are to: (1) identify environmental impacts; (2) provide the Lead Agency with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an EIR or Negative Declaration; (3) enable an applicant or Lead Agency to modify a project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared; (4) facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of the project; (5) provide documentation of the factual basis for the finding in a Negative Declaration that a project would not have a significant environmental effect; (6) eliminate needless EIRs; (7) determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used for the project; and (8) assist in the preparation of an EIR, if required, by focusing the EIR on the effects determined to be significant, identifying the effects determined not to be significant, and explaining the reasons for determining that potentially significant effects would not be significant. Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines identifies specific disclosure requirements for inclusion in an Initial Study. Pursuant to those requirements, an Initial Study shall include: (1) a description of the project, including the location of the project; (2) an identification of the environmental setting; (3) an identification of environmental effects by use of a checklist, matrix or other method, provided that entries on a checklist or other form are briefly explained to indicate that there is some evidence to support the entries; (4) a discussion of ways to mitigate significant effects identified, if any; (5) an examination of whether the project is compatible with existing zoning, plans, and other applicable land use controls; and (6) the name of the person or persons who prepared or participated in the preparation of the Initial Study. 1.3 TIERING Agencies are encouraged to tier the environmental analyses, which they prepare for separate but related projects including general plans, zoning changes, and development projects. According to CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15152, Tiering) "tiering" refers to using the analysis of general matters contained in a broader EIR (such as one prepared for a general plan or policy statement) with later EIRs and negative declarations on narrower projects; incorporating by reference the general discussions from the broader EIR; and concentrating the later EIR or negative declaration solely on the issues specific to the later project. This approach is intended to eliminate repetitive discussions of the same issues and focus the later EIR or negative declaration on the actual issues pertinent to each level of environmental review. 1.4 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE The references outlined below were utilized during the preparation of the Initial Study. The documents are available for review at the City of Newport Beach Planning Department, located at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663. City of Newport Beach General Plan (adopted July 25, 2006). The purpose of the City of Newport Beach General Plan (General Plan) is to provide a general, comprehensive, and long -range guide for community decision - making. The Newport Beach General Plan is organized into ten elements. General Plan Elements have been re- organized by thematic topic for clarity and to avoid redundancy. The subjects of the Conservation and Open Space Element have been merged into the Natural Resources Element. The General Plan also includes Parks and Recreation, Historical Resources, Arts and Cultural and Harbor and Bay Elements. Each General Plan element presents an JN 10- 105583 3 Initial Study /Negative Declaration � e�EW PORT o � U� _ c�yroaN�P City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Update Initial Study /Negative Declaration overview of its scope, summary of conditions and planning issues, goals, and policies. Goals and policies of the General Plan are applicable to all lands within the City's jurisdiction. Consistent with state statutes, it also specifies policies for the adopted Sphere of Influence (SOI), encompassing Banning Ranch. City of Newport Beach Environmental Impact Report General Plan 2006 Update (April 21. 2006) SCH No. 2006011119. The City of Newport Beach Environmental Impact Report General Plan 2006 Update (General Plan EIR) reviews the City's and Planning Area's existing conditions, analyzes potential environmental impacts from implementation of the General Plan Update, identifies policies from the proposed General Plan Update that serve to reduce and minimize impacts, and identifies additional mitigation measures, to reduce potentially significant impacts of the General Plan Update. The EIR presents a worst -case scenario based upon the City's and adjacent areas' maximum potential development from 2002 through 2030. The EIR was prepared as a Program EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15168, Program EIR), and as such, was intended to serve as the environmental document for a series of actions contemplated by the General Plan, including amending the Zoning Ordinance to bring it into consistency with the General Plan. CEQA provides for using a Program EIR to ensure consideration of cumulative impacts, avoid duplicative reconsideration of basic policy issues, and allow early identification and evaluation of program wide mitigation measures. As discussed above in Section 1.4. Tietino, agencies are encouraged to tier the environmental analyses, which refers to using the analysis of general matters contained in a broader EIR (i.e., General Plan) with later EIRs /negative declarations on narrower projects. The City is using the tiering concept, as permitted under the CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental analysis contained within this document for the Zoning Code Update is being tiered with the General Plan Update EIR. This Zoning Code Update IS /ND is incorporating by reference the environmental analysis from the broader General Plan Update EIR, which provides a description of the environmental setting and environmental impact conclusions. The baseline conditions for analysis are those identified within the General Plan Update EIR. City of Newport Beach Zoning Code (Title 20 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. Planning and Zoning) (adopted March 24. 1997 and as amended from time to time thereafter). The purpose of the Zoning Code is to promote growth in Newport Beach in an orderly manner, while promoting public health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare. The Zoning Code also establishes zoning districts and regulations for the use of land and development for properties within the City. The Zoning Code has been amended several times since 1997, but has not been comprehensively updated until this time. JIM 10- 106683 Initial Study /Negative Declaration 4- aFWPp� o° City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Update Initial Study/Negative Declaration Cy P <IFOM1N 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING PROJECT LOCATION The City of Newport Beach is located in Southern California, within the westernmost portion of Orange County, California; refer to Exhibit 2 -1, Reoional Vicinity Man. Newport Beach is bordered by the cities of Costa Mesa to the northwest, Irvine to the northeast, unincorporated Orange County to the southeast, and by the Pacific Ocean to the west; refer to Exhibit 2 -2, Local Vicinity. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Newport Beach has a current population of approximately 86,738 persons'. The Newport Beach planning area contains 26,676 acres, not including streets and roadways, which account for approximately 20 percent (5335 acres) of the gross land acreage. Approximately 42 percent (11,119 acres) of the planning area is water, which includes the Upper and Lower Newport Bay and its channels, and the Pacific Ocean. ' State of California, Department of Finance, E -5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2001 -2010, with 2000 Benchmark. Sacramento, California, May 2010. JN 10- 105583 5 Initial Study/Negative Declaration w o °a City Newport Beach Zoning Code Update z = Initial Study /Negative Declaration tiv r JN 1 0- 1 055 83 This page intentionally left blank 6 Initial Study /Negative Declaration ��EW�Rt o " �lrcawNS� 4FnrT4N j 1 cue++ �r 5A Legend F c EM cevei Naxpbl Beech �;:t•' „ cKyll'a aory f. _. cau*+N BavraON MaafJaM k' wafer BOW 6aann Slob ow aauwdrepmar Iource: City of Newoon Beach Geneml Plan 2006 Update Volume I Draft EIR City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Update Initial Study /Negative Declaration f� NOT TO SCALE INITIAL STUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY Of NEWPORT BEACH ZONING CODE UPDATE (' Q Regional Vicinity Exhibit 2.1 *y JN 10- 105583 7 Initial Study /Negative Declaration xiv5nf�� >'c f� NOT TO SCALE INITIAL STUDY /NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY Of NEWPORT BEACH ZONING CODE UPDATE (' Q Regional Vicinity Exhibit 2.1 *y JN 10- 105583 7 Initial Study /Negative Declaration 4t�EW�RT O � 0 �� /F00.N \t C+ BBnYrg RanrA Sq ...s R.GO•JCptry neoluwcalBAelmlaBa lane -?:a. wmemv. Ruva ..... �.. — store BrloFMard..pwK/ sneBa •BB..roBmeuwBBaen..wo-;.m z.Mirue�ialaa BB ..�. I Draft EIR NOTTO SCALE MF CONBYITINB JN 10- 105583 8 Initial of Newport Beach ring Code Update gative Declaration INITIAL STUDYMEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ZONING CODE UPDATE Local Vicinity Exhibit 2.2 Initial StudylNegative Declaration ff :♦ Legend ..... nurwgrvBO9oBlgorr 4? w cB�.. nns 77, A y - 1 6 •M w � o f { � y `W.., s N f C+ BBnYrg RanrA Sq ...s R.GO•JCptry neoluwcalBAelmlaBa lane -?:a. wmemv. Ruva ..... �.. — store BrloFMard..pwK/ sneBa •BB..roBmeuwBBaen..wo-;.m z.Mirue�ialaa BB ..�. I Draft EIR NOTTO SCALE MF CONBYITINB JN 10- 105583 8 Initial of Newport Beach ring Code Update gative Declaration INITIAL STUDYMEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ZONING CODE UPDATE Local Vicinity Exhibit 2.2 Initial StudylNegative Declaration Legend ..... nurwgrvBO9oBlgorr 4? C+ BBnYrg RanrA Sq ...s R.GO•JCptry neoluwcalBAelmlaBa lane -?:a. wmemv. Ruva ..... �.. — store BrloFMard..pwK/ sneBa •BB..roBmeuwBBaen..wo-;.m z.Mirue�ialaa BB ..�. I Draft EIR NOTTO SCALE MF CONBYITINB JN 10- 105583 8 Initial of Newport Beach ring Code Update gative Declaration INITIAL STUDYMEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ZONING CODE UPDATE Local Vicinity Exhibit 2.2 Initial StudylNegative Declaration City of Newport Beach F '119 Zoning Code Update '= Initial Study /Negative Declaration 2.2 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS The Project involves undertaking comprehensive revisions to Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (Planning and Zoning) and the Zoning Map, in order to bring them into compliance with the Newport Beach General Plan, which was comprehensively updated in July 2006. Although adopted in 1997 and amended several times since, the Zoning Code has not been comprehensively updated until this time. The ZCU is not intended to be an Implementation Plan for the City's certified Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP). However, future development consistent with the ZCU will be reviewed by the Planning Department for consistency with the CLUP (i.e. the policies of the CLUP will be directly applied through the City's permitting process) and Coastal Development Permits (CDP's) will be required for non - exempt activities where the Coastal Commission will be the final arbiter for consistency with the Coastal Act, which the CLUP is intended to implement. The proposed Zoning Code Update (the Project) is available on the City's website: http:// www .newportbeachca.gov /index.aspx ?page =1528. On July 25, 2006, the City adopted an update to the City of Newport Beach General Plan to bring it into conformance with current State law, ensure internal consistency, respond to issues raised by City residents, and outline the specific goals, policies and action programs through 2030. In July 2006, the City Council certified a Final EIR for the General Plan Update, following public review and comment on the Draft EIR. The EIR, which was prepared as a Program EIR, serves as the initial programmatic environmental document for evaluating the need for further environmental analysis of the proposed Zoning Code and Zoning Map update. As discussed above, CEQA also allows a lead agency to tier a negative declaration from a previously prepared EIR; refer to CEQA Guidelines Section 15152. Consistent with the CEQA tiering principles and procedures, in evaluating the potential environmental effects of the Project, the City prepared this Initial Study to determine whether the proposed Project could have any significant impacts that had not been adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR. The Initial Study that follows includes analysis of potential impacts related to forest lands and greenhouse gas emissions, which were not evaluated in the General Plan EIR. Based on the Initial Study and the accompanying analyses that follow, it is concluded that there is no substantial evidence that the Zoning Code Update (the Project) would have significant impacts that have not been adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR or that the Project would have significant impacts related to forest lands or greenhouse gas emissions. This is primarily due to the fact that as an implementing program for the General Plan, the Project does not propose or authorize any specific development projects. The Project is a compilation of land use regulations that will be applied to future development and land use activities. In large respects, the Project only contemplates land uses or development standards that have already been considered and adopted pursuant to the General Plan and evaluated General Plan EIR. Moreover, it is noted that potential impacts from implementation of the proposed Zoning Code Update have already been sufficiently analyzed and either mitigated or avoided as part of the General Plan EIR, or can be avoided or mitigated to less than significant through compliance with the General Plan policies. The proposed Zoning Code revisions are largely based on already adopted and approved General Plan policies. The Project does include several changes to zoning districts as a result of the review of land use changes within the General Plan by the California Coastal Commission (CCC)2. The Coastal Commission rejected the proposed 2 The CCC reviewed General Plan land use designation changes within the Coastal Zone through their review of an amendment to the corresponding Coastal Land Use Plan (NPB- MAJ- 0 -07). The Coastal Commission's review and certification of the City's Coastal Land Use Plan are part of a certified regulatory program and are exempt from CEQA pursuant of CCR § 15251. JN 10- 105583 9 Initial Study /Negative Declaration �ta6WPoRT of U� yG /FO RN`' City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Update Initial Study /Negative Declaration land use designation changes for 11 small geographic areas within the coastal zone primarily on the Balboa Peninsula. As a result, the City is in the process of amending the General Plan land use designations for these areas consistent with the CCC's directive, which will eliminate the any potential impacts associated with these land use changes since the result will be no change from the existing use or the prior General Plan designation'. Therefore, the Project would not result in increased density, increased population potential, or major infrastructure upgrades that were not included in the General Plan or evaluated in the General Plan EIR or is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CCR § 15251 and § 15265. Accordingly, the City has prepared a Negative Declaration for the proposed Zoning Code Update. In accordance with CEQA, this Negative Declaration tiers from the General Plan EIR. To summarize, the Zoning Code and Zoning Map Update Project is intended to: • Carry out the policies of the City of Newport Beach General Plan by classifying and regulating the uses of land and structures within the City, consistent with the General Plan. • Ensure that all provisions of the Zoning Code are consistent with the General Plan and that any development, land use, subdivision, specific plan, or community plan approved in compliance with the regulations of the Zoning Code are also consistent with those documents. • Establish the City's land use regulations, minimum property development standards, and procedures and requirements for filing, reviewing, processing, approving, and implementing development applications. Additionally, the Zoning Code is intended to establish land use and development standards for the preparation and adoption of specific plans and planned community plans. • Describe the: - Authority for the City to regulate uses of land and related development activity in the City; Zoning district provisions, including identification of the individual zoning categories (e.g., residential, commercial, industrial, mixed -use, special purpose, and overlay zones), and allowable land use activities, consistent with the land use designations of the General Plan; The proposed Zoning Code generally contains the following: • Zoning districts in order to implement the uses of land established by the General Plan. The districts are identified on the Zoning Map and the various zones correspond to the General Plan Land Use Plan maps and land use categories. Allowed land uses within specific zoning districts and performance criteria for the operation of those uses. ' The City's pending action to amend the General Plan to make it consistent with the Coastal Commission's certification of the Coastal Land Use Plan is exempt from CEQA CCR § 15265 JN 10- 105583 10 Initial Study /Negative Declaration REV coR� City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Update Initial Study /Negative Declaration C P 9 < /FOPM Individual zoning district development standards (e.g., minimum lot dimensions, density (dwelling per acre) or intensity (floor area ratio) limits, minimum setbacks, lot coverage limits, floor area limits, structure height, open space, fencing, landscaping, lighting, parking and signs among others). The density of residential use and intensity of non- residential use allowed within the various zones are no greater than allowed by the Land Use Element of the General Plan. • General development standards that apply to most projects throughout the City (e.g., parking, landscaping, signs, affordable housing provisions, transfer of development rights, etc.); • Land use specific development standards for identified uses allowed within the various zoning districts (e.g., accessory structures, child day care, eating and drinking establishments, etc.); Permits and entitlements processes necessary to secure City authorization to implement development projects; and • Administrative procedures for the filing, review, noticing, and conducting of public hearings, appeals of City actions, and the amendment of the Zoning Code. The Zoning Code includes various noteworthy revisions to existing standards and new or added provisions. Since the Zoning Code Update is a comprehensive re -write and organizational update, the following overview is not intended to be an all- inclusive listing of all the revisions or changes. Following is an overview of the proposed noteworthy revisions: Zoning Districts • Residential: The names of the various residential zoning districts would be altered (i.e., new residential districts introduced), although, the boundaries and use of existing residentially -zoned properties would remain unchanged. • Commercial: The existing commercial zoning districts (RSC, RMC and APF) would be diversified (i.e., new commercial districts introduced). • Industrial: The existing industrial zoning districts (M -1, M -1 -A and IBP) would be condensed into the IG (Industrial Zoning District) due to the contraction of industrially designated land. • Institutional: The existing institutional zoning district (GEIF) would be divided into two new districts (PF (Public Facilities) and PI (Private Institutional)), in order to differentiate between public and private institutions. • Open Space: The existing open space zoning districts (OS -A and OS -P) would be altered to create the PR (Parks and Recreation) for active areas and the OS (Open Space) zone primarily for resource protection. • Mixed -Use: Pursuant to the General Plan's mixed -use land use designations, the MU -V (Mixed -Use Vertical) zoning district would be applied to areas where residential units are presently allowed above a commercial use (would replicate existing standards). The MU -MM (Mixed -Use Mariner's Mile), MU -DW (Mixed -Use Dover/Westcliff) and MU- JN 10- 105583 11 Initial Study /Negative Declaration o4�EWPOR> City of Newport Beach m Zoning Code Update Initial Study /Negative Declaration Cy <IFOM1N`' CV /15th St (Mixed -Use Cannery Village and 15th Street) zoning districts would be new, consistent with General Plan provisions. The MU -W1 and MU -W2 (Mixed -Use Water) zoning districts would address mixed -use development for locations on Newport Bay and on Marine Avenue. Specific Plans • Except the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan that would will remain unchanged (although possibly adopted separately from Title 20 by ordinance), the five existing specific plan districts (Newport Shores, Mariner's Mile, Cannery Village /McFadden Square, Central Balboa, and Old Newport Boulevard) would be eliminated and replaced with the various zones identified above, pursuant to the General Plan. Overlay Zoning Districts • The number and type of "overlay" districts would be reduced, as a result of the expanded zoning districts. The "B" Overlay would be eliminated and its provisions incorporated within the new residential zones. • The "R" or Residential overlay, and the "MM" or Mariner's Mile overlay would be eliminated with their provisions replaced by the mixed -use zones. The "IS" or Interim Study overlay is being eliminated altogether. • The "SPR" or Site Plan Review overlay, and the "PRD" or Planned Residential Development overlay would be replaced by updated permit processes contained within Part 5 of the new Zoning Code. • A Bluff Overlay District would be added, in order to implement specific Natural Resources Element policies that require limiting development to the predominant line of existing development to preserve visual quality, protect public views, and ensure safety. Site Planning and Development Standards • Section 20.30.020 - Buffering and Screening: This section would be revised to add standards to address the interfaces between residential and nonresidential uses, and buffering and screening requirements. • Section 20.30.040 - Fences, Hedges, Walls and Retaining Walls: This section would be revised to add limits to the height of retaining walls and to require that they be terraced. Also, it would increase the maximum height for fences, hedges, and retaining walls within front setback areas. Provisions would also be added to allow protective fencing for pools and spas for consistency with Building Code requirements. • Section 20.30.050 - Grade Establishment: The existing provisions would be revised to establish a formula that uses an average grade calculation to simplify the way grade is established for the purpose of measuring building height. • Section 20.30.060 - Height Limits and Exceptions: Height limits would not change. This section would be revised to eliminate the practice of measuring the height of buildings at the mid -point of sloping roofs. JN 10- 105583 12 Initial Study /Negative Declaration City of Newport Beach 0 Zoning Code Update = Initial Study/Negative Declaration pFOaNi • Section 20.30.070 - Outdoor Lighting: This section would be revised to provide subjective outdoor lighting standards without specifying minimum or maximum levels. The revised standards would provide a more complete set of tools than at present. • Section 20.30.080 — Noise: This new section would introduce provisions for review of proposed projects, in order to avoid or mitigate impacts, establishes thresholds of significance pursuant to the Noise Element, and promote compatibility between land uses. • Section 20.30.100 - Public View Protection: This new section would introduce public view protection regulations to preserve visual resources and public views from identified public view points and corridors, in accordance with General Plan polices under GP Goal NR 20. • Section 20.30.110 - Setback Exceptions Regulations and Exceptions: The current standards pertaining to encroachments allowed within required setback areas would be revised to provide clearer rules for the placement of accessory mechanical equipment, minor accessory structures, and allow a broader range of minor structures. • Section 20.30.120 - Solid Waste and Recyclable Materials Storage: This section would be revised to require solid waste and recyclable material storage areas in compliance with State law for both residential and commercial uses. • Section 20.30.130 - Traffic Visibility Area: This section would be revised to provide additional safety visibility standards consistent with Public Works Traffic standards. • Chapter 20.32 - Density Bonus: This section would introduce density bonus regulations consistent with State law to promote the City's goal to add affordable housing units to the housing stock. • Chapter 20.34 - Conversion or Demolition of Affordable Housing: This section would be revised, maintaining its consistency with State law, while adding standards to determine if providing affordable replacement units is feasible. • Chapter 20.36 - Landscaping Standards: This section would be added to provide landscape standards to enhance the appearance of development projects, reduce heat and glare, control soil erosion, conserve water, screen potentially incompatible land uses, preserve the integrity of neighborhoods, improve air quality, and improve pedestrian and vehicular traffic and safety. • Chapter 20.38.40 - Nonconforming Uses and Structures: This section would be revised to allow only conforming additions of up to 50 percent over a 10 -year period by right (provided that the minimum number of parking spaces are provided). Additions would be limited to 10 percent when the minimum number of parking spaces is not provided. The proposed code would eliminate a time consuming review process. Chapter 20.40 - Off - Street Parking: A new section would allow for an in -lieu fee authorized by the Planning Commission or City Council for parking reductions if an in- lieu fee amount is established by the City Council. Most required parking ratios were left unchanged. JN 10- 105583 13 Initial Study /Negative Declaration 4dEW�RT o � t` u _ �<�ooaN• Initial of Newport Beach ning Code Update gative Declaration • Chapter 20.46 - Transfer of Development Rights: Traffic analysis would remain necessary and the revisions would clarify that the transfer of development intensity from one property to another must be within the same statistical area and would require a General Plan amendment. The review authority would be changed from the Planning Commission to City Council. Standards for Specific Purposes • Standards for Specific Land Uses would replace Special Land Use Regulations, which currently provides development standards and in some cases operational standards for various uses. With the reorganization of the code, some of the existing Chapters remain although they have been updated and renamed. The provisions regarding low and moderate income housing within the coastal zone were relocated to Part 3. • The Chapter on oil wells was deleted given that it largely duplicates provisions within the City Charter. Revisions to the sections addressing the following Specific Purposes are proposed: - Section 20.48.030 - Alcohol Sales; - Section 20.48.040 - Animal Keeping; - Section 20.48.040 - Animal Sales and Service; - Section 20.48.070 - Day Care Facilities (Adult and Child); - Section 20.48.080 - Drive - Through and Drive -Up Facilities; - Section 20.48.090 - Eating and Drinking Establishments; - Section 20.48. 100 - Emergency Shelters; - Section 20.48. 130 - Mixed -Use Projects; - Section 20.48.140 - Outdoor Storage Display and Activities; - Section 20.48.180 - Residential Development Standards; - Section 20.48.160 - Recycling Facilities; and - Section 20.48.220 - Time Share Facilities. Planning Permit Procedures Section - 20.52.020 - Conditional Use Permits and Minor Use Permits: Current Code Chapter 20.91 would be renamed Conditional Use Permits (CUP). The review authority would remain with the Planning Commission and the review process would be essentially unchanged. Use Permit/Planning Director would be eliminated and a Minor Use Permit (MUP) process would be added with the review authority being the Zoning Administrator. The findings for CUP's and MUP's would remain essentially unchanged. Section 20.52.040 - Limited Term Permits: This section would replace current section 20.60.015 Temporary Structure and Uses and would include significant revisions to provide a clear process, findings for approval and standard conditions of approval for temporary structure and uses. Section 20.52.050 - Modification Permits: This section would be revised to limit some modification requests (e.g., fence height, setback encroachments) to a maximum 10 percent deviation from the applicable standard. JN 10- 105583 14 Initial Study /Negative Declaration 0 aE City of Newport Beach WPpRT Zoning Code Update %r Initial Study /Negative Declaration �F Section 20.52.060 - Planned Development Permits: The Planned Development Permit chapter would be added to provide a method whereby land may be developed or redeveloped as a unified site resulting in better design than what would be possible by using the standard regulations. Section 20.52.070 - Reasonable Accommodations: This section would be revised to clarify review authority when a reasonable accommodation application is filed concurrently with another discretionary application. Section 20.52.080 - Site Development Reviews: This section would be significantly revised from the existing Site Plan Review process by expanding the applicability and providing more guidance for review. The new provisions would provide a process for the comprehensive review of some development projects not otherwise subject to discretionary review to ensure compliance with the Zoning Code, General Plan Polices, and site design criteria. Examples of the types of projects subject to Site Development Review include: residential construction of five units or more; nonresidential construction of 10,000 square feet or more; mixed use projects with residential uses; and any increase in height limits. Review authority rests with the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission, as specified by Table 5 -2 on page 5 -34. • Section 20.52.100 - Zoning Clearances: This section would be revised to add a Zoning Clearance process that would provide a procedure to verify that proposed developments, uses or projects comply with the list of uses and development standards for the applicable zoning district. Chapter 20.58 - Specific Plan Procedures: This chapter would revise the Specific Plan procedures found in Chapter 20.40 of the current code to provide a process for preparing, processing, reviewing, adopting, and amending specific plans in compliance with Government Code Section 65450 et seq. JN 10- 105583 15 Initial Study /Negative Declaration o� ?EarroR> City of Newport Beach e Zoning Code Update Initial Study /Negative Declaration c � 7< /PORN This page intentionally left blank JN 10. 105583 16 Initial Study /Negative Declaration m agW P°RT City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Update u, Initial Study /Negative Declaration �'<,roaar 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY 3.1 BACKGROUND 1. Project Title: City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Update 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 3. Contact Persons and Phone Numbers: Mr. James Campbell, Principal Planner, 949.644.3210 Mr. Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner, 949,644.3219 4. Project Location: The City of Newport Beach is located in western Orange County, California. 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 6. General Plan Designation: Residential: Single - Family Detached, Single - Family Attached, Two - Family Residential, Multi - Family Residential, and Mixed Residential. Commercial: Retail; Administrative, Professional, and Financial; Marine and Auto Related; and Visitor Serving. Industrial: Industrial, Multi- Tenant Industrial, Industrial Business Park. Other: Government, Education, Institutional Facilities; Quasi - Public; Right -of- Way /Undesignated; Recreation and Environmental Open Space; Vacant Land; and Water. 7. Zoning: Residential - Agriculture (R -A) District; Single - Family Residential (R -1) District; Restricted Two Family Residential (R -1.5) District; Two Family Residential (R -2) District; Multi- Family Residential (MFR) District; Retail Service Commercial (RSC) District; Administrative, Professional, and Financial Commercial (APF) District; Recreational and Marine Commercial (RMC) District; Manufacturing (M -1) District; Controlled Manufacturing (M -1 -A) District; Industrial Business Park (IBP) District; Government, Educational, and Institutional Facilities (GEIF) District; Open Space (OS) District; Specific Plan (SP) District; and Planned Community PC District. 8. Description of the Project: Comprehensive revision /update of the Zoning Code (Title 20). Refer to Section 2.2, Prciect Characteristics. 1 9. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING: Newport Beach is bordered by the cities of Costa Mesa to the northwest, Irvine to the northeast, unincorporated Orange County to the southeast, and the Pacific Ocean to the west. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): None. JN 10- 105583 17 Initial Study /Negative Declaration City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Update x Initial Study /Negative Declaration CAL /FOR��' 3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. 3.3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Section 4 (following) analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed Zoning Code Update. The issue areas evaluated in this Initial Study include: • Aesthetics • Agriculture and Forest Resources • Air Quality • Biological Resources • Cultural Resources • Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Geology and Soils • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Hydrology and Water Quality • Land Use and Planning • Mineral Resources • Noise • Population and Housing • Public Services • Recreation • Transportation/Traffic • Utilities and Service Systems The environmental analysis in Section 4 is patterned after the Initial Study Checklist recommended by the CEQA Guidelines, as amended, and used by the City of Newport Beach in its environmental review process. For the preliminary environmental assessment undertaken as part of this Initial Study's preparation, a determination that there is a potential for significant effects indicates the need to more fully analyze the development's impacts and to identify mitigation. For the evaluation of potential impacts, the questions in the Initial Study Checklist are stated and an answer is provided according to the analysis undertaken as part of the Initial Study. The analysis considers the long -term, direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the development. To each question, there are four possible responses: JN 10- 105583 18 Initial Study /Negative Declaration Aesthetics Land Use and Planning Agriculture and Forest Resources Mineral Resources Air Quality Noise Biological Resources Population and Housing Cultural Resources Public Services Geology and Soils Recreation Greenhouse Gas Emissions Transportation/Traffic Hazards and Hazardous Materials Utilities and Service Systems Hydrology and Water Quality Mandatory Findings of Significance 3.3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Section 4 (following) analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed Zoning Code Update. The issue areas evaluated in this Initial Study include: • Aesthetics • Agriculture and Forest Resources • Air Quality • Biological Resources • Cultural Resources • Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Geology and Soils • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Hydrology and Water Quality • Land Use and Planning • Mineral Resources • Noise • Population and Housing • Public Services • Recreation • Transportation/Traffic • Utilities and Service Systems The environmental analysis in Section 4 is patterned after the Initial Study Checklist recommended by the CEQA Guidelines, as amended, and used by the City of Newport Beach in its environmental review process. For the preliminary environmental assessment undertaken as part of this Initial Study's preparation, a determination that there is a potential for significant effects indicates the need to more fully analyze the development's impacts and to identify mitigation. For the evaluation of potential impacts, the questions in the Initial Study Checklist are stated and an answer is provided according to the analysis undertaken as part of the Initial Study. The analysis considers the long -term, direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the development. To each question, there are four possible responses: JN 10- 105583 18 Initial Study /Negative Declaration agW RpRT 04 @ City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Update ` Initial Study /Negative Declaration • No Impact. The development will not have any measurable environmental impact on the environment. • Less Than Significant Impact. The development will have the potential for impacting the environment, although this impact will be below established thresholds that are considered to be significant. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The development will have the potential to generate impacts, which may be considered as a significant effect on the environment, although mitigation measures or changes to the development's physical or operational characteristics can reduce these impacts to levels that are less than significant. • Potentially Significant Impact. The development could have impacts, which may be considered significant, and therefore additional analysis is required to identify mitigation measures that could reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels. Where potential impacts are anticipated to be significant, mitigation measures will be required, such that impacts may be avoided or reduced to insignificant levels. JN 10- 105583 19 Initial Study /Negative Declaration 6+ 9It �AEW�Rr o �e� U S c�4copN'� This page intentionally left blank Initial of Newport Beach ning Code Update JN 10- 105583 20 Initial Study /Negative Declaration �agwPoRT o �e � �4roaN` �� 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Update Initial Study /Negative Declaration The following is a discussion of potential project impacts as identified in the Initial Study. Explanations are provided for each item. 4.1 AESTHETICS Impact Analysis 4.1(a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less Than Signil! cant Impact. The City has identified roadway segments that provide significant public views, although, there are no officially designated scenic vistas within the City. Additionally, the City's parks and other public viewing areas provide significant views and are identified within the Natural Resources Element (Figure NR 3). Given that the City is primarily a built -out area, it is anticipated that future development permitted by the ZCU would generally consist of infill and redevelopment. Notwithstanding, future development could impact a scenic vista, particularly those involving roadway segments, parks, and viewing areas. However, the GPEIR concluded existing and future development would be regulated by the General Plan (GP) policies, and scenic vistas would not be adversely affected." Since future development in compliance with the ZCU would be consistent with the General Plan, as modified by the CCC action, there are no impacts that were not evaluated within the program EIR or avoided by CCC action. As such, potential impacts to scenic vistas from future development permitted by the ZCU were anticipated in the GP /GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed ZCU would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Future discretionary development would undergo environmental and /or development review on a project -by- project basis based upon the permit requirements established within the ZCU in order to ensure that scenic vistas are not adversely impacted. The ZCU proposes the addition of the Public View Protection section applicable to discretionary development, which includes regulations to preserve visual resources and public views from identified public view points and 4 EIP Associates, City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update Draft EIR, Page 4.1 -16. JN 10- 105583 21 Initial Study /Negative Declaration fd � x o-�e�°s�`�kb ;�` <��,� �.�,�« ntrdlly � r 51�4�lllx�a �eh"� `� =f fit•. a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? T b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state T scenic highway? c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the .t. site and its surroundings? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would .t, adverse) affect day or nighttime views in the area? Impact Analysis 4.1(a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less Than Signil! cant Impact. The City has identified roadway segments that provide significant public views, although, there are no officially designated scenic vistas within the City. Additionally, the City's parks and other public viewing areas provide significant views and are identified within the Natural Resources Element (Figure NR 3). Given that the City is primarily a built -out area, it is anticipated that future development permitted by the ZCU would generally consist of infill and redevelopment. Notwithstanding, future development could impact a scenic vista, particularly those involving roadway segments, parks, and viewing areas. However, the GPEIR concluded existing and future development would be regulated by the General Plan (GP) policies, and scenic vistas would not be adversely affected." Since future development in compliance with the ZCU would be consistent with the General Plan, as modified by the CCC action, there are no impacts that were not evaluated within the program EIR or avoided by CCC action. As such, potential impacts to scenic vistas from future development permitted by the ZCU were anticipated in the GP /GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed ZCU would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Future discretionary development would undergo environmental and /or development review on a project -by- project basis based upon the permit requirements established within the ZCU in order to ensure that scenic vistas are not adversely impacted. The ZCU proposes the addition of the Public View Protection section applicable to discretionary development, which includes regulations to preserve visual resources and public views from identified public view points and 4 EIP Associates, City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update Draft EIR, Page 4.1 -16. JN 10- 105583 21 Initial Study /Negative Declaration na��"Ipin City ni Newport Beach Zoning Code Update Initial Study /Negative Declaration 4-rF corridors in accordance with General Plan polices under GP Goal NR 20. Also, the Bluff Overlay District was added to implement specific policies of the General Plan Natural Resources Element that require limiting development (discretionary or not) to the predominant line of existing development to preserve visual quality, protect public views, and ensure safety. Policy LU 6.19.9 requires that buildings be located and sites designed to provide adequate and unobstructed views significant visual corridors of the Bay from Coast Highway (Mariners' Mile) and this policy would be implemented during the discretionary review of future development consistent with proposed Public View Protection section and the view protection policies of the General Plan (e.g. Policy NR 20.2 requires new development to restore and enhance the visual quality in visually degraded areas, where feasible, and to provide view easements or corridors designed to protect public views or to restore public views in developed areas, where appropriate and Policy NR 20.4 would serve to design and site new development, including landscaping, on the edges of public view corridors, including those down public streets, to frame, accent, and minimize impacts to public views. Given that future development would undergo project -by- project review for consistency with the Zoning Code and that significant development would be subject to discretionary review and as such would undergo environmental review and/or development review and must be found consistent with General Plan policies, impacts to scenic vistas would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.1(b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact. Currently, there are no state scenic highways that traverse the City. State Route 1 (Pacific Coast Highway) is identified by the City as being eligible for the State Scenic Highway designation, however, an official designation has not been received from Caltrans. Therefore, future development would not damage scenic resources within a designated State scenic highway. 4.1(c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Less Than Significant Impact. Development permitted by the ZCU would replace improved or unimproved lands with new uses consistent with the General Plan, replace developed sites with similar land uses with similar densities or intensities and intensify some areas through infill construction. Given that the City is primarily a built -out area and future development permitted by the ZCU would occur primarily as infill and redevelopment, Project implementation would not substantially degrade the existing visual character of the development sites and their surroundings. Nonetheless, future development permitted by the ZCU could alter the visual character of the respective development sites and their surroundings over time. The GPEIR concluded the visual character would change as development intensity increased, but development would be required to conform to a development pattern that retains and complements the City's residential neighborhoods, commercial and industrial districts, open spaces, and natural environment; thus, less than significant impacts on the visual character of developed urban areas would occur.5 Development permitted by the ZCU was considered in the GPEIR analysis, since additional development was assumed and there are no proposed changes to zoning districts that would result in increased densities /intensities that were not included in the 5 Ibid., Page 4.1 -19. JN 10- 105583 22 Initial Study /Negative Declaration u City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Update Initial Study /Negative Declaration General Plan. As such, potential impacts to the visual character of the respective development sites and their surroundings from future development permitted by the ZCU were anticipated in the GP /GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed ZCU would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Future discretionary development would undergo environmental and /or development review on a project -by- project basis based upon the permit requirements established within the ZCU in order to ensure that the existing visual character of the development sites and their surroundings is not substantially degraded. Additionally, the proposed ZCU includes revisions that would avoid or minimize impacts to visual character. More specifically, the ZCU proposes the addition of the Public View Protection section applicable to discretionary development, which includes regulations to preserve visual resources. The Bluff Overlay District was added to implement specific General Plan policies that require limiting development (discretionary or not) to preserve visual quality. The Buffering and Screening section adds standards to address the interfaces between residential and nonresidential uses and buffering requirements to reduce impacts between incompatible land uses. The Fences, Hedges, Walls and Retaining Walls section was revised to limit the height of retaining walls and to require that they be terraced to help minimize alteration of slopes. The Landscaping Standards chapter is added to include standards that enhance the appearance of development projects, screen potentially incompatible land uses, and preserve the integrity of neighborhoods, among other objectives. Future development pursuant to the ZCU and those subject to discretionary review would also be subject to compliance with policies included in the General Plan Land Use and Natural Resources Elements (refer to GP EIR Pages 4.1 -24 through 4.1 -39) that provide direct aesthetic guidance, establish the aesthetic character of an area, and ensure that the City retains its unique aesthetic qualities. Moreover, these regulations and guidelines are intended to diminish conflicts between urban development and visual resources. Therefore, future development permitted by the ZCU is not anticipated to substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the development sites and their surroundings. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.1(d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less Than Significant Impact. There are two primary sources of light: light emanating from building interiors that pass through windows and light from exterior sources (i.e., street lighting, parking lot lighting, building illumination, security lighting and landscape lighting). Depending upon the location of the light source and its proximity to adjacent light sensitive uses, light introduction can be a nuisance, affecting adjacent areas and diminishing the view of the clear night sky. Newport Beach is primarily built -out; therefore, ambient light from urban uses currently exists. New development permitted by the ZCU could create new sources of light and glare, which could affect day or nighttime views of the respective development areas. However, the GPEIR concluded new development could create new sources of light and glare that could affect day or nighttime views of adjacent sensitive land uses (i.e., undeveloped lands and residential uses adjacent to commercial or industrial areas). Additionally, the GPEIR concluded implementation of GP Policies would reduce impacts resulting from daytime glare, ambient nighttime lighting, and JN 10- 105583 23 Initial Study /Negative Declaration � dEW �R> o �.m C�GrORN�P Initial of Newport Beach ning Code Update gative Declaration potential spillover from new development to a less- than - significant level .6 Development permitted by the ZCU was considered in the GPEIR analysis, since additional development was assumed and there are no proposed changes to zoning districts that would result in increased densities /intensities that were not included in the GP. As such, potential impacts associated with light and glare from future development permitted by the ZCU were anticipated in the GP /GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed ZCU would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Future development would either undergo environmental and design review through the discretionary review process or be reviewed on a project -by- project basis for consistency with ZCU Outdoor Lighting section with the Zoning Clearance process in order to ensure that the project would not create a new source of substantial light and glare. Future discretionary development would also be subject to compliance with General Plan policies that address the creation of light and glare from new developments. In particular, Policy LU 5.5.2 specifies the use of non - reflective textured surfaces on building exteriors, as well as avoidance of the use of reflective glass. Policy LU 5.5.3 requires that outdoor lighting be located and designed to prevent spillover onto adjoining properties or significantly increase the overall ambient illumination of their location. In addition, Policies LU 6.1.3 and 6.2.5 allow for the integration of uses to be designed specifically to assure development compatibility by addressing issues such as lighting. Therefore, since future development would undergo project -by- project review, be regulated by the proposed ZCU, and subject to compliance with General Plan policies, impacts from daytime glare, ambient nighttime lighting, and potential spillover from new development would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 6 Ibid., Pages 4.1 -21 and 22. JN 10- 105583 24 - Initial Study /Negative Declaration � dEW ART O `i 9 P �<l FORt\\ 4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES Initial of Newport Beach ning Code Update gative Declaration fn e`iyeimr ng w�tef)teY impacts to agricultural w a s "` sJ recant nronrgehfal effec>s lead ageficresma�fi Arta the ;' 1 ; k aE z'Sa.,r r ;r y Y a s 4� e- C �igncul(ural hand. Evaluation and Si(eessmen ag a �t� e %��8i;�tpreAared by Mite CaUPornra*�DgR �ent� F�- � M 's�,A ` erea�asra pi(6,Fal model tb U"S'e to dS B�l ,g� 1 SOnfr � ;.� �. k -t w Y "� y iff d� � sdZrvncdrhg rim4erlandriie �� For %an tep as Ste[ iHaant �C QY i oafl r- I c( th ' 03 en meq[ i a d gancres ftaaS ie i d n{c ltrPa VNt m r ��p'� y�i6Y RIL'� resndRargeJ(sgess7etFroJectan F6re3i$ga ar w �o�do k rd5nst �Prorocol�adope�b�i ' LfaL7omta= irResouiCe §Boad,Woaliltfie" r4.f��«f, a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring T Program of the California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? T c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), T or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non - forest use? T e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to ,I, non - agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non- forest use? Impact Analysis 4.2(a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use? No Impact. There is no designated Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance within the City. Therefore, project implementation would not result in the conversion of farmland to non - agricultural use. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.2(b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? Less Than Significant Impact. The Residential - Agricultural (R -A) District provides areas for single - family residential and light farming land uses. Given that the proposed ZCU does not involve changes to the R -A District, and since there are no agricultural uses or Williamson Act JN 10-106583 25 Initial Study /Negative Declaration Impact Analysis 4.2(a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use? No Impact. There is no designated Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance within the City. Therefore, project implementation would not result in the conversion of farmland to non - agricultural use. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.2(b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? Less Than Significant Impact. The Residential - Agricultural (R -A) District provides areas for single - family residential and light farming land uses. Given that the proposed ZCU does not involve changes to the R -A District, and since there are no agricultural uses or Williamson Act JN 10-106583 25 Initial Study /Negative Declaration � �aEW �'ORr us cyGro0.N�' Initial of Newport Beach ning Code Update gative Declaration contracts present in the City, Project implementation would result in a less than significant impact in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.2(c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)) ? No Impact. There is no zoning for forest land in the City. Additionally, the City is primarily a built - out area, and it is anticipated that future development permitted by the ZCU would generally consist of infill and redevelopment. Therefore, Project implementation would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.2(d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non - forest use? No Impact. There are no forest lands present in the City. Therefore, Project implementation would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non - forest use. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.2(e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non - forest use? No Impact. No farmland, agricultural activity, or forest lands exist within the City. Therefore, the Project would not result in environmental changes that would convert farmland to non - agricultural use or forest land to non - forest use. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. JN 10- 105583 26 Initial Study /Negative Declaration gWrp ore R @ City of Newport Beach i Zoning Code Update Initial Study /Negative Declaration C9GIGORN`P 4.3 AIR QUALITY Where avarlabfe� �e` sr�n ca '��e''ha�esfabbshed b ���' �'� kessfihanF k'cao� � � Lis T(7ap i }aPplrsable arr yu�fdyianag /Heir! ors %,P�(�iborl cgntvp/ „dcs6�c¢ y�ma�!'beorebedupot* 7rialr �e'�ollowli��ete� rggbJt��.�`�Worr)d � s.✓`.x 4Y''�” "� S�`,.r ���� �Sl•gnifiEant kg� mPact�hth � , E tSi�ni+c.�a�if , ; a r ,Y» ���1� i � �lil�a�nh� G^� „��" s. o triA.si;# .' a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality Ian? T b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an exisfin or projected air quality violation? T c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including T releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d7 Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? T e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? T The City of Newport Beach is part of the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) and is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District ( SCAQMD). The SCAQMD's current guidelines and emission thresholds are established in the CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Air quality assessments estimate emissions of air pollutants associated with short-term construction and long -term operation of a proposed project. Both the State of California and the Federal government have established health -based Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) for the following six criteria air pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO); ozone (03); nitrogen oxides (NOX); sulfur oxides (SOX); particulate matter up to 10 microns in diameter (PM10); and lead (Pb). 03 (smog) is formed by a photochemical reaction between NOX and reactive organic compounds (ROCS). Thus, evaluating impacts from NOX and ROCS assesses impacts from 03. The net increase in pollutant emissions determines the impact on regional air quality as a result of a proposed project. The results also allow the local government to determine whether a proposed project would deter the region from achieving the goal of reducing pollutants in accordance with the air quality management plan (AQMP) in order to comply with Federal and State AAQS. Construction Emission Thresholds The following CEQA significance thresholds for construction emissions have been established for the SCAB: • 75 pounds per day (Ibs /day) or 2.5 tons per quarter -year of VOCs; • 100 Ibs /day or 2.5 tons per quarter of NOX ; • 550 Ibs /day or 24.75 tons per quarter of CO; • 150 Ibs /day or 6.75 tons per quarter of PM10; and • 150 Ibs /day or 6.75 tons per quarter of SOX. In the SCAB, project construction - related emissions that exceed any of the above emission thresholds are considered to be a significant impact under the SCAQMD guidelines. JN 10- 105583 27 Initial Study /Negative Declaration s �gv roRT o° @ City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Update s Initial Study /Negative Declaration C'�4FOPH`P Operational Emission Thresholds Project operational emissions that exceed any of the thresholds listed below are considered to be a significant impact under the SCAQMD guidelines: • 55 Ibs /day of VOCs; • 55 Ibs /day of NOX; • 550 Ibs /day of CO; • 150 Ibs /day of PM10; and • 150 Ibs /day of SOX. Localized Thresholds of Significance Localized significance thresholds (LSTs) represent the maximum emissions from a project that would not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard, and are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each source receptor area. The cleaner the air is in a local area, the greater emissions increment it can afford without causing or contributing to an exceedance of the most stringent ambient air quality standard. If the existing air quality is not yet in compliance with the air quality standards, all areas are subject to generally equivalent LSTs. LSTs apply to projects that are less than five acres in size. Public agencies can use LST methodology and mass rate look -up tables by source receptor area (SRA) to determine whether or not a project may generate significant adverse localized air quality impacts. LSTs are only applicable to the following criteria pollutants: oxides of nitrogen (NOX), carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter less than 10 microns in aerodynamic diameter (PM10). LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard, and are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each source receptor area and distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. For PM10 LSTs were derived based on requirements in SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust). Impact Analysis 4.3(a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less Than Significant Impact. Consistency with the 2007 Air Quality Management Plan for the South Coast Air Basin (2007 Air Quality Management Plan) means that a project is consistent with the goals, objectives, and assumptions in the respective plan to achieve the Federal and State air quality standards. Per the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, there are two main indicators of a project's consistency with the applicable Air Quality Management Plan: • Whether the project would increase the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the 2007 Air Quality Management Plan. • Whether the project would exceed the 2007 Air Quality Management Plan's assumptions for 2030 or yearly increments based on the year of project buildout and phasing. JN 10- 105583 28 Initial Study /Negative Declaration City Newport Beach Zoning Code Update o Initial Study /Negative Declaration Given that the City is primarily a built -out area, future development permitted by the ZCU would occur primarily as infill and redevelopment. Construction activities would generate pollutant emissions, including but not limited to site grading, operation of construction equipment, and vehicle activities. Future development permitted by the ZCU would also generate population growth with resultant pollutant emissions from stationary equipment, new vehicular trips, off -site power and natural gas generation, etc. The GPEIR concluded GP implementation would induce population growth through increased residential development beyond projected population levels for the City.' Since the AQMP growth projections are based on SCAG population levels, the General Plan's increase in population growth would not have been accounted for in the AQMP. Therefore, General Plan implementation would not be consistent with AQMP attainment forecasts and attainment of the standards could be delayed. The GPEIR concluded the General Plan would conflict with implementation of the 2003 AQMP, this impact would be significant.8 The GPEIR also concluded the General Plan would be consistent with the 2003 AQMP in the reduction of vehicle miles traveled, with implementation of General Plan policies. Development permitted by the ZCU was considered in the GPEIR analysis, since additional development was assumed and there are no proposed changes to zoning districts that would result in increased densities /intensities that were not included in the GP. As such, potential impacts from future development permitted by the ZCU involving consistency with the AQMP were anticipated in the GP /GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed ZCU would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Future discretionary development would undergo environmental and /or development review on a project -by- project basis based upon the permit requirements established within the ZCU in order to verify consistency with the AQMP. Additionally, the proposed ZCU includes revisions that would promote consistency with the AQMP. Namely, the ZCU proposes residential use densities and non - residential use intensities within the various zoning districts that would be no greater than allowed by the General Plan Land Use Element. Future development would also be subject to compliance with General Plan policies that would promote consistency with the AQMP (i.e., use of transit, reduce the number of vehicle trips and miles traveled, and create opportunities to walk and bike to work or shop). In particular, Policy LU 3.3 identifies opportunities for mixed use development with expanded opportunities for residents to live close to jobs, commerce, entertainment, and recreation, and is supported by a pedestrian - friendly environment. Policy LU 6.14.5 encourages improved pedestrian connections and streetscape amenities, and Policy LU 6.15.9 allows the development of multi - family residential units and mixed -use buildings that integrate residential with commercial uses. Policies NR6.1, NR6.2, and NR6.3 would reduce vehicle trips through land use planning through mixed -use development or siting of amenities in proximity to residential or employment areas. Additionally, Policies NR 6.4 and NR 6.5 would promote Transportation Demand Management programs, which encourage the use of alternative transportation modes, and promote mass transit use. Given that future development would undergo project -by- project review, be regulated by the proposed ZCU, and be subject to compliance with General Plan policies, impacts involving consistency with the AQMP would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required 7 Ibid., Page 4.2 -12. 8 Ibid., Page 4.2 -13. JN 10- 105583 29 Initial Study /Negative Declaration �4 x City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Update 'z Initial Study/Negative Declaration �4rOnN' 4.3(b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less Than Significant Impact. Future development permitted by the ZCU would occur primarily as infill and redevelopment. However, construction activities would generate pollutant emissions, including but not limited to site grading, operation of construction equipment, and vehicle activities. Future development permitted by the ZCU would also generate pollutant emissions from stationary equipment, new vehicular trips, off -site power and natural gas generation, etc. As the proposed ZCU involves a programmatic project, no emission calculations are necessary in the preparation of this document. Notwithstanding, future development permitted by the ZCU could violate air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. The GPEIR concluded certain projects implemented under the General Plan could individually exceed the SCAQMD thresholds, and the total amount of construction under the General Plan could also exceed the SCAQMD's thresholds. This impact would remain significant and unavoidable, despite compliance with General Plan policies.9 The GPEIR concluded air emissions associated with General Plan implementation would also occur as a result of operation of new land uses. Given that the thresholds of significance for these new emissions were developed for individual development projects, the SCAQMD does not recommend calculation of operational emissions for a planning document, such as the General Plan. Development permitted by the ZCU was considered in the GPEIR analysis, since additional development was assumed and there are no proposed changes to zoning districts that would result in increased densities /intensities that were not included in the GP. As such, potential impacts from future development permitted by the ZCU involving potential violations of air quality standards were anticipated in the GP /GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed ZCU would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Future discretionary development would undergo environmental and /or development review on a project -by- project basis based upon the permit requirements established within the ZCU in order to determine air emissions and potential violations of air quality standards. Additionally, the ZCU proposes residential use densities and non - residential use intensities within the various zoning districts that would be no greater than allowed by the General Plan Land Use Element, thus, would not result in greater air emissions. Future development would also be subject to compliance with General Plan policies that would help reduce short- and long -term air pollutant emissions. General Plan Policies NR 6.1 through 6.9 are intended to reduce mobile source emissions, Policies NR 7.1 to 7.4 are intended to reduce air emissions from stationary sources, Policies NR 8.1 to NR 8.5 reduce air emissions from construction activities, and Policies LU 5.3.1 to 5.3.3, LU 6.14.5, and 6.15.9 are intended to reduce vehicle miles traveled by promoting mixed - use districts. Given that future development would undergo project -by- project review, would be regulated by the proposed ZCU, and be subject to compliance with General Plan policies, impacts resulting from short- and long -term air pollutant emissions would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.3(c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state 9 Ibid., Page 4.2 -14. JN 10- 105583 30 Initial Study/Negative Declaration u Initial of Newport Beach ning Code Update gative Declaration ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response 4.3(c). Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.3(d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact. Sensitive receptors are defined as facilities or land uses that include members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses. Examples of these sensitive receptors are residences, schools, hospitals, and daycare centers. CARB has identified the following groups of individuals as the most likely to be affected by air pollution: the elderly over 65, children under 14, athletes, and persons with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma, emphysema, and bronchitis. Sensitive receptors are located throughout the City. To identify impacts to sensitive receptors, the SCAQMD recommends addressing localized significance thresholds for construction and operations impacts, as well as a carbon monoxide hot -spots analyses. The construction of individual projects could potentially lead to fugitive emissions and other pollutants affecting sensitive land uses. Increased traffic volumes on City streets could also lead to increases in traffic congestion and associated vehicle emissions, which could impact sensitive receptors. However, the GPEIR concluded sensitive receptors within the City would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations, and the potential impacts of General Plan implementation would be less than significant.70 Development permitted by the ZCLI was considered in the GPEIR analysis, since additional development was assumed and there are no proposed changes to zoning districts that would result in increased densities /intensities that were not included in the GP. As such, potential impacts from future development permitted by the ZCU involving potential exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations were anticipated in the GP /GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed ZCU would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Future discretionary development would undergo environmental and /or development review on a project -by- project basis based upon the permit requirements established within the ZCLlin order to determine pollutant concentrations. More specifically, future development may be required to prepare an air quality analysis that evaluates the air emission impacts during construction. The SCAQMD requires a quantified assessment of a CO hot -spot when a project increases the volumes to capacity ratio (also called the intersection capacity utilization) by 0.02 (two percent) for any intersection with an existing level of service (LOS) D or worse. The project specific air quality analysis would provide mitigation measures to off -set impacts associated with that development. Given that future development would undergo project -by- project review, potential impacts involving the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 10 Ibid., Page 4.2 -16. JN 10. 105583 31 Initial Study /Negative Declaration F NgwPDRr a o 0 s Initial of Newport Beach ning Code Update gative Declaration 4.3(e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less Than Significant Impact. Odors are one of the most obvious forms of air pollution to the general public. Although offensive odors seldom cause physical harm, they can be a nuisance to the general public. Most people determine an odor to be offensive (objectionable) if it is sensed longer than the duration of a human breath, typically two to five seconds. The SCAQMD handbook states that land uses associated with odor complaints typically include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. Future discretionary development projects would be required to prepare a project specific air quality analysis. An odor assessment would be required as part of the air quality analysis should the proposed development have the potential to create objectionable odors. The construction activity from future development permitted by the ZCU may generate detectable odors from heavy -duty equipment exhaust. Construction related odors would be short-team in nature and cease upon project completion. Additionally, the GPEIR concluded General Plan implementation would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people within the City and potential impacts would be less than significant." Since future development in compliance with the ZCU would be consistent with the General Plan, as modified by the CCC action, there are no impacts that were not evaluated within the program EIR or avoided by CCC action. As such, potential impacts from future development permitted by the ZCU involving the creation of objectionable odors were anticipated in the GP /GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed ZCU would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Given that future development would undergo project -by- project review, potential impacts involving the creation of objectionable odors would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. " Ibid., Page 4.2 -17. JN 10- 105583 32 Initial Study /Negative Declaration x � n't"a'N' City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Update Initial Study /Negative Declaration 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Impact Analysis 4.4(a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant Impact. Sensitive habitat within the City consists of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub, Riparian Habitat, and Native Grasslands. According to the California Native Diversity Database (CNDDB) search conducted for the GPEIR, the City has the potential for 78 special status wildlife species and 33 plant species. However, not all of these species are found within the City due to the lack of suitable habitat. Since future development permitted by the ZCU would occur primarily as infill and redevelopment, Project implementation is not anticipated to have a substantial adverse effect on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status. Moreover, implementation of the ZCU would not directly remove sensitive vegetation communities or species, because the ZCU does not infer direct development rights. Notwithstanding, due to the conceptual nature of the future development permitted by the ZCU, the potential exists for adverse impacts to species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status. Additionally, future development may result in the removal of mature trees that provide perching or nesting habitat for migratory birds and raptors JN 10. 105583 33 Initial Study /Negative Declaration ".' iM1'odirieptoject^ ��s;,` �� r � *� Bignr �� KIm q ' a,-�� a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or T regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identifed in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and T Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but ,t, not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interru tion, or other means? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native ,r resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological ,r resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved T local, regional, or state habitat conservation Ian? Impact Analysis 4.4(a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant Impact. Sensitive habitat within the City consists of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub, Riparian Habitat, and Native Grasslands. According to the California Native Diversity Database (CNDDB) search conducted for the GPEIR, the City has the potential for 78 special status wildlife species and 33 plant species. However, not all of these species are found within the City due to the lack of suitable habitat. Since future development permitted by the ZCU would occur primarily as infill and redevelopment, Project implementation is not anticipated to have a substantial adverse effect on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status. Moreover, implementation of the ZCU would not directly remove sensitive vegetation communities or species, because the ZCU does not infer direct development rights. Notwithstanding, due to the conceptual nature of the future development permitted by the ZCU, the potential exists for adverse impacts to species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status. Additionally, future development may result in the removal of mature trees that provide perching or nesting habitat for migratory birds and raptors JN 10. 105583 33 Initial Study /Negative Declaration nizaa, City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Update Initial Study/Negative Declaration Cy and may result in a "take" of one of the special status species. However, the GPEIR concluded compliance with General Plan policies would result in less than significant impacts to candidate, sensitive, and special status species. 12 Development permitted by the ZCU was considered in the GPEIR analysis, since additional development was assumed and there are no proposed changes to zoning districts that would result in increased densities /intensities that were not included in the GP. As such, potential impacts to candidate, sensitive, and special status species from future development permitted by the ZCU were anticipated in the GP /GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed ZCU would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Future discretionary development would undergo environmental and /or development review on a project -by- project basis based upon the permit requirements established within the ZCU in order to determine potential impacts to candidate, sensitive, and special status species. Future development may be required to comply with the NCCP /HCP, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Federal Endangered Species Act, and the California Endangered Species Act. Additionally, future development would be subject to compliance with General Plan policies that would reduce potential impacts on candidate, sensitive, and special status species. Namely, implementation of Policies NR10.1 to 10.13 provide protection to sensitive and rare terrestrial and marine resources from urban development (Policy NR 10.4 requires a site - specific survey and analysis), Policies NR 11.1 to 11.3 require protection of eelgrass meadows, and Policies 12.1 to 12.3 require protection of coastal dune habitats. Given that future development would undergo project -by- project review (a site - specific survey and analysis may be required), and be subject to compliance with Federal /State and General Plan policies, impacts to candidate, sensitive, and special status species would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.4(b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant Impact. Riparian habitat is known to occur throughout the City. Since future development permitted by the ZCU would occur primarily as infill and redevelopment, Project implementation is not anticipated to have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat. Moreover, implementation of the ZCU would not directly remove riparian or other sensitive habitats, because the ZCU does not infer direct development rights. Notwithstanding, due to the conceptual nature of the future development permitted by the ZCU, the potential exists for adverse impacts to riparian habitats. However, the GPEIR concluded compliance with General Plan policies would result in less than significant impacts to riparian habitats.13 Development permitted by the ZCU was considered in the GPEIR analysis, since additional development was assumed and there are no proposed changes to zoning districts that would result in increased densities /intensities that were not included in the GP. As such, potential impacts to riparian habitats from future development permitted by the ZCU were anticipated in the 12 Ibid., Page 4.2 -23, 13 Ibid., Page 4.2 -25. JN 10- 105583 34 Initial Study /Negative Declaration agWpp City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Update r x Initial Study /Negative Declaration 4`<l` GP /GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed ZCU would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Future discretionary development would undergo environmental and /or development review on a project -by- project basis based upon the permit requirements established within the ZCU in order to determine potential impacts to riparian habitats. Future development would be subject to compliance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the Section 1600 of the Streambed Alteration Agreement, which regulate the alteration of riparian vegetation. Additionally, future development would be subject to compliance with General Plan policies that would reduce potential impacts on riparian habitats. Namely, Policies NR 10.1 through NR 10.7 would require reduction or avoidance of impacts to riparian areas by ensuring cooperation with resource protection agencies, organizations, and conservation plans, and limiting or placing constraints on future development within identified ESAs or areas containing significant or rare biological resources. In addition, Policies NR 10.9 and NR 10.10 would require protection of existing or potential riparian habitats, and encourage restoration of the ESAs located within the Planning Area. Policies NR 13.1 and NR 13.2 would serve to protect wetlands and their riparian habitat, and require a survey and analysis of future General Plan development within a delineated wetland area. Given that future development would undergo project -by- project review and be subject to compliance with Federal /State and General Plan policies, impacts to riparian habitats would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.4(c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. According to the GPEIR, wetlands are known to occur throughout the City. Since future development permitted by the ZCU would occur primarily as infill and redevelopment, Project implementation is not anticipated to have a substantial adverse effect on wetlands. Moreover, implementation of the ZCU would not directly remove wetlands, because the ZCU does not infer direct development rights. Additionally, the GPEIR concluded compliance with General Plan policies would result in no impacts to wetlands." Development permitted by the ZCU was considered in the GPEIR analysis, since additional development was assumed and there are no proposed changes to zoning districts that would result in increased densities /intensities that were not included in the GP. As such, potential impacts to wetlands from future development permitted by the ZCU were considered in the GP /GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed ZCU would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Future discretionary development would undergo environmental and /or development review on a project -by- project basis based upon the permit requirements established within the ZCU in order to determine potential impacts to wetlands. Future development would be subject to compliance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, which requires that a permit be obtained from the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) prior to discharge or dredged or fill material into any "waters of the United States." Should development occur within wetland areas, Federal and State regulations 14 Ibid., Page 4.2 -27. JN 10- 105583 35 Initial Study /Negative Declaration n,KaF City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Update Initial Study /Negative Declaration would be implemented to protect resources from development through the ACOE permitting process. Additionally, future development would be subject to compliance with General Plan policies that would reduce potential impacts on wetlands. Namely, Policies NR 13.1 and NR 13.2 would protect, maintain, and enhance the City's wetlands. Policies NR 14.1 to NR 14.4 would serve to maintain and enhance deep water channels and ensure they remain navigable by boats through the management of dredging and maintaining the capacity of wetlands and estuaries. Policies NR 15.1 to NR 15.3 would serve to ensure the proper disposal of dredge spoils to avoid disruption to natural habitats through monitoring and management of sediment. Given that future development would undergo project -by- project review, and would be subject to compliance with Federal /State laws and regulations and the "no net wetland loss" policy currently in place, as well as General Plan policies, impacts to wetlands would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures., No mitigation is required. 4.4(d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Less Than Significant Impact. Given that the City is primarily a built -out area, it is anticipated that future development permitted by the ZCU would generally consist of infill and redevelopment. Additionally, the GPEIR concluded new urban uses within the City's developed areas would not have a substantial effect on the movement of native resident of migratory wildlife species or corridors, and impacts on these areas would be less than significant.15 Development permitted by the Zoning Code Update (ZCU) was considered in the GPEIR analysis, since additional development was assumed and there are no proposed changes to zoning districts that would result in increased densities /intensities that were not included in the GP. As such, potential impacts to migratory wildlife species or corridors from future development permitted by the ZCU were anticipated in the GP /GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed ZCU would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Future discretionary development would undergo environmental and/or development review on a project -by- project basis based upon the permit requirements established within the ZCU in order to ensure that migratory wildlife species or corridors are not adversely impacted. Future development would also be subject to compliance with General Plan policies that would serve to protect migratory wildlife species or corridors. In particular, Policies NR 10.1 and NR 10.2 would serve to ensure that all future development cooperates with the regulatory framework and complies with NCCP policies. Policies NR 10.3 and NR 10.4 would serve to protect and prohibit development in nature preserves, conservation areas, and designated open space areas, and would require a site - specific study be prepared where development would occur within or contiguous to such areas. Policies NR 10.5, NR 10.7, and NR 10.8 would serve to prevent disruption, and ensure protection of sensitive habitat though siting and design requirements. Policies NR 12.1 through NR 12.3 would serve to protect coastal dune habitats (movement corridors for coastal wildlife species). Policies NR 13.1 and NR 13.2 would serve to protect, maintain, and enhance the Planning Area's wetlands, another movement corridor for a variety of aquatic, terrestrial, and avian species. Given that future development would undergo project -by- 15 Ibid., Page 4.3 -28. JN 10. 106583 36 Initial Study /Negative Declaration c SEW Rp jT o� City of Newport Beach Zoning Code update -�= Initial Study/Negative Declaration project review, and be subject to compliance with General Plan policies, impacts to migratory wildlife species or corridors would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.4(e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Less Than Significant Impact. Future development permitted by the ZCU would be subject to all applicable federal, state, and local policies and regulations related to preservation of biological resources. Specific local regulations consist of Council Policy G -1, Retention or Removal of City Trees, and Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) Chapter 7.26, Protection of Natural Habitat for Migratory and Other Waterfowl. Future development would be subject to compliance with General Plan Policies NR 10.1 and NR 10.3, which would serve to ensure that all future development cooperates with the regulatory framework and complies with NCCP policies, as well as all policies specified in GPEIR Section 4.3, Biological Resources, which are intended to protect biological resources. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.4(f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. The Central and Coastal Orange County Natural Community Conservation Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP /HCP) and the associated Implementation Agreement cover 13 cities, including Newport Beach. Therefore, the City is within jurisdiction of the NCCP /HCP. The purpose of the NCCP /HCP is to create a multi- species, multi- habitat reserve system and implementation of a long -term management program that will protect primarily coastal sage scrub and the species that utilize this habitat. The GPEIR concluded compliance with General Plan policies would result in no impacts involving the NCCP /HCP.16 Development permitted by the ZCU was considered in the GPEIR analysis, since additional development was assumed and there are no proposed changes to zoning districts that would result in increased densities /intensities that were not included in the GP. As such, potential conflicts with the NCCP /HCP from future development permitted by the ZCU were considered in the GP /GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed ZCU would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Future discretionary development would undergo environmental and /or development review on a project -by- project basis based upon the permit requirements established within the ZCU in order to determine potential conflicts with the NCCP /HCP. Additionally, future development would be subject to compliance with General Plan policies that would ensure consistency with the NCCP /HCP. Namely, Policy NR 10.2 states that future development must comply with the policies contained within the Orange County NCCP. In addition, Policy NR 10.1 states that future development shall cooperate with state and federal agencies, and private organizations, in the 16 Ibid., Page 4.2 -29. JN 10- 105583 37 Initial Study/Negative Declaration o��Ea�R m City of Newport Beach s; Zoning Code Update Initial Study /Negative Declaration �<ISpaN�' protection of the Planning Area's biological resources. Given that future development would undergo project -by- project review, and would be subject to compliance with General Plan policies, conflicts with the NCCP /HCP would not occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. JN 10-105683 38 Initial Study /Negative Declaration �t�s F �gW PoRr u 'i Cy </FOM1N`' 4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES Initial of Newport Beach ning Code Update gative Declaration €'Y,}��a'� M Fy'FFS' !w 4F R ?a Y<F t3;iAY )Fh b.H 5 f ?akz",•T".t. m 5 a. Cause a substantal adverse change in the significance of a histodcal resource as defned in CEQA Guidelines 15064.5? T b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource ursuantto CEQA Guidelines 15064.5? ,f, c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? T d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? T Impact Analysis 4.5(a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines §15064.5? Less Than Significant Impact. GPEIR Figure 4.4 -1, Historic Resources, illustrates the locations of the 11 properties within the City that have been listed or designated eligible for listing on the NRHP or CRHR, or otherwise listed as historic or potentially historic in the California Historic Resources Information System (CHRIS) maintained by the Office of Historic Preservation. Future development permitted by the ZCU would generally consist of infill and redevelopment. Therefore, future development could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. Additionally, the GPEIR concluded redevelopment of a site could result in the demolition of historic or potentially historic structures, and infrastructure or other public works improvements could result in damage to or demolition of other historic features. These impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, despite compliance with General Plan policies." Development permitted by the ZCU was considered in the GPEIR analysis, since additional development was assumed and there are no proposed changes to zoning districts that would result in increased densities /intensities that were not included in the GP. As such, potential impacts to historic resources from future development permitted by the ZCU were anticipated in the GP /GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed ZCU would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Future discretionary development would undergo environmental and /or development review on a project -by- project basis based upon the permit requirements established within the ZCU in order to ensure that historic resources are not adversely impacted. Future development would be subject to Federal, State, and local regulations, and institutions in place to protect the City's historical resources. Additionally, future development would be subject to compliance with General Plan policies that would protect the City's historic resources. In particular, Policies HR 1.1 through HR 1.5 are intended to provide protection of historically significant landmarks, sites, and structures by requiring that the Historical Resources Inventory be maintained and updated, encouraging the preservation and adaptive reuse of historic structures, promoting the placement 17 Ibid., Page 4.4 -15. JN 10- 105583 39 Initial Study /Negative Declaration a �� k City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Update � '= Initial Study /Negative Declaration C'Q,POaa'P of historical landmarks throughout the City, encouraging adaptive reuse, and mandating the incorporation of historical elements in new redevelopment projects in the City. Specifically, Policy HR 1.2 focuses on preserving structures listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the List of California Historic Landmarks, and the Newport Beach Register of Historic Property by offering incentives. In addition to encouraging the placement of historical landmarks, photographs, markers, and plaques at areas of historical interest or value, Policy HR 1.3 would serve to create a Landmark Plan to recognize and designate culturally important heritage sites that are eligible for the placement of historical landmarks or plaques. Policy HR 1.4 encourages alternatives to demolition of historical sites through providing incentives. If preservation or adaptive reuse is not possible, Policy HR 1.5 requires that a project incorporate a physical link to the past within the site or structural design. Given that future development would undergo project -by- project review, be regulated by the Federal /State regulatory framework, and be subject to compliance with General Plan policies, impacts to historic resources would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.5(b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5? Less Than Significant Impact. According to the GPEIR, Newport Beach has had a long cultural history and has been home to Native American groups, since before Euro- American settlement. Due to the historic nature of Newport Beach, archaeological materials have been found during ground- disturbing activities, particularly in areas that have not previously been developed. Moreover, archaeological resources may be present under existing buildings. According to the GPEIR, several locations within the City have known significant paleontological resources. There areas include areas underlain by the Vaqueros formation, such as the Newport Coast and the Newport Banning Ranch area, the Topanga and Monterey Formations, and Fossil Canyon in the North Bluffs area. Therefore, any ground- disturbing activities in these areas could potentially result in damage to or destruction of fossils in the formations. Project implementation is not anticipated to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological /paleontological resource. Since, the City is primarily a built -out area, it is anticipated that future development permitted by the ZCU would generally consist of infill and redevelopment. Future development sites have already been subject to extensive disruption and may contain artificial fill materials. As such, any archaeological/paleontological resources, which may have existed on the development sites, have likely been disturbed. Notwithstanding, due to the conceptual nature of the future development and the known existence of archaeological /paleontological resources in the area, future development permitted by the ZCU could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological /paleontological resource. However, the GPEIR concluded compliance with General Plan policies would ensure impacts to archaeological and Native American cultural resources, and paleontological resources would be less than significant, by requiring the scientific recovery and evaluation of any resources that could be encountered during construction of future development.1e Development permitted by the ZCU was considered in the GPEIR analysis, since additional development was assumed and there are no proposed changes to zoning districts that would result in increased densities /intensities that were not included in the GP. As such, potential impacts to 18 [bid., Pages 4.4 -16 and 4.4 -17. JN 10- 105583 40 Initial Study /Negative Declaration � tab`x'PORT P <�GORR� Initial of Newport Beach ning Code Update gative Declaration archaeological /paleontological resources from future development permitted by the ZCU were anticipated in the GP /GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed ZCU would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Future discretionary development would undergo environmental and /or development review on a project -by- project basis based upon the permit requirements established within the ZCU in order to ensure that archaeological resources are not adversely impacted. Future development would be subject to compliance with "Archaeological Guidelines (K -5)" and "Paleontological Guidelines (K -4)," established by the Newport Beach City Council, in order to ensure the preservation of significant archeological /paleontological resources and require that the impact caused by any development be mitigated with CEQA. Moreover, future development would also be subject to compliance with General Plan policies that would protect the City's archaeological /paleontological resources. In particular, Policy HR 2.1 and Policy NR 18.1 require that any new development protect and preserve archaeological resources from destruction, and that potential impacts to such resources be avoided and minimized through planning policies and permit conditions. Other policies under Goal HR 2 and Goal NR 18 serve to ensure that information resources are maintained regarding these resources; grading and excavation activities where there is a potential to affect cultural or archaeological resources be monitored by a qualified archaeologist; cultural organizations are notified of all development's that have the potential to adversely impact these resources; and that any new development donates scientifically valuable archaeological resources to a responsible public or private institution. Policy HR 2.2 would serve to ensure that sources of information regarding paleontological and archeological sites and the names and addresses of responsible organizations and qualified individuals, who can analyze, classify, record, and preserve paleontological or archeological findings would continue to be maintained. A qualified paleontologist/archeologist would be required to monitor all grading/ excavation where there is a potential to affect cultural, archeological or paleontological resources. Given that future development would undergo project -by- project review, be regulated by the City's Archaeological Guidelines, and be subject to compliance with General Plan policies, impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.5(c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response 4.5(b). Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.5(d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less Than Significant Impact. Human burials have been found throughout the City. The burials outside of a formal cemetery have been found in prehistoric archaeological contexts. Project implementation is not anticipated to disturb any human remains. Since, the City is primarily a built -out area, it is anticipated that future development permitted by the ZCU would generally consist of infill and redevelopment. Future development sites have already been subject to extensive disruption and may contain artificial fill materials. Due to the level of past disturbance JN 10- 105583 41 Initial Study /Negative Declaration W�R� City of Newport Beach � Zoning Code Update = Initial Study /Negative Declaration 9` on the development sites, it is not anticipated that human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, would be encountered during earth removal or disturbance activities. Additionally, the GPEIR concluded compliance with existing Federal, State, and local policies would ensure that the General Plan's impact on human burial grounds would be reduced to a less than significant level by ensuring appropriate examination, treatment, and protection of human remains, as required by law.19 Notwithstanding, ground- disturbing activities, such as grading or excavation, have the potential to disturb as yet unidentified human remains. If human remains were found, those remains would require proper treatment, in accordance with applicable laws. State of California Public Resources Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 -7055 describe the general provisions for human remains. Specifically, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 describes the requirements if any human remains are accidentally discovered during excavation of a site. As required by State law, the requirements and procedures set forth in Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code would be implemented, including notification of the County Coroner, notification of the Native American Heritage Commission, and consultation with the individual identified by the Native American Heritage Commission to be the "most likely descendant." If human remains are found during excavation, excavation must stop in the vicinity of the find and any area that is reasonably suspected to overly adjacent remains until the County coroner has been called out, and the remains have been investigated and appropriate recommendations have been made for the treatment and disposition of the remains. Following compliance with State regulations, which detail the appropriate actions necessary in the event human remains are encountered, impacts in this regard would be considered less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 18 Ibid., Page 4.4 -18, JN 10- 105583 42 Initial Study /Negative Declaration City of Newport Beach • •,� Zoning Code Update ups Initial Study /Negative Declaration �GEp0.NP 4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS `i'4'rL& 4Z �. k fiwti R b„ ✓ ii 3k-1 -S 3'+i 'a •" 3 £ h f h R d a i4 �n S^ h. .,,R, 3 ess .,S� ralpit f �' piaet��7 g '�� a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving : 1) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other T substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. 2) Strong seismic ground shaking? T 3) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? T 4) Landslides? T b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? T c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on -site or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, T liquefaction or colla se? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the California Building Code (2001), creating substantial risks to life or T property? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers T are not available for the disposal of waste water? Impact Analysis 4.6(a)(1) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. No Impact. The Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was passed in 1972 to mitigate the hazard of surface faulting to structures for human occupancy. The Act's main purpose is to prevent the construction of buildings used for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults. The Act requires the State Geologist to establish regulatory zones, known as "Earthquake Fault Zones," around the surface traces of active faults and to issue appropriate maps. Local agencies must regulate most development projects within these zones. The City of Newport Beach does not have any State - designated Earthquake Fault Zone .21 2e California Department of Conservation official website, http: / /www.conservation.ca.gov /cgs /rghm/ ap /Pages /affected.aspx. Accessed May 18, 2010. JN 10- 105583 43 Initial Study /Negative Declaration � aEW �Rr o � u, z C"�< /FOM1�`P Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. Initial of Newport Beach ning Code Update gative Declaration 4.6(a)(2) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact. The City is located in the northern part of the Peninsular Ranges Province. This is an area that is exposed to multiple fault zones, such as the Newport- Inglewood fault zone, the Whittier fault zone, the San Joaquin Hills fault zone, and the Elysian park Fault zone. The City would also be subject to movement caused by the San Andreas Fault. Each of these zones has potential to cause ground shaking within the City. Due to the presence of several significant faults, the City is anticipated to experience strong seismic ground shaking. According to the City's General Plan, the City has a probability for ground motion values 43 to 50 percent the force of gravity once every 50 years. This is considered to be in the high to very high range for southern California. The intensity of ground shaking would depend upon the magnitude of the earthquake, distance to the epicenter, and the geology of the area between the epicenter and the City. The future development permitted by the ZCU could expose people or structures to adverse effects involving strong seismic ground shaking. The possibility of moderate to high ground acceleration or shaking in the City may be considered as approximately similar to the Southern California region, as a whole. The GPEIR concluded compliance with applicable regulations and the General Plan policies would ensure that impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking remain at a less than significant level .2' As such, the exposure of people /structures to potential adverse effects involving strong seismic ground shaking from future development permitted by the ZCU were anticipated in the GP /GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed ZCU would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Future discretionary development would undergo environmental and/or development review on a project -by- project basis based upon the permit requirements established within the ZCU in order to ensure that the exposure of people /structures to potential adverse effects involving strong seismic ground shaking is minimized. Numerous controls would be imposed on future development through the permitting process. In general, the City regulates development (and reduces potential seismic hazards) under the requirements of the California Building Code (CBC), which was adopted by the City and known as the Newport Beach Building Code (NBMC Section 15.04.010, Adoption of the Califomia Building Code), the Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, local land use policies, and zoning, and project specific mitigation measures. The effects of ground shaking would be sufficiently mitigated for structures designed and constructed in conformance with current building codes and engineering standards. Moreover, future development would also be subject to compliance with General Plan policies that would serve to ensure geologic hazards such as strong seismic ground shaking are minimized. Namely, Policy S 4.1 requires regular update to building and fire codes to provide for seismic safety and design and Policies S 4.4 and S 4.5 serve to ensure that new development is not located in areas that would be affected by seismic hazards. Given that future development would undergo project -by- project review, be regulated by the CBC and NBMC, and be subject to compliance with General Plan policies, impacts involving the exposure of people /structures to strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant. 2' EIP Associates, City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update Draft EIR, Page 4.5 -14. JN 10. 105583 44 Initial Study /Negative Declaration o�aE`�Pr City of Newport Beach e� Zoning Code Update `= Initial Study /Negative Declaration �9<icoaaP Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required 4.6(a)(3) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact. Liquefaction can occur in loose soils in response to severe ground shaking. Liquefaction susceptibility is based on both geologic and geotechnical data. According to the GPEIR, the City is susceptible to liquefaction and ground failure in the coastline areas, including Balboa Peninsula, Newport Bay, Upper Newport, the lower reaches of major streams in Newport Beach, and the floodplain of the Santa Ana River. The majority of the City's mapped liquefiable area has been built upon. Earthquake- induced landslides of steep slopes occur in either bedrock or soils and can result in undermining of buildings, severe foundation damage and collapse. Hillside areas could pose a potential hazard from earthquake- induced landslides. The central and eastern areas of the City have been identified as vulnerable to seismically induced slope failure. Future development permitted by the ZCU could expose people or structures to adverse effects involving seismic - related liquefaction and /or landslides. However, the GPEIR concluded that compliance with applicable regulations, as well as General Plan policies, would ensure that impacts would be less than significant .22 As such, the exposure of people /structures to potential adverse effects involving seismic - related liquefaction or landslides from future development permitted by the ZCU were anticipated in the GP /GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed ZCU would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Future discretionary development would undergo environmental and /or development review on a project -by- project basis based upon the permit requirements established within the ZCU in order to ensure that the exposure of people /structures to potential adverse effects involving seismic - related liquefaction and landslides is minimized. Numerous controls would be imposed on future development through the permitting process. In general, the City regulates development (and reduces potential seismic hazards) under the requirements of the CBC, local land use policies, and zoning, and project specific mitigation measures. Compliance with the CBC standards would require an assessment of hazards related to landslides and liquefaction and the incorporation of design measures into structures to mitigate these hazards. Site - specific geotechnical studies would be required prior to development, in order to determine the soil properties and specific potential for liquefaction. Additionally, development proposed on steep terrain would require site - specific slope stability design, in order to ensure adherence to the standards contained in City Building Code Appendix Chapter A33, Excavation and Grading. The effects of liquefaction and landslides would be sufficiently mitigated for structures designed and constructed in conformance with current CBC and engineering standards. Additionally, the proposed ZCU includes revisions that would avoid or minimize impacts the exposure of people /structures to potential adverse effects involving seismic - related landslides. More specifically, the Bluff Overlay District was added to implement specific General Plan policies that require limiting development to ensure safety. The Fences, Hedges, Walls and Retaining Walls section was revised to limit the height of 22 Ibid., Page 4.5 -15. JN 10.105583 45 Initial Study /Negative Declaration cE agW RpRT o� o City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Update Initial Study /Negative Declaration G<ICOPPt retaining walls and require that they be terraced to help minimize alteration of slopes. Moreover, future development would also be subject to compliance with General Plan policies that would minimize the exposure of people /structures to potential adverse effects involving seismic - related liquefaction and landslides. Namely, Policies S 4.1 through S 4.6 require new development to be in compliance with the most recent seismic and other geologic hazard safety standards, and the protection of community health and safety through the implementation of effective, state of the art standards for seismic design of structures in the City. Given that future development would undergo project -by- project review, be regulated by the CBC and NBMC, and be subject to compliance with General Plan policies, impacts involving the exposure of people /structures to seismic - related liquefaction and landslide would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.6(a)(4) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides? Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response 4.6(a)(3). Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.6(b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact. Most of the City is built -out, therefore topsoil erosion is not an issue in the areas where topsoil is not exposed. However, soil erosion is a concern along the shoreline and for undeveloped areas within the City. Clearing, grading, and excavation associated with future development permitted by the ZCU could expose soils to minimal short-term erosion by wind and water, and loss of topsoil. Specific erosion impacts would depend largely on the areas affected and the length of time soils are subject to conditions that would be affected by erosion processes. However, the GPEIR concluded that compliance with applicable regulations, as well as General Plan policies, would ensure that impacts would be less than significant. 23 As such, soil erosion impacts from future development permitted by the ZCU were anticipated in the GP /GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed ZCU would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Future discretionary development would undergo environmental and /or development review on a project -by- project basis based upon the permit requirements established within the ZCU in order to ensure that substantial soil erosion would not occur. Compliance with NBMC Chapter 15.10, Excavation and Grading Code, would be required. Chapter 15.10 sets forth rules and regulations to control excavation, grading, drainage conditions, erosion control, earthwork construction, and the use of earth materials as a structural component; and provides for the approval of plans and inspection of grading construction and drainage control. Additionally, the proposed ZCU includes revisions that would minimize soil erosion. Namely, the ZCU adds the Landscaping Standards chapter, which provides landscape standards to control soil erosion. 23 Ibid., Page 4.5 -16. JN 10- 105583 46 Initial Study /Negative Declaration aEV voRr City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Update Initial Study /Negative Declaration G[lFORNP All demolition and construction activities within the City would be subject to compliance with the CBC, as follows: CBC Chapter 70. Standards that would ensure implementation of appropriate measures during grading activities to reduce soil erosion. CBC Chapter 33. Regulates excavation activities and the construction of foundations. • CBC Appendix Chapter 33. Regulates grading activities, including drainage and erosion control. Project sites encompassing an area of one or more acres would require compliance with a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and consequently the development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP); refer to Response 4.9(a) below. Moreover, future development would be subject to compliance with General Plan policies that would ensure that new development would not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. More specifically, Policies NR 3.11, NR 3.12, and NR 3.13 would require compliance with applicable local, State, or Federal laws, ensuring maximum practicable protection available for soils excavated during the construction and building associated with infrastructure. Given that future development would undergo project -by- project review, be regulated by the CBC, NBMC, and NPDES, and be subject to compliance with General Plan policies, impacts involving soil erosion would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.6(c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in an on -site or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Less Than Significant Impact. The majority of the City is underlain by compressible soils. Other soils in the City are low- density and /or manmade. The low- density soils are susceptible to liquefaction if sandy in nature and saturated in water. Manmade fill areas can be expansive depending on the type of fill used. The City is also underlain by geologic units, both surficial soils and bedrock that have fine- grained components that are moderate to highly expansive. Fine - grained soils are susceptible to expansion due to the clay components. Future discretionary development permitted by the ZCU could be located on an unstable geologic unit or soil, resulting in collapse, subsidence, differential settlement, lateral spreading, or heaving. However, the GPEIR concluded that compliance with Code requirements and General Plan policies would ensure that impacts would be less than significant.24 As such, the exposure of people /structures to potential adverse effects involving unstable geologic units /soils from future development permitted by the ZCU were anticipated in the GP /GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed ZCU would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Future development would undergo environmental and/or development review on a project -by- project basis based upon the permit requirements established within the ZCU in order to ensure that the exposure of people /structures to potential adverse effects involving unstable geologic 24Ibid., Page 4.5-17. JN 10- 105583 47 Initial Study /Negative Declaration Al aEWPpRT o� o City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Update )= Initial Study /Negative Declaration 9 units is minimized. An acceptable degree of soil stability can be achieved for expansive or compressible material through compliance with the CBC requirements. Also, a site - specific evaluation of soil conditions is required by the City Building Code and must contain recommendations for ground preparation and earthwork specific to the site, that become an integral part of the construction design. As part of the construction permitting process, the City requires completed reports of soil conditions at specific construction sites to identify potentially unsuitable soil conditions. Moreover, future development would be subject to compliance with General Plan policies that would minimize the exposure of people /structures to potential adverse effects involving unstable geologic units/soils. Policies S 4.1 through S 4.6 require new development to be in compliance with the most recent seismic and other geologic hazard safety standards. More specifically, compliance with Policies S 4.4 and S 4.6 would serve to ensure that development is not located on unstable soils or geologic units. Given that future development would undergo project -by- project review, be regulated by the CBC and NBMC, and be subject to compliance with General Plan policies, impacts involving the exposure of people /structures to unstable geologic units /soils would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.6(d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the California Building Code (2001), creating substantial risks to life or property? Less Than Significant Impact. Expansive soils have a significant amount of clay particles that give up water (shrink) or take on water (swell). The change in volume exerts stress on buildings and other loads placed on these soils. The City is underlain by materials that have a low to moderate expansion potential. The variation in expansion potential depends on the geologic or soil type present. Future development permitted by the ZCU could be located on expansive soils, creating substantial risk to life /property. However, the GPEIR concluded that compliance with Code requirements and General Plan policies would ensure that impacts would be less than significant.25 As such, the creation of substantial risk to life /property involving expansive soils from future development permitted by the ZCU were anticipated in the GP /GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed ZCU would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Future discretionary development would undergo environmental and /or development review on a project -by- project basis based upon the permit requirements established within the ZCU in addition to the requirements of the CBC and NBMC in order to ensure that risk to life /property from expansive soils is minimized. As part of the construction permitting process, the City requires completed reports of soil conditions at specific construction sites to identify potentially unsuitable soil conditions. The design of foundation support must conform to the analysis and implementation criteria described in CBC Chapter 15. Moreover, future development would be subject to compliance with General Plan Policies S 4.4 and S 4.6, which would serve to ensure that development is not located on unstable soils or geologic units. Given that future development would undergo project -by- project review, be regulated by the CBC and NBMC, and be subject to compliance with General Plan policies, impacts involving the creation of substantial risk to life /property from expansive soils would be less than significant. 25 Ibid., Page 4.5 -18. JN 10- 105583 48 Initial Study /Negative Declaration N ��aF.`X'PpRT �°<iroaN.r Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Update Initial Study /Negative Declaration 4.6(e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No Impact. Any future development would connect to the City's existing waste disposal system. Therefore, future projects would not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required JN 10- 105583 49 Initial Study /Negative Declaration P A j SEW PART o� City of Newport Beach '•�,,� Zoning Code Update = Initial Study /Negative Declaration �IF This page intentionally left blank JN 10- 105583 50 Initial Study /Negative Declaration n5alllcs� City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Update Initial Study /Negative Declaration. 4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS "MM M0,11 �A /d�reP�7e�'�ra*"' spa bra '"r'8f�nrfican '' 4 Srgnficant a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, ,t, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? T Impact Analysis 4.7(a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are gases in the atmosphere that absorb and emit radiation. The greenhouse effect traps heat in the troposphere through the following three -fold process: short wave radiation emitted by the Sun is absorbed by the Earth; the Earth emits a portion of this energy in the form of long wave radiation; and GHGs in the upper atmosphere absorb this long wave radiation and emit this long wave radiation into space and toward the Earth. This "trapping" of the long wave (thermal) radiation emitted back toward the Earth is the underlying process of the greenhouse effect. The main GHGs in the Earth's atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide (COA methane (CHA nitrous oxide (N20), ozone (03), hydrofluorocarbons (HCFs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SFG). Direct GHG emissions include emissions from construction activities, area sources, and mobile (vehicle) sources. Typically, mobile sources make up the majority of direct emissions. Indirect GHG emissions are generated by incremental electricity consumption and waste generation. Electricity consumption is responsible for the majority of indirect emissions. Regulatory Environment In June 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger established California's GHG emissions reduction targets in Executive Order S -3 -05. The Executive Order established the following goals: • GHG emissions should be reduced to 2000 levels by 2010; • GHG emissions should be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020; and • GHG emissions should be reduced to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. California further solidified its dedication to reducing GHGs by setting a new Low Carbon Fuel Standard for transportation fuels sold within the State in 2007 with Executive Order S -1 -07. Executive Order S -1 -07 sets a declining standard for GHG emissions measured in CO2 equivalent gram per unit of fuel energy sold in California. JN 10- 105583 51 Initial Study /Negative Declaration �aEW'Oa, 0 0 ,P �<IGO �N City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Update Initial Study /Negative Declaration In response to the transportation sector accounting for more than half of California's COZ emissions, Assembly Bill (AB) 1493 (AB 1493, Pavley) was enacted on July 22, 2002. AB 1493 required the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to set GHG emission standards for passenger vehicles, light duty trucks, and other vehicles whose primary use is noncommercial personal transportation in the State. Additionally, the California legislature enacted AB 32 (AB 32, Nunez) in 2006 to further the goals of Executive Order S -3 -05. AB 32 represents the first enforceable statewide program to limit GHG emissions from all major industries, with penalties for noncompliance. CARB adopted the AB 32 Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan) in December 2008 to achieve reductions in GHG emissions in California pursuant to the requirements of AB 32. The Scoping Plan contains the main strategies California will use to reduce GHG emissions. AB 32 requires California to reduce its GHG emissions by approximately 28 to 33 percent below business as usual. CARB has identified reduction measures to achieve this goal as set forth in the Scoping Plan. Per the Attorney General's Office, their recommended General Plan measures will reduce GHG emissions and the effects of climate change .2' Additionally, the Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwartzenegger at the Legislature (CAT Report) provides "overarching recommendations considered essential by the (Climate Action Team) in meeting the statewide climate change emissions reduction targets' and "lays out a path forward to ensure that California's climate change emission reduction targets are met." The CAT Report identifies strategies designed to reduce California's GHG emissions and meet AB 32 and Executive Order S -3 -05 goals. Therefore, compliance with all applicable CAT Report strategies and Attorney General's General Plan recommendations would ensure the proposed Project would help achieve the AB 32 and Executive Order S -3 -05 goals to reduce GHG emissions for California. Construction Emissions CEQA does not require an agency to evaluate an impact that is "too speculative ", provided that the agency identifies the impact, engages in a "thorough investigation" but is "unable to resolve an issue ", and then discloses its conclusion that the impact is too speculative for evaluation. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15145, Office of Planning and Research Commentary). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15146(b): An E1R on a project such as the adoption or amendment of a comprehensive zoning ordinance or a local general plan should focus on the secondary effects that can be expected to follow from the adoption or amendment, but the E1R need not be as detailed as an E1R on the specific construction projects that might follow. Construction of future development permitted by the ZCU would result in GHG emission from the use of construction equipment. However, details of these future construction activities are unknown at this time, and therefore, cannot be quantified. Compliance with General Plan Policies NR 8.1 to NR 8.5 would serve to reduce air emissions from construction activities. Therefore, compliance with GP Policies and standard SCAQMD regulations would reduce construction - related GHG emissions associated with future development to a level below "business as usual." 21 California Office of the Attorney General, Sustainability and General Plans: Examples of Policies to Address Climate Change, updated January 22, 2010. JN 10. 105583 52 Initial Study /Negative Declaration �gWPORT o� City of Newport Beach p °�^ Zoning Code Update u, Initial Study /Negative Declaration �94�a R�f Operational Impacts Area sources include emissions from natural gas combustion, hearth (wood stove /fireplaces), landscaping equipment, consumer products, and architectural coatings. Indirect sources include emissions from energy consumption and water conveyance. Mobile sources include emission from passenger vehicles and delivery trucks. Typically, mobile sources are the primary contributor of GHG emissions. However, consistent with the General Plan, the ZCU would discourage sprawl, promote mixed use development, and encourage public transportation. General Plan Policies NR 6.1 to 6.9, LU 5.3.1 to 5.3.3, 6.14.5, and 6.15.9, CE 5.1.1 to 5.1.16, and 6.2.1 to 6.2.3 are intended to reduce vehicle miles traveled and mobile source emissions by promoting mixed use development and encouraging alternative transportation modes (i.e., public transit, pedestrian, and bicycle). Also, General Plan Policies NR 1.1 to 1.5 address water conservation, and Policies NR 24.1 to 24.5 address energy efficiency and conservation. Additionally, the ZCU proposes residential use densities and non - residential use intensities within the various zoning districts that would be no greater than allowed by the GP Land Use Element. Therefore, compliance with GP Policies would reduce GHG emissions associated with future development allowed under the ZCU to below "business as usual" levels. Compliance with the Attorney General's Recommendations The California Office of the Attorney General has established recommended measures for projects to mitigate GHG emissions at the plan level.27 A list of the Attorney General's recommended measures and the project's compliance with each measure are listed in Table 4.7- 1, Proiect Compliance with the Attorney General's Recommendations. As noted above, ZCU consistency with GP Policies and existing regulations would reduce GHG emissions associated with future development permitted by the ZCU to a level below "business as usual." General Plan Policies establish smart growth principles, which would allow for mixed -use development, and would serve to reduce mobile source GHG emissions by encouraging alternative transportation modes that would result in a decrease in auto dependency and vehicle miles traveled. GP Policies would also serve to reduce GHG emissions associated with future development under the ZCU through energy and water efficiency and conservation measures. The ZCU would result in GHG emissions below "business as usual" levels. Therefore, the proposed ZCU would not generate GHG emissions that would substantially impact the environment, and the GHG reduction goals of AB 32 would not be hindered. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard. 4.7(b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Newport Beach does not have an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. As stated in Response 4.7(a), the General Plan Natural Resources, Land Use, and Circulation Elements include goals and policies addressing smart land use decisions, the reduction of vehicle miles traveled, and energy efficiency and conservation. Although the City does not have an applicable " Ibid. JN 10- 105583 53 Initial Study /Negative Declaration City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Update Initial Study /Negative Declaration GpcoaN•P plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, the sustainable development goals and policies established within the GP would result in GHG emissions below "business as usual" levels. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur. Table 4.7 -1 Project Compliance with the Attorney General's Recommendations rneral'ecommeadeds ea r u... ,. Z.= 2 ., , „rxa Smart growth, jobs /housing balance, transit - oriented Compliant. The proposed ZCU would be consistent with GP development, and infill development through land use Policies LU 5.3.1 to 5.3.3, 6.14.5, and 6.15.9, which address designations, incentives and fees, zoning, and public - private smart growth and mixed use developments. partnerships. Create transit, bicycle, and pedestrian connections through Compliant. The GP LU Policies referenced above would planning, funding, development requirements, incentives and serve to create opportunities for pedestrian friendly regional cooperation; create disincentives for auto use. developments that would result in a decrease in auto dependency. Also, Policies CE 5.1.1 to 5.1.16 and 6.2.1 to 6.2.3 would encourage alternative modes of transportation on the local and regional scale including pedestrian, bicycle, and transit, which would reduce vehicle miles traveled. Energy- and water - efficient buildings and landscaping through Compliant. The ZCU would be consistent with GP Policies ordinances, development fees, incentives, project timing NR 1.1 to 1.5, which address energy and water conservation prioritization, and other implementing tools. and efficient design features. Compliance with Policies NR 1.1 to 1.5 would result in reduced GHG emissions. Waste diversion, recycling, water efficiency, energy efficiency Compliant. The ZCU would be consistent with GP Policies and energy recovery in cooperation with public services NR 24.5, which allows for new methane extraction activities in districts and private entities. the City. Also, although the GP does not include Policies regarding solid waste, the City maintains a 52 percent diversion rate from Orange County landfills. The City has one composting facility, five recycling programs, and six programs specializing in source reduction. Additionally, the GP states that the City recycles over 25 percent of its residential waste stream, as well as 100 percent of the concrete, asphalt, and green and brown wastes generated by City operations. Urban and rural forestry through tree planting requirements Compliant. The ZCU would be consistent with Municipal and programs; preservation of agricultural land and resources Code Sections 13.08, Planting, and 13.09, Parkway Trees, that sequester carbon; heat island reduction programs, which include standards for tree planting, preservation, removal, and relocation. Also, the City's Street Trees Division is responsible for the maintenance and care of City trees, and the enforcement of the City's Tree Codes and Policies. Regional cooperation to find cross - regional efficiencies in GHG Compliant. Refer to responses above. reduction investments and to plan for regional transit, energy eneration, and waste recovery facilities. Source: California Office of the Attorney General, Sustainability and General Plans: Examples of Policies to Address Climate Change, updated January 22, 2010. JN 10405583 54 Initial Study /Negative Declaration a 4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Update Initial Study /Negative Declaration Impact Analysis 4.8(a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less Than Significant Impact. Many types of businesses utilize various chemicals and hazardous materials, and their routine business operations involve chemicals that are manufactured, warehoused, or transported. Currently, there are a variety of existing business operations in the City (commercial and industrial) that use, store, or transport hazardous substances, as well as generate hazardous waste. The secondary activities that would occur with residential, commercial, and industrial uses (e.g., building and landscape maintenance) would also involve the use of hazardous materials. Under the proposed ZCU, existing commercial zoning districts (RSC, RMC and APF) have been diversified. The existing retail districts (RSC and some RMC areas) are proposed CC (Commercial Corridor), CG Commercial General), CN (Commercial Neighborhood), CM (Commercial Recreational and Marine), and CV (Commercial Visitor - Serving). The existing office zoning district (APF) is proposed OA (Office — Airport), OG (Office — General), OM (Office — JN 10. 105583 55 Initial Study /Negative Declaration �x rte" rx t �yfiy a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous T materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions T involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile T of an existing or proposed school? d. Be located on a site, which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to T the public or the environment? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or ,I, public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for le residing or working in the project area? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in T the project area? g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted ,I, emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? K.— Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving vnldland fires, including where wildlands are ,r adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Impact Analysis 4.8(a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less Than Significant Impact. Many types of businesses utilize various chemicals and hazardous materials, and their routine business operations involve chemicals that are manufactured, warehoused, or transported. Currently, there are a variety of existing business operations in the City (commercial and industrial) that use, store, or transport hazardous substances, as well as generate hazardous waste. The secondary activities that would occur with residential, commercial, and industrial uses (e.g., building and landscape maintenance) would also involve the use of hazardous materials. Under the proposed ZCU, existing commercial zoning districts (RSC, RMC and APF) have been diversified. The existing retail districts (RSC and some RMC areas) are proposed CC (Commercial Corridor), CG Commercial General), CN (Commercial Neighborhood), CM (Commercial Recreational and Marine), and CV (Commercial Visitor - Serving). The existing office zoning district (APF) is proposed OA (Office — Airport), OG (Office — General), OM (Office — JN 10. 105583 55 Initial Study /Negative Declaration �`' \•l�n - City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Update u it Initial Study /Negative Declaration N` Medical), and OR (Office — Regional). Additionally, the existing industrial zoning districts (M -1, M- 1-A and IBP) are proposed to condense into the IG (Industrial Zoning District). Therefore, both residential and non - residential development permitted by the ZCU could require or engage in operations that involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, potentially creating a significant hazard to the public and/or environment. The types and quantities of hazardous materials utilized by the various types of businesses that could locate in the City would vary and, as a result, the nature of potential hazards would also be varied. However, the GPEIR concluded oversight by the appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies and compliance by new development with applicable regulations related to the handling and storage of hazardous materials would minimize the risk of the public's potential exposure to these substances, resulting in less than significant impacts .28 Development permitted by the ZCU was considered in the GPEIR analysis, since additional development was assumed and there are no proposed changes to zoning districts that would result in increased densities /intensities that were not included in the GP. As such, potential impacts involving the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials from future development permitted by the ZCU were anticipated in the GP /GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed ZCU would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Future discretionary development would undergo environmental and /or development review on a project -by- project basis based upon the permit requirements established within the ZCU in order to minimize risks involving the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. While the risk of exposure to hazardous materials cannot be eliminated, measures can be implemented to maintain risk to acceptable levels. All future development within the City would be subject to compliance with existing regulations, standards, and guidelines established by the Federal, State, and local agencies related to storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials. Specifically, future development within the City would be subject to compliance with the environmental programs administered by the Orange County Health Care Agency or the Orange County Fire Authority. The Hazardous Waste Inspection Program requires that all hazardous wastes that would be generated by City businesses be properly handled, recycled, treated, stored, and disposed. Compliance with the Underground Storage Tank Inspection Program would ensure that hazardous materials stored in underground tanks are not released into the groundwater and /or the environment, and compliance with the Aboveground Petroleum Storage Tank (APST) Program would protect people and natural resources from aboveground petroleum storage tank spills or releases. Compliance with the Hazardous Materials Disclosure /Business Plan Program requires a chemical inventory form (on a Hazardous Materials Disclosure Form) to disclose hazardous materials stored, used, or handled on site. Additionally, preparation of a Business Emergency Plan (BEP) would be required, in order to assure that businesses have appropriate procedures and policies in place, and employees and contractors have adequate training for responding to a hazardous materials incident at the facility. Compliance with these programs would assist in mitigating a release or threatened release of a hazardous material and minimize any potential harm or damage to human health or the environment. Compliance with the City's Emergency Operations Plan would also be required. Future development would also be subject to compliance with General Plan policies that would minimize potential impacts involving the routine transport, use, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials. Namely, Policy S 7.3 would serve to educate residents and businesses about how to reduce or eliminate their use of hazardous materials. Policy S 7.6 requires that all users, 28 EIP Associates, City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update Draft EIR, Page 4.6 -19. JN 10- 105583 56 Initial Study /Negative Declaration > City of Newport Beach agW PpR O m Zoning Code Update `= Initial Study /Negative Declaration producers, and transporters of hazardous materials and wastes clearly identify the materials that they store, use, or transport, and to notify the appropriate City, County, State and Federal agencies in the event of a violation. Given that future development would undergo project -by- project review, be regulated by the existing regulatory framework, and be subject to compliance with General Plan policies, impacts involving the routine transport, use, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.8(b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. Human exposure to hazardous substance could occur through accidental release. Incidents that result in an accidental release of hazardous substance into the environment can cause contamination of soil, surface water, and groundwater, in addition to any toxic fumes that might be generated. If not cleaned up immediately and completely, the hazardous substances can migrate into the soil or enter a local stream or channel causing contamination of soil and water. Human exposure of contaminated soil or water can have potential health effects on a variety of factors, including the nature of the contaminant and the degree of exposure. Short -Tenn Accidental Release of Hazardous Materials Short-term construction related activities associated with future development permitted by the ZCU could release hazardous materials into the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions. Hazardous material issues may exist relating to commercial /industrial sites and old buildings. Demolition. Existing structures may need to be demolished prior to construction of new buildings. Demolition of structures could expose construction personnel and the public to hazardous substances such as asbestos containing materials (ACM) or lead -based paints (LBP), depending on the age of the structure. Further, the potential exists that construction activities may release potential contaminants that may be present in building materials (e.g., mold, lead, etc.). Federal and State regulations govern the renovation and demolition of structures where ACMs and LBPs are present. All demolition that could result in the release of ACMs or LBPs must be conducted according to Federal and State standards. The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) mandates that building owners conduct an asbestos survey to determine the presence of ACMs prior to the commencement of any remedial work, including demolition. If ACM material is found, abatement of asbestos would be required prior to any demolition activities. Compliance with the recommended mitigation regarding the requirement for an asbestos survey and asbestos abatement, as well as compliance with SCAQMD Rule 1403, would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. Soil and Groundwater Contamination in Unknown Contaminated Sites. Grading and excavation for future development could expose construction workers and the public to unidentified hazardous substances present in the soil or groundwater. Exposure to contaminants could occur if the contaminants migrated to surrounding areas or if contaminated zones were disturbed at the contaminated location. Exposure to hazardous substances is considered potentially significant. JN 10- 105583 57 Initial Study /Negative Declaration F NgvVPDRT o <�o i- 3l � City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Update Initial Study/Negative Declaration Additionally, the potential exists for unidentified underground storage tanks (USTs) to be present on a development site. Removal activities could pose risks to workers and the public. Potential risks would be minimized by managing the tank according to existing Orange County Health Care Agency's standards. Potential impacts to groundwater would be dependant on the type of contaminant, the amount released, and depth to groundwater at the time of the release. Long -Tenn Accidental Release of Hazardous Materials Long -term operations of future land uses permitted by the ZCU could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. The specific potential future increase in the amount of hazardous materials transported within and through the City, as a result of future development cannot be predicted, since specific development projects are not identified. Typical incidents that could result in accidental release of hazardous materials involve: • Leaking underground storage tanks; • Spills during transport; • Inappropriate storage; • Inappropriate use; and /or • Natural disasters. If not cleaned up immediately and completely, these and other types of incidents could cause contamination of soil, surface water, and groundwater, in addition to any toxic fumes that might be generated. Depending on the nature and extent of the contamination, groundwater supplies could become unsuitable for use as a domestic water source. Human exposure to contaminated soil or water could have potential health effects depending on a variety of factors, including the nature of the contaminant and the degree of exposure. Leaking Storage Tanks. Chemicals and wastes stored in aboveground or underground storage tanks would follow guidelines mandated by the California State Water Resources Control Board. Compliance with the Underground Storage Tank Inspection Program would ensure that hazardous materials stored in underground tanks are not released into the groundwater and /or the environment, and compliance with the Aboveground Petroleum Storage Tank (APST) Program would protect people and natural resources from aboveground petroleum storage tank spills or releases. Off -Site Transport. Transportation of hazardous materials can result in accidental spills, leaks, toxic releases, fire, or explosion. The potential exists for licensed vendors to transport hazardous materials to and from the City's new commercial sites. Accidental releases would most likely occur in the commercial areas /industrial areas and along transport routes leading to and from these areas. The USDOT Office of Hazardous Materials Safety prescribes strict regulations for the safe transportation of hazardous materials, as described in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and implemented by Title 13 of the CCR. Storage and Use /Handling. Hazardous materials must be stored in designated areas designed to prevent accidental release to the environment. California Building Code (CBC) requirements prescribe safe accommodations for materials that present a moderate explosion hazard, high fire or physical hazard, or health hazards. Compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local JN 10- 105583 58 - Initial Study/Negative Declaration dEW �Rr o� o City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Update = Initial Study /Negative Declaration G< /FOPN laws related to the storage of hazardous materials would be required to maximize containment and provide for prompt and effective clean -up, if an accidental release occurs. Hazardous materials use /handling would present a slightly greater risk of accident than hazardous materials storage. However, for those employees who would work with hazardous materials, the amount of hazardous materials that are handled at any one time are generally relatively small, reducing the potential consequences of an accident during handling. All future development within the City would be subject to compliance with the CalARP, which requires any business that handles more than threshold quantities of a Regulated Substance (RS) to develop a Risk Management Plan (RMP). The RMP is implemented by the business to prevent or mitigate releases of regulated substances that could have off -site consequences. Additionally, as discussed above, all future development within the City would be subject to compliance with the Hazardous Waste Inspection Program, which requires that all hazardous wastes that would be generated by Newport Beach businesses be properly handled, recycled, treated, stored, and disposed. Compliance with the Hazardous Materials Disclosure /Business Plan Program requires a chemical inventory form (on a Hazardous Materials Disclosure Form) to disclose hazardous materials stored, used, or handled on site. Emergency Response. Preparation of a Business Emergency Plan (BEP) would be required, in order to assure that businesses have appropriate procedures and policies in place, and employees and contractors have adequate training for responding to a hazardous materials incident at the facility. Compliance with these programs would assist in mitigating a release or threatened release of a hazardous material and minimize any potential harm or damage to human health or the environment. Compliance with the City's Emergency Operations Plan would also be required. The Orange County Fire Authority Haz -Mat personnel would respond to hazardous materials incidents. Major hazardous materials accidents associated with industrial and retail - commercial uses are infrequent, and it is not anticipated additional emergency response capabilities would be necessary, in order to respond to the potential incremental increase in the number of incidents that could result from future development within the City. The GPEIR concluded compliance with existing regulations and General Plan policies, and implementation of established safety practices, procedures, and reporting requirements, would ensure that construction workers and the general public would not be exposed to any unusual or excessive risks related to hazardous materials during construction activities, and reduce the risk of upset involving routine hazardous materials use, transportation, and handling. Impacts were concluded as less than significant .29 Development permitted by the ZCU was considered in the GPEIR analysis, since additional development was assumed and there are no proposed changes to zoning districts that would result in increased densities /intensities that were not included in the GP. As such, potential impacts associated with the creation of a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment from future development permitted by the ZCU were anticipated in the GP /GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed ZCU would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. "Ibid., Page 4.6 -22 and 23. JN 10- 105583 59 Initial Study /Negative Declaration �Rr o� o City of Newport Beach ,, '•,,� Zoning Code Update '= Initial Study /Negative Declaration Future discretionary development would undergo environmental and /or development review on a project -by- project basis based upon the permit requirements established within the ZCU in order to minimize risks due to reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials. While the risk of exposure to hazardous materials cannot be eliminated, measures can be implemented to maintain risk to acceptable levels. Oversight by the appropriate agencies and compliance with measures established by Federal, State, and local regulatory agencies is considered adequate to offset the negative effects related to the reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials in the City. Future development would also be subject to compliance with General Plan policies that would minimize potential impacts involving hazardous materials; refer to Response 4.8(a). Given that future development would undergo project -by- project review, be regulated by the existing regulatory framework, and be subject to compliance with General Plan policies, impacts due to the creation of a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.8(c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less Than Significant Impact There are schools located throughout the City of Newport Beach. As discussed in Response 4.7.a, construction and operations of various uses permitted by the ZCU could involve the routine use of hazardous materials. Hazardous materials could be used during construction of commercial uses within the City, including the use of standard construction materials, cleaning and other maintenance products, and diesel and other fuels. Additionally, future commercial development may include businesses that utilize chemicals and hazardous materials, and their routine business operations involve chemicals that are manufactured, warehoused, or transported. The secondary activities that would occur with commercial and residential uses (e.g., building and landscape maintenance) would also involve the use of hazardous materials. Therefore, the possibility exists that construction or routine operations associated with future development in the City would involve transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, within one - quarter mile of an existing school. The GPEIR concluded compliance with the provisions of the City's Fire Code and implementation of General Plan policies would minimize the risks associated with the exposure of sensitive receptors (i.e., schools) to hazardous materials. This impact would be less than significant.30 Development permitted by the ZCU was considered in the GPEIR analysis, since additional development was assumed and there are no proposed changes to zoning districts that would result in increased densities /intensities that were not included in the GP. As such, potential impacts from future development permitted by the ZCU associated with hazardous emissions or hazardous materials in proximity to a school were anticipated in the GP /GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed ZCU would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Although hazardous materials and waste generated from future development may pose a health risk to nearby schools, disclosure to the OCFA (on a Hazardous Materials Disclosure Form) is 30Ibid., Page 4.6 -26. JN 10- 106683 60 Initial Study /Negative Declaration �gwaogT o° City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Update Initial Study /Negative Declaration required for any business that uses, handles, or stores hazardous materials or waste materials equal to or in excess of the basic quantities. Among other requirements, businesses must also prepare a BEP, in order to ensure that businesses have appropriate procedures and policies in place, and employees and contractors have adequate training for responding to a hazardous materials incident at the facility. The short- and long -term transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials would be subject to a wide range of laws and regulations intended to minimize potential health risks associated with their use or the accidental release of such substances. Future discretionary development would undergo environmental and /or development review on a project -by- project basis based upon the permit requirements established within the ZCU. Oversight by the appropriate agencies and compliance with measures established by Federal, State, and local regulatory agencies is considered adequate to offset the negative effects associated with the exposure of sensitive receptors (i.e., schools) to hazardous materials. Future development would also be subject to compliance with General Plan policies that would minimize potential impacts involving hazardous materials; refer to Responses 4.8(a) and 4.8(b). Given that future development would undergo project -by- project review, be regulated by the existing regulatory framework, and be subject to compliance with General Plan policies, potential impacts involving hazardous emissions or hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.8(d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Less Than Significant impact. According to GPEIR Section 4.6, there are various hazardous material sites located within the City. Potential hazards to construction workers and the public may occur from construction activities on existing sites that may be contaminated; refer to Response 4.8(b). Future development of any of these documented hazardous materials sites would require prior remediation and cleanup under the supervision of the DTSC, in order to meet Federal, State, and local standards. Since the proposed ZCU does not include any specific development projects, future development would be evaluated on a project -by- project basis to determine if such sites are listed on a current regulatory hazardous materials site list. The GPEIR concluded compliance with the established regulations and implementation of General Plan policies would minimize the risks associated with development of contaminated site, and impact would be less than significant .31 Development permitted by the ZCU was considered in the GPEIR analysis, since additional development was assumed and there are no proposed changes to zoning districts that would result in increased densities /intensities that were not included in the GP. As such, potential impacts from future development permitted by the ZCU involving contaminated sites were anticipated in the GP /GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed ZCU would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. 31 Ibid., Page 4.6-26. JN 10- 105583 61 Initial Study /Negative Declaration ,� dEW ART o �e u ,ls CRIFOPNJ City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Update Initial Study /Negative Declaration Future discretionary development would undergo environmental and /or development review on a project -by- project basis based upon the permit requirements established within the ZCU in order to minimize risks involving development of a contaminated site. Development of these sites would be required to undergo remediation and cleanup under DTSC and the SARWQCB before construction activities can begin. Future development would also be subject to compliance with General Plan policies. Namely, Policy S 7.1 requires proponents of projects in known areas of contamination from oil operations or other uses to perform comprehensive soil and groundwater contamination assessments in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials standards. Given that future development would undergo project -by- project review, be regulated by the existing regulatory framework, and be subject to compliance with General Plan policies, potential impacts involving development on a contaminated site would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.8(e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Less Than Significant Impact. The southeastern portion of John Wayne Airport borders the City of Newport Beach. Additionally, the City lies under the arrival traffic pattern for the Long Beach Airport. While aviation accidents with one or more fatalities are rare events, development permitted by the ZCU could expose people residing or working in the City to aviation hazards from local airports. The GPEIR concluded compliance with existing regulations and General Plan policies, and utilization of the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook for new development within JWA land use boundaries would minimize impacts associated with JWA operations on surrounding land uses, and impacts would be less than significant. 32 Development permitted by the ZCU was considered in the GPEIR analysis, since additional development was assumed and there are no proposed changes to zoning districts that would result in increased densities /intensities that were not included in the GP. As such, potential impacts to future development involving aviation hazards were anticipated in the GP /GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed ZCU would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Future discretionary development would undergo environmental and /or development review on a project -by- project basis based upon the permit requirements established within the ZCU in order to ensure that potential impacts involving aviation hazards are minimized. All land uses surrounding JWA would be subject to the land use standards established in the City's Municipal Code and the Airport Land Use Commission's (ALUC) JWA "Airport Environs Land Use Plan" ( AELUP). The AELUP vicinity height guidelines would protect public safety, health, and welfare by ensuring that aircraft could fly safely in the airspace around the airport. Additionally, the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook would be utilized in the preparation of environmental documents for all new development located within the AELUP boundaries. The Handbook establishes statewide requirements for the conduct of airport land use compatibility planning, and provides compatibility planning guidance to ALUCs, their staffs and consultants, the 12Ibid., Page 4.6-29. JN 10- 105583 62 Initial Study /Negative Declaration oe`'�WPORT _ City of Newport Beach ' Zoning Code Update "2 Initial Study /Negative Declaration Cg4FOM1�,P counties and cities having jurisdiction over airport area land uses, and airport proprietors. The City's Emergency Management Plan also establishes safety procedures with respect to aviation hazards. Future development would also be subject to compliance with General Plan policies that would minimize impacts involving aviation - related hazards. Namely, General Plan Policies S 8.1 though S 8.4 would ensure preparation and minimize risk in the case of an aviation accident. LU Policy 6.15.24 requires that all development be constructed within the height limits and residential uses be located outside of areas exposed to the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour specified by the AELUP, unless the City Council makes appropriate findings for an override in accordance with applicable law. Given that future development would undergo project -by- project review, and be subject to compliance with the established regulations and General Plan policies, impacts involving aviation - related hazards would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.8(f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. There are no private airstrips located within the City of Newport Beach. Development permitted by the ZCU would not expose people residing or working in the City to aviation hazards from a private airstrip. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.8(g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less Than Significant Impact. Future development permitted by the ZCU could increase traffic volumes and may impede the rate of evacuation, in the event of an accident or natural disaster. The GPEIR concluded compliance with the General Plan policies would reduce impacts associated with emergency response and evacuation in the City to a less than significant level .33 Development permitted by the ZCU was considered in the GPEIR analysis, since additional development was assumed and there are no proposed changes to zoning districts that would result in increased densities /intensities that were not included in the GP. As such, potential impacts to future development associated with emergency response and evacuation were anticipated in the GP /GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed ZCU would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Future discretionary development would undergo environmental and /or development review on a project -by- project basis based upon the permit requirements established within the ZCU in order to ensure that potential impacts involving aviation hazards are minimized. Additionally, the City would continue to implement its Emergency Management Plan, which guides the City's response to extraordinary emergency situations. Moreover, General Plan Policies S 9.1, S 9.2, and S 9.3 would serve to ensure that the City's Emergency Management Plan is regularly updated, provides for efficient and orderly citywide evacuation, and also ensures that emergency services personnel are familiar with the relevant response plans applicable to the City. Given that future development would undergo project -by- project review, and be subject to the City's EMP and General Plan policies, impacts involving emergency response and evacuation would be less than significant. 33 Ibid., Page 4.6 -29. JN 10- 105583 63 Initial Study /Negative Declaration �FW�RT o e City Newport peach Zoning Code Update Initial Study /Negative Declaration GtrOaNS Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required 4.8(h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Less Than Significant Impact. Areas susceptible to wildland fires are located in the eastern portions of the City, as well as surrounding areas to the north, east, and southeast. Future development permitted by the ZCU could increase residential or commercial development in areas susceptible to wildland fires, exposing people or structures to a significant risk. The GPEIR concluded compliance with the General Plan policies would reduce impacts associated with the exposure of people and structures to risk involving wildland fires to a less than significant level.34 Development permitted by the ZCU was considered in the GPEIR analysis, since additional development was assumed and there are no proposed changes to zoning districts that would result in increased densitiesfintensities that were not included in the GP. As such, potential impacts to future development associated with the exposure to wildland fires were anticipated in the GP /GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed ZCU would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Future discretionary development would undergo environmental and /or development review on a project -by- project basis based upon the permit requirements established within the ZCU in order to ensure that potential impacts involving the exposure to wildland fires is minimized. In areas susceptible to wildland fires, land development is governed by special State and local codes, and property owners are required to follow maintenance guidelines aimed at reducing the amount and continuity of the fuel (vegetation) available. The City also maintains hazard reduction standards, which regulate landscaping, firewood storage, debris clearing from rooftops, and other fire hazard reduction techniques. Moreover, compliance with General Plan Policies S 6.1 to S 6.9 would serve to reduce the threat of fire hazards within the City. In particular, Policy S 6.2 would implement hazard reduction, fuel modification, and other methods to reduce wildfire hazards. Given that future development would undergo project -by- project review, and be subject to compliance with the General Plan policies, potential impacts involving the exposure of people and structures to risk from wildland fires would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 34 Ibid., Page 4.6 -30. JN 10- 106583 64 Initial Study /Negative Declaration agwAOgr o� m City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Update i Initial Study /Negative Declaration �trsoaa•P 4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Impact Analysis 4.9(a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less Than Significant Impact. As part of Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established regulations under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) program to control direct storm water discharges. In California, the State Water Resources Control Board ( SWRCB) administers the NPDES permitting program and is responsible for developing NPDES permitting requirements. The NPDES program regulates industrial pollutant discharges, which include construction activities. The SWRCB works in coordination with the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) to preserve, protect, enhance, and restore water quality. The City of Newport Beach is within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana RWQCB (SARWQCB). JN 10- 105583 65 Initial Study /Negative Declaration T � a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge .t, r uirements? b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of preexisting T nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c. Substantially after the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, in ,t, a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, ,t, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or offsite? e. Create or contribute runoff which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide T substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? T g. Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or T other flood hazard delineation map? h. Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures, which would .t, impede or redirect flood flows? i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure T of a levee or dam? j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? T Impact Analysis 4.9(a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less Than Significant Impact. As part of Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established regulations under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) program to control direct storm water discharges. In California, the State Water Resources Control Board ( SWRCB) administers the NPDES permitting program and is responsible for developing NPDES permitting requirements. The NPDES program regulates industrial pollutant discharges, which include construction activities. The SWRCB works in coordination with the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) to preserve, protect, enhance, and restore water quality. The City of Newport Beach is within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana RWQCB (SARWQCB). JN 10- 105583 65 Initial Study /Negative Declaration T � O�aEwPORT City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Update Initial Study/Negative Declaration `9G1F00.N`P Short -Term Construction The SWRCB adopted NPDES General Permit No. CAS000002, Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) for Discharges of Stormwater Runoff Associated With Construction Activity (General Construction Permit). Construction sites with 1.0 acre or greater of soil disturbance or less than 1.0 acre, but part of a greater common plan of development, are required to apply for coverage for discharges under the General Construction Permit by submitting a Notice of Intent (NOI) for coverage, developing a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP), and implementing Best Management Practices (BMPs) to address construction site pollutants. Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground such as stockpiling or excavation, but does not include regular maintenance activities. Construction activities from future development permitted by the ZCU would be subject to compliance with NBMC Chapter 14.36, Water Quality, NBMC Chapter 15.10, Excavation and Grading Code, and NPDES requirements. Prior to issuance of any Grading or Building Permit, and as part of the future development's compliance with the NPDES requirements, a NOI would be prepared and submitted to the Santa Ana RWQCB providing notification and intent to comply with the General Construction Permit. Also, a SWPPP would be submitted and approved by the Director of Public Works and the City Engineer for water quality construction activities onsite. A copy of the SWPPP would be made available and implemented at the construction site at all times. The SWPPP is required to outline the source control and /or treatment control BMPs to avoid or mitigate runoff pollutants at the construction site to the "maximum extent practicable." Additionally, through the City's development review process, future projects would be evaluated for potential site - specific water quality impacts from construction activities. Compliance with NBMC Chapters 14.36 and 15.10, and NPDES requirements would reduce short-term construction - related impacts to water quality to a less than significant level. Long -Term Operations The Municipal Storm Water Permitting Program regulates storm water discharges from municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s). The RWQCBs have adopted NPDES storm water permits for medium and large municipalities. Most of these permits are issued to a group of co- permittees encompassing an entire metropolitan area. The SARWQCB issued the permit governing the public storm drain system discharges in northern Orange County from the storm drain systems owned and operated by the Orange County cities and Orange County (collectively "the Co- permittees"). This permit regulates storm water and urban runoff discharges from development to constructed and natural storm drain systems in the City of Newport Beach. Among other requirements, the NPDES permit specifies requirements for managing runoff water quality from new development and significant redevelopment projects, including specific sizing criteria for treatment BMPs. To implement the requirements of the NPDES permit, the Cc- permittees have developed the Orange County Stormwater Program 2003 Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP), which includes a New Development/ Significant Redevelopment Program. The New Development/Significant Redevelopment Program provides a framework and a process for following the NPDES permit requirements and incorporates watershed protection /storm water quality management principles into the Co- Permittees' General Plan process, environmental review process, and development permit approval process. Local jurisdictions, including the City of Newport Beach, have adopted a Local Implementation Plan (LIP) based upon the County's JN 10. 105583 66 Initial Study/Negative Declaration ra e= o °r�W�Rr City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Update `= Initial Study /Negative Declaration G < /F00.N\ DAMP, which includes a Model Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). Using the local LIP (City of Newport Beach Stormwater LIP) as a guide, the City would review and approve project - specific WQMPs, as part of the development plan and entitlement approval process for discretionary projects, prior to issuing permits for ministerial projects. More specifically, prior to issuance of any Grading Permit; future development would be required to prepare a WQMP, which includes both Structural and Non - Structural BMPs in order to comply with the requirements of the current DAMP and NPDES. Compliance with NBMC Chapters 14.36 and 15.10, and NPDES requirements would reduce long -term impacts to water quality to a less than significant level. The GPEIR concluded compliance with NPDES requirements, the Orange County DAMP, the NBMC, and General Plan Policies would reduce the risk of water degradation within the City from the operation of new developments to the maximum extent practicable. Therefore, since violation of waste discharge requirements or water quality standards would be minimized, this impact would be less than significant.35 Development permitted by the ZCU was considered in the GPEIR analysis, since additional development was assumed and there are no proposed changes to zoning districts that would result in increased densities /intensities that were not included in the GP. As such, potential violations to water quality standards from future development permitted by the ZCU were anticipated in the GP /GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed ZCU would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Future discretionary development would undergo environmental and /or development review on a project -by- project basis based upon the permit requirements established within the ZCU in order to ensure that impacts involving violations of waste discharge requirements or water quality standards would be minimized. Additionally, future development would be subject to compliance with General Plan policies. In particular, Policies NR 3.1 through NR 5.4 would serve to limit the use of landscape chemicals detrimental to water quality, require development to result in no degradation of natural water bodies, require new development applications to include a WQMP to minimize construction and post- construction runoff, implement and improve BMPs, require all street drainage systems to be designed to minimize adverse impacts on water quality, and require grading /erosion control plans with structural BMPs that prevent or minimize erosion. Implementation of General Plan Policy NR 3.21 would serve to minimize the creation of impervious surfaces, while increasing the area of pervious surfaces, where feasible. Given that future development would undergo project -by- project review, be regulated by the NPDES, DAMP, and the NBMC, and subject to compliance with General Plan policies impacts involving water quality standards or waste discharge requirements would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.9(b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? 31 Ibid., Page 4.7 -32. JN 10- 105583 67 Initial Study /Negative Declaration aEW PORT o� @ City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Update s Initial Study /Negative Declaration 4` Less Than Significant Impact. Groundwater within the City is shallow and can occur as shallow as 50 beneath ground surface. During construction, the groundwater table could be encountered during pile driving, dewatering, and other construction activities. However, given that the City is primarily a built -out area, and that development permitted by the ZCU would generally consist of infill and redevelopment, the displaced /removed volume from these activities would not be substantial relative to the Orange County Groundwater Basin's water volume. Therefore, future development permitted by the ZCU would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. Groundwater recharge is derived from percolation of Santa Ana River flow, injection into wells, and infiltration of precipitation. The City of Newport Beach is not located within an identified recharge area for groundwater. Future development would not interfere significantly with recharge as the City does not contribute a significant amount to the Santa Ana River flow, there are no injection wells in the City. Additionally, since the City is primarily a built -out area and development permitted by the ZCU would generally consist of infill and redevelopment, the amount of impervious surfaces would not change significantly. Water service is provided by the City, Irvine Ranch Water District, and the Mesa Consolidated Water District. Future development permitted by the ZCU would increase the demand for groundwater. However, the GPEIR concluded groundwater supplies would meet projected demands throughout the City, and compliance with General Plan policies would reduce water consumption to ensure adequate groundwater supplies .36 Development permitted by the ZCU was considered in the GPEIR analysis, since additional development was assumed and there are no proposed changes to zoning districts that would result in increased densities /intensities that were not included in the GP. As such, potential impacts to groundwater supplies due to water consumption from future development permitted by the ZCU were anticipated in the GP /GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed ZCU would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Future discretionary development would undergo environmental and /or development review on a project -by- project basis based upon the permit requirements established within the ZCU in order to determine potential impacts on groundwater supplies. Additionally, future development would be subject to compliance with General Plan policies (refer to Response 4.17(b)), policies designed to minimize water consumption and expand the use of alternative water sources to provide adequate water supplies for present use and future growth. Given that future development would undergo project -by- project review and be subject to compliance with General Plan policies, impacts to groundwater supplies would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.9(c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, in a manner, which would result insubstantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? Less Than Significant Impact. Construction activities of future development could temporarily alter existing drainage patterns through earth - disturbing activities. Future development would also alter drainage through changes in ground surface permeability and changes in topography. 36 ibid., Page 4.7 -33. JN 10- 106683 68 Initial Study /Negative Declaration o�aE.vroRr City of Newport Beach n Zoning Code Update s Initial Study /Negative Declaration c�p['ORRP However, the GPEIR concluded compliance with NPDES and NBMC regulations, in addition to implementation of General Plan policies would reduce impacts involving alterations to the existing drainage patterns from new developments to a less than significant level.37 Development permitted by the ZCU was considered in the GPEIR analysis, since additional development was assumed and there are no proposed changes to zoning districts that would result in increased densities /intensities that were not included in the GP. As such, potential impacts due to alterations of drainage patterns from future development permitted by the ZCU were anticipated in the GP /GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed ZCU would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Future discretionary development would undergo environmental and/or development review on a project -by- project basis based upon the permit requirements established within the ZCU in order to minimize potential impacts due to alterations of drainage patterns. Additionally, future development would be subject to compliance with General Plan policies (i.e. Policies NR 3.10 to NR 3.12, NR 4.4, NR 3.16, NR 3.20, NR 3.21, and S 5.3), which would serve to minimize potential impacts due to alterations of drainage patterns. Given that future development would undergo project -by- project review and be subject to compliance with NPDES requirements and General Plan policies, potential impacts due to alterations of drainage patterns would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.9(d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off -site? Less Than Significant Impact. Given that the City is primarily a built -out area, it is anticipated that future development permitted by the ZCU would generally consist of infill and redevelopment. As such, new development would not substantially alter drainage patterns, because these areas are already developed with existing uses and impervious surfaces. Similarly, the increase in impervious surfaces would be limited, and thus, the increase stormwater runoff would not be substantial, such that the capacity of existing and planned infrastructure would be exceeded, and flooding impacts would occur downstream. Therefore, Project implementation would not substantially alter the existing drainage patterns, and would not result in flooding. Refer also to Response 4.8.c. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.9(e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Responses 4.9(a), 4.9(c), and 4.9(d) Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 37 Ibid., Page 4.7 -34. JN 10- 105583 69 Initial Study /Negative Declaration a Initial of Newport Beach ning Code Update aative Declaration 4.9(0 Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Responses 4.9(a) and 4.9(c). Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.9(g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Less Than Significant Impact. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) prepares and maintains Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS), which show the extent of Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) and other thematic features related to flood risk, in participating jurisdictions. To receive insurance benefits in the event of flood, participating agencies must recognize these official flood boundaries and establish appropriate land use policy for the flood zones. GPEIR Figure 4.7 -3, Flood Zones, illustrates the City's 100- and 500 -year flood Zones. As indicated by Figure 4.7 -3, the City's coastline and areas of Newport Bay are located within a 100 - year flood zone, where the potential for private property flooding exists. The 100 -year flood (one percent annual chance flood), also known as the base flood, is the flood that has a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. This SFHA is the area subject to flooding by the one percent annual chance flood. Future development permitted by the ZCU could place structures or housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area. Moreover, flood waters that exceed the capacities of existing and improved drainages would travel by overland flow on any available grounds. Building density permitted by the ZCU is not anticipated to increase to such an extent that would substantially increase obstructions to flood flows. Notwithstanding, the GPEIR concluded compliance with General Plan policies and NBMC standards would sufficiently protect new structures from damage in the event of a 100 -year flood and would ensure flows are not substantially impeded or redirected. Therefore, impacts of flood hazards or impeding /redirecting flows would be less than significant.38 Development permitted by the ZCU was considered in the GPEIR analysis, since additional development was assumed and there are no proposed changes to zoning districts that would result in increased densities /intensities that were not included in the GP. As such, exposure of people or structures from future development permitted by the ZCU to potential substantial adverse effects involving flood hazards were anticipated in the GP /GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed ZCU would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Future discretionary development would undergo environmental and /or development review on a project -by- project basis based upon the permit requirements established within the ZCU in order to ensure that historic resources are not adversely impacted. Further, NBMC Chapter 15.50 establishes methods and provisions that would minimize flood damage to residential development. A water displacement analysis would be required to investigate the effect of new structural development or fill on flooding depth, pursuant to FEMA regulation 44 CFR 60.3 (c)(10). Future development would also be subject to General Plan policies that would protect human life 3a Ibid., Pages 4.7 -38 and 39. JN 10- 105583 70 Initial Study /Negative Declaration City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Update Initial Study /Negative Declaration <IF00.0. and public and private property from the risks of flooding. Namely, Policy S 5.1 requires all new development within 100 -year flood zones to mitigate flood hazards by including onsite drainage systems that are connected to the City's storm drain system, grading of sites within the project area such that runoff does not impact adjacent properties, or elevating buildings above flood levels. If building pads are elevated out of the floodplain, a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) would be required from FEMA that certifies the land has been elevated out of the floodplain. Floodproofing measures included in the General Plan and NBMC would be sufficient to protect new structures from damage in the event of a 100 -year flood. Given that future development would undergo project -by- project review, be regulated by the Federal /State regulatory framework, and be subject to compliance with General Plan policies, impacts to historic resources would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.9(h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? Less Than Significant Impacts. Refer to Response 4.9(g) Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.9(i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Less Than Significant Impact. There are several dams located in the City's vicinity. Specifically, the City is located downstream of Prado Dam, Santiago Creek Reservoir, Villa Park Reservoir, San Joaquin Reservoir, Big Canyon Reservoir, and Harbor View Reservoir. The areas of the City that would be impacted to inundation include the areas near the Santa Ana River, San Diego Creek, Newport Bay, and Big Canyon Reservoir. The probability of dam failure is 10w.39 Future development permitted by the ZCU would not increase the risk of dam failure and flooding, however, the number of people exposed to this hazard would increase. Compliance with the NBMC and General Plan policies would reduce the exposure of people or structures to risk due to failure of a dam to less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.9(j) Inundation byseiche, tsunami, ormudflow? Less Than Significant Impact. According to the GPEIR, potential risks from seiche and tsunami exist throughout the City. Seiches in large, enclosed bodies of water, such as the reservoirs in the City and, to an extent, Newport Harbor and Newport Bay, would inundate immediate areas surrounding the body of water. Coastal flood hazards, such as tsunamis and rogue waves, would inundate primarily the low -lying areas of the City's coastline. Potential risks from mudflow (i.e., mudslide, debris flow) are also prevalent, as steep slopes exist throughout the City. Prolonged rainfall during certain storm events would saturate and could eventually loosen soil, resulting in slope failure. 39 Ibid., Page 4.7 -40. JN 10- 105583 71 Initial Study /Negative Declaration n�(Uo City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Update Initial Study /Negative Declaration Development permitted by the ZCU would increase the exposure of people to the low- probability but high -risk events such as seiche, tsunami, and mudflows by increasing development in certain areas of the City. However, the GPEIR concluded risks associated with inundation by seiche, tsunami, and mudflow are considered to be less than significant following compliance with General Plan policies .4' Development permitted by the ZCU was considered in the GPEIR analysis, since additional development was assumed and there are no proposed changes to zoning districts that would result in increased densities /intensities that were not included in the GP. As such, risks associated with inundation by seiche, tsunami, and mudflow to the future development permitted by the ZCU were anticipated in the GP /GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed ZCU would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Future discretionary development would undergo environmental and /or development review on a project -by- project basis based upon the permit requirements established within the ZCU in order to ensure that historic resources are not adversely impacted. Implementation of General Plan Policies S 1.1 through S 1.5 would serve to minimize adverse effects of coastal hazards related to tsunamis and rogue waves. In addition, Policies S 2.1 through S 2.7 would minimize adverse effects of coastal hazards related to storm surges and seiches. Given that future development would undergo project -by- project review, and be subject to compliance with General Plan policies, potential impacts involving inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 40Ibid., Page 4.741. JN 10- 105583 72 Initial Study /Negative Declaration A aEWPpRT o � City Newport Beach Zoning Code Update i Initial Study /Negative Declaration G4roa�P 4.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING �.. NS..`"("'F .d k ? � k '# 4`"S 9 A .uYi+e'..y Ay-#y '�.. af' S "i �s•'�.'F�YR 7 a. Physically divide an established community? T b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with junsdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, speck plan, local coastal program, or T zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or miticatinq an environmental effect? c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? T Impact Analysis 4.10(a) Physically divide an established community? Less Than Significant Impact. Given that the City is primarily a built -out area, it is anticipated that future development permitted by the ZCU would generally consist of infill and redevelopment. Therefore, development permitted by the ZCU would not physically divide an established community. Additionally, the GPEIR concluded the types of development proposed by the General Plan would not divide established communities and impacts would be less than significant .41 Development permitted by the ZCU was considered in the GPEIR analysis, since additional development was assumed and there are no proposed changes to zoning districts that would result in increased densities /intensities that were not included in the GP. As such, the potential impacts of future development permitted by the ZCU dividing an established community were anticipated in the GP /GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed ZCU would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.10(b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less Than Significant Impact. Development within the City of Newport Beach is required to comply with several regional and local land use plans, policies, and regulations. These include the 2003 Air Quality Management Plan, 1999 Amendment for Ozone, SCAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide, Santa Ana River Basin Plan, City of Newport Beach Zoning Code, Newport Beach CLOP, specific plans adopted by the City, and the AELUP for John Wayne Airport. The proposed ZCU would not change or conflict with these plans. Moreover, the proposed Zoning Code would not supersede any other regulations or requirements adopted or 41 Ibid., Page 4.8 -16. JN 10- 105583 73 Initial Study /Negative Declaration RE gW Pp City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Update Initial Study /Negative Declaration w` imposed by the City, the State of California, or any federal agency that has jurisdiction by law over uses and development. There would be no impact in this regard. The City's General Plan is consistent with the 2003 Air Quality Management Plan and SCAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide, with the exception of mitigating traffic volumes on freeway ramps. The General Plan is also consistent with the Santa Ana Basin Plan, since all future development is required to comply with all applicable water quality requirements established by the Santa Ana and San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) and State Water Resources Control Boards (SWRCB). The City of Newport Beach Zoning Code (NBMC Title 20, Planning and Zoning) is one of the primary means for implementing the General Plan. Adoption of the General Plan requires a review of the Zoning Code regarding policies pertaining to land use, density /intensity, design and development, resource conservation, public safety, and other pertinent topics in an effort to ensure consistency between the General Plan and the Zoning Code. Several modifications to the Zoning Code are proposed, in order to ensure compatibility with the General Plan. These modifications are discussed in Section 2.0, Project Description. The Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) was prepared as required by the California Coastal Act of 1976. The CLUP sets forth goals, objectives, and policies that govern the use of land and water in the coastal zone within the City of Newport Beach. The General Plan was prepared to comply and incorporate the CLUP. The AELUP for John Wayne Airport contains policies that govern the land uses surrounding the airport. These policies establish development criteria that protect sensitive receptors from airport noise, persons from risk of operations, and height guidelines to ensure aircraft safety. The AELUP establishes height restrictions for buildings surrounding John Wayne Airport and establishes a 65 dBA CNEL noise contour in which residential uses should be not be constructed. If development would occur within the 65 dBA CNEL contour, the General Plan would be inconsistent with the AELUP. If the City Council were to approve such development, a significant impact would result. Implementation of the General Plan would be consistent with applicable adopted plans, regulations, or policies, other than the AELUP (if the City were to adopt residential development projects within the 65 dBA contour). The GPEIR concluded the General Plan would not be inconsistent with applicable adopted plans, regulations, or policies (excepting the AELUP). Therefore, impacts associated with potential inconsistencies with all other applicable land use plans for the City would be less than significant .42 Development permitted by the ZCU was considered in the GPEIR analysis, since additional development was assumed and there are no proposed changes to zoning districts that would result in increased densities /intensities that were not included in the GP. As such, the potential impacts of future development permitted by the ZCU conflicting with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation were anticipated in the GP /GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed ZCU would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Therefore, impacts associated with potential inconsistencies with all other applicable land use plans for the City resulting from the proposed ZCU would be less than significant. 42 Ibid., Page 4.8 -23. JN 10- 105583 74 Initial Study /Negative Declaration H SEW FART o� @ City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Update Initial Study /Negative Declaration Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.10(c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Impact. Future Refer to Response 4.4(f). Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. JN 10- 105583 75 Initial Study /Negative Declaration I �aEWPORr City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Update _ Initial Study /Negative Declaration 14 This page intentionally left blank JN 10- 105583 76 Initial Study /Negative Declaration 4.11 MINERAL RESOURCES City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Update Initial Study /Negative Declaration Impact Analysis 4.11(a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact. GPEIR Figure 4.5 -4, Mineral Resource Areas, illustrates the City's mineral resource areas. As indicated by Figure 4.5 -4, the City does not have any land classified as MRZ -2; rather, it is classified by mineral resource zones MRZ -1 and MRZ -3. Development permitted by the ZCU could affect the availability of oil and gas produced in these areas. However, the GPEIR concluded General Plan implementation would not result in the loss of the availability of known mineral resources that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State, following compliance with General Plan policies and no impact would occur. 43 Development permitted by the ZCU was considered in the GPEIR analysis, since additional development was assumed and there are no proposed changes to zoning districts that would result in increased densities /intensities that were not included in the GP. As such, the potential impacts of future development permitted by the ZCU resulting in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource were anticipated in the GP /GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed ZCU would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Future discretionary development would undergo environmental and /or development review on a project -by- project basis based upon the permit requirements established within the ZCU in order to ensure that future development permitted by the ZCU would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. Future development would also be subject to General Plan Policy NR 19.4, which encourages consolidation of existing oil and gas activities, and ensures that access to these resources would not be altered. General Plan policies do not require that existing operations cease production, however, compliance with Policies NR19.1 through 19.4 would prohibit additional, future oil extraction within the City and oppose new offshore oil and gas drilling activities. Given that future development would undergo project -by- project review, and be subject to compliance with General Plan policies, the ZCU would not result in the loss of availability of mineral resources. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 43 Ibid., Page 4.5 -31. JN 10. 105583 77 Initial Study /Negative Declaration Yee , te$$ ft � t� Vo7dfrepro � { Off ; In ,���f, r cane ^�r rF � S � € e i ampaew tdr at19, Impa _ fr <4 �'.� S ,er•^. ;.n ¢� � Inrio�o � K��� R W dF��� £.x .. a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? T b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific T Ian or other land use Ian? Impact Analysis 4.11(a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact. GPEIR Figure 4.5 -4, Mineral Resource Areas, illustrates the City's mineral resource areas. As indicated by Figure 4.5 -4, the City does not have any land classified as MRZ -2; rather, it is classified by mineral resource zones MRZ -1 and MRZ -3. Development permitted by the ZCU could affect the availability of oil and gas produced in these areas. However, the GPEIR concluded General Plan implementation would not result in the loss of the availability of known mineral resources that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State, following compliance with General Plan policies and no impact would occur. 43 Development permitted by the ZCU was considered in the GPEIR analysis, since additional development was assumed and there are no proposed changes to zoning districts that would result in increased densities /intensities that were not included in the GP. As such, the potential impacts of future development permitted by the ZCU resulting in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource were anticipated in the GP /GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed ZCU would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Future discretionary development would undergo environmental and /or development review on a project -by- project basis based upon the permit requirements established within the ZCU in order to ensure that future development permitted by the ZCU would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. Future development would also be subject to General Plan Policy NR 19.4, which encourages consolidation of existing oil and gas activities, and ensures that access to these resources would not be altered. General Plan policies do not require that existing operations cease production, however, compliance with Policies NR19.1 through 19.4 would prohibit additional, future oil extraction within the City and oppose new offshore oil and gas drilling activities. Given that future development would undergo project -by- project review, and be subject to compliance with General Plan policies, the ZCU would not result in the loss of availability of mineral resources. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 43 Ibid., Page 4.5 -31. JN 10. 105583 77 Initial Study /Negative Declaration �cFW�RT City of Newport Beach `@ Zoning Code Update u )= Initial Study /Negative Declaration 4.11(b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally - important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact. Refer to Response 4.11(a). Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. JN 10- 105583 78 Initial Study /Negative Declaration j w4 � aEW ART u, s �P �<iFORN 4.12 NOISE City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Update Initial Study /Negative Declaration S Y '�i.� � . •i y ✓ �[uS. `%:r� Po Y.e i1 :�,s ,A .T'AL k�W' 2EA ^' 3� l 0 l' �'.'i -r Potenha�l� �nrtir��t tesshan `� .�'` i a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, T or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or roundborne noise levels? T c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the -- project Vicinity above levels existing without the project? T d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the T project? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public .I, airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or workinq in the project area to excessive noise levels? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to T excessive noise levels? State of California Guidelines The State of California Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Noise Element Guidelines include recommended interior and exterior level standards for local jurisdictions to identify and prevent the creation of incompatible land uses due to noise. The OPR Guidelines describe the compatibility of various land uses with a range of environmental noise levels in terms of dBA CNEL. The State of California Office of Noise Control has established guidelines for acceptable community noise levels. The State Office of Noise Control defines an outdoor level of 60 dBA CNEL or less as being "normally acceptable" for residential uses. Table 4.12 -1, Noise and Land Use Compatibility Matrix, illustrates the State guidelines established by the State Department of Health Services for acceptable noise levels for each county and city. These standards and criteria are incorporated into the land use planning process to reduce future noise and land use incompatibilities. This table is the primary tool that allows the City to ensure integrated planning for compatibility between land uses and outdoor noise. As shown in Table 4.12 -1, the acceptable noise levels for residences are up to 65 A- weighted decibels (dBA) on the community noise equivalent level (CNEL) scale; up to 70 dBA CNEL for schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and nursing homes; and up to 75 dBA CNEL for office and commercial uses. The exterior noise standard is 65 dBA; the interior noise standard is 45 dBA. JN 10- 105583 79 Initial Study /Negative Declaration (,)N City of Newport Beach t Zoning Code Update Initial Study /Negative Declaration �4raoa�� Table 4.12 -1 Noise and Land Use Compatibility Matrix R 107 i ro �f(T k k .F3 + � rte, Residential - Low Density Single-Family, Duplex, Mobile Home Residential - Multi-family Commercial - Motels, Hotels, Transient Lodging Schools, Churches, Libraries, Hospitals, Nursing Homes Am hitheaters, Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Meeting Halls Sports Arenas, Outdoor Spectator Sports Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation, Cemeteries Office Buildings, Business, Commercial, Professional, and Mixed -Use Developments Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture CNEL = community noise equivalent level. ❑ Normally Acceptable- Specific land use is satisfactory, based on the assumption that any building is of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements. Conditionally Acceptable - New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning, will normally suffice. Normally Unacceptable - New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features must be included in the design. clearly Unacceptable - New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. City of Newport Beach Noise Standards The City maintains a comprehensive Noise Ordinance within its Municipal Code (Chapter 10.26, Community Noise Control) that establishes citywide interior and exterior noise level standards. The ordinance is intended to control unnecessary, excessive and annoying noise in the City. Section 10.26.020, Designated Noise Zones, establishes the following noise zones, based on the actual use of a property: • Noise Zone I: All single -, two- and multiple - family residential properties; • Noise Zone 11: All commercial properties; • Noise Zone III: The residential portion of mixed -use properties; and • Noise Zone IV: All manufacturing or industrial properties. Additionally, Sections 10.26.025 and 10.26.030, establish exterior and interior noise standards, respectively; refer to Table 4.12 -2, Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Standards. JN 10- 105583 80 Initial Study /Negative Declaration W aEW"ea o�o City Newport Beach ,. •� Zoning Code Update 'r Initial Study /Negative Declaration QG /cORNr Table 4.12 -2 Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Standards Pursuant to NBMC Section 10.26.035, Exemptions, the following activities, among others, shall be exempted from the provisions of this chapter: • Noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, demolition or grading of any real property. Such activities shall instead be subject to the provisions of NBMC Chapter 10.28; Noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, demolition or grading of public rights -of -way or during authorized seismic surveys. Additionally, NBMC Chapter 10.28, Loud and Unreasonable Noise, declares: It is unlawful for any person or property owner to make, continue, cause or allow to be made any loud, unreasonable, unusual, penetrating or boisterous noise, disturbance or commotion which annoys, disturbs, injures or endangers the comfort, repose, health, peace and quiet within the limits of the City, and the acts and things listed in this chapter, among others, are declared to be loud, disturbing, injurious and unreasonable noises in violation of this Chapter, but shall not be deemed to be exclusive. NBMC Section 10.28.040, Construction Activity - Noise Regulations, specifies the following: A. Weekdays and Saturdays. No person shall, while engaged in construction, remodeling, digging, grading, demolition, painting, plastering or any other related building activity, operate any tool, equipment or machine in a manner which produces loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb, a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, on any weekday except between the hours of seven a.m. and six - thirty p.m., nor on any Saturday except between the hours of eight a.m. and six p.m. B. Sundays and Holidays. No person shall, while engaged in construction, remodeling, digging, grading, demolition, painting, plastering or any other related building activity, operate any tool, equipment or machine in a manner which produces loud noise that JN 10- 105583 81 Initial Study /Negative Declaration ltk3 ;�Allawaii77fxtenorN4tgeLevel4 Y -i 2s, dYji, 3thi, .xi`' X A T�lowa elute ©orNgis�LevCt� r ryp&o# La'ndUse %i p4Y�len� lotse Cevel �Leg1 f[ t s vel�L , f Single -, two-or multiple - family residential 55 DBA 50 DBA 45 DBA 40 DBA II Commercial 65 DBA 60 DBA III Residential portions of mixed- use properties 60 DBA 50 DBA 45 DBA 40 DBA IV Industrial or manufacturing 70 DBA 70 DBA Source: NBMC Section 10.26.025, Exterior Noise Standards, and Section 10.26.030, Interior Noise Standards. Pursuant to NBMC Section 10.26.035, Exemptions, the following activities, among others, shall be exempted from the provisions of this chapter: • Noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, demolition or grading of any real property. Such activities shall instead be subject to the provisions of NBMC Chapter 10.28; Noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, demolition or grading of public rights -of -way or during authorized seismic surveys. Additionally, NBMC Chapter 10.28, Loud and Unreasonable Noise, declares: It is unlawful for any person or property owner to make, continue, cause or allow to be made any loud, unreasonable, unusual, penetrating or boisterous noise, disturbance or commotion which annoys, disturbs, injures or endangers the comfort, repose, health, peace and quiet within the limits of the City, and the acts and things listed in this chapter, among others, are declared to be loud, disturbing, injurious and unreasonable noises in violation of this Chapter, but shall not be deemed to be exclusive. NBMC Section 10.28.040, Construction Activity - Noise Regulations, specifies the following: A. Weekdays and Saturdays. No person shall, while engaged in construction, remodeling, digging, grading, demolition, painting, plastering or any other related building activity, operate any tool, equipment or machine in a manner which produces loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb, a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, on any weekday except between the hours of seven a.m. and six - thirty p.m., nor on any Saturday except between the hours of eight a.m. and six p.m. B. Sundays and Holidays. No person shall, while engaged in construction, remodeling, digging, grading, demolition, painting, plastering or any other related building activity, operate any tool, equipment or machine in a manner which produces loud noise that JN 10- 105583 81 Initial Study /Negative Declaration ltk3 �aEWPOR> o <•e � e /GOM1M`P Initial of Newport Beach ning Code Update gative Declaration disturbs, or could disturb, a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, on any Sunday or any federal holiday. C. No landowner, construction company owner, contractor, subcontractor, or employer shall permit or allow any person or persons working under their direction and control to operate any tool, equipment or machine in violation of the provisions of this section. Significance of Changes in Ambient Noise Levels Changes of 5.0 dBA or greater may be noticed by some individuals and, therefore, may be considered an environmental impact, since under these conditions sporadic complaints may occur. Changes in community noise levels of less than 3.0 dBA are normally not noticeable and are therefore considered less than significant.44 Areas where ambient noise levels exceed the established standards or where sensitive land uses are exposed to levels in excess of 60 dBA. These areas generally occur along freeways, toll roads, arterial and secondary roadways where noise barriers have not been constructed. Impact Analysis 4.12(a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less Than Significant Impact. Future development permitted by the ZCU would involve construction activities and operations, which would generate both short-term and long -term noise impacts. Short-term noise impacts could occur during grading and construction. Construction activities have the potential to expose adjacent land uses to noise levels between 70 and 90 decibels at 50 feet from the noise source. Construction activities associated with future development are anticipated to temporarily exceed the City's noise standards. The degree of noise impact would be dependent upon the distance between the construction activity and the noise sensitive receptor. Long -term noise impacts would be associated with vehicular traffic to /from the site (including residents, visitors, patrons), outdoor activities, and stationary mechanical equipment on site. To determine long -term noise levels and project - related impacts, specific information is needed for a particular project. Additionally, the GPEIR concluded the exposure of existing land uses to noise levels in excess of City standards as a result of the future growth under the General Plan is considered a significant impact45 Development permitted by the ZCU was considered in the GPEIR analysis, since additional development was assumed and there are no proposed changes to zoning districts that would result in increased densities /intensities that were not included in the GP. As such, potential noise impacts from future development permitted by the ZCU were anticipated in the GP /GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed ZCU would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. 44 Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, Fundamentals and Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise, 1973. 45 EIP Associates, City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update Draft EIR, Page 4.9 -22. JN 10- 105583 82 Initial Study /Negative Declaration gWPp City of Newport Beach Zoning ode Update u s Initial Study /Negegatiti ve Declaration Cy<l GOA�`f Future discretionary development would undergo environmental and/or development review on a project -by- project basis based upon the permit requirements established within the ZCU in order to ensure that noise standards are not exceeded. Future development would be required to comply with City, State, and Federal guidelines regarding vehicle noise, roadway construction, and noise abatement and insulation standards. This would ensure that noise levels in Newport Beach are maintained within acceptable standards that prevent extensive disturbance, annoyance, or disruption. Individual assessments of potential impacts from project - related noise sources may be required. If necessary, mitigation would be required to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. Additionally, the proposed ZCU includes revisions to avoid or mitigate noise impacts. Namely, the ZCU Noise section adds provisions for the review of proposed projects to avoid or mitigate impacts, establishes thresholds of significance pursuant to the Noise Element, and promotes compatibility between land uses. The proposed ZCU is consistent with and augments the standards within NBMC Chapters 10.26. Future development would also be subject to compliance with General Plan Policies N 1.1 to N 1.8 and N 2.1 to N 2.6, which would sere to reduce noise impacts to future land uses. Given that future development would undergo project -by- project review, be regulated by NBMC requirements, and be subject to compliance with General Plan policies, impacts involving the exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.12(b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. Construction activities associated with the future development permitted by the ZCU could expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration; refer also to GPEIR Table 4.9 -7. Additionally, the GPEIR concluded when construction vibration occurs, impacts would be significant.46 Development permitted by the ZCU was considered in the GPEIR analysis, since additional development was assumed and there are no proposed changes to zoning districts that would result in increased densities /intensities that were not included in the GP. As such, potential vibration impacts from future development permitted by the ZCU were anticipated in the GP /GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed ZCU would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Given that future development would undergo project -by- project review and be regulated by NBMC, impacts involving the exposure of persons to or generation of excessive vibration would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.12(c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response 4.12(a) Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 46 ]bid., Page 4.9 -29. JN 10- 105583 83 Initial Study /Negative Declaration EWPo F`' a City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Update "z Initial Study /Negative Declaration 4.12(d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response 4.12(a). Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.12(e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. GPEIR Figure 4.9 -6, Future Noise Contours — Northern Planning Area, indicates that the 60 and 65 dBA CNEL noise contour for JWA extends into Newport Beach. Future sensitive receptors permitted by the ZCU developed within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour could be exposed to noise levels in excess of allowable standards. Additionally, the GPEIR concluded impacts on exterior noise levels at new land uses in the vicinity of the airport would be significant, although, compliance with General Plan policies would ensure that impacts on interior noise levels would be less than significant.47 Development permitted by the ZCU was considered in the GPEIR analysis, since additional development was assumed and there are no proposed changes to zoning districts that would result in increased densities /intensities that were not included in the GP. As such, potential airport- related noise impacts to future development permitted by the ZCU were anticipated in the GP /GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed ZCU would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Future discretionary development would undergo environmental and /or development review on a project -by- project basis based upon the permit requirements established within the ZCU in order to ensure that airport- related noise impacts are avoided or minimized. All land uses surrounding JWA would be subject to the land use standards established in the NBMC and the AELUP addressing airport- related noise. Additionally, the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook would be utilized in the preparation of environmental documents for all new development located within the AELUP boundaries. Future development would also be subject to compliance with General Plan Policy N 3.2, which requires that any residential or sensitive noise uses to be located within the 60 dBA or 65 dBA CNEL airport noise contour maintain an interior noise level of 45 dBA CNEL. Compliance with Policies N 3.1 and N 3.2 would serve to ensure new development is compatible with the noise environment by using the airport noise contour maps as guides to future planning and development decisions and require that any residential or sensitive noise uses be located within the 60 dBA or 65dBA CNEL airport noise contour maintain an interior noise level of 45 dBA CNEL, respectively. Given that future development would undergo project - by- project review, and be subject to compliance with the established regulations and General Plan policies, impacts involving aviation -noise would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 47 Ibid., Page 4.9 -35, JN 10- 105583 84 Initial Study /Negative Declaration BI �gW?ORT City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Update s Initial Study /Negative Declaration C'�4F0QH`' 4.12(1) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. There are no private airstrips within the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, no impacts would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. JN 10- 105583 85 Initial Study /Negative Declaration 161 � rgW �Rr u ,i Col /FOM1N`P JN 10- 105683 This page intentionally left blank 86 City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Update Initial Study /Negative Declaration Initial Study /Negative Declaration City of Newport Beach EWPp Zoning Code Update = Initial Study /Negative Declaration c 4.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING 4.93(a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Less Than Significant Impact. The City's existing population, as of January 2010 is 86,738 persons.48 A project could induce population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure). Although, the ZCU does not infer direct development rights, future development permitted by the ZCU could induce population growth in the City through the anticipated construction of housing. Additionally, the GPEIR concluded General Plan buildout would increase the number of dwelling units by 14,215 units (35 percent) over 2002 conditions, for a total of 54,394 units.49 As a result, the City's population could increase by 31,131 persons (43 percent), for a total population of 103,753 persons at General Plan buildout. Additionally, because the General Plan implementation would substantially increase population growth within the City (approximately 37 percent over existing conditions and approximately 10 percent higher than existing SCAG projections), the GPEIR concluded impacts on population growth would be considered significant. Development permitted by the ZCU was considered in the GPEIR analysis, since additional development was assumed and there are no proposed changes to zoning districts that would result in increased densities /intensities that were not included in the GP. As such, potential population growth in the City from future development permitted by the ZCU was anticipated in the GP /GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed ZCU would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Therefore, Project implementation would not induce substantial population growth in the City. Development permitted by the ZCU would generally consist of infill and redevelopment served by existing roads and infrastructure. Project implementation would not require extension of public infrastructure (i.e., any transportation facility or public utility), or provision of new public services. The roads providing access are fully improved. Public utilities would be extended to the future 48 State of California, Department of Finance, E -5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2001 -2010, with 2000 Benchmark. Sacramento, California, May 2010. 49 Ibid., Page 4.10 -6. JN 10. 105583 87 Initial Study /Negative Declaration e. a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly T for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replace ent housing elsewhere? T C. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? T 4.93(a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Less Than Significant Impact. The City's existing population, as of January 2010 is 86,738 persons.48 A project could induce population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure). Although, the ZCU does not infer direct development rights, future development permitted by the ZCU could induce population growth in the City through the anticipated construction of housing. Additionally, the GPEIR concluded General Plan buildout would increase the number of dwelling units by 14,215 units (35 percent) over 2002 conditions, for a total of 54,394 units.49 As a result, the City's population could increase by 31,131 persons (43 percent), for a total population of 103,753 persons at General Plan buildout. Additionally, because the General Plan implementation would substantially increase population growth within the City (approximately 37 percent over existing conditions and approximately 10 percent higher than existing SCAG projections), the GPEIR concluded impacts on population growth would be considered significant. Development permitted by the ZCU was considered in the GPEIR analysis, since additional development was assumed and there are no proposed changes to zoning districts that would result in increased densities /intensities that were not included in the GP. As such, potential population growth in the City from future development permitted by the ZCU was anticipated in the GP /GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed ZCU would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Therefore, Project implementation would not induce substantial population growth in the City. Development permitted by the ZCU would generally consist of infill and redevelopment served by existing roads and infrastructure. Project implementation would not require extension of public infrastructure (i.e., any transportation facility or public utility), or provision of new public services. The roads providing access are fully improved. Public utilities would be extended to the future 48 State of California, Department of Finance, E -5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2001 -2010, with 2000 Benchmark. Sacramento, California, May 2010. 49 Ibid., Page 4.10 -6. JN 10. 105583 87 Initial Study /Negative Declaration e. ��a6`K'PORT O �a �<lFOR��' development from existing facilities. Public service establishment of new sources of serve would not be would not induce indirect population growth in the infrastructure, or provision of new services. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. Initial of Newport Beach ning Code Update gative Declaration s are provided throughout the City and the required. Therefore, project implementation City through extension of roads or other 4.13(b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The City's existing housing stock, as of January 2010 is 43,515 units.50 Given that the City is primarily a built -out area, and it is anticipated that future development permitted by the ZCU would generally consist of infill and redevelopment, the ZCU would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing or persons. Additionally, the GPEIR concluded the General Plan does not propose uses that would displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people, therefore, there would be no impact.57 Development permitted by the ZCU was considered in the GPEIR analysis, since additional development was assumed and there are no proposed changes to zoning districts that would result in increased densities /intensities that were not included in the GP. As such, potential impacts involving the displacement of housing or persons from future development permitted by the ZCU was anticipated in the GP /GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed ZCU would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Therefore, Project implementation would not displace a substantial number of housing or persons. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.13(c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. Refer to Response 4.13(b). Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 50 State of California, Department of Finance, E -5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2001 -2010, with 2000 Benchmark. Sacramento, California, May 2010. " EIP Associates, City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update Draft EIR, Page 4.10 -6. A 10- 105583 88 Initial Study /Negative Declaration t. agW PORT City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Update Initial Study /Negative Declaration GlIF00.�P , 4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES aM odldthepro�ect , #, +F �� ' Pote aJ "v4P� tcLessThanT Sfg r iant1�i �nrficaM t T ��'` Io�. a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: 1) Fire protection? T 2) Police protection? T 3) Schools? T 4) Parks? T 5) Other public facilities? T Impact Analysis 4.14(a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: 4.14(a)(1) Fire protection? Less Than Significant Impact. Fire protection services are provided by the Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD). The NBFD's service goals are based on acceptable service levels, such as five - minute response times for fire engines at a fire or medical aid event and eight- minute response times for first - arriving fire engine for a paramedic unit. The NBFD is currently operating at an acceptable level. Future development permitted by the ZCU would increase the demand for fire protection services in the City, and may require improvements to existing facilities or increases in staffing and equipment. The environmental impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities would be dependent upon the location and nature of the proposed facilities, and would undergo separate environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines. Additionally, the GPEIR concluded compliance with applicable General Plan policies would ensure impacts involving fire protection services remain less than significant.52 Development permitted by the ZCU was considered in the GPEIR analysis, since additional development was assumed and there are no proposed changes to zoning districts that would result in increased 521bid., Page 4.11 -10. JN 10- 105583 89 Initial Study /Negative Declaration � ciEW PO,gT •6 U ? C"C/F00.N�F Initial of Newport Beach ning Code Update gative Declaration densities /intensities that were not included in the GP. As such, potential impacts to fire protection services from future development permitted by the ZCU were anticipated in the GP /GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed ZCU would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Future discretionary development would undergo environmental and /or development review on a project -by- project basis based upon the permit requirements established within the ZCU in order to ensure potential impacts to fire protection services are minimized. Additionally, future development permitted by the ZCU would be subject to compliance with applicable Federal, State, and local regulations governing the provision of fire protection services (i.e., fire access, fire flows, hydrants). The City adopted the International Fire Code (2006 Edition) and the California Fire Code (2007 Edition); refer to NBMC Chapter 9.04, Fire Code. These include construction standards for new structures and remodels that address road widths and configurations, and requirements for minimum fire flow rates. Future development would also be subject to compliance with General Plan Policy LU 3.2, which requires that adequate infrastructure be provided as new development occurs. Thus, fire staffing and facilities would be expanded commensurately to serve the needs of new development to maintain the current response time. Policy S6 -18 ensures that building and fire codes will be continually updated to provide for fire safety design. Given that future development would undergo project -by- project review, and be subject to compliance with the established Fire Code regulations and General Plan policies, impacts involving fire protection services would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.14(a)(2) Police protection? Less Than Significant Impact. The Newport Beach Police Department (NBPD), Costa Mesa Police Department (CMPD), and the Orange County Sheriff Department (OCSD) provide police protection services to the City of Newport Beach. Currently, the City does not have staffing standards. The NBPD provides a ratio of 1.7 officers per 1,000 residents. This ratio allows the NBPD to meet the needs of permanent and transient population, which can increase to 200,000 people in one day. Future development permitted by the ZCU could increase the demand for police protection services in the City, and may require improvements to existing facilities or increases in staffing and equipment. The environmental impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police protection facilities would be dependent upon the location and nature of the proposed facilities, and would undergo separate environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines. Additionally, the GPEIR concluded maintaining the current service ratio and compliance with applicable General Plan policies would ensure impacts involving police protection services remain less than significant. 53 Development permitted by the ZCU was considered in the GPEIR analysis, since additional development was assumed and there are no proposed changes to zoning districts that would result in increased densities /intensities that were not included in the GP. As such, potential impacts to police protection services from future development permitted by the ZCU were anticipated in the GP /GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed ZCU would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. 53 Ibid., Page 4.11 -16. JN 10- 105583 90 Initial Study /Negative Declaration s EWPp City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Update Initial Study /Negative Declaration C /FOM1N Future discretionary development would undergo environmental and /or development review on a project -by- project basis based upon the permit requirements established within the ZCU in order to ensure potential impacts to police protection services are minimized. Future development would also be subject to compliance with General Plan policies that would ensure adequate law enforcement is provided, as the City experiences future development. Namely, compliance with Policy LU 2.8 would ensure that only land uses that can be adequately supported by the City's Public Services would be accommodated, and that adequate service ratios are maintained. Given that future development would undergo project -by- project review, and be subject to compliance with General Plan policies, impacts involving police protection services would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.14(a)(3) Schools? Less Than Significant Impact. The Newport Mesa Unified School District ( NMUSD), the Santa Ana Unified School District (SAUSD), and the Laguna Beach Unified School District (LBUSD) serve the City of Newport Beach. The NUMSD serves the majority of the City and has 32 public schools including 22 elementary schools, two junior high schools, five high schools, two alternative education centers, and one adult school. Several private schools are located in or immediately surrounding the City. Future development permitted by the ZCU would increase the City's student population, and may require new school facilities and /or improvements to existing facilities. The degree of impacts to schools would be dependent upon the size and location of the residential development and the existing condition of the school facilities serving the area. The environmental impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered school facilities would be dependent upon the location and nature of the proposed facilities, and would undergo separate environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines. Additionally, the GPEIR concluded adherence to the General Plan policies would ensure that impacts related to the provision of new educational facilities would be less than significant. 14 Development permitted by the ZCU was considered in the GPEIR analysis, since additional development was assumed and there are no proposed changes to zoning districts that would result in increased densities /intensities that were not included in the GP. As such, potential impacts to school facilities from future development permitted by the ZCU were anticipated in the GP /GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed ZCU would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Future discretionary development would undergo environmental and /or development review on a project -by- project basis based upon the permit requirements established within the ZCU in order to ensure potential impacts to school facilities are minimized. Future development would also be subject to compliance with General Plan Policy LU 6.1.1, which requires that adequate school facilities within Newport Beach be provided such that the residents' needs would be served, and Policy LU 6.1.2 allows 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. Given s Ibid., Page 4.11 -24. JN 10- 105583 91 Initial Study /Negative Declaration y, o�dEWPOR o City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Update Initial Study /Negative Declaration C9tFOM1N',' that future development would undergo project -by- project review, and be subject to compliance with General Plan policies, impacts to school facilities would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.14(a)(4) Parks? Less Than Significant Impact. There are approximately 286 acres of parkland and approximately 90 acres of active beach recreational area within the City. Pursuant to NBMC Section 19.52.040, Parkland Standard, the City's park dedication standard for new subdivisions is 5.0 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. According to the GPEIR, a deficit of approximately 38.8 acres of combined park and beach acreage citywide, with seven of the 12 service areas experiencing a deficit in this combined recreation acreage. Future development permitted by the ZCU would increase the demands for parkland and recreational facilities, and usage of existing facilities, such that deterioration of these facilities could be accelerated. Additionally, future housing development may require new parks or recreational facilities, and /or improvements to existing facilities. The environmental impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered parks and recreational facilities would be dependent upon the location and nature of the proposed facilities, and would undergo separate environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines. The GPEIR concluded the construction and enhancement of park and recreational facilities, and compliance with General Plan policies would ensure that increased demand and use resulting from an increased population would not significantly accelerate the deterioration of existing recreational facilities. This impact would be less than significant.55 Development permitted by the ZCU was considered in the GPEIR analysis, since additional development was assumed and there are no proposed changes to zoning districts that would result in increased densities /intensities that were not included in the GP. As such, potential impacts to parks and recreational facilities from future development permitted by the ZCU were anticipated in the GP /GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed ZCU would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Future discretionary development would undergo environmental and /or development review on a project -by- project basis based upon the permit requirements established within the ZCU in order to ensure potential impacts to parks and recreational facilities are minimized. Additionally, future development would be subject to compliance with NBMC Chapter 19.52, Park Dedications and Fees, which is intended to provide for the dedication of land, the payment of fees in lieu thereof or a combination of both, for park or recreational purposes in conjunction with the approval of residential development. These provisions are in accordance with Section 66477 of the Subdivision Map Act (known as the Quimby Act). Future development would also be subject to compliance with General Plan Policy R 1. 1, which requires future development to dedicate land or pay in -lieu fees at a minimum of 5.0 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents (per NBMC Section 19.52.040). In addition, developers of new high- density residential developments on parcels eight acres or larger are required to provide on -site recreational amenities, as required under Policy R 1.3. Given that future development would undergo project -by- project review, and be subject to 55 Ibid., Page 4.12 -15. JN 10- 105583 92 Initial Study /Negative Declaration o��Ew�R City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Update Initial Study /Negative Declaration �<lFORN compliance with General Plan policies, impacts to parks and recreational facilities would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.14(a)(5) Other public facilities? Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Newport Beach is serviced by four libraries: the Central Library, Mariner's Library, Balboa Branch Library, and Corona Del Mar Branch Library. The Newport Beach Public Library (NBPL) assesses their needs on a ratio of books per measure of population. The standard guidelines used for evaluating the acceptable level of service, which are set by the California State Library Office of Library Construction, the Public Library Association, and the American Library Association, are 0.5 sq. ft. of library facility space and 2.0 volumes per capita. Future development permitted by the ZCU would increase the demands for library facilities and resources. However, the GPEIR concluded compliance with General Plan policies would be less than significant. 56 Development permitted by the ZCU was considered in the GPEIR analysis, since additional development was assumed and there are no proposed changes to zoning districts that would result in increased densities /intensities that were not included in the GP. As such, potential impacts to library facilities from future development permitted by the ZCU were anticipated in the GP /GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed ZCIJ would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Therefore, implementation of the ZCU would result in less than significant impacts to library facilities. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required e Ibid., Page 4.11 -29. JN 10- 105583 93 Initial Study /Negative Declaration US oF`'�WPoR a City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Update Initial Study /Negative Declaration P This page intentionally left blank JN 10- 105583 94 Initial Study /Negative Declaration h[ City of Newport Beach ti Code Update � a Initial Study/Negative Declaration C�4F00.0.P 4.15 RECREATION Impact Analysis 4.15(a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response 4.14(a)(4). Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.15(b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response 4.14(a)(4). Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. JN 10- 105583 95 Initial Study /Negative Declaration N LE5i5lafPi`.'� K f auld e mj ` [ %ijtfi8cant y a�, -1 s e Impact ` «`fib9ati MR a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be ,r accelerated? b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might T have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Impact Analysis 4.15(a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response 4.14(a)(4). Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.15(b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response 4.14(a)(4). Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. JN 10- 105583 95 Initial Study /Negative Declaration N �agV%PORT u x C�e�roa�.r This page intentionally left blank Initial of Newport Beach ning Code Update gative Declaration JN 10- 106683 96 Initial Study /Negative Declaration o��Ew�R m City of Newport Beach ®� Zoning Code Update 'Q Initial Study /Negative Declaration \a- C9<fFORH`P 4.16 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Level of service (LOS) is commonly used as a qualitative description of intersection operation and is based on the capacity of the intersection and the volume of traffic using the intersection. The Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis method is utilized in traffic impact analyses to determine the operating LOS of the signalized study intersections; and the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) analysis methodology is utilized to determine the operating LOS of the unsignalized study intersections. The ICU analysis methodology describes the operation of a signalized intersection using a range from LOS A (free -flow conditions) to LOS F (severely congested conditions), based on corresponding volume -to- capacity (V /C) ratios; refer to Table 4.16 -1, LOS and VIC Ratio Ranges — Signalized Intersections. The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) operational analysis methodology describes the operation of an unsignalized intersection using a range from LOS A (free -flow conditions) to LOS F (severely congested conditions), based on delay experienced per vehicle; refer to Table 4.16 -2, LOS and VIC Ratio Ranges — Unsignalized Intersections. JN 10- 105583 97 Initial Study /Negative Declaration 5 .� ✓f j ci' £fi} � "aw F ,�r- � .EPA L� x a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non - motorized travel and relevant components of T the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit ?? b. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county T congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in T substantial safety risks? d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., T farm equipment)? e. Result in inadequate emergency access? T f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the T performance or safety of such facilities? Level of service (LOS) is commonly used as a qualitative description of intersection operation and is based on the capacity of the intersection and the volume of traffic using the intersection. The Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis method is utilized in traffic impact analyses to determine the operating LOS of the signalized study intersections; and the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) analysis methodology is utilized to determine the operating LOS of the unsignalized study intersections. The ICU analysis methodology describes the operation of a signalized intersection using a range from LOS A (free -flow conditions) to LOS F (severely congested conditions), based on corresponding volume -to- capacity (V /C) ratios; refer to Table 4.16 -1, LOS and VIC Ratio Ranges — Signalized Intersections. The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) operational analysis methodology describes the operation of an unsignalized intersection using a range from LOS A (free -flow conditions) to LOS F (severely congested conditions), based on delay experienced per vehicle; refer to Table 4.16 -2, LOS and VIC Ratio Ranges — Unsignalized Intersections. JN 10- 105583 97 Initial Study /Negative Declaration 5 City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Update Initial Study /Negative Declaration C'f<fFOR�P Table 4.16 -1 LOS and VIC Ratio Ranges — Signalized Intersections A 415 1- R0 ICi A a iO�t: '� ✓'fi :�Y'�?' .Ts .... <0.60 B 0.61-0.70 C 0.71- 0.80 D 0.81 -HO E 0.91 -1.00 F >1.00 Source: 1990 Transportation Research. Table 4.16 -2 LOS and VIC Ratio Ranges — Unsignalized Intersections rszT 21,f_�FrRat10_ E. 9 A < 10.0 B 10.01 -15.0 C 15.01-25.0 D 25.01-35.0 E 35.01-50.0 F > 50.0 Source: 1990 Transportation Research. LOS is based on the average stopped delay per vehicle for all movements of all -way stop - controlled intersections; for one -way or two -way stop - controlled intersections, LOS is based on the worst stop - controlled movement. Performance Criteria The Newport Beach General Plan Circulation Element defines an "acceptable level of service" as Level of Service "D" or better. The LOS "D" goal adopted by the Newport Beach reflects the City's desire to maintain stable traffic flow, realizing that peak hour congestion may occur at locations near the freeways or other locations with unusual traffic characteristics due to regional traffic flow. LOS "D" conditions conform to County -wide goals for traffic control along regional and sub - regional transportation routes. Impact Analysis 4.16(a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non - motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to JN 10- 105583 98 Initial Study /Negative Declaration t'L. c o�aEw�R @ City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Update InitialStudy /Negative Declaration �'crroa"•r intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? Less Than Significant Impact. Currently, 17 roadway segments within the City operate at a level of service (LOS) that exceeds the City's Standard of LOS D. Five intersections citywide function at a deficient LOS. Future development permitted by the ZCU would increase vehicular movement in the vicinity of each future development site during AM and PM peak hour periods. Given that the City is primarily a built -out area, it is anticipated that future development permitted by the ZCU would generally consist of infill and redevelopment. As a result, the transportation infrastructure is largely already available to these areas. Impacts would result from the incremental traffic generation of redevelopment activities and new uses on vacant parcels. Depending on the specific site locations, intensity of development, and trip distribution characteristics, future increases in traffic volumes could aggravate existing deficiencies and /or cause an intersection to operate at an unacceptable LOS. However, the GPEIR concluded General Plan buildout would not cause any intersection to fail to meet the City's LOS D standard, therefore, this impact would be less than significant. 57 Development permitted by the ZCU was considered in the GPEIR analysis, since additional development was assumed and there are no proposed changes to zoning districts that would result in increased densities /intensities that were not included in the GP. As such, potential impacts to intersection LOS from future development permitted by the ZCU were anticipated in the GP /GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed ZCU would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Future discretionary development would undergo environmental and /or development review on a project -by- project basis based upon the permit requirements established within the ZCU in order to ensure potential impacts to intersection LOS are minimized. Due to the conceptual nature of the future development, proposals would require individual assessments of potential impacts to traffic and transportation. If necessary, mitigation would be recommended to avoid or lessen potential impacts at the site specific level. Future development would also be subject to compliance with NBMC Chapter 15.38, Fair Share Traffic Contribution Ordinance, which establishes a fee, based upon the unfunded cost to implement the Master Plan of Streets and Highways, to be paid in conjunction with the issuance of a building permit. Compliance with NBMC Chapter 15.40, Traffic Phasing Ordinance, would ensure that the effects of new development projects are mitigated by developers as they occur. Future development would also be subject to compliance with General Plan Policies identified in GPEIR Section 4.13, Transportation/Traffic. Given that future development would undergo project -by- project review, and be subject to compliance with NBMC standards and General Plan policies, impacts to intersection LOS would be less than significant. Refer to Response 4.16(f) for discussions regarding potential impacts to transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 57 Ibid., Page 4.13 -32. JN 10- 105583 99 Initial Study /Negative Declaration EWPp ova f R e City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Update "= Initial Study /Negative Declaration G< /L00.NP 4.16(b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Less Than Significant Impact. The purpose of the Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP) is to develop a coordinated approach to managing and decreasing traffic congestion by linking the various transportation, land use and air quality planning programs throughout the County. The CMP program requires review of substantial individual projects, which might on their own impact the CMP transportation system. According to the CMP (Orange County Transportation Authority, 2001), those proposed projects, which meet the following criteria, shall be evaluated: Development projects that generate more than 2,400 daily trips (the threshold is 1,600 or more trips per day for development projects that will directly access a CMP Highway System link). • Project with a potential to create an impact of more than three percent of level of service E capacity. Future development permitted by the ZCU would increase vehicular movement in the vicinity of each future development site and potentially on facilities subject to CMP. However, as discussed in Response 4.16(a) above, development permitted by the ZCU was considered in the GPEIR analysis, since additional development was assumed. As such, potential impacts to intersection LOS from future development permitted by the ZCU were anticipated in the GP /GPEIR. Given that future development would undergo project -by- project review, and be subject to compliance with NBMC standards and General Plan policies, impacts to CMP designated roads or highways would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.16(c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. The City is primarily a built -out area, and it is anticipated that future development permitted by the ZCU would generally consist of infill and redevelopment. Therefore, future development permitted by the ZCU would not result in a change in air traffic patterns that results in substantial safety risks. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.16(d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less Than Significant Impact. Currently, there are no site - specific development plans for development in accordance with the ZCU. Therefore, future development proposals would be reviewed on a case -by -case basis. At the time of review, any hazardous designs shall be JN 10405583 100 Initial Study /Negative Declaration o�aEm�R' City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Update Initial Study/Negative Declaration �C /f00.HP modified. Additionally, future development would be required to comply with the General Plan policies, which would minimize potential impacts involving hazards due to a design feature. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.16(e) Result in inadequate emergency access? Less Than Significant Impact. All future development permitted by the ZCU would be required to meet all applicable local and State regulatory standards for adequate emergency access; refer also to Response 4.8(g). Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.16(Q Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Less Than Significant Impact. Currently transit lines exist throughout the City. As illustrated in GPEIR Figure 4.13 -7, Newport Beach Existing Bicycle Facilities, bikeways, bike paths, and bike trails exist throughout the City. Additionally, there are currently sidewalks along all roadways in the City. There are also marked crosswalks or other pedestrian treatments at all intersections. Given that the City is primarily a built -out area, and future development permitted by the ZCU would generally consist of infill and redevelopment, it is not anticipated that any incremental growth in transit trips produced by the future development would generate a demand beyond the capacity already provided. Additionally, it is not anticipated that future development would impact the effectiveness of the City's bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Future development would be subject to compliance with the General Plan policies pertaining to transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities outlined in GPEIR Section 4.13, TransportationlTraffic. In particular, compliance with General Plan Policies CE 5.1.1 to 5.1.16 and 6.2.1 to 6.2.3 would encourage alternative modes of transportation on the local and regional scale including pedestrian, bicycle, and transit. Given that future development would undergo project -by- project review, and be subject to compliance with General Plan policies, impacts to transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. JN 10- 105583 101 Initial Study/Negative Declaration I1-07 o�aEa�R e City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Update `= Initial Study /Negative Declaration <IFORN This page intentionally left blank JN 10- 105583 102 Initial Study /Negative Declaration { I'At City of Newport Beach ¢ Zoning Code Update Initial Study /Negative Declaration C�GisOPN' 4.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 4'9; f 1 y. t: i ,* l 1 ih; 1 iiEs15✓X✓' �.' 1 yMS #ncorporated¢ssSx r y Lke..� K s a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable .t, Regional Water 0uali Control Board? b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the ,r construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of T which could cause significant environmental effects? d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded T entitlements needed? e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate ,I, capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the ro'ect's solid waste dispose needs? T g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations ,t, related to solid waste? Impact Analysis 4.17(a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? No Impact. The City requires NPDES permits, as administered by the Santa Ana RWQCB, according to federal regulations for both point source discharges (a municipal or industrial discharge at a specific location or pipe) and nonpoint source discharges (diffuse runoff of water from adjacent land uses) to surface waters of the United States. For point source discharges, such as sewer outfalls, each NPDES permit contains limits on allowable concentrations and mass emissions of pollutants contained in the discharge. Future devefopment permitted by the ZCU would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements. The GPEIR concluded General Plan implementation would result in no impact, because future development would be required to adhere to existing regulations and General Plan policies.se Development permitted by the ZCU was considered in the GPEIR analysis, since additional development was assumed and there are no proposed changes to zoning districts that would result in increased densities /intensities that were not included in the GP. As such, potential impacts involving exceedances to wastewater treatment requirements from future development permitted by the ZCU were anticipated in the GP /GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed ZCU 56 Ibid., Page 4.14 -30. JN 10- 105583 103 Initial Study /Negative Declaration Y s gW Pp City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Update Initial Study /Negative Declaration G< /G00.0.`P would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Future discretionary development would undergo environmental and /or development review on a project -by- project basis based upon the permit requirements established within the ZCU in order to ensure future development would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements. Future development would continue to comply with all provisions of the NPDES program, as enforced by the RWQCB. Additionally, the NPDES Phase I and Phase II requirements would regulate discharge from construction sites. All future projects would be required to comply with the wastewater discharge requirements issued by the SWRCB and Santa Ana RWQCB. Therefore, the future development permitted by the ZCU would not result in an exceedance of wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB with respect to discharges to the sewer system or stormwater system within the City. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.17(b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impact. Water Conveyance and Treatment The City's water service is provided by the City, Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD), and Mesa Consolidated Water District (Mesa). GPEIR Figure 4.14 -1, Water Infrastructure and Service Areas, illustrates the City's water infrastructure and service boundaries of each provider. Moreover, the City's existing water system is described in GPEIR Section 4.14.1, Water Systems. The City's imported surface water supply is primarily treated at the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) Diemer Filtration Plant, with a treatment capacity of approximately 520 MGD, operating at 72 percent capacity during the summer. According to the GPEIR, MWD can meet 100 percent of the City's imported water needs until the year 2030. In addition, Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) also receives potable water from MWD's Weymouth Filtration Plant, which operates at approximately 65 percent capacity during the summer. Currently, the City's groundwater supply is treated at the City's Utility Yard, which can accommodate up to 1.5 MG in each chamber reservoir. Future development permitted by the ZCU would increase water consumption, placing greater demands on water conveyance and treatment facilities. However, the GPEIR concluded adequate water infrastructure would be provided for all General Plan development and impacts involving water conveyance and treatment facilities would be less than significant, following compliance with General Plan policies .59 Development permitted by the ZCU was considered in the GPEIR analysis, since additional development was assumed and there are no proposed changes to zoning districts that would result in increased densities /intensities that were not included in the GP. As such, potential impacts to water conveyance and treatment facilities from future development permitted by the ZCU were anticipated in the GP /GPEIR. Implementation of 59 Ibid., Page 4.14 -17. JN 10- 105583 104 Initial Study /Negative Declaration u City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Update Initial Study/Negative Declaration the proposed ZCU would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Future discretionary development would undergo environmental and /or development review on a project -by- project basis based upon the permit requirements established within the ZCU in order to ensure that adequate water conveyance and treatment infrastructure is provided. The environmental impacts associated with the construction of new water conveyance and treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities (if required) would be dependent upon the location and nature of the proposed facilities, and would undergo separate environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines. Future development would also be subject to compliance with General Plan policies that would implement water conservation measures, thereby reducing the volume of water requiring conveyance and treatment. Policy 2.8 directs the City to accommodate land uses that can be adequately supported by infrastructure, including water conveyance and treatment facilities. Given that future development would undergo project -by- project review, and be subject to compliance with General Plan policies, impacts to water conveyance and treatment facilities would be less than significant. Wastewater Conveyance and Treatment Wastewater service within the City is provided by the City, IRWD, and Costa Mesa Sanitation District (CMSD). GPEIR Figure 4.14 -2, Wastewater Infrastructure and Service Areas, illustrates the City's wastewater infrastructure and service boundaries of each provider. Moreover, the City's existing wastewater system is described in GPEIR Section 4.14.2, Wastewater Systems. Wastewater from the City's system and CMSD is treated by the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) at their two treatment plants. OCSD Treatment Plant No. 1 currently maintains a design capacity of 174 mgd and is operating at 52 percent design capacity. Treatment Plant No. 2 maintains a design capacity of 276 mgd and is currently operating at 55 percent of design capacity. Wastewater flows from the IRWD wastewater system are treated at the OCSD Reclamation Plant No. 1, Treatment Plant No. 2, or at the Michelson Water Reclamation Plant (MWRP). Therefore, each of the treatment plants serving the City is operating below their design capacity. Future development permitted by the ZCU would generate increased wastewater flows, placing greater demands on wastewater conveyance and treatment. However, the GPEIR concluded compliance with General Plan policies would ensure adequate wastewater facilities are available to City residents, and impacts to wastewater conveyance and treatment facilities would be less than significant .60 Development permitted by the ZCU was considered in the GPEIR analysis, since additional development was assumed and there are no proposed changes to zoning districts that would result in increased densities /intensities that were not included in the GP. As such, potential impacts to wastewater conveyance and treatment facilities from future development permitted by the ZCU were anticipated in the GP /GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed ZCU would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Future discretionary development would undergo environmental and /or development review on a project -by- project basis based upon the permit requirements established within the ZCU in order 60 Ibid., Page 4.14 -32. JN 10- 105583 105 Initial Study/Negative Declaration (� aEW'Oa' o ! .\o City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Update Initial Study /Negative Declaration to ensure that adequate wastewater conveyance and treatment infrastructure is provided. The environmental impacts associated with the construction of new wastewater conveyance and treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities (if required) would be dependent upon the location and nature of the proposed facilities, and would undergo separate environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines. Future development would also be subject to compliance with the City's Sewer System Management Plan and Sewer Master Plan (Policy NR 5.1). Given that future development would undergo project -by- project review, and be subject to compliance with General Plan policies, impacts to wastewater conveyance and treatment facilities would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.17(c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Responses 4.9(a), 4.9(c), and 4.9(d). Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.17(d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Less Than significant Impact. Water service is provided by the City, IRWD, and Mesa Consolidated Water District. Water supply is provided by groundwater and imported surface water. Approximately 75 percent of the water supply is provided by groundwater from the Orange County Groundwater Basin. The remainder is provided by MWD, which delivers water from the Colorado River and the State Water Project. Future development permitted by the ZCU would increase the City's water demands. However, the GPEIR concluded the 2030 projected availability of imported water supply exceeds the 2030 projected region -wide demand for imported water supply by at least 155,000 AF. 61 Additionally, the GPEIR concluded, because adequate existing and planned imported water supply to accommodate the increased demand associated with the General Plan would be available, impacts to the water supply would be less than significant. Development permitted by the ZCU was considered in the GPEIR analysis, since additional development was assumed and there are no proposed changes to zoning districts that would result in increased densities /intensities that were not included in the GP. As such, potential impacts to water supply from future development permitted by the ZCU were anticipated in the GP /GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed ZCU would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Future discretionary development would undergo environmental and design review on a project - by- project basis, in order to ensure that adequate water supply is provided. In particular, future development would be subject to compliance with Senate Bills 221 and 610. The two bills amended State law to better link information on water supply availability to certain land use decisions by cities and counties. The two companion bills provide a regulatory forum that requires 61 Ibid., Page 4.14 -32. JN 10- 105583 106 Initial Study /Negative Declaration �. i 0o City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Update Initial Study /Negative Declaration 1` more collaborative planning between local water suppliers and cities and counties. All SB 610 and 221 reports are generated and adopted by the public water supplier. Senate Bill (SB) 610 requires a detailed report regarding water availability and planning for additional water supplies that is included with the environmental document for specified projects. All "projects' meeting any of the following criteria require the assessment: • A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units (DU); • A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet (SF) of floor space; • A proposed commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 SF of floor space; • A proposed hotel or motel, or both, having more than 500 rooms; • A proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 SF of floor area; • A mixed -use project that includes one or more of the projects specified in this subdivision; or • A project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than the amount of water required by a 500 -DU project. While SB 610 primarily affects the Water Code, SB 221 principally applies to the Subdivision Map Act. The primary effect of SB 221 is to condition every tentative map for an applicable subdivision on the applicant by verifying that the public water supplier (PWS) has "sufficient water supply" available to serve it. Any future development meeting SB 610 criteria would require a water supply assessment. Similarly, any residential project involving a subdivision pursuant to SB 221 would require verification of sufficient water supply from the water supplier. Additionally, the proposed ZCU adds the Landscaping Standards chapter, which provides landscape standards to conserve water, among other objectives. All future residential development would also be subject to compliance with General Plan policies, which serve to minimize water consumption through conservation methods and other techniques (Policies NR 1.1 to 1.5), and expand the use of alternative water sources to provide adequate water supplies for present uses and future growth (Policies NR 2.1 and 2.2). Given that future development would undergo project -by- project review, and be subject to compliance with existing legislation (SBs 610 and 221), NBMC standards, and General Plan policies, impacts to water supplies would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.17(e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response 4.17(b) JN 10- 105583 107 Initial Study /Negative Declaration gWPp City Newport Beach Zoning Code Update Initial Study /Negative Declaration P <GOPH\ Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.17(0 Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? Less Than Significant Impact. The City contracts with Waste Management of Orange County in Newport Beach to collect and dispose of the City's solid waste. The solid waste is disposed of at the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill in Irvine. The Bowerman Landfill, which is operated by the Orange County Integrated Waste Management Department (OCIWMD), is a 725 -acre facility that is operating at a maximum daily permitting capacity of 8,500 tons per day. The landfill has a remaining capacity of 44.6 million tons and is expected to remain open until 2022. Future development permitted by the ZCU would generate increased solid wastes, placing greater demands on solid waste disposal services, and ultimately on landfill disposal capacities. However, the GPEIR concluded impacts would be less than significant, since Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill would have sufficient capacity to serve the increased General Plan development .62 Development permitted by the ZCU was considered in the GPEIR analysis, since additional development was assumed and there are no proposed changes to zoning districts that would result in increased densities /intensities that were not included in the GP. As such, potential impacts to landfill capacity from future development permitted by the ZCU were anticipated in the GP /GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed ZCU would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Future discretionary development would undergo environmental and /or development review on a project -by- project basis based upon the permit requirements established within the ZCU in order to ensure that impacts to landfill capacities are minimized. Additionally, the ZCU proposes the revisions to the Solid Waste and Recyclable Materials Storage section, by including standards, in order to ensure that adequate space is provided and trash storage areas are adequately screened. Given that future development would undergo project -by- project review, and be subject to compliance with NBMC standards, impacts to landfill capacity would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.17(g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Less Than Significant Impact. The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) required that local jurisdictions divert at least 50 percent of all solid waste generated by January 1, 2000. The City consistently complies with AB 939 through diverting 50 percent or more of solid waste. The City also remains committed to continuing reducing and minimizing solid waste. Therefore, future development would not conflict with Federal, State, or local statues and regulations. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 62 Ibid., Page 4.14 -44. JN 10- 105583 108 Initial Study /Negative Declaration � NEW ART O h4 �@ C94FOR�`r 4.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Initial of Newport Beach ning Code Update gative Declaration Impact Analysis 4.18(a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a Fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less Than Significant Impact. As concluded in Responses 4.4 and 4.5, respectively, the proposed ZCU would result in less than significant impacts on biological resources and cultural resources (i.e. historic, archaeological, or paleontological). Therefore, the proposed ZCU would result in less than significant impacts involving the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major period of California history or prehistory. 4.18(b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? JN 10- 105583 109 Initial Study /Negative Declaration a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal T community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory'? b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects T of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c. Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or T indirectly? . Impact Analysis 4.18(a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a Fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less Than Significant Impact. As concluded in Responses 4.4 and 4.5, respectively, the proposed ZCU would result in less than significant impacts on biological resources and cultural resources (i.e. historic, archaeological, or paleontological). Therefore, the proposed ZCU would result in less than significant impacts involving the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major period of California history or prehistory. 4.18(b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? JN 10- 105583 109 Initial Study /Negative Declaration o City of Newport Beach agW Pp� 0 Zoning Code Update $ Initial Study /Negative Declaration Less Than Significant Impact. As all impacts discussed in this Initial Study are less than significant or can be reduced to less than significant following compliance with General Plan policies, implementation of the proposed ZCU would not result in significant cumulative impacts. The ZCU is consistent with the City's GP /GPEIR. Through certification of the GPEIR in July 2006, the City Council found that the benefits of General Plan implementation outweighed its significant environmental impacts, including cumulative impacts on aesthetics, air quality, cultural, noise, population and housing, and traffic. Development permitted by the ZCU was considered in the GPEIR analysis, since additional development was assumed and there are no proposed changes to zoning districts that would result in increased densities /intensities that were not included in the GP. As such, potential cumulative impacts from future development permitted by the ZCU were anticipated in the GP /GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed ZCU would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater cumulative impacts than previously identified. 4.18(c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less Than Significant Impact. Previous sections of this Initial Study reviewed the proposed project's potential impacts involving aesthetics, air pollution, noise, public health and safety, traffic and other issues. As concluded in these previous discussions, the proposed Project would not result in any significant impacts related to these issues. Therefore, the proposed ZCU Project would not result in environmental impacts that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. JN 10- 105583 110 Initial Study /Negative Declaration �agwaoRT o ,e� u � i �4roaad 4.19 REFERENCES Initial of Newport Beach ning Code Update gative Declaration The following references were utilized during preparation of this Initial Study. These documents are available for review at the City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663. 1) California Department of Conservation official website, http: / /www.conservation.r-a.gov/ cgs /rghm /ap /Pages /affected.aspx. Accessed May 18, 2010. 2) California Office of the Attorney General, Sustainability and General Plans: Examples of Policies to Address Climate Change, updated January 22, 2010. 3) City of Newport Beach, City of Newport Beach General Plan, July 25, 2006. 4) City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, Approved by Ordinance No. 97 -09, Adopted March 24, 1997. 5) EIP Associates, City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update, Volume l Draft Environmental Impact Report, April 21, 2006. 6) Fundamentals and Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise, Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, 1973. 7) South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2007 Air Quality Management Plan for the South Coast Air Basin, October 2003. 8) South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, November 1993. 9) State of California, Department of Finance, E -5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2001 -2010, with 2000 Benchmark. Sacramento, California, May 2010. JN 10- 105583 111 Initial Study /Negative Declaration aE City Newport Beach Zoning Code Update �= Initial Study /Negative Declaration w` This page intentionally left blank JN 10- 105583 112 Initial Study /Negative Declaration o� City of Newport Beach z` @ Zoning Code Update Initial Study /Negative Declaration 4.20 REPORT PREPARATION PERSONNEL City of Newport Beach (Lead Agency) 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 714.647.5899 Mr. James Campbell, Senior Planner RBF Consulting (Environmental Analysis) 14725 Alton Parkway Irvine, California 92618 949.472.3505 Mr. Glenn Lajoie, AICP, Vice President, Environmental Services Ms. Rita Garcia, Project Manager Mr. Eddie Torres, INCE, REA, Air Quality and Noise Specialist Ms. Linda Bo, Word ProcessorlGraphic Artist JN 10- 105583 113 Initial Study /Negative Declaration JN 10- 105583 This page intentionally left blank 114 City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Update Initial Study /Negative Declaration Initial Study /Negative Declaration k -e' o��Ewaoe o City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Update ie ¢ Initial Study /Negative Declaration �( /FOM1N`P 5.0 CONSULTANT RECOMMENDATION Based on the information and environmental analysis contained in Section 3.0, Initial Study Checklist, and Section 4.0, Environmental Analysis, it is concluded that the proposed City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Update Project would not have a significant effect on the environmental issues analyzed. Accordingly, it is recommended that the first category be selected for the City's determination (refer to Section 6.0, Lead Agency Determination) and that the City of Newport Beach prepare a Negative Declaration for the Project. May 25, 2010 Date -i&!- Project Manager Environmental Services RBF Consulting A 10405583 +Se- Initial Study /Negative Declaration lls a JN 10- 106683 This page intentionally left blank 116 Initial of Newport Beach ning Code Update gative Declaration Initial Study /Negative Declaration \` 6 O�` dL T QHr m CYLlfUA�`r City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Update Initial StudvlNeoafive Declaration 6.0 LEAD AGENCY DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed use COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposal could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in Section 4.0 have been added. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposal MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposal MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact' or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. Si A nature 71`A-m i s G4 s4 P 73 c t_. Printed Nameffitle JN 10- 105583 117 City of Newport Beach Agency tEl IN FEE 17, 71-01L> Date Initial Study /Negative Declaration a gWPp City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Update Initial StudylNegative Declaration C <FORN \r This page intentionally left blank JN 10- 105583 118 Initial Study /Negative Declaration s Attachment No. CC 2 City Council Ordinance — Zoning Code Update H �::F ORDINANCE NO. 2010- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE OF TITLE 20 - PLANNING AND ZONING OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE WHEREAS, The Newport Beach City Council adopted Resolution No. 2006 -76 on July 25, 2006, approving a comprehensive update to the Newport Beach General Plan ( "General Plan Update "). WHEREAS, Pursuant to City Charter Section 423 and the Measure S Guidelines, the General Plan Update was considered to be a "maj or amendment" due to the resulting increases in density, intensity and traffic. Consistent with City Charter Section 423, the General Plan Update was placed on the ballot for the November 7, 2007, General Election. The electorate approved the increases associated with the General Plan Update. WHEREAS, Chapter 13 of the General Plan contains the City's implementation program to carry out the goals and policies of the General Plan. Implementation Program 2.1 calls for a review and amendment of the City's Zoning Code for consistency with the General Plan. WHEREAS, Section 10 of City Council Resolution No. 2006 -76 directed the Planning Department to begin the preparation of a revised zoning ordinances, subdivision and other ordinances necessary to implement the General Plan. WHEREAS, City Council Resolution No. 2006 -106 established the General Plan /Local Coastal Plan Implementation Committee that was charged with developing a work program and revisions of the Zoning Code Update. WHEREAS, The General Plan Local Coastal Plan Implementation Committee held over 45 public meetings to discuss the zoning code update project. WHEREAS, In coordination with the General Plan /Local Coastal Plan Implementation Committee, City staff prepared a comprehensive update of the Zoning Code, which includes new zoning districts, new use classifications, updated and revised definitions, new and amended development standards, updated Zoning Maps, and modified administrative procedures ( "Zoning Code Update "). The Zoning Code Update is a complete replacement of the City's current zoning regulations. The Zoning Code Update reflect the land use designations and policies established by the Land Use Element of the General Plan. WHEREAS, in accordance with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP), the Zoning Code Update was reviewed by the Airport Land Use Commission and found j was found to be consistent with the inclusion of suggested revisions that have been incorporated within the Zoning Code Update. WHEREAS, In accordance with Chapter 20.94 of the Zoning Code, the Planning Commission considered the proposed Zoning Code Update, an Initial Study, and Negative Declaration and received public testimony during a series of public hearings held on June 3, 2010, June 15, 2010, June 17, 2010, June 24, 2010, July 15, 2010, and July 29, 2010 that were duly noticed as required by the California Government Code. WHEREAS, The City Council considered the proposed Zoning Code Update and an Initial Study and Negative Declaration and received public testimony during a public hearing held on October 12, 2010, that were duly noticed as required by the California Government Code. WHEREAS, the City Council incorporates the CEQA determination and all facts and findings from Resolution No adopting a Negative Declaration for the Zoning Code Update by reference. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, hereby finds as follows: 1. The General Plan Update, approved by voters in 2006, reflects the community's vision for Newport Beach, and provides policies for realizing this vision. The zoning code is an important tool for implementing land use related policies of the Newport Beach General Plan. 2. The Zoning Code Update is consistent with the General Plan. 3. The Zoning Code Update is consistent with the certified Coastal Land Use Plan. 4. The Zoning Code update is consistent with the Airport Environs Plan Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended in its entirety to read as provided in Exhibit "A ". SECTION 2: The following projects or permit applications may be allowed and ministerial permits issued provided they are found consistent with prior discretionary approvals, the General Plan, and the Municipal Code in effect on the effective date of Zoning Code Update (Exhibit "A "). 1. All discretionary applications and Approval in Concept's (AIC's) submitted and deemed complete prior to the effective date of this ordinance. 2. Ministerial applications (e.g. building permits) submitted prior January 1, 2011. 3. Applications for ministerial permits associated with previously approved and unexpired discretionary permits. 2 Rq 4. Projects under construction with valid building permits. SECTION 3: Any permit, license or approval issued pursuant to this ordinance shall be consistent with the City of Newport Beach General Plan. In all cases where there is a conflict between this ordinance and the General Plan, the General Plan shall prevail. SECTION 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance, and each section, subsection, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses and phrases be declared unconstitutional. SECTION 5: The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper of the City, and it shall be effective thirty (30) days after its adoption. SECTION 6: This ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, held on the 12th day of October 2010, and adopted on the 26th day of October 2010, by the following vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCILMEMBERS NOES, COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: David R. Hunt, City Att rney For the City of Newpoil Beach 3 jw II Attachment No. CC 3 Summary of Change r. s ?. Comprehensive Zoning Code Update Summary of Change Newport Beach Planning Department October 2010 4 Part 1 — Zoning Code Applicability (page 1 -3) Part 1 of the draft code replaces Chapter 20.01 of the current Code. This Part includes the purpose of the zoning code, provisions for interpretations and an explanation of the zoning map. There are two notable differences between the current code and the draft code. First, section 20.10.040A of the draft code states that the City Council may exempt specific City implemented projects by adopting a resolution at a noticed public hearing upon setting forth the specific Code provisions that would apply in the absence of the exemption. The current code does not contain such language as state law allows cities to exempt their public projects from zoning rules. The second difference is the zoning map. The current code uses a set of over seventy 8.5 x 11 Districting Maps to depict the zoning districts, density, intensity and setbacks. The draft code utilizes a large format map (36" x 48 ") to depict zoning districts, density and intensity and set of thirty -one 11" x 17" setback maps (see Part 8 for the setback maps). Part 1 Summary 1 Part 2 — Zoning Districts, Allowable Land Uses and Zoning District Standards Part 2 establishes all zoning districts, their allowed uses and district standards to implement the uses of land established by the General Plan. The districts are identified on the Zoning Map and the various zones correspond to the General Plan Land Use Plan maps and land use categories. The density of residential use and intensity of non- residential use allowed within the various zones is no greater than allowed by the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Part 2 is the heart of the Zoning Code and each of the other Parts of the code are directly related. Each zone has a list of allowed uses and those uses are defined in Part 7 (Definitions). Uses are either allowed by right or are subject to discretionary review such as a Limited Term Permit (LTP), Minor Use Permit (MUP) or Conditional Use Permit (CUP). If a particular use is not listed in the tables, it is not allowed unless the Planning Director finds (i.e. interprets) that an unlisted use is similar to a listed use. These discretionary permits processes are defined in detail within Part 5 (Planning Permit Procedures), but for now, the LTP simply allow uses for a limited amount of time and the review authority is the Zoning Administrator. The MUP is a reflection of the current process where the Planning Director may issue certain Use Permits. The Zoning Administrator is the review authority for MUPs. A CUP is no different than the current Use Permit process where the Planning Commission is the review authority. Allowed Uses The specific entries within the various allowed use tables were developed by staff and the City's consultant with specific input and oversight from the General Plan Implementation Committee. Entries are based upon current zoning regulations, the purpose of each zone and its corresponding land use category of the Land Use Element of the General Plan, related policies of General Plan, and the locations of the various zones and their unique relationships with their surroundings. Other factors influenced the entries within the allowed use tables including a desire to simplify the process wherever possible, to maintain consistency with any applicable State laws, and to avoid creating nonconforming uses where possible. The allowed use tables also contain references to specific use regulations that are located within Part 4 (Standards for Specific Land Uses) as a way to highlight for the reader additional regulations for that listed use. The most noteworthy changes relate to the sale of alcohol and eating and drinking establishments, which are discussed below in Part 4. Development Standards Each of the zones has base development standards that are listed in several tables. Those standards include minimum lot dimensions, density or intensity limits, minimum setbacks, lot coverage limits, floor area limits, structure height, open space, fencing, landscaping, lighting, parking and signs among others. In many cases, specific dimensions, areas, percentages or ratios appear but in other cases, there is a reference to a separate Chapter or Section where the standards can be found when those standards are too complex to appear within the development standard tables. Part 2 Summary 1 t As with the allowed use tables, the development standards tables were developed by staff and the City's consultant with specific input and oversight from the General Plan Implementation Committee. Most of the standards are based upon current zoning regulations so as to avoid creating non conformities. Where new standards were necessary for new zones, entries were based upon existing standards for similar uses within existing zoning classifications. In residential districts, the current existing floor area limit (FAL) and lot coverage standards will be retained. Subterranean basements will not count towards the maximum FAL in zoning districts that utilize the FAL. A new provision limits 3rd floors to 15% or 20% of the buildable area of the lot, depending on the lot width. Another change is the elimination of the current open space provision, which is replaced by an open volume provision that will create building modulation to improve designs and provide noticeable and useful open space. It is important to note that single family residences and duplexes within existing Planned Communities and those regulated by lot coverage standards would not be affected by the third floor and open volume provisions. Another change is the inclusion of the several of the 2007 Design Criteria. This change will be outlined below in Part 3 (site Planning and Development Standards). Another change to note is the method of measuring the height of buildings. The height limits are not changing, but the practice of measuring the height of a sloping roof at its midpoint is being eliminated for a far simpler method. Again, this change will be highlighted below in Part 3. The last change to note is an increased alley setback for all new residential buildings when the alley is narrow (10 feet) and the lot on the other side of the alley has its side yard abutting the alley. This increased setback will improve vehicle circulation in the alleys in these specific cases. Chances to Zones The boundaries and use of existing residentially -zoned properties remain unchanged, although the names of the various residential zones have been altered. For example, the R -1.5 zone for Balboa Island becomes R -BI, the R-1 -B becomes the R -1 -6000 and the MFR zone becomes the RM zone. Existing commercial zones (RSC, RMC and APF) have been diversified. The existing retail zones (RSC and some RMC areas) are now the CC (Commercial Corridor), CG Commercial General), CN (Commercial Neighborhood), CM (Commercial Recreational and Marine) and the CV (Commercial Visitor - Serving). The existing office zone (APF) becomes the OA (Office — Airport), OG (Office — General), OM (Office — Medical) and the OR (Office — Regional). The existing industrial zones (M -1, M -1 -A and IBP) were condensed into the IG (Industrial Zoning District) due to the contraction of industrially designated land. The existing institutional zone (GEIF) was split into two new zones, the PF (Public Facilities) and PI (Private Institutional) to differentiate between public and private institutions. All boundaries and uses in all existing Planned Community Districts remain unchanged. Part 2 Summary E The existing open space zones (OS -A and OS -P) were altered to create the PR (Parks and Recreation) for active areas and the OS (Open Space) zone primarily for resource protection. The updated General Plan establishes a variety of mixed -use land use designations that were applied to areas where mixed -use development is allowed by existing regulations as well as new areas such as Mariner's Mile and several properties along Dover Drive. The MU -V (Mixed -Use Vertical) zone is applied to areas where residential units are presently allowed above a commercial use and this zone is designed to replicate existing standards. The MU -MM (Mixed -Use Mariner's Mile), MU -DW (Mixed -Use Dover/Westcliff) and the MU -CV /15'' St (Mixed -Use Cannery Village and 15th Street) zones are new and were designed for the specific provisions and limited residential uses allowed by the General Plan for these areas. The MU -W1 and MU -W2 (Mixed -Use Water) are to address mixed -use development for locations on Newport Bay and on Marine Avenue. Specific Plans Five existing specific plan districts (Newport Shores, Mariner's Mile, Cannery Village /McFadden Square, Central Balboa, and Old Newport Boulevard) are eliminated and replaced with the various zones identified above based on the General Plan. The Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan is the only adopted specific plan that will remain unchanged, although it will be re- adopted by ordinance separately. Overlay Zoning Districts The number and type of "overlay" districts will be reduced as a result of the expanded zoning districts. The "B" overlay has been eliminated with it provisions being incorporated within the new residential zones. The "R" or Residential overlay, and the "MM" or Mariner's Mile overlay are both eliminated with their provisions being replaced by the mixed -use zones. The "IS" or Interim Study overlay is being eliminated altogether. The "SPR" or Site Plan Review overlay, and the "PRD" or Planned Residential Development overlay have been replaced by updated permit processes contained within Part 5 of the new Zoning Code. The existing "MHP" or Mobile Home Park overlay, and the "PM" or Parking Management overlay remain. One new overlay district has been added, the Bluff overlay. The purpose of this proposed overlay district is to implement specific policies of the Natural Resources Element of the General Plan that require limiting development to the predominant line of existing development to preserve visual quality, protect public views and to ensure safety. The proposed overlay is reflected on the Zoning Map with detailed maps found in Part 8. A Canyon overlay district to implement similar policy objectives for Buck Gully and Morning Canyon has not been included at this time as it requires additional analysis. In the interim, staff will continue to implement the Natural Resources Element Policy NR 23.6 that requires new development to be within the predominant line of existing development. Part 2 Summary 3 Part 3 - Site Planning and Development Standards The following outlines notable changes within Part 3 of the Draft Zoning Code Section 20.30.020 - Bufferina and Screenina (paae 3 -5) The current code (Section 20.60.020) provides for the screening of mechanical equipment from view. This section has been revised to add standards to address the interfaces between residential and nonresidential uses and buffering requirements to reduce impacts between incompatible land uses. Also, it adds screening requirements for outdoor storage and display and solid waste storage areas. Section 20.30.040 - Fences. Hedges. Walls and Retaining Walls (paae 3 -7) The current code (Section 20.60.030) provides limits on the height of fences, hedges and walls. This section has been revised to limit the height of retaining walls and to require that they be terraced to help minimize alteration of slopes. Also, it increases the maximum height for fences, hedges and retaining walls within front setback areas from 36 to 42 inches consistent with the minimum height of guardrails pursuant to the Building Code. Provisions were also included to allow protective fencing for pools and spas, which must be a minimum height of 5 feet, when required Building Code. Section 20.30.050 - Grade Establishment (pane 3 -10) Section 20.65.030 of the current code requires the use of the "natural grade" as the baseline grade to measure the height of buildings and structures. The height is measures from height from "the grade below" which equates to height being measured from an uneven, undulating surface (e.g. a potato chip). Subsection 20.65.030.B addresses sites that have been altered where the finished grade of filled areas is used and the finished grade of excavated surfaces is not used. These existing provisions are challenging to implement when designers are designing buildings to take advantage of every inch below height limits and owners are seeking ever taller structures. The revised provisions simplify the way grade is established for the purpose of measuring building height. In cases where the slope is 5% or less, a simple average of the existing grade will be used. In cases where the average grade is greater than 5 %, a sloping grade plane will be used and Figure 3 -4 on page 3 -14 shows the grade plane concept. These new techniques will save time for staff, owners and builders. Section 20.30.060 - Height Limits and Exceptions (page 3 -13) Chapter 20.65 of the current code establishes height limits for zoning districts and it identifies several limited exceptions e.g. roof peaks, vents, chimneys, flag poles, etc.). Height limits are not changing. The draft section eliminates the practice of measuring the height of buildings at the mid -point of sloping roofs. Flat roofs, including parapet walls or guardrails, and the peak of sloping roofs (slopes 3:12 or greater) will not be any higher than presently allowed based upon a property's zoning designation (e.g. R -1, CG, PC, etc.). Part 3 Summary 1 Section 20.30.070 - Outdoor Liahtina (oaae 3 -18 The current code regulates outdoor lighting for sports courts in residential districts, requires "adequate" lighting in certain circumstances and has few protections from excessive lighting. This section provides subjective outdoor lighting standards without specifying minimum or maximum levels. The draft provisions provide a more complete set of tools than the City presently has to avoid or reduce negative impacts of light and glare. Section 20.30.080 - Noise (gape 3 -19) The Zoning Code does not contain any noise standards as the City regulates noise by Title 10 (Offenses and Nuisances), specifically Chapter 10.26 (Community Noise Control) and Chapter 10.28 (Loud and Unreasonable Noise). The draft section adds provisions for the review of proposed projects to avoid or mitigate impacts, establishes thresholds of significance pursuant to the Noise Element and promotes compatibility between land uses. The proposed section is consistent with and augments the standards within Chapters 10.26. Section 20.30.100 - Public View Protection (paae 3 -21) The current code does not contain any specific regulations protecting public views. Public views are currently protected through the implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act only for discretionary projects. This section adds public view protection regulations to preserve visual resources and public views from identified public view points and corridors in accordance with General Plan polices under GP Goal NR 20. Section 20.30.110 - Setback Exceptions Reaulations and Exceptions (naae 3 -22 The current code (Sections 20.60.020 & 20.60.030) contains an extensive list of allowed encroachments within required setback areas (e.g. fences, eves, architectural features, accessory structures, mechanical equipment, etc.). These current standards have been revised to provide clearer rules for the placement of accessory mechanical equipment, minor accessory structures, and to allow a broader range of minor structures that are commonly requested that are subordinate to primary residential and commercial uses to encroach into front yard setbacks. Examples are decorative caps for compliant walls, built -in barbeques and minor encroachments into all setbacks by subterranean walls and structural supports. Side yard encroachments have been revised to require a 36- inch wide clear path of travel on one side of new buildings for emergency personnel and a standard for clear access through front and side yards primary entrances to dwellings. Section 20.30.120 - Solid Waste and Recyclable Materials Storaae (paae 3 -29) The current code (Section 20.60.090) provides for the inclusion of recycling areas within certain development projects. This section was updated to require solid waste and recyclable material storage areas in compliance with State law for both residential and Part 3 Summary 2 155. commercial uses. The standards will ensure that adequate space is provided and trash storage areas are adequately screened. Section 20.30.130 - Traffic Visibility Area (pane 3 -32) The current code (Section 20.60.030) limits the height of fences, walls, uncovered accessory structures, and hedges to 36 inches in areas that could block a driver's visibility at driveways and corners. This section has been revised to provide additional safety visibility standards consistent with Public Works Traffic standards. Chapter 20.32 - Density Bonus (page 3 -35) The current code does not implement State bonus density law. This section adds density bonus regulations consistent with State law to promote the City's goal to add affordable housing units to the housing stock. Chapter 20.34 - Conversion or Demolition of Affordable Housina (page 3-47) The current code (Chapter 20.86) implements the Mello Act (Government Code §65590) and it only applies to property within the Coastal Zone. This section has been revised, maintaining its consistency with State law, and adds standards to determine if providing affordable replacement units is feasible. Chapter 20.36 - Landscapina Standards (paae 3 -53 The current code does not provide landscape standards. This section adds landscape standards to enhance the appearance of development projects, reduce heat and glare, control soil erosion, conserve water, screen potentially incompatible land uses, preserve the integrity of neighborhoods, improve air quality, and improve pedestrian and vehicular traffic and safety. Chapter 20.38.40 - Nonconforming Uses and Structures (paae 3 -59) The current code (Chapter 20.62) regulates the alteration, expansion and elimination of nonconformities. The most notable change relates to additions to nonconforming residential structures (Section 20.38.040). Currently, additions of up to 25% of the floor area of residential structures are allowed by right provided they have the minimum number of parking spaces and if the addition complies with other standards. Additions above 25% and up to 50% require the approval of a modification permit. Additions above 50% and up to 75% require the approval of use permit by the Planning Director. The draft code would only allow conforming additions of up to 50% over a 10 -year period by right provided that the minimum number of parking spaces are provided. Additions would be limited to 10% when the minimum number of parking spaces is not provided. The proposed code would eliminate a time consuming review process. Part 3 Summary Chapter 20.40 - Off - Street Parking (page 3 -73) The current code (Chapter 20.66) provides comprehensive standards for parking and when parking can be reduced or waived. For the first time, the draft code provides information on the dimensions of non - residential parking spaces in consistent with the current specifications administered by the Public Works Department. A new section (section 20.40.130) allows for an in -lieu fee authorized by the Planning Commission or City Council for parking reductions if an in -lieu fee amount is established by the City Council. Most required parking ratios were left unchanged; however, parking for single and two -unit dwellings not within existing Planned Communities will be changed as follows: Use Current standard Proposed standard Single-Unit Dwellings 2 spaces 1 space covered 2 garage spaces Single -Unit Dwellings (over 2 spaces (1 space covered) 3 garage spaces 4,000 sf and on lots wider than 30 feet Two -Unit Dwellings 2 spaces per unit (1 space per 2 spaces per unit (1 garage unit covered ) space and 1 covered, per unit Chapter 20.46 - Transfer of Development Rights (page 3 -145) The current code (Section 20.63.080) provides for the transfer of development intensity between sites that are no more than 1000 feet apart, subject to traffic analysis and findings. Traffic analysis remains necessary and the draft provisions clarify that the transfer of development intensity from one property to another must be within the same statistical area. A transfer form one statistical area to another would require a general plan amendment. The review authority has also been changed from the Planning Commission to the City Council. Part 3 Summary j Part 4 — Standards for Specific Purposes Part 4 (Standards for Specific Land Uses) replaces Part V (Special Land Use Regulations) of the existing Zoning Code. Currently Part V provides development standards and in some cases operational standards for 10 different uses: Automobile Service Stations, Oil Wells, Eating and Drinking Establishments, Residential Condominium Projects, Time Share Developments, Accessory Dwelling Units, Low and Moderate Income Housing within the Coastal Zone, Massage Establishments, Adult - Oriented Businesses, and Alcoholic Beverage Outlets. With the reorganization of the code, some of the existing Chapters remain although they have been updated and renamed. The provisions regarding low and moderate income housing within the coastal zone were relocated to Part 3. The Chapter on oil wells was deleted as it was duplicative of provisions within the City Charter. Several additional Sections have been added that have roots within other Parts of the current code. Section 20.48.030 - Alcohol Sales (paae 4-4 Currently, the sale of alcohol requires a Use Permit and is subject to Chapter 20.89 (Alcoholic Beverage Outlets). The proposed code provides operational controls for all alcohol sales similar to the provisions within the current code (Chapter 20.89), but discretionary permits were moved to the allowed uses tables within Part 2 (Zoning Districts, Allowable Land Uses, and Zoning District Standards). The principal difference is that accessory alcohol sales at off -sale establishments where no more than 30% of the floor area is devoted to alcohol sales in most commercial zones would be allowed by right subject. Alcohol sales at off -sale establishments as a principal use would be subject to the Zoning Administrator's review of a Minor Use Permit (MUP). Additionally, alcohol sales at restaurants that are not open past 11:OOPM would be subject to the Zoning Administrator's review rather than the Planning Commission. Section 20.48.040 - Animal Keeping (page 4 -8) Currently, the Municipal Code provides regulations for animal keeping within Title 7 (Animals). Title 7 does not establish any specific limits on the number of animals one can keep at their home. The Zoning Code provides standards for animal keeping only for the R -A district (Section 20.10.020.G) due to its agricultural character. This new section establishes limits on the keeping of pets for all residential zones and incorporates existing limits and procedures for the keeping of domesticated livestock within the existing R -A zone. Section 20.48.040 - Animal Sales and Service (page 4 -10) The current code does not provide comprehensive regulations and this section will provide standards for various animal sales and services establishments to protect adjacent residential uses from undesired secondary effects. Part 4 Summary 1 Section 20.48.070 - Day Care Facilities (Adult and Child) (page 4 -12) The current code (Section 20.60.130) provides regulations only for child day care facilities. This section has been expanded to address adult day care and revised to be consistent with current state law. Many of the current provisions are being maintained to protect adjacent residential uses. Section 20.48.080 - Drive - Through and Drive -Up Facilities (page 4 -13) The current code (Section 20.60.075) has been revised to provide enhanced standards to mitigate traffic, litter, and unsightliness. Section 20.48.090 - Eating and Drinking Establishments (page 4 -14) The current code (Chapter 20.82) has been revised to create a regulatory system based on the type of establishment, its hours of operation, its operational characteristics and its proximity to residential districts. History show us that restaurants can become nuisances when they are close to residences, serve alcohol and have late hours. The Planning Commission will retain the review authority for CUPs for any bar or nightclub and restaurants that have late hours of operation (i.e. past 11:OOPM). The Zoning Administrator would have the review authority for MUPs for establishments that close at or before 11:OOPM or when the establishment is in close proximity to residential zones (i.e. within 500 feet). Some establishments would be permitted by right when they are not located within 500 feet of a residential district, do not keep late hours and if they don't serve alcohol. Revised operational standards and review criteria were also added to ensure that direct and secondary effects are adequately addressed, especially when late operating hours are requested. Standards for outdoor dining have been included without a separate permit and potential issues associated with outdoor dining can be reviewed on a project -by- project basis with either the MUP or CUP where applicable. Section 20.48.100 - Emergency Shelters (page 4 -18) Currently, the Zoning Code does not contain provisions for emergency shelters and recent State law mandates that cities permit them. Emergency shelters in this context are shelters for the homeless and not disaster shelters. This section contains design and operational standards for emergency shelters in compliance with State law and they would be an allowed use in the AO and PI districts only. Section 20.48.130 - Mixed -Use Projects (page 4 -22) The current code (Section 20.60.115) allows for extended hours of operation for businesses that are located within any zone where mixed -use development is allowed. Development standards for mixed -use projects are distributed within several existing specific plans and the "R" overlay. The new code consolidates these provisions and provides a balance between nonresidential uses and residential uses. All mixed -use projects also require review and approval of a Site Development Review (Section 20.52.080 page 5 -33) Part 4 Summary 2 Section 20.48.140 - Outdoor Storaae Disolav and Activities (oaae 4 -24 The current code (Section 20.60.105) requires a Use Permit within the jurisdiction of the Planning Director for all outdoor storage and display. The proposed code eliminates the permit requirement in lieu of specific standards for the location and screening of outdoor storage and provides operational control for outdoor display of merchandise. Section 20.48.160 - Recvclina Facilities (oaae 4 -26 The current code does not provide regulations for recycling facilities and the proposed draft establishes standards for the siting and operation of small and large commercial facilities. Section 20.48.180 - Residential Development Standards (oaae 4 -28 The existing floor area limit (FAL) standards and lot coverage provisions are being retained. A notable change that is addressed in Part 2 is that subterranean basements will not count towards the maximum FAL in zoning districts that utilize the FAL. Eliminating the floor area limit would have the effect of allowing people to build basements with full- height ceilings where typically they have to be less than 7 feet. New standards that apply to R -1 and R -2 zoning districts include an open volume standard that replaces the current open space provision. This standard requires building modulation /articulation on the first or second floors and the standard does not specify where it is to be located. Areas must maintain certain minimum dimensions to satisfy the open volume standard (5 feet in depth from the wall on which it is located and 7.5 feet in height and open to the exterior on at least one side). Additionally, new third story step -backs and third story floor area limits are included to limit building mass. These standards will not apply residential lots that are currently subject to lot coverage limits and those in Planned Communities, as sufficient open space is provided by existing lot coverage limits that are not changing. Additionally, these new standards are not being proposed to apply to narrow lots (25 feet wide or less) that are zoned R -2 as applying these standards to these narrow lots would affect their property rights. Also included in this section are the design criteria from the 2007 Single and Two - family Design Ordinance in order to implement General Plan design polices. These standards will apply in all residential districts, including Planned Communities. Design criteria. a. Walls. Long unarticulated exterior walls are discouraged on all structures. The visual massing of a building should be reduced by incorporating appropriate design elements; including variation in the wall plane, building modulation, openings, recesses, vertical elements, varied textures, and design accents (e.g. moldings, pilasters, etc.). Front facades shall include windows. Part 4 Summary r e ;� b. Upper floors. Portions of upper floors should be set back in order to scale down facades that face the street, common open space, and adjacent residential structures. Upper story setbacks are recommended either as full length "stepbacks" or partial indentations for upper story balconies, decks, and /or aesthetic setbacks. C. Architectural treatment. Architectural treatment of all elevations visible from public places, including alleys, is encouraged. Treatments may include window treatments, cornices, siding, eaves, and other architectural features. d. Front facade. Where the neighborhood pattern is for the primary entrance to face the street, the primary entry and windows should be the dominant elements of the front facade. Primary entrances should face the street with a clear, connecting path to the public sidewalk or street. Alternatively, entry elements may be visible from the street without the door necessarily facing the street. e. Main entrance. The main dwelling entrance should be clearly articulated through the use of architectural detailing. Section 20.48.220 - Time Share Facilities (page 4-41) Current provisions are within Chapter 20.84 and the standards were updated to address operational plans. The requirement for all time share developments to obtain Development Agreements remains unchanged. Part 4 Summary F1 h Part 5 — Plannina Permit Procedures Part 5 includes the requirements related to planning permit application filing, processing and review procedures. The sections discussed below represent those that have been notably revised when compared to the current code. Section - 20.52.020 Conditional Use Permits and Minor Use Permits (pace 5 -9) Use Permits (UP), current code Chapter 20.91, have been renamed Conditional Use Permits (CUP). The review authority remains the Planning Commission and the review process is essentially unchanged. Use Permit/Planning Director, also found in Chapter 20.91 of the current code, was eliminated and a minor use permit (MUP) process was added. The MUP process has a required public hearing where the existing PD /UP does not require a public hearing. The review authority for MUP's is the Zoning Administrator. The findings for CUP's and MUP's in the draft code remain essentially the same except for the addition of the following finding: 4. The site is physically suitable in terms of design, location, shape, size, operating characteristics, and the provision of public and emergency vehicle (e.g., fire and medical) access and public services and utilities; Section 20.52.040 - Limited Term Permits (oaae 5 -16 This section replaces section 20.60.015 Temporary Structure and Uses of the current code. The section has been significantly revised to provide a clear process, findings for approval and standard conditions of approval for temporary structure and uses. The revised standards specify those temporary uses permitted by right (e.g. Christmas tree lots, work trailers associated with a valid building permit) and those that require ZA approval without a public hearing (90 days or less) and those that require a public hearing (90 days or more). When a use or structure is not allowed by right, the review authority has been changed from the Planning Director to the Zoning Administrator. Section 20.52.050 - Modification Permits (page 5 -21) The draft code revises Chapter 20.93 (Modification Permits) of the current code by limiting some modification requests (e.g. fence height, setback encroachments) to a maximum 10% deviation from the standard. The existing provisions do not have a cap. The review authority for modification permits remain with the Zoning Administrator. Any request for a greater modification than 10% for the identified standards would require a request and approval of a variance. Section 20.52.060 - Planned Development Permits (page 5 -24) The Planned Development Permit chapter is a new process that is intended to provide a method whereby land may be developed or redeveloped as a unified site resulting in better design than what would be possible by using the standard regulations. This process and associated findings were drafted provide flexibility for infill development or re- developed on unusually shaped lots or lots that are otherwise constrained. This new Part 5 Summary 1 'r process would allow for the review of a single permit and single set findings rather than a request for multiple modification permits or variances or using the Planned Community designation for developments that don't warrant use of the PC process due to their limited size. Section 20.52.070 - Reasonable Accommodations (Daae 5 -26 In Chapter 20.98 of the current code, it is unclear as to which body has review authority when another discretionary permit is applied for concurrently with a request for reasonable accommodation. Therefore, the provisions have been revised to clarify review authority when a reasonable accommodation application is filed concurrently with another discretionary application. The revised regulations indicate that the request for reasonable accommodation shall be heard with any associated discretionary permit when they are applied for concurrently. Section 20.52.080 - Site Development Reviews (page 5 -31) This section significantly revises the Chapter 20.92 (Site Plan Review) of the current code by expanding the applicability and providing more guidance for review. The new provisions provide a process for the comprehensive review of some development projects not otherwise subject to discretionary review to ensure compliance with the zoning code, general plan polices and site design criteria. Review authority rests with the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission, as specified by Table 5 -2 on page 5- 34. Section 20.52.100 - Zonina Clearances (Daae 5 -37 The draft code adds a Zoning Clearance process that provides a procedure to verify that proposed developments, uses or projects comply with the list of uses and development standards for the applicable zoning district. All zoning clearances are ministerial. Examples of zoning clearances are Planning Department approval of a building permit or sign -off on a business license. Chapter 20.58 - Specific Plan Procedures (pane 5-511 This chapter revises the Specific Plan procedures found in Chapter 20.40 of the current code to provide a process for preparing, processing, reviewing, adopting, and amending specific plans in compliance with Government Code Section 65450 et seq. Part 5 Summary 2 Part 6 — Zoning Code Administration (page 6 -1) Part 6 of the zoning code describes the authority and responsibility for code administration. Also included are the procedural requirements for public hearings, appeals, code amendments and code enforcement. These regulations are located in Part 6 of the current code. The notable change in the draft Part 6 is that the public hearing requirements for discretionary permits have been consolidated into one chapter whereas the current code describes the hearing process in each individual discretionary permit chapter. Otherwise, the review authority, hearing processes, appeal procedure and code enforcement regulations remain essentially unchanged. Part 7 — Definitions (Pape 7 -1) Part 7 includes all definitions of terms that are technical or specialized, or that may not reflect common usage. Included are the definitions of the land uses found in land use tables located in Part 2. The current code separates the definitions (Chapter 20.03) from the land uses classifications (Chapter 20.05). The combining of all terms in one location will help reduce instances where a term or land use description is overlooked because the wrong list was consulted. Land use definitions are identified by the term, "(Land Use)" following the entry. For example "Hedge" is a definition and "Hospital' is a land use definition: Hedge. A group of shrubs or trees planted in a line or in groups forming a compact, dense, barrier that protects, shields, separates, or demarcates an area from view. For purposes of this definition, a shrub is a perennial woody plant smaller than a tree, having multiple permanent stems branching from or near the base and lacking a single trunk; a bush. See "Fence." Hospital (Land Use). An establishment that provides medical, surgical, psychiatric, or emergency medical services to sick or injured persons, on an inpatient or outpatient basis. Includes facilities for training, research, and administrative services for patients and employees. May include accessory pharmacy uses and food service uses. Does not include walk -in clinics ( "Emergency Health Facilities'). Parts 6, 7 & 8 Summary �R Part 8 — Maas (aaae 8 -1 Part 8 includes all the maps referenced though out the code except the Zoning Map, which is adopted by reference and described in Part 1. Area Maps The area maps depict geographic boundaries for areas in the city that are subject to unique standards. For example, the section below identifies standards applicable to specific geographic areas. These maps replace the meets and bounds descriptions for these standard found in the current code. Bluff Overlav Maps The bluff Overlay maps depict the geographies and development areas included in the Bluff (B) Overlay District (Section20.28.040). Heiaht Limit Areas The height limit areas map depict the location of the Shoreline Height Limit Area and High Rise Height Area (see section 20.30.060). The Shoreline Height Limit Area is the same as the current code. The High Rise Height Limit Area has been lowered from 375 feet to 300 feet and several areas within adopted Planned Communities that have established lower height limits, such as the North Ford PC, are no longer included. Setback Maps The set of 31 setback maps replaces the current set of 77 Districting Maps. The Districting Maps are both official zoning map and the setbacks maps. The Districting Maps date back to 1943 and include hundreds of code amendments and are a combination of hand -drawn and digital cartography. The setbacks on the districting maps have been transferred to the set of 31 setback maps. The zoning map (wall map), referenced in Part 1 is the official zoning map. Parts 6, 7 & 8 Summary 2 u s�: Attachment No. CC 4 Planning Commission Resolutions RESOLUTION NO. 1814 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2010 -005 FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE OF THE NEWPORT BEACH ZONING CODE (PA2009 -034) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. The Newport Beach City Council adopted Resolution No. 2006 -76 on July 25, 2006, approving a comprehensive update to the Newport Beach General Plan ( "General Plan Update "). 2. Pursuant to City Charter Section 423 and the Measure S Guidelines, the General Plan Update was considered to be a "major amendment" due to the resulting increases in density, intensity and traffic. Consistent with City Charter Section 423, the General Plan Update was placed on the ballot for the November 7, 2007, General Election. The electorate approved the increases associated with the General Plan Update. 3. Chapter 13 of the General Plan contains the City's implementation program to carry out the goals and policies of the General Plan. Implementation Program 2.1 calls for a review and amendment of the City's Zoning Code for consistency with the General Plan.. 4. City staff has prepared a comprehensive amendment of the Zoning Code ( "Zoning Code Update "), which includes new zoning districts, new use classifications, updated and revised definitions, new and amended development standards, updated Zoning Maps, and modified administrative procedures. The Zoning Code Update is a complete re -write of the City's current zoning regulations. The Zoning Code Update and the proposed zoning districts and regulations reflect the land use designations and policies established by the Land Use Element included in the General Plan Update. 5_ Chapter 20.94 of the City's Zoning Code requires the Planning Commission to hold at least one public hearing before making a recommendation on any proposed zoning code amendment to the City Council. 6. The Planning Commission considered the proposed Zoning Code Update including an Initial Study and Negative Declaration and received public testimony during a series of public hearings held on June 3, 2010, June 15, 2010, June 17, 2010, June 24, 2010, July 15, 2010, and July 29, 2010, that were duly noticed as required by California Government Code Section 65091. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1814 Paqe 2 of 4 SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT An Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2006011119, General Plan 2006 Update) was prepared for the General Plan Update. The General Plan Update Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was certified by the City Council on July 25, 2006, as being prepared in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3. The General Plan Update EIR is a program EIR pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15168, The City prepared an initial study for the proposed Zoning Code Update in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3 for the purpose of determining if the potential effects of Zoning Code Update were adequately examined within the General Plan Update Program EIR. 3. Based upon the initial study prepared for the Zoning Code Update and pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15168 and 15162, the proposed Zoning Code Update is within the scope of activities and impacts identified within the General Plan 2006 Update Program EIR, with the exception of forest resources and greenhouse gas emissions, and that no new effects or new mitigation measures are necessary. 4. Based upon the initial study, adoption of the Zoning Code Update will have no impact to forest resources given that there are no forest resources within the City of Newport Beach and there will be a less than significant impact upon greenhouse gasses. The City has prepared a draft Negative Declaration in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3. The draft Negative Declaration is available for a 30 -day comment period that began on June, 21, 2010, and will end on July 20, 2010. The initial study and draft Negative Declaration were considered by the Planning Commission. SECTION 3. FINDINGS. The draft Zoning Code Update dated May 2010, including the recommended changes to the draft Zoning Code Update included within the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council for inclusion within the draft Zoning Code Update, is consistent with the 2006 General Plan Update. 2. Adoption of the draft Zoning Code Update including the recommended changes to the draft Zoning Code Update will not create any new significant impacts that were not identified within the General Plan Update Program EIR. 3. Adoption of the draft Zoning Code Update including the recommended changes to the draft Zoning Code Update will have no impact to forest resources and there will be a less than significant impact upon greenhouse gasses. Tmple 04/14/1:0 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1814 Paae 3 of 4 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach make the necessary findings in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and adopt Negative Declaration No. ND2010 -005 as shown in Exhibit "A ". PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 29th DAY OF JULY, 2010. AYES: Eaton, Hillgren, McDaniel, Peotter, Toerge, and Unsworth NOES: Hawkins BY; tiu, 40M�-c aniel, Chairman BY_ Mic T erge, Secretary Tmplt:. 04/14/10 f Planning Commission Resolution No. 1814 Paae 4 of 4 Exhibit "A" Negative Declaration /Initial Study (Available separate due to bulk) Tmpit 04/14110 RESOLUTION NO. 1815 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. CA2009 -001 TO UPDATE THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ZONING CODE (PA2009 -034) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. The Newport Beach City Council adopted Resolution No. 2006 -76 on July 25, 2006, approving a comprehensive update to the Newport Beach General Plan ( "General Plan Update "). Pursuant to City Charter Section 423 and the Measure S Guidelines, the General Plan Update was considered to be a "major amendment" due to the resulting increases in density, intensity and traffic. Consistent with City Charter Section 423, the General Plan Update was placed on the ballot for the November 7, 2007, General Election. The electorate approved the increases associated with the General Plan Update. 3. Chapter 13 of the General Plan contains the City's implementation program to carry out the goals and policies of the General Plan. Implementation Program 2.1 calls for a review and amendment of the City's Zoning Code for consistency with the General Plan. 4. City staff has prepared a comprehensive amendment of the Zoning Code ("Zoning Code Update "), which includes new zoning districts, new use classifications, updated and revised definitions, new and amended development standards, updated Zoning Maps, and modified administrative procedures. The Zoning Code Update is a complete re- write of the City's current zoning regulations. The Zoning Code Update and the proposed zoning districts and regulations reflect the land use designations and policies established by the Land Use Element included in the General Plan Update. 5. Chapter 20.94 of the Citys Zoning Code requires the Planning Commission to hold at least one public hearing before making a recommendation on any proposed zoning code amendment to the City Council. 6. The Planning Commission considered the proposed Zoning Code Update including an Initial Study and Negative Declaration and received public testimony during a series of public hearings held on June 3, 2010, June 15, 2010, June 17, 2010, June 24, 2010, July 15, 2010, and July 29, 2010 that were duly noticed as required by California Government Code Section 65091. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1815 Facie 2 of 8 SECTION 2. FINDINGS, 1. The General Plan Update, approved by voters in 2006, reflects the community's vision for Newport Beach, and provides policies for realizing this vision. The zoning code is an important tool for implementing land use related policies of the Newport Beach General Plan, 2. The draft Zoning Code Update, including the recommended changes within Exhibit "B ", is consistent with the General Plan Update. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach approve Zoning Code Amendment No. 2009 -001 as shown in Exhibit "A ", and the recommended text and map revisions /changes as shown in Exhibit "B ". PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 29th DAY OF JULY, 2010. AYES: McDaniel, Peotter, Toerge, and Unsworth NOES: Eaton, Hawkins and Hllgren B Earl McDaniel, Chairman BY: l! Mi a rge, Secretary Tmplt 04/14110 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1815 Paqe 3 of 8 Exhibit "A" Draft Zoning Code — May 2010 (Available separate due to bulk) Tmpft: 04/14/10 6 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1815 Paqe 4 of 8 Exhibit "B" Planning Commission Recommended Changes to the Draft Zoning Code dated May 2010 (Includes Maps C1 -C4) 1. Pg. 1 -3, Section 20.10.040.A — revised to read as follows: "A. Compliance required. No structure shall be altered, erected, or reconstructed in any manner, nor shall any structure or land be used for any purpose, other than as allowed by this Zoning Code. The City Council may exempt specific City implemented projects by adopting a resolution at a noticed public hearing upon setting forth the specific Code provisions that would apply in the absence of the exemption. 2. Pg. 2-4, Section 20.16.030 — add reference to Zoning Clearance section (20.52.100) and Site Development Review (20.52.080). 3. Pg. 2 -12, Section 20.18.030, Table 2 -3 — revise the minimum lot size in the R -BI zoning district from 5,000 square feet to 2,375 square feet. 4. Pg. 2 -12, Section 20.18.030, Table 2 -3 - under Floor Area Limit for R -BI add footnote similar to (4) on pg. 2 -16 explaining floor area limit and buildable area; also add a similar footnote for Corona Del Mar (as depicted on Area Map A-4). 5., Pg. 2 -21, Section 20.20.20, Table 2-4 - Convalescent Facility (Land Use): Prohibit in OG zoning district (p. 2 -21). 6, Pg 2 -21, Section 20.20.020 - add Emergency Shelters permitted by right to OA zoning district under service uses. 7. Page 2 -21, Table 2-4 and other applicable tables - for consistency change all references to "Emergency Health Facilities" to "Emergency Health Facilities /Urgent Care ". 8. Page 2 -22, Table 2 -4 - add "lounge" to "smoking" under Service Uses — General. 9. Pg. 2 -34, Section 20.22.020, Table 2 -8 Marina Support Facilities — add they are permitted with an MUP in the MU -MM and MU -CV zoning districts. 10. Pg, 2 -57, Section 20.28,040 (Bluff Overlay District) - delete all references to Canyon Overlay District here and throughout entire code. 11. Pg. 2 -59, Section 20.28.040D.4.a,1. — revise the limit of Area A to be the 50 -foot contour line rather that the 35- foot contour line. 12. Pg. 2 -61, Section 20.28.040 D 4 — revise as follows to be consistent with Bluff Overlay Map B -6: "(2) Development Area B. Between the 48 -foot contour line and the 33 -foot contour line.* TmpIk04 /14110 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1815 Page 5 of 8 (3) Development Area C. All portions of the lot not located in Area A or B. (4) Additional Development standards. No fences or walls in Area C." 13. Pg, 3 -8, Section 20.30.040 C - add "4" to allow residential uses adjacent to commercial uses or commercial alleys to have the ability to have walls /hedges up to 8' in height in required side yards for buffering and/or sound attenuation. 14. Pg. 3 -14, Section20.30.060B.4. —delete entire section (setback plane requirement). 15: Pg. 4 -7 Section 20.48.030 C.3. - add "e ", an additional item for consideration, indicating that the proposed amendment will be reviewed to determine if it will resolve any current objectionable conditions. 16. Pg. 4 -7, Section 20.48.030 C.4.d. — strike "lapse" and insert "expire ". 17. Pg. 4 -16, Section 20.48.090 D. — indicate that this section applies to all Eating and Drinking, including Late Hours. 18. Pg. 4 -17, Section20.48.090 F.2 — in the first sentence add "including bars, lounges and nightclubs ". 19. Pg. 4 -22, Section 20.48.130 E — revise reference to "Chapter 10" to reference "Title 10 of the Municipal Code, as may be amended form time to time ". 20. Pg. 4 -29, Eliminate draft Section 20.48.180.D entirely. 21. Pg. 4 -35, Section 20.48.210 add entry for fuel tank vents and require that they be located at the rear of the property or other inconspicuous location and screened from public view. 22. Pg. 5 -21, Section 20.52.050 B.1.a —delete "solar equipment ". 23. Pg. 5 -33, Section 20.52.080, Table 5 -2 — delete reference to Canyon Overlay District. 24. Section 20.70.020 —Add the following two definitions: Supportive Housing. Housing with no limit on length of stay, that is occupied by the target population, as defined by Section 53260(d) of the California Health and Safety Code, and that is linked to onsite or offsite services that assist the tenant to retain the housing, improve his or her health status; maximize their ability to live and, when possible, to work in the community. Supportive housing that is provided in "Single -, Two- , or Multi- Family Dwelling Units ", "Group Residential ", "Parolee- Probationer Home "Residential Care Facilities ", or "Boarding House" uses shall be permitted, conditionally permitted or prohibited in the same manner as the other "Single -, Two- or Multi-Family Dwelling Units ", "Group Residential', "Parolee- Probationer Home ", "Residential Care Facilities ", or "Boarding House" uses under this Code. Tmplt'D4 /14/10 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1815 Paae 6 of 8 Transitional Housing. Rental housing operating under program requirements that call for the termination of assistance and recirculation of the assisted unit to another eligible program recipient program at some predetermined future point in time, which shall be no less than six months. Transitional housing that is provided in "Single -, Two -or Multi - Family Dwelling Units ", "Group Residential', "Parolee- Probationer Home ", 'Residential Care Facilities ", or "Boarding House" uses shall be permitted, conditionally permitted or prohibited in the same manner as the other "Single -, Two -, or Multi- Family Dwelling Units ", "Group Residential ", 'Parolee- Probationer Home ", `Residential Care Facilities ", or "Boarding House" uses under this Code. 25. Pg. 7 -14, Section 20.70.020, Congregate Care Home (Land Use) - Identify as a 'land use ". Add to use tables as allowed with a MUP or CUP in the PI zoning district (pg. 2 -53, Table 2 -14). 26. Pg. 7 -22, Section 20.70.020, definition of "Floor Area Ratio (FAR) ", change word "net" to "gross" where it appears. 27. Pg. 7-43, Section 20.70.020 "Review Authority" definition - Add "City Traffic Engineer" and "Public Works Director" to the list of review authorities within the second sentence. 28. Pg. 3 -63, Section 20.38.040D. Nonconforming Structures — Foundation Alterations. Revise subsection to allow foundation modification, retrofitting and replacement, when necessary and in conjunction with additions allowed pursuant to subsections 20.38.040G and 20.38.060A of the Nonconforming Uses and Structures Chapter. 29. Tables 2 -2 and 2 -3 Section 20.18.030. Revise footnote (2) as follows: "Lots may be subdivided so that the resulting lot area and dimensions for each new lot are less than that identified in Table 2 -2 in compliance with the provisions of Municipal Code Title 19 (Subdivisions). The minimum lot size shall not be less than the original underlying lots on the same block face and in the same zoning district. Lot width and length may vary according to the width and depth of the original underlying lots. New subdivisions that would result in additional dwelling units beyond what the original underlying lots would allow are not permitted unless authorized by an amendment of the General Plan (GPA)." 30. Revise Zoning Map. Change the zoning district from PC -25 to Public Facilities for the Newport-Mesa School District Site. (Map C -1) 31. Revise Setback Map S -10A Corona del Mar. Add call -out to map in order to clarify front setbacks on Pacific Drive. (Map C -2) 32, Add Setback Map S -11 D Harbor View Hills /Spyglass. Additional map is needed to depict appropriate front and rear setbacks. (Map C -3) 33. Add Setback Map S -14 Granville Drive. Additional map is needed to depict setbacks along Granville Drive. (Map C -4) Tmplt: 04/1411.0 t Planning Commission Resolution No, 1815 Paae 7 of 8 34. Pg. 4 -21, Section 20.48.130.1-1 is revised to read as follows: "H. Notification to owners and tenants. Project applicants shall prepare a written disclosure statement prior to sale, lease, or rental of a residential unit in a mixed use project or located within a mixed use zoning district. The disclosure statement shall indicate that the occupants will be living in an urban type of environment and that the noise, odor, and outdoor activity levels may be higher than a typical suburban residential area. The disclosure statement shall include a written description of the potential impacts to residents of both the existing environment and potential impacts based upon the allowed uses in the zoning district. Each and every buyer, lessee, or renter shall sign the statement acknowledging that they have received, read, and understand the disclosure statement. The Project applicant shall covenant to include within all deeds, leases or contracts conveying any interest in a residential unit in a mixed use project or located within a mixed use zoning district (1) the disclosure and notification requirement stated herein; (2) an acknowledgment by all grantees or lessees that the property is located within an urban type of environment and that the noise, odor, and outdoor activity levels may be higher than a typical suburban residential area; and (3) acknowledgment that the covenant is binding for the benefit and in favor of the City of Newport Beach." 35, Pg. 2 -20, Table 2-4, add a footnote to Assembly /Meeting Facilities (Less than 5,000 sq. ft.) to read, "Religious assembly may be larger than 5,000 sq. ft. ". Pg. 2 -23, Table 2 -5, strike, "(above 1st floor only)" from Assembly /Meeting Facilities. Pg. 2 -32, Table 2 -8, strike, "- located only above 151 floor' from Assembly /Meeting Facilities. Pg. 2 -36, Table 2 -9, add a footnote to Assembly /Meeting Facilities Small - 5,000 sq. ft. or less" to read, "Religious assembly may be larger than 5,000 sq. ft. ". 36. Pg. 4 -29, Section 20.48.180 C:2. to be amended as follows, "Location of third floor structure. Enclosed square footage located on the third floor eF above '^ feet ^ Neigh shall be set back a minimum of 15 feet from the front and rear setback lines and for lots greater than 30' wide a minimum of 2 feet from each side setback line, including bay windows." 37. Pg, 3 -15, Section 20.30.060 C.2.c and Section 20.30.060 C.2.d insert, "and mixed -use structures" in the title and first sentence after the word "nonresidential". 38. Page 3 -16; Section 20.30.060 C.3.a insert, "but not limited to" after the words, "Examples of project amenities include ". 39. Pg. 7 -18, Definition of Dwelling Unit, Senior Accessory, change, "60 years of age" to "55 years of age ". 40. Pg. 3 -78, Table 3 -10 Off- Street Parking Requirements, Offices — Business, Corporate, General, Governmental change "Up to 50,000 sq. ft" to "First 50,000 sq. ft. change "50,001 to 125,000 sq. ft." to "Next 75,000 sq. ft. "; change "125,001 sq. ft. and greater" to "Floor area above 125,000 sq. ft." 41. Add necessary provisions to enact existing floor area limits that are applicable to R -1 and R -2 zones as currently defined and established. TmpIk 04 /14/10 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1815 Paoe 8 of 8 41. Add necessary provisions to enact existing floor area limits that are applicable to R -1 and R -2 zones as currently defined and established. 42. Add a basement area limit such that finished basements shall be no larger in area than the buildable area, as defined, and exclude basement area from floor area limit standards. 43. Add the following open air space requirement that would apply to all R -1 zones within Old Corona del Mar, West Newport, and the Balboa Peninsula and all R -2 zones citywide. Open air space shall be provided in addition to the required setback areas and shall be a minimum volume equal to the buildable width of the lot, times the 24 -foot flat roof height limit, times 6 feet. This volume shall be provided anywhere on the lot behind required setback lines and below the 24 feet from grade. The volume may be provided on any level or combination of levels and may extend across the entire structure of any portion thereof. The volume shall be open on at least 2 sides and shall have a minimum dimension in all directions of at least 6 feet, except as indicated in this section, and may be used for outdoor living area. Open air space volume with a dimension of less than 6 feet in any direction may be used to satisfy the minimum volume requirement, provided that said volume is contiguous to required open air space volume that provides a minimum 6 foot dimension in all directions. Roofs, balconies; decks or patios with open railings, cornices, exterior stairways with open risers and open railings, and architectural features may project into open air spaces. 44. Add the following guideline that would be applicable to any new or renovated single -unit or two -unit residential building. Single -unit and two -unit residential buildings shall be designed to sustain a high level of architectural design quality and shall provide modulation of building masses, and architectural treatment of all elevations visible from public places. Tmplt: 04/14110 Planning Commission Resolution No. I$is i Map C -1 -. I I17TH ST ` Planned Community (PC) to Public Facilities (PF) B I NwHAU 5T ° J S 4 h 1 :sTN +T W I Pa DU UM PL Newport j Banning Ranch I I Iu 15TH 5N B o` m 2 ,e m 0 250 500 Feet Zoning Code Map Change July 13, 2010 e C w le V� \<., 1a l >e \ �3 4 c � c � y �o a and z., r S -14 -Granville Drive DRAFT Setback Map x:''4_'5 0 0 w o� o� 4h 4R' r ,a\ n F' S -11D - Harborview Hills ( Spyglass Setback Map Attachment No. CC 5 Planning Commission Staff Reports CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION STAFF REPORT May 20, 2010 Agenda Item SS1 SUBJECT: Zoning Code Update — (PA2009 -034) Code Amendment No. 2009 -001 PLANNERS: James Campbell, Principal Planner (949) 644 -3210, icampbell(a�newportbeachca.gov Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner (949) 644 -3219, aramirez(a)newportbeachca.gov Melinda Whelan, Assistant Planner (949) 644 -3221, mwhelananewportbeach.ca.gov ISSUE How should the Planning Commission proceed with their review of the zoning code update and when will hearings take place? RECOMMENDATION Discuss the framework for Commission review of the draft zoning code and schedule public hearing dates as recommended by staff. Receive a brief overview of the draft zoning code from staff. DISCUSSION The Newport Beach General Plan, approved by voters in 2006, reflects the community's vision for Newport Beach and provides policies for realizing this vision. The zoning code is an important tool for implementing many policies included in the General Plan, especially those related to land use and development. By law, the zoning code must be consistent with the policies of the General Plan that it implements. Those policies not implemented by the zoning code are implemented in a variety of ways such as other municipal code sections, City Council polices or through direct application of the policy itself. The zoning code update is a comprehensive re -write of the current code. Zoning Districts in the updated zoning code reflect changes in land use designations that were a result of the adoption of the 2006 General Plan. New use classifications have been added, definitions have been completely revamped, development standards have been fine- tuned, and administrative procedures have been simplified. The Planning Commission will continue to have review authority over conditional use permits,(e.g. restaurants serving alcohol) and variances. The Zoning Administrator will have review ,r) Zoning Code Update - Study Session May 20, 2010 Page 2 authority over minor use permits and modification permits. The City Council will remain the final review authority for ordinance amendments, and will serve as the hearing body on appeals of Planning Commission decisions. The General Plan /Local Coastal Program Implementation Committee was charged by the City Council with guiding the zoning code update. The Committee consists of three Councilpersons (Daigle, Selich, Webb), three Planning Commissioners (Eaton, Hawkins, Toerge) and an advisory group of local architects and developers. The Committee reviewed three complete draft codes and held over 35 meetings where code regulations were discussed. The draft code has also been exhaustively reviewed by the Planning Department. Additionally, valuable input was obtained from the City Mangers Office, Code and Water Quality Enforcement, the Building Department, Police Department, and Public Works Department. The City Attorney's office has also worked very closely with planning staff throughout the writing of the draft code. Planning Commission Review Schedule and Approach In order to expedite review, staff recommends the meeting schedule below. Since June 3`d and 17th are regular meetings they have been noticed. If May 27th is not suitable for the Commission, staff recommends a special meeting on June 10th or 24th. First Hearing — Special Meeting: May 27, 2010, at 6:30 pm with a focus on Part 2 and Part 4, with the exception of Residential Care Facilities (20.48.170), Residential Development Standards (20.48.180) and the Bluff Overlay District (20.28.040). Second Hearing — Regular Meeting: June 3, 2010, at 6:30 pm with a focus on Part 1, Part 3, Part 5, Part 6, and Part 7 and the excluded list from the first hearing. Third Hearing— Regular Meeting: June 17, 2010, at 6:30 pm with a focus on any remaing issues and CEQA. In regard to Commission action on the draft, informal or "straw votes" can be taken during the course of review, but formal action on the entire zoning code will need to be taken upon closing of the public hearing and the conclusion of Planning Commission deliberation. Staff will provide a draft copy of the zoning code with an errata indicating the Commission's recommended changes to the City Council in addition to the formal PC resolution. Draft Zoning Code and Review Resources In addition to the draft zoning code, staff has provided the Commission with two attachments to assist with the review and preparation for the hearings. illm Zoning Code Update - Study Session May 20, 2010 Page 3 Style and Format Principles — Attachment PC1 To ensure consistency of terminology among common terms and phrases used throughout the zoning code, a style sheet was agreed upon and used by the consultants. The style sheet is included as Attachment PC 1. Revised and New Provisions Summary — Attachment PC2 Attachment No. 2 is intended to provide an overview the what staff has identified as noteworthy revisions to existing standards and new or added provisions. Since the code update is a comprehensive re -write and organizational update, this overview is not intended to be a all- inclusive listing of all the revisions or changes. If applicable, a reference to the chapter or section of current code is noted. Environmental Review Staff and the consultants are currently preparing an initial study. Once complete, a copy and recommendations will be forwarded to the Commission for review and comment. Public Notice Government Code Section 65091 provides that, when the number of property owners to whom notice would be required to be mailed is greater than 1,000 (which is the case with a comprehensive Zoning Code update), notice may be provided by placing a one - eighth page advertisement in the local newspaper. Notice of the Planning Commission Study Session and June 3rd and June 17th hearings was provided as a 1/8 page display add in the May 8, 2010 Daily Pilot. Notice was also provided on the City's website and to a zoning code update interest list. Prepared by: Submitted by: r James Campbell, Principal Plan er Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner Melinda Whelan, Assistant Planner ATTACHMENTS PC 1 Style and Format Principals 146 Swwwa;y f�Fr3 Bret- ;?anin8 C ®de 11 Attachment No. PG 1 Style and Format Principals City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Style and Format City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Title 20 Style and Format Principles Terms and Phrases To ensure consistency of terminology within the Zoning Code, the following are conventions to be used for certain common terms and phrases, some of which will appear abbreviated throughout the Code. In all cases, these terms and phrases will either be defined in the Zoning Code or be explained in the sections on interpretations. "City," rather than "City of Newport Beach," after City of Newport Beach is first used in the first Chapter of the Zoning Code. "Department," rather than Planing Department after Planning Department is first used in the first Chapter of the Zoning Code. "Director," rather than "Planning Director" after Planning Director is first used in the first Chapter of the Zoning Code. "Commission," rather than "Planning Commission," after Planning Commission is first used in the first Chapter of the Zoning Code. "Council," rather than "City Council," after City Council is first used in the first Chapter of the Zoning Code. "Deny," rather than "disapprove." "General Plan," rather than "City of Newport Beach General Plan," after City of Newport Beach General Plan is first used in the first Chapter of the Code. "In compliance with ... ," rather than "pursuant to," "in accordance with," "under," etc. "LCP," rather than Local Coastal Program "Parcel," rather than "lot." "Review authority," when referring generically to the City Council, Planning Commission, Planning Director, Zoning Administrator, etc. "Setback," rather than "yard." "Structure, structures," rather than "buildings," or "buildings and structures." "Zoning district," rather than "zone," or "zone district." City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Style and Format Additional words to use and not to use: Use: 2, 9, 10, 20, 30, etc. 12 months 30 days allowed applicable review authority before concurrently contained, identified, outlined e.g., (for partial "for instance" lists) ensure equivalent i.e., (for complete lists) in compliance with multi- family lot percent presumed religious institution shall Numbers Don't Use: two, ten, twenty, thirty, etc. one year one month permitted final review authority or decision making body prior to simultaneously (as) set forth, set out in "for example" insure, assure same as though "that is" in accordance with, per, pursuant to multiple- family parcel % (except when used in charts or tables) assumed church must herein his/her pursuant said such thereof "any," "all," "no" to start a sentence Numbers will be expressed in numeric form 2 through 10 or more. The archaic ordinance convention of repeating numbers in both word and numeric form (i.e., "fifty (50) ") will not be used. Percentages will be expressed using the % character only in tables and graphics, the word "percent" will be used in text. Capitalization In addition to normal capitalization conventions (proper names, etc.), and any words capitalized under "Terms and Phrases" above, the following will be capitalized: \ City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Style and Formal Words to capitalize and not to capitalize: Always Capitalize: Building Permit Chapter City Commission Council Department (all City Departments) Director Federal General Plan Land Use Element Don't Capitalize: applicable review authority development agreement specific plan (except for an existing plan) zoning district Part Permit types (e.g., Use Permit, Variance, etc.) RS -D, RS -A, C -N, C -C, C -G, IG, etc. names of zoning districts Section State Subparagraph Subsection Title Zoning Code Use a hyphen with the following words: single - family on -ramp multi - family (not multiple- family) off -ramp right -of -way (plural is rights -of -way) self- (when used as a prefix) off -site (adjective or adverb) -type on -site (adjective or adverb) Do not hyphenate the following words: "anti" words "citywide" (as an adjective) "mid" words are one word (exception: mid - sixties or when used with any proper capitalized noun mid - January) "multi" words are one word (exception: when a hyphen would prevent one word from being mistaken for another multi -ply fabric) "non" words (e.g., nonconforming, nonuse, nonurban, nonresidential, etc.) Exceptions: non - English, non - Indian, non - Italian (any capitalized proper noun) "pre" words (exception: pre - engineered) "re" words are usually one word with the exception of words that would have a duplicate meaning. (e.g., resign, re -sign) "retro" words (retroactive, retrofit) City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Style and Formal Outline Format The provisions of the Zoning Code will be organized according to the following outline. (Note: "X" is used as a place- holder for the actual Arabic numeral that will be used.) Title 20 - Zoning Code Part X - Name of Part Chapter 20.xx - Name of Chapter 20.xx.xxx - Name of Section A. Subsection 1. Paragraph a. Subparagraph (1) Subparagraph (a) Subparagraph References, Citations Outside of the same section. When a cross - reference is to text outside of the same section being referenced, the cross - reference starts with the Title number (i.e., 20) and continues to the appropriate level for the reference. For example, 20.010.050.B. refers to Subsection B. of Section 050, of Chapter 010, of Title 20. The terms Part, Chapter, and Section are used if the reference is to an entire Part, Chapter, or Section. Cross - references will include the applicable Part, Chapter, or Section number, followed by the name of the Part, Chapter, or Section in parenthesis (e.g., Chapter 20.74 [Appeals]). Within the same section. When a cross - reference is to text within the same section, the name of the Section level is used (i.e., Subsection, Paragraph, Subparagraph, etc.), and the reference "number" starts with the appropriate subsection letter. For example "See Paragraph D.2." refers to Paragraph 2., of Subsection D., of the same Section. External documents. Provisions of State law that are cited in the Zoning Code will be referenced by the name of the applicable State code, and either individual or multiple section numbers (e.g., "Government Code Section 65091;" "Subdivision Map Act Section 66749," etc.). City documents other than the General Plan that are not part of the Municipal Code (e.g., specific plans, etc.) will be referenced in the Zoning Code by showing the document title in italics. Municipal Code references should be; Municipal Code Chapter 19.68 (Merger of Contiguous Lots) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT June 3, 2010 Agenda Item 6 SUBJECT: Zoning Code Update — (PA2009 -034) ■ Code Amendment No. 2009 -001 PLANNERS: James Campbell, Principal Planner (949) 644- 3210, icampbell(a7newportbeachca.gov Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner (949) 644 - 3219, gramirez(a,)newportbeachea gov Melinda Whelan, Assistant Planner ( 949) 644- 3221, mwhelanOnewportbeach.ca.gov PROJECT SUMMARY The zoning code update is a comprehensive re -write of the current code. Zoning Districts in the updated zoning code reflect changes in land use designations that were a result of the adoption of the 2006 General Plan. New use classifications have been added, definitions have been completely revamped, development standards have been fine- tuned, and administrative procedures have been simplified. The Newport Beach General Plan, approved by voters in 2006, reflects the community's vision for Newport Beach and provides policies for realizing this vision.. The zoning code is an important tool for implementing many policies included in the General Plan, especially those related to land use and development. By law, the zoning code must be consistent with the policies of the General Plan that it implements. Those policies not implemented by the zoning code are implemented in a variety of ways such as other municipal code sections, City Council polices or through direct application of the policy itself. The attached Summary of Change (PC1) provides an overview of the notable revisions and additions contained in the draft zoning code. RECOMMENDATION 1) Conduct a public hearing beginning with a review of Part 2 and Part 4, with the exception of the following sections: Residential Care Facilities (20.48.170), Residential Development Standards (20.48.180) and the Bluff Overlay District (20.28.040); and 2) Continue to June 15, 2010. " "'' Zoning Code Update June 3, 2010 Page 2 Environmental Review Staff and the consultants are currently preparing an initial study. Once complete, a copy and recommendations will be forwarded to the Commission for review and comment. Public Notice Government Code Section 65091 provides that, when the number of property owners to whom notice would be required to be mailed is greater than 1,000 (which is the case with a comprehensive Zoning Code update), notice may be provided by placing a one - eighth page advertisement in the local newspaper. Notice of the Planning Commission June 3`d, June 15th, June 17th, June 24t and June 29th hearings was provided as a 1/8 page display add in the May 22, 2010 Daily Pilot. Notice was also provided on the City's, website and to a zoning code update interest list. Prepared by: 41�� cam—a a - a es Campbell Princip I Planner Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner Melinda Whelan, Assistant Planner Submitted by: ATTACHMENTS Fee EA " • qit .. ..- ._ ...- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT June 15, 2010 Agenda Item 1 and June 17: 2010 Agenda Item2 SUBJECT: Zoning. Code Update — (PA2009 -034) Code Amendment No. 2009 -001 PLANNERS: James Campbell, Principal Planner (949) 644 -3210, icampbellanewportbeachca.gov Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner (949) 644 -3219, pramirezAnewportbeachca.aov Melinda Whelan, Assistant Planner (949) 644 -3221, mwhelanCa2newportbeach.ca.aov PROJECT SUMMARY The zoning code update is a comprehensive re -write of the current code. Zoning Districts in the updated zoning code reflect changes in land use designations that were a result of the adoption of the 2006 General Plan. New use classifications have been added, definitions have been completely revamped, development standards have been fine- tuned, and administrative procedures have been simplified. The Newport Beach General Plan, approved by voters in 2006, reflects the community's vision for Newport Beach and provides policies for realizing this vision. The zoning code is an important tool for implementing many policies included in the General Plan, especially those related to land use and development. By law, the zoning code must be consistent with the policies of the General Plan that it implements. Those policies not implemented by the zoning code are implemented in a variety of ways such as other municipal code sections, City Council polices or through direct application of the policy itself. RECOMMENDATION —June 15, 2010 1) Conduct a public hearing beginning with a review of Part 4 and then Part 3, time permitting, and 2) Continue to June 17, 2010. RECOMMENDATION —June 17.2010 1) Conduct a public hearing beginning with a review of and Parts 1, 3, 4.5 and 6, and; Zoning Code Update June 15 and 17, 2010 Page 2 2) Continue to June 24, 2010. Attachments PC1: Residential Regulations Comparison Tables PC Attachment 1 consist of two tables that compare the current zoning code standards to the draft code standards for residential development. The first table is applicable to R -1 and R -2 lots on Balboa Peninsula and the second table applies to R- 1 and R -2 lots in Corona del Mar (flower streets). Staff will discuss the proposed standards in greater detail at the June 15"' public hearing. PC 2: Public Comments Received Included as PC Attachment 2 are written comments received from the public regarding the zoning code update. PC3: Summary of Change The Summary of Change provides an overview of the notable revisions and additions contained in the draft zoning code to assist the Planning Commission and all other interested parties with their review of the draft code. Environmental Review Staff and the consultants are currently preparing an initial study. When complete, a copy will be forwarded to the Commission for review and comment. Public Notice Government Code Section 65091 provides that, when the number of property owners to whom notice would be required to be mailed is greater than 1,000 (which is the case with a comprehensive Zoning Code update), notice may be provided by placing a one - eighth page advertisement in the local newspaper. Notice of the Planning Commission meetings appeared in the Daily Pilot on May 22nd and June 5«'. Notice was also provided on the City's website. ( Prepared by: James Campbell, Principal Planne Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner Melinda Whelan, Assistant Planner Zoning Code Update June 15 and 17, 2010 Page 3 Submitted by: s, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT July 13, 2010 Agenda Item 4 SUBJECT: Zoning Code Update (PA2009 -034) • Code Amendment No. 2009 -001 • Negative Declaration No. 2010 -005 PLANNERS: James Campbell, Principal Planner (949) 644 -3210, icampbellC-Dnewportbeachca.gov Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner (949) 644 -3219, gram irez(a)newportbeachca.gov Melinda Whelan, Assistant Planner (949) 644 -3221, mwhelan( newportbeach.ca.gov PROJECT SUMMARY The zoning code update is a comprehensive re -write of the current code. Zoning Districts in the updated zoning code reflect changes in land use designations that were a result of the adoption of the 2006 General Plan. New use classifications have been added, definitions have been completely revamped, development standards have been fine- tuned, and administrative procedures have been simplified. Attached for the Planning Commission's consideration is a draft resolution recommending City Council adoption of the Revised Public Review Draft Zoning Code May 2010 and the accompanying Negative Declaration. The draft resolution includes Exhibit B that lists revisions previously reviewed by the Planning Commission at public hearings held on June 3, 15, 17 and 24 and six additional revisions being recommended by staff. These six staff recommended revisions are discussed on the following page. In addition to the staff recommendations for inclusion in the resolution, staff has provided revised language for the tenant and owner notification requirements for mixed- use projects.. This language was provided at the request of the Commission. The revision has not been included in the draft resolution because staff recommends that the Planning Commission not change the language in the draft code. RECOMMENDATION 1) Conduct a public hearing, and 2) Adopt Resolution No. recommending City Council adoption of 'Negative Declaration No. ND2010 -010 and Code Amendment 2009 -001 Zoning Code Update July 13, 2010 Page 2 Recommended Staff Revisions Staff recommends that the following six revisions be accepted by the Commission. They have been included in Exhibit C of the draft resolution and appear as Nos. 28 -33 and Maps C1 -C4. Pg. 3-63, Section 20.38.040D. Nonconforming Structures — Foundation Alterations. Revise subsection to allow foundation modification, retrofitting and replacement, when necessary and in conjunction with additions allowed pursuant to subsections 20.38.040G and 20.38.060A of the Nonconforming Uses and Structures Chapter. • Tables 2 -2 and 2 -3 Section 20.18.030. Revise footnote (2) as follows: Lots may be subdivided so that the resulting lot area and dimensions for each new lot are less than that identified in Table 2 -2 in compliance with the provisions of Municipal Code Title 19 (Subdivisions). The minimum lot size shall not be less than the original underlying lots on the same block face and in the same zoning district. Lot width and length may vary according to the width and depth of the original underlying lots. New subdivisions that would result in additional dwelling units beyond what the original underlying lots would allow are not permitted unless authorized by an amendment of the General Plan (GPA). This change is consistent with General Plan policy 4.3 which allows legally merged lots to be resubdivided back to the original underlying legal lots. • Revise Zoning Map. Change the zoning district from PC -25 to Public Facilities for the Newport-Mesa School District Site. This change is consistent with the General Plan Land Use category • Revise Setback Map S -10A Corona del Mar. Add call -out to map in order to clarify front setbacks on Pacific Drive. • Add Setback Map S -11 D Harbor View Hills/Spyglass. Research was necessary to determine appropriate front and rear setbacks. Research has been completed and appropriate setbacks are depicted on the added map. • Add Setback Map S -14 Granville Drive. Additional map is need to depict setbacks along Granville Drive. e, Zoning Code Update July 13, 2010 Page 3 Mixed -Use Proiects — Section 20.748.130 (p(1, 4 -21) At the June 24th meeting, the Planning Commission asked the City Attorney's office to research whether the tenant and owner notification requirements for mixed use projects could be strengthened. As a result, the City Attorney's office has prepared a revised Section 20.48.130H, below, for the Commission's consideration. Staff does not recommend this revision as we believe the language in draft code adequately addresses the issue. Therefore, it has not been included in the draft Planning Commission resolution. H. Notification to owners and tenants. Project applicants shall prepare a written disclosure statement prior to sale, lease, or rental of a residential unit in a mixed use project or located within a mixed use zoning district. The disclosure statement shall indicate that the occupants will be living in an urban type of environment and that the noise, odor, and outdoor activity levels may be higher than a typical suburban residential area. The disclosure statement shall include a written description of the potential impacts to residents of both the existing environment and potential impacts based upon the allowed uses in the zoning district. Each and every buyer, lessee; or renter shall sign the statement acknowledging that they have received, read, and understand the disclosure statement. The Project applicant shall covenant to include within all deeds, leases or Environmental Review Based upon the initial study prepared for the Zoning Code Update and pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15168 and 15162, the proposed Zoning Code Update is within the scope of activities and impacts identified within the General Plan 2006 Update program EIR, with the exception of forest resources and greenhouse gasses, and that no new effects have been found and no new mitigation measures are necessary.. The initial study has found that the Zoning Code Update will have no impact to forest resources given that there are not forest resources within the City of Newport Beach and there will be a less than significant impact relative upon greenhouse gas emissions. A Negative Declaration (ND) is proposed relative to forest resources and greenhouse gas emissions. The ND was completed and circulated for a mandatory 30 -day public- review period that began on June 20, 2010, and concludes on July 21, 2010. No comments have been received as of the writing of this staff report. Zoning Code Update July 13, 2010 Page 4 Public Notice Government Code Section 65091 provides that, when the number of property owners to whom notice would be required to be mailed is greater than 1,000 (which is the case with a comprehensive Zoning Code update), notice may be provided by placing a one - eighth page advertisement in the local newspaper. Notice of the Planning Commission meetings appeared in the Daily Pilot on May 22 id and June 5h, 19" and 26th. Notice was also provided on the City's website. Prepared by: James Cam bell, Principal Planner) Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner Melinda Whelan, Assistant Planner Submitted by David Lepo, Plan ing Director ming Commission Resolution - Negative Declaration/Initial Study (Previously tab ' anning Department website: Exhibit B - R (Previously I Available at M Code — May 2010 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT July 29, 2010 Agenda Item 2 SUBJECT: Zoning Code Update (PA2009 -034) • Code Amendment No. 2009 -001 • Negative Declaration No. 2010 -005 PLANNERS: James Campbell, Principal Planner (949) 644 - 3210, jcampbellia 'e newaoitbeachca:cov Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner (949)644 -3219, oramirezia- Dnewoortbeachca.gov Melinda Whelan, Assistant Planner (949) 644 -3221, mwhelanCa newportbeach.ca.aov INTRODUCTION On July 15, 2010, a motion of the Planning Commission to recommend to the City Council adoption of the Negative Declaration and Zoning Code Update (as proposed to be modified) failed by a vote of 3 ayes and 4 noes. The motion apparently failed because of draft provisions that would retain floor area limits on one and two- unit dwellings in Old Corona del Mar and on Balboa Island but replace the floor area limits in the balance of the City with minimum - dimensioned open air space /building envelope requirements as recommended by the General Plan /Local Coastal Program Implementation Committee (GP /LCP Committee). The Commission was able to reach a consensus with a majority straw vote on approximately 39 other issues that staff has incorporated within a revised resolution recommending approval of the Zoning Code Update. Staff has also prepared a separate resolution regarding the Negative Declaration. RECOMMENDATION 1) Conduct a public hearing, and 2) Adopt Resolution No. _ recommending City Council adoption of Negative Declaration No. ND2010 -010 (Attachment PC -1). 3) Adopt Resolution No. recommending City Council adoption of Code Amendment No. CA2009 -001 (Attachment PC -2). `)A Zoning Code Update July 29, 2010 Page 2 DISCUSSION One option to the zoning code proposal rejected on July 15Th would be to eliminate the proposed minimum- dimensioned open air spacelbuilding envelope concept and retain the current floor area limit scheme and open space requirement. This option could include a provision allowing basements limited to the buildable area (lot area less required setbacks). Lastly, to implement General Plan Policy LU 5.1.5 (Attachment PC- 3), building modulation and architectural treatment guidelines would be adopted and applicable Citywide. The benefits of this suggested action are: 1. one proven scheme throughout the R -1, R -2 and RBI zones. 2. no unintended consequences of a new regulatory approach. 3. would not cause structures to become nonconforming. 4. architectural modulation guidelines will allow flexibility of design and implementation the General Plan without repetition of building forms driven by numeric standards. A resolution for adoption of the revised zoning would include the language changes previously agreed to by the Planning Commission, and the following language changes to reflect the Zoning Code option proposed above: 20. Pg. 4 -29, Eliminate draft Section 20.48.180.D entirely. 41. Add necessary provisions to enact existing floor area limits that are applicable to R -1 and R -2 zones as currently defined and established. 42. Add a basement area limit such that finished basements shall be no larger in area than the buildable area, as defined; and exclude basement area from floor area limit standards. 43.Add the following open air space requirement that would apply to all R -1 zones within Old Corona del Mar, West Newport, and the Balboa Peninsula and all R -2 zones citywide. Open air space shall be provided in addition to the required setback areas and shall be a minimum volume equal to the buildable width of the lot, times the basic height limit, times 6 feet. This volume shall be provided anywhere on the lot behind required setback lines and below the 24 feet from grade. The volume may be provided on any level or combination of levels and may extend across the entire structure of any portion thereof. The volume shall be open on at least 2 sides and shall have a minimum dimension in all directions of at least 6 feet, except as indicated in this section, and may be used for outdoor living area. Zoning Code Update July 29, 2010 Page 3 Open air space volume with a dimension of less than 6 feet in any direction may be used to satisfy the minimum volume requirement, provided that said volume is contiguous to required open air space volume that provides a minimum 6 foot dimension in ail directions. Roofs, balconies, decks or patios with open railings, cornices, exterior stairways with open risers and open railings, and architectural features may project into open air spaces. 44.Add the following guideline that would be applicable to any new or renovated single -unit or two -unit residential building. Single -unit and two -unit residential buildings shall be designed to sustain a high level of architectural design quality and shall provide modulation of building masses, and architectural treatment of all elevations visible from public places. SUMMARY The proposed zoning code option would eliminate the proposed minimum - dimensioned open air space /building envelope concept as previously recommended by the GP /LPC Committee. ALTERNATIVES The Commission may modify the language of the option set forth above. Prepared by: James Campbell, 'Principall Planner ATTACHMENTS Submitted by: David Lepo, Planning Director I<Y[v�1 n• A�adll�laS�l� _ _ _ Attachment No. CC 6 ALUC Correspondence t* 40' `') �:,l AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION JRANGE COUNTY FOR ORANGE COUNTY 3160 Airway Avenue • Costa Mesa, California 92626 - 949.252.S170 fax: 949.252.6012 August 23, 2010 Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 '$ Aug � � zota CITY OF NE'WP®RT EEAC11 Subject: City of Newport Beach Proposed Zoning Code Amendment Dear Mr. Ramirez: During the meeting held on August 19, 2010 the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for Orange County considered the subject project. The matter was duly discussed, moved, seconded, and carried unanimously by the Commission to find the City of Newport Beach proposed Zoning Code Amendment to be Consistent with the Commission's Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport (JWA) and with the AELUP for Heliports. The Consistency finding was as follows: I. The Commission found the Proposed Zoning Code Amendment Consistent with the AELUP for JWA and the AELUP for Heliports with the inclusion of the additional language recommended by ALUC staff and as shown in the attached Redline /Strikeout version of the Zoning Code excerpts provided by City Staff. If the City Council does not adopt the proposed revisions, the City will be required to return to ALUC for another Consistency determination with the AELUP for JWA and the AELUP for Heliports. Please contact ALUC staff at (949) 252 -5123 or via email at lumnas a ocair.com if you require additional information or have questions regarding this proceeding. Sincerely, Kari A. Rigoni Executive Officer Attachment: Additional Language for the Proposed Zoning Code Redline /Strikeout Version of Proposed Changes to the Draft Zoning Code Amendment Submitted by City Staff on August 12, 2010 AttachW "cl! 9 Section 20.30.060 Height Limits and Exceptions (pa 3-19) A a. iesoonses. 2. Citywide Requirements 2 ^' '—'n= ^ re:ripw Development projects that include structures higher than 200 feet above existing grade shall be submitted to the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for review. In addition, projects that exceed a height of 200 feet above existing grade shall file Form 7460 -1 with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Section 20.30.060 (pg. 3 -16) e. High Rise Height Area. In this height limit area, the maximum height limit shall be 300 feet and no further increase to the maximum allowed height is available. This height limit is applicable to all nonresidential zoning districts within its boundaries as indicated on the High Rise and Shoreline height Limit Areas Map (See Part S, Map H -1). Proposed proiects in this T#is height limit area shall comply with the recuirments of Subsection E 20.30.010 — Noise This Section establishes standards for the regulation of noise levels to protect the health, safety, and welfare. A. Compliance with noise control provisions. All land uses and their associated activities shall comply with the provisions of this Section and Chapters 10.26 (Community Noise Control) and 10.28 (Loud and Unreaonable Noise) of the Municipal Code. B. Acoustical study. The Director may require the preparation of an acoustical study in instances where the Director determines that a project may expose existing or proposed noise- sensitive land uses to noise levels exceeding the standards specified in Chapters 10.26 or 10.28 of the Municipal Code. C. Noise exposure verification for new development. Applicants for projects located in areas projected to be exposed to a CNEL of 60 dBA and higher may conduct a field survey, noise measurements, or other noise modeling analysis in a manner acceptable to the Director to provide evidence that the noise contours identified in the Noise Element of the General Plan do not adequately account for local noise exposure circumstances due to topography, variation in traffic speeds, or other conditions. These findings shall be used to determine the level of required noise attenuation methods and the feasibility of mitigation. D. Deliveries, loading, and unloading. Deliveries, loading, unloading, opening /closing or other handling of boxes, crates, containers, building materials, trash receptacles, or similar objects within a nonresidential zoning district shall not be allowed between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays and Saturdays and between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. on Sundays and Federal holidays. E. Noise sensitive land uses. New noise sensitive land uses that will be impacted by existing land use related noise sources shall be required to mitigate the noise levels from those noise sources so that the resulting noise levels on the proposed noise - sensitive land use(s) do not exceed the standards in Chapter 10.26 (Community Noise Control) of the Municipal Code. F-2--Mitigation of impacts. Noise mitigation measures may be required in conjunction with the approval of an application for new development when a significant noise impact is identified. TABLE 3 -2 NT NOISE 3 60 2 65 1 70 1 Over 75 Anv increase is considered significant %A 20.16.010 —Commercial Zoning Districts Land Uses and Permit Requirements A. Allowed land uses. Tables 2 -4 and 2 -5 indicate the uses allowed within each zoning district and the permit required to establish the use, if any, in compliance with Part 5 (Planning Permit Procedures). B. Prohibited land uses. Any table cell with " - -" means that the listed land use is prohibited in that specific zoning district. C. Applicable Regulations. The last column in the tables ( "Specific Use Regulations ") may include a reference to additional regulations that apply to the use. See Part 7 for land use definitions. See Chapter 20.12 for unlisted use _ Permit Regduements* w. P Permiitgei 13y- Right �' COP Conditional Use Permit (20.6&090) MU Minor Use Pemait (20 66,090) . P Limited Toms Permit (20.56;080) LTP Not allowed " ".. - - I OA I OG I OM I OR I Speciric Use Regulations Handicraft Industry p Industry, Small (Less than 5,000 sq. ft.) MUP -- - -- - -- Personal Storage (Mini Storage) p ___ ___ Research and Development, General p p P P Research and Development, Restricted Assembly /Meeting Facilities (Less than 5,000 sq. ft.) MUP CUP MUP CUP MUP CUP MUP CUP Commercial Recreation and Entertainment - -- -- CUP Cultural Institutions p _ -_ ___ P Schools, Public and Private CUP CUP - -- CUP Schools, related to medical professions Alcohol Sales (off -sale) MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP 20.48.030 Alcohol Sales (off - sale), Accessory Only P MUP MUP P Retail Sales (less than 10,000 sq. ft.) MUP P P P Retail Sales (10,000 sq. ft. or greater) CUP - -- Pharmacy, Medical Supplies ATM P P p P p P p P Convalescent Facilities - -- MUP P Emergency Health Facilities p p p p Financial Institutions and Related Services P P P P i Use See Part 7 for land use definitions. See Chanter 20.12 fnr i in llorod — Coinmercial Office Zoning- Districts -. 1�ermYCRequrentents P 'Pcbni }fedHy�R.i�ta ._ -. - -- UP Condi{iojla}�1sePiNPitt (24.66,090) JU Mlreorbse Pemxli'(20k6.090). - P L`m14w Term Pernut'(20 440 80)' TIP Not allowed • - - OA OG OM OR Specific Use Regulations Small - 2,000 sq. ft or less p p CUP p Offices - Business P P P P Offices - Corporate p p P P Offices - Medical and Dental P p p p Offices - Professional p p p P MC 5.50 Outpatient Surgery Facility p Ambulance Services p p p p p MUP Animal Sales and Services Animal Boarding /Kennels P CUP Animal Grooming P MUP MUP Veterinary Services P CUP CUP CUP Personal Services, General 20.48.050 20.48.050 20.48.050 Artists' Studios P p P Catering Services P p p Day Care - General MUP MUP MUP MUP Eating and Drinking Establishments Accessory food service (open to public) Bars, Lounges, and Nightclubs Fast Food (no late hours) (1)(2) Fast Food (with late hours) (1) Food Service (no alcohol, no late hours) (1)(2) Food Service (no late hours) (1) Food Service (with late hours (1) Take -Out Service, Limited (2) P P P P 20.48.090 CUP _P/MUP - -- CUP 20.48.090 PlMUP - -- 20.48.090 MUP MUP - -- - -- 20.48.090 p /MUP P /MUP P /pMU p /MUP 20.48.090 MUP MUP MUP MUP 20.48.090 CUP CUP CUP CUP 20.48.090 P /MUP P /MUP P /pMU P /MUP 20.48.090 Funeral Homes and Mortuaries, w/o crematorium MUP MUP MUP MUP Funeral Homes and Mortuaries, with crematorium CUP CUP CUP CUP Health /Fitness Facilities Small - 2,000 sq. ft or less p p p p Lar e - Over 2,000 s . ft. MUP MUP MUP MUP Laboratories P P P P Maintenance and Repair Services p p __ p Massage Establishments MUP MUP MUP MUP MC 5.50 Massage Services, Accessory MUP MUP MUP MUP 20.48.120 20.48.120 Personal Services, General p I p p p m Office Only p Commercial Office Z,otihig]Districts - -- - ___ Permit Requirements•_ Vehicles for hire P Permitted 13y Right °CUP Condit }Onpl Usetemdf (2p 66.090) CUP Service Stations ]Loll Accessory Structures and Uses T,mli Miuo /ltse Permft- (206.090) _ p P Limited Term Permit (26.66.0w) MUP MUP L7P Not allowed+ 20.48.080 Land Use P P P See Part 7 for land use definitions. 20.48.140 OA OG OM OR Specific Use Regulations See Chu ter 20.12 for unlisted uses. LTP LTP LTP LTP 20.52.040 Personal Services, Restricted MUP MUP MUP MUP Postal Services p p p p Printing and Duplicating Services p p p p Smoking - -- - -- --- --- Visitor Accommodations, Nonresidential Hotels, Motels, and Time - Shares CUP CUP - -- COMM Communication Facilities P p - -_- p Heliports and Helistops S31 CUP - -- CUP CUP Parking Facilities MUP MUP MUP MUP Parking Structures, adjacent to residential district "' CUP CUP --- Utilities, Minor p p p p Utilities, Major CUP CUP CUP CUP Wireless Telecommunication Facilities Municipal Code Chapter 15.70 Vehicle Sales, Office Only p p p Vehicle /Equipment Rentals Office Only p p - -- p ___ Vehicles for hire CUP MUP Vehicle /Equipment Rentals and Sales CUP Service Stations ]Loll Accessory Structures and Uses CUP p __- p p vemcle /cqulpment Nepalr General CUP -- - -- ___ Limited MUP Vehicle /Equipment Services Automobile Washing /Detailing, self MUP MUP MUP service or accessory Service Stations ]Loll Accessory Structures and Uses CUP p __- p p p 20.48.210 Drive- Through Facilities MUP MUP MUP MUP 20.48.080 Outdoor Storage and Display P P P P 20.48.140 Special Events Municipal Code Chapter 11.03 Temporary Uses LTP LTP LTP LTP 20.52.040 ,t, .. Uses not listed. Land uses that are not listed in the table above, or are not shown in a Particular zoning district are not allowed, except as otherwise provided by Section 20.12.020 (Rules of Interpretation). (t) Late hours. Facilities with late hours shall mean facilities that offer service and are open to the public past 11:00 P.M. any day of the week. (2) Permitted or Minor Use Permit required. a. A Minor Use Permit shall be required for any use located within 500 feet, property line to property line, of any residential zoning district. b. A Minor Use Permit shall be required for any use that maintains late hours. 20.30.010 - Noise H. Dedication of avigation easements in favor of the County of Orange may be required when noise sensitive uses are proposed in the JWA Planning Area, as established in the JWA AELUP. New public parks in Noise Impact Zones 1 and 2 identified in the JWA AELUP are required to post notifications to users regarding aircraft overflight and noise. Attachment No. CC 7 Correspondence Received l �, I 411,314 IRVINE COMPANY Since 1 &64 September 13, 2010 Honorable Keith Curry, Mayor City of Newport Beach City Council 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject: City of Newport Beach 4h Draft Zoning Code Dear Mayor Curry: We appreciate this opportunity to advance a comment related to the City Council's upcoming review of the proposed Zoning Code update. We have been monitoring the City's efforts for some time at the GP /LCP Implementation Committee and Planting Commission and have submitted extensive comments on each iteration of the draft Zoning Code. Virtually all of our previous questions and comments have been addressed by staff through those review processes. We appreciate all the hard work that has gone into the Zoning Code update process and commend staff for their dedication and attention to detail. At this time, we request clarification on the following section: Buffering and Screening - Section 20.30.020 (page 3 -5) — This section of the proposed Zoning Code requires roof mounted mechanical equipment to be screened from public view and adjacent residential districts. The current Zoning Code contains language allowing the Planning Director to waive the screening requirement if it can be clearly demonstrated that the exterior roof mounted or ground mounted mechanical equipment is not visible from any public right -of -way and/or public property. In an earlier version of the proposed Zoning Code, staff had included an exception to the screening requirement similar to the language in the existing Zoning Code. The exception was deleted in the 3rd and 4`11 drafts. Without the exception language, all mechanical equipment will be required to be screened regardless if the equipment can be viewed from public rights -of- way and /or public property or private residences. We respectfully request that the City Council retain the exception language. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Dan Miller Sr. Vice President Entitlement & Public Affairs 550 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, California 92660 -7011 949.720.2000 -f I, k C: Councilmember Michael F. Henn Councilmember Steven Rosansky Councilmember Don Webb Councilmember Leslie Daigle Councilmember Edward Selich Councilmember Nancy Gardner Mr. Gregg Ramirez Mr. Thomas Mathews Ms. Shawna Schaffner -11 qI-